Was Jesus God?
God is the Omnipotent Creator. For Him, creation is effortless.
Yet how could God reside in a womb for nine months?
How could God nurse at a breast?
How could God undergo circumcision?
How could God be crucified?
Was the crucifixion truly a process of atonement for sin?
Let us examine this and reflect for a moment:
When viewed solely through the lens of "historical narrative + Roman law," it does not appear to be a "process of atonement for sin."
It appears to be: _a standard political execution_. A Jewish prisoner who claimed to be "King" → was arrested → tried → crucified. That was all. This was what Roman soldiers and the general public witnessed at the time.
The concept of "atonement for sin" emerged from the _theological interpretation_ attributed by the disciples of Jesus _after_ the event. The distinction is as follows:
1. From the perspective of the Romans and contemporaries
They did not consider "atonement for sin" at all. What they observed:
1. _The Charge_: Claiming kingship in opposition to Caesar → sedition
2. _The Punishment_: Crucifixion, a penalty reserved for slaves and insurrectionists
3. _The Purpose_: Deterrence. The inscription INRI was displayed to intimidate anyone who might oppose Rome.
Thus, had one been a citizen of Jerusalem in 33 AD observing from a distance, the conclusion would likely have been: "Another false prophet or rebel has been executed by Rome. This is commonplace."
*2. From the perspective of Jesus' disciples and the early Church*
The significance only became apparent after the Resurrection. They then connected several key points:
1. _The statements of Jesus Himself_: Matthew 20:28 _“The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”_ Mark 10:45 contains the same declaration. Thus, He had already indicated the purpose of His mission prior to the crucifixion.
2. _The Old Testament_: The prophet Isaiah, 700 years earlier, described "the Suffering Servant" in Isaiah 53:5 _“But He was pierced for our transgressions... and by His wounds we are healed.”_ The disciples perceived this as a fulfillment in Jesus.
3. _The Passover Lamb typology_: Jewish tradition required the sacrifice of a lamb at Passover to atone for sins for one year. Jesus was crucified during Passover. John the Baptist explicitly identified Jesus as: _“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”_ John 1:29.
Therefore, "atonement for sin" is a theological interpretation. The historical event remained the same: crucifixion. However, its meaning was articulated retrospectively, following the discovery of the empty tomb.
3. A simple analogy:
Consider an individual who jumps onto railway tracks to save a child and is subsequently struck and killed by a train.
_From the perspective of bystanders at the station_: "A person has tragically died after being hit by a train. It was a reckless act."
_From the perspective of the child and their family_: "That person was a hero. He sacrificed his life so that I might live."
The event is singular, but its meaning differs radically depending on perspective.
Honest Conclusion:
1. _Historical fact_: Jesus was crucified by Roman authorities on charges of sedition. There is no record of Roman officials describing it as "atonement for sin."
2. _Christian theological meaning_: The crucifixion is understood as both a "political event" and a "divine act of sacrifice." The crucifixion was enacted by Rome, but according to Christian belief, its purpose was ordained by God.
This is why Islam states in QS 4:157 _“and they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but was made to resemble him to them.”_ From an Islamic perspective, God would not allow His prophet to die in such a humiliating manner. In contrast, Christianity asserts that this very "humiliation of the cross" was integral to the plan of atonement.[another]
The perceived contradiction arises because Roman law had no concept of "atonement for sin." Correct. This is a theological term that originated with the followers of Jesus, not within Pilate's tribunal.
