There's a post at America magazine's blog about the new missal translation, The Impending Liturgical ' Reform' Re-Visited, that mentions the replacement of the phrase, 'Jesus' blood is shed "for you and for all [men]"' with the proposed "for you and for many". But I don't want to discuss the translation change of "all" to "many" but instead want to discuss why the idea of Jesus' blood being shed in atonement is so taken for granted at all (a round-up of various atonement theories, the idea that Jesus had to die to reconcile we sinners with God, can be found here).
Before I became a Christian, one of the things that most put me off was atonement theory, and even now it still bothers me. What makes the most sense to me would be the idea that Jesus was incarnated to show us, through teaching and example, what God is really like, that he realized over time that his preaching and actions would probably get him killed, and though he didn't want to die he persevered with his teaching and actions anyway, out of integrity and love.
Before you start gathering kindling for my stake :) let me post a bit from an article I've mentioned before, The Incarnation: God's Gift of Love by Ken Overberg SJ ....
[...] What was the purpose of Jesus' life? Or simply, why Jesus?
The answer most frequently handed on in everyday religion emphasizes redemption. This view returns to the creation story and sees in Adam and Eve's sin a fundamental alienation from God, a separation so profound that God must intervene to overcome it. The Incarnation, the Word becoming flesh, is considered God's action to right this original wrong.
How did this view develop? Just as we do when we face tragedy, especially innocent suffering, so the early followers of Jesus tried to make sense of his horrible death. They asked: Why? They sought insight from their Jewish practices like Temple sacrifices and from their Scriptures. Certain rites and passages (the suffering servant in Isaiah, psalms of lament, wisdom literature on the suffering righteous person) seemed to fit the terrible end of Jesus' life and so offered an answer to the why question. Understandably, these powerful images colored the entire story, including the meaning of Jesus' birth and life.
Throughout the centuries, Christian theology and piety have developed these interpretations of Jesus' execution. At times God has even been described as demanding Jesus' suffering and death as a means of atonement—to satisfy and appease an angry God.
An interpretation that highlights the Incarnation stands beside this dominant view with its emphasis on sin. The alternate view is also expressed in Scripture and tradition. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the Word made flesh has remained something of a "minority report," rarely gaining the same recognition and influence as the atonement view.
What, briefly, is the heart of this alternate interpretation? It holds that the whole purpose of creation is for the Incarnation, God's sharing of life and love in an unique and definitive way. God becoming human is not an afterthought, an event to make up for original sin and human sinfulness. Incarnation is God's first thought, the original design for all creation. The purpose of Jesus' life is the fulfillment of God's eternal longing to become human ........
One of those mentioned in the above article was Franciscan John Duns Scotus. I have to like Duns Scotus, if only because Radical Orthodoxy so dislikes him :). Here's an article on him and the Incarnation - Duns Scotus and the meaning of Love by Seamus Mulholland OFM, and here below is a bit from an article from Christianity Today about Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, and atonement - Ongoing Incarnation by Philip Yancey ....
More than two centuries before the Reformation, a theological debate broke out that pitted theologian Thomas Aquinas against an upstart from Britain, John Duns Scotus. In essence, the debate circled around the question, "Would Christmas have occurred if humanity had not sinned?"
Whereas Aquinas viewed the Incarnation as God's remedy for a fallen planet, his contemporary saw much more at stake. For Duns Scotus, the Word becoming flesh as described in the prologue to John's Gospel must surely represent the Creator's primary design, not some kind of afterthought or Plan B. Aquinas pointed to passages emphasizing the Cross as God's redemptive response to a broken relationship. Duns Scotus cited passages from Ephesians and Colossians on the cosmic Christ, in whom all things have their origin, hold together, and move toward consummation.
Did Jesus visit this planet as an accommodation to human failure or as the center point of all creation? Duns Scotus and his school suggested that Incarnation was the underlying motive for Creation, not merely a correction to it. Perhaps God spun off this vast universe for the singular purpose of sharing life and love, intending all along to join its very substance. "Eternity is in love with the inventions of time," wrote the poet William Blake.
Ultimately the church decided that both approaches had biblical support and could be accepted as orthodox. Though most theologians tended to follow Aquinas, in recent years prominent Catholics such as Karl Rahner have taken a closer look at Duns Scotus .....
In trying to read more about Duns Scotus and atonement, though, i found references to acceptance atonement, and I have to admit that I don't really understand exactly where Duns Scotus is on Incarnation/atonement. Must do more reading on this.
