super cession is tic sacrifice- sbl2011_westcoast regional paper

8/8/2019 Super Cession is Tic Sacrifice- SBL2011_WestCoast Regional Paper

1/21

Supercessionistic Sacrifice?

A Redemptive Interpretation of Pauline Atonement Theology in Romans 3.21-32

Hannah M. Mecaskey

As submitted to:

Sr. Barbara Green, OP & Beringia Zen, Profs

BSSP: God, Bible, and NonviolenceDominican School of Philosophy and Theology

Spring Semester 2010

Term Paper

12 May 2010

Abstract:This essay merely seeks to recast the shadow Pauline textual interpretation has cast on Christian theologyand self-understanding in way which will both contribute to reconciliation in Christian/Jewish conflicts as

well as provide a liberating way to understand the love God demonstrated through the atoning act of Jesus

Christ. While interpretive history has overshadowed Christian understanding of Pauls Epistle to the

Romans as anti-Jewish, formidable biblical scholars such as N.T. Wright, Neil Elliot and James Dunn

have proved that there are more positive ways to conceive of theological differences in the relationship

between Christianity and Judaism. In my own context, and I suspect many of my fellow middle class,

educated and privileged American Christians, Christian interpretation regularly violates the Jewish people

through Christianitys self-understanding as Gods new chosen people. According to Paula Fredriksen,

this anti-Jewish attitude and interpretive position is deeply embedded in Christian history, becoming

definitive of orthodox identity and theology.1

Using the lens of mimetic theory to frame the problems of

Christian anti-Semitism from readings of New Testament texts, this essay will employ exegetical inquiry

to examine the Christian theology of atonement as interpreted from Romans 3.21-31. Re-contextualizing

Romans 3.21-31 to demonstrate that Paul was not preaching against Judaism in his message of atonement,

I will demonstrate this by: (1) recounting how orthodox Christianity has tended to commit mimetic

violence against Judaism; (2) how a reinterpretation of Romans 3.21-31 through the lens of New Paultheologians can offer a means of dismantling supercessionism in Christian atonement theology; and (3)

how the intelligence of Pauls atonement victim in Romans 3.21-31 differs from that of James Alison.

1Paula Erikson. The Birth of Christianity, 27


2/21

Mecaskey 2

Hannah M. Mecaskey

BSSP: God, Bible, and Nonviolence

Sr. Barbara Green, OP & Beringia Zen, Profs.

Term Paper Draft12 May 2010

A Supersessionistic Sacrifice?A Redemptive Interpretation of Pauline Atonement Theology in Romans 3.21-32

IntroductionIn a world full of war and ever-escalating violence, many modern Christians question how our

sacred scriptures, the Christian canon of the Bible, can be interpreted as an instrument of peace in spite of

graphic war imagery and life-destroying interpretive legacy of the fathers of our faith. Historically,

orthodox Christianity has struggled with the anthropomorphic language of the Old Testament,attributing tribal violence and cultic sense of religion a more primitive history or adopting a means of

interpreting it analogously. However, even in our New Testament we are troubled by polemical rhetoric

which many of us are now aware has been appropriated for the justification or horrific acts like theShoah2 (known to Christians as the Holocaust) of the Jewish people by the Nazi party in the 20th century,

and many other acts of catastrophic injustice against fellow human beings. The writings of the Apostle

Paul are not exempt from this abuse, and likewise need redemption from violent interpretive lenses which

have coerced, especially in regard to how the Letter of Romans has been employed by Christian

interpreters as anti-Jewish for the majority of Christianitys history.

Recognizing the difficulty of redeeming Christian interpretation of texts which have served

numerous injustices, Neil Elliot writes in the introduction ofLiberating Paul: The Justice of God and the

Politics of the Apostle that given a history in which the apostles voice has again and again rung out like

iron to enforce the will of slaveholders or to legitimate violence against women, Jews, homosexuals, or

pacifists, proposing to describe a liberating Paul may sound like a joke in bad taste.3

Empathizing with

those who readers who will doubt the legitimacy of Pauline interpretation which is not laden withoppressive overtones, I write in the perspective of Elliot, that it is because the voice we have learned to

accept as Pauls is the voice of the sanctified status quo in secular and religious circles, that continued

efforts to reclaim Pauls genuine voice are necessary.4 Thus I will reexamine the voice of Paul as

charitably interpreted through New Paul scholars James Dunn and N. T. Wright, demonstrating thatwhich Christianity had long envied the Jewish status as Gods chosen people, Pauline atonement

theology in Romans 3.21-31 can most convincingly be read as continuous with Hellenistic Jewish

theology rather than superseding it.

2In Israeli official and academic circles, the Hebrew shoah() -- sometimes written shoa and sho'ah -- has

always been the primary referent to the Nazi-organized destruction of European Jewry. whereas the commonly

used term in Christian circles H/holocaust is inappropriate because it carries textual connotation of a burntsacrificial offering. Holocaust scholars, when commenting on the word "H/holocaust," almost invariably assert that

the word carries Judeo-Christian religious / sacrificial overtones, sometimes decry these supposed overtones, ignore

totally the word's pagan religious / sacrificial employments, and for the most part leave the impression that

"holocaust" had absolutely no secular history before it became the principal American-English referent to the Nazi

mass murder of Jews. Jon Petrie, The Secular Word "HOLOCAUST": Scholarly Sacralization, Twentieth Century

Meanings.[Article Online] (Accessed 11 April 2010); available from

http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/#N_1_; Internet. Originally published as "The secular word

HOLOCAUST: scholarly myths, history, and 20th century meanings,"Journal of Genocide Research 2:1 (2000),

31-63.3

Neil Elliot,Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle, The Bible & Liberation: An OrbisSeries in Biblical Studies (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), ix.4

Ibid, ix-x.


3/21


4/21

Mecaskey 4

interpret the Orthodox Christian interpretive identity as having scapegoated the Jewish people over the

coveted honor of being considered Gods chosen people.

The Scapegoat Mechanism of Ren GirardUsing Ren Girards scapegoat mechanism as a framework in which to construe the problem of

Christian anti-Jewish interpretation, I will briefly explain the mechanism with the aid of Michael Kirwan,

a Neo-Girardian, before drawing out my analysis. Kirwan is very careful to describe Girards theory as

closely as possible, and seems to do an extremely accurate job, even according to the originator of thisscapegoat mechanism himself, Girard. Thus arguing from Kirwans bookDiscovering Girard, I feel as if

I am dealing with a translation of Girards theory, the actual substance of his thought in slightly varied

presentation. Clearly in Kirwans presentation, Girards theory of the scapegoat mechanism arose mainlythrough his analysis of classical literature such as Tolstoy and Shakespeare. I will briefly describe the

major components of what Girard calls the scapegoat mechanism. Expanding his prior theories of

mimetic rivalry7

and interpersonal violence into a more general theory of social order, Girard stated that it

was a societys conception of the sacred through which interpersonal violence was contained,

preserving the social order.8

It is within this context of the sacred, within religion itself, that Girard seesthe scapegoat mechanism as operating opportunistically.

The scapegoat mechanism operates at two different levels of a societys self-understanding, that

of divine-human interaction, as well as interpersonal relations, beginning with the distinct cosmic realms

of sacred and profane which are brought into being through sacrifice of a victim through expulsion or

execution. Describing the scapegoat mechanism as a social process, Girard characterizes the time when a

community begins to seek out a victim as when the cultural order is destabilized or endangered by theescalation of mimetic desire9 and plunges into crisis. Characterizing the crisis as perceived in almost

apocalyptic proportion, the community as becoming collectively obsessed to the point of seeming

possessed in a unified manner, especially when it seems that the crisis cannot be found without resorting

to violence. Thus, according to Girard, the crisis is resolved by a realignment of the aggression, all

against one,10 venting blame for the cause of the communal disturbance onto the shoulders of one

person. Having selected its victim, the scapegoat through which the community hopes to regain peace, thegroup becomes unified in violently eradicating the victim they deem profane from within their midst

through the victims death or expulsion. This experience of being united in aggression against a common

enemy allows the group to experience a transcendence and harmony which seem to have come from

outside.11

The communal threat abated and a state of beatitude achieved through the removal of the scapegoatvictim, the mob that expelled/exterminated the victim attributes the beatitude of their new state to the

victim itself, allowing him/her to acquire a sacred numinosity, even a divine status.12 Thus the victim

is attributed with conflicting qualities: demonization as the attributed cause of the communitys disaster,

as well as some kind of salvific role. Girard assigned the purpose of cultic prohibitions, rituals and myths

as functioning to control a societys impulses towards mimetic violence, even if they do so by

7It is important to understand what is meant by mimetic rivalry if one is going to correctly grasp Girards concept of

the scapegoat mechanism, which rests upon the acceptance of mimetic violence within human society. Briefly put,

mimetic rivalry is the violence that arises in interpersonal, even inter-societal relations when one person or society

desires what another has, and views it as necessary for his/their happiness. Mimetic rivalry is the impetus, the

psychological or spiritual violence of envy and covetousness which impels mimetic violence, which is violence done

in attempt to selfishly acquire whatever was desired of the other. Keeping this in mind, it will be much easier to

understand how Girard characterizes the rising up on mimetic violence within the scapegoat mechanism.8

Michael Kirwan.Discovering Girard. (Cambridge, MA: Cowley Publications, 2005), 38.9

Ibid., 38.10

Ibid., 38.11

Ibid., 39.12

Ibid., 39.


5/21

Mecaskey 5

contradictory means such as permitting ritual sacrifices.13 While prohibitions serve to separate the

community members from potential sources of conflict and violence, sacrificial rituals serve as

momentary relaxation of taboos, whereby the community allows itself an acceptable dosage of

violence and chaos, serving as a kind of inoculation against the infectious spread of mimetic violence.14In bringing together his analysis of literature and conception of myth, Girard establishes a link between

mimetic desire and victimization summed up in his declaration that violence is the heart and secret

soul of the sacred.15

The name of Girards scapegoat mechanism is derived out of the popular usage of scapegoat, ratherthan with reference to the scapegoat as a part of the Day of Atonement ritual discussed in Leviticus 16, as

an innocent victim against whom the violence of entire community is channeled.16

The victim of Girards

mechanism is in some sense random, possibly singled out because of some significant difference ordefect, against which the community enacts a controlled, limited use of violence in order to prevent a

more widespread violence from engulfing and destroying the whole group.17 Included in his scapegoat

mechanism is the assumption that scapegoating is a spontaneous and unconscious psychological

mechanism, which Neo-Girardian theorists have admitted, and taken farther into an idea that post-

sacrifice, the victims experience may enable the community to realize its own violence, as James Alisonhas theorized about the death of Christ providing mankind with an intelligence of the victim which both

demonstrates the innocence of the victim as well as the communitys own propensity for violence. It is

working within the Neo-Girardian understanding of scapegoating as a process which can give the

violating community and understanding of its own violence that Mark Heim approaches the question of

atonement theory through Girards scapegoat mechanism.

How Christianity Has Scapegoated Judaism through Interpretive Violence

Placing the interpretive traditions of the Christian and Jewish religions into the Girardian framework of

mimetic rivalry, I must clarify that difference between Christianity and Judaism in the early centuries of

the Common Era are virtually indiscernible. I point this partly to trouble the interpretation of Paul as a

Christian author: as I will later discuss, Paul understood himself to be fully and entirely as Hebrew as any

other Jew of the first century, not that he was starting some new religion. In fact, a great ambiguity isfound in the multitudinous identities of Jew and Gentileperhaps a clear distinction can only be reached

by the fourth century, as Fredriksen suggests, when the church recognized and patronized by the Roman

emperor was in international Gentile community hostile to diversity both within and without.18

Characteristics of what we know as Christianity today were present by the fourth century: Powerful

bishops, great councils, and a philosophically sophisticated theology that could insist on both three-nessand unity within the Godhead.19 Since the distinction between Christianity and Judaism is more fluid in

the early centuries of the Common Era, it would seem that the split due to Christian empiric alliance at the

beginning of the fourth century is a good marker for my analysis of Christianitys scapgoating of Judaism

through violent interpretation.

Identifying the object of mimetic desire pursued by the empire-driven Christendom as Judaisms

declarative status as Gods chosen people, orthodox Christianity has sought to claim this as its own

through reinterpreting the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Hellenistic Jewish texts in a way thatdiscredits the Jewish claim to covenantal relationship with God. In order to acquire this covenantal status

which orthodox Christianity perceived as exclusive to the Jewish people, interpretations of ancient and

Hellenistic texts were developed into systematic theologies and doctrines which were not native to

13Ibid., 39.

14Ibid., 39.

15Ibid., 39.

16Ibid., 49.

17Ibid., 49-50.

18Fredriksen, 8.

19Ibid.


6/21

Mecaskey 6

ancient religion, whether pagan or Jewish.20 One such doctrine, Anselms theory of atonement, focuses

on the penal necessity of Christs death to propitiate the wrath of God, an idea not typical to Jewish

thinking.21

Heim notes that, in addition to characterizing a non-Jewish God, Anselms atonement theory

is in line with the fundamental critique of historical sacrifice one may read out of the Gospels22, but notin the atonement theology of Paul. So out of rivalry with Judaism for the status of Gods chosen people,

orthodox Christianity placed the burden of guilt for the death of Christ upon the Jews by composing a

doctrine of atonement which at once omitted traditionally Jewish notions of God, but also stemmed from

a school of interpretation that blamed the Jews for the death of Christ. Having passed down thisatonement theory through Christian heritage over the past centuries, the majority of Christians have

unwittingly been infected with anti-Jewish beliefs from the inception of their faith.

Once Judaism and Christianity were part of the same community, Fredriksen theorizes, but toward theturn of the first century through the first half of the second, when warring Gentile Christian intellectuals

staked out their territory and systemized their convictions into theologies.23 Taking Anselms satisfactory

atonement theory as one example of Christian interpretive scapegoating against Judaism, it seems simple

to theorize that once orthodox Christianity had the support of the Roman emperor, it could use the

weight of doctrinal definitions to blame the Jewish people for Christs death and rape them of theirdenotation of Gods chosen people in all but a token eschatological sense. Christian history is riddled

with the abuse of the Jewish people, self-evidence enough for this scapegoating. What can be done to

correct the ingrained theological views of Christian interpretation to dismantle even just the anti-Judaism

from our understanding of atonement? A new theology of atonement must be understood, and I propose

looking at the first Jewish-Christian writers own account, Paul in Romans 3.21-31, though I will first

briefly examine Heims Neo-Girardian attempt to make amends for Christianitys historically violent Godof atonement.

Problematic Atonement Theology and Attempted Solutions from Anselm and Mark Heim

Since, as Fredriksen argues, Christian anti-Judaism was born of Gentile misinterpretation of intra-Jewish

disputes of the earliest Christian movement as the condemnation of all Judaism by members of the early

Christian dispute such as Paul with whom these Gentiles now identified,24

Anselms medieval doctrineof atonement theology commits many of the supercessionist errors against Judaism common to

orthodox Christianity. In refuting the heart of Anselms claim, Neo-Girardian Mark Heim presents a re-

interpretive theology which I find to be unreflectively anti-Jewish. Presenting Heims remarks on Anselm

and my own critique, I will demonstrate why, compared to Pauls atonement theology in Romans 3.21-31,

even Heims correction of Anselms supersessionism is faulty.In chapter 10 of Mark Heims bookSaved from Sacrifice: a Theology of the Cross; Renewing the

Theology of the Cross, Heims presentation of Christ as a victim of Girards scapegoat theory reacts

directly to the predominant Western doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, of which he identified

St. Anselm as the original perpetrator.25 Diving into the generic idea of salvation which proceeds from

Anselms atonement theory, Heim describes the effects of sins curse to be understood as a permanent

slavery into which weve been sold, either by ourselves or someone else, even potentially God, resulting

in a legal verdict of condemnation being lodged against us.26

While concurring with several ofAnselms points, Heim thinks this view serves to reinforce the scapegoating system, while he intends to

prove that the cross provides the rescue and vindication of a victim of scapegoating sacrifice as well as

20Fredriksen, pg 18

21Heim, pg 297.

22Ibid.

23Fredriksen, pg. 30

24Ibid.

25S. Mark Heim, Renewing the Theology of the Cross in Saved from Sacrifice (Grand Rapids: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 294.26

Ibid., 296.


7/21

Mecaskey 7

a more general rescue of all of us from the thoughtless bondage to that violent way of maintaining peace

and unity.27

Proceeding to affirm the points of Anselms substitutionary atonement theory which he deems worth

preserving, Heim concurs that without Christ, no amount of self-sacrifice, no amount of innocentsuffering in any way could save us from the violence we have veiled in religious rituals of sacrifice.28

Like Anselm, Heim affirms that Christ has broken the scapegoating mechanism and saved humanity, but

the question of what humanity has been saved from is in question: is it the wrathful judgment of God or in

some way the violence of the scapegoating system itself which we are removed from? Heim also affirmsAnselms insistence on the necessity of divine initiative and action for reconciliation in the atonement

produced through the cross. Yet Heim characterizes his disagreement with Anselms propitiary view of

atonement in legal terms which describe our moral debt and Christs merit which Anselm applies to avision of divine justice that dictates Gods purpose in suffering death to rescue us from the deserved

wrath and punishment of God.29 Mostly importantly, Heim believes Anselm is in error to represent God

as the one who requires this sacrifice and also the one to whom it is offered.30

While Heim believe that

Girards understanding of the crucifixion as a sacrifice to end sacrifice is an accurate and biblical way to

describe Jesus death, he finds it to be an ambiguous and delicately poised idea. Heim employsGirards desire to interpret God nonviolently, as well as his principle of Christ as the sacrifice to end

sacrifice to reject Anselms notion that it is God who needs appeasing, since Heim thinks this would

mean God is endorsing the practice of scapegoating by hijacking a human atrocity and taking it to an

ultimate extreme.31

In contrast to Anselms configuration of Christ substituting for sinful mankind in receiving the brunt of

Gods wrath, Heim argues that the actual transaction at the cross is one in which God is handed over toour redemptive violence in order to liberate us from it, not the transition between Gods left hand and

right hand (Gods justice and His mercy) as Anselm pictures atonement.32 Heims critique of Anselms

theory by saying that his mistake is to make primacy what is derivative, referring to how Anselm sees

Christs death as primarily averting Gods wrath rather than seeing that as a side consequence.33

While

for Anselm, Jesus death was driven by a divine dictate that human suffering must be offered to meet

Gods justice, Heim sees Jesus death as an uncoerced gift which lays the groundwork for new life, forliberation from repetition of the same sinful dynamic of the scapegoat mechanism.

34Heim suggests that

the true objective event in the cross is Gods action to free us from scapegoating, which provides its own

account as to why Jesus death was liberating, and provides us with a different framework for the

questions of guilt and punishment.35

Thus Heim changes the focus of Anselms substitutionary

atonement on Christ from a diffusion of Gods wrath against sinners to its opposite extreme, a desire toliberate human from their own sinful, repetitive victimization of one another. Given how we have

discussed Pauls understanding of atonement in his own context of Jewish covenantal theology and his

message conveyed through the meaning ofhilastrion in Romans 3.21-31, does Paul provide a

framework to support Heims atonement theory?

Pauline Atonement Theory in Romans 3.21-31 through New Paul Scholars Wright and Dunn

Identifying Paul as a Jew before his writings were hijacked by the religious empire of Christianity in 4th

century Rome, the question of supersessionism remains, but this time of Paul himself: was Paul anti-

27

Ibid., 296.28

Ibid., 298.29

Ibid., 299.30

Ibid, 300.31

Ibid., 300.32

Ibid., 301.33

Ibid., 301.34

Ibid., 313.35

Ibid., 317.


8/21

Mecaskey 8

Jewish, even anti-Semitic and supersessionistic in his polemical theology emphasizing the crucifixion of

Jesus as the Christ, the Jewish Messiah? Or can Paul be understood to be operating within the diverse,

non-hegemonic Jewish tradition of the second temple era? I argue the latter based on my understanding of

Pauls message through a compilation of new Paul interpretations, which argue that Paul did notdichotomize works and law the way Luther and traditional reformer traditions after him have interpreted

Paul. I will use the work of Dunn and Wright to unfold the implications of Pauls Judaism for his writing

about the central aspects of Judaism such as works of the law, Torah, monotheism, and covenantal

righteousness of God. Specifically exegeting the issue of Christs atonement in Romans 3.21-31, I willdemonstrate that the implications of Pauls own Jewish context for his discussion of the accomplishment

and necessity of Christs crucifixion, points to a unity in Pauls thought between the message and person

of Jesus Christ and interpretive traditions of the Hebrew Scriptures during the Second Temple Judaismperiod.

Understanding even the labels Christian and Jewish to be anachronistic and historically

unhelpful, I employ them for the comprehension of my Christian readers, disturbing the neat categories of

Jew and Christian we were taught in Sunday School. While perhaps Christian atonement theories

have historically interpreted Pauls sacrificial imagery/metaphor in too literal a sense, to the exclusion ofother depictions of Christs atonement, what questions can new Paul exegesis answer about the nature

of Gods atonement in Christ and which are left hanging? I will also attempt to draw conclusions

regarding Pauls understanding of the relationship between his theological claims and Judaism with by

examining who Paul understands God through the crucifixion of Jesus. Is God a wrathful and vengefully

set upon extracting payment through a bloody sacrifice or is God merely doomed to offer Jesus as a

bloody atonement due to human violence? Does the sacrificial language used by Paul in the context ofRomans 3 implicate him in some Christian sentiments of superseding the Jewish community as Gods

chosen people? Is there any other way to view the crucifixion in the theology of Paul from the context of

Romans 3.21-31 than as a violent act of a wrathful God, of an Apostle against his own religion of

Judaism, and as containing interpretive qualities that have the potential to lead away from violent acts

rather than perpetuating them?

Dunn and the Metaphor of Sacrificial Language

James Dunn presents a compelling interpretation of many scriptural instances through which he

interprets Paul to be demonstrating his understanding of the significance of Christs death. Dunn

describes Paul as using a variety of metaphors to illustrate the work of the crucified Christ, interpreting

instances of Pauls discussion concerning representation, sacrifice, curse, redemption, reconciliation,conquest of powers36 as the multitudinous ways through which Paul sought to convey a mystery deeper

than one image could portray. Dunn cautions us with too literalistic interpretations of Pauls metaphors,

reminding that the metaphor is not the thing itself, but a means of expressing its meaning. 37 Instead,

Dunn insists that Paul would not be satisfied with less than a plurality of metaphors to depict the

understanding of Christ he sought to convey. If the significance of Christs death is too rich to engulf in

one metaphor, Dunn concludes that it would be foolish to make one of these images normative and to fit

all the rest into it, even the predominant metaphor of sacrifice.38

While this is a bold assertion, Dunnpresses forward, noting the overall purpose and common characteristics of the metaphors he uses to

picture Christs atonement. In each of the metaphors, Dunn recognizes the theme of Gods initiative, God

as an active subject in the crucifixion of Christ. Because God sends, puts forwards, gives up, and is in

36James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

1998), 231.37

Ibid., 231.38

Ibid., 231.


9/21

Mecaskey 9

Jesus Christ,39 Jesus actions cannot be opposed or independent of the Father, for the act of Jesus is the

act of God.40

At this point in his presentation of Pauls understanding of Jesus crucifixion, Dunn remarks that because

the activity of Jesus is also the activity of God, it is impossible for the cross of Jesus [to] constitute thebasis of a religion different from that of Israel, even if it does becomes for Christians the climactic

expression of the provision made by God for the sins of his people.41 By demonstrating that Pauls

monotheism has remained intact in spite of his Christological revelation, Dunn has provided a means by

which we may understand Paul to remain within the boundaries of Judaism, regardless of how stretchinghis claim becomes that it is the human messiah who died. Dunn seems to think that because of the

Pharisaic concept of resurrection, that Pauls claim concerning Jesus resurrection may not have posed

any theological conflict for his contemporary Jews, while the claim that Jesus had been crucified as

Messiah, that crucifixion was the heart and climax of Jesus messianic role would have been impossible

for Pauls Jewish contemporaries to accept.42 Dunn finds it impossible for first century Jews to have

considered Jesus as a Messiah after his death, because a Messiah was viewed as a political leader, one

who would free the people from their immediate state of exile under the Roman occupation. Instead,

though Jesus may have been considered Messiah before his death, the fact of his crucifixion would haveacquired him the label of messianic pretender.

43

This very regard of Jesus as losing his messiahship because of his death is reflected in the despair and fear

of the disciples after the crucifixion. Thus Paul must reinterpret the scriptures he has before him, and the

manner in which Christ died, to convincingly present the necessity of Christs crucifixion to early

believers in Jesus. Because of this need to convince, Dunn explains that the metaphors Paul chose to

describe the event of the crucifixion must have been connected to experiences in the lives of the people hepreached to. Thus Dunn wished to infer that from the first preaching of Pauls gospel, the doctrine of

atonement was not independent of the experience of atonement.44 Finding all this explanation of

embodied metaphor conveying Pauls concept of atonement to unquestioningly emphasize the centrality

of the death of Jesus in Pauls gospel,45

Dunn suggests that Pauls influence gave the gospel writers

(through influence on Mark) the focus on Christs death.46 Yet Dunn clarifies that it is not Paul himself

who assigns Christs death to atonement from sins, saying this was developed before Paul.47

Noting thecentrality of the crucifixion to Pauls own gospel, Dunn notes that Pauls perspective of the crucified

Christ becomes the standard by which he measures other gospels.48

Noting that Dunns characterization of Pauls presentation of the crucified Christ is interpretive rather

than creative from his claim that Paul was not the first to associate the idea of atonement for sins with the

crucifixion, Dunns claims seem to support the idea that Paul was using the lens of Christs death on thecross as atonement from sins as a means to reinterpret the entire tradition and identity of both his God,

fellow covenant members, and himself. If this perspective can be substantiated by the discussions of

fellow scholars, it would seem that maintaining a stance that Paul did not break with Jewish tradition, but

added to its interpretive pool of understanding the recently contemporary event of Jesus life, death,

resurrection and ascension.

Wright and the Language of Justification in Pauls Jewish Context of Covenantal Righteousness

39Ibid., 232: Dunn here quotes a list of several varying ways Paul portrays the activity of the Father in/with the Son

in the atonement on the cross.40

Ibid., 232.41

Ibid., 232.42

Ibid., 209.43

Ibid., 209, from Footnote 4 in 9, Christ Crucified44

Ibid., 232.45

Ibid., 232.46

Ibid., 232.47

Ibid., 233, Footnote 145.48

Ibid., 233.


10/21

Mecaskey 10

Seeing the cultic metaphor of sacrifice as an interpretive tool by which Paul sought to redefine the

concept of covenant in his Jewish context, it seems important to discuss a new Pauline perspective of

Pauls relationship to the Jewish covenant in second temple Judaism. Clarifying how Pauls language of

justification within the idea of covenant as well as its relation to his notion of gospel, N.T. Wrightdistinguishes the Pauline teaching on justification from current teaching in many Christian churches.

While the Church doctrine of justification deals with the question of what man must do if he is to enter

into a relationship with God through Christ,49

Pauls idea of justification was an event that happened to

those who were already members of the covenant people, containing both an idea of immediate releasefrom oppressive force as well as an eschatological understanding of justification. Understanding this

interpretation of justification as inextricably tied to the idea of covenant will provide further context for

comprehending the cultic metaphor of sacrifice utilized in Pauls explanation of atonement in Romans3.21-31.

Introducing the connection between justification and covenant, Wright discusses three points of context in

which Pauls language of justification must always be placed in relation to Christs gospel as a means of

incorporating Gentiles into the Jewish covenant. The first point is that justification is always used within

the context of covenant language. Since Paul is operating within the whole world of thought of second-temple Judaism, which clung onto the covenant promises in the face of increasingly difficult

circumstances,50

Paul and his contemporaries are all seeking interpretations of their scriptures which

offer insight to their current socio-political situation. Second, the law-court language which Paul

commonly employs is never independent of the covenant setting,51 but one must always assume Paul is

speaking in the context of Gods covenant with Israel. Thirdly, Wright says justification for Paul can

never be understood apart from eschatology since Gods covenant with Israel existed to put the world torights, to deal with evil and to restore Gods justice and order to the cosmos in the end times.52

Interpreting Pauline justification as united with the interpretive traditions of second temple Judaism,

Wright expands on the theology of this context in order to offer a better understanding of how Paul

remains within the wide scope of Jewish theological understanding.

What did justification mean in Pauls Jewish context? Wright characterizes the main concern of Jewish

soteriology at the time as an urgent interest in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God hadpromised to his people Israel.

53So before the event on the Damascus Road, Wright insists, Saul was not

interested in a timeless system of salvation He wanted God to redeem Israel from her immediate place

of exile under Roman occupation.54 A salvific redemption such as this would be imagined to take the

physical and concrete form of political liberation the restoration of the Temple, and ultimately of

resurrection itself, [which] would be seen as the great law-court showdown, the great victory before thegreat judge.55 According to Wright, such hopes included the vision of an eschatological justification of

Israel through the vindication of her God, and could be anticipatedunder certain circumstances so that

particular Jews and/or groups could see themselves as the true Israel in advance of the day when everyone

else would see them thus as well.56 Wright indicates that it was understood that the purpose of the

covenant was never simply that the Creator wanted to have Israel as a special people, irrespective of the

fate of the rest of the world but rather to bring about the salvation of the world by dealing with sin.57

Thus the question of justification was not a matter ofhow someone enters the community of the true

49N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 116-8.50

Ibid., 117.51

Ibid., 117.52

Ibid., 117.53

Ibid., 118.54

Ibid., 118.55

Ibid., 118.56

Ibid., 119.57

Ibid., 118.


11/21

Mecaskey 11

people of Godbut ofhow you tell who belongs to that community, distinguishing oneself by distinctive

behavior before ones covenant status became public knowledge in the eschaton.58

Wright uses this understanding of justification within covenant to explain righteousness as it is attributed

to persons whose covenantal participation is made obvious to all in the eschaton, described through thelaw-court language of justification in terms of Gods eschatological court. Rather than a moral quality

which covenantal members will bring into this court, Wright describes the righteousness of the justified

as a legal status which they carry out of court with them.59

Yet even the righteousness attributed to a

person leaving court differs from the righteousness of God, the judge, who delivers the sentence. It wouldseem that these two different kinds of righteousness are related through mutual participation in covenantal

relationship. Wright attributes this understanding of covenantal righteousness to Pauls interpretation

throughout all of his epistles in which he discusses justification and righteousness through Christ, voicedin language which with many non-Christian Jews would have agreed: those who will be vindicated on

the last day are those who hearts and lives God will have written his law, his Torah.60

Yet it is in how this process of inscribing the law on to hearts and lives takes place that Wright describes

Paul as differing from the common interpretation by his fellow Jews. As Paul makes clear at various

points of his epistles, including Romans 3.21-31, he does not think this process can be done by the Torahalone; God has now done in Christ and by the Spirit what the Torah wanted to do but could not do

61

because it could not effect internal change in sinful persons. It is this argument which the entire book of

Romans expounds upon, building up to this crucial point in chapters 1-3.20. Wright seems to view Paul as

kind of reformer, interpreting the message of Romans 2 to be that covenant membership cannot be

defined by race. He interprets Pauls perspective of the Jewish racial boast, that national Israel is

inalienably the people of Godis completely undercut by the continuance of Israels exilic state.62

FromWrights perspective, Pauls realization upon encountering Christ is that what he had expected God to do

for Israel at the end of all things, God had done for Jesus in the middle of all things.63 Thus Pauls

message is a rehabilitation of the view that God would deal with the sin of all people through His

covenant to Israel, and that ethnicity and race do not provide Israel with an advantage to the Gentiles

because they could not overcome the sin which continually sends them into exile by virtue of the Torah.

From Wrights perspective, it seems that Paul understands himself not to be exiting the boundaries ofJudaism, but taking them to their necessary extremes according to his exegesis of Gods covenant with

Abraham. Pauls message retains the shape of the Jewish doctrine, while filling it with the new content

of defining covenant membership through the gospel of Jesus Christ.64

The Question of Supersessionism in Romans 3.21-31 Pauline Atonement Theology

Given Dunns consideration of sacrifice as one metaphorical image through which to depict the

atonement of Christ and Wrights explanation of how Pauls theology remained firmly framed in the

context of the Jewish doctrine of his day, what implications does this give us concerning the question of

Pauls supersession of Judaism in his understanding of atonement. From Dunns argument, we understand

that the image of cultic sacrifice as a means of understanding Christs atonement is attributing a different

interpretive meaning to Gods fulfillment of His covenant via Christ rather than a departure from the

covenantal model altogether. Viewing Israel as in a continued exilic state under Roman occupation,Dunns perspective of Pauline atonement theory describes Christs death and resurrection as another way

to explain the vindication of God, in spite of His peoples disobedience. Taking Dunns implications that

Paul remained within the Jewish tradition, adding the lens of Christ to the doctrine of second-temple

58Ibid., 119.

59Ibid., 119.

60Ibid., 127.

61Ibid., 127.

62Ibid., 127.

63Ibid., 127.

64Ibid., 132.


12/21

Mecaskey 12

Judaism, Wright makes explicit the claim of Pauls continuity within Judaism as far as most of his

theological perspectives were concerned. Since Wright seems to demonstrate that Pauls concepts of

righteousness and justification were directly defined by their context within an understanding of Israels

covenantal relationship with God, Wright takes the image of Paul to another level of reformer. Discussingthe understanding of covenant as Gods way of dealing with the sin of the world, not just with Israel in

particular, Wright seems to suggest that Paul is rehabilitating a discarded interpretation of covenant, and

using Jesus as the lens through which to realize this understanding. It seems fair thus far to understand

that Paul does not understand himself to have superseded Judaism, but to be working within it to realizethe meaning of Gods promise to Abraham which has been forgotten in a nationalistic concentration on

the Jewish race.

Turning to Romans 3.21-31, I will demonstrate Pauls Jewish continuity and lack ofsupersessionism from an interpretation of the text. Having noted in Wrights discussion of the

justification of covenantal status that the context of Romans 1-3.20 argues against a belief in racial

privilege within the covenant of God, whether Jew or Gentile, Paul goes on to say that now the

righteousness of God is revealed apart from the law, although the Law and Prophets bear witness to is.65

The argument of the epistle up to this point has emphasized that the natural man, Jew or Greek, is asinner who stands under the wrath of God. But now God has intervened,

66radically transforming the

human situation through Gods salvific act in Christ. The law apart from which Gods righteousness is

distinguished as meaning Mosaic Law, the Jewish law, as well as all other law.67

This demonstrates not

only that neither Gentile or Jew has been able to maintain righteousness and obedience through law and

so neither is privileged, as well as that though God has never been able to be reached through law, but this

has only been recently been revealed, in Jesus68

. So Paul does not argue that Mosaic Law should bediscarded due to defect, but that God has not been able to be reached through the Mosaic Law (or any

other law) due to the implicit defect of sinfulness in human nature

Morris interpretation of Jesus involvement in justification: an important note about the fact that the

righteousness of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ.We should bear in mind that Paul here is not

describing Christ, but outlining what God has done in bringing about salvation69 and refers to the faith

Jesus exercised in the sense faithfulness of God.70

So not only does Paul level the playing field of race byremoving any distinction between both Jews and Gentiles, finding both to be in sin, but he also interprets

the crucifixion as a demonstration of Gods covenantal faithfulness. By linking the right standing God

dispenses with his faithfulness and that of Christ,71 Paul shows Gods benevolence as well as his

covenantal vindication, a fulfillment of Pauls Judaic eschatological hope, in the crucifixion of Christ.

Paul has made clear in verse 24 that redemption comes through Jesus Christ, not apart from the Jewishunderstanding of covenant and Gods vindication of Himself and His people, but to accomplish this

vindication through the Jewish Jesus. The justice of God requires a separation from sin, hence for Paul the

continued exile of Gods chosen people, but Gods justice is mixed with forbearance, for God does not

hurry to punish every sinner, and the sins committed beforehand unpunishedpresent a problem for the

person who has a firm grasp on the truth that God is just.72

Since for Paul the cross is an eschatological fulfillment of Gods covenantal justice and mercy,

the person who is saved is the man who has faith in Jesus, more literally who is of the faith in Jesus.This means not simply the person who believes, but the person whose characteristic is faith, whose whole

65Romans 3.21, ESV.

66Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 173.

67Ibid., 137.

68Romans 3.22, ESV.

69Ibid., 175.


71Ibid., 175.

72Ibid., 183.


13/21

Mecaskey 13

position proceeds from faith.73 Thus faith is the distinguishing mark of one who has entered the covenant

and already partaken in the righteousness of God, not a mark of racial distinction like circumcision.74 But

what is this activity that God has done through Jesus Christ in which one must identify through faith?

Debate about the nature of Gods activity in the event of Jesus crucifixion centers around Pauls phrasethrough the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a hilastrion by his

blood75 This Greek term, hilastrion, referring to the crucified Christ whom God puts forth [as]

hilastrion76

appears only once in all of Pauls writing, in one of the most crucial sections of Romans,

3.25.From the title of his article, Expiation, Propitiation, Mercy Seat, J.M. Gundry-Volf offers thepossibilities of this terms meaning from its context in the Septuagint amongst other Classical and

Hellenistic Greek Literature. Gundry-Volf questions which of three meanings ofhilastrion best captures

scholars interpretations of Pauls interpretation of Christs death in Romans 3.25: Expiation impliesthe obliteration of sin through Christs atoning death. Propitiation implies that Christs death appeased

divine wrath called forth by sin. Mercy Seat recalls the place in the holy of holies where Gods saving

mercy was supremely manifested in atonement for sins accomplished through the OT cult.77

I propose

that by determining the most likely usage ofhilastrion as expiation in a cultic context of the mercy

seat, an interpretation of Pauline Christology can be reached with does not attempt to supersede theJewish sacrificial system.

Scholars are extremely divided as to whether, based on Romans 3.21-31, Pauls view of Christs

atonement should be characterized by propitiation or only by expiation. O. Hofius defends Pauline

Christology against the idea that the reconciling event of the cross of Christ is propitiatory, because

God is only the subject in this event (not the object of propitiating activity whereas human beings in

receiving from the event of Christs crucifixion are only objects rather than subjects of propitiation.78

Thus we are reconciled to God through the sacrifice of Jesus, but Godis not reconciled to us.

Supporters of a non-propitiatory view of the crucifixion, Christ did not die to satisfy Gods wrath as the

precondition for reconciliation, but rather Christs atoning death itself accomplished reconciliation.79

While their opponents interpret paresis in Romans 3.25 as passing over, scholars who reject propitiation

rend to interpret paresis80

in the sense of aphesis, forgiveness) which exhibits Gods saving

forgiveness.81

73Ibid., 184.

74It should be noted that Paul denies circumcision as necessary to Gentiles only omitting discussion of Jewish

exemption75

Romans 3.24b-25a, ESV.76

Ibid., 279.77

Ibid., 29778

Ibid., 28079 Ibid., 281.80

According toA Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testamentby Joseph Henry Thayer,paresis in the context of

Romans 3.25 could mean pretermission, passing over, letting pass, neglecting, disregarding because God

had patiently let pass the sins previously committed (to the expiatory death of Christ), i.e., had tolerated, had not

punished (and so mans conception of his holiness was in danger of becoming dim, if not extinct). Thayersinterpretation ofparesis in the context of Romans 3.25 suggests that the cultic sacrifices of Judaism were not

expiatory, and that God merely tolerated them in expectation of the expiatory death of Christ. He further

suggests that man was so aware of this contradiction, of God overlooking his sin, that mankind was losing

awareness of the meaning of Gods holiness. While interesting, this interpretation fuels the problematic view of

propitiatory atonement, which would suggest that Christs blood was required by God, thus contributing to

Heims critique of propitiatory atonement as Gods reinforcement of the scapegoat victim system. Quotes from

Thayers Lexicon found at:

Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search forparesis (Strong's 3929)". [Article Online] (Blue Letter Bible,

1996-2010, accessed 15 Apr 2010); available from http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?

Strongs=G3929&t=ESV; Internet.81

J.M. Gundry-Volf, " Expiation, Propitiation, Mercy Seat," inIVP Dictionary ofPaul and His Letters, eds. Gerald

F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 1993), 281.


14/21

Mecaskey 14

Proponents of propitiation respond by presenting God of the propitiating act of Christs sacrifice,

rejecting the caricature of propitiation of God as celestial bribery, and instead interpreting the Biblical

God as acting out of love to propitiate Gods own wrath.82

Since according to Gundry-Volfs

characterization of this view propitiation does not turn divine wrath into love, it expresses theGodward aspect of atonement in terms of vindication of Gods righteousness in Gods treatment of the

sinner.83 In light of Romans 3.25, Gundry-Volf says that proponents of the propitiatory use ofhilastrion

claim that Christ was put forth as hilastrion as an act of judicial righteousness:

to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.Itwas to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the

one who has faith in Jesus.84

Proponents of propitiatory atonement interpret Gods forbearance in regards to past sin as buildingtowards the point when God would intervene to vindicate his juridical righteousness through Christs

death as a judgment against sin.85

Yet, scholars such as James Dunn disagree that Gods judicial was

righteousness to be satisfied as if some abstract ideal of justice is upheld through the satisfaction of

divine wrathbut as Gods covenant righteousness in which God fulfills the Gods covenant obligations

by dealing with the covenant peoples sin.86

Instead, by dealing with the sin of a people with whom He isinextricably connected through covenant, God also vindicates his own righteousness by upholding the

covenant despite His peoples infidelity.87

This construal of Gods vindication of His own righteousness

does not imply that Christs death is propitiatory but expiatory.

In the broader context of Pauls writings, Gundry-Volf interprets the larger message of Paul as never

interpreting that divine judgment of sin on the cross as something which appeases an angry, offended

God or which inclines God towards sinners.88

Instead, for Paul, God has always been inclined towardthe ungodly, evident as God in Christ bearing the sins of the world

89, demonstrating His love

90while all

were still in sin.91

How could Pauls understanding of an event that appeases the anger of an offended

God if Gundry-Volf understands Paul to interpret the cross as Gods own suffering of the divine

judgment against sin, which is the destruction of the sinners existence that took place in Christs

death?92

The wider context of Romans 3:25 suggests that putting Christ forward as hilastrion appeases

the wrath of God, Gundry-Volf notes from the larger context of Romans that where Gods wrath isrevealed, His righteousness is also revealed.

93Because Paul seems to parallel wrath and righteousness

through the Greek verb describing their disclosing, Gundry-Volf suggests that if those who receive the

righteousness of God through faith in Christ are saved from the wrath of God, it must be because Christ

has appeased that wrath through his death for them.94

However Paul does not define the cross in terms

of the wrath of God, nor does he describe how Christs death frees them from such a destiny.95

82Ibid., 280.

83Ibid., 281.

84Romans 3.25-26, ESV

85 J.M. Gundry-Volf, " Expiation, Propitiation, Mercy Seat," inIVP Dictionary ofPaul and His Letters, eds. GeraldF. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 1993), 281.86

Ibid., 281.87

Ibid., 281.88

Ibid., 281.89

2 Corinthians 5.19, ESV.90

Romans 5.8, ESV.91


F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 1993), 281.92

Ibid., 281.93

Ibid., 281.94

Ibid., 281.95

Ibid., 282.


15/21

Mecaskey 15

So even though Paul even discusses how believers are saved from wrath through justification by Jesus

blood,96

Gundry-Volf insists that this still does not mean that Christs death propitiated Gods wrath.97

Understanding Pauls conception of the wrath of God in light of an eschatological judgment, Gundry-Volf

interprets the Pauline attitude toward the sinners plight not as the transforming of Gods attitude towardthem but the transformation of their sinful existence before God through its destruction and new

creation.98

Gundry-Volf points out that this cannot be argued from Pauline theology, because Paul gives

no systematic presentation of the relationship between sin, Christs death and Gods judgment.99

Finding

no explicit support for a propitiatory reading ofhilastrion in Romans 3.25, Gundry-Volf decides thatexpiatory is the more appropriate description of Christs atoning death as a hilastrion,

100since this

meaning is clear within the Pauline text, the idea of the crucifixion appeasing Gods wrath conflicts with

Pauls understanding of Christs blood atonement, and the context of Romans 3.25 does not requirepropitiation to make sense of the text.

101

Having demonstrates how Paul remains consistent with the Jewish covenantal understanding of

God as redeeming his people through a change of their sinfulness rather than an appeasing of His anger, I

will also describe how Gundry-Volfs analysis ofhilastrion as mercy seat has non-supercessionist

implications for Pauls attitude towards the Israelite sacrificial cult. Identifying the Mercy Seat as theplace where the supreme act of atonement took place in the OT cult, Gundry-Volf analyzes whether or

not Christs death in the context of Pauls thought in Romans 3.25 is interpreted in the same cultic terms,

which would indicate Pauls attitude towards the Israelite sacrificial cult. Posing a few additional

questions, Gundry-Volf also questions whether Christs death as hilastrion [can be] understood as a

sacrifice? And what does a cultic understanding ofhilastrion imply about the death of Christ?102

The

general view of Christ as Mercy Seat identified the crucified Christ as the eschatological antitype of themercy seat of Leviticus 16, where atonement is made for sin once for all and reconciliation with God is

accomplished, rendering the Temple cult obsolete,103

though this is not what Paul implies.

Since the ark had vanished by the time of Paul, only its symbolic value remained in theology, easing the

difficulty in attempts to directly correlate Christs death to the actual ritual on the Day of Atonement.104

Since pre-Pauline Jewish-Christian material interpreted Christs death in terms of cultic atonement

through the use ofhilastrion to describe Christ crucified as a new mercy seat, due to popularinterpretation ofhilastrion as mercy seat within the Septuagint, it is not surprising that Gundry-Volf

notes Pauls continuity with the pre-Pauline tradition by referencing the blood of Christ as the

eschatologically effective means of atonement instituted by God, alluding to the positive influence of

OT cultic thought categories in Leviticus 17.11.105

Thus it is possible for both Gundry-Volf and Dunn106

to argue that expiation is the most fitting meaning ofhilastrion, which also has positive connotations forthe OT sacrificial cult. Dunn offers further explanation, that in the Israelite cult, God is never

propitiated or appeased,107 so it would be contrary to Pauls understanding of the Jewish covenant to

say that he understood Christs death to appease the wrath of God against sinners.

While it seems clear that Paul sees Christs death as expiating sins in which Gods wrath towards

sinners was averted in removing sins from them rather than propitiated, Paul is unclear as whether he

96 Romans 5.9, ESV.97


F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 1993), 282.98

Ibid., 282.99

Ibid., 282.100

Ibid., 282.101

Ibid., 282.102

Ibid., 282.103

Ibid., 282.104

Ibid., 283105

Ibid., 283.106

Ibid., 214.107

Ibid., 214.


16/21

Mecaskey 16

regarded the hilastrion of Jesus as validating the sacrificial system or as indicating its merely

provisional character. Or whether it was the sacrificial system which validated Jesus death as a

hilastrion, at least in effecting remission of penalitywith the implication that Jesus death and

resurrection were more effective.108 Asking whether or not Paul is superseding the Hebrew sacrificialsystem or understanding Jesus death through the system, Dunn notes that the brevity of Pauls

formulation leaves these questions unresolved.109 Keeping in mind the importance of the Jewish

sacrificial system within Pauls explanation of Gods activity in Christs crucifixion, we can conclude that

he has at least retained continuity with Jewish covenantal theology in terms of how he conceived Godacting within the covenant to deal with the sins of not only His chosen people, but the entire world.

Intelligence of the Victim in Pauline Atonement TheologyHaving demonstrated that Pauline Atonement theology in Romans 3.21-31 offers a positive Pauline

attitude towards the Israelite sacrificial cult and covenantal theology, I will translate my exegesis of

Romans 3.21-31 into terms of James Alisons intelligence of the victim to dismantle Christian

interpretive scapegoating of Judaism. In light of Girards Scapegoat Mechanism, Neo-Girardian

theologian Alison coined the term intelligence of the victim referring to a particular shift in humanknowledge due to Christs resurrection.

110Alison describes the intelligence of the victim as originating in

Jesus and the Father as the fact that they experienced mimetic violence (the crucifixion) without

responding violently. After Jesus resurrection, Alison says the intelligence of Jesus, the innocent victim

who submitted to the violence without engaging in it himself, was made known to the disciples, freeing

them from the typical human reaction of violence to violence. Alison is aware, however, that this

intelligence among the Apostles as well as all Jesus followers would not perfectly last, because of theflawed human condition before glorification. However, Alison thinks the intelligence of the victim can be

remembered through partaking in the Eucharist, the re-presenting of the Christ and Church to God in

Jesus the Innocent Victim.

Alison says that basis of our participation in the imitation of mimetic violence is a desire for being, for

life, to which we will sacrifice anything even as far as killing.111 In terms of Christian supercessionist

interpretation, the limited commodity of life is seen as the privilege of calling oneself a part of Godscovenantal people. However, if it is truly God offering this covenant, the author of life, Paul reminds us

that God is onewho will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.112

Since learning to follow Jesus is the way of accepting the life we desire without mimesis,113 without

quarrelling between Jew and Christian about who as the right to belong to Gods covenantal people, as

something given, something which can only be received by a non-rivalistic, a pacific imitation ofsomeone,114 we see that Paul encourages as end to this rivalry through a unity in the faith of Jesus based

on the faithfulness of a merciful God.

Pauls Intelligence of the Victim as Crucified

In Romans 3.21-31, Paul seems to understand the atoning act as something which God commits

acts upon the sin of the person, as the crucifixion of Jesus, providing the redemptive intelligence of the

victim. Focusing on Pauls use ofhilastrion to demonstrate that the intelligence of the victim is found inthe crucifixion rather than the resurrection, I will demonstrate that the intelligence of the victim is not

only a perspective which individuals are called to enter by faith, but an action of God to change the

persons in order to abandon mimesis for faith. While Alison focuses on Jesus as the primary victim,

108Ibid., 215.

109Ibid., 215.

110James Alison, Knowing Jesus (Springfield: Templegate Publishers, 1993), 33.

111Ibid., 56.

112Romans 3.30, ESV.

113James Alison, Knowing Jesus (Springfield: Templegate Publishers, 1993), 56.

114Ibid.


17/21

Mecaskey 17

acknowledging Gods unity with Jesus in the crucifixion, for Paul, God is the primary actor of the

crucifixion event, both offering the hilastrion and as hilastrion by the blood of Jesus Himself. This is

not to say that Alisons perspective of the intelligence of the victim based on the experience of Jesus is

wrong, but Paul is more concerned with the activity of God, who is Lord of both Jew and Gentile, as thekey to eliminating mimetic violence between the two groups.

Having defined Pauls usage ofhilastrion in Romans 3.25 as expiation, the idea that sin is the

object of change, rather than propitiation, which would suggest that it is something within God that would

need to change with regard to the person, God assumes the active role of revealing the intelligence of thevictim through the person of Christ by acting in Christ. In this text of Romans 3, we are made privy to

Pauls interpretation of a previously mysterious situation in Gods covenant with His people: How He

would redeem them from sin and yet righteously judge the sin too. Using hilastrion in Romans 3.25 asimagery suggestive of the removal of a corrosive stain or the neutralization or a life of a life-threatening

virus than of anger appeased by a punishment,115 Dunn supports the idea of God in Christs crucifixion

upholding His covenantal righteousness in expiating sins rather than vindictively seeking to punish those

guilty of sin. So it would seem that according to Pauls interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures through the

lens of Christs crucifixion, God abstained from punishing the sins of His people (who seemed to beconstantly in exile, even through Pauls own time, in which they had forgotten their original call in

Abraham to be a light to all the nations), and in order to vindicate His righteousness and restore the

purpose of His covenantexpiating the sins of the entire worldGod took the burden of sin upon His

own shoulders in the sacrifice of Christ.

Demonstrating the efficaciousness of Christs death to reconcile the relationships of Jewish and

Gentile sinner, Paul turns in Romans 3.27-31 to rhetorically asks again what the good is in boastingconcerning ones race. By saying that one receives the justification of righteousness apart from the law,

Paul is indicating that God is not confined under the restrains of Mosaic Law, nor Gentile ethnic

understandings of relationship to their deities. In appealing to the previous Abrahamic covenant, that God

created not only the nation of Israel, but also all other nations as well, Gods oneness is made manifest

through Christ, because the separation that circumcision caused between the Jews and the other nations

does not affect the justifying verdict of God.116

Since God is one, He will justify both the circumcisedand the uncircumcised by faith.

117Yet the law is not nullified in providing entrance for both Jew and

Gentile to Gods righteousness through faith, for it is Christs atoning death that works out the salvation

to which the law attests, and understanding Christ as an atoning sacrifice is dependent upon the entire

imagery which comes from the Law of Moses itself. In his prevailing focus on the fact of God in Christs

death expiating sins and demonstrating that no race has privilege over another with regards torighteousness because all persist in sin, Paul does not discuss the details of how the Mosaic Law and laws

followed by Gentiles are incorporated and not nullified by the event of the cross.

Thus Paul dismantles the mimetic rivalry between Jewish and Gentile Christians in his own

context by appealing to the Jewish notion of monotheism, that God is one for all people, and since all are

disabled in approaching him by sin, the only way to be covenantally reconciled with God is through faith

in Jesus. In a sense, this is also partaking in the guilt of breaking the covenant, which former participation

in the scapegoat mechanism denied. In accepting that God Himself in Jesus died for the penalty of Hispeoples sinful behavior, the one who takes part in the faith of Jesus acknowledges that he/she is unable to

approach God of their own accord and must beg for Gods mercy to redeem them from their guilt. It is the

very unity which Paul argues of Jew and Gentile in need of Gods mercy that Christians have forgotten in

our interpretive past of falling back into scapegoating Judaism for our own historical wrong-doings. Paulreminds us that this is an act of the God we both claim as Father, through the instrumentality of Jesus, the

Word. Given Jewish sensitivity to the person of Jesus due to Christian transgression throughout history, I

urge Christians to seek brotherly reconciliation for our interpretive scapegoating of the Jews, and pursue

115Ibid., 214-5.

116Ibid., 105.



18/21

Mecaskey 18

liberating interpretations of our shared and separate scriptures which acknowledge our familial

relationship in spite of our differences.

Integrating Scapegoat Mechanism/Heim into Pauls Atonement with Neil ElliotHaving offered my attempt at applying a liberative hermeneutic to Romans 3.21-31, I will conclude by

offering another theologians attempt to liberate Pauline theology from the constrains of Girardian theory,

which I have attempted to use in my interpretation. Evaluating the application of Girards scapegoat

mechanism by a fellow New Testament scholar, Neil Elliot finds problematic Girards phrase that Jesuswas sent by God to be the sacrifice which ended all sacrifice. This would depict Jesus as send by God to

be the lastscapegoat and to reconcile us, one and for all, to God.118

Heim seems to support the idea that

Jesus was the last scapegoat, but that we become reconciled to God through a change in our behavior, ourown realization of the violence which distances us from God, and so initiating a change in humanity.

Elliot critiques this idea, however: Rather than God triumphing over the powers which put Jesus to

death through Jesus nonviolent self-sacrifice on the cross, the Powers disappear within the discussion

and God is involved in a transaction wholly within Gods own self.119 From Heims discussion, there is

no notion of Gods vindication of His own covenantal righteousness over the Powers which Christsubjected Himself too, Powers which in many passages of Pauls epistles cannot be construed to be

merely human powers, but take on spiritual quality. So Elliot insists that both Heim and Girards

nonsacrifical interpretation of Christianity omit the very prominent fact that Paul regularly uses

sacrificial language to describe Jesus death.120

Elliot determined that it is only in the Pauline Epistles that a sacrificial hermeneutic is employed to

understand Christs death, so if Paul played so decisive a role in promoting the sacrificial interpretationof Christs death, then Paul should be held responsible for infecting Christian theology with the fatal logic

of the divinely sanctioned necessity of bloodletting, of good violence.121 Yet, is Paul truly guilty for

distorting the concept of forgiveness in ancient Judaism, as Elliot notes some Jewish interpreter have

claimed, from a clear understanding that the forgiveness of sins was Gods gracious initiative, not a

commodity secured by blood sacrifices in the Temple.122 If Paul really was as Jewish as he claimed, as

devoted to the Torah as Jesus as the Messiah, the promised deliverer of the forgiveness of God throughthe Abrahamic covenant, would he, through the very proclamation of the gospel of the cross betray the

cause of the one crucified by Rome, his own oppressed people and other victims of imperial power?123

Elliot judges that he did not, interpreting against the conventional reading of Pauls Christological

doctrine of faith as opposed to the Jewish doctrine of redemption124

to see Pauls view of the cross of

Jesus as informed and in continuity with the symbolism of Jewish apocalyptic mythology.125

Like Wright and Dunn, Elliot too read Pauls discussion of Jesus atonement in sacrificial language to

remain within the boundaries of the second-temple Jewish interpretation of his day rather than opposing

it. Recognizing Romans 3.21-26 as an example in which Paul speaks of Jesus death as an expiation put

forward by God,126 Elliot interprets the blood of Christ as Gods necessary sacrifice if He is to maintain

His merciful passing over of previously committed sins according to His covenant with Israel as well as

maintain the vindication of His righteousness and justice. Heim and Girard are right to suggest that what

is at stake is not primarily the wrath of God, but neither is it a mere problem of human behavior whichPaul sees as needing to be righted, but also the sanctity of Gods own name and reputation. Recognizing

118Neil Elliot,Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle, The Bible & Liberation: An

Orbis Series in Biblical Studies (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 104.119

Ibid., 104-5.120

Ibid., 105.121

Ibid., 105-6.122

Ibid., 106.123

Ibid., 106-7.124

Ibid., 107.125

Ibid., 113.126

Ibid., 124.


19/21


20/21

Mecaskey 20

Christian reading this essay should continually remind themselves of is the fact that Paul not only wrote

violently rhetorical pieces against his own people (an accepted practice in Jewish society), but he also

preached a message of equality: there is no privilege, mimetic rivalry is pointless, because all are guilty

under sin, thus all in need of an internal change in order to be redeemed. Pauls answer was not to throwaway Jewish or Gentile heritage, but to unify it by removing the mimesis: There is neither Jew nor

Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.And

if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.134

134Galatians 3.28-29., ESV.


21/21

Mecaskey 21

Bibliography:

Alison, James. Knowing Jesus. Springfield: Templegate Publishers, 1993.

Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search forparesis (Strong's 3929)". [Article Online] Blue

Letter Bible, 1996-2010, accessed 15 Apr 2010; available from http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/-

lexicon/lexicon.-cfm?Strongs=G3929&t=ESV; Internet.

Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1998.

Elliot, Neil.Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle, The Bible & Liberation:

An Orbis Series in Biblical Studies. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994.

Fredriksen, Paula. The Birth of Christianity and the Origins of Christian. InJesus, Judaism, and

Christian Anti-Judaism. Fredriksen, Paula and Adele Reinhartz, ed. Louisville: Westminster JohnKnox Press, 2002.

Gundry-Volf, J.M. Expiation, Propitiation, Mercy Seat," inIVP Dictionary ofPaul and His Letters, eds.

Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 1993.

Heim, S. Mark. Renewing the Theology of the Cross in Saved from Sacrifice. Grand Rapids: WilliamB. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.

Kirwan, Michael.Discovering Girard. Cambridge, MA: Cowley Publications, 2005.

Maccoby, Hyam. The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. San Francisco: Harper San

FranciscoA Division of Harper Collins Publishers, 1987.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988.

Petrie, Jon. The Secular Word "HOLOCAUST": Scholarly Sacralization, Twentieth Century

Meanings.[Article Online] Accessed 11 April 2010; available fromhttp://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/#N_1_; Internet. Originally published as "The secular

word HOLOCAUST: scholarly myths, history, and 20th century meanings,"Journal of Genocide

Research 2:1 (2000), 31-63.

Schlatter, Adolf. Romans: The Righteousness of God, Trans. By Siegfried S. Schatzmann. Peabody:

Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1995.

Wright, N.T. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.

---.What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.

super cession is tic sacrifice- sbl2011_westcoast regional paper

Documents