With the Webster’s definition of atonement, “the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ,” the question is: Is the reconciliation possible through substitutionay punishment of Jesus instead of me so that God's justice might be satisfied (penal substitution theory)? Or is it through a propitiation of Jesus’ death to placate God’s wrath (propitiation theory)? Or is it through a deliverance from the Satan’s hold because the ransom is paid to Satan (ransom theory or in some sense like Christus Victor model)? Or is it through a moral renewal of believers because Jesus’ death invokes a sacrificial love for all (moral sacrifice theory), which takes serious the historical context of Jesus’ sacrifice as voluntary, costly love? Or is it still through something else? Each view has merit in a certain context but cannot exclude other views. Each view is partial and sometimes could be dangerous in another context. For instance, the merit of penal substitution is to remove guilty feelings and to recover a sense of re-connection with God. So this meaning is valid for an individual who suffers from isolation due to guilt or sins. However, in another context where some are abused wrongly by other people or by unjust systemic evil, the message of penal substitution does not work or could be dangerous to the degree that evils of wrongdoing are not confronted and that even those are condoned because there is no resistant messsage against the evils done. In this case, the typical message is that Jesus died insted of you; Jesus loved you until his death; so endure to the end. But because of this problem, some feminists oppose the positive value of Jesus’ death as an atonement, especially when the discourse of atonement does not resist the evils of killers and their society or any sort of evil system involved. In other words, the cross of Jesus also can be a symbol of victim (unwanted or unnecessary innocent death), which must be avoided rather than to be celebrated. As such, one of the important shifts in modern scholarship lies in a more ethical reading of Jesus' death (the cross), largely by feminists and minority circle. I also critique the one-sided view of atonement in a movie review of the Passion of the Christ because the view of penal substitution theory is conducive to ethical blindness in a specific context of Jesus and today - especially in the context of so much violence and war, what is at stake is to protect life from unnecessary sacrifices or from needless victimization. We need to affirm the value of life from the image of the cross. Why do we not see the evil powers at work in Jesus' time and today? How can we live in the midst of unjust, unwanted, innocent sufferings of so many people? See also my blog item for this line of thought ("Is it fair to Jesus if we apply the significance of his death only to "vicarious, substitutionary death?").

In closing, ethical reading of Christ's crucifixion is also possible in Paul's letters such as 1 Corinthians. Paul’s metaphor of soma christou (Christ’s body) in 1 Corinthians can be understood as a broken, crucified body of Christ, which then can be identified with all forms of broken bodies in the world - especially in a Corinthian context in which people fight for hegemony (for contolling others, bodies of others). (See my book Christ's Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor, Fortress in Fall 2008).

EXCURSUS: JESUS' DEATH IN CONTEXT

In the synoptic gospels Jesus' death is not directly related to the forgiveness of sins of people. Forgiveness of sins happens at their baptisms or by forgiving other people (In the Lord's Prayer: "forgive us as we forgive our debtors"). God forgives people when they repent. John the Baptist and Jesus preached the same message: "repent and the Kingdom of God has come." The kingdom message of John the Baptist and Jesus costed their lives. Jesus' death in the Synoptic Gospels implies costly love or the cost of discipleship. It also implies God's judgment (justice) against violence and injustices. In Paul's letters we find his view of Jesus' death. In Rom 3:25, "God put forward (Jesus) as a hilasterion by his blood." In Hellenistic culture hilasterion means a propitiation, which has to do with appeasing an angry god. In the Hebrew Bible kapporeh is a corresponding word, which means covering and the cover of the ark (mercy seat) on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur (Exod 25:10-22; 37:1-9). What does Paul mean by hilasterion here in Rom 3:25? A propitiation in the sense that Jesus' death appeases an angry God? Or, is Jesus' death like sacrificial victims whose blood are sprinkled on the cover of the ark so that sins of people are covered, and that a proper expiation (rectifying things) is made? Or, does does he mean a mercy seat -- God's holy presence right over there on the cross of Jesus? However, a later theology about Jesus' death is far removed the original historical context. For example, Hebrews presents Jesus' death referred to as the perfect sacrifice that replaces the animal sacrifice of the old covenant. In it Jesus himself is the High Priest, who becomes a new covenant; we see here some kind of supercessionism in which a new covenant replaces the old covenant, which is out of context if we read "a new covenant" in Jer 31:31-34 in a historical, literary context, because a new covenant in Jeremiah is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not for later Christians. But Hebrews re-interprets the so-called "the old in a new context."

Strictly speaking, however, we cannot distinguish between history and theology. The question of "Why was Jesus killed? or Why did Jesus die?" is both a theological and historical question. It must be thus said that ultimately atonement is not a matter of abstract definition but a result of critical engagement both in a historical and theological context. Therefore, theology and history should be critically examined in all aspects of life of Jesus and his world, which involve the diversity of contexts, ancient and modern. In fact, contexts of Jesus do not stay there to be unlocked but invite us as readers to engage them as subjects, asking what Jesus' death means both in history and in theology. By this I mean meaning of atonement should be open-ended and needs a re-construction time and again in diverse contexts.

*SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

Yung Suk Kim, "Jesus' Death in Context," The Living Pulpit Vol 16 No 2 Apr-June 2007.

---------------, Christ's Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008).

Peter Schmiechen, Saving power: theories of atonement and forms of the church, Grand Rapids, Michigan : Eerdmans, 2005.

Stephen Phinlan, Problems with atonement: the origins of, and controversy about, the atonement doctrine, Collegeville, Minn : Liturgical Press, 2005.

Roy E. Gane, Cult and character: purification offerings, Day of Atonement, and theodicy, Winona Lake, Ind : Eisenbrauns, 2005.

Stokl Ben Ezra, The impact of Yom Kippur on early Christianity: the Day of Atonement from second temple Judaism to the fifth century, Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Luke Timothy Johnson, "Rom 3:21-26 and the faith of Jesus," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 Ja 1982, p 77-90.