With this post I would like to invite people to engage in the question of the meaning of the death of Jesus. I have been growing up with a very calvinistic (Jesus died as a ransom for our sins) tradition of Jesus’ death on the cross. In recent years I have questioned more and more this prerequisite I grew up with: The purpose of Jesus’ coming was to die for us. Before I want to make my point I want to say that I myslef see different approaches in the NT about this question. The position I am going to present is not a perfect one. However, and otherwise I wouldn’t post this topic, I believe it is a better one (meaning more biblical one) than the calvinistic (or should I say evangelical) position. It goes as follows:
- God did not send his son with the purpose or aim to die for us.
- Jesus died for our sins, yes, but God did not need the death of his son to forgive sins.
Not to be misunderstood: Yes: Jesus came down on the earth; He lived a just life; the people (both Romans and Jews) cruxified him; He rose from the death; He ascended into heavens. This is the story of Jesus. This is what happened to him. The above two statements I questioned are assumptions, or interpretations of the story of Jesus that I do not find strongly supported in the Bible.
The reason I believe many christians support the idea that God sent his son to die for us is twofold: a. this is what they are told from sunday school on and is portrayed as one of the fundamentals of christianity; and b. is based on the assumption that since God foreknows everything and therefore also Jesus’ death he must somehow also have ordained it.
I would like to start of with a very interesting parable that Jesus himself is telling. If you have a moment, please read the parable at the beginning of Mk.12, the so called ‘parable of the tenants’. Very interesting here is verse 6. Accoring to this verse God did not send his son to death; but was hoping the people would respect him; since he is his son. According to this parable it was not the landlord’s intention that his son wiould be killed, even though this was the risk he took.
This is how I feel most of the NT is in harmony with. God sent his son to reconcile the world to himself. It indeed was a risky enterprise but the intention of his mission was not to die (a dead Messiah also in jewish tradition was not something that was expected), but to live and bring the people of Israel back to their God. I think we misread many passages in the NT. Many verses talk about God ‘giving’ his son. I don’t know exactly why, but we always sweem to read ‘death’ in it. If Jesus gives his life then he gives his life! He might give his death also, but only in so far as his death is part of his life. In John 3.16 for example I can’t see a reference of Jesus death. It talks about his life; not his death. For example. no one really thinks of the death of christians (even though death might be a consequence) when reading Romans 12,1. ‘give life’ or ‘sacrifice’ does not necessarily imply death. (even though it can).
I do not see ‘a law from the Old Testament’ that Jesus had to die for. According to Hebrews is Jesus explicitely NOT a priest in the tradition or accordance with Levi which tribe performed the killing sacraments, but according to Melchisedek, who was before the law was given, and therefore the tradition of sacrifices was started. So all those sacrifices do not really apply to Jesus (in my opinion), neither is he the fullfillment of those.
According to Paul in Romans 5:18 it is the righteousness, and not his death that brought about justification before God.
Also, from the times of Abraham by the latest, it was forbidden to offer human sacrifices to be killed. God could not possibly violate this law by purposely sending his own son to death.
If God is God then he really does not need a human sacrifice (or if you are trinitarian: a sacrifice of himself) to forgive sins. How on on the basis of what other than his souvereignity and mercy in the parable of the lost son in Luke 15 then did the father forgive his son when he asked to come back? Jesus was telling this parable BEFORE his death. How can Paul say that Abraham was justified by his faith? No sacrifice has been offered.
The evangelical view of these things in my opinion dismisses the scandal that took place. They killed Jesus! Hey, they killed Jesus! Evangelicals wake up; they killed Jesus!!!!!!!!!! They killed the only one that was righteous! No, God did not kill him; they did! He came and healed and loved and helped. And they killed him!!!! That is a scandal! They killed a member of God’s family!!! This is unbelievable!! Don’t just accept this as ‘an OT law’ or ‘because they had to’, or because’God sent his son to die’. As if God and the mean Romans / Jews would have collaborated in the murder of Jesus! No!!!! it is a murder and nothing less. And if there was a law that Jesus had to die for it is the law that humans can’t stand rightous people and people that do not compromise and are not corrupt.
And here is the amazing story: Even though we humans killed the son of God; killed a beloved member of God’s family: God’s one and only son; God is not at the end with us. He did not give us up. He uses what has happened against him and his son as a sign of love. as a sign of love that the world has never seen before: The cross is an invite to come and become a son and a daughter of God like the one they killed. To also come to God’s family. And as an eternal sign that God is souvereign and this is really true: he rose Jesus from the death and started the biggest track of humankind: we can all follow Christ towards God. No, this isn’t theology or a new theory besides Calvin. this is just telling of what happened with Jesus and with God. Or you might call it narrative theology; I don’t know.
The inevitability of death
I’m sure you’re right that we tend to over-interpret texts under the influence of dogmatic tradition. The parable of the tenants is perhaps a good example: the landlord sends the son in the hope that the tenants will respect him (Mark 12:6); death is, if you like, only an ‘accidental’ consequence, though I suppose you could argue that the father must have understood the dangers involved.
This raises an interesting question, however. How otherwise might Jesus have been the means by which God reconciled the world to himself? If as a prophet he had had the success that Jonah had at Nineveh and Jerusalem had repented, chosen the narrow path that leads to life, what would have been the outcome? No destruction of the city? Would there still have been an outpouring of the Spirit? Could a restored Israel, with Jesus as king and a reformed Temple system, have become the means by which the world was reconciled to God? It’s not entirely inconceivable, but I have a feeling that the giving of the Spirit to all people of the covenant and the inclusion of Gentiles were fundamentally incompatible with the survival of the system of temple and law. In a sense it was inevitable that Israel would be judged, destroyed, scattered in order for the world to be genuinely reconciled to God. But if that is the case, it was also inevitable that a prophet who so sharply opposed stiff-necked Israel and who proposed so radical an alternative would suffer at the hands of that people. In effect, the tenants were bound to kill the son and bring judgment upon themselves (Mark 12:9) if the landlord was ever to get the fruit of the vineyard.
In any case, don’t these texts strongly suggest that death was foreseen as a consequence of the sending of the Son?
Misleading parables
Hello Paulchen … you raise some interesting points.
But personally I think it is risky to deduce doctrine from parables (unless supported by explicit statements in other passages) because I think the main purpose of parables was to sting people into a response rather than to illumine their cerebral understanding. I don’t think they are meant to correspond with reality in every detail. For example, I do not conclude that God literally abandons his 99 faithful sheep when looking for the lost, nor do I conclude that God is female on the basis of the woman seraching for her lost coin. I tend to derive doctrine from the didactic passages of the Bible, and use the parables instead to hit me emotionally and motivate me.
A few more passages to add to Andrew’s list:
Also, I do not see how Christ’s death could demonstrate God’s love for us unless his death had an objective significance. If my next door neighbour’s house is on fire, I would not be demonstrating love by running into the midst of the flames and risking my own life unless I was trying to rescue someone.
Hi Andrew, HI Phil, thank
Hi Andrew, HI Phil,
thank you very much for your stimulating responses. I would like to answer but unfortunately I need to go and hope to respond later to your very valuable comments.
As I said in my opening statement - I can see different lines or tradidtions in the NT about this question. I do not believe the Bible has to be harmonious here as it is also not in other themes. (but this could be an entire different post altogether that I would suggest). However as mentioned before I still do believe there is grounds not to believe in a God that sent his son with the purpose of dying on the cross for us.
Before I get back to this in more details; I just ask you to respond to the two other points I made in my opening statements how a. God could allow a human sacrife to be made; and b. on which basis God fagave Abraham, the lost son in the parable (sorry Phil, I do think parables have a lot to say about how God relates to us), and all the other saints mentioned in Hebrews 11 as the ‘heros of faith’, wich rightousness was not connected to the blood of Jesus.
Thank you and talk to you all soon,
Paulchen
Postscript
Hi Paul
Regarding your point about God allowing a human sacrifice, I’m not sure if this is relevant but Jesus was not an innocent 3rd party. I do not believe God exacted retribution by sacrificing someone else to atone for sin. The love revealed on the cross is self-sacrifice: God himself became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth (pace Theocrat!) and so God took the sins of the world on himself through his Son. The law-maker, king, and judge voluntarily paid the penalty required by his own law. This trinitarian perspective illuminates the love of God beautifully.
Also, I don’t see why God should necessarily be bound to keep every commandment he expects us to keep.
I am not sure on what basis God forgave Old Testament believers such as Abraham. But perhaps Christ’s death on the cross was efficacious for all believers in the Old Testament era as well as for subsequent believers. God is not limited by time (he inhabits eternity) and therefore Abraham’s sins could conceivably have been atoned for by Christ on the cross even though the crucifixion occurred after Abraham sinned. I can’t prove that idea but it seems feasible to me, and therefore I would not personally use the fact of Abraham’s salvation as evidence that Christ’s death did not accomplish anything objective.
Best wishes … Phil
I am back and I would like
I am back and I would like to respond to your comments.
I would like to say that many of the verses you bring up are valid. I do not want to appear as trying to twist all meanings until they fit my position.
There are two things I would like to say to this: I see different traditions in the Bible about different subjects. It is not by chance that we have pentecostals, evangelicals, catholics, jehova’s wittnesses, southern baptists etc in our midst. Until we understand that within the Bible there actually are different traditions we will ever continue to argue. There are always verses that support our sides, and as long as we believe all the other verses must be in harmony with the ones we follow - I wonder how even heaven will stop us fighting over Bible references. Within the Bible there just are in my view point different traditions.
The second thing I want to say is that I see most verses you quoted in the light of Mk. 12,1-11 especially Mk. 12,10-11:
God turned this scandal, this unbelievable event into the means of his salvation - into the strongest sign of his love and acceptance. So Jesus’ death became the propriation; the ransom, the means of peace or whatever else Christ’s death was ascribed to. But this all happened only in retrospective rather than in looking forward to it.
If nothing else comes out of this discussion I hope to achieve at the least with this post is to question the (in my understanding) unbalanced view of Christ’s work of salvation in his death only. This might be as wrong as to say (and this sentence might even go agains my own viewpoint): salvation was achieved by Jesus’ life only.
Ok, now I want to respond to some comments / verses quoted. (the ones I don’t respond to suport well your point)
Andrew writes:
As mentioned in my previous statement; Paul suggests in Romans 5:18 it is the righteousness, and not his death that brought about justification before God. No death of the Messiah is needed here.
I do not suggest a survival of the system of temple and law as the means carried out for the salvation of the Jews and Gentiles. Hebrews 7,11-18 especially verse 18 makes it clear that Christ as a Priest according Melchisedek and not Levi continues the priestly tradition before the sacrificial tradition started and therefore makes the sacrificial tradition a passing one. The interesting thing here in my opinion is that is done not by fullfilling the sacrificial tradition with a sacrifice of his own, but by being of a different kind of priesthood.
Yes, I agree with you. But my point is that ‘foreseeing’ does not equal ‘ordained’ or ‘planned out’.
As an example I want to remind us of the many missionaries that were sent out by Herrnhut missionaries to black Africa. The missionaries mostly took with them their coffins. Not because their aim or goal or fullfillment of their mission was to die - it was to live and preach the gospel - yet with the (sometimes very likely) risk to suffer an early death.
you quote:the meaning ‘giving his life’ might as well point to his life (in action in justice in finishing the circle of sin and death by rightousness) and therefore provide a ransom for many; rather than thinking of his death. But of course it is also possible that Mark thought of Christ’s death.
again as I said before - the fact that Jesus (and the father) or the prophets knew what was going to happen does not mean it was ordained by God. this is telling the story in the future. it is interesting to see that no theology is laid in Jesus foretelling of his death and resurection. it is merely telling of what was going to happen.
Phil, you wrote:and you write:
I do not believe God required a death penalty of his son. As mentioned above based on Hebrews I don’t think Jesus was the fullfillment of the Levi’s sacrificial tradition. Also, if God is souvereign, and apparently not bound to his own laws or commandements;(even though I think he is by his own choice and example) why can’t he forgive humans freely, based on his mercy and Christ’s rightousness? Do you really believe he needs a sacrifice in order to be able to forgive sins? Is there a secret magic or prohecy that required a death of the Messiah? I do not see that as something that was expected of the Messiah.
God was always known as the One that has the power to forgive sins. Especially by Jews of the first century. I really do not believe he was limited by a sacrifice that had to be offered.
With your comment about the person in fire and comparing that to Christ I fully agree. But this was my point all along. Christ, as to say, is running into the fire to rescue the neighbour in need. He is not running into the fire to be killed (since a dead rescuer does not help the neighbour); yet by rescuing him he took the risk to be killed himslef. This is exactly how I see the sending of Christ into the world as mentioned above.
Proof-texts again!
Hi Paul
I agree with you it is easy to support almost any viewpoint you want by selecting a few isolated proof-texts. Here is one you could use to bolster your position:
Jesus said: "For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth." John 18:37
But here are a few more that contradict your position:
And being found in human form, [Jesus] humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Phil. 2:8 Who was Jesus obeying if it wasn’t God?
At the Last Supper, Jesus said to his disciples: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Mat. 26:28 At that point in time Jesus could have fled to safety in Egypt and avoided crucifixion, but instead he went to his death deliberately and purposefully.
In the garden of Gethsemane, when Peter tried to defend Jesus from being arrested, Jesus said to him: "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?" (John 18:11)
I agree with your comment that foreseeing does not mean ordained, but Acts 2:23 says: "[Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."
I agree with you that the parables can teach us much about the way God relates to us, but I think it is possible to read more into the parables than Jesus intended. For example, at first glance the parable about the rich man and Lazarus seems to be teaching that all poor people will go to Heaven and all rich people will go to Hades, because in the next life we will receive a reversal of our earthly circumstances. "You in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish." Luke 16:25
As an example of God not being bound to keep every law he expects us to keep, "Never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God." Romans 12:19 However, I would agree with you that all of God’s actions are entirely consistent with the moral laws he has commanded us.
My illustration about running into my neighbour’s house if it were on fire is linked to Romans 5:8. "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." I do not see how Christ’s death on the cross can demonstrate God’s love unless his death had a deeper purpose than a mere demonstration. If I risk my life to rescue my neighbour from his burning house, then I would be displaying my love for him. But if I run into a burning house where no-one is trapped, I am just demonstrating my foolishness.
Phil
a question of perspective
Dear Phil,
thank you for your answer. I think the most important reason why people like you and me read something different in a text is the position where we are coming from. Most of the above verses you mentioned above, I actually find quite affirming for my position - but again; this is because I am looking at it from a different angle. But since my angle seems not much looked at; i think it is worth presenting…
I fully agree with you that Jesus was obedient to God and that this obedience to God ment finally his death on the cross. However, having death as the outcome of his obedience again does not prove that this was the intention of his coming. In my view this was the consequence of wicked men dealing with a son of God (as we will see later in acts).
Again: Jesus chose to be fully obedient to God. He decided not to turn the path of his story around by miracelousely asking supernatural help or by running away. He was obedient to God who ‘put him in the hands of wicked sinners’; whatever outcome this will have (he knew it was death; yet based on foreknowledge, not because God was unable to forgive otherwise), he accepted.
Yes, Jesus was handed over even by God’s set purpose. This is what I hold all along. This confirms actually the parable. Jesus ,by God, was handed over to men. (Like in the parable to the tenants of the landlord). What basically happens here is that the Will of God is; whatever the will of the tenants in the parable or here the ‘wicked men’ ist. Without option of going back. without backing out by supernatural power (as suggested by jews at the cruxifiction) or by Peter in Gethsemane and others. Jesus is totally given in the hands of humans. And there will is being done since God and Jesus has willed it so. How else can Peter blaim the crowd in his famous sermon? If it was God’s plan he couldln’t tell them off and blaim them that they killed the Messiah. This wouldn;t make sense. so no; this verse does not work against my viewpoint at all.
As for the validity of the parable in Mk I keep referring to: how else whold you interpret this? also in the light that it is bedded in the very important OT prophecy of the stone that became the cornerstone? Here is not ‘just’ parable as you qualified it before, but also ‘dogma’.
Thanks for interacting with me in this subject, Phil.
He died for sins
Dear Paul
Unlike you, I was not brought up in an evangelical or calvinistic tradition. As an adult, when I first heard the traditional interpretation of Christ’s death, I found it extremely attractive and satisfying. Now, some years later, it is still very fresh and appealing to me. However, I am seriously trying to look at it from your perspective and so I have carefully re-read your original essay. You state that you do believe Christ died for our sins. I would be very interested if you would expand on that statement to explain exactly in what sense you believe he died for our sins. Many thanks … Phil
thank you for sharing with
thank you for sharing with me about your background.
Christ dying for our sins I see in the light of God turning the death of Christ into something most central (the the stone that became the cornerstone). The cross became the means of salvation and the most powerfull statement of God in this world.
However, the Bible also talks about other means of forgiving sins other than the death of Christ. The God of Israel has always been known as a God who can forgive sins and is not bound to a sacrifice. When God has seen faith, obedience and faithful prayer and confession, He was always willing to forgive. In 1.Samuel 15,22 obedience is put over sacrifices, and in Psalm 79,9 the ground on which the intersessor asks forgiveness is on the basis of God’s name, not a sacrifice.
In Mark 1,4 in John the baptist’s ministry it was through the baptism of repentance that served as the means of forgiveness of sins. Mark 1,4
The Jews at the time of Jesus also trusted God that he can forgive sins. This is why they got so alert when Jesus was forgiving sins in the name and authority of God (Mark 2,7 , Luke 7,49 ) It was enough for Jesus to tell someone that their sins were forgiven. So forgiveness here on the basis of his word.
Similar also see even 1 John 2,12: Forgiveness on account of Jesus name.
It is interesting to look at the beginnings of the Church; after Jesus death and resurrection and to see what people were told about Jesus death and forgiveness. Acts is very interesting in this regard.
If you read the account in Acts 2, the first ‘evangelistic’ sermon after Jesus’ death and resurrection ever held; there are some crucial parts that are missing in an evangelical point of view: Jesus death and resurrection is just told as a story and related to Old Testament prophecies; yet the people are being blamed for killing the Christ. No reference to his death as a ransom or such. And when the crowd asks what they should do now, Peter replies in Acts 2,38: Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ..’
Again: baptism and repentance on the basis of His name here is the grounds on which to receive forgiveness of sins
Acts 5,31, Acts 10,43, Acts 13,38, Acts 26,18 are similar references. Nowhere in Acts, therefore in the beginning of the christian church, is the view of Jesus death as the means of forgiveness of sins yet developed.
Saying this I am not suggesting it is wrong or ‘added by the church’ or whatever. I do believe it is part of the ‘cornerstone process’ as mentioned before.
I just beleive this side or tradition within the Bible is just overlooked very much.God is being protrayed as someone who is bound to some kind of law and can’t forgive sins unless someone is sacrificed. Biblical evidence both in the Old and New Testament is just being overlooked or reinterpreted ‘in the light of Christ’s death on the cross’, as they would say.
The fact that God can turn something horrible into something beautiful and amazing doesn’t mean that God has planned the horrible.
To say the verses above and many, many others that God and Jesus have forgiven freely are all referring towards the sacrificial death on the cross in 30 AD is cheap hermeneutics in my understanding.
I hope I could give you an answer and I am looking forward to your input.
What about the Lamb?
Just a quick, off-the-cuff comment. Isn’t it the case that Jesus’ being the ‘lamb of God’ is directly indicative of his being a blood-sacrifice for the general remission of sins? Christ came as the son of God, a priest, a king, and a lamb. He came to share the wisdom of God, lead his people, love, alter church doctrine, and then to die as a direct, lamb-like sacrifice for the sins of humankind (in basic accordance with a system of reconciliation that God Himself had created). Why does it have to be one or the other? If there are, indeed, two or more threads of belief in the bible about why Jesus came, is there any reason that all of those beliefs should be untrue?
It seems like you’re missing out on a few key points of the passages you’re quoting. ‘My blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’ I still do not understand how this is not in equivalency with saying ‘My death is for the forgiveness of sins.’ It seems somewhat convulted to try and make a claim that the death was inevitable but not necessary. I see your approach to this issue as a reaction to the way that churches and preachers have lost emphasis on the life/teachings/purity/etc. of Jesus. I agree with you that the focus on his death and only his death is a wrong focus, since it is only one part of Christ’s perfection. But it IS an important part. His righteousness is important, his death is important. His righteousness is important as an example for us to follow, but it is also necessary within the context of his forgiving death: the best sacrifices were the most pure, and a sacrifice for every sin ever committed had to be the purest kind of all: God tempted yet still living sinlessly in human flessh.
lamb
Dear Brett,
The picture of the lamb is not just used for Jesus, but also for the followers of Jesus. In my humble understanding of biblical terminology ‘lamb’ is used as a picture of ‘pure’, ‘sinless’ and ‘obedient’ and serves therefore as a perfect picture for Christ who encompasses all those adjectives fully. To think of ‘sacrifice’ when thinking of the lamb is again a matter of perspective, that I don’t share.
If you refer to the ‘lamb of God’ in John 1,29 used by John the baptist; it is important to look at the historical context of ‘Yom Kippur’ - in Leviticus 16. John is referring to the ‘scapegoat’ in verse 10 that is send alive in the desert to Asal. So not really a referral to a blood sacrifice here.
To your comment:
‘He came to share the wisdom of God, lead his people, love, alter church doctrine, and then to die as a direct, lamb-like sacrifice for the sins of humankind (in basic accordance with a system of reconciliation that God Himself had created).’
I would like to know to which system of reconciliation you are referring to that Christ as the lamb had to be sacrificed for.
Thank you for your comments.
the last supper and Jesus' death
Brett, I just realized that I have not responded to Jesus words in the last supper that you mentioned. I am not sure to which gospel you are referring, but I take it as for Matthew 26,26-30. It is true that it seems like Jesus refers to his death here. I think he does too to some degree (especially because it is the night before); yet I do believe we get only a partial understanding of this when looking towards his death only. Also; it is a matter of perspective again. It usually doesn’t even cross our mind not to think of Jesus death here. But here I am presenting a different kind of view. I am not saying that this is a better one or one that has no problematic features; but I think the same applies to the traditional view, which might be even more problematic.
First of all: I do not think Jesus’ desciples thought of Jesus death when celebrating this Passoah with their master. All the records we have available confirm that all of them were shocked and suprised when the murder of their master happened. They didn’t expect it
Jesus was indeed celebrating a new coveneant with them. The difference here to most Old Testament covenants: it was celebrated with wine! So in other words you could read it also like this:
‘This is my blood’ like Jesus saying: in the Old Testament covenants were sealed with blood. As the messiah;he takes wine. Wine is the sign of the messiah. this is new. This wine represents the blood in the Old Testament and ‘replaces’ it. This is the ‘blood’ of the new covenant.’ I don’t think this interpretation is twisting around Jesus words more than a traditional interpretation. The difference is whether you look backwards or forwards. I suggest Jesus says the wine represents the blood from the Old Testament - traditional view says the wine represents the blood of the cruxifiction. In any case it is still wine! I think the desciples have thought of the Old Testament, not looking forward to his death. (even though Paul in Corinthians might have thought of the crucifixion).
Also - wine in the NT has always been used to celebrate. (see for example the wedding in cana).
Wine was and is used to affirm common purpose, agreements and aim in some kind of festive setting. To use wine as a representation of Jesus’ murder that was about to happen doesn’t seem fitting to me of what the character of wine was and what it represented otherwise.
Also, in verse 29 Jesus says that he is not going to drink the fruit of the wine until with his desciples in the father’s kingdom. If Jesus is going to repeat this event (othewrwise he wouldn’t have said it in this context) in his father’s kingdom, it a. confirms the character of celebration inherent in this ‘last supper’; b. it points to the understanding that Jesus has not thought of his death with the wine, since there is no reason why he would so with his desciples once in his glory. the emphasis at the second coming of Christ will not be his humbleness and death, but his victory.
Similarily the picture of the bred doesn’t have to point towards Jesus death. In John 6,35 Jesus says ‘I am the bred of Life’. Bred was everything for the people in Palestine. Jesus wants to be everything for his desciples. Also, in John 6,55 Jesus can say ‘For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’.
Apparently it must be possible when eating his flesh and drinking his blood not to think of Christ’s death on the dross; at least in John 6.
so far for now.
Blessings.
Last supper
The point about the last supper and having it again in the kingdom is the reference in Luke Emmaus road when they do have it as part of the resurrection story. So the early Christians are saying that the leadership in what it is doing now is legitimate, which of course is the whole point of the resurrections story anyway - who saw him and in what order, says Paul, and that the resurrection includes Jesus only being recognised when a theological point is made, that is they see it now, followed swiftly by Jesus’ disappearance untio the next one. Or take the story where Thomas is invited to see the wounds, the point being people should have faith as he did not. The stories are about the first of the resurrected, and that the early Christian community is led to understand that he did return, that there are no more such appearances, and all of them have legitimised the leadership, the apostles.
So casually people say, this is what Jesus said, this is what he meant, when the whole thing is a process of writing decades later to a early Christian communities following a leadership that has origins in meeting Jesus at the resurrection. The gospels are resurrection filtered in terms of everything in them, as is the rest of the New Testament. This is faith, by the way, not an event. What is not present is history as any historian would understand it, and actual history of motives and actions of Jesus has to be teased out and is more often than not completely unavailable, leaving us necessarily to focus on the early Christians.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
No problem
I don’t have a problem with you holding your views, Pluralist, but I do have some problems with the rather exclusive way in which they are presented. They are, after all, a point of view - and not everyone who disagrees, and holds to a (broadly) historical view of the gospels, is an ignorant fundamentalist.
I never knew that the Emmaus road story was about the disciples celebrating the eucharist with Jesus in the kingdom of God. (Is that what you mean by saying that it legitimates ‘leadership in what it is doing now’?) I thought it was simply three people taking a meal together - ‘breaking bread’.
I agree that each of the resurrection appearances of Jesus was significant - was there ever an occasion when Jesus is recorded as doing anything which was not in some way theological? But I just don’t think your interpretation of things stands up. There simply wasn’t time for the mythologising of Jesus by the early church to have taken place, in a way that denies the possibility of any historical basis of the things described in the gospels.
Whatever else he was doing, Paul was passing on a tradition of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15), which if it was not based in actual events, undermined the whole basis of belief. He may have been mistaken, or a consummate fraudster, but what he is passing on purports to be historical, not mythical, tradition.
Faith, in this case, is based on reasonable and convincing evidence - much of which Paul presents. It is not a departure from history into the mythical. There were too many people around to cross-question those who had witnessed these ‘events’, and too many who had vested interests in exposing the whole thing as a sham, for the gospels to be an elaborate theological charade.
I think the key to your point of view is your statement that ‘the supernatural is a dead duck’. Again, I wonder what leads you to this conclusion, and how you support it, but if it is held, then the outworking of your interpretation becomes more logical - and God is no more than a figment of our imagination.
Not minuted
>I thought it was simply three people taking a meal together - ‘breaking bread’.<
Of course not. It carries the significance that as the meal would next be taken when the kingdom had arrived, this was a declaration that the kingdom had arrived, or as good as. It isn’t just a meal, it carries significance. As far as I can see, when I read it, it does not look like an event at all. It looks like a series of underlined messages put into dramatic form.
>There simply wasn’t time for the mythologising of Jesus by the early church to have taken place, in a way that denies the possibility of any historical basis of the things described in the gospels.<
Well thirty years is plenty time at the minimum for all sorts of thoughts to take place, and the decades pass afterwards, as well as a whole variety of places and audiences.
It’s not a matter of being fundamentalist, it is realising when something is primarily a theological statement and where the history is in fragments. We don’t even have this kind of accuracy in today’s age of recording and communication, never mind this ancient society where someone said this and then someone said that and then did this. You equally believe what you like, but don’t expect me to think that this is somehow minutes taken at a meeting.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
we are not the experts
it seems like this conversation is going a bit away from the original thread I was intending. Maybe it would be good to start a new thread with the point you actually want to get across.
You seem to know exactly what is historical and what not, and that the NT was written so much later. Don’t you think you put yourself on a quite high position to know better of which texts are original than the people who studied this kind of material 50 or hundred years after the stories have actually happened? It would be like someone claiming in 2000 years from now to know your father better than you do. For example the church father Irenaeus claimed to have been a desciple of the John that has written the gospel of John and confirmed his historicity. You can call him a liar or whatever you want - but at least you should acknowledge the claim he is is making. The same applies to the gospel of Luke, for example. It was set up as a record of what has actually happened. You could argue whether he got all the details right or not - you could even say he made it up intentionally if you want - but you must acknowledge his claim of writing a historical record. And to say you know it better 2000 years after Luke, John or Irenaeus themselves; you might need just a bit more reason or evidence than you seem to have, I feel.
But anyway - if you would like to discuss things like this; I invite you to start a new thread.
take care,
Paul
what is the point?
hi all. in order to frame my central comment, i must say that i think that the platform this site offers for meaningful and diverse conversation around emergence is fantastic, but i find myself questioning why some people continue to engage others on this board.
with regards to this thread, i’m thinking about yourself, Pluralist. in a previous post about the line of David, you state: "No I do not believe in a God that Jesus believed in, one to bring in the Kingdom of God very soon. Not at all, he was wrong. I think God is a human invention."
i’m not suggesting that this discussion occur in a homogenized vacuum. however we surely have to take certain basic beliefs to be the foundation of the emergent conversation, such as "God exists" and "Jesus was not in error". Pluralist describes himself as a buddhist humanist christian who sees God as a human invention.
i think we need to be careful in how far we allow threads to drift from the core issue, especially when the person leading the thread away from the central issue doesn’t even believe in the existence of an almighty God.
i am confused as to why a self-confessed atheist who believes Jesus was mistaken would spend so much time putting copy together for this board. maybe there exists an underlying agenda that we we need to be aware of.
Boundaries
So people are drawing boundaries. For your information, though it may not matter, I treat the eucharist seriously and participate in it, I make time to attend services - why would I do this? I have an MA in Theology, a PhD in Sociology (of religion) too, if this is relevant. There is no agenda other than to contribute from time to time to a reasonably intelligent discussion area (that is to say not purely academic). Perhaps I ought to stick to Surefish and leave some of you in peace. Are you frightened of theology?
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
frightened of theology?
Pluralist, i hardly think people here are frightened of theology - quite the opposite in fact. to me the conversation seems quite vigorous and dynamic. like a lot of people on this site, you raise some interesting points that are generally given a fair hearing. however i think u need to appreciate the fact that unlike yourself, the vast majority of people active on this site accept the existence of God. a buddhist discussion board would only give me a certain amount of consideration as a theist. as an atheist contributing to a christian board, i think people are generally engaging you in a meaningful and respectful manner and that it’s unrealistic of you to expect more than you’re getting. by all means take part but remember the nature of the board, namely a bunch of christians - not atheists - wrestling with what it means to be relevant as a christian and as the church, in a post-modern world.
No position
I don’t put myself in any position at all, nor am I proposing any originality for what I have said. I can’t help what certain people in the past claimed - there are claims all the way down Christianity’s history for the authenticity of texts and relics. There are techniques recently and now that do allow for getting behind the claims and making intelligent comments about sources. If this is difficult for some people, imposing modern views about authenticity and sources, well so be it. We have a better understanding of historiography, and it matters.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
History, legend, the gospels and the resurrection
I enjoy your contributions, Pluralist, more particularly the issues you raise. I would hate to think that you have fled from the frying pan of fundamentalist persecution on surefish, only to land in the fire of post modern intransigence on opensourcetheology.
Your comments on modern historical method would not only throw into doubt the historicity of the gospels, but most ancient history, and the methods of ancient historians. Herodotus arranged events to suit his theory that history reflects the outworking of human jealousy and greed. Thucydides applied a doctrine of necessity to historical interpretation. Much the same could be said about Livy, Josephus, Caesar, Tacitus, Suetonius. And of course, the gospels. It is not that these historians were trying to falsify history, or were unaware of the difference between legend and fact. They were perhaps more aware than we are that all history involves selection, and reflects the point of view of the writer.
This does not mean that ancient history is unreliable, any more then modern history. But we should be aware that something like an Enlightenment myth operates in modern history, that only now is the distinction between subjects and objects being understood. Post Enlightenment history is projecting its own myth onto history.
Just to combine a response to two posts in one: I think you are confusing, in 1 Corinthians 15, what Paul says about the resurrection of Christ (past) with the resurrection of believers (future). There is nothing contradictory about the phrase ‘spiritual body’ as Paul uses it; it distinguishes this kind of body from the ‘perishable’ body, described in some detail in 1 Corinthians 15:42-50, ‘spiritual’ being the adjectival form of the word used to denote the Holy Spirit.
Think outside the box
Why does Jesus have to be saving us from Sins (as defined by transgressions against God). Why can’t he be saving us from Sins (as defined by that which hinders a healthy relationship with God). Why did he have to run into the burning building? because you can’t yell SAVE YOURSELF! from outside of a building. The Jews during his life were so trapped in their own burning building that subjected them to oppression, guilt, and unjust hierarchical standards. Jesus went in and saved them from their own self inflicted fires. He offers the same redemption. Whatever burning building we are sitting in facing spiritual death, he offers to pull you out, put you on a stretcher and give you eternal life. And he does it all without God requiring his beloved son to die so that you can be saved. He does it by showing you that he will die for you, that his body was nothing and his spirit lives on and you could have that too.
Mind of Jesus
It always baffles me when people speculate on why Jesus died on the corss. Seeing as we do not know what planning went into the period prior to arrest (which is open to speculation, not all of it welcome to Christian beliefs), seeing as the trial story involving the sanhedrin is almost certainly wrong, seeing that we do not know what state his mind was in (a clue is Gethsemane, but this is arguably a place to run away from, as some might well have done), how on earth can this question be answered? He was not stoned, so there was no religious offence, nor should there have been, and the story regarding Pilate not wanting to do it is a nonsense of his over involvement in what would have been to him a trivial killing. People write that Jesuswent to the cross for love, which is no reason for the authorities to actually do the deed (it was not a form of suicide - was it?), and the whole theology relies on a type of authority that kills perceived nuisance makers.
So questions include, did Jesus deliberately put himself in harms way? Did Jesus use Judas in the planning or was he really a betrayer (for those with a supernatural bent, did God use Judas while Jesus was unaware!)? In other words, did Jesus expect the big event of the Kingdom of God to come in and set about making his personal sacrifice, all to no avail?
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
Yes
Yes, I agree that a new thread would be useful, but I suspect that the discussion might need to include some better informed knowledge of the influence of theology over the last 100 years or so.
We have already talked about Barth - with his reaction against historical criticism, and his attempt to take theology out of the historical realm into the transcendent world of revelation.
We would also need to add the huge influence of Bultmann - who denied any possibility of access to the historical Jesus, and the traces of whose thought I see in Pluralist’s contributions. But his position has been considerably modified by his followers.
Then there is the influence of linguistic and literary critical philosophy on theology - again apparent in Pluralist’s comments. We might move on to the ‘Jesus seminar’ - which seems to be a resurrection of older historical methods - but with the new twist of grading the statements of the gospels according to their historical probability.
And on and on. But Pluralist’s position (if one could be so definite as to call it that), is that the supernatural does not exist; the resurrection is a myth (and the narrative of the gospels likewise), and therefore the crucifixion of Jesus does not sensibly lend itself to any theological interpretation.
And that is a logical conclusion to come to - one with which Paul would be in agreement - "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith … If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men… . And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." 1 Corinthians 15:14,17,19.
With no resurrection of Christ, then we are totally free to submerge Christian faith into a linguistic phenomenon. We can harmonise the faith with other religions, and pick and choose at will which aspects of it we will keep, and which we will reject. It would all come down to subjective interpretation.
If there was a literal resurrection of Christ, as Paul asserts, and clearly argues for, (and which Jews would have understood as such), then the next step is to look at the meaning of his death, and the purpose of his life. Once you start down this road, all kinds of theological issues begin to come together.
In this respect the work of Tom Wright is so important - in pressing for an understanding of the Christian faith which is essentially based on the historical narrative of God’s dealings with Israel, and the fulfilment of their story. It is important because it also addresses issues which have gripped theology since World War Two, and places itself in a line of theology as it has developed since the 19th century - not ignoring the positions of theological giants who have been so influential in shaping the form of our belief, and dare I say it, of Pluralist’s intriguing perspectives on faith of all kinds as well.
No he doesn't
Paul does not assert a literal version of resurrection. You perhaps misunderstand him as well as me. He asserts a spiritual body (we might quip that it is like a square circle) and he puts it into the context of authority. His view of resurrection is tied up with the general resurrection and the rapid coming of the Kingdom, so if the resurrection is not happening (he says to those who find it not of their belief) then none of it can be so, in other words the Christ belief is tied up with the whole package as he takes the Jewish belief into a universal belief of that rapid coming of the kingdom.
Tom Wright isn’t the only theologian around, you know! You also (partly) misunderstand my position which is one that particpates in the Christian story, but not in a world view that has simply gone by, that being the supernatural. It is not essential for participation in the exchange rituals of Christianity or the meanings of the tradition.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
Literal and non-literal
I don’t see how the distinction between literal and non-literal comes into it. It is a modern idea to make resurrection a metaphor for something else. Paul makes a distinction between a physical body and a psuchikon body, but the critical point is that resurrection constitutes a victory over death and a continuity of the person beyond death: ‘it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body’ (1 Cor. 15:44). The fact that it is a ‘spiritual body’ does not mean that resurrection is not literal: it gave the believers at Corinth sufficient grounds to face the fear of death.
I agree that his view of resurrection is tied up with the ‘rapid coming of the Kingdom’, but as I’ve said elsewhere, that expectation needs to be interpreted against a background of Jewish apocalypticism - and on that basis I think it was entirely realistic to expect the kingdom to come soon. I think it did come soon.
I also don’t honestly understand how with integrity you can claim to participate in the Christian story while denying the element that makes it essentially ‘Christian’. The story of Christ is fundamentally and irreducibly the story of one who out of loyalty to the God of Israel suffered at the hands of Israel’s enemies, including the enemies within, and who was vindicated through resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of God. Without the hope of resurrection, as Paul insists (1 Cor. 15:17), the claim to be Christian is entirely pointless, futile.
Totus Christus
I don’t know if you’ve come across David Bosch’s Transforming Mission, but he makes the same point as part of a comprehensive overview of the historic understandings of salvation. It’s very, very dense academic prose, but it’s really worth slogging though:
A plague on all three of your houses! Thus… (the money quote):
Of course, Bosch is looking at salvation from a missionary perspective. But then, is there any other way to look at it?
Totus Christus in context
I still think Christ is important (despite Bible college...)
I appreciate the point that we need to look to the whole context of what God has been doing with and through His people and continues to do. But that cannot be the center of our understanding of salvation - or at least, my understanding. I can’t speak for yours. :)
So for me, I am not interested in retelling universalized myths; I am not an anthropologist, I am a Christian missionary, and so I am interested in the person and work of Christ. That has to be the centre of my theology, and from that vantage point I can look out onto the history of God’s mission. And yes, I see a broad sweep of salvation throughout that history, but it both starts and ends in Christ (Col 1:15-20).
To turn your thoughts around; I don’t think that "Christ’s story was an integral part of a larger story about the people of God" - I think the story of the people of God is part of a larger story about Christ.
Re: Forgiveness requires death?
I’ve only just read this post and comments, so I might be wrong, but there has not been a single comment that I can see that tries to address what seems to be paulchen’s fundamental argument: forgiveness does not require death.
It is an ethical question, not a question of proof texts. What would you think of me if when ever someone sinned against me I required a human sacrifice? God prohibits this, legislating the maximum penalty that I should seek as being an “eye for and eye”. Jesus goes further and requires that we forgive others freely. Does Jesus expect a higher level of holyness from us than he expects of God?
God is supreme; there is no law that he must obey. We know that he does limit himself to make room for the universe and especially for our free will. But why would he limit himself arbitrarily to no longer be able to forgive without killing someone. Does this sound like an ethical god?
Does anyone have an answer at all to this key question that the post raised. Proof texts about what Jesus death meant or resorting to some universal law (explanations I used to be fed and even believed in the ol’ days) just don’t cut it for me anymore. From my point of view, proving that God is immoral with proof texts mocks the Bible, and subjecting God to a deeper law mocks God.
Re: Forgiveness requires death?
There is so much that could be said in response to richard’s comment - but it shows, to me, why trinitarianism is a necessity in understanding the atonement. At the heart of the crucifixion of Jesus is identification - God taking all the fractures of the universe into himself, in order to reverse the fractures that we and our forebears introduced into the universe. At the heart of God’s motives is an act of self-denial on behalf of others that has never been nor ever will be equalled. Biblically, this is expressed through the language and narrative of covenant, election and law-court. These themes come together in Isaiah 53. Forgiveness is never without cost; forgiveness without any respect for the consequences of sin, on a personal and global level, is licence to sin.
Re: Forgiveness requires death?
Thanks for your response Peter. From the ethical argument, I’m not actually concerned about the Trinity or not. My question is why people think that he painted himself into the corner of having to punish in the first place.
According to classic atonement theory as far as I understand it, God’s original requirement was that we die for our sins. Even if you change this to the idea that God required of himself some sort of “corporal mortification” (eg. Opus Dei) so that he could atone for our sins, I still don’t see how this make it eithical.
I agree that forgiveness is never without cost, as in my own experience it takes a lot of work to give up the anger and then try to restore the relationship and undo the consequences of the original transgression. In Biblical terminology this is called redemption. Redemption is self evidently necessary following on from the definition of sin that something has been damaged, at the minimum a damaged relationship. Redemption is hard work and requires the creativity, sometimes even devine creativity, in order to be achieved. This is by no means licence to sin and is in line with the eternally creative character of God. By comparison, simply killing either the sinner or a subtitutionary sacrifice is the easy way out, not something that I see God usually resorting to.
To restate my question, I do not see how human death or corporal mortification (choose your poison) is similarly self evidently necessary. I also can not accept that there is a “law-court” beyond God that requires it. The only other option I can see is that God chose to require it. On the face of it, this seems to be an immoral choice on the part of God, and I don’t see how it makes the universe a better place. Trinitarianism or otherwise does not change this.
I am not saying that this perspective “disproves” atonement theory, simply that I have not seen an explanation that adequately answers the ethical implications the theory.
Re: Forgiveness requires death?
p.s. I can see how your perspective incorporates redemption, but I don’t see how the original punishment requirement helps God to “reverse the fractures”. … or I may not be understanding atonement theory :-).
Re: Forgiveness requires death?
Richard - on one level, I’m not sure the death of Jesus on the cross did reflect a punishment requirement - at least, not in the rather simplistic sense in which we tend to frame it. I think the death of Jesus throws dust in all of our eyes when we try to explain it in a cool, logical way. But I do think that through his death, Jesus was entering into our death, and also entering into our sin, and the combined weight of all the sin and suffering of the world throughout history, in order to emerge from it as a new man, on our behalf. Perhaps what we need not to forget (as if we could!) is that death is a universal reality, and biblically, death and sin are part of the same reality. Another question to ask, then, is why do we die, and is it fair for this to be the fate mankind has in common? Maybe this gives us a pointer, in a purely objective sense, as to the what sin is, and its nature. Likewise the death of Jesus, and the nature of that death, gives me an insight into what sin is like, and what it does. A trinitarian understanding of God is the beginning of an understanding of what God was doing in the death of Jesus, as it removes us from the punitive logic of God exacting retribution on an innocent victim. God was the victim. Having said all this, I still believe that the bible frames the death of Jesus in some sense in a punitive way: justice does need to be satisfied when laws are broken - even when the perpetrator, on a personal level, is forgiven by the offended party. All of this is framed, in the bible, in a way that is peculiar to the narrative and history of Israel, and their characteristic thought forms and terms of reference - which includes the law court, as they would perceive and practise it.
Re: Forgiveness requires death?
Wow - lots of new issues to discuss!
I know this isn’t quite what you said, but I feel comfortable with the idea of God taking responsibility for the sin and death in the world by entering into it through Jesus. After all, the creator is always responsibile for the pain that his creation causes. As the creator and continuing omnipotent Lord of the universe, he is at least complicit in all pain and suffering that has been experienced in the world. I have heard some pseudo-legal arguments why this is not so, but you already know what I think of laws that supposedly transcend God. This means that He is also responsible for all the love and creativity in the universe, and I guess that is the point. He knows he is responsible for the good, so he also has to take responsibility for the bad, experience the full evil of what he has created, and then work to redeem that evil. Do you think this is compatable with what you said?
I think I disagree with the idea that death is necessarily accompanied by sin. I fact, without death I think that the creativity that God initiated would grind to a halt as all the things that cannot die use up all available space, both physical and mental (meme space). The creativity of God’s people would atrophy as new creation becomes more and more difficult, eventually beyond the resources of beings not capable of creation Ex Nihilo.
We already see this happening when originally creative institutions turn into the well trodden path that prevents God’s new seeds from finding a soft, safe place to germinate (Matthew 13:4). Those institutions define one pattern of God’s creation so precisely that they can no longer accomodate anything new. In the extreme, some end up doing the work of the “evil one” (Matthew 13:19) and try to take away the new patterns of God’s creation before anyone even understands it (see the huge amount of anti-emergent-church rhetoric, and we don’t even know what the emergent church is yet!). Often old institutions need to wither or die before the new can take root.
So is it fair that we die? If we are trapped within our ego, we seperate ourselves from our role in the continuing creation of God’s kingdom on earth. However, if we are one with each other, Jesus, and the Father, everything that happens after we pass the baton on to the next generation of God’s people is a continuing reality that we are part of. The next generation will (hopefully!) find new ways of being God’s people that we would not be able to realise. So I believe that our death is simply in the pattern of God’s creation.
The fact that death is painful does not make it evil, just like a painful birth does not make that evil. In fact they are simply different sides of the same coin. The pain of Jesus death was also the birth pains of God’s grand new pattern. The pain of letting go of the old is necessary to accept the new. Parents experience this pain as their children grow up, and then again as they die to make room for their grandchildren to take their place in the world. Ideally, old institutions would foster the development of the new, even though they may eventually replace the old.
Sin on the other hand is just death or destruction without the purpose of further creation. Jesus not only experienced the pain of death required for new creation, but also the senseless evil present in this world. The majesty of God is that even this evil can be coopted into the creation of new good in the resurrection of Jesus and the redemption of the world.
I know that Biblical writers tried to understand this dynamic in terms of law and justice, but it just doesn’t explain what happened in the gospels or fit into with what we now understand to be the dynamics of creation. I have also heard the idea that we can forgive people their debts emotionally or personally while still requiring that they pay their debts, but personally I don’t think this type of theology mirrors Jesus understanding of radical forgiveness or any modern conceptions of God’s nature. No offense meant, that’s just how I see it.
In summary, continuing creation requires death which is inevitably painful. In Jesus, we can understand God as having entered into the pain of creation, taking full responsibility for his creation, even the evil that is part of it. In doing so he transformed the pain of that evil into the birth pains of something glorious and new.
All of this is just some ideas. I am not a theologian or anything fancy, but how does this sound to you?
Re: Forgiveness requires death?
I think, probably, this is where we part company, richard. By identifying with us in our death (and sin), I was not arguing that God is making himself complicit in it. On the contrary, I was arguing that it was the greatest act of self-denial there has ever been: God never had any part in what our forefathers chose to do in turning against him, and what we continue to do today. The discussion is also beginning to take a turn which sounds to me foreign to the bible. Sin and death are biblically connected: the one is the consequence of the other. This is as true in Genesis 2-3 as it is when Paul makes the connection explicit in Romans 5. There have been previous discussions on this site about God being responsible for the pain and suffering which the world has endured, and also responsible for our sin by the very act of creating us with sinful potential. When I hear this line of logic, I begin to wonder how much pain and anger there is in those who pursue it. I think God can handle our anger, even with him; but a false image of who he is becomes the means of perpetuating pain, not receiving healing for it.
Re: Forgiveness requires death? - God takes responsibility
I’m sorry you feel that way Peter. I appreciate the discussion we have had. I was not meaning to offend in anything that I have said, I am playing with ideas. As I said, I am not a theologian, so some of my ideas may have more dire consequences that you are aware of that I am not. If you will humour me for a couple more comments, I will attempt to show that I am not a looney tunes or a prowling liberal (with no offense intended to anyone in those groups :-) ).
On a biographical note, I have as much pain as any Western White middle-class male who was raised in a loving home and who now has an adoring wife and cute kids. Yes very painful things have happened to me, but I am embarrased to even call it pain compared to what most other people in the world suffer.
I have no intent to blame God for anything in my life. I do not believe that it is possible to saddle God with legal responsibility for what happens to me - it is a meaningless exercise. I also do not claim that any of my pain exceeds that which would be morally defensible from the perspective of an omniscient observer. However, I regard it as almost tautological that he has causal responsibility for all of my pain in the same way that my own earthly father has causal responsibility for my pain. If either of them had decided that I shouldn’t exist I would have had no pain. I am glad that neither of them made that choice.
Now both my earthly father and heavenly father are even more responsible than that. My earthly father let me learn to walk. As a result I pulled a cup of boiling water on my self while pulling myself to standing using a tablecloth. I have no intention of blaming the resulting pain on my father - I am now quite good at walking without the aid of tablecloths! All during my childhood my father let me experience pain and in fact encouraged me into activities in which he knew I would experience greater amounts of unnecessary pain - I played sport as a child. Both my fathers were complicit in allowing that ball to hit my nose! My father is responsible for all that pain, not in a legal sense, not in a morally indefensible sense, but in a causal sense. He could have chosen to spare me much of that pain, but I am glad he didn’t. My heavenly Father is likewise responsible for all of that pain.
I think a key component in the amount of pain that my father was comfortable exposing me to was the amount of pain that he himself experienced as he grew up. He could identify with my pain because he had felt it. He can identify with the goal of turning me into an adult because that is what he was. He now identifies to some extent with my successes and failures as an adult because I am to a some degree the result of his decisions in raising me. If I had turned into a criminal he would not be legally responsible or morally responsible, but he would likely accept some causal responsibility for that.
I believe that this can be a useful way of understanding God’s suffering in Jesus. He accepted responsibility for his entire creation - the good and the bad - just as a loving parent should. He experienced the reality of what it is like to live in a world of pain and evil and a world of love and creativity. He judged that the pain suffers is worth it, not from an abstract point of view but from the perspective of an immanent God who has experienced all that pain. I hope that I, in a very limited way, can do the same for my children.
On the last point I think we definitely agree. God goes even further and redeems not just the necessary pain but also the evil. Against the wishes of the evil one(s), every evil action is accepted by God and twisted into something that produces even more good. This is something that my earthly father is not able to do. It is God’s infinite redeeming ability that makes me awestruck at the magnitude of his greatness.
I find it difficult to talk about pain because I myself have suffered so little. But I can not accept that God knowingly allowed my little pain but had no part in allowing others’ tragedies. I can understand that there are people furious at God for allowing their great pain, but I don’t think we should defend God from it. He accepted that responsibility when he created us and reaffirmed that commitment to us through Jesus. He feels their pain and accepts it into himself. He feels their anger and accepts that too. He is big enough to take it all until such time as he is able to redeem it.
Re: Forgiveness requires death? - Death is not always from sin
I understand that in the United States many Evangelicals are Young Earth Creationalists. From what I understand, a major reason for this is ‘no physical death before sin’ theology. I do not wish to offend anyone who holds with this theology, but many Evangelicals around the world (and even in the United States http://www.reasons.org/ ) are quite comfortable with Old Earth Creationalism. My proposition that the death of stars, plants, and animals pre-existed human sin is not considered heretical by most Christians I know, even Evangelicals. In fact the whole universe seems to be marvelously designed around the pattern of birth and death.
I would like to go further and propose that it is possible for human death to occur without sin. The first command to Adam and Eve was to procreate (Genesis 1:28). We live in a finite universe. For that procreation to continue (Genesis 2:24 seems to suggest an ongoing pattern), some people would have to die to make room.
In this way we are encouraged to follow God’s example. God limited himself so that we could exist. Likewise, we are expected to limit ourselves so that other human beings can exist. Eventually that self-limiting requires our deaths. It would be wrong for someone to try to be like God and live forever (Genesis 3:22). However, our physical deaths would never be real deaths as God always intended that he would raise people from the dead to be with him. Numerous passages make it clear that the death that was the result of eating the fruit was the second, spiritual death.
I am not saying that you should accept my proposal - it is only a proposal. However, I hope you can see that it was developed with respect of the Bible and is at least as defendable as many other theological positions.
I try to base all my thinking on the character of God as I see it presented in the Bible. I don’t mind that whoever wrote the creation account (I believe it to be an ancient account, maybe written less than 1000 years after the flood) had a slightly (we are debating minor points) different understanding than I have 3-4000 years later. What is more, I find it astounding how much Genesis 1 describes what we now know to be the pattern of development of all organisms from their original fertilised egg - separation and differentiation. I don’t understand how the author could have known this. I have discovered that the first 4 days of creation are an eerily accurate account of the early development of a human foetus. I haven’t figured out exactly how day 5 fits in (if it does at all).
I hope these last two posts demonstrate that I have said nothing even approaching heretical. I am not expecting that we will always agree, but I hope that we can continue to cooperate on developing this open source theology, even if initially our language sounds quite different.
Re: Forgiveness requires death? - Death is not always from sin
It’s OK Steve! I’m not offended by anything you have said. I agree, in a global kind of sense, God has taken responsibility for the redemption of his universe. Even before Adam & Eve sinned, the rescue plan had been conceived, according to my reading of the bible. Perhaps I have a different view from you on what God did through Jesus on the cross.
I’m also not troubled by speculation on ‘death’ - again, there was quite a discussion about this between two scientists on this site ages ago. My understanding of the meaning of death is that it is judicial, but also merciful: God places limits on the damage that can be done through those who disobey him - sin not being static, but active and incremental in a person’s life. At the end of the day though, I’m an apologist for God. I long to defend his character - not least from theologians (not yourself) who depict him in a poor light through debased forms of theology.
Re: Forgiveness requires death?
Peter, I agree with most you said in this comment. Jesus touching human kind in all areas of their life (except sin) is very strong. Jesus became one with us in joy, sorrow, suffering, disappointment; even death. In a way he ‘redeemed’ our very