Why DID We Crucify Him?

 
I’m still thinking critically about the present-day view of Jesus, the view of which Deepak Chopra advocates by painting a rosy-cozy picture of a “third” Jesus.  Awhile back we saw Machen’s comments that were excellent and appropriate.  From a different “tradition,” here’s Bishop Willimon’s take on this whole thing.

“It is odd that we have made even Jesus into such a quivering mass of affirmation and oozing graciousness, considering how frequently, unguardedly, and gleefully Jesus told us that we were sinners.  Anyone who thinks that Jesus was into inclusiveness, self-affirmation, and open-minded, heart-happy acceptance has then got to figure out why we responded to him by nailing him on a cross.  He got there not for urging us to ‘consider the lilies’ but for calling us ‘whitewashed tombs’ and even worse.”

Right.  If Jesus just gave us some neat statements on realizing our potential, why in the world did we staple him to a tree while cackling like demons?  We need Jesus because he called sin sin and chased it to the cross to pay for it and take the damning curse from those who trust in him.  I don’t really care about my lack of self-actualization and low self-esteem.  My dark and depraved heart frightens me much more.

Qutoes from William Willimon, Sinning Like a Christian (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 8.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

More Machen

The church today is facing something similar to what Machen faced less than 100 years ago: Jesus divorced from Scripture, history, and the church.  We saw it a few days back in Deepak Chopra’s “third Jesus.”  Deepak’s jesus used scented lotions and came so we could realize our inner potential, so we might find self-actualization and inner tranquility.  The Christ of Scripture, history, and the church is God in the flesh who came to save people from sinful self-actualization by becoming a bloody curse on the cross, by destroying death in his resurrection, and by ascending into glory where he now lives to protect his church.  This is the gospel truth that Machen so ably defended.

“I do not think that what the New Testament says about the cross of Christ is particularly intricate.  It is, indeed, profound, but it can be put in simple language.  We deserved eternal death; the Lord Jesus, because he loved us, died in our stead upon the cross.  It is a mystery, but it is not intricate.  What is really intricate and subtle is the manifold modern attempt to get rid of the simple doctrine of the cross of Christ in the interests of human pride.  Of course there are objections to the cross of Christ, and men in the pulpits of the present day pour out upon that blessed doctrine the vials of their scorn; but when a man has come under the consciousness of sin, then as he comes into the presence of the cross, he says with tears of gratitude and joy, ‘He loved me and gave himself for me.”

From “What the Bible Teaches ABout Jesus” in J. Gresham Machen, Selected Shorter Writings, edited by D. G. Hart (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004), 30.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Deepak’s jesus

 

Deepak Chopra, in many ways a picture of American religion right next to Oprah and Osteen, has his own Jesus – or so he claims in a recent book of his, The Third Jesus: The Christ We Cannot Ignore (New York: Harmony Books, 2008).  He says the first Jesus is the historical one, “and we know next to nothing about him” (p.7-8).  “This historical Jesus has been lost… swept away by history” (p. 8). 

The second Jesus is the one the early church made up: “He was created by the Church to fulfill its agenda” (Ibid.).  In fact, Chopra says, Jesus’ followers put words into his mouth, like the ones that say he is the only way to the Father (p. 10).  “The New Testament is an interpretation of Jesus by people who felt reborn but also left behind” (Ibid.).  “This is the Jesus built up over thousands of years by theologians and other scholars” (p. 9).

Chopra is ticked off (my words) at these two Jesuses, because they stole something precious from him.   What did they steal?  The Third Jesus:  ”The Jesus who taught his followers how to reach God-consciousness” (Ibid.).  Chopra summarizes his Jesus’ mission this way: “Jesus intended to save the world by showing others the path to God-consciousness” (p. 10).  He then goes on to quote some of Jesus’ more beautiful, harmonizing, and peaceful statements (i.e. consider the lilies, do unto others, seek and ye shall find, etc); Jesus gives people beautiful and carefree existence, Chopra notes.

I get sick in the stomach writing this, honestly.  This is utterly inconsistent: Chopra says the NT is the early church’s construction of Jesus, yet he quotes the NT to show the reader his own version of Jesus.  Furthermore, if  theologians and scholars for 1900 years got Jesus wrong, according to Chopra, isn’t it quite arrogant of him to think hegets Jesus right?  I realize “logic” in Eastern religions isn’t always sought after, but this is bizarre.

 Of course, this is the Jesus Seminar on steriods married to Eastern religion which flirts with American spirituality – which is why books like this can hit the top of the NYT bestsellers next to Oprah’s stuff.  I don’t read these things for fun, but as a way to take the pulse of the religious/spiritual culture in which we live.  Also, one could study this book in light of the 2nd commandment, what it means to make an image.   This book makes the golden calf look like kindergarten round-up!

In summary, Deepak’s “Christ we cannot ignore,” is a christ we cannot adore because he is a projection of the author’s imagination.  This is America’s Eastern jesus: your way, right away!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Barth: Not A Sick Man

“Revelation culminates in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.  He comes out of Israel, born of Mary the Virgin, and yet from above, and so in His glory the Revealer and Consummator of the covenant.  Israel is not a sick man who was allowed to recover, but One risen from the dead.  By His appearing, over against the verdict that man pronounced on himself God’s verdict comes into view, to remove all human self-contradiction.  God’s faithfulness triumphs in this sea of sin and misery.  He has mercy on man.  He shares with His inmost Being in this man.  He has never ceased to lead by cords of love this people which to His face has behaved like a whore.  It remains true that this man of Israel belongs to God and again and again, not by nature but by the miracle of grace, may belong anew to God, be rescued from death, be exalted to God’s right hand.”

Taken from Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), 80.

Speaking of Barth, if anyone wants to sell (or knows of a seller) Barth’s Dogmatics (set) for a good price, let me know!  I hope to read them all sooner than later, but the price is a huge setback.  For now, I’ll finish the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Exodus: Moses, Israel, and Jesus

Terence Fretheim (Exodus [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991]) makes several excellent observations concerning Moses, Israel, and Yahweh from Exodus 2.11-22.  Fretheim writes first that “Moses embodies Israel in his own life experience.”  How?  He 1) enters into conflict with the Egyptians, 2) becomes the subject of Pharaoh’s murderous edict, 3) has to flee from Egypt to the wilderness where God meets him at Sinai, and 4) testifies to having been/become a sojourner in a foreign land [his son's name means "foreigner"].  Notice that all four of these are true of Israel and Moses – Moses does it first in a real way.  He could not properly identify with Israel from birth, since he grew up in the courts of Pharaoh.  He had to first personally and intimately identify with the Israelites to be a proper deliverer and redeemer.  He did, as Fretheim notes, “become one of them by virtue of his own experience” (p. 42).   Of course this brings us to Christ, who became like his brothers in every way, sin excepted.  Moses is an OT “shadow” of Christ.

Furthermore, Fretheim also emphasizes how Moses’ action anticipates or foreshadows Yahweh’s soon-to-come actions.  Both Moses and Yahweh see and feel Israel’s oppression, both confront a wrong/injustice, both are rejected by Israel, both strike Egypt, both give water to thirsty people.  Moses’ own name means “draw out;” Yahweh will “draw out” his people as Moses was drawn out, as Moses drew out Israel, as it were.  Moses does these things in a creaturely, imperfect way, while Yahweh does them in the way of a Creator-Redeemer, perfectly.  Moses cannot do it; “God will have to become directly involved” (p. 44).  Again – Moses points us to the true Savior as his own life anticipates the mighty wonders of God in deliverance.

Stay tuned for more from Fretheim in the upcoming months.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Christ – My Life Coach Helping Me Overcome My Bad Habits?

Here’s what Willimon says about Horton’s new book which diagnoses the Amerincan church, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008): “Here the roots of our current theological malaise are exposed and we see the wrong turns we took when we began taking ourselves more seriously than God.  Michael Horton diagnoses our trouble in stunning, unavoidable character.  Therapeutic, utilitarian deism is named, nailed, and defeated with the best weapon God has given us – the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Presumptively evangelical Christianity is exposed as the latest recruit to the cause of insipid, culturally compromised liberalism.  I am judged in the process.  Robert Schuller’s vapid ecclesiology is us all over.  My sermons are only slightly less silly and compromised than Joel Osteen’s.  Mea culpa.  Mea culpa.  Mea Culpa” (p. 10)

Here are a few blurbs from the book:

“My concern is that we are getting dangerously close to the place in everyday American church life where the Bible is mined for ‘relevant’ quotes but is largely irrelevant on its own terms; God is used as a personal resource rather than known, worshiped, and trusted; Jesus Christ is a coach with a good game plan for our victory rather than a Savior who has already achieved it for us; salvation is more a matter of having our best life now than being saved from God’s judgment by God himself; and the Holy Spirit is an electrical outlet we can plug into for the power we need to be all that we can be” (p. 19).

“It is not heresy as much as silliness that is killing us softly.  God is not denied but trivialized – used for our life programs rather than received, worshiped, and enjoyed” (p. 24).

“While God wants to give us everlasting life, we settle for trivial satisfaction of superficial needs that are to a large extent created within us by the culture of marketing” (p. 34).

This is hard hitting stuff, and much needed hard hits.  Read this book and take the blows; it will help purge you of the dross and drivel of self-love and positive thinking that has taken the American church captive.

One more note: this is the perfect book to give your elders and pastors after you get a copy for yourself.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Andrew Lincoln on the Jews, Pilate, and Jesus: Trial!

In Truth on Trial (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), Andrew Lincoln brings out the irony of Jesus’ trial in John’s Gospel.  Actually, to begin the irony, it is more a trial of Pilate and the Jews than it is of Jesus (p. 137).  I don’t have the time and space to type it all out, but suffice it to say, Lincoln does a top-notch job of bringing Johannine themes as well as OT themes (mostly Is. 40-55) together in the trial of the ages, Jesus before Pilate and the Jews.

Here’s how he closes the section, discussing how (ironically) the Jews and Pilate are rendered guilty by this trial while Jesus is cleared as judge.

“In effect, the chief priest’s final words [my note: 'We have no king but Caesar!'] mean that they cease to be the special people of God and become just one of the nations subject to Caesar.  Caesar’s representative in the narrative, Pilate, despite the political power he can employ to toy with ‘the Jews,’ is ultimately shown by his actions to be like the gods of the nations in Isaiah – impotent (cf. Is 44.10; 45.20; 46.7).  As for Jesus, he takes on Israel’s role as the servant-witness: ‘By a perversion of justice he was taken away’ (53.8a).  And the imagery used of his suffering combines with the Fourth Gospel’s Passover imagery: he is ‘like a lamb that is led to the slaughter’ (53.7), however, he is enabled to give his back to be struck and not to hide his face from insult and spitting (50.6, cf John 19.1, 3).  Indeed, he can be seen as confuting every tongue that rises against him in judgment (cf. 54.17) and, even though on trial, as the judge who executes justice (cf. Is 42.1, 2, 4)” (p. 133-138).

As I noted several months back on a similar post, when Lincoln writes something on John’s gospel, get it!  See also his commentary on John’s Gospel, in the Black’s New Testament Commentary series.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Deuteronomy and Jesus’ Farewell Discourse: Not a Parallel Coincidence

Not only do Exodus themes run throughout John’s Gospel, they are concentrated in Jesus’ farewell discourse.

“Most obvious is the fact that both [Moses' final speech and Jesus'] are composed as fare well discourses, spoken by leaders who are about to be separated from those they have led.  Conversely, they are spoken to groups who are about to lose the leaders on whom they depended.  The immediate future of these groups is also similar: the Israelites are about to enter Canaan to establish themselves as Yahweh’s chosen people; the disciples of Jesus are about to become his definitive community.  Both the Israelites and the disciples are in need of consolation in their loss, and of encouragement in the struggle against their enemies that is about to begin.  Finally, both groups require instruction and warning about how they are to act towards one another within each group (the bases of their social structure), and toward the enemies who will surround them: the ‘nations’ for the Israelites, the ‘world’ for the disciples.”

Of course, there are more parallels; this is but a small taste.

The entire excellent article is by Aelred Lacomara “Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31-16:33)” Catholic Biblical Quarterly (1974), 36, p. 66.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

John’s Gospel: Moses, Jesus, and Signs

Many scholars split John’s Gospel into two major parts: chapters 1-11 and 12-21.  Scholars differ on the main themes of these parts and the exact location of the “middle,” but generally speaking the first part is about Jesus’ public ministry and the second is his journey to the cross.  Narrative time goes rather quickly in the first part but slows down considerably in the second.  Signs are concentrated in the first part, but not in the second.  The division is a legitimate one to make.

Craig Keener has a great observation on the structure of the first part of John’s Gospel.  He notes that the signs in the first section begin in chapter 2 and end in chapter 11.  They contrast with Moses’ “signs” (the plagues) quite significantly:

“The opening sign (2.1-11) recounts Jesus’ benevolence at a wedding; the last involves a funeral [ch. 11]….  Whereas Moses’ first sign was transforming water to blood, Jesus benevolently transforms it into wine.  Likewise, whereas the final plague against Egypt was the death of the firstborn sons, the climax of Jesus’ signs is raising a dead brother-provider.”

This structure is witness to John’s earlier comment contrasting Moses and Christ – The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (1.17).  Or, in other words, as the Pharisees thought Moses would do them well, Jesus used Moses as legal evidence against them: There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.   If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me (4.45-6). 

If John used OT scriptures and OT events as witness for his main point (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God), John can structure his gospel in a way that strengthens his testimony.  The overall structure of the gospel, as noted in the last post here, is further testimony – legal evidence - that Jesus is whom he said: the I AM.  Here at the very center of John’s Gospel is the very center of his message – Jesus, the resurrection and the life.

Quote taken from Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary Volume II (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 835.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

John’s Gospel: Trial, Testimony, Structure, and Minor Characters

John’s Gospel is a gospel of trial and testimony. Trials take place: Jesus on trial, his followers on trial, the world on trial, the Pharisees on trial, the Jews on trial, the reader on trial – it is a book of trials. It is also a book of testimony – legal witness that Jesus is whom he says. There is verbal testimony (truly truly I say to you…) and there is visible testimony (miracles/signs). John’s Gospel contains word and work evidence that Jesus is who he says he is. If you remember from earlier posts, Andrew Lincoln is a great source for this trial/testimony theme in John’s Gospel (Trial and Testimony [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000] as well as The Gospel According to Saint John [Peabody: Hendrikson, 2005]).

Not only is John’s Gospel a gospel of trial and testimony, it is also a narrative masterpiece. There is irony, humor, sarcasm, metaphor, word-play, story, character, conflict, resolution, etc. There are seven minor characters closely associated with Jesus’ words and signs (Jesus’ mother, the royal official & his son, the lame man, Peter, the blind man, Lazarus [including Mary & Martha], and Jesus’ mother once again at the cross). In a helpful article on these seven minor characters and the narrative aspect of John, James Howard argues that these seven drive the narrative along while emphasizing several key Johaninne motifs (belief, unbelief, glory, death, etc.). Howard’s article is good, but he doesn’t draw out the trial and testimony motif enough.

I would add to Howard’s list, following Lincoln, that these seven minor figures are also used by John as witnesses. They are actual and literary witnesses to the veracity of Jesus Christ and his own self-testimony. The minor figures sit on the witness stand of this cosmic trial, proving that Jesus is indeed who he said he was. Jesus is the light of the world: the blind man sees. Jesus is the good shepherd, who, like YHWH in the OT, heals and brings his sheep home: the sick son and lame man are healed. Jesus is the resurrection and life: Lazarus comes out of the tomb after 4 days of death. The list goes on. John brilliantly weaves these witnesses into the overall narrative structure of the gospel, so that as different witnesses take the stand, the reader is more and more convinced that Jesus is the I AM, the Messiah promised long ago, the true Son of God. There is progression in this trial: as it moves on, the witnesses become more convincing, the prosecutors become more hostile, and Jesus ultimately dies and rises again, which is the capstone of all witness, proving that his testimony is undoubtedly true. In all of this there is trial irony: Jesus and his followers are on trial the whole way through, while in the end through his death and resurrection he is the judge who puts unbelievers on trial. There is a divine table-turning as the accused becomes the accuser.

John can do this – he did actually witness these events, after all. Further, he wrote the gospel so that the readers believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God – and that by this faith they may have life in his name (John 20.31). Every drop of evidence proves as much. John could have given more testimony, but guided by the Spirit he chose just this testimony and ordered it just so for the purpose that we believe it, so the testimony frees us because it is the truth.  The minor characters as John uses them serve the purpose of testimony so that by our trust in this testimony we are not in the dock, but with Christ, cleared from all guilt.

The article mentioned above is James Howard, “The Significance of Minor Characters in the Gospel of John” Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (2006): 63-78.

shane lems

sunnyside wa