One of the things that we find in the major religions of the world, is an attempt to be reconciled with or united with God, or as some would call it, a "higher power." Religion is, in a sense, a humanly constructed ladder to reach God. Each religious community has its own set of expectations and requirements for its constituency to live by and subsequently have a relationship with God
The Christian faith has an emphasis on God reaching humanity through Jesus the Christ.
Christians believe that unlike other religions that reach upwards to God, Christianity is a
faith that stresses God reaching downwards to reaching humanity. The Christian faith, then,
is a belief that the relationship between God and humanity depends on God's self-initiative
and self-disclosure rather than on human effort or initiative.
Christianity emphasizes that we reconciled with God on the basis of Jesus (God's Son) shedding His blood and dying on the cross. There are some movements today that claim to be Christian, but deny that the cross is the basis for reconciliation between God and humanity. They believe that God's love, and not the cross is the basis for such reconciliation. Those who believe that Jesus's death on the cross is the basis for reconciliation will claim that this act of Jesus dying on the cross is the chief exemplification of God's love. Those who do not believe in the cross as the basis for reconciliation believe that God does not need the shedding of blood for divine-human reconciliation.
This writer (yours truly) believes that it is not the shedding of blood per se, that reconciles us to God.
God is not a vampire who takes delight in the sight of blood. God is not a blood-thirsty entity who requires blood-shed for a relationship with Her/Him.
Having said that, however, I think that we need to understand what the blood meant in a biblical sense. The blood of the sacrificed animals in the Old Testament, and the blood of Jesus in the New Testament represented the life in the blood. God did not require the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament because He/She wanted to have an orgy. Neither did God require the blood of Jesus in order to have a "blood festival." The shedding of Jesus's blood was Jesus giving His life as a substitute for the humans who were supposed to die as a result of sin. It is in this life sacrificed on our behalf that we find peace and reconciliation with God.
If we deny the centrality of Jesus dying on the cross as a basis for reconciliation with God, then in essence we are saying that it wasn't necessary for Him to die, and that in fact, He wasted His time.
If we believe that God's love is the basis for our reconciliation with Her/Him, then we have to ask ourselves how is God's saving and liberating love demonstrated to broken humanity?
I admit that I am biased in my view that Jesus giving His life "as a ransom for many" is the basis of our relationship with God. However, this view is no more biased than any other view. All opinions, perspectives, and points of view are biased. Until someone can give me a more viable alternative to Jesus giving His life on our behalf, I will continue to assert and sing "On Christ the Solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand."
To God be the glory now and forever,
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please share your views and perspectives with us on this issue.
Greetings Brother Carmona,
ReplyDeleteThis Idea that man must be reconciled to God is an interesting idea. It may be at the heart of what it means to be a mainstream Christian today and admittedly is the understanding promulgated by Paul, and followed either dutifully or by force by countless believers over the centuries, but it is not the understanding many found in the life and teachings of Jesus then nor now.
What does it mean to be reconciled to God for a religious person who affirms that God is everywhere present, including in us? Paul may have just been saying things that he knew would appeal to his listeners in order to grab their attention, when he said, "For in him we live and move and have our being..." It was a Greek thinker after all who first made the statement 600 years before, but there are many religious people who find great insight in this statement, and find that it sums up very nicely the life and teachings of Jesus. In this view there is no need of ladders to ascend higher to reach God. Unity with God, which I beg to disagree with the Blogger is not the same as reconciliation, is possible because God is a loving presence, always available, knowing all that you need before you ask, loving us as if we were His only begotten children.
Bro. Lecour:
DeleteSince I responded to your input in a summary manner, I would like now to address each segment of your response.
You indicate that the idea that humankind must be reconciled with God is the understanding promulgated by Paul, but not necessarily the understanding that many found in the life and teachings of Jesus then or now. Aside from what the Greeks or any other Gentile groups may have believed relative to the relationship between God and humanity, I think that it is safe to say that right from the very beginning, the vast majority of professing Christians have subscribed to the notion of reconciliation. For a religious person who affirms that God is everywhere present, including in us, reconciliation might not be an important issue. Subsequently, the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus are rendered moot. If God is everywhere present, including in us, and if God loves us, regardless of anything, what would be the meaning and purpose of the Christ event?
You say that "unity" and "reconciliation" are not one and the same. In a technical sense, you are absolutely correct. Having said that, however, the thrust of the biblical message in general, and of the Gospel in particular, is that the unity has been broken and in need of repair. In Christ, that unity is restored through His death on the cross. I don't think that there is any way in which we can dance around that. Do you?
I think we can all agree that the Idea of the Kingdom of God is central to Jesus’s life and teaching. He was not going about teaching about his death by crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. He sometimes will substitute Kingdom of heaven, but it is obviously the same thing. And what exactly does He say concerning the Kingdom: That it is at hand, that it is among you, that it is in you. This last reference is very telling for the reason that it will surprise many to learn that He was not addressing Himself to Christians nor even to His Disciples, but rather to Pharisees, those super religious keepers of their faith who took every opportunity to contemptuously question and challenge everything Jesus was saying and doing. Why is this important? To put it bluntly, Jesus was making it plain that the Kingdom of God is open to all, not just to Christians. Remember the Crucifixion is still in the future and as far as we can tell from the story has not yet entered anyone’s mind at this point. If the Kingdom of God can be found in the Pharisees then it follows that the Kingdom of God can be found in everyone. The only requirement according to Jesus is to turn (i.e., repent), acknowledge it, and accept it. How could it be otherwise? Was Jesus teaching about a God who is removed and far-off from his creation, a punishing, grim, vindictive God? One who requires a sacrifice in order to reconcile? Or is this interpretation by people steeped in a sin-salvation framework? In a different view, Jesus dies not for our sins but because of our sins.
ReplyDeleteBro. Lecour:
DeleteYour point about the idea of the Reign of God being central to Jesus's life and teaching is well-taken. It is very true that He did not spend a lot of time talking about His death by crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. And it is also very true that He used the terms "Reign of God" and Reign of Heaven" alternately. I'm sure that you will note, however, that the element of His death and resurrection were not totally absent in His discourse. He did, on several occasions, allude to His impending death. We find examples of this in John's Gospel account.
You are absolutely correct when you point out that when He addressed the Pharisees, He was making it clear that the Reign of God is open to all. However, if we take the Gospel message as a thread or thrust, we will note that this "openness" is not a "carte blanche" ticket to Paradise, but rather based on God's universal love as demonstrated in sending and giving God's Son. You yourself acknowledge that the only requirement according to Jesus is repentance, acknowledgement, and acceptance. These three elements of requirement cannot be separated from Calvary. It is a total package. If God does not require a sacrifice ("life for life)" in order to reconcile, then in vain, I think, do we proclaim "Christ and Him crucified."
I humbly and respectfully submit that to put the death of Jesus into the framework that He did not "die for," but "because" of our sins, is to once again fall into the trap of false dichotomies. His death was generated by our sins, and at the same time, His death, "as a ransom for many," was a substitutionary penalty on our behalf. It was not either/or but rather both/and.
I contend that the cross and crucifixion may be central to Paul and his followers, but they do not occupy much of Jesus’ understanding of his mission. Do we need to be reminded that it was Paul who stated that the revelation he received was his from the beginning of time, that he did not consult with any man, that he did not go to Jerusalem to consult with the “pillars” there but went straightaway to Arabia, where he received more revelations, that his entire preaching is Christ and Christ Crucified, that he specifically derided anything that those same “pillars” in Jerusalem had to say and in fact offered up a curse to them should they contradict any of what he was saying. Now these “pillars” he was referring to turn out to be none other than Jesus’s own Apostles and family members (the head of the church in Jerusalem being Jesus’ own brother James, not Peter as some have been lead to believe). This is all there in Paul’s own words, in his letters. Now it may come as a surprise to many that Paul’s letters predate the Gospels, by several decades in fact. This is important because the writers of the Gospels although retaining much of Jesus’ teachings, obviously have been influenced by Paul’s ideas as well and have incorporated them into their writings in fleshing out their stories. It is not surprising at all to see the Gospel writers misrepresenting what the Apostles thought and the nature of their disagreements with Paul. Much like the relationship between John and Jesus, one must increase and the other decrease.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of reconciliation is one interpretation and is what Christianity has been identified with, but it has never been the only way of interpreting Jesus’ life and teaching then nor now.
Bro. Lecour:
DeleteYour contention that there is a difference between the thoughts of Paul and his followers on the one hand, and Jesus's understanding of His own mission on the other hand, poses some problems. To begin with, this would imply that the theology of Jesus and the theology of Paul were at variance with each other. If we accept this juxtaposition, then we end up destroying the thread of the Gospel message as a cohesive unity. If we accept the notion of two separate theologies, then we fall back into the "smorgasbord" (pick and choose) approach to the Christian faith. Subsequently, we end up with a faith which allows us to accept only those elements which are palatable to us, and to reject those which are not.
Regarding Paul's revelation, you are correct in indicating that he claimed that these were his own from the "get-go." However, we have to ask, then, who did Paul claim directly or indirectly to get that revelation from? Would it not be the same Jesus who encountered him on the way to Damascus, and who said to him " I am Jesus whom you are persecuting?" If we accept that Paul got his revelation from Jesus, would it not then be a contradiction to say that Paul and Jesus had different theologies and/or different perspectives? And, since as has already been established, that Paul's writings antedate and precede the Gospel accounts, are we free, then, to state that Paul's theology is based on a revelation which he received from Jesus, and that the theology of the Gospel writers is a humanly constructed one based on how they understood the revelation given to Paul? Or can we say that the theology of the Gospel writers is also rooted in Jesus's revelation? These are just some thoughts for your consideration.
All in all, thank you for your engagement, and as I said in my initial summary response, thank you also for making us go back to the drawing board to reexamine our presuppositions. Your biblical hermeneutics are challenging and stimulating.
Grace and peace,
Juan
The prior comments belong to Jose Lecour, who unfortunately has not yet figured out how to post a comment and be identified. Although I am signed in with Gmail account it shows me as "Unknown (Google)".
ReplyDeleteI believe this is done through your Google account settings. Either you have not setup your name in your profile or possibly there is a privacy setting that is keeping you anonymous. I hope this helps.
DeleteGood morning Bro. Lecour:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. It is very insightful and valuable.
The word "religion," itself, comes from the Latin "religare" which means to rebind or relink. The notion of "reconciliation" with God vs. "unity" with God predates both the Jewish and the Christian faiths. Some of the pre-Judaic religions, such as Hinduism, emphasized sacrifice as a means to appease the deities.
The question as to whether the cross or God's love are the basis for both unity and reconciliation with God. From the historic Christian standpoint, the answer is both. They cannot be separated unless we are willing to take the risk of a skewed theology of redemption, assuming that redemption is a postulate to a relationship with God. They are part and parcel of a total process
The differentiation that some may want to make between the theology of the Gospel writers, and the theology of Paul might be somewhat problematic. If the writings of Paul pre-date the Gospel writings, one must ask, then, if the Gospel writers were interpreting the alleged words of Jesus through what Paul said, or if they were putting words into Jesus's mouth.
Thank you once again for forcing us to go back to the drawing board. In this manner, we not only reexamine our theology, but also the presuppositions behind our theology. As always, you give us a lot to think about. Thank you so much.
Grace and peace,
Juan
Interesting enough, I've been reading along those lines. Redemption, as a term alone, reflects an economic term. That God was willing to, and fact bought us back was a term understood by those at that time. We often hear other terms such as Justified which reflects a legal term meaning somehow I was doomed to a punishment and God fixed it so that I could go free. Another term could be that God has won the victory. Against whom and for what? It is a battle type expression. I agree with Jose in that all if these terms reflect a language understood by those written to at that time. Ultimately what must be understood is that God SO loved the world that he gave. Sometimes I like to keep it as simple as "Jesus loves me this I know"....
DeleteRuth:
DeleteThank you for your comment. Truly the Scripture writers make use of language that we are familiar with in order to make God's unity and reconciliation with us understandable. The question then is, what is the relationship between language and what language points to? When we attempt to answer this question, we then find ourselves in a spiral of never-ending questions. Our faith then, becomes one of which someone described as "Living with the Questions," because every response, then, opens the door to a new set of questions. Some would say that it is the love of God and not the cross, which determines our relationship to God. However, as you point out, the Gospel writer points out that God's love is not an abstraction nor a mere platitude, but rather a real emotion which was demonstrated in the historic act that "He gave us His only begotten Son (the crucified Lord) that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life. Belief in Jesus is not only an intellectual assent, but rather a commitment to and identification with the crucified one in both His death and resurrection. In the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, as Paul informs us, we are buried with Him, and resurrect with Him. The dichotomy that some would make between unity with God and reconciliation with God is alien to Christian theology. It is almost analogous to the dichotomy that some would make between "physical" and "spiritual," i.e. a false dichotomy. We cannot separate the love of God from the cross unless we engage in dissecting the various elements of the biblical theology of redemption. This dissection would result in a message which neither the Gospel writers, nor Paul intended to convey. Yes, I totally agree, i.e. let's maintain the simplicity of the Gospel. Thanks for keeping us honest
Juan.