Why did Jesus die on the cross? Ask this question of a theologian, and the answer will likely be something to the effect that Jesus died so that our sins might be forgiven and the world might be saved from sin, death and evil eternally. Ask this question of a historian, however, and the answer will be quite different: Jesus died because his activity created conflict with the authorities of his time, and therefore they had him crucified.
Type Research Article Information Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , November 2001 , pp. 484 - 503 Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2001Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
1 This is generally referred to as the ‘Christus Victor’ idea of atonement, following the title of Gustav Aulén's classic study on the subject ( Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement , ET, New York : MacMillan , 1969 [1931])Google Scholar . On the patristic teaching, see especially Chapters 2 and 3 of this work (pp. 16–60).
2 This is basically the view of both Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Barth; for Bultmann, Jesus' death and resurrection are salvific in that human beings may now participate or share in this event, dying and rising with him, while for Barth, all of humanity has already done so. This idea has gained considerable popularity since then, especially among biblical scholars; see for example Whiteley , D. E. H. , The Theology of St. Paul ( Oxford : Basil Blackwell , 1964 ), p. 130 Google Scholar ; Sanders , E. P. , Paul and Palestinian Judaism ( Philadelphia, PA : Fortress Press , 1977 ), pp. 453 , 467–8, 507, 511Google Scholar ; Hooker , Morna , From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 1990 ), pp. 9 , 26–7 et passimGoogle Scholar ; and Dunn , J. D. G. , Romans 1–8 ( Dallas, TX : Word , 1988 ), pp. 172 , 181, 284–5, 329 el al.Google Scholar
3 On this point, see (among others) Borg , Marcus J. , Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship ( Valley Forge, PA : Trinity Press International , 1994 ), pp. 188 – 189 .Google Scholar
4 See especially Wright , N. T. , The New Testament and the People of God , Vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God ( Minneapolis, MN : Fortress Press , 1992 ), pp. 126 – 144 , 148–51.Google Scholar
5 For examples of laws such as these, see especially Exod. 20:1 – 23:13; Lev. 18:1–20:22; 25:1–55; Deut. 1:16–17; 15:1–18; 20:5–7; 23:9–25:16; 27:16–26.
6 On this point, see Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, pp. 110–11. Ps. 119 provides an excellent example of this understanding of the law as blessing.
7 See, for example, the covenant curses in Lev. 26:14–45, where after each description of the divine punishment which will follow disobedience, God tells the people in different ways, ‘and if after that you continue to disobey me, I will punish you yet further’ (w. 18, 21, 23, 27); yet his unconditional love for the people is evident from the fact that at the end of the passage he promises never to abandon or destroy them completely (w. 40–5). The idea that punishment has the aim of correcting the people and bringing them back to YHWH is also found in passages such as Deut. 8:5;Judg. 2:11–22;Job 5:17; Ps. 81:11–16; 94:12; Prov. 3:11–12; Jer. 2:30; 5:3; 7:28; Ezek. 14:10–11, 22–23; Am. 4:6–11; Zeph. 3:2–7; 2 Mace. 6:12; 7:32–33, et at.
8 On these promises, see Isa. 9:6–7; 11:1–9; 16:5; 42:4; Jer. 31:31–34; 33:6–16; Ezek. 11:19–20; 34:23–30; 36:26–30; 37:24–27; Zech. 9:9–10, et al.
9 With regard to the idea of the exile of Israel in first-century Jewish thought, in addition to Wright's work, see several of the essays in Scott , James M. , ed., Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions ( Leiden : Brill , 1997 ).Google Scholar
10 Wright , , New Testament, p. 273 .Google Scholar
11 Wright , , New Testament, p. 320 .Google Scholar
12 Wright , N. T. , Jesus and the Victory of God , Vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God ( Minneapolis, MN : Fortress Press , 1996 ), pp. 191 – 192 .Google Scholar
13 See Matt. 13:40–43, 47–49; 25:31–46; Mark 13:24–27 and pars; John 5:25–29.
14 Förster , Werner , Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times (ET, Edinburgh : Oliver & Boyd , 1964 ), p. 197 . Cf. Wright, New Testament, pp. 220–2.Google Scholar
15 On this and many of the following points, see especially Sanders , E. P. , Jems and Judaism ( London : SCM Press , 1985 ), pp. 208 , 240, 253–5, 260, 293, 307–8Google Scholar ; Sanders , E. P. , The Historical Figure of Jesus ( London : Penguin , 1995 ), pp. 225 – 227 , 236–42.Google Scholar
17 Mark 2:23–3:6; John 5:16–18.
18 Mark 1:40–45; 3:1–6; 5:24–34; Luke 5:12–14, 13:10–17; 17:11–19.
19 Matt. 13:36–43; 16:27; 19:28; 24:27–31; Mark 14:62.
20 For a comparison of different views on the subject, see Tan , Kim Huat , The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 1997 ), pp. 11 – 23 Google Scholar .1 would agree with her conclusion that ‘the action in the temple was a protest by Jesus, carried out in the spirit of the classical prophets, against the oppressive and profiteering regime run by the establishment under the cloak of the temple cult’ (pp. 231–2).
21 Boff , Leonardo , Passion of Christ, Passion of the World (ET, Maryknoll, NY : Orbis , 1987 ), pp. 44 – 45 .Google Scholar
22 Wright Jesus, pp. 538, 565, 570–1, 608–9; cf. pp. 473, 577–8. Wright's view that all of God's people participate in Jesus' story is also found in The New Testament and the People of God, where he argues that ‘Israel's story has been embodied in one man’, that the Gospels are ‘the story of Jesus told as the history of Israel in miniature’, and that Jesus ‘as Messiah summed up Israel in himself (pp. 402, 447; cf. p. 406). This idea is further developed in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology ( Edinburgh : T&T Clark , 1991 )Google Scholar , where he posits a ‘corporate christology’ in order to affirm that Jesus ‘is Israel’ (pp. 151–3). In order to attempt to ground these theological ideas in ancient Jewish history and thought, rather elaborate arguments are required, as is evident from Wright's work.
23 Acts 20:28; Tit. 2:14; cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; Phil. 3:12; Rev. 5:9–10.