SFS 4: The Paradox of the Passion

Heim's point in chapter 4 is that the gospels witness to the saving power of the cross and that it is a tragedy that shouldn't happen.

Heim tackles objections to the cross' prominence in Christian theology. He offers a critique for those troubled by the cross' violence. Let me put it bluntly: "Good. You should be troubled by its violence." Wanting to leave out the cross says more about the person than it does about the cross. It shows the desire to avert our eyes from the victim.

Heim also addresses the similarity between the story of Jesus of Nazareth and early myths. Because Heim believes that behind the myths of dying and rising gods were actual deaths of real people, he asserts the historicity of Jesus all the more. However, it is the visibility of the victimization of Jesus that gives the insight that the other myths are not myths at all--they are the mythologized account of real victims. The cross--the scapegoating of God himself--is what unmasks all scapegoat myths for what they are.

Heim puts the story of Jesus into the rubric of the scapegoat mechanism. Is there turmoil in the city? Check. Does Jesus have something to set him apart (i.e., "illegitimate birth", Galilean, powerful?)? Check. Does Jesus get accused of rabblerousing and blasphemy? Check. Do all eventually withdraw, condemn, abandon? Check. Heim concludes that Jesus' death has scapegoating written all over it. What is the difference? Like the magician showing you all the stuff that makes it seem magic, we get shown the mechanism that is taking Jesus down. We see it as scapegoating--an innocent victim being condemned by the crowd. And all form part of the crowd. Further, the words of Jesus, especially from Ps. 22, form scapegoat words--the innocent crying out to God. "Father forgive them!" The world is crushing Jesus and he needs vindication and in its midst he cries forgiveness.

The scapegoat mechanism is visible for the participants, too. The killers want peace in the city--the Jews don't want the Romans coming down on them; even Herod and Pilate become friends b/c of this death (Lk 23:12). We see the positive effects that scapegoating has.

Resurrection, however, vindicates the scapegoat. The voice of the Psalmist, of Job, and of Jesus has been heard by God. The tomb is emptied. Matthew records that many tombs were opened (previous scapegoats?). In this light, the fear that grips the disciples (the women at the end of Mark, the disciples locked in a room, etc.) makes perfect sense: If Jesus hasn't taken the brunt, then the disciples will have to. They are next in line to take the hit. If Jesus isn't dead, then someone else will have to die. This leads to Heim's final point: The defeat of scapegoating. The benefit achieved by the cross is that it unveils the violence that leads to peace. God does not accept the peace established by a grave, but establishes that no stones need be cast in the first place.