Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
169
with another person presupposes the possibility of ac tions that c an benefit or injure
that other person; but we c annot benefit or injure our c reator over and above our
ac tions in benefitting and injuring our fellow c reatures.
Further, even if, despite this, a benefit solely to God were possible and
required, Swinburne’s unargued assumption that a perfec t human life would
c onst it ut e it is, surely, illogic al. A perfec t life, fulfilling every ‘objec t ive and
subjective duty’, is already, according to Swinburne, owed by all of us to God, and
therefore c ould not c onstitute a reparat ion-plus-penanc e for not having lived a
perfect life in the past. And yet again, even if per impossible it c ould, how would
one single perfec t life, namely that of Jesus, c ount as all human beings having led
perfect lives? Swinburne’s answer at this point is that God was free to accept
whatever God wished as an atonement for human sin. ‘God could,’ he says, ‘have
c hosen to ac c ept one supererogatory ac t of an ordinary man as adequate for the
sins of t he world. Or he c ould have c hosen to ac c ept some angel’s act for this
purpose’ (160). T his is a deeply damaging admission, rendering it t ruly
extraordinary that God should require the agonizing death of God’s Son. For on
Swinburne’s view there was no nec essity for the c ross, suc h as was provided in
their own way by the satisfaction and penal-substitutionary theories. Swinburne is
abandoning the idea of a moral law that c ould only be satisfied by Jesus’ death. For
it was, ac c ording t o him, ent irely wit hin God’s free c hoic e t o est ablish t he
c onditions for human salvat ion. But in that c ase God’s insistenc e on the blood,
sweat, pain and anguish involved in the c ruc ifixion of God’s innoc ent Son now
seems even to cast doubt on the moral character of the deity.
- Swinburne says several times that Jesus openly intended his death as ‘an
offering to God to make expiation in some way for the sins of men’ (122). There is
in fac t no c onsensus among New Testament sc holars as to how Jesus understood
his own death. T o what ext ent did he t hink of it as having religious signific anc e?
T here is a range of possibilit ies. A t heologic ally minima list view is expressed by E.P.
Sanders. He lists it as ‘c onc eivable’ (Sanders 1985, 326) or even ‘possible’ (332) –
in dist inc t ion from ‘probable’ ‘highly probable’, or ‘virt ually c ert ain’ – that Jesus
‘may have given his own deat h a mart yologic al signific anc e’ (326). Acknowledging,
indeed emphasizing, the historic al unc ertainties, he notes that ‘the idea that a
mart yr’s deat h is benefic ial for ot hers and t hat his c ause will be vindic at ed is
attested in Judaism... It is not necessary to assume that Jesus indicated to his
followers that they should think in this way. Once he died, it probably seems
ent irely nat ural t o at t ribut e benefit t o his deat h and look for vindic at ion’ (324-5).
At the other end of the scale is the older view of Joachim Jeremias, developed
in his influential treatment of the last supper. He rec alls t hat a lamb was killed at
t he original passover and its blood smeared, at Jahweh’s c ommand, on the
Israelit es’ doors: ‘As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to
spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing
over” their houses. For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death
sentence again Israel; he said: “I will see the blood of the passover and make
atonement for you”. In the same way the people of God of the End time will be
redeemed by the merits of the passover blood. Jesus describes his death as this
esc hat ologic al passover sac rific e: his vic arious deat h brings int o operat ion t he final
deliverance, the new covenant of God’ (Jeremia s 1965, 226). And Jeremias