Jesus as Martyr More or Less?

Jesus' tragic death by crucifixion was a consequence of religious, political, and socio-economic factors closely interwoven. Jesus was a victim of his own integrity and fidelity to God. Even before the resurrection or any experience thereof, Jesus' death would have sought for an understanding. He had been too sought out as prophet and too compassionate a sage to be simply dismissed. The tragedy and scandal of his crucifixion could easily be seen as the death of a righteous martyr and the fate of a prophet, not unlike that of John. After the experience of the resurrection, Jesus' faithful followers would penetrate even further into the mystery of his death. Its redemptive significance would become more apparent. But in one sense Jesus' death was simply a capsule of his whole life: a man in solidarity with God and the people. This is what the cross came to signify. It was the symbol par excellence for the integrity and fidelity of this man, and eventually for his victory as well. But the cross demands that we and the first disciples go beyond our previous understanding of Jesus as prophet to Israel and sage for his disciples, and beyond Jesus as simply a victim of a system, which he was, and to recognize in Jesus' mission and ministry and above all in his tragic end a true servant of the Lord. Jesus was a servant in his life and above all in his death. Whether he himself saw his death as redemptive or not, he saw himself as faithful to the darling God whom he served and the people to whom he had been sent-a servant par excellence. (from Jesus, Servant of the Lord).

The principal difficulty in attempting to classify or categorize Jesus is that he exhibited characteristics of several categories and the categories themselves overlap. Because Jesus probably exhibited features characteristic of all of them, he was regarded by manyamong his following and among those not of his followingas prophet, sage, healer, Messiah, and martyr, including combinations of these categories. That his movement settled on Messiah as the title of office and Son of God as the personal or metaphysical title strongly suggests that the messianic identity of Jesus took hold early in the tradition, probably in the pre-Easter setting and not after Easter, as one perspective among several competing perspectives. If the latter were the case, one would expect evidence of competing, different interpretations of Jesus. Jesus as Messiah is ubiquitous in the tradition. Indeed, to deny Jesus as the Messiah is to deny the faith (e.g., 1 John 2:2223). (from Prophet, Sage, Healer, Messiah, and Martyr: Types and Identities of Jesus). It should be made clear at the outset that the Hebrew Bible describes a people who used various rituals to deal with sin, both individual and national. The sacrificial system was ordained by God and was considered perfectly adequate to repair an individuals or the nations relationship with God. There were a whole host of different forms of sacrifice that were used depending on the circumstances: burnt offering, meal offering, peace offering, sin offerings and guilt offering amongst others. It is true that some of the prophets railed against the sacrificial system, but only in terms of the intentions of the sacrificer: The prophets were reformers, not innovators. Their emphasis was on the ethical, rather than the ritual. They based their teachings on the fundamentals of the covenant, not the incidentals. They accepted sacrifices as part of the religious life, but would give them their right place. They accepted the law regarding common altars, and Samuel, David and Elijah used these altars. They also endorsed the movement toward a central sanctuary, but it is the abuse of the cult that they condemned, rather than its use. They combated the heathenish idea that all God needed was gifts, lavish gifts, and would condone any sin if only they bestowed abundance of gifts. They demanded an inward religion, morality, justice, righteousness, in short, an ethical religion. They preached an ethical God, rather than the profane, debasing and almost 1

blasphemous idea of God which prevailed in their times. They reminded the people of the covenant at Sinai, the foundation principle of which was obedience and loyalty to Yahweh. (from Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 2). There are indications that the later Hebrew writers began to value obedience as exhibiting atoning repentance: To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. (1 Sam 15:22) The concept of vicarious suffering as a sacrifice is virtually absent from the Hebrew Bible, apart from the crucial Servant Songs in Isaiah, more especially song four in Isaiah 53: 1-12. The problem of whether the Servant is individual or collective, Isaiah himself or the loyal Remnant doesnt make much difference. The Servant is a template which can be applied to whoever might fit the bill. And clearly the early Christians thought Christ was an appropriate recipient and considered the text as prophecy. Importantly, evidence shows that all ancient writings, the Mishna, the Gemara, the Midrashim and others including the Targums all regard Isaiah 53 as Messianic and therefore applicable to the Messiah. Also of importance is the text of 4 Maccabees, (63 BC to AD 70), particularly 4 Maccabees 17: 20-22, which was current during the Second Temple period, and so known to Christians. The ideas of atonement and martyrdom are two overlapping ideas in this text. As noted earlier: Even before the resurrection or any experience thereof, Jesus' death would have sought for an understanding. He had been too sought out as prophet and too compassionate a sage to be simply dismissed. The tragedy and scandal of his crucifixion could easily be seen as the death of a righteous martyr and the fate of a prophet, not unlike that of John. After the experience of the resurrection, Jesus' faithful followers would penetrate even further into the mystery of his death. Its redemptive significance would become more apparent. In consequence of theological exploration to understand who Jesus was and what his death represented, a number of theories of atonement were developed to answer those questions.

Theories of the atonement Historic theories

The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan. The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God's offended honour and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. "Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners." Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith. 2

The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honour rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution. The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). The Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism. Modern theories The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89). The Guarantee Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guarantee to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77). The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it. The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Auln (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil. See main article Christus Victor. The Accident Theory: Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity. The Martyr Theory: Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

Most of these theories are based on a biblical understanding of sacrifice or redemption. Blood must be shed in one way or another for sin to be removed, freedom has to be purchased. The classic example is of course the scapegoat of the Hebrew Bible. The goat takes the communitys sins and goes out into the wasteland to die. The Hebrew prophets had already started to question this method of atonement and placed greater emphasis on the individuals inner piety, and heartfelt repentance.

Although the idea of scapegoat is used by twenty-first century man, the actual historical practice seems both barbaric and unworkable. And some of the theories listed above, regarding what Christ achieved, seem to be no different. How does one understand the relationship between Jesus, God, sin and death? One can start from the objective historical facts. Jesus died because he enraged the Jewish hierarchy who manipulated the Roman authorities to secure his death. During his life he healed, preached about the Kingdom of God, performed miracles, taught and exorcised. All his activities and pronouncements were focussed on the inauguration of the Kingdom, which he was starting. He was the Servant of the Lord, doing Gods will according to Gods plan. The New Covenant was being ratified. Unfortunately Paul, who seems to know almost nothing of Jesus earthly life, concentrates on Jesus death as the most significant event. With his training as a Pharisee, he borrows concepts from the Hebrew Bible to develop his own ideas of salvation. However, one does not need to take the same myopic view of Jesus as Paul does, and increasingly it becomes untenable to do so. Jesus death was the culmination of his service to his father. It seems unlikely that he thought of his own death when he started preaching, as the gospels show developments in his thinking over time. It is undeniable that he used the Suffering Servant as a way of understanding his mission, and in Mark 10:45 he uses the idea of ransom. At the end he realised he would have to go the whole hog in order to declare and make concrete, the unconditional love of God. It seems to me that an understanding of Jesus as martyr is helpful. It is one of the descriptions of Jesus work that is little used, but is far more accessible to a contemporary understanding.

Martyr
In its original meaning, the word martyr, meaning witness, was used in the secular sphere as well as in the New Testament of the Bible. The process of bearing witness was not intended to lead to the death of the witness, although it is known from ancient writers (e.g. Josephus) and from the New Testament that witnesses often died for their testimonies. During the early Christian centuries, the term acquired the extended meaning of a believer who is called to witness for their religious belief, and on account of this witness, endures suffering and/or death. The term, in this later sense, entered the English language as a loanword. The death of a martyr or the value attributed to it is called martyrdom. The early Christians who first began to use the term martyr in its new sense saw Jesus as the first and greatest martyr, on account of his crucifixion. The early Christians appear to have seen Jesus as the archetypical martyr. The word martyr is used in English to describe a wide variety of people. However, the following table presents a general outline of common features present in stereotypical martyrdoms.

Common features of stereotypical martyrdoms

1.

A hero

A person of some renown who is devoted to a cause believed to be admirable.

2.

Opposition

People who oppose that cause.

3.

Foreseeable risk

The hero foresees action by opponents to harm him or her, because of his or her commitment to the cause.

4.

Courage and Commitment

The hero continues, despite knowing the risk, out of commitment to the cause.

5.

Death

The opponents kill the hero because of his or her commitment to the cause.

6.

Audience response

The heros death is commemorated. People may label the hero explicitly as a martyr. Other people may in turn be inspired to pursue the same cause.

(from Matyr, Wikipedia).

Clearly, the early Christians were correct to label Jesus as a martyr. His life and death fit the criteria of a martyr. Jesus himself could have only understood his mission and impending death in concepts derived from the Hebrew Bible. After all, he was a first century Jew. The gospels do not provide much detailed evidence of Jesus speaking about his death. The following texts are indicative: Luk 14:25-27. Now large crowds were accompanying Jesus, and turning to them he said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. Mat 16:21. From that time on Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. Mat 16:24-26. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what does it benefit a person if he gains the whole world but forfeits his life? Or what can a person give in exchange for his life? Mat 26:26-28. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, "Take, eat, this is my body." And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to 5

them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Mar 10:43-45. But it is not this way among you. Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Joh 1:28 These things happened in Bethany across the Jordan River where John was baptizing. On the next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! Joh 15:12-14 My commandment is this to love one another just as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this that one lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. Jesus died to tell us something about God, his father. What his life and death exemplify, is his unswerving devotion to showing his fathers love for us all. This is the vicarious, (for the benefit of others), element of his martyrdom. He refuses to bow down to the pressures of the religious and military hierarchy and stop enacting Gods love and proclaiming his authority to do so. Jesus death doesnt change the world. We, as individuals, have to accept Gods offer of forgiveness and reconciliation, which has always been available. Jesus brings Gods offer to the forefront of our lives. It is indeed a New Covenant because the focus has changed. Our hearts rather than our hands are the means by which we can respond to Gods grace. As to the conditions of applying Christ's sacrifice, repentance and faith, with lives and fruits in obedience and sacrificial living, are recognized by Jesus and all the leading New Testament writers as the means of appropriating the benefits of Christ's sacrifice. (from Sacrifice, in the New Testament, 2)

I think that seeing Jesus as martyr, is an accurate and easier way to understand our discipleship. Maybe one can find some mileage in the other theories, but that doesnt matter one way or another. Jesus had a very definite idea of the expansiveness of Gods love, and he lived and died to make it known to us. Luk 15:11. So he got up and went to his father. But while he was still a long way from home his father saw him, and his heart went out to him; he ran and hugged his son and kissed him. Then his son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' But the father said to his slaves, 'Hurry! Bring the best robe, and put it on him! Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet! Bring the fattened calf and kill it! Let us eat and celebrate, because this son of mine was dead, and is alive again he was lost and is found!' So they began to celebrate. The concept of Jesus as a martyr has recently received greater attention. Analyses of the Gospel passion narratives have led many scholars to conclude that they are martyrdom accounts in terms of genre and style. Several scholars have also concluded that Paul the Apostle understood Jesus' death as martyrdom. In light of such conclusions, some have argued that the Christians of the first few centuries would have interpreted the crucifixion of Jesus as martyrdom. (from Martyr, Wikipedia).

All quotes from Internet articles.