Posted by Eliza on: 11.16.2006 /
This question stems from the textbook chapter for class #6. It’s not actually the focus topic for that class. (I’m pretty sure the text and pastor would answer “Yes!” - loud and clear - to the question above). But this question leaps out for me from some of the text’s statements. Below, I’ll go through the hot spots in the text, & my thoughts and reactions, and I would be very interested to hear what others think about this question & topic.
I haven’t been to class in a few weeks. I missed class #6 two weeks ago when conference attendees were in town & some of us met and had dinner. (No doubt about it - that was well worth missing class for!) Then last week, the pastor was out of town so class was cancelled. Now this week, I have an evening event for work but might be able to catch the last hour of class (and pick up the DVD for the class I missed). I think the class and I will be able to meet back up more often in December.
It seems ironic that these 2 classes I’m missing are the ones covering the pinnacle topic the course has been building to (I think): “Jesus Christ, Our Savior (Parts I and II)”. As I look through the text for these 2 classes I’m struck by how often it uses the title “Christ”, and how rarely it uses the name “Jesus”. That fits with the focus on JC as Savior - but it comes across as dry & impersonal to me. I’m struck by how very little of the life of Jesus is mentioned, and how (imo) what is mentioned is presented through rose-colored glasses.
Remember, I haven’t had any formal Christian teaching before this. My picture of Jesus comes from having picked up the Bible over a year ago and starting to read at Matthew 1:1, proceeding forward book by book as they are bound into the New Testament. Using that approach, one reads first through 3 accounts of Jesus’s last year, the 3 synoptic gospels comprising about 80 pages which tell and re-tell the same basic life story 3 times. That seems like a pretty solid foundation to the newbie reader. The message seems to be that these accounts are really important. They must form the framework for all the books that follow in the NT. But that is clearly not how this class is approaching Jesus.
Of the 20 teaching points in these 2 chapters, only 2 address the life of Jesus described in the gospels - all of the rest is about his meaning, his birth (conception), his death, and (of course) his resurrection.
The first of those 2 teaching points starts:
9. The Gospels record the life of Christ - His childhood, ministry, miracles of love and mercy - thirty-three years of joyful obedience to His heavenly Father.
If this were written by a high school student, the English teacher would put a red-ink note in the margin: “Unsupported by the source you are discussing. There’s actually very little about His childhood, and nothing about His adult years until the last one (or three). Revise!”
It continues (emphasis added):
How does the perfect life of Christ profit us?
“Perfect life” - ? That’s not the impression I got, though of course it depends on how you define “perfect”. (It can get circular quickly, if one says that of course His life was perfect, because He was Christ!) I read those gospels as describing an inspiring but not perfect person, leading an inspiring but not perfect life. And, indeed, if He was perfect on earth, can he have been “fully human”?
In the text, scripture citations and summary point follow, including:
Romans 5:19 By the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.
From this we learn: By His perfect life, Christ fulfilled the Law for us. Now it can no longer condemn us. (Because Christ is man, He could take our place under the Law; because He is God, His fulfillment of the Law suffices for all men.)
Again, was His life on earth perfect? Is it important that his life have been perfect? What does “perfect” even mean? The gospels describe someone who was really, really good…but, in my untutored reading, not perfect. I think of these examples:
(1) Jesus said in Matthew 5:22, “…whoever says ‘You fool’ will be liable to the hell of fire” - then Matthew 23:16 He says to the Pharisees and scribes, “You blind fools!”
(2) He denied his mother and siblings in Mark 3:33, and in Mark 6:5 “he could do no mighty work [miracles]” in his hometown, apparently due to their unbelief.
(3) In Mark 5, he sends unclean spirits into a herd of about two thousand pigs, which rush down the bank and drown in the sea, after which the herdsmen flee to tell people, and in Mark 5:17 “they began to beg Jesus to depart from their region.” (They seem to have feared him and the man whose demons he exorcized; also, he had destroyed the herd, and thus the livelihood of at least one herdsman.)
I’m interested in a non-circular explanation of how these events are part of a perfect life by a perfect man! (Especially since I haven’t gotten a chance to ask the pastor teaching the course.)
The second of these teaching points is:
10. During His life on earth, Jesus endured poverty, misunderstanding, hatred, and persecution. Finally His enemies arrested Him…[then it goes into the crucifixion, & gives a number of citations regarding Jesus's suffering on the cross]
Again, the English teacher would take that red-ink pen and write in the margin: “Expand your discussion, at present this claim is not supported.” Nowhere is “His life” described in entirety - we really have only a smattering of details about the last year (or 3 years, in John).
Misunderstood - yes. The gospels describe to me someone with a sense of urgency about getting around from place to place to spread the word, heal, and teach, who didn’t hesitate to attack hypocrisy where he saw it.
“Enduring poverty” - hmmm. The gospels describe someone who accepted a wide range of conditions, including deprivation (most notably, living in the desert for 40 days) - but who also traveled with an entourage including (in Luke 8:2) the 12 disciples and Mary Magdalene plus “many others who provided for them out of their means.” There’s no mention of them going hungry (or, none that I recall). There are 2 occasions in which Jesus provides for hungry crowds, creating plenty from limited resources.
We don’t know whether He traveled with only the clothes He wore, but if so it doesn’t come across as something He saw as a test, a trial, or a punishment - but, instead, that He was focusing on the things that were really important. An inspiration for us to follow, not to feel sorry for.
The summary points for this 2nd question are:
From this we learn: Christ suffered and died as our Substitute, thereby saving us from (A) Sin - its guilt, punishment, and slavery; (B) Death - which is now the entrance to eternal life; (C) The devil…
(I don’t have much comment on this, since I failed to start believing in original sin, substituted sacrifice, and eternal life when I had chances in classes #1, 2, and 3.)
Why such a bee in my bonnet about this? It seems to me like such a key point in how one conceptualizes Jesus & his importance. I (a non-Christian) feel silly saying this, but it bothers me to see Jesus treated like the only thing he had to offer was his blood. He could have been bland-and-boring-and-perfect, with no spice in his life and nothing inspiring to teach, and yet could still have been the Christ. But for some reason, that’s not how he’s portrayed in the first 3-4 books of the NT, and it just seems to me (an unchurched atheist) that must be important.
Comment by: Helen
1 11/16/06 4:39 AM | Comment Link |I find the use of ‘Christ’ instead of ‘Jesus’ impersonal too; I think it’s partly convention, partly a respect thing. It’s maybe like Americans say “The President” - using his title rather than his name. I think in churches where they like to emphasize “Jesus is your friend!” you’d hear Jesus used more than Christ.
This underemphasis on Jesus’ actual life in some Christian traditions bothers a lot of Christians too. One of the things the emergent Christian movement (this is my sense anyway) wants to do is encourage an appropriate focus on Jesus’ life in Christian faith and practice. Yes, it doesn’t make sense it’s only about his death. If we have records of what a perfect man did while he lived on earth, surely we can learn something from those about how we are supposed to live?
It’s not silly - it is perfectly reasonable for someone outside a system to look at it and ask “How does this make sense?” if it doesn’t make sense to them. Often people outside a system are better at spotting its inconsistencies because no-one has taught them how to explain the inconsistencies away yet ;-)
It’s an axiom that Jesus is perfect and everything he is recorded as having said and done is to be understood according to that axiom.
I think that’s more what’s going on than it being circular. The circularity tends to come up more in Christianity in such claims as “The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is”
I see statements about Jesus’ perfection not as circular but affirmations of the axiom.
Again, it’s axiomatic; if we can’t understand it it’s because mere mortals can’t fully comprehend such mysteries.
Yes, it is essential to conservative Christian belief that Jesus had a perfect life. One reason is in what you quoted although it may have been too much in Christianese for you to realize it:
If you look carefully at this, it is a claim predicated on Jesus’ perfection.
Jesus also has to be perfect because Jesus is God and God is perfect.
The sacrifice for sin had to be ‘unblemished’ according to Jewish Law in the OT - hence Jesus the ultimate sacrifice had to be morally unblemished i.e. sinless to meet God’s sacrifice requirements.
And it is important (in Christian doctrine) that God himself was the one to pay the price for sin, so it matters whether Jesus is God or not.
I find doctrine boring so I probably forgot some of the details of all this. Maybe someone who is into it can tell you all the reasons it matters whether Jesus is perfect or not.
It means, never ever sinned. Morally flawless. Did the will of God 100%. Was tempted (this was a consequence of being fully human, evidently) but never gave into temptation - ever. (That he was tempted but never sinned is stated in the book of Hebrews)
Eliza, ok I have to put my Christian hat on for this: “the ‘mistake’ you are making is to form your own human opinion on Jesus’ actions, based on your own ‘arbitrary’ system of values.
The point is, you have not accepted the axiom and so you are going about this the WRONG way. The RIGHT way is to read the text knowing that Jesus is perfect and then defend everything he does as the action of a perfect man.
If (hat off) you’d been in Bible studies with conservative Christians you’d have learned this! ;-)
Anyway I hope you can ask the pastor about some of these things this after class the next time you go. It would be interesting to hear his responses.
oh, one more thing
Dear oh dear, you’re not doing very well at this, are you? ;-) Let’s hope they keep giving the ’slow ones’ like you more chances; somehow I think they will…
Comment by: Dan
2 11/16/06 5:12 AM | Comment Link |Hi Eliza,
I’m finding this really interesting!
There’s 2 points you’ve raised here which I think are really important.
1) The emphasis that evangelicals tend to put on Jesus work of atonement (i.e. his death, resurrection etc.) - often to the unhelpful exclusion of everything else we know about him.
2) Was he perfect, and what exactly does that mean anyway?
To me, Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and subsequent resurrection is very important as it’s what makes it possible for me to be accepted and forgiven by God. It’s also the ultimate example of sacrificial love - which I am expected to learn to follow. One of the best things about it is that God doesn’t just sit up there in heaven, pointing the finger at me and saying, “you should live like this”! He (in the person of Jesus) laid down his own life FIRST, and then said, “here, let me help you to do that”!
However, Jesus didn’t JUST come to earth to die, although I think it’s reasonable to argue that this plus the resurrection was the culmination of his ministry. He came to live as well and to teach and to demonstrate what “the Kingdom of God” was all about! When we ignore all of this we miss out on so much! By failing to appreciate his life (what we know of it) and teachings, I don’t think we can really claim to understand what he died for.
Your second question - “Was he perfect?” I often wonder about this as well. I kind of think that if He was God then he must’ve been in some sense - but then you could argue that my reasoning is a bit backwards? But I honestly have no idea what a perfect person ought to look like so I can’t easily judge whether Jesus was or not except by using the sort of circular reasoning you’ve just warned against!
A quick look at your 3 examples though:
1) Does Jesus contradict himself here? If you treat his statements as legal constructs then I guess he does (although I’m not sure about the Greek meaning of the word “liable” here - is this a judgement or a warning?). But if you look at the 2 statements separately then they both seem to make sense in their own right. Is he just using emotive language to make a point - giving a general guideline, rather than a specific rule to be applied to the letter in every situation?
2a) Denying his mother and siblings: Is this a “sin”? Jesus is choosing his priorities here and his priority in this instance was to teach the people about the Kingdom of God. The text doesn’t say that Jesus ignored his mother and siblings indefinitely, just that he used the situation to make a point.
2b) He could do no miracles in his hometown: I don’t think this was due to any fault on Jesus’ part. If he were God fully present in all His glory then I guess he could’ve chosen to heal people anyway, but I don’t think he would’ve done. He wasn’t out to prove himself to people who’d already made their minds up against him. As it was, I think Jesus power came through the Holy Spirit - the same Holy Spirit the apostles received on the day of Pentecost - the spirit of God. I think God’s power was present through him to heal people wherever people were responsive to him but not when they decided against him and chose unbelief.
3) Again this is a question of priorities. Certainly the herdsmen didn’t do too well out of this! - but the demon possessed man did and I think the town could have if they’d been more responsive. I don’t think they should’ve been keeping pigs anyway as these were considered unclean animals under Jewish law. Perhaps they felt convicted by Jesus’ presence as well as by the obvious power he wielded and that’s why they asked him to leave? Jesus characteristically responds to their request and does so, rather than imposing his presence on them any longer. He does send the demon-possessed man back into the region though, to tell the people what God has done for him - thus continuing to reach out to the people but in a way they can more easily cope with!
Comment by: NCxian
3 11/16/06 5:54 AM | Comment Link |It has always seemed to me that the biggest sacrifice that God made in coming to earth (or sending his son to earth, or whatever metaphor you use to understand it)was not Jesus’ death on the cross, but in sending him in the first place. If Jesus and God are one entity, then that must have been like cutting off his arm. If they are in relationship like a father/son, then that was sending his child away from you for 33 years. If Jesus was God (all powerful/all knowing) limiting himself to human frailities, then that would be like, I don’t know, squishing himself into the size of a pea (actually an embryo). Or rendering his major senses ineffective.
If you look at it that way, Jesus’ death was like going home. (Granted, not the most peaceful way to do so!)
Comment by: NCxian
4 11/16/06 6:10 AM | Comment Link |Over at the Discussion Board, Txatheist posted some information about a new book by John Shelby Spong, who is not “emergent” but is a prominent member of the old-guard liberal theologians. In Tx’s post, Spong starts by describing layers of mythology that were layered on the actual Jesus and then says:
Comment by: Dan
5 11/16/06 6:37 AM | Comment Link |NCxian - I think in one way you’re right in saying that coming to earth for Jesus was a big sacrifice - he gave up a lot - but in another way, I’m not so sure. God made this world and us in the first place and declared that it was “good”. I think God coming here and living through it himself kind of vindicates the whole human experience. I don’t think He had to grit his teeth or hold his nose or anything like that - I think he probably enjoyed being “fully human”, as much as he enjoyed being fully God before that! Although in many respects it was a difficult and painful life for him, I think life was ultimately meant to be enjoyed by us and I think Jesus knew how to live it - and enjoy it - probably more than anyone else ever has!
Comment by: Donna
6 11/16/06 7:42 AM | Comment Link |This discussion does make me wish I was a wise theologian…but I’m not, just a girl with more questions than answers.
“was Jesus’s life perfect?”
I like to think not but if He was the final “lamb” to be sacrificed for sin and the High Priest who now judges us… He would have to be without sin. I think in becoming human he became just that…human…and we sure are flawed!!….me anyways!! and it does give me comfort to know that the one who is to judge me understands those flaws….and yes, my rational mind thinks this is all crazy but somehow I believe it might be true….I think maybe Jesus had a love that was perfect.. indwelling a dusty frame.
Comment by: Helen
7 11/16/06 7:45 AM | Comment Link |NCxian - so John Selby Spong is writing a book called “Jesus for the non-religious”? Wow, that sounds interesting.
Interesting point about it being hard for the Father and Son to separate when Jesus came to earth. It makes sense to me that that must have been very hard.
According to conversative evangelical theology, the hardest time of all was when God had to turn away from Jesus on the cross, because God placed the sin of the world on Jesus. And that’s why Jesus cried out “Father father why have you forsaken me?”
There are other explanations that could be given for him uttering that cry but that is the conservative evangelical Christian one, I think.
For what it’s worth: when I was thinking that way, I thought a lot about that time on the cross and decided maybe Jesus was comforted after he cried out by realizing that his anguished cry was actually prophesied in the OT. So, when he was away from God’s presence, he found reassurance in God’s Word.
Comment by: Helen
8 11/16/06 7:46 AM | Comment Link |My impression is that there are a number of conservative Christians who think the humanity of Jesus and/or Jesus’ life as recorded in the gospels has been underemphasized. There are quite a few books out there addressing that.
Comment by: Doreen
9 11/16/06 8:52 AM | Comment Link |Wow, that’s an excellent question.
If Jesus was both fully divine and fully human, does that mean his life was both perfect and imperfect?
Comment by: Dan
10 11/16/06 9:23 AM | Comment Link |Maybe that depends on your definition of “perfect”?
Let’s say that “perfect” means “morally flawless” as Helen suggested. What would it mean for a human being to be morally flawless?
Given that all of us involved in this discussion are (I assume) morally flawed, are we even capable of answering that question?
Comment by: Dan
11 11/16/06 10:28 AM | Comment Link |Thinking about this a bit more, I actually think the main issue here - and the main reason that Jesus came - was to bring reconciliation between us and God.
This necessarily implies reconciliation between us and our fellow man and also I think between us and creation - hence the reason why Jesus’ life and teachings are so important. As has been pointed out before in other discussions on this site, evangelicals have often tended to emphasise the “me and God” bit and have neglected the “me and the rest of the world” bit. I know I’ve been guilty of this, especially as a teenager when I first encountered God in a tangible way and responded to that by trying to shut out the rest of the world!
I think if Jesus was perfect, then what he modelled to us was perfect obedience to God. You could argue that wasn’t very difficult if he was God in the first place, but that obedience ultimately required him to give up his life in a painful and humiliating death, thus pushing obedience as far as it could possibly go - the sacrifice of self for the father’s will and the greater good.
I don’t quite understand this, but I think that by submitting my life to Jesus - even though my submission isn’t perfect - and trusting him, I somehow get to share in his obedience and that puts me in a right relationship with my heavenly father.
Comment by: Eliza
12 11/16/06 10:37 AM | Comment Link |Helen - thank you for clarifying, explaining, and setting me straight on several points - maybe you could come teach this class? (I know that your answers and explanations are more satisfying to me than the teacher-pastor’s!) It is sure a good thing this class isn’t graded - I’d be on academic probation by now ;-)
Donna and Dan - you each pointed out that one or more very important aspects of Jesus & his life modeled perfection for us, without the entire human package necessarily being “perfect” (in human terms, at least). That’s good food for thought for me.
Comment by: Eliza
13 11/16/06 10:43 AM | Comment Link |Part of what bothers me is what seems like internal inconsistency in the teachings of this class. We had 2 sessions on the Ten Commandments, and how they show that we are all sinners, if you interpret the laws as expansively as this group of Lutherans does. OK, I wouldn’t have come up with that on my own, but I understand (after some initial struggle) what they mean by this, and why it’s important to them.
But when I read the gospels, there seem to be a number of examples in Jesus’ life that are identical to examples the pastor gave of sins we all might commit - including getting angry, calling someone “fool”, not honoring your mother, causing someone else to lose his property, and scaring people. So then I have to wonder. It almost seems like they’re not reading the gospels! but I suspect instead that our “filters” are just substantially different.
Comment by: Helen
14 11/16/06 11:20 AM | Comment Link |Eliza, somehow I don’t think they’d be too excited at the thought of having ‘almost an atheist’ teach their class! ;-) But I’m glad if anything I wrote helped you understand anything that was confusing you previously.
The ‘Jesus is morally perfect’ filter informs us that Jesus’ behavior was always morally perfect. So, if he got angry it was appropriate anger at injustice/oppression. When he sent his family away he was appropriately being faithful to God’s priorities for him, which didn’t include seeing his family right then. I don’t remember where he called someone a fool. But anyway, whatever he did was morally perfect, so we alway give him the benefit of the doubt.
We, however, being sinful, can have selfish motives and make wrong choices; and that’s why we have to be careful about being angry and how we set our priorities. We could get that wrong.
Implicitly where you get to is - all these things Jesus did which are sometimes on our list of sins, are judgment calls, actually. They might be sinful, they might not be; it depends on the specific circumstances.
So - it’s not that Jesus did the same thing we do and when we do it it’s sinful but when he does it’s not because he’s a priori perfect. It’s that there’s some nuance in there which means that Jesus did it in a morally perfect way. In theory Christians can do that too although in practice, since Christians struggle with sin, it might be very difficult to do it quite the way Jesus did i.e. the morally perfect way. And some things are so hard to do morally perfectly it might be best not to even try, even though Jesus managed it. In other words, what Christians teach about those things is “Don’t try this yourself; this should only be attempted by a qualified Messiah” ;-)
But all this having to figure out the nuance that made what Jesus did ‘perfect’ can make attempting to use him as a role-model rather challenging…
It’s yet another of those areas in which some Christians seem to think it’s simple, but I don’t think it is, really.
Comment by: joe
15 11/16/06 12:39 PM | Comment Link |This is a great question.
First, I think you have to appreciate that those of us who have been in the church a long time have an almost unique ability to hold two almost-contradictory ideas in our minds at the same time.
The perfection debate is a very common example. Ask most christians whether christ was perfect, and they would probably say yes. Ask them what that actually means and they’ll probably mumble something about never doing anything wrong.
Now, if we forget being christians for a moment and think about someone who never does anything wrong. Never forgets where he has left his books. Never loses anything. Never forgets to send someone a birthday card.
Would you say such a person is sinning? I don’t think I would - these are not examples of moral failings, but examples of being a human being. And I actually believe there are some indications in the bible of where Jesus made a factual error. Now, I’d quickly point out that many people disagree and have convoluted explanations about why what you read is not what happened, but those are my cards on the table.
Jesus the Christ was not Superman, as far as I can see. He was a human like you or I.
Now, what I mean by perfect is that Jesus, unlike Che Gevara, Gandhi, Brian or whoever is your favourite hero-figure, had not an ounce of moral impurity or failing within him. He was the purest of pure souls.
And then this leads to even more complication - I want to only believe in the human Jesus (rather than the superhero Jesus) and yet at the same time want to believe he was also God, the creator of the universe.
This is a bit of a tension. How can you squeeze the infinite, the indescribable into the finite space between a man’s ears - and still be described as divine?
Comment by: Karen
16 11/16/06 3:57 PM | Comment Link |Eliza, there’s an ongoing attempt by scholars to parse out the overlay of supernatural religiosity laid onto the philosopher-rabbi Jesus by later writers of the gospels and epistles and by church tradition. The goal is to get back to Jesus’s actual words and life story.
It’s called the Book of Q and contains just the source materials - teachings in parables - that are found in Mark, Matthew and Luke.
I don’t know what your Lutheran pastor would think of it (he might well label it heresy) but you might find it very interesting:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=542
I think if there’s any way to come to an understanding of who was the human Jesus, it would be through something like this. I’m looking forward to Spong’s next book. It’ll be interesting if he uses this kind of “Sayings Gospel” as a basis.
Comment by: meg
17 11/16/06 7:19 PM | Comment Link |Eliza, it was SO good to have lunch with you today! I really enjoyed getting to know you as a ‘flesh-and-blood’ person. It is such a lovely experience - like children meeting their penpals - to encounter CatE confidantes in person! There’s a pic of Eliza, and one of CatE’s very own Rachel, on my blog (which you can get to by clicking on my name!) (I know that’s obvious to most of you, but those of you like me, for whom computers are non-intuitive, might appreciate it!)
Eliza, it was lovely to meet your husband, too. Your comment in introducing me, pertaining to the blog and whether I’m a Christian or was a Christian or might be or (endless possibilities!) was very thought-provoking, and i really wanted to engage what you were saying. Problem is, I realised, standing there thinking of what to say, I don’t really KNOW where I stand in relation to Christianity. I see god in the brilliant autumn trees, and stretch out my hands and express my heart to jesus, as i walk in the cold rain, and get excited in brian mclaren’s hell book to realise that maybe god is kind and not going to send my loved ones to hell, and maybe i can give god a second chance now, in the light of this realisation…
Comment by: Eliza
18 11/17/06 12:42 AM | Comment Link |Meg, ditto - it was great to meet you & Coco, and to talk. I’d love to talk more with you about alot of things, including your experiences in Africa and how 1 person, or a small group, can make a difference in people’s lives (anywhere in the world).
I didn’t mean to put you on the spot as I introduced you to John! I meant only that your “label”, if you choose to have one, should be the one that you pick, not one assumed or imposed by someone else. (John Shelby Spong is an example - he calls himself Christian, but some other Christians say he’s not. Who’s right? Does it even matter? Etc.) And I don’t have any idea what label you use/choose, if any, and that’s all!
I’m so glad that the Brian McLaren book you’re reading is giving you new hope. The thoughts of an atheist (me) on hell are probably not any help, but it strikes me that we all experience awe and wonder in the natural world, and in our lives & the lives of those around us, whether or not we attribute those wonders to god….the “evidence” is all around us. On the other hand, only those who have been taught that hell exists can have fear of it, and other than those teachings there is no basis on which to believe in hell, or that anyone suffers for eternity. Call me cynical, but I think the idea of hell was cultivated over the centuries, as a way to instill fear in the masses. (It sure seems to have worked on the people in my class!) A god who created us all, our kids, the world, and brilliant autumn days like today (as well as torrential rains like yesterday) - is that a god who would send people to hell for not believing the right thing, the right way? (Especially when the presumed instruction manual is not crystal clear, & has obviously been interpreted many different ways.)
Comment by: Eliza
19 11/17/06 1:00 AM | Comment Link |joe - thanks for your comments! I’m glad you liked the question.
Now that you point it out, I see that this is one skill I sorely lack. It wasn’t part of my upbringing! How do people learn to do this? Is it difficult sometimes?
Yes, that is a bit of tension! Perhaps the “two almost-contradictory ideas” approach will allow those 2 conceptions of Jesus to coexist peacefully?
Another difference in how the churched & unchurched see things may be their positions on whether humans can hope to understand the areas which seem ineffable. “We can’t hope to understand that” might be true, but in the absence of convincing evidence that I should let it drop, I will continue to ask questions & try to make sense of things…!
Doreen, I’m glad you too found this question interesting. (Seminary sounds full of them!) But I couldn’t tell whether you were being serious or not here:
I interpret the FDFH description (fully divine, fully human) as meaning fully human while in a body on earth, fully divine otherwise - but I suspect this is a minority interpretation ;-) . That could mean, then, that his human life was not perfect, but his divine existence is.
Comment by: joe
20 11/17/06 6:58 AM | Comment Link |Well, I think it is an oxymoron. A man cannot be God, the creator of the universe and remain man.
Yet, I believe Jesus was God. The way I justify this to myself is that somehow christ had the essence of the divine - whatever that is - so that when he became human he left behind some of the trappings of deity (all knowledge, omipresence, etc) and yet was still divine.
And I think this boils down to love. Christ exhibited divine love, something that was ultimately very human (as opposed to superhuman) and yet something that can only have come from being God himself.
[to answer your other question, I think the church tends to institutionalise people. Like any large organisation, it becomes more important to conform than to be creative or to think for yourself. We tend to suggest to people a bunch of tickboxes they need to complete to show they are 'proper' christians rather than treasuring the questions. So on the one hand, we can hold two almost opposite ideas because we haven't really thought about it very much.
On the other hand, there is a good tradition of divine oxymorons in christianity. Poetry is full of oxymorons, yet sometimes it can tell us far more than the prose because it works on a different emotional level. I'd suggest - if you have time - that you try digging into the works of the great Theologian-Poet G K Chesterton to see how this tradition developed.]
Comment by: Helen
21 11/17/06 7:22 AM | Comment Link |Meg, I’m so glad your meeting with Eliza went well!
I reposted part of your comment as a new blog entry here:
Giving God a second chance
Comment by: Doreen
22 11/17/06 8:40 AM | Comment Link |Eliza, I was being serious when I wrote
I’m trying to figure out where I stand on this….
Tuesday, after the professor said that many believe whenever 1 of the 3 (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) is present, they are all present, I asked then why do most Christians believe they have to close prayers with “In Jesus’ name.” Why would you have to go through Jesus to get to God if God’s already there (aside from the fact the Bible says you do)? I got something of an answer but it was not helpful to where I am now.
I’m leaning toward the belief that Jesus was fully divine and only appeared fully human. That’s an acceptable theology to some but not to many….
Comment by: Marty G.
23 11/18/06 8:01 AM | Comment Link |In thinking about this, I don’t think the word perfect is the word to use. Most evangelicals say that Jesus lived a sinless life. Being fully human, I don’t think there’s any way he could have been perfect. He laughed, cried, got depressed, ate, drank, got acne, went to the bathroom…all that human stuff.
The state of the flesh after the Fall makes being a perfect human an impossibility.
Sinless, yes. Perfect, no.
Comment by: Helen
24 11/18/06 9:22 AM | Comment Link |Doreen, I think ‘in Jesus’ name’ comes from John chapter 14 where Jesus says if they ask anything in his name he’ll do it.
It doesn’t make sense that the words themselves are magic. It more likely means “I’m asking because I’m doing this for you/on your behalf” - or whatever. And if you come to God as a follower of Jesus then of course you are doing it in Jesus’ name whether you say so or not…but even so, these sorts of things do have a tendency to get ritualized.
I’m very curious what you mean by Jesus only appeared fully human. In what way are you thinking he might have appeared human but not have been human?
On the whole I think Christianity has suffered from a lack of emphasis on Jesus being a real person so if anything I lean the other way.
Which is fine - I’m just curious in what ways you think he might have only appeared to be human?
Comment by: Helen
25 11/18/06 9:26 AM | Comment Link |Marty, I think your position agrees with orthodox Christianity, since the question is - are any of those things Jesus went through sins. Because the doctrine of Jesus’ perfection is only about moral perfection. It doesn’t mean he was physically perfect, for example. And it doesn’t mean he never got tired. It just means that as he went through all of these things he never sinned.
Comment by: meg
26 11/18/06 10:55 AM | Comment Link |Eliza, yes, that would be fascinating, to talk more about how a life can make a difference, in Africa, or anywhere in the world. That is a big struggle for me right now - finding my place for good in this world!
Your words are so freeing, both regarding giving me the freedom to name where I’m at with god and christianity, and regarding hell.
brian mclaren, in the book (which is currently lost, so i tried reading the bible, and hated it…) agrees with you - it’s most heartening - saying that hell is an idea from zoroastrian, egyptian, greek and mesopotamian thinking which jesus mentioned in response to their ideas, rather than because it’s real. I must say I like Eliza, Brian and Helen’s ideas about god and hell a lot better than the ideas in the bible!!
this thread about jesus being perfect and imperfect is most intriguing. I’ve often wondered about the sexual element to Jesus’ humanity. Sexuality is such a significant part of who we are as human beings - I wonder what Jesus’ sexuality, sexual experience, thoughts, feelings, longings - were like?
Comment by: NCxian
27 11/18/06 11:29 AM | Comment Link |This may be a bit of an aside, but I think it is interesting to consider what Jesus knew while he was on earth. I think as a child I got the impression that Jesus’ perfection meant that he had perfect knowledge–he knew everything and everything he said was the truth (read “factual). As I have read the Bible as an adult, I see lots of places in his stories where he appears to be surprised by how things turn out, is unaware of where things are going, and so on. Jesus appears to be separated, while on earth, from his divine omniscience.
So, what does that say to us about the things Jesus is reported to have said while on earth? Are they true? Factual? The product of a pure heart but perhaps factually mistaken? What?
Comment by: Karen
28 11/18/06 2:15 PM | Comment Link |Interesting. This American Life, an NPR radio essay show, has a whole program on this weekend about a charismatic pastor from Tulsa, Okla. who stopped believing in hell:
http://thisamericanlife.org
I think you can download the podcast, or listen to it (in my market it’s broadcast on Saturday nights as well as Fridays).
Comment by: Doreen
29 11/20/06 2:57 PM | Comment Link |I saw Reverend Carlton Pearson on Nightline or 20/20 - one of those types of shows. I really liked what he had to say.
Comment by: Eliza
30 11/20/06 11:14 PM | Comment Link |Meg - yes, it’s hard to imagine the thought never crossed his mind. Interesting that there is no whiff of mention in the Bible. (Except one could wonder a bit about the youth clothed only in a linen cloth in Mark 14:51-52, and/or one could wonder whether there was anything more about the relationship between Jesus & his disciples and the group of women who followed & supported them. But maybe that’s just a vivid imagination, & some skepticism thrown in ;0). The lack of mention of sex in the gospels probably adds weight to the idea, rife in some of Paul’s writings, that flesh is sin and spirit is pure.
Comment by: dh
31 11/22/06 1:13 PM | Comment Link |The Bible says that “He was like us in everyway yet without sin.” I think that is the point. He was tempted but never sinned in thought, word or deed. I believe He WAS perfect because He was God on earth and He was human in that He experienced everything we did except the experience of sinning in thought, word and deed. It seems the questions Helen has on this and other issues is answered very clearly from Scripture. It seems the answers are evident and to say otherwise is hard for me to understand. Just because you say it is a “conservative Evangelical” answer doesn’t mean it should be rejected outright by you.
Comment by: Helen
32 11/22/06 2:58 PM | Comment Link |dh wrote:
You’re quite right, dh.
In fact, I never have rejected an answer just because it’s ‘conservative Evangelical’.
Comment by: meg
33 11/23/06 1:19 AM | Comment Link |thanks for the link, karen! i must go to bed now (the constant state of guilt i’m in as i blog….) so shall have to listen to it soon!
Comment by: meg
34 11/23/06 1:23 AM | Comment Link |oooops! how did i manage to make almost my entire comment a block quote? hmmm - MUST be bedtime!!
augustine, incidentally, thought that tjos was inherently tainted with sinfulness. and that we are conceived in original sin. and the most HIDEOUS ideas about women. and nasty anti-celtic-christianity thoughts. makes me shudder!
Comment by: meg
35 11/23/06 1:25 AM | Comment Link |tjos (the book) is … gosh, it’s late! i don’t want to be saying that! goodnight! i really, really AM going to bed, right now! really!
Comment by: Paul M
36 11/24/06 7:50 AM | Comment Link |Oh excellent thoughts everyone, have thoroughly enjoyed reading them!
As I am finding out in a series of lectures I currently attending these Qs about Jesus were wrestled with by the early church fathers. One of the biggest difficulties the early church had was not whether Jesus was divine but whether he was actually a man, which is a contrast today where most people think he was a man but not god.
The early church thought it was a matter of debate whether Jesus had perfect flesh of Adam (i.e. sinless) or whether he came in our home human flesh as that was the only sort around and besides he was born of Mary who was a sinner too. Personally I agree with the early church fathers who argued that Jesus resisted sin all his life through reliance on the holy spirit rather than starting off perfect and staying perfect.
The question as to which part of Jesus life you place focus on depends on your church tradition and unsurprisingly where you place the emphasis has an impact on practices of the church. For an interesting summary of this see McLaren’s seven Jesuses I have known
I think because Jesus was fully human it meant that he did not know everything - for instance there is a glimpse of him learning in the temple as a boy in Luke and then in his accounts of how the world will end Jesus reveals to his disciples that he does not know when.
On the other hand it would seem Jesus lived out his words - in other words they were not just a set of rabbinical teachings but something he embodied/actuliased. Which i think is one way that the people marvelled at the power with how he taught.
The Q of whether Jesus suffered for being human is a good one as well - altho i read it as part of Jesus relationship within the trinity which seems to be one an eternal dance where each memember of the trinity points to each other and takes joy in this pointing the spotlight - so maybe Jesus took a delight in submitting to the Father in this way - certainly other parts of the bible say that the father took delight in this submission and therefore exaulted Jesus in return - again the mutual spotlighting.
I find as a christian a lot of inspiration from the life of Jesus, is compassion for the poor and oppressed, his deseire not to lord it over people but to serve them, to seek to give rather to get, to be passionate about justice, love, mercy and forgiveness. To me they embody something I aspire too but ironically if i try and live that way I realise how much I need Jesus to help me live like him - my own emotional reources are far too limited and my own selflessness far too shallow :).