Sin Management, Incarnation & Mission
5 Sep 2006
As I start resesarching for a teaching series on the environment and stewardship, I’ve begun with some thoughts on Cosmology and Cosmongy. How is God connected to his creation, and humanity and what does it mean within that to grow and engage with God and his purposes.
The incarnation is the culmination our Trinitarian God’s work in the world, through his two hands, of the Son and the Spirit. The incarnation is the ultimate identification with God’s creation, wherein Jesus is the second Adam, fully human and fully divine (1 Cor. 15:22, 45-48).
Christ is the second Adam who brings creation and humanity back on track and reconnects us to God. Salvation is about becoming more human in God’s image, participating in the creation project as an ecological and ethical reconnectional mission.
Sin management becomes not about being divine, but about being fully human, and overcoming the effects, power, and patterns of sin through dependence on the Holy Spirit.
Many christians when asked how did Christ overcome sin, think Christ did so through His divinity (when I get to teach any christology and soteriology I regulary ask students this).
But what is He overcame sin, instead, through total reliance on the Holy Spirit working in and through His life to connect God and the world. The created order with its goodness, and human nature, and flesh is essential to salvation and redemption, not something to escape from.
Christ demonstrated what being human can be and how to live authentically. Christians with God affirm and engage the world within mission as gardeners in a creation project.
Heaven is not “pie in the sky†after death; but is the present creation that longs and groans (Rom. 8:19-25), and will be perfected by the Holy Spirit with believers’ participation. Instead of a perfect creation that fell and should be abandoned Christians can understand that God’s creation is good and has the potential to become better.
Tagged: Cosmology, Creation, Ecology, Incarntation, Key-Posts, Sin, Soteriology, Theology
79 comments
Trackback
Comment by ZooMuse
7.59 pm on 5 Sep 2006
I was just reading an article by a woman named Elaine Stedman, whose husband, Ray, understood our emerging ‘conversations’ back in the 50s and 60s. She writes:
NEW-COVENANT LIVING
The body of Christ receives its nurture from the indwelling life of Christ, from communion with him so intimate that Jesus described it as eating his body and drinking his blood. We cannot edify one another unless we first partake of him. Then from that resource we can impart to one another the essence of his life. The issue is character. The source is the Lord Jesus Christ himself. This is New Covenant living at its core. This is “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27), his character expressed through his people, a shared glory. The energy of that indwelling life of Christ will propel us into serving others as acts of worship and gratitude to him for his gracious provision of life and truth and love. Metabolizing his unconditional love, we have resource for loving others. Freed by his forgiving grace and mercy, we are motivated and empowered to forgive others.
Secure in the knowledge that we are not our own, but bought with an incalculable price, we know whose we are, who we are, and why we are here. It is that secure identity, that source of unquenchable joy, that makes all of life sacramental. His body was broken, his blood poured out for us. Now in him, through him, to him we “offer [our] bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God” (Romans 12:1), a poured-out doxology of praise and worship to Christ Jesus, “in [whom] we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).
Comment by dh
7.59 pm on 5 Sep 2006
I guess I see the world as fallen by sin. I see: “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” I also see that Jesus couldn’t have been able to overcome sin without being fully God. We are called to perfection not because we can be perfect. We are called to perfection to “be all that we can be” which we all know is by Faith in Christ alone. Ecologically we are called to take care of the world out of obedience not for the “world to be perfect”. We overcome sin by having a relationship with Christ who is divine (this is mentioned in that some say we can be divine and that is just not the case). When I see Paul mentioning “overcoming the flesh” I don’t see the flesh as being good. That can only be done by Faith in Christ alone. We must not forget that heaven is after death but that we also need to be obedient on this earth toward Christ. To not mention or react wrongly to heaven after death just because of “overexposure” have people miss out on the encouragement that Paul mentionswith regard to the future Kingdom “encourage each other with these words”. It seems strange that many aren’t “encouraged by these words” of Christs return and theheaven that awaits those who Believe. This that we await for doesn’t not distract from our responsibilities here on earth. To project that “heaven” distracts from our responsibilities is an overgeneralization. No one says that it should distract. It should be100% balance of looking to the future and look at our responsibilites now. If you look current without the future you aren’t being properly encouraged or understand fully what God has for us as Believers and if you look future without current responsibilities you are being disobedient to Christ. To reject oneor the other is totally wrong in light of Scripture.
Comment by Helen
9.48 pm on 5 Sep 2006
Interesting thoughts, Jason.
But what if He overcame sin, instead, through total reliance on the Holy Spirit working in and through His life to connect God and the world?
Then (in my opinion) it’s much easier to see his life as a role model for my life. It’s much easier to relate to his humanity.
I’ve often wondered something which I think is related:
What if Jesus gave up ALL his divine power when on earth so everything miraculous he did was through the power of the Holy Spirit rather than through some retained divine power? THEN that would make him remarkably like me.
Comment by dh
10.14 pm on 5 Sep 2006
I don’t believe he gave up His divinity. That is very Gnostic thing to believe. I Believestrongly that He was 100% divine AND 100% human. The trinity was never seperate. I think we make a wrong assumption based on His divinity that He can’t be a role model becuase he was 100% both divine and human. This question appears to deny God on earth when in fact Jesus was fully God and fully human.
Comment by ZooMuse
10.49 pm on 5 Sep 2006
First of all, Paul’s point in Philippians 2 is that Jesus did not ‘give up his deity’ as though he stopped being God. Jesus freely set aside his divine attributes and took on humanity. At that time he became what he had never been prior to the incarnation: fully God and fully man. He chose, freely, not to use his divine powers during his earthly ministry. Otherwise, he becomes something like Superman, facing things as a man until something really hard comes along, then pulling off his humanity to reveal his super powers. No, Jesus faced everything as human, fully dependent on and obedient to God.
Also, as the second Adam, Jesus lived life on the same basis as the first Adam, as man given the opportunity to love God, trust him and depend on him for all things. If Jesus did not face life on the same basis as Adam (though without sin), then he violates the typology/analogy of Genesis and Romans. Adam had the opportunity to trust God fully, something he was unable to do. Jesus came to fulfill the Adamic role, allowing us now –in Him — to participate, by grace through faith, in his victory and righteous life. In Christ, we have the chance now to fulfill the mandate and draw on the provision given Adam in the garden, to care for the earth and to walk in fellowship with the Father in the cool of the afternoon!
We can never be perfect, even as the world will never be perfect until Jesus returns. However, we do have the opportunity, as John says in 1 John 3:3, to purify ourselves–in the likeness of Jesus’ purity, a positive purity maintained by his unrelenting focus on God.
Comment by Helen
11.52 pm on 5 Sep 2006
Just to be clear, I didn’t mean Jesus gave up his divinity.
Only that perhaps he gave up the ability to exercise divine power otherwise than through reliance on the Holy Spirit.
The gospels indicate he gave up omniscience. Obviously he gave up omnipresence.
I was just speculating about through what means he did miracles. That’s all.
Comment by Sherri
3.20 am on 6 Sep 2006
Sin management = more about becoming more fully human vs. divine! Women desperately need this theological perspective. Women often feel doubly cursed, as human – as female human! I want the H. S. to take me new places with this. Embracing God most creative creation … human and the possibility of progressing toward a perfect union again with God through His Son, empowered by Lady Wisdom.
Comment by ZooMuse
8.43 am on 6 Sep 2006
To the extent I am able, as a human male, I sympathize with the perspective Sherri expresses and rejoice with her as she embraces the potential to progress towards perfect union with God through Jesus. Jesus provides us with the paradigm for living: a human fully dependent the indwelling Holy Spirit. Sherri (and every female in whom Jesus dwells:’Christ in me, the hope of Glory’) has the privilege of demonstrating what Jesus would have ‘looked like’ had he come as a woman. Two passages come to mind, both in Paul’s foundational teaching on the New Covenant: ‘We all…are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory….’ ‘We have this treasure in earthern vessels that the surpasing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves…so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body’ (2Co 3:18; 4:7,10).
Comment by Graham Stacey
8.47 am on 6 Sep 2006
I wonder how we think of sin? Sin management sounds quite functional to me, even when tied to the idea of dependance on the Holy Spirit.
For me sin is primarily in the relational category. Not just that I sin when I hurt someone, but that I only hurt someone because of the broken relationship I have with them. This is difficult to grasp particularly because we have never expereinced perfect, or perhaps better described as creation, relationship. Even in the face of Jesus, who had a creation relationship with us, he did not expereince the same in return.
Understanding sin relationally helps me to see how Adam’s sin becomes an issue for me and why his sin affects the created order.
Sin management becomes more like disease management and living becomes more like growing in Wisdom for that task.
I think.
Comment by ZooMuse
8.55 am on 6 Sep 2006
I amwondering where you (Jason) got the term ’sin management.’ it is one that Dallas Willard uses in The Divine Conspiracy, though in a different manner. His usage points to the debate in (American) evangelicalism over the issue of ‘LORDSHIP SALVATION,’ i.e., can one be saved if Jesus is not clearly the Lord of their lives. Willard’s point is that those who debate this point are only interested in Sin Management, i.e., how can I know if I am going to heaven, i.e., ‘have I managed my own sin problem that keeps me from heaven? Willard rightly points out that this, in fact, is not the question they should be asking. Rather, the question is: ‘How can I become and express fully that I truly am a disciple of Jesus?’
Comment by Paul
10.03 am on 6 Sep 2006
Got me thinking, thanks Jase.
Has made me reflect that to me, Christ is the creator (all thing made?), the completer/perfector (all things find their place) but also via the incarnation the inhabiter of creation. I think Christ demonstrates a respect for creation to teach us and a respect for the rythms/seasons of creation – all of creation testifies to the work of the Creator. In term then the mission of a Christian would be to join Christ in tending/serving creation (a la the commission to Adam & Eve) by being inhabiters of creation and being tools to perfect it as much as we are perfected by Christ.
Part of me of course screams what about humanity – are we raising creation about the needs of humankind – how can we care for humanity with all its needs and creation? That of course is what happens in separating the humanity/divinity – by focussing on one I loose something of the other – in other words I focus on human needs and creation is ripe for picking, I focus on the divine and creation doesn’t matter as I’m shipping out to heaven (or a new creation :). The difficulty comes in keeping my balance on this most profound yet complex of tightropes, constantly leaning one way then t’other as I try and maintain my balance e.g., I am part of creation (the divine) but called to be a steward of it (human).
Your thoughts on Christ relying 100% on the holy spirit do make sense in terms of viewing his humanity, but it does also raise some questions in me:
- If Christ is a human who relies 100% on the holy spirit does that mean that the rest of the humanity can also do this?
- Does this mean I need to revisit my own connection with the HS and say ok I don’t like being down around 10% what about the other 90%?
- What enabled Christ to do this?
- What about doctrines like original sin – if Christ is a human relying on the HS how did he manage to do this 100% from birth?
- Was it partly because he was created by the Spirit, just like I might look more like my father than my mother?
- But how does that it turn reconcile with the idea of being fully human and fully divine?
- Maybe in some way Christ’s divinity was limited/shielded by his humanity in other words he is God but God in human form with limited 5 senses, mortality etc – does that make the Holy Spirit like a divine guide dog rather than just a divine dove?
- Christ could then only perceive God through those 5 senses interacting with the HS, hence the importance of seeing/hearing/touch etc of Jesus interaction with both the Father and the HS?
Comment by Helen
11.52 am on 6 Sep 2006
Zoomuse wrote:
I amwondering where you (Jason) got the term ’sin management.’ it is one that Dallas Willard uses in The Divine Conspiracy, though in a different manner. His usage points to the debate in (American) evangelicalism over the issue of ‘LORDSHIP SALVATION,’ i.e., can one be saved if Jesus is not clearly the Lord of their lives. Willard’s point is that those who debate this point are only interested in Sin Management, i.e., how can I know if I am going to heaven, i.e., ‘have I managed my own sin problem that keeps me from heaven? Willard rightly points out that this, in fact, is not the question they should be asking. Rather, the question is: ‘How can I become and express fully that I truly am a disciple of Jesus?’
I think Zoomuse is referring to the ambiguity of the term ’sin management’ in the compartmentalized system that Evangelical Christianity is.
Does it mean “taking care of our ’sin problem’ so we can get to heaven” or does it mean “resisting the temptation to sin moment by moment as we live out our lives on earth”?
It seems to me that The Lordship Salvation debate is one response to this compartmentalization.
I assume by ’sin management’ Jason is referring to how we resist sin moment by moment in our lives. Not, how Jesus dealt with our ’sin problem’ which keeps us from heaven.
Or maybe he doesn’t compartmentalize things that much. After all, I’m not convinced Jesus did, even though evangelicals often do.
But given the compartmentalization inherent in the system, it’s probably wise to be as clear as possible about whether ’sin management’ refers to ongoing daily temptation or our need for ‘imputed righteousness’.
Comment by Helen
12.49 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Paul I know your comments weren’t addressed to me so I hope it’s ok if I respond to them.
You wrote:
If Christ is a human who relies 100% on the holy spirit does that mean that the rest of the humanity can also do this?
I think Jesus comment “You will do greater things than these” may imply that – although in reality we all fall short, of course.
Does this mean I need to revisit my own connection with the HS and say ok I don’t like being down around 10% what about the other 90%?
Yes definitely!
I in turn will revisit my own connection and say I don’t like only being at 90% (kidding)
On the other hand, don’t let this thought make you feel bad and feel overwhelmed. Instead look at it this way: “Hey, maybe I can aim higher than I thought, since maybe Jesus is more like me than I thought!”
What enabled Christ to do this?
Incredible commitment? Refusal to be distracted by ‘lesser things’?
What about doctrines like original sin – if Christ is a human relying on the HS how did he manage to do this 100% from birth?
Indeed. This is sort of like the free will/predestination arguments imo.
In other words – since God knew yesterday what I’m going to choose for lunch today, does that mean I didn’t really have a choice?
The Bible says Jesus was tempted in every way as we are yet was without sin – which fascinates me – and leads me similarly to ask, does Jesus’ 100% success in resisting temptation mean that he wasn’t really tempted – he didn’t really have a choice experientially speaking?
If I am choosing my lunch as far as I am concerned, than maybe Jesus had to choose against sin even though he was never going to choose to sin, being divine. If he had to choose that makes him a whole lot more impressive to me, actually.
But how does that it turn reconcile with the idea of being fully human and fully divine?
Indeed. But, isn’t that concept really hard to understand and reconcile with anything we can relate to, period?
Christ could then only perceive God through those 5 senses interacting with the HS, hence the importance of seeing/hearing/touch etc of Jesus interaction with both the Father and the HS?
We don’t know – but it’s fascinating to me to consider this and again, for me it makes what he did MORE awesome.
Comment by ZooMuse
1.57 pm on 6 Sep 2006
I wonder…. Did Adam truly have the opportunity to live a sinful life? Let’s suppose that that couple in the garden had NOT eaten of the tree. Then their ‘goodness’ would have been ‘tested goodness,’ ‘tested righteousness.’ Alas, they fell, but they need not have.
Jesus, the Second Adam, came to live out the life the Frist Adam could have had, but failed. Jesus lived as a human fully dependent on God, fully maintaining that relationship from beginning to end. Thus, Jesus (as man) was ‘declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according the the Spirit of holiness. (Ro 1:4)’ He was the Son of God, but also he was DECLARED the Son of God. Sorta hard to get our heads around.
Thus, this second Adam in now the New Man, in whom we are placed and in whom we are declared righteous. The Old Man died on the cross with Jesus so that we might be raised to live life in a whole new way (Ro 6:4).
Comment by dh
3.55 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Jesus was at all times God and had all of the power of God on earth being God. He chose not to use His power because Hisultimate goal was death and resurrection. If He would have used His power at different times than He did He probably would have died. If He used less of His power than He did the message of Christ wouldn’t have spread like it actually did. Christ used perfectly just the right amount of His power and at the perfect times for Christ to die and rise again at the perfect times for His ultimate Glory. His goal was not the restoration of creation but to make a way for us to overcome the curse of sin being death. This overcoming of sin can only be obtained by relationship with Him by accepting Christ as our Savior. People misunderstand the Evangelical position. There is difference in sin before one is a Christian and after one is a Christian. Before being a Christian sins punishment is the “the wages of sin is death…” After we accept Christ and receive Salvation then one is covered from the wage of sin but thatdoesn’t mean sin doesn’t affect you. it prevents Sanctification and “being all that we can be” for Christ while on earth. Also, we try not to sin after being a Christian because “He first loved us”. Just like a child with his father, we want to please our father by doing good not because we get something but because we love Him.
Zoo, Jesus never “failed”. He was fully God at all times only He only used His power when it was the perfect time and in such a way that the blessings for people wouldn’t inhibit His eventual death and resurrection. (AKA the reason why He never gave into the Pharisee’s to “show them a sign”).
Comment by dh
3.57 pm on 6 Sep 2006
“If He would have used His power at different times than He did He probably would have died.”
I meant “wouldn’t have died” sorry for the confussion.
Comment by Jason Clark
5.44 pm on 6 Sep 2006
ZooMuse(1): Great and powerful qoute, thank you.
DH(2): But if christ overcomes sin by being divine, that’s easy, and we’re told in phillipians amongst other places he set that aside. Not that he stopped being fully God, but overcame sin, the desire to live in a way other than God’s by being the second Adam, fully human in the way we were meant to be?
And is the Flesh all bad? The notion that the flesh is totally depraved and being a christian is about rescue from that is more a greek platonic and calvinistic idea perhaps.
God did not make a perfect world,, he made a good world one that could grow and become better, but the fall is us taking our lives and it away from God’s purposes.
A gospel that reduces christianity to something that occurs after death, means we can pray the prayer and then live without any change in this present life.
Dallas Willard calls it vampire christianity, people who want enough of the blood of Jesus to get to heaven, but not so much that they chaneg in this life. Or bar code christianity, where becoming a christian means getting the correct prayer so when we get to heaven we can be scanned in, we’re lablled properly as if God isn’t concerned about the inside, and how we have live and worked out ourlives.
Comment by Jason Clark
5.48 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Helen (5): I think there moments when Christ’s divinity is revealed such as the Transfiguration,and his baptism, but as you say the times he does miracles are as a human fully alive and submitted to God, filled with the Spirit.
His submission to death, is vindicated by God, who raises him and enables us to receive christ and learn to walk in the new humanity of the 2dn Adam, alive to God, by the Spirit.
And in that we see the world and our humanity as good, fallen but made in God’s image and capable of so much more, what it should really be, but only through Christ.
Comment by Jason Clark
5.49 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Zoomuse (5): now that\’s a christology that inspires me to follow Jesus, thanks.
Comment by Jason Clark
5.54 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Helen (6): That’s the mystery of Philippians, Jesus full God empties himself, the greek word is kenosis, which is followed by his plerosis,filling.
That Jesus fully god and man in essence empties himself to experience and be fully human, to experience the life we live, not as some divine actor pretending to be human, like the movie star who wants to live in india to experience poverty but can always go home to their mansion and millions…Thanks.
Comment by Sherri
5.55 pm on 6 Sep 2006
ZM .. thanks for seeing through my lense for a moment.
Original Sin … what if this theology from Augustine is based on a mistranslation? (I’ve heard on good authority that he tried to retract this original sin doctrine before he died, but couldn’t get a hearing … too late!) From a woman’s perspective, Augustine’s theology has a poor reputation for being all that ‘inspired.’
“Jesus’ 100% reliance on H.S. as human and operating in all the gifts, demonstrating all the fruits perfectly” … I’ll throw my vote in here. Since none of us shall reach 100%(but we have been set free to pursue such the possibility, I believe) perhaps the 100% is actualized through the community of believers who attempt together to fully reveal the affects of The Redemptive Event, bringing to fruition the ideals of K. of God in all of creation. Of course, attempting to accomplish this leaves me ‘groaning’ with the Spirit much of the time!
Comment by dh
5.56 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Jason, I what I said doesn’t take away the importance of change this present life. True He made a good world but it became bad by the Original sin of Adam. I could say the extreme opposite of Christianity without any focus on the afterlife at all takes away from the eternal life Christ and other passages mentioned for encouragement. However, I never endorse a Christianity that doesn’t promote a life change here. My point is that if you have accepted Christ it is a guarantee that your life will change. If it hasn’t then I question if you truly accepted Christ in thefirst place. Not that that is necessarily the case because only God knows the heart but it does givean indication. “There is none that doeth good no not one.” “All have sinnedand fallen short of the Glory of God.” All of the passages about the flesh and putting the flesh away. I know many people who do good but who haven’t accepted Christ as their Savior. “Thou I give all I have to the poor and have not love I’m a clanging gong.” Love being thereveipt of Grace from God’s death andresurrection.
Comment by Jason Clark
5.57 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Sherri (7): Glad it was helpful! :-)
Graham (8): I should have put ‘Sin management’ in parenthesis, and the end of my sentence expands what sin and it’s context is about, more than just managent…thanks for clarifying that. When the Gospel is just functional sin management a trasaction only we lose so much of who Jesus is and why he died.
Comment by Jason Clark
5.58 pm on 6 Sep 2006
ZooMuse (10): busted you can spot the influential people in my life…I love the way Willard frames what the Gospel is, and as you helpfully put here. Thanks.
Comment by Jason Clark
6.03 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Paul (11): Mate,so many questions, I’ll respond to the first few and leave the rest to when we meet up next :-)
There are theological motif’s in church history about the nature of God’s connection to us and what salvation means. The modern and dominant view influenced by Augustine and platonism, and calvinism would see the world as fallen, something to escape that Jesus will come back to throw away and make a new one.
Another earlier stream idea (Iraneus), recovered by K Barth and being re-discovered is that the holy spirit rather than removing and rescuing us from humanity and creation, invades and redeems and heals and restores, and the new creation is the recreation of God’s Good creation.
That spirituality is far more worl and life, and this life and environment affirming.
Comment by Jason Clark
6.10 pm on 6 Sep 2006
DH(15): Thanks DH. I’m more convinced that Jesus did most things in the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by his divine power as I read the new Testament. God raised Jesus from the dead, by the Spirit.
At this stage in life I am uncomfortable with a Gospel message that say Jesus didn’t come to save creation, but us.
John 3:16 say Jesus came because of God’s desire to save all creation the whoile universe and us within that…not just individual souls.
what do you see as God’s purpose for hi creation? Cheers,Jase
Comment by Jason Clark
6.15 pm on 6 Sep 2006
DH(22): Thanks DH, but isn’t rather that accepting a jesus jsut to get to heaven is the problem of why you wouldb’t have a changed life. To accept Jesus is a jesus who changes this and the afterlife.
And at no time my friend have I sadi eternity isn’t something vital. Eternal life starts now, not when we die :-)
Comment by dh
6.17 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Jason, those who pray the pray with no life change are those who accepted Christ in their minds but not into their hearts and thus didn’t give Christ their entire being. So I agree but the stereotypes of those who believe like I do seempresent from your response and when you analyze what I and others are saying what we say doesn’t take away the responsibility of living for Christ 100%.
To me we will never be perfect until we receive our glorified bodies. However, we are still called to press toward the goal even though we know we will never achieve it fully in this life unless Christ comes before we die. To say Jesus was only 100% human but operated within the HS goes against Christ being fully God when in fact He was 100% both equally. He wasn’t an actor of being human. He was human but was God and perfect at the same time. What you say Jason takes away from the fully God part.
Comment by dh
6.27 pm on 6 Sep 2006
I agree eternal life starts now but we mustn’t forget that there is an afterlife. Some Christians don’teven Believe or downplay the afterlife making many unbelievers question unecessarily when the answers are readily available.
I focus on the person not the prayer for it is ones heart that is the issue not the prayer. For some reason you focus on the prayer as the problem. I focus on the heart of theperson saying the prayer as the problem.
Well, I see the purpose of creation to point to Jesus and the Trinity as being the one true God. When I see God saying “I will create a new heaven anda new earth.” or “Heaven and earth shall pass away but My Word shall by no means pass away.” This doesn’t takeaway our responsibility to creation but we at the same time needto recognize that we must live for Christ by first being Saved then byliving for Him thereafter. The purpose of creation is to be obedient to Him even though “heaven and earth will pass away” that doesn’t takeaway from the point of the responsibility to creation which is obedience to Christ which includes being “good stewards to creation”. The goal of taking careof creation is “obedience because God said to” as opposed to making creation be eternal when the Biblesays “heaven andearth shall passaway”.
Comment by ZooMuse
6.35 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Just a comment to dh–if you re-read my statement in comment 14, perhaps you’ll see that I was saying that the First Adam ‘failed’ the test, not Jesus.
Comment by Helen
6.43 pm on 6 Sep 2006
ZooMuse, I had to read that line twice – I can see how it might have confused dh.
Comment by dh
6.45 pm on 6 Sep 2006
I see Zoo while I believe in the 100% fully man 100% fully God equally at thesame time on earth the final comma got me confused “Jesus, the Second Adam, came to live out the life the Frist Adam could have had, but failed.” THat last comma got me confused.
Comment by Helen
6.48 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Jason wrote: Helen (6): That’s the mystery of Philippians, Jesus full God empties himself, the greek word is kenosis, which is followed by his plerosis,filling.
Yes – that’s a neat poem.
That Jesus fully god and man in essence empties himself to experience and be fully human, to experience the life we live, not as some divine actor pretending to be human, like the movie star who wants to live in india to experience poverty but can always go home to their mansion and millions…Thanks.
So…something along these lines: Jesus was positionally divine but experientially human?
That’s what I lean towards since it makes Jesus more practically helpful as a role-model for me.
I think NT Wright leans that way also, based on what I’ve read.
Even though Jesus was the Messiah he still had to choose to do what the Messiah was going to do for Israel and the world. He still had to read Scripture and pray for understanding on what his role was. And then having understood, make the choice to do it. Even unto death.
Again, the idea that Jesus’ self-understanding might have unfolded (as Anne Rice portrays very well, imo, in Christ the Lord), makes him easier to relate to, as I wonder what God’s will for me is.
Comment by dh
7.02 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Just because it makes it “easy to relate to” doesn’t mean it is correct. Jesus was more than just Messiah He was God. His prayer for understanding was an encouraging of Himself of what what He already knew. Kind of like when the grass is long and I have to mow it I have to tell myself I need to mow the lawn. That is what Jesus was doing He was saying to Himself and to God. “I know I have to go to the cross I know the purpose and everything therein but I wish there was another way eventhough there isn’t because physically what must be done hurts Me.” That seems to me to be the context of Christ praying. I believe Christ was omniscient and omnipotent on earth however some of those things He chose not to reveal to man eventhough He had it within Himself in all actuality.
Comment by Jason
7.14 pm on 6 Sep 2006
DH (34): DH if you think Christ was omniscient and omnipotent, that is some statement and not one of orthodox christianity for the last 2,000 years…I think.
Did Jesus really know all things all the time, even as a baby?
For instance the NT tells us (Luke 2:52)
…Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. He had a learning process.
To claim Jesus knew everything and was omnipotent is to claim he was God the Father in all but name, i.e not human at all.
To be human he laid aside his divinity, his omnipotence, and knowledge. He was born a child grew, and learned, didn’t he?
Otherwise we have a Jesus to follow who wasn’t human at all, who dying on the cross was easy, after all knew what was happening and everything was fine.
Jesus was God, in the trinitarian sense, not just god the father pretending to be human.
I might be misreading you but the view you suggest sounds Docetic, where chists body is a disguise, clothing he wore over the top of his dinivity, but he was always divine not really human at all.
To overplay Christ’s divinity and claim he functioned divinely, in knowledge, understanding and power, is a claim the early church didn’t agree with IMHO.
Thanks for the questions and engagement.
Comment by dh
7.32 pm on 6 Sep 2006
He grew and learned what was already in Him which was being fully God. I never said it was “easy” just because He was fully God for it was His human part thathad the pain and the Spiritual part of having all of the sin on Him at His death. Just because He knew what was happening didn’t make it easy for Him. If I’m scheduled for surgery to remove a skin cancer I know what is going to happen but I also know it is going to hurt. I’m mildly Docetic but disagree with the term by taking away the “disguise” or the “not really human at all part” of what you said. For me just because He knew all things doesn’t mean that He wasn’t human.
“To overplay Christ’s divinity and claim he functioned divinely, in knowledge, understanding and power, is a claim the early church didn’t agree with IMHO.”
I disagree for the early church believed that Jesus was fully God nad fully man. Your understanding seems to downplay His 100% God nature. I don’t agree that He laid aside His divinity but it says “He TOOK UPON HIMSELF the FORM of man.” To say He took the form of man doesn’t mean He wasn’t man He took on a fully human nature just like us in addition to His 100% God nature. We also need to be careful on the Trinity because all are seperate in nature but one as God. I hope you don’t misunderstand. It is just there isa growing wrong concept of Jesus just being amere man rather than being 100% man and 100% God. Will we fully understand it? no but we mustn’t overemphsize something we know it ain’t.
Comment by dh
7.43 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Jase, I reread Docetism and Iam not that because I believe the 100% human part. They say that that 100% human part was an illusion. I don’t adhere to that. However, I personally believe the 100% fully human part went together with His 100% fully deity part equally and what He learned was His 100% human part learning what was already in Him. Does that make sense or do you have any insight into that line of thought?
Comment by dh
7.46 pm on 6 Sep 2006
I also believein the resurrection from the dead which adherents to Docetism don’t believe.
Comment by ZooMuse
7.57 pm on 6 Sep 2006
A great man of God once said, ‘You cannot unscrew the inscrutable.’ There reaches a point in this discussion where one must lay it aside and sit in awe of what we do not understand.
Comment by dh
8.39 pm on 6 Sep 2006
GRRRRReat point ZooMuse. I totally 100% agree with that. However we may not understand 100% but we sure can get an idea of what it isn’t or at least 90%. Just being humorous and somewhat serious. :)
Comment by Jason
8.44 pm on 6 Sep 2006
ZooMuse (39): Indeed :-) But these differences are important. For DH Jesus appears to be someone who knew everything at all time, and was all powerful at all times. That has major outworkings for what it means to become like christ, and for salvation.
It sounds to me like a Jesus who wasn’t really human at all. The NT and church doctrine in history seems more to lean towards Jesus laying aside his divinity, in Kenosis, and becoming human (that is not a claim that he wasn’t divine before any suggest that).
He was fully human, was a baby didn;t know everything, struggled as we do, learned over time who he was, relied on the HS and lived by faith following the father. That is a very different Jesus for me at least.
And as it really does affect what following Jess and becoming and being a christian is all about.
Our christilogy, who we understand Jesus to be affects deeply what it means for us to know and follow him. At least I think it does.
the mystery of how that works, how can Jesus be fully god and man, is a mystery I don’t think we are meant to resolve.
Comment by dh
9.08 pm on 6 Sep 2006
“He was fully human, was a baby didn;t know everything, struggled as we do, learned over time who he was, relied on the HS and lived by faith following the father. That is a very different Jesus for me at least.” He was human but was also more than human that is because Hewas fully God and fully Man. What He learned was from within Him but was clouded by His 100% humaness. As He learned He learend what was in Himself being full 100% God. His struggles were one from taking on His 100% human part in conjunction with His already 100% God part.
What is miraculous is that an all knowing God would want to take on corrupible human form.
Just like this analogy ” Just because He knew what was happening didn’t make it easy for Him. If I’m scheduled for surgery to remove a skin cancer I know what is going to happen but I also know it is going to hurt.”
I don’t see Kenosis as “laying aside” but taking additional form which limits what He can do which is everything which is form of “laying aside” but more limitation than laying aside. He took on the limitations of manbeing 100% man but was fully God
Jase, I’m not saying Jesus wasn’t really human at all. He was fully human and fully God. I don’t see any “laying aside divinity” because that would say Jesus wasn’t God on earth. He took on the form of man and that was 100% human but He was also 100% God. He was all powerful at all times but early on didn’t know His power within Him as 100% God and other times chose not to use His power due to His perfection in knowing it wasn’t the right time for that revelation to man or if that were revealed to man His death wouldn’t have happened.
Comment by dh
9.14 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Hense the statement “My time has not yet come.” He knew what He was going to go through in the future but “His time had not yet come.” or in another passage “My hour has not yet come.”
I think my analogy above explains for me what He went through and the pain of what “the upcoming surgery that He knew was going to take place”.
The “take this cup from Me” was more God this is too painful but I know I must do this just like when we humans have to face mandatory surgery.
Comment by ZooMuse
9.32 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Jason, I am with you. I believe that Jesus, fully human (something he was not until his conception–now that is mind-boggling: unchanging God the Son became something he had not been) and fully divine (eternally God, man in whom the fulness of deity dwells in human form) who freely chose to lay aside (kenosis) NOT his deity but his ‘access’ (if you will) to that deity. He wanted to show us what Adam failed to do, live as man wholly dependent on God. So now, he becomes our access to life with God. The differences are significant, but yet there comes a time in every discussion when one sees oneself going in circles. I am very excited to see what the next stages of your research/study will be. Keep it up.
dh–we will never be privy to the discussions Jesus had when alone with his father during those years of ministry, even as we will not know this side of heaven all that Jesus ‘discovered’ during his 40 days in the wilderness. By the time he came to the cross jesus surely knew what was coming. He had read Isaiah 53 and likely had a first-hand discussion with Elijah concerning its meaning on the Mount of Transfiguration. Insight, Spirit-guided wisdom and discernment, daily interaction with the Father–Jesus certainly knew and understood–as man–who he was and why he had come. This does not make him less than 100% God.
Comment by Jason
9.52 pm on 6 Sep 2006
DH: Thanks for bearing with me :-)
Zoo: Now you put what I said so clumsily into a wonderful sentence.
Comment by dh
10.26 pm on 6 Sep 2006
I see what you are saying but I wonder if this “insight” was more telling His manhood what He already knew fully was going to take place so that He could endure it?
Zoo, I think you expressed it better than I could but I see a little more in there (not much more) than you. I guess I see Christ asking the Father as more helping His humaness endure the inevitable and the 40 days as a mere test of what actually is the case that Jesus was fully God and thus able to endure all things on earth being God with those things He endured being 100% human.
I personally believe He knew more than just Isaiah 53 I believe He knew all things on earth and the additional understanding was not new knowledge but was a greater ability to endure as human what He was able to do since He was God.
He was gainning insight to make it easier than otherwise to do all that He knew fully He would face.
I hope this makes sense. Jase and Zoo I feel strengthened and encouraged by this discussion. I aprreaicte Jason your admonishion regarding the heretical Docetism. I was leaning just a tad too much toward that but I hope you can see after rephrasing that I’m clear in orthodoxy.
Comment by dh
10.30 pm on 6 Sep 2006
Here iswhat Luther said: “In Christ there is a divine and a human nature, and these two natures in one person, so that they are joined together like no other thing, and yet so that the humanity is not Divinity, nor the Divinity humanity, because that distinction in no way hinders but rather confirms the union…. Two natures are united in one person, so that what is done by the human nature is said also to be done by the divine nature, and vice versa.”
Here is what Calvin said: “Christ “suffered his Divinity to be concealed under a veil of flesh.” “For although the boundless essence of the Word was united with human nature into one person, we have no idea of any enclosing. The Son of God descended miraculously from heaven, yet without abandoning heaven; was pleased to be conceived miraculously in the Virgin’s womb, to live on the earth, and hang upon the cross, and yet always filled the world as from the beginning.”
I would say somewhere in between these two is a happy medium. I have learned something I cannot adhere to Docetism or Kenoticism.
Comment by Paul
12.21 am on 7 Sep 2006
Thanks Jase – i know i am a real pain with all my Qs ;).
I can see where Augustine, calvin et al were coming from – and that does have a working out in terms of how we view creation/world/environment etc.
I can also see that Iraneus has a powerful point as well and that could well lead to an opposite interpretation of the whole care for the environment.
But then again did calvin or Iraneus really care that much about the environment to see how either of their teachings would be interpreted/pan out?
If your orginal intent is to explore how God is connected to his creation and thus model something for us to follow/join with him then I think there is a need for both restoration and making new – sometimes it is about restoring God’s purpose for creation but then again is it sometimes the case that something new is needed as well?
It is an interesting side discussion to talk about Christ humanity/divinity but is that not missing the point when it comes to creation – if the bible teaches that creation is created thru a pre incarnational christ and is perfected in the post incarnational christ and in between christ indwelt in creation then that for me is more than enough to build a theology that says that all of creation including humanity is part of Christ’s ongoing mission and therefore should be part of ours?
Oh and looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my sidebar Qs around Christ’s humanity/divinity :)
thanks again – and thanks helen too for your thoughts.
Comment by Paul
12.31 am on 7 Sep 2006
I love how eugene peterson paraphrases colossians 1, in trying to explain what I meant about I don’t know if i can put it any better than this…
Christ Holds It All Together
15-18We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen. We look at this Son and see God’s original purpose in everything created. For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible, rank after rank after rank of angels—everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. He was there before any of it came into existence and holds it all together right up to this moment. And when it comes to the church, he organizes and holds it together, like a head does a body.
18-20He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he’s there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.
21-23You yourselves are a case study of what he does. At one time you all had your backs turned to God, thinking rebellious thoughts of him, giving him trouble every chance you got. But now, by giving himself completely at the Cross, actually dying for you, Christ brought you over to God’s side and put your lives together, whole and holy in his presence. You don’t walk away from a gift like that! You stay grounded and steady in that bond of trust, constantly tuned in to the Message, careful not to be distracted or diverted. There is no other Message—just this one. Every creature under heaven gets this same Message. I, Paul, am a messenger of this Message…”
And I guess by implication as Christians we are also messengers/ambassadors/examples/particpants of that message…
Comment by dh
3.22 pm on 7 Sep 2006
I guess I see the “creation perfected” as being perfected as souls are perfected (perfected not in the Sanctified sense but a justified sense if you get my drift :) ) When I see in Scripture Christ literally creating a “new heaven and a new earth” and “heaven and earth will pass away” at the fulfillment of His Kingdom then I see Jesus making new by destroying the old and creating new in the last day. However, I also see even though it will be destroyed a responsibility to creation because commands us to be responsibile. We don’t always have to have “a point” “or reason” for something to done outside of God’s obedience. Sometimes obedience to God is the only reason sometimes for doing things and God will show us the point later. That is what I see with regard to creation and the Kingdom of God. Nowing that this world will pass anda new one created I could come up with some reasons for God having us be responsibile to this creation but what I have found is that those who don’t believe this creation will be destroyed for a newone want “reasons” or “points” to beresponsibile when obedience to God should be enough.
Comment by ZooMuse
11.07 am on 8 Sep 2006
Pardon the ridiculous length of this comment, but it is quite germane. In THE SHAPING OF THINGS TO COME, Hirsch and Frost note the incarnational necessity of the missional church. They describe the ‘INCARNATION: the sublime act of love and humility whereby God took it upon Himself to enter the depths of our world, our life and reality in order that the reconciliation and consequent union between God and humanity may be brought about. The ‘enfleshing’ of God. It is from inside the human condition that God fulfills his own requirements for the salvation of the human race.
Their section on ‘Coming to Grips with Being Incarnational’ reflects crucial points.
2. Coming to grips with being incarnational: it is…a theological prism through which we view our missional task in the world.
1B. Identification: the medium is entirely the message
2B. Locality: Jesus was who he was, not merely because of his deity but also because he was formed by real engagement with his social milieu. He engaged with, and to some extent was changed by, his relationships.
3B. The Beyond-in-the-midst: the presence of God in Jesus will henceforth define God’s mission to the world.
4B. The human image of God: the remarkable truth is not that Jesus is God-like, but that God is Christlike. All theology must be understood through Christology. Jesus becomes the reference point for all genuine knowing, loving and authentic following of God.
1C. The incarnation must inform our mission in God’s world—we must be and become incarnational.
2C. The incarnation provides the missional means whereby the gospel becomes part of a people group without damaging innate cultural frameworks.
3C. Incarnational mission means that in reaching a people group we need to identify with them in all ways possible without compromising the truth of the gospel itself. Otherwise we are cultural imperialists.
1D. You cannot become part of community if you are not present to it and don’t experience its cultural rhythms, life and geography.
2D. Incarnational ministry implies a sending impulse rather than an extractional one—centrifugal not just centripetal. Every believer is called to some form of incarnational expression of faith.
3D. People will therefore be able to experience Jesus inside their own culture and within their own communities. They need to experience salvation in a way that does not dislocate them from their organic groups.
Comment by Helen
1.49 pm on 8 Sep 2006
ZooMuse wrote:
The human image of God: the remarkable truth is not that Jesus is God-like, but that God is Christlike. All theology must be understood through Christology. Jesus becomes the reference point for all genuine knowing, loving and authentic following of God.
I like this – it sounds like what NT Wright says, also.
Imo theology often gets off course by looking at things the other way around, which doesn’t really work because we can’t really know what God is like except insofar as Jesus manifests that to us.
Comment by dh
3.42 pm on 8 Sep 2006
I’m not a big NT Wright fan. I like his proof of the resurrection. However, he downgrades Paul and when I believe that the Epsitles are part of God’s Word. Paul doesn’t contradict what Jesus says like it is implied by NT Wright implies. To overstate “culture” rather than the Gospel transcending culture and being somewhat “acultural” I think is where I disagree with NT Wright. If a culture doesn’t relate to the Truth of the message it can partly be due to the delivery but it can also be the fault of the culture itself. That is where the culture not the Gospel message becomes the problem. When people wake up and realize the problem of the culture or relativity, universalism, mysticsm, no-absolutes, etc. and realize that Christ is the answer then it prevents people from going out on “wild goose chases”.
Comment by Helen
6.19 pm on 8 Sep 2006
dh, I didn’t think NT Wright implied Paul contradicted Jesus. I thought NT Wright said “The church has misinterpreted Paul”, but NT Wright sees his interpretation of Paul as consistent with Jesus’ teachings.
NT Wright has a high view of the Bible, as best I understand – I don’t see him as saying one author contradicts another? Have I missed something?
Comment by Jason
6.34 pm on 8 Sep 2006
I think need to be careful when making general claims about N T Wright, might be good to include some supporting qoutes for claims about him :-)
Comment by dh
6.45 pm on 8 Sep 2006
“church misinterpreting Paul” That was what I was referring to Helen and Jase. I just don’t see the church as misinterpreting Paul. I just don’t see that in light of what Bible through Paul actually says.
Comment by Jason
6.48 pm on 8 Sep 2006
That’s a brief qoute that lacks much context DH…and surely the church has misrepresented paul in so many ways at different times, there has never been a unified view of paul by all churches….
Comment by dh
8.03 pm on 8 Sep 2006
I guess I see the traditional view of of Paul as being consistent with Jesus\’s teachings. I think itwas Helen that mentioned the quote not myself. I just think that this “New Perspective” is totally off especially in the area of justification and the like. Here is a sight that goes into detail my objections:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/GrecoFredWhyWrightNotReformed.htm
Comment by dh
8.22 pm on 8 Sep 2006
The previous person brought up all sides and he accurately portrayed those who disagreed himself (ie my own view)
Here is some of what I read that helps me understand NT Wright more:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/new_p.html
I have so many concerns for NT Wright. I acknowledge his help to those who don’t believe in the resurrection but beyond that his view of justification, his idea that works of the law were with regard to race, his idea on the righteousness of God, his denial of imputation, etc.. The above site gives quotes and explainations why the ideas are wrong.
Comment by Helen
8.35 pm on 8 Sep 2006
Quote from NT Wright showing his high view of Scripture:
I want now to begin the first section of this lecture with a quote from the first and perhaps the greatest of the English reformers, the one from whom I most securely learnt the formal principle which underlies all my reading not only of Paul but of the whole of scripture.
1. No Syllable Altered
That formal principle is, of course, a total commitment to scripture itself, over against all human traditions, all structures created by human reason, all abstractions from the actual text. Of course, I read scripture within various traditions, I use reason in thinking about it, I make my own abstractions from the text as I go along. I am not a naive positivist, as some appear to think. But at every point one must come back to the text itself, the whole text, and in the last analysis nothing but the text.
dh, NT Wright cannot believe the above and also believe that Paul’s writings contradict Jesus’ teachings. It’s not possible.
Comment by dh
9.20 pm on 8 Sep 2006
If he has a “high view of Scripture” than why have this “New Perspective of Paul” when it is in my opinion in light of the literal statements from Paul incorrect?
You might want to read his views on “view of justification, his idea that works of the law were with regard to race, his idea on the righteousness of God, his denial of imputation, etc..” and why it doesn’t line up with Scripture.
Comment by Helen
9.45 pm on 8 Sep 2006
dh, I realize NT Wright disagrees with what others say Scripture means.
But I think NT Wright is more likely to be correct about what Paul really said than the people who say he’s wrong – because he’s studied the history and context in more depth than they have.
Comment by dh
8.35 pm on 10 Sep 2006
To imply that the Refromers and all of the other theologians that hold to justification by Grace through Faith alone, with no rejection of imputation, no rejection of Original sin, the incorrect denial of the fact that works of the law is what reveals sin and was not solely a race thing. Just because he studied history doesn’t mean that his conclusions are correct. I know just as many people who have looked at what he did and it is just totally incorrect to apply his conclusions he has in light of the obvious. “Without the sheding of blood there can be no remiscion of sins.” When I read the Bible literal for what it says I don’t see his conclusions. I see that NT Wright might have studied it alot but that doesn’t mean others havn’t studied more than him. I don’t see where you get the idea that he studied it more than anyone. I’ll take Moody, Schfield, Luther, Spurgeon and the like. Just because something is so-called new (I would say it isn’t much of what he said were concerns mentioned by Paul) doesn’t make it correct. This is classic change for change sake when actually it can be a deception.
Comment by graham
11.10 am on 11 Sep 2006
dh, you’d seriously take Luther over Wright? Does his explicit anti-semitism not perhaps make him a less than desirable commentator on this. It certainly clouds his view.
There’s also the issue of NT research that can be done post – the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Spurgeon et al did not have the access to much of the historical clues that we do today.
To describe this as change for change’s sake is simply remarkable. I hope that it shows you’ve not taken the time to really engage these historians and theologians. Could you actually explain Wright’s ‘view of justification, his idea that works of the law were with regard to race, his idea on the righteousness of God, his denial of imputation, etc.’ in your own words? Have you read him on these topics, or simply read articles on the internet attacking him? (I think those questions sound confrontational. They’re not meant to as they’re genuine questions.)
Comment by Helen
11.11 am on 11 Sep 2006
dh, I think it’s unfair to say “this is classic change for change’s sake”.
I’m sure it isn’t – no-one in their right mind would go up against all conservative Protestantism just ‘for change’s sake’ – it’s not worth the effort and the criticism that’s going to be received.
It’s possible NT Wright is wrong (even with a name like Wright ;-)) but it’s not fair to impute motives to him like, he was just trying to bring about change for change’s sake.
Comment by dh
4.00 pm on 11 Sep 2006
Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Gnostics and other heretical groups. That isn’t to say wecan’t get into the historical nature of the day. However, to project what was actually views by what Paul addressed that was wrong seems odd to me. Paul addressed heresy by referring to it as “false doctrine” and “another Gospel”.
I guess I don’t see the motives of NT Wright when you look AT ALL of the Epistles you can see the conclusions he has on “New Perspective” just don’t line up with the direct Scriptures contained within the Epistles.
Luther anti-Semetic? I think you might be misunderstanding Luther. Luther understood like as Christians we all should know that without Faith in Jesus we are lost. That isn’t to say that Jews don’t have a measure of truth but it isn’t Saving Truth. Paul mentions that it is the Law that reveals we need Faith in the one true Savior Jesus. That is how the Jews can be grafted in. This isn’t anti-Semetic but an understanding of what Jesus said “32″Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. Matt 10:32-33″ But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.” Seems like that is the crux of true Salvation to me accept Christ asSavior and obtain eternal life reject Christ and have no eternal life “He that hath the Son hath Life he that hath not theSon hath not Life.” (another statement from Jesus
Comment by ZooMuse
4.14 pm on 11 Sep 2006
An interesting quote from http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
Unfortunately few popular books on Luther go into detail about Luther’s anti-Jewishness, or even mention that he had a hatred for Jews at all. This has resulted in a biased outlook towards Martin Luther and Christianity. This unawareness of Luther’s sinister side, while honoring his “righteousness” leads to a ratcheting promotion of Luther which supports a “good” public image while also transporting his Jewish beliefs to those who carry the seeds of anti-Semitism. This will present an unwanted dilemma for many Christians because Luther represents the birth of Protestant Christianity as well as the genesis of the special brand of Jewish hatred that flourished only in Germany.
Although Luther did not invent anti-Jewishness, he promoted it to a level never before seen in Europe. Luther bore the influence of his upbringing and from anti-Jewish theologians such as Lyra, Burgensis, (and John Chrysostom, before them). But Luther’s 1543 book, “On the Jews and their lies” took Jewish hatred to a new level when he proposed to set fire to their synagogues and schools, to take away their homes, forbad them to pray or teach, or even to utter God’s name. Luther wanted to “be rid of them” and requested that the government and ministers deal with the problem. He requested pastors and preachers to follow his example of issuing warnings against the Jews. He goes so far as to claim that “We are at fault in not slaying them” for avenging the death of Jesus Christ. Hitler’s Nazi government in the 1930s and 40s fit Luther’s desires to a tee.
So vehemently did Luther speak against the Jews, and the fact that Luther represented an honorable and admired Christian to Protestants, that his written words carried the “memetic” seeds of anti-Jewishness up until the 20th century and into the Third Reich. Luther’s Jewish eliminationist rhetoric virtually matches the beliefs held by Hitler and much of the German populace in the 1930s.
Luther unconsciously set the stage for the future of German nationalistic fanaticism. William L. Shirer in his “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” puts it succinctly:
“Through his sermons and his magnificent translations of the Bible, Luther created the modern German language, aroused in the people not only a new Protestant vision of Christianity by a fervent German nationalism and taught them, at least in religion, the supremacy of the individual conscience. But tragically for them, Luther’s siding with the princes in the peasant rising, which he had largely inspired, and his passion for political autocracy ensured a mindless and provincial political absolutism which reduced the vast majority of the German people to poverty, to a horrible torpor and a demeaning subservience. Even worse perhaps, it helped to perpetuate and indeed to sharpen the hopeless divisions not only between classes but also between the various dynastic and political groupings of the German people. It doomed for centuries the possibility of the unification of Germany.”
Comment by dh
4.38 pm on 11 Sep 2006
That still doesn’t put aside what he was correct on. Also, it wasn’t a Luther thing with regard to those issues mentioned above. If you read Augustine, Wycliff and others. It seems we are trying to throw the “baby out with the bath water” when one must look beyond just one individual Reformer. Just because he was wrong on that issue doesn’t mean we follow the strawman to its odd conclusion. Even more illogical these conclusions (that are strawman with regard to Luther) doesn’t make NT Wright any more correct or give credence to his particular conclusions.
Comment by graham
1.57 am on 12 Sep 2006
Dh, do you now accept that Luther wsa anti-Semitic? If Wright – based on his historical research (research that wasn’t available to previous generations) – sees a passage as addressing Jewish-Christian relations, but Luther sees it as proving that the Jews rejected God, don’t you think we should treat the Anti-Semites views with some suspicion. In fact, I don’t care for much of what the murderous Luther wrote, but even if I did I could hardly take him seriously on this issue.
Have u read any Wright, as I’m not convinced that you properly grasp his views?
Comment by Helen
12.37 pm on 12 Sep 2006
dh wrote: I guess I don’t see the motives of NT Wright when you look AT ALL of the Epistles you can see the conclusions he has on “New Perspective†just don’t line up with the direct Scriptures contained within the Epistles.
Actually, I can’t see that, speaking for myself.
Here’s why I regard Luther as anti-semitic – it’s because he wrote things like this (translated):
What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: “what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.” Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], “You are Peter,” etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.
Fifth, I advise that safeconduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (…remainder omitted).
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause.
Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.
Comment by ZooMuse
12.57 pm on 12 Sep 2006
I confess that I have not read much by NT Wright. The small bit I have read suggest that, even if he doesn’t have everything ’spot on,’ he certainly is a person whose views and understandings can assist us greatly, as do the writings of many others, including the Reformers.
dh — you make a statement that makes me a bit nervous as it reflects a level of naivete: “I guess I don’t see the motives of NT Wright; when you look AT ALL of the Epistles you can see the conclusions he has on “New Perspective†just don’t line up with the direct Scriptures contained within the Epistles.”
The statement: ‘[They] just don’t line up with the DIRECT SCRIPTURES WITHIN THE EPISTLES’ suggests that there is some ‘clear and direct’ meaning that we can receive as we read the Scriptures that somehow just jumps off the page at us. it reminds of people who say, ‘I don’t care about all that post-modern stuff. I just preach the Bible.’
We all– dh, NT Wright, myself — come at the Scriptures with presuppositions, worldviews, previous study and learning, etc. There is no such thing as ‘the direct Scriptures,’ just as it is a fallacious statement to say, ‘I just preach the Bible.’
We need to come at our study with an incredible level of humility and willingness to be learners. Of course, we need to be discerning. Of course, no one teacher/writer is going to have it all correct. But we need to be humble enough to learn from those we might not fully agree with down to the last jot and tittle.
Comment by dh
4.02 pm on 12 Sep 2006
I think the anti-Semetic thing is a read herring in the discussions weare having.While I mentioned Luther it wasn’t the point of the post because many other Reformers were mentioned as well. People got distractedfor somereason I just don’t know.
I don’t come to the Scriptures with presumptions. I look at Scriptures from the direct words in the Scriptures to project things that aren’t directly mentioned in Scripture onto Scripture is where I disagree with.
“‘[They] just don’t line up with the DIRECT SCRIPTURES WITHIN THE EPISTLES’ suggests that there is some ‘clear and direct’ meaning that we can receive as we read the Scriptures that somehow just jumps off the page at us. it reminds of people who say, ‘I don’t care about all that post-modern stuff. I just preach the Bible.”
I agree with this.
“We all– dh, NT Wright, myself — come at the Scriptures with presuppositions, worldviews, previous study and learning, etc. There is no such thing as ‘the direct Scriptures,’ just as it is a fallacious statement to say, ‘I just preach the Bible.”
I disagree with this. Some people come at Scriptures with the above others don’t. How I looked at Scripture from a child to now is look at exactly word for wordwhat it says and follow it and look at Scripture in light of Scripture and context which I define as passages before and after as opposed to non-Believers culure projected onto the text. I Believe the Gospel is aculural thus making transcultural. If you get mydrift.
Comment by ZooMuse
5.58 pm on 12 Sep 2006
the gospel is a-cultural and transcultural, but it is always incarnated in culture: the Word became flesh and moved into the [1st century Jewish] neighborhood. As I re-read what I wrote (why is it we don’t see weaknesses until they are published for all to see?), I see I somewhat overstated things. Yes, there are clear statements: ‘Love one another.’ Yes, we can understand one passage through another passage. But, it always takes study, understanding, insight, wisdom, experience, community, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit to understand it in its fullness. And, it is quite often like the proverbial ‘onion,’ i.e., it has layers of meaning and application. I would imagine you (dh) have grown in your understanding and see things differently now than you did, perhaps, when you were younger. The challenge we all must face is this: are we, by our engagement in the Scriptures, becoming more like Jesus, more loving, more motivated to invest our lives in others? I think God is more concerned with the quality of our living and depth of our loving than with mere doctrinal accuracy.
Comment by graham
6.54 pm on 12 Sep 2006
Dh, the gospel may be acultural, but none of us are.
If you’re now moving away from Luther – who is the “Name” that most would associate Wright as disagreeing with – we should perhaps recognise that Wright’s views have not come out of thin air. They expand upon and develop the previous views of others, in the light of recent historical scholarship and Wright’s own studies.
To imply that it’s a choice between Wright or the Reformers is fairly mistaken and, I think, may betray an ignorance of both. (And I say that as someone who is not a fan of the Magesterial Reformers.)
So, as I asked before, have you had the pleasure of reading any Wright for yourself?
Pingback by Jason Clark » Salvation and Spiritual Formation
7.43 am on 13 Sep 2006
[...] Some more thoughts following my post on sin, incarnation and mission. [...]
Comment by dh
4.53 pm on 13 Sep 2006
I’m not moving away from Luther I just reject anti-semetic and rejection of James parts.
I think they did come from thin air for the scholarship he uses is incorrect. I also don’t think it is an “ignorance on my part”. To “not be a fan of the Magesterial Reformers” is to not be a fan of a good measure of truth.
I have read quotes and the way he phrases quotes is how I come up with the conclusions I do. If he truly is opposite of what I say then he needs to rephrase is statements so that people don’t get an inaccurate view. I have never seen any rebutal or further clarification in light of intelligent scholars critical of him for his “so-called ambiguity” or what I would say (not ambiguos at all but his acurrate representation which is off in light of Scripture).
Just because noneof us are a cultural Christ can help see Scripture from an acultural stanhdpoint. That is how I read Scripture. How God wants us to.
Comment by Helen
5.39 pm on 13 Sep 2006
dh wrote: That is how I read Scripture. How God wants us to.
dh, isn’t that what we all think? That we’re all reading it the way God wants us to – or at least, we’re trying to.
But when we disagree, how can we know who is reading it correctly?
Comment by dh
9.24 pm on 13 Sep 2006
..by the one who reads it literally what it says. When it says a particular act is sin and we say no it isn’t then I think that is where we project flesh onto something that God says is Spirit. God doesn’t want us to project our culture onto Scripture since it says “Be in the world but not of it.”
Comment by graham
12.48 am on 14 Sep 2006
Thanks for the discussion, dh, but I’m not sure that there’s much point in carrying on.
Oh, I’d consider myself an anabaptist so that probably clouds my view of the Reformers. Their ‘measure of truth’ was a little too lethal for my tastes.
Bless you.
Comments are now closed.