The Non-Nonviolent Atonement:

Looking at Violence on the Cross

David Marshall

TH569: The Doctrine of the Atonement

July 30, 2016

2

Introduction

This paper sets out to prove although the atonement, specifically the crucifixion, is not

entirely nonviolent in nature, this does not mean God calls Christians to live or act

violently in response. In fact, the atonement, even the violence on the cross, shows the

triune God of the Bible working in unity to redeem humanity and bring peace and healing

to the world through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The first section of

this paper will discuss the definition of violence, followed by my sympathies towards

liberationist and feminist critiques. Next, I will select three key texts in the New

Testament in regards to God and Jesus’ role in regards to the crucifixion and how various

patristic theologians interpreted these passages. The final sections will discuss what it

means for the atonement to be simultaneously “violent” while not endorsing violence

wholesale and what this means for us as Christians.

Defining Our Terms

In order to have a productive conversation about any matter, it is important to be on the

same page in regards to terminology and word usage. For this section, I want to focus on

the idea of violence and how it is often used. In consideration of this, it should be clear

that at least one element of the atonement (that is, the crucifixion) is violent and should

not be ignored.

According to J. Denny Weaver, violence is anything that causes “harm or

damage.”1 This encompasses all kinds of damage: emotional, physical, psychological,

sociological, etc. Weaver considers a wide variety of actions as being violent, including

1 Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, 8

3

chattel slavery, anything that inhibits women from exercising their rights and liberties,

and “racism, sexism, and poverty.”2 Hans Boersma follows a similar path, as well:

violence is not limited to harming or damaging another, but can also occur when the

rights of another are contravened.3

It is important to have this definition in mind, because if an act of violence entails

someone being harmed, and especially if we go one step further to say God ordained for

Jesus to die on the cross, then the violence of the cross becomes even harder to ignore or

argue away. This is why Weaver has presented “narrative Christus Victor as an

alternative to satisfaction atonement … by propos[ing] a how explanation that focuses on

Jesus’ life as the reign of God rather than on Jesus’ death as an act of God.”4 A model of

the atonement where the crucifixion is the result of human violence and scapegoating is

quite understandably more palatable than the idea of the Father commanding the Son to

be murdered, even if the Father is not the one doing the act directly. However, as I will

argue later in the paper, I do not feel this is the most responsible way to handle the

biblical texts, even if I do understand his underlying concerns.

Liberation or Death

Understanding violence through this context, it is no wonder why many liberation and

feminist scholars and theologians find the idea of a violent atonement model to be

abhorrent. Oppression knows no boundaries in this fallen world, but non-white and non-

2 Ibid. 3 Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross, 44. However, Boersma would go further than Weaver, in arguing that acts of physical resistance, such as boycott, strike, or even coercion would be considered as violence, as well, if this definition of violence was followed to its logical conclusion. 4 Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, 226

4

male communities have definitely bore the brunt of it in recent years, and it is only

logical why theological disciples have emerged as a result. For people who feel

dehumanized and subjugated on a nearly daily basis, the idea of a violent atonement is a

hard pill to swallow and understandably so.

James Cone, for example, finds the idea of satisfaction to be rooted in something

apart from Jesus. Drawing parallels to white power in our contemporary day, Cone

argues that since

Nicene-Chalcedonian Christology, accompanied by Anselmian (or Abelardian)

atonement, were formulations developed by churchmen who belonged to the

ruling class … the ruling class separated theology from ethics and allowed ethics

to have a foundation other than Jesus. These formulations thus accommodated the

dominance of the ruling class and neglected the consideration of the oppressed.5

With this in mind, it makes sense why Cone would find issues with violent views

of the atonement. Cone recognizes a person develops their theology from their contextual

positions (intentionally or not), and if it is correct that the early church developed these

views in a position of power and privilege, it would only make sense the doctrinal

developments would be shaped as a result.

In the same vein, feminists have trouble with violent models of the atonement

(even Christus Victor!) due to the critique of “divine child abuse.” Whether we are

discussing the ransom model, where Jesus’ crucifixion is a trap to defeat Satan, or the

satisfaction model, with Jesus dying to satisfy a divine debt, feminists argue Jesus’

passive obedience here is rooted in patriarchal and oppressive soil in the action of a father

5 Ibid., 108

5

exacting punishment on his innocent son.6 Even the moral influence model does not

remain unscathed, as it promotes the idea of demonstrating what true love looks like

through a parent killing their child.7 As a result, many feminists would argue “atonement

theology must be jettisoned.”8 Nothing should remain to perpetuate patriarchal

oppression and subjugation, especially if it requires one to believe the Father must abuse

and kill the Son in order to forgive humanity.

I do not believe these arguments are indefensible, but this does not mean we

should not allow ourselves to consider the critiques before dismissing them. I can say my

experiences as a white, middle-class male prevent me from understanding the terror of

systemic racism and abuse because of my sex and gender. I will never know what it feels

like to be treated less than human because of the color of my skin, nor will I ever have to

worry about being told to be subservient or silent because I am not the “head” of the

household. While I do not believe any model of the atonement that allows for violence

would perpetuate these sorts of actions, I can understand why there is hesitation to

subscribe to theological beliefs that seem to promote harmful behaviors. It is my hope

that by understanding and keeping these concerns in mind, this paper can discuss the

biblical nature of the atonement, even at its darkest, without losing sight of God’s overall

position of hospitality.9

Looking Backwards to Move Forwards

6 Ibid., 127-8 7 Ibid., 129 8 Ibid., 130 9 Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross, 50-1

6

At this point, I want to look at how several theologians of the early church handled the

biblical texts where we see God not only commanding Jesus to die on the cross, but also

Jesus giving up his life by his own accord. These are the kinds of passages that,

understandably, can cause tension for those who believe in nonviolence (myself

included), yet should not be ignored in our discomfort.

Ephesians 1:7-10. In the first chapter of the letter to the church of Ephesus, Paul

discusses the beauty of divine reconciliation, in that we find “redemption through [Jesus’]

blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses,” which, according to Paul, is a “plan for the

fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” This

snapshot of the atonement is not one where we see God acting in a fit of divine rage, but

rather, through the death of the Son, all of creation finds its place in its Creator’s loving

arms. This idea is what lead John Chrysostom to write the following:

The wonder is not only that he gave his Son but that he did so in this way, by

sacrificing the one he loved. It is astonishing that he gave the Beloved for those

who hated him. See how highly he honors us. If even when we hated him and

were enemies he gave the Beloved, what will he not do for us now?10

According to Chrysostom, God did not send Jesus to die because of anger or

hatred; instead, it was out of his love and compassion for humanity, even in the midst of

our own hatred towards God himself. However, what this does not do is nullify the factor

of violence. It requires a large leap to say this sacrifice is sterilized from all violent

influence, especially with the discussion of blood, but the absence of any mention of

God’s anger towards Jesus, let alone humanity, deserves to be noted.

10 Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 114

7

John 10:15-18. Similar to the last passage, John writes of a Jesus willing to lay

down his life, but this time, it’s in a much different context. In this passage, Jesus talks

about his role as the good shepherd and how, in order to be this good shepherd, he needs

to lay down his life for the flock. However, John makes sure the reader knows Jesus does

have the ability to give up his life and even take it back up again, but this command to do

these things ultimately comes from the Father. It is this union of will of Father, Son, and

ultimately Spirit that brings us to Cyril of Alexandria’s interpretation of the pericope:

Christ did not endure death against his will on our behalf and for our sakes.

Rather, we see him go toward it voluntarily, although he could easily escape the

suffering if he did not want to suffer. Therefore, in his willingness even to suffer

for us, we shall see the excellent quality of his love toward us and the immensity

of his kindness.11

While Cyril does not discuss the Father’s will in the matter here, if one believes

that God is triune, then it would not make sense to assume the Father and Son are

working against one another here. To be fair, we do see a rare moment in the Garden of

Gethsemane, where Jesus cries out, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me;

yet, not my will but yours be done.”12 But as Cyril tells us, Jesus is willing to suffer on

our behalf; there is no arm twisting to be found here between the Father and Son. Again,

this does not remove the presence of violence, but if there is any harm being caused to the

Son, even by the Father’s will, it is not with malicious or abusive intent.

Romans 3:23-25. Lastly, we approach one of the more controversial chapters, let

alone books, in the New Testament. While Romans 3:23 is often quoted in order to point

11 Elowsky, ed., John 1-10, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 350 12 Luke 22:42, NRSV

8

out the depravity of humanity (“…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”),

it is important to recognize the next passage deals with humanity being redeemed through

the gift of Jesus. However, in light of our conversation, the next verse is incredibly

important, as Paul writes that this happens “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.”

More explicitly than the passages we looked at before, Paul seems to have no problem

saying God is the one who presented Jesus to the world as an atonement sacrifice for us,

requiring the shedding of blood. Origen agrees with Paul’s sentiment here when he

writes,

Although the holy apostle teaches many wonderful things about our Lord Jesus

Christ which are said mysteriously about him, in this passage he has given special

prominence to something which, I think is not readily found in other parts of

Scripture. For having just said that Christ gave himself as a redemption for the

entire human race so that he might ransom those who were held captive by sin …

now he adds something even more sublime, saying that God put him forward “as

an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” This means that by the

sacrifice of Christ’s body God has made expiation on behalf of men and by this

has shown his righteousness, in that he forgave their previous sins, which they

had committed in the service of the worst possible tyrants. God endured this and

allowed these things to happen.13

The last sentence here is what I want to draw attention to: God endured this and

13 Bray, ed., Romans (Revised), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 97-8

9

allowed these things to happen. According to Paul and Origen, the horrific act of the

crucifixion of the Godman was not a freak accident. It is not the same situation as the

vineyard owner, who believed his tenants would respect his son, even after killing and

attacking his servants. No, the Father knew exactly what we humans were capable of, yet

still sent the Son to us in an act of love, despite the inevitability of his death. When

understood through the lens of the triune God of Israel, united in being and will, this is no

longer a matter of divine child abuse, but the Creator who loves his creation enough to

give up his own life in one of the most inhumane manners conceived of by humankind. It

is the clearest and most moving instances of selfless, and thereby cruciform, love.

The Crux of it All

We are now left with an interesting dilemma: if the crucifixion is violent in nature, then

does this mean one’s entire model of atonement must be violent in nature, as well? While

I do sympathize with Weaver’s narrative Christus Victor, in that it discusses the totality

of Jesus’ life in regards to the atonement by “reading the entire history of God’s people,

with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as the culminating revelation of the reign of

God in history,”14 rather than focusing on a single moment in Jesus’ life, this does not

simply cancel out what happens on Golgotha. The violence of the crucifixion should not

be ignored or avoided; by doing so, we lose an important element of the atonement itself:

God giving up his own life out of his love for creation. The caricatures of a monster God

whose wrath cannot be satisfied until the blood of an innocent life has been destroyed

deserve to be critiqued, as they are far from being biblical, but the abuse of a doctrine

14 Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, 69

10

does not require us to ignore what the scriptures say on the matter, especially if we appeal

to the Bible on other matters.

With this in mind, and it should be clear by this point, I do not believe if one act

of the atonement is violent in nature, this requires does the entirety of the atonement to be

violent, as well, nor does it necessitate, or even invoke, Christians to act violently by way

of example. When one considers the act of atonement outside of the sole context of the

crucifixion, as Weaver rightly argues, we will see Jesus’ ministry and resurrection being

a part of the reconciliation process, as well. The very acts of Jesus ministering to

Gentiles, his attitude towards Samaritans, and his willingness to bless and heal the

unclean reveals the hospitable love of the Father. In the midst of a world broken and

ravaged by sin and destruction, the author of 1 John writes that “[t]he Son of God was

revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.”15

Through the Father’s vindication of the Son (that is, the resurrection), we also

find a glimpse of the eschaton: what it looks like when death is truly and utterly defeated.

However, this defeat did not come with swords and fisticuffs. Rather, it came, as we saw

on the cross, through self-sacrifice and self-giving love. Considering the crucifixion

would have meant nothing if Jesus remained in the grave, this element of the atonement

should not be passed over, and its lack of violence should only confirm that, despite the

horror of our God being nailed and tortured on a tree, our redemption is rooted in a love

that is defined by cruciformity rather than violence.

In regards to what the crucifixion models for us as believers, if we recognize

Father, Son, and Spirit are fully united, it reveals two things: that the argument for

15 3:8

11

“divine child abuse” does not hold up to scrutiny and, more importantly, even despite the

gruesome nature of the cross, our example is self-sacrifice, not retribution.

First, the argument for divine child abuse can only stand if the Father is indeed

abusing the Son, and there are actually two separate and distinct persons involved in the

process. However, even if one does believe the Father did kill the Son (instead of simply

command for Jesus to be crucified), it is safe to say the majority of people holding to this

view would also argue for the triune nature of God, resulting in a relationship drastically

different than what would occur between a human father and his child . This means, if

anything, this would actually be more similar to an act of divine suicide rather than the

alternative.

In addition, we are not witnessing a Father who is abusing his Son in a fit of

bloodlust. Instead, we are being called to follow Jesus’ example by considering the worth

of others above our own safety and security: “We know love by this, that he laid down

his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.”16 By looking at

Jesus’ refusal to retaliate against those who nailed him to the tree, we are called to

forgive those who oppress and abuse us, even those who may, one day, take our life.

Considering I do not believe it is correct to remove the Father’s will from the equation in

an attempt to make Jesus the only party making a decision in order to get God the Father

off the hook, so to speak, if we look at what the cross actually entails, and what it means

in the context of the atonement as a whole, we will see the point is not God’s anger

towards his Son or even humanity, but the lengths he will go to demonstrate his love for

us, to redeem and save us, even to the point of death and humiliation.

16 1 John 3:16

12

Conclusion

In the end, I believe the question of whether the atonement is violent or nonviolent is not

productive, but I do recognize why it is asked. We live in a day and age where violence

and destruction surrounds us, and the idea of a God who perpetuates such acts, especially

on a divine scale, is not appealing or comforting. As a result, we are inclined to view the

atonement through a dualist lens, as if such a vast topic is black and white; violent or

nonviolent.

Instead, we have seen there is much more to the matter than our two choices.

Rather than simply being one or the other, if we perceive the atonement as an all-

encompassing process, then we have to recognize all of the elements of divine

reconciliation, violent and nonviolent alike. In doing this, I believe it is possible to take

the critiques of liberationist and feminist theologians seriously by recognizing our

tendencies to subjugate and oppress others, but putting it back into the context of what

the atonement actually models: the defeat of sin and death, the ultimate deliverance of

humanity, through self-sacrifice and divine love. The atonement, cross included, is not

defined by violence alone. Instead, it is defined by a God who, in spite of violence, makes

all things new and whole. May we learn how to do the same.

13

Bibliography

Boersma, Hans. Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement

Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004).

Bray, Gerald, ed. Romans (Revised), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture

(Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 1998).

Edwards, M.J., ed. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Christian Commentary on

Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999).

Elowsky, Joel C., ed. John 1-10, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers

Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006).

Weaver, J. Denny. The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001).