Today’s blog has been contributed by Robert Lawson
René Girard’s “Scapegoat” theory is based on his study of human behaviour rather than being derived from a theological framework. In taking this approach he offers a new way of looking at the atonement. The concept of Mimesis which means imitation, is central to Girard’s work.
The anthropological observation that Girard makes is that mimesis is fundamental to human behavior. Human beings are creatures who imitate. Through Mimesis our thoughts and desires are intertwined with the thoughts and desires of another person. Mimesis doesn’t necessarily lead to conflict but more often than not, conflict is a byproduct. You can see this when two children want to play with the same toy, even though there may be many other toys to choose from.
Mimesis leads to rivalry and if allowed to go unchecked will result in violence. The theological implication that Girard derives is that violence is not Gods way. If we desire to mimic someone it should be Jesus who demonstrates that we can escape the contagion of desire if we desire the will of God just as he does. Jesus in his radical day to day living and his death on the cross shows that we can undo this cycle of violence and its associated web of desire. By doing this. Jesus exposes the destructive cycles of violence and breaks that cycle, which is not part of God’s plan for creation.
To avoid society from disintegrating into oblivion through violence, Girard argues that a scapegoat is sought to appease the crowd and thus bring peace to the community. So he suggests that Jesus was a scapegoat. The difference between Jesus and other scapegoats is that He was innocent. God incarnate appeared in history as the innocent victim who went to his death as the scapegoat. God responds to our (collective) violence with nonviolent love. Jesus recognized that he was a scapegoat, but for the sake of the world rather than a sacrifice to appease God.
This theory is very much in contrast to the participation, representation and substitution models of atonement. Girard’s theory hasn’t achieved the recognition that it warrants.
Rev Robert Lawson is a contemplative NSM (Non Stipendiary Minister) in the Church of Ireland Diocese of Dublin
Lenten Blog 
I agree that this perspective has much to commend it and deserves more attention. However, its use of the scapegoat metaphor may be disingenuous given that this Old Testament practice is never directly applied to Christ and his death in the New Testament… Mind you, lack of direct Biblical warrant never stopped the satisfaction theory…
Given that Jesus saw the Old Testament as pointing to him, and his work on the cross (Luke 24:44-46), and given that the ‘scapegoat’ is depicted as bearing the sin, guilt and punishment of the people, I would have thought that it is right to associate Lev. 16 with calvery – though not in the way that Girard does.
Paul Ritchie.
We always look for a scapegoat when things go wrong whether its in the office to unite a group against the manager /colleague or or as political struggle within a country. When considered in this context we are all players in the crucifixion.
@ Paul why is it legitimate to pick and choose metaphors from the Old Testament without explicit NT warrant and then put brakes on how they may be applied? The Biblical understanding of the scapegoat exhibited by Girard is unimpeachable (as is his understanding of human nature)… most critiques of it are based on the fact that a) Jesus nor any other NT writer applies it to Jesus’ death, and/or b) he uncouples it from the sacrificial element of Lev. 16… Yet those who often use the sacrificial element of Lev 16 do exactly the same in uncoupling it from the scapegoat function, or at best misunderstanding this… because the scapegoat is not sacrificed, it is released into the wilderness… if there is a sacrificial element then it is a sacrifice to a demon resident in the deserts… and who (with the exception of Origen) wants to get into the wacky world of Jesus’ death being a deal with the devil?
It is true that the ‘scapegoat’ is not sacrificed, but nevertheless there is present in this idea the idea of both penalty for sin and the role of a substitute.
@ Paul – Yes there is the idea of the role of substitute but only from a human perspective but not from God.
Old Testament event foreshadows New Testament event.
Old Testament New Testament
scapegoat Barabas
sin offering Jesus
Aaron Pilate
Old. The scapegoat carried the sins of the people into the wilderness. New. Barabas was set free.
Old. The sin offering was slain. New. Jesus was crucified. Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin.