-
Website
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/06/02/behold-the-man-the-passion-as-coronation/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
thanks for writing this and helping me to clear this up.
1. But what if those claims of Jesus as YHWH tell us less about Jesus than they do about the true nature of YHWH?...what if these are, like so much else about Jesus, actually inversions?
And what if there is no difference because, in fact, there is no difference in their nature? I'm a bit leery about using creedal statements to argue finer points of theology, hinging as they do on human description, but Hebrews 1:3 comes to mind and I'm wondering how much distinction we can make between Jesus' and YHWH's respective "natures." Beyond that linquistic quibble, I'm not sure I understand the import of what you're trying to say. What significance are you seeing?
2. meaning that we love our enemy not simply because God has forgiven us (when we were still enemies) but because, in the Cross, God has already forgiven our enemies? Do we dare go that far?
Are we going as far as universalism? If not, what does it mean for God to have already forgiven our enemies? What is the nature of that forgiveness?
3. That the passion is not something that obfuscated Jesus’ true identity but unveiled God’s? It would mean that the resurrection, ascension, and cosmic reign of Christ are not something from which the passion is a tragic but necessary detour, but are instead a way of affirming the Cross, and the Way of the Cross, as the realpolitik of the Gospel
This I can get behind. I don't know of any orthodox Christian author, be it of the first century or the twenty-first, that has described the Passion as either an unnecessary detour or an obfuscation, but its importance has certainly been downplayed. And in that sense, I suppose the de facto interpretation is indeed that it was unnecessary or perhaps merely for show.
Thank you for your questions, especially because they assume that my post was worth a critical re-reading, and that is humbling.
On point #1, the both/and assumption of "what if there is no difference" is probably the more balanced. What I'm trying to sit with, however, is not so much direct ontological speculation but the meaning of certain christological claims. In my experience, we seem to focus on what these claims are saying about Jesus, coming of course to the conclusion that he was God. We then interpret Jesus' reign, lordship, return in judgment, etc., in light of our conception of God. In most cases, this seems to mean that Jesus is ultimately going to have to open up a can of eschatological whoop-ass.
The reversal I'm suggesting is that we ponder ways in which those claims of Jesus are at least as much claims of the nature of God, meaning that maybe we should interpret Jesus' reign, lordship, and judgment in light of what is revealed in the Cross. That, scandalously, this should mitigate what we can expect God to do for us -- or, more specifically, to our enemies (who may not be literal enemies so much as those we are certain should get theirs in the end, whatever end that might be).
For #2, I have to confess I'm not interested in speculations about our postmortem fate. What I'm interested in is the ethical implication of believing that God has already forgiven anyone with whom we have to deal.
I'm out of time for the moment, so I'll come back to this.
Ted
What this might mean is that not only is taking up the sword against an enemy (or using coercive means to secure even the noblest of ends) is not only preemptive of God's right to judge, but possibly a blasphemous denial of a judgment already rendered (which none of us deserved). That's not the only way to skin that cat, but it's one that I've been pondering. And of course it raises some of the more conventional soteriological questions about heaven and hell and whatnot. How others sort that out is probably different than how I deal with it, but I'm not sure that is the important thing.
For #3, let me affirm that you get the gist of it. Nobody I know is explicitly suggesting that the Cross didn't really matter, or that it was really only necessary to get to the good stuff of resurrection, but there's an implicit tendency toward this in the way evangelicalism (which is my background and thus my favorite imaginary sparring partner) has narrated the death, burial, and resurrection. The cross is often necessary in a way that presupposes a kind of magical thinking or a mechanistic universe in which God, for one reason or another, had to push the "sacrifice Jesus" button on the cosmic vending machine so that "redemption of souls" could pop down the chute. The resurrection then becomes this sort of "oh, just kidding" reversal of the tragedy of the Cross, rather than the affirmation of the Cross's incarnational inversion of triumph.
Thanks for the thoughts,
Ted
I get you - our preconceptions about who/what God is end up forcing a (false) reappraisal of Christ's words, mission and identity when we see things from the top-down perspective. We have to let Christ inform of us of who He is, most especially in His Passion, and let that force a true reappraisal of our conception of God. Gone is the whoop-ass god that may want us to be meek and mild for now, but who will gleefully slay all our enemies in the eschaton. I echo Michael's curiosity about what you would do with the imagery of Revelation. Can you give us a bit more of Weaver's perspective?
For #2, I have to confess I'm not interested in speculations about our postmortem fate. What I'm interested in is the ethical implication of believing that God has already forgiven anyone with whom we have to deal.
I agree that the ethical implications would be significant. But an obvious question is does this ethical imperative have a basis in fact? Has God actually forgiven everyone we come in contact with? A good reply might be, of course, who cares? Is the Gospel lived out precisely in treating everyone, neighbor and enemy alike, as if they were already in the Kingdom?
The cross is often necessary in a way that presupposes a kind of magical thinking or a mechanistic universe in which God, for one reason or another, had to push the "sacrifice Jesus" button on the cosmic vending machine so that "redemption of souls" could pop down the chute. The resurrection then becomes this sort of "oh, just kidding" reversal of the tragedy of the Cross, rather than the affirmation of the Cross's incarnational inversion of triumph.
Indeed, modern evangelicalism has tended to make the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world' into an ironic description of the militant Christ of the Rapture.
Suffice it to say that I don't see the imagery in Revelation as something to be explained away, but rather as language that desperately needs to be seen in context, and I think the context in question is a subversion of typical triumphalistic expectations that were prevalent at the time. Jesus was crucified, but Christians claimed him as a risen king. Believers were persecuted, but Christians claimed this as participation in that reign. Christians were (not exclusively, but largely) slaves and women and the poor and the unwell, but they claimed to be rich in every way, not marginalized but central to God's work in history -- including Gentiles! This is crazy talk, and that crazy talk is the heart of our faith. To de-invert that context in order to support present-day triumphalism is a tragic distortion of the text.
I agree that the ethical implications would be significant. But an obvious question is does this ethical imperative have a basis in fact? Has God actually forgiven everyone we come in contact with?
Without sounding hopelessly "postmodern", I don't think this sort of thing is knowable as "fact". What we have are interpretations, ways of telling the story. I'm playing around with what it means to tell the story a certain way. At the end of the day, it may be that the difference between assuming God's judgment to be eschatologically (and, it would seem, perpetually) deferred and assuming such judgment to have already been rendered in some way is academic in the sense that either way, we are called to forgo our claim to render judgment -- it's a basically a call to spit out that damn fruit and stop pretending to the knowledge of good and evil. Basically, the ethics of Jesus is a way for us to recuse ourselves of such knowledge and live beyond the fall.
What I'm after is a way to avoid the implication that ultimately God is not nonviolent, but more like a just-war thinker. Now, I have a lot of respect for just-war thinkers over against typical evangelical hawkishness, but my problem with just-war thinking is that it holds in reserve the possibility that "this time", violence might be okay, which pretty much guarantees there will always be a "this time". To be polemical about it, it is a position that doesn't really believe in the Resurrection. That seems a curious position to put God in.
Is the Gospel lived out precisely in treating everyone, neighbor and enemy alike, as if they were already in the Kingdom?
I think the "as if" is really important, not to quibble, because not everyone has willingly placed themselves under the non-coercive lordship of Christ (which participates in the same). So it's maybe not a formulation I would use but it could be a great way to think about hospitality. We give to the needy person which is to give to Christ. We welcome the stranger as Christ. We embrace the enemy as Christ. And we do this because Christ always already stands in for the Other, becomes the Other, is the Other.
I'm trying to put myself more and more in the shoes of those who believe differently than I do and bring a different hermeneutic to their faith and to the Scriptures. So I'm going to ask a question that I think many in this "other" group could be pondering:
Ted, what do you do with the imagery of Jesus in Revelation in light of your understanding of Jesus' nature as revealed in the Cross? Doesn't Revelation's language tend towards a Mark Driscoll, "Jesus is strong and will eventually crush those who turn their backs on him," interpretation?
In sum, cribbing from Weaver and others without holding them responsible, I think Revelation is part and parcel of the same reversal or inversion; to put it bluntly, these things mean something different when applied to a dead guy (a resurrected and ascended dead guy, sure, but we're not talking "mostly dead" here, and again I want us to sit with that). Not incidentally is it the lamb who is worthy to open the scroll.
You are hitting here on a very salient point. Was Jesus' life an example for us to follow? Did he actually live the Spirit filled life that he intends for us? This view makes the martyrdom of the defenseless Christians make sense as a reasonable service, walking in obedience to His teachings in humility. Many accounts of this are recorded in the book "The Martyrs Mirror" and is available on line at: www.homecomers.org/mirror.
The thief feels entitled to what he takes. When we give to him what he didn't ask for, we place him in our debt -a debt of love. To balance the social debt, the thief must repay in kindness.
Sunday we'll be spending a lot of time in prayer...lets spend a good chunk of time praying for your family.
Peace to you & yours
In this, the very nature of Deity is revealed in the cruciform life of Jesus Christ. The Cross is the location of God's self-poured-outed-ness; it is where God proclaims in absolute fullness what God is like.
Jesus means that the entire Trinitarian Life of God is one of kenosis: the Father pours Himself out as He begets His Son, the Son pours Himself out to the Father through His devotion to Him, and the Spirit is poured out reciprocally. The Father offers Himself to us through the sending of His Son, the Son in being offered to us, offers Himself back to God, and the Spirit is offered--poured out--upon all flesh on Pentecost. Giving, pouring, offering--Grace.
"That the christological scandal is not that we crucified God but that we claim as God the one whom we crucified? That the passion is not something that obfuscated Jesus’ true identity but unveiled God’s?"
I really like the view that the passion is the central unveiling of God's identity. We can see it beautifully expressed in this article, as well as in the writings of Moltmann/Bonhoeffer/Barth/etc., and you're absolutely right that we have, over the years, obscured this by viewing the passion as a detour to Left Behind style interpretations of Revelation.
I have to say, though, that in affirming this as the Truth, we don't have to negate the fact that Jesus is the crucified God, in addition to a man that shows us what God looks like. I get the idea that you would agree with this, but feel free to disagree.
On another note, I love the janitor comments. I spent most of college as a night shift janitor. Theology from the mop closet was a book I wanted to write...