He's the PASCHAL, PASSOVER Lamb, Not the Scapegoat or Blood Sacrifice Goat
Over a year ago, I read Robin Meyer's book, Why the Christian Right is Wrong. I was immediately a fan. Then, I was pleased to hear he had written a new book, Saving Jesus From the Church: How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus. Based on the earlier book and the recommendation of a friend, I recommended it to a Sunday School class without having read it.
I just recently started reading it. Through the Prologue and Chapters 1-2, I was still a fan. Of course, there were some piddly things that I took issue with in this and the earlier book, but by-and-large, I thought it was great.
There are some important parts of Chapter 3, however, that I take real issue with that I have to discuss before moving on.
Meyers writes on page 62, "Mark's permanent appropriation of the symbolism of Passover and its connection with the death of Jesus changed the course of human history - and our understanding of what the death of Jesus ended up meaning to all Christendom." He then goes on to espouse that Jesus, as the Paschal lamb is the scapegoat and the blood sacrifice offered in the Temple on the Day of Atonement.
First, we have to remember that Passover and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) are two different holidays in the Jewish tradition. Passover takes place in the spring in remembrance of the Exodus, and Yom Kippur takes place in the fall to symbolize repentance and forgiveness.
Notice, Passover is in remembrance of the Exodus. Let's think about this. Moses did NOT come into Egypt and tell the Israelites, "The reason you are in slavery is because you are so sinful." No, simply, God heard their cry and sent Moses to be the spokesperson to guide them out of Egypt.
Likewise, the lamb was not slain because the Israelites were sinful. It was slain for them to EAT! Why? They are leaving on a long journey the next day, leaving Egypt. Note Exodus 12:11, "This is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it hurriedly." They are dressed for traveling! They need protein!
What about the blood sprinkled on the doorposts? The text says nothing about sin (see Exodus 12). It is simply a sign that those who inhabit the house trust God. They are saying, "By doing this, we signify that we are one of Yours, God! We trust that you will take care of us!"
It is important to realize that Mark NEVER equates Jesus with a lamb, Passover (Paschal) or otherwise. We only see that explicit connection of Jesus being the Paschal lamb in 1 Corinthians 5:7 and the Gospel of John (see John 1:29, 36; 19:31-36). John has Jesus crucified after noon (when Passover lambs are slaughtered), and after his death, his legs are not broken - one of the mandates about the Passover lamb (see Exodus 12:46). It is interesting in considering John's use of Jesus as the Passover lamb to read John 6:53-58 where we are commanded to eat the flesh and drink the blood. Why? We need nourishment for the journey of an abundant life!
Okay, so Mark does not say Jesus is the Passover lamb, and the Passover lamb has nothing to do with sin. Does Mark equate Jesus with the scapegoat or the blood sacrificial goat?
No. Two books, as we saw above, equate Jesus with Passover lambs. Acts 8:32, 1 Peter 1:19, and Revelation in many places equates Jesus with a lamb. NEVER is Jesus equated with a goat, and there is a distinction between the two. Consider the parable of the sheep and goats of Matthew 25:31-46.
We also have to realize that Mark just is not all that concerned with "sin," "sins," the "sinful," or "sinners." In this sixteen chapter book, these terms are only found in the following passages:
- Mark 1:4-5 (talking about John's baptism for the forgiveness of sins);
- Mark 2:5, 7, 9-10 (the healing story of the paralytic where Jesus forgives simply by saying it);
- Mark 2:15-17 (Jesus is eating with sinners, not the "righteous")
- Mark 3:28-29 (talking of the only unforgivable sin);
- Mark 8:38 (Jesus will be ashamed of those who are ashamed of him in this "adulterous and sinful generation"); and
- Mark 14:41 (Jesus is betrayed into the hands of sinners).
Okay, but what about Mark 10:45? When it says that Jesus is “to give his life a ransom for many,” is this not supporting the traditional idea of atonement – that Jesus had to die for the forgiveness of sins? I do not think so. Let us look at what this word, ransom, means.
Typically we try to define ransom as “an offering for sin.” However, I do not think this is a correct interpretation. Note what Markan expert, Morna Hooker says on pages 248-249 of her 1991 book, The Gospel According to Saint Mark:
The noun ransom (λύτφον) and the cognate verb ‘to redeem’ (λυτφόω) are both used in the LXX [Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible] to describe a variety of transactions – e.g. the payment of money given to free a slave (Lev. 25.47-55, where the Hebrew root is g-‘-l), or the sacrifice offered in place of the first-born (Exod. 13.13-16, where the root is p-d-h). . . . The preposition for (άντί) can have a variety of meanings, according to the context. If ransom were here understood to be a substitutionary sacrifice, then it would mean ‘instead of’, but it is important not to read back into this saying ideas which belong to later centuries, and if the noun has the more general sense of ‘redemption’ suggested above, then the preposition will mean ‘for the sake of’ or ‘on behalf of’.I argue that Jesus gives his life, according to Mark, "for the sake of others" or "on behalf of others" to set an example for discipleship.
Consider Mark 8:27-38: Jesus says that being the Messiah means getting oneself killed. BUT, he goes on to say that if you want to be a true disciple, you must be willing to deny yourself and take up your cross and follow him! In the first century, the cross had one meaning - execution. Jesus says we should be so committed to the gospel that we are willing to die for it!
Remember the cup of the covenant at the last supper? In Mark, this was not for the forgiveness of sin. What is it for? We have to consider how Mark uses "cup" elsewhere in the Gospel:
- Right after the last supper, Jesus goes to the Garden to pray "that the cup might pass from him," but he willingly drinks it - going to his death.
- In Mark 10:35-45, James and John ask to sit at Jesus' left and right when he comes into his glory. Jesus asks if they can drink the same cup as him. They say they can, and Jesus affirms that they will.
There is no doubt that people have misinterpreted the gospel of Mark (and other passages of the New Testament) over the centuries, as I would argue Meyers is doing. We have to remember, though, as Marcus Borg reminds us in his book Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time (pages 128-129) (as do John Dominic Crossan and Walter Wink elsewhere) that the theory of substitutionary atonement does not become dominant until 1079CE when Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, publishes his book, Cur Deus Homo? We cannot and should not read this theology back into the gospel of Mark, because Mark never had it.