Auggy, the people who are most sensitive, most willing to believe, most careful to do the right thing, are the very people who are hurt by this kind of reasoning. Because those are the people who most readily find fault with themselves, see themselves in the “punishable” group, and continue to be terrified, convinced that they can never measure up. Those who are more sure of themselves, harder, able to make excuses for their own behaviour are the ones who will put themselves in the “OK” group.
So this message simply CANNOT be the thrust of the gospel. Jesus came to the LEAST, the poor in spirit – those who were beaten down and had already lost all confidence in themselves.
As soon as you say there is a “punishable” group, that is what they (the more fragile) will hear. They will not hear that they don’t fit into that group. What I’m saying is not conjecture, I know it to be true.
I was under the impression that “getting rid of hell altogether” was what Jesus was all about.
And how many times must you be told that “people who practice wickedness” will not be practicing wickedness (“some of you were like that, but you have been washed…” indicating that’s what will happen to them too).
Ruth,
It’s pointless to discuss anything with those who are incorrigible. You KNOW these things therefore you cannot be taught nor can you teach. So I’ll leave it at that.
There’s an awful lot here of “I think what God was really doing was…”. These are merely conjectures, however, that are not supported by the text. They are based on a pre-formed assumption that God must be a certain way.
In the one instance where the text says Jesus knew what he was going to do, he did not first say he was going to do something else – he just asked a question. In the other instances, YHWH actually said, “I’m going to XYZ”.
A proper god would never allow himself to be persuaded to change direction, and would never rethink his intentions. But then, YHWH is not a proper god, he’s the REAL God.
As you suggest, like all universalists, I too find 1 Cor. 15:28 to be a crucial and conclusive text. But I can’t see why you think it must follow that trying to understand it within the “Biblical narrative will obscure the clarity of the Gospel.” More like N.T. Wright or McKnight (The King Jesus Gospel), I would think the opposite: that the “Gospel” can only fully be appreciated when it is connected to the Bible’s Story.
Of course, I too love Roman’s 8’s assurance of no condemnation to justified believers. But I can’t at all see how that overturns the whole Biblical narrative about painful correction to those outside that category. And I do NOT think that evangelicals’ belief that painful things can be corrective is biased by the Catholic purgatory. I think they simply perceive that the Biblical narrative stresses that principle.
We’ll need to disagree on a more ‘finite’ conception of God and God’s vantage point. As I said to Ruth, I think the Bible reinforces my deep intuition that the Ultimate Reality is universal and present everywhere.
You appear to double down on Golgotha being the only place where “correction” occurs. Again, we’re back to my impression that such a belief is quite contradictory to the Biblical storyline, and your response that the Bible just "obscures" what we need to see. As one who sees the Bible as fascinatingly human but full of insight, again yours is an approach that has little appeal to me, and seems too easily selective & self-serving to any conclusion a person may prefer. The interpretation of classic universalists, and those like Parry, Talbott, or Beck seem more adequate & Biblical.
Simply because it demonstrably has happened over most of the history of Christianity. The gospel has been exiled to being a small voice crying in the wilderness of the Christian religion.The output of scholars and theologians over the centuries has contributed both insight and confusion to the understanding of the gospel. The net result has been, unfortunately, a wide spread obscuring of the essential truth of the gospel. The fact that there is a “universalistic” version of the gospel, which is considered controversial and even heretical, demonstrates how much Christendom has lost the plot. The gospel is by definition good news for all creatures and all things, it shouldn’t need the qualifier of “universalism” attached to it. The fact that it does demonstrates that something has gone terribly wrong with the Christian witness of the gospel to the world.
Even N.T. Wright, and I have read many of his books, who has made great contributions towards understanding the historical context of who Jesus is does not hold to the open-ended, all-inclusiveness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He does, albeit reluctantly, maintain that there will be some who will finally remain outside of the living presence of God among us.
The Gospel is fully appreciated when it is heard by the least among us, the poor, the outcasts, the scriptually ignorant and unchurched. This is why Jesus began his ministry by reading this passage from the Isaiah scroll:
Jesus traveled to Nazareth, where he had grown up. On the Sabbath day he went to the synagogue, as he always did, and stood up to read. 17 The book of Isaiah the prophet was given to him. He opened the book and found the place where this is written:
18 “The Lord has put his Spirit in me,
because he appointed me to tell the Good News to the poor.
He has sent me to tell the captives they are free
and to tell the blind that they can see again. — Isaiah 61:1
God sent me to free those who have been treated unfairly — Isaiah 58:6
19 and to announce the time when the Lord will show his kindness.” — Isaiah 61:2
20 Jesus closed the book, gave it back to the assistant, and sat down. Everyone in the synagogue was watching Jesus closely. 21 He began to say to them, “While you heard these words just now, they were coming true!”
Significantly, Jesus stops short of the remaining portion of the passage: and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn, Vengeance and chastisement is not what he is about, that is not what the oppressed and poor need, their lives have been one long chastisement at the hands of the ruling and religious elite–the powers of this world.
Even Jesus could not make head way against the scripture experts of his day: the scribes and Pharisees. And they witnessed the eschatological signs that Jesus performed: healing, the sick, freeing the demon possessed and even raising the dead. But they could not get pass the stumbling block of Jesus touching the unclean and cavorting with sinners. Freely giving healing/forgiveness to the outcasts and scriptually ignorant.
This two tier approach to salvation is not the gospel. Paul makes repeated references to dikaiosune (poorly translated as righteousness, but more accurately translated as equitableness, even-handedness or justice (tsedeq). The equitableness of God is made real by Jesus dying among and for the godless and godforsaken. There is no one, even the most depraved and ungodly who he did not suffer and die for. From the cross Jesus forgave the ungodly, unbelieving sinners who hung him up on the cross. The equitableness of God was fulfilled–iIt is finished, accomplished.
In fact, it was our diseases he bore,
our pains from which he suffered;
yet we regarded him as punished,
stricken and afflicted by God.
But he was wounded because of our crimes,
crushed because of our sins;
the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him,
and by his bruises* we are healed
The Jews of course don’t identify Jesus with this passage from Isaiah. One interpretation they offer is that the Jewish people are collectively the suffering servant. That their suffering contributes to their own salvation, and by extension as the chosen people, to the salvation of world. I see in some versions of universal salvation, with the emphasis on a two tier gospel, a similar sentiment being expressed. Except in this case each individual goes through their personnel chastisement/correction carrying their “cross.”
Of course there is discipline, suffering and even damnation involved in the salvation of the world but it is Jesus himself, as the suffering servant, who endures all of that for everyone–even the unrepentant and unbelievers.
There is only one savior/healer who suffered and died for the sins of the whole world, both believer and nonbeliever. There are not two paths to salvation–one for the believer and another for the non-believer. The only path of salvation–for the entire cosmos–is the path taken by Jesus to Golgotha.
Is God all in all now? If God were fully present in the world would there be death everywhere, a world sliding into greater inequitableness and would debates like this over the nature of God and the gospel be necessary? Where is the resurrection of all things? Is it some sort of “spiritual” resurrection that has occurred leaving the “least among us,” the ones suffering the most in this world because of death and its derivatives and the lack of justice in the world still suffering in the flesh. Is their suffering a sign of God’s chastisement of them?
Long before there were the scriptures there was the living Word of God (Jesus Christ) and long after the scriptures are gone their will be the living Word of God amongst us. The Living Word of God who suffered a godforsaken death on the cross for the sake of all forsaken, damned creatures of God’s beloved creation.
As much as I’d like to, I simply can’t escape the notion that God’s M.O. is to use suffering at some level to complete us, both now and (likely?) in the future. Whether that is weighted more heavily (or completely) toward the temporal or the eternal is more difficult to suss out. Even Jesus himself was perfected through the things that he suffered, so I’m at a loss to see how even the least of us should escape that. Even as imperfect earthly parents, we lovingly discipline our children for their own good.
I can’t deny that the true message of the gospel has been obscured over the years, or that the very term universalism can cause more confusion than it resolves, but I’m very hesitant to completely throw the baby out with the bathwater. Who knows, we may be pleasantly surprised when it comes to God’s righteous judgment in that it may not seem as harsh as some of us are expecting!
The one thing I am certain of is that whatever it is, it is ultimately for all our good.
I’m reminded of the passage that says, “No discipline is pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace.”
Yes Melchizedek, God uses suffering to complete us in every sense of the word. His suffering not ours. The Immolated Lamb slain from the foundation of the cosmos. Not only us but all of creation is filled by the self-emptying of God through Christ (bara the Hebrew “to fill” that is mistranslated as “create” in most English translations)and brings the creation to wholeness.
The least are the very ones that Jesus identifies with most intensely in the here and now. Why? Because they are the most exposed and vulnerable to the threatening chaos and death. They suffer the most in the world due to the gross inequitableness and injustice of the systems and powers of this world.
When Christians speak of being disciplined by God are they saying that this is something that God does towards believers only, for the purpose of making them more mature and effective disciples of Jesus. That may be so. If this means they become more empathetic towards the suffering of others and are moved by compassion to alleviate that suffering and stand against the powerful who oppress them. Then I couldn’t agree more.
My primary concern in all this is not with Christians, but with all those who are not believers and have no hope and are enduring a kind of living hell in this world. What they need is not a gospel of chastisement but the gospel of the same Jesus who read from the Isaiah scroll, the suffering servant of God.
So I am a bit confused when Bob comments on the passage from Romans 8: Of course, I too love Roman’s 8’s assurance of no condemnation to justified believers. But I can’t at all see how that overturns the whole Biblical narrative about painful correction to those outside that category. where he is saying that the punishment/chastisement is reserved for the outsiders/non-believers.
Meanwhile the passage from Hebrews that you cite: “No discipline is pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace.” Is specifically addressed to believers. I realize that there are is no clear consensus among universalists about all this. However, this matter of discipline is a sidebar issue and should not become a red-herring that detracts from the simple message of the Gospel of Jesus who suffered and died for all the world and nothing can undo what he has accomplished.
Well, if the Bible uses language like this to describe the experience of God’s judgment: Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar, and all the things which it; Let the field be exultant, and all that is in it! Then shall all the trees of the wood sing for joy Before YHWH, for He comes, for He comes to judge and govern the earth! He shall judge the world with equitableness and justice and the peoples with His faithfulness (Jesus the faithfulness of God made real) and truth. Psalm 96
Then it is not in anyway something to dread. It is as Jurgen Moltmann says, “The Sunrise of Christ liberating Justice.” What causes confusion and anxiety is when the rhetoric of punishment becomes conflated with the judgment of God. Those are two mutually exclusive principals. God as judge is God as savior, rescuer and healer not as tormentor and Lord High Executioner.
Was Jesus being disciplined by his suffering or was he being perfected? Discipline implies he was doing something wrong and had to be punished or corrected. Perfected is about maturing and developing a deeper understanding of the human condition so that he could identify in complete solidarity with all those who are considered unholy, losers, unclean and outcasts. He suffered not as a victim but as the healer who takes on our afflictions from us, to heal us, to save us–to make all things new.
Mel enunciates my impressions perfectly, so you might respond to us together
On my case for God’s knowledge everywhere, you seem to conflate that with the ultimate victory when God is all in all, which I agree is future. But these are simply two different things.
More centrally, I agree that Jesus gloriously does some ‘reinterpretation’ on issues like condemnation (as in Luke 4). I also share your frustration at resistance to universalism (esp. Wright’s who I conversed with about this). But, as Mel says, insisting that the cure when interpretations differ is to flee trying to understand the Bible’s story seems desperate and to cut off the branch needed to hold your weight, or to argue a case amid those interested in the Bible. I perceive Ruth and you to cite the Bible fundamentalistically (even telling me to be more of a literalist) when it supports an idea you like. But when I cite texts, you insist that it is the Bible and seeking to understand it which is the obscuring obstacle to your view. That just seems disingenuous, or like inconsistent selectivity to me.
You say any recognition of “two tiers” denies the Gospel (and of course by definition all universalists agree that ultimately there will be no differences in destiny). But it appears to me that Jesus and Paul did not get that memo that present response doesn’t divide people into different experiences. Don’t they repeatedly specify conditions and consequences as I enumurated above? You appear to want me to be confident that your grasp of the Gospel (which can become mine) is much less fallible than Jesus or Paul! How can I do that when I find myself far more impressed with their lives and insights?
Too late, I posted my reply to Mel just before you posted.
I am aware of that but I have a different take on how God knows all things as I described in some detail in the discussion of the fallen sparrow.
I am not dismissing the Bible as a witness to God’s salvation of the world, but rather than debating and engaging in proof text duels and fine points of exegesis it is finally the Spirit that bears witness to what Jesus has accomplished for the salvation to the world that is the good news the world desperately needs.
I would say that is more of misperception and mischaracterzsation on your part than an accurate portrayal of what is actually going on. But it is understandable that such a misunderstanding can happen when communicating ideas and opinions in this setting and format. I get much the same impression of how you use texts to support your case but I don’t think you are being deliberately disingenuous while doing it.
Of course having faith or perceiving what God has done for the world through Jesus changes our experience and perception of the world. Your reading of Paul and Jesus may differ from mine in important and not so important ways. Each of us can only see what our faith perception allows us to see. This is nothing new or controversial. It has been the case for thousands of years. I long for the day when the veil is drawn back all and creatures will behold the Living God more clearly and viscerally than we see and feel the light and warmth of the sun in the noonday sky. Until then we are all looking through the glass darkly.
Dave, I’m impressed by your timely and charitable responses!
I regret that I sounded like I thought “you are being deliberately disingenuous.” I see you as thoughtfully acting in good faith, and sharing how you genuinely see it. I only meant that your methodology seemed disingenuous to me. I also realize that you wouldn’t “dismiss the Bible as a witness,” and that we mutually see each others’ handling of some texts as inadequate.
Still, I perceive contrasting approaches to Biblical epistomology. I find the difference is that when you declare what you think a text signifies, I wouldn’t repeatedly respond by diminishing the value of looking at the Biblical Narrative as being what leads people astray. But often you and Ruth, rather than addressing some exegetical contention, have asserted in a dozen ways that it is the concept of the true Gospel that you present which ranks above the Bible, is superior to its’ story as a whole, etc.
You express it here, that “rather” than “engaging points of exegesis,” you would emphasize that it is “the Spirit that bears witness” to the right ideas, and you conclude that one can “only perceive what God has done” if perchance one’s “perception allows us to see it.” That feels as if you’re implying, ‘I am confident that the Spirit lets me see and know what is not available to others’ (as if we should see that such confidence implies correctness).
Centrally, what common basis does this leave for comparing views & interpretations? I have some idea how to address evidential arguments for competing exegetical interpretations. But when someone suggests that “the Spirit” has allowed them to see that some idea they are expositing trumps everything else, what can I say? Just, I’m a commoner reduced to sorting through the “fine” points that are within the content to which all of us have access. So, if you have a “rather than” that approach, it’s not clear what is the common ground upon which we can engage.
P.S. E.g. I love your desire that unbelievers not hear more condemnation and chastisement. Amen!! But you again suggest to Mel that Romans 8’s assurance that despite suffering, we receive no divine condemnation, is addressed to those who oppose God, and this just seems incorrect. Paul specifies that it is for those who “do not live according to the flesh,” and that those who do will “die” in some sense that the faithful will not. What am I missing here?
P.S. P.S. Earlier you argued that it is poor sinful outcasts who grasp the full “Gospel.” I see that it is they who appreciate God’s forgiving grace. But since 99.9% of these also reject universalism, I don’t see how this supports your version of the Gospel. What I widely observe with those who think believing the atonement exempts them from the need to be righteous, is an assertion that because such apparently superior faith that they escape judgment is what allows salvation, they then judgmentally and with superiority try to scare the hell out of those who can’t believe such a philosophy could be moral. Of course, your belief that no response is required of anyone helps you be more generous, as I would think any universalist who thinks God never stops loving us all should be.
Hi Dave; I appreciate your thoughtful insights and thought provoking comments!
I think I understand where you’re coming from here. He certainly has suffered for us in an incredible way; I do think you’re right in that in some sense, God has an especially tender spot for those that suffer oppression and injustice here and now. I even think that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus has some things to say to us on this front. I do also see that there is perhaps a bit of a difference in the types of suffering we are talking about. I see things in the new testament such as where we are told by Jesus that we will have trouble in this life: we certainly do share in at least a measure of the same suffering as believers, and I agree that there is a sense in which this type of suffering is mainly shared by believers in this life. I think the point of Christ’s suffering was partly so that he could fully identify with our experience as human beings as well, in order to complete his mission here. I don’t think that this suffering was intended to entirely to replace our own however, at the very least, not in the case of the believer; as it’s clear that part of the process of our own completion is to share in his suffering (enduring patiently).
I do think this is a key point, and I agree that it certainly applies at least to this present age. If God’s goal is to eventually make us all sons in the fullest sense (and it may not be his goal), then it would seem likely that all would eventually have to go through this process somehow, whether through discipline in this life and/or the “lake of fire”. But if there remains a permanent distinction between the present huios and teknon, then you may be right in that the discipline (as such) only ever applies to the huios.
And I agree; It does seem at some point though, that once this gospel is grasped by them and the process of adoption has begun, that they then begin to share in the same treatment toward full sonship, including chastisement/ discipline toward correction/ perfection/ completion?
I guess I’m a bit unclear as to how this fits precisely into the equation myself, so I’ll leave that one for the time being.
Possibly so. I agree that it is addressed to believers specifically; what I’m not certain of is that it doesn’t also apply to those who are currently not acquainted with God at some point in their development. I certainly think there are some distinctions between chastisement/ punishment and discipline, and where they may or may not overlap, and when.
This is a great promise, and I think that it is a great key to understanding God’s goals. The outcome is certainly something to look forward to; the experience of the process may not always look this optimistic from inside of each stage of it.
I think it’s clear from the text that he wasn’t being disciplined, but perfected in suffering, as you’ve stated here. If I was conflating the two concepts, I was not aware of it.
Edited to add: I think where some of the difficulty lies between the two basic positions we’ve been trying to work through here is in the soteriological realm. I came across this section of a post from Johnny Parker over in the Evolution and Salvation thread, and I thought it raised some good points for our discussion here:
I have bolded and italicized the bits of Johnny’s post that are most relevant, I think, to the discussion at hand here. Hopefully this helps bring the point of potential disconnect into sharper view for us.
I don’t want to get into any extended discussion on the matter of free will, except to say that I don’t think that “free will” is a meaningful concept, more of a red-herring really. What is faith, the faith Jesus said that made whole those he healed? Was it that they believed something about Jesus, they trusted him or saw or perceived something about him that acted as a catalyst in their encounter with him that resulting in them being made whole? Whatever we may understand it to be there was a relational dynamic going on that seems to have been an essential aspect of the event of the healing. The bottom line is that it is the faith of, or the faithfulness, of Jesus that is the primary, essential component in this healing encounter between Jesus and the afflicted person.
Did Jesus afflict the already afflicted so that they would then have sufficient faith and be healed? He brought the good news of God’s Kingdom in the midst of the oppressed and afflicted, his very presence being that Kingdom, and that is what sparked their faith/trust in who he was( Emmanuel, God with us). The simple truth of the matter is those people who were largely the poor, scriptually illiterate, unclean/unholy and looked down on with contempt by the religious elite, finally encountered someone who actually made it possible for them to trust God.
I am confident that there is one command of Jesus that everyone will obey, it is the command he gave to Lazarus, “come forth!” This is the new birth of resurrection that will make us truly free and truly able to trust God for our lives and all the good things that His new creation will provide with no limits or conditions.
Hi Bob,
Of course the Gospel trumps scripture. The Bible is a witness of the Word of God, the Gospel is the good news of what the actual living Word of God, Jesus Christ, has done. To the extent scripture, either canonical or not, detracts from the Gospel it is not inspired by the Spirit of God which is in the world to bear witness to what Jesus has done–the Gospel. The scriptural witness must serve and conform to the Living Word of God, Jesus, and not the other way around. You study the Scriptures because you think that by them you will have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, John 5:39
I am not from a Protestant tradition and I do not hold to sola scriptura (the Bible as the word of God) or sola fide (our subjective faith). I hold to “solely by Christ” (the living Word of God) and “solely by His faithfulness” (what Jesus has done for us), all else (our faith, scripture) is secondary to and derived from who Jesus is and what he has done. The Gospel is not a special, secret, gnostic revelation for the enlightened few. It is the good news of something that happened in the real world in full view of the most unenlightened, godless people around. On a Roman cross in all its naked rawness, hanging there for all the world to see if they so wished. It is the empty tomb and the risen Jesus who spoke and ate with those he came to and invited the doubters to touch his badge of honor (his pierced hands).
It is the complexity of the scriptures that makes them not truly accessible to all. Endless debating of points of exegesis will never deliver the Gospel to the world, especially to those who don’t have the means or intellectual capacity to engage in such things–the least among us whom Jesus identifies with. Two thousands years of biblical exegesis has run its course but the world is running out time as even scientists are warning of unprecedented civilization destroying crises unfolding in this century. It is too late for exegesis, we have failed to faithfully deliver the Gospel to the world, so God Himself will provide a new way to proclaim the Gospel to the world. Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people. Rev. 14:6
Those who wrote the scripture were inspired by the same Spirit that bears witness to who Jesus is and done. That same Spirit is present in the world today. The irreducible core of the gospel message is that Jesus, who showed the face of God to the world and called God Abba, Father; died a godforsaken death outside the gates of Jerusalem near the valley Gehenna condemned by the Jewish religious elite and Rome. This same crucified Jesus, who died in such a way that seemed to discredit all that he had said and done before, returned to life in an unprecedented way with an utterly new physicalilty that is the harbinger of the coming transformation of the whole universe across all of time and space. This is good news not only for some but for the entire cosmos. This is the ultimate common ground on which we all will be engaged.
The the extent that proof texts duels and exegesis detracts from or obscures the essential truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ it is not inspired by the Spirit of Jesus.
There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus and all things are in Christ. What is condemned and damned are those powers that torment and harm the creation. All of what the creation will become is already fully present in Jesus Christ, when the veil is pulled back at the Parousia we will behold completely who Jesus is and what he has done and we will become like Him–all things will be made new.
It is those who suffer the most in this world due to the vicissitudes of life and the gross inequitableness and injustice of the powers, and those who serve those powers, that would gladly embrace the good news of Jesus Christ–if it was proclaimed to them. The problem is that what passes for the Gospel by and large is anything but good news. Instead of allowing them to see God in the new light of Jesus it brings fear, despair and no reason to trust God or believe that he even exists.
Why would we want to escape the judgment when the judgment is what removes from the creation all that oppresses and threatens it? The equitableness (righteousness) of God is the fair, just (tsedeq), even-handedness of God undoing all the wrongs done by and suffered by everyone, and freeing them from the slavery of sin and self-concern so that they can relate equitably to others like God does to us.
There is no “superior faith” of believing in the atonement (whatever that may be)that exempts us from becoming equitable and just. Why would we want to be exempt from becoming equitable, authentic, human beings like Jesus–who is the truly Human One? It is for the express purpose of making us authentically human, the true image of God, that Jesus came into the world and died the death that he did. Our subjective faith is not determinative rather it is the faithfulness of Jesus that is. He fulfilled the Father’s will and took up all of the suffering and death of the creation at Golgotha. It is not what we believe but what Jesus has done that brings forth the new birth of the resurrection that will make us the children of God so that we can be born into the new creation and participate in the life of God giving all that He is to all that there is. Finally, we will be free from fear and self-concern so that we too can pass on the equitableness of God to all creatures in the creation.
Of course there is a response to the equitableness of God made real by the doing and dying of Jesus Christ. That response will be at the last trump when all the dead will hear the command of Jesus to “come forth!” And then they will be born anew directly from God into a reality filled with the life of God made freely available to all. In that new reality there will be no impediment to them being truly just and empathetic human beings.
Hi Dave! I’m happily sharpened in interacting with you!
Our core difference seems to center on how some texts annul others. I see the Bible as divine and human, producing a progressive revelation and story that culminates in Jesus (and the Gospel). So I’ve said that I too want a Christ-centered (and Gospel centered) hermaneutic. But I may be hopelessly Protestant. Since Scripture for me is what has expounded Jesus and the Gospel, contrasting those with the Bible as “trumped” and “not inspired” when it doesn’t “conform” to my sense of what Jesus did, seems too easy and problematic.
(My old prof, E.J. Carnell, in The Case for Orthodoxy argued everything should be tested in light of Romans/Galatians; but I’m equally wary of his canon within the canon.)
One, I’m suspicious of your putting an interpretation of Jesus’ deeds above what Jesus says (since his teaching has much to do with how I’d interpret the meaning of his life and death). 2nd, I too sometimes conclude that Jesus develops and reinterprets former ideas (‘trumps’ them in a sense). But I’d be slow to assume that my sense of a "Gospel’ cancels earlier themes. I’d never conclude that without first sympathetically working to see how earlier developments functioned in the whole Jesus story (and what purpose they were trying to serve). My bias is toward interpretations that make sense of the largest portion of the story. So I guess I’d prefer an "exegetical" case even for supporting rejection of a Bible writers outlook .
Here, Beck has esp. raised whether God has ‘conditions’ of righteousness, or uses painful experiences or consequences to ‘purify’ or enable us to meet vital conditions. You argue that the ‘Gospel’ is antithetical to these themes that seem to me to be consistently affirmed by Jesus and Paul, as well as the OT pattern. So amid such consistency, my own bias is against defining the Gospel such that it dismisses such realities. If indeed, I could not see how Jesus’ Good News could be consistent with conditions or requiring righteousness in us, then I too would oppose them. But I actually perceive Jesus’ message as pointed at enabling this which God has always pursued, and thus I have no reason to treat these two things as mutually exclusive.
(E.g. you say that those who reject God’s way or truth can experience “no ‘condemnation,’” but Jesus himself appears to warn the hardened that such consequences will continue to be worked out. Thus I would think that they can face such realities even though they are loved by God.)
You vividly sketch Bible pictures of the cross that you think trump such themes. But I disagree with your implied exegesis. So when you reply, “it’s too late for exegesis,” and that its’ nature is to “obscure the truth,” I can’t see what ground is left to make our mutual cases. (I didn’t grasp your conclusion that the ultimately transformed cosmos is our common ground; that doesn’t lead me to your conclusions.)
P.S. You again curiously declare that judgment’s only nature is to unilaterally “free us from suffering the slavery of sin.” But if God then is altogether opposed to experiencing such suffering, why, and where from, do you suppose it now exists? (Could one imagine that such travail in fact has a God-sent purpose?)
It seems that once a defense is made that employs a non-exegitcal approach, then the argument becomes untestable. Bereans were commended for exegeting scripture to test Paul’s words. Why should we not?
The argument that it’s not verifiable by the text is really a way of throwing out the text, yet Jesus says the text testifies of him.
It appears to me to be a red herring to avoid pursuing the validity of argument. Rather than just proclaim that exegesis has failed, one must show HOW it fails, and that will require some form of logic and exegesis. If that can’t be done then one would have to literally remove themselves from any argument that regards the text and simply proclaim their own message.
Me too Bob. This is not really, at least for me, about trying to convert each other to our respective views but perhaps it will provide some food for thought to others who are following the discussion.
It is not a simple binary of “inspired” vs “not inspired.” The self-revelation of God in the doing, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the fount of inspiration from which all inspiration flows. Some insights are very close to the source and others are further downstream in the flow of inspiration from the source. The Bible is, as your say, a progressive divine and human narrative of God acting in the world. It is in fact, a small library of distinct books rather than a monolith like the Koran. The Koran is claimed to be direct dictation passed through one man, Mohammed, in a cave. The Bible is a dynamic, collective narrative by a wide variety of writers spanning over a thousand years.
It is not about putting Jesus deeds over what he said. Much of what Jesus said before his resurrection was cryptic and not at all clear to his closest followers, the apostles. They were never clear about much of it. The fact that they scattered after his arrest and dared not be seen anywhere near Golgotha when he was crucified demonstrates this. They did not rush over to the tomb to see if his statements about his rising again (even after having witnessed Jesus resurrecting others) would be fulfilled until after some of Jesus’ female followers had gone there before them and discovered the empty tomb. The resurrection of Jesus is the key that unlocked the meaning of all that Jesus had previously said and did. Without the resurrection there would be no NT scriptures, there would be no believers and no Gospel at all to proclaim.
All there would be is the Jewish Tanakh, of interest to only a few million people at best. Orthodox and ultra Orthodox Jews who read the OT in the original Hebrew and understand the nuances of the Hebraism and Jewish thought do not conclude from that witness that Jesus of Nazareth is their long awaited Messiah. To the contrary, their reading of the scriptures concludes that Jesus does not meet any of the important criteria for identify the true Messiah. All the scriptures in the world will not lead to eternal life without the death and resurrection of Jesus, . The scriptures do not impart life, at best they are the witness to the Crucified and Resurrected One who is the Life
I do not assert that the Gospel cancels earlier themes in the biblical witness; no more than the relativity physics of Einstein and quantum physics negate the earlier Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics still has its place but it doesn’t go far and deep enough to illuminate the nature of physical reality. Likewise, the OT witness, for Christians at least, is a witness to the actual coming of the Living Word of God into the world. I do not confuse the witness with the object that is being witnessed.
So once again it is the object, Jesus Christ, of that witness that is determinative and not the other way around…
Quite frankly, I have used some exegesis in this thread by highlighting some critical texts and expounding on the etymology of certain key words both through consulting several translations and researching what Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew scholars have determined to be the original intended meaning of those words. But that approach has not been fruitful in this discussion and results in a merry go round effect. So that is why I emphasized the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be determinative and have identified its irreducible core: the death and resurrection of Jesus.
I find this all very ironic. Here we are two individuals who have the hope for the universal reconciliation and salvation of all things by God. We are both part of a very small minority on the fringe of what is considered Christian belief. Heretics even, by the reckoning of not an insignificant number of Christians. When you compare that to the entire human population of the planet our hope is held by almost a vanishingly small number of individuals. Do you really believe that through additional rigorous exegesis and debate that suddenly there will arise a general consensus, let alone a unanimous one, of the truth of universal salvation that will sweep the world before it all falls apart? The only event that will achieve such an effect will be the event of the Parousia itself, when the foundation (the slain Lamb)–the common ground upon which all things rest-- of the new creation will be beheld by all.
That understanding of judgment is found in the OT, it is the tsedeq (justice) of God as seen in the book of Judges and declared by the later Hebrew prophets like Isaiah. To judge is to save, to rescue; it is not the punitive justice of Rome or the present day “justice” dished out by the judicial systems of the world.
For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own choosing, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay into the glorious freedom of the children of God. How are we set free from the bondage of decay? By being chastised and punished for being in a condition that God put us in? No, God takes full responsibility for all of it. How do we know this? Jesus, the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the cosmos hanging on a Roman cross for all the world to see. How do we become the Children of God? By the new birth of the resurrection. How can we hope for such an audacious and radical event as the resurrection of all–the very death of death itself that changes absolutely everything about everything? Because the Risen One is also the Crucified One who took upon Himself the full consequences of all the wrongs inflicted and suffered by all that have ever lived.
In the case of the second birth (resurrection), it is our father who went through the suffering:
We do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the originator of their salvation perfect through what he suffered… So Jesus …says:
‘Here am I, and the children God has given me.’
(Hebrews 2:9-13)
Perhaps, instead of thinking of “purification”, we might think in terms of a health check on the new(re)born creation (no needles required!).
If you want to use that analogy, I was once given general anaesthetic while part of me was cut away internally. It was like being dead. I drifted away into the blackness and knew nothing, didn’t even dream, while the dangerous tissue was removed. There was no pain, either during or after the operation. I don’t know what happened in the operating theatre. Everyone made a special effort to keep me comfortable and cheerful. I wasn’t “afflicted” and didn’t “endure” anything. All I know is that I remained healthy afterwards. And that was achieved with only the technology and kindness available in this world.
The kindness of our Father is way beyond this type of experience. More than that, he heals by, well, simply healing – we know this from how Jesus did it: he didn’t need to bring a person to complete wholeness by using the scalpel, the gamma-knife, toxic chemicals or procedures. Jesus had a very different approach, that only he could use: he didn’t need to do limited harm in order to bring about a greater good; he simply brought about the good and took the harm and pain into himself.
Hey Dave, I like your spirit and don’t expect to change your view either. Though I don’t see why you think I’d have to “really believe” exegetical discussion will produce a “unanimous” consensus," to think it has unavoidable value. I find trying to understand why two real thinkers reach different conclusions is in itself worthwhile. (Btw, I got a few days, but then will be less accessible, heading north to take a Galatians class with Durham’s John Barclay at British Columbia’s Regent College; he took his Ph.D. under Wright, but has sharply criticized some of his NP interpretations.)
Some of our differences seem to involve ascribing differnt meanings to terms, but 90+% of what you point out, I already assume, and needs no reaction. I do agree that Jesus’ words can be difficult, but assume that they were recorded with the intent of conveying important things, and I suspect that much difficulty, even when he seems especially plain, is that we’d prefer different ideas from his!
We have similar views of the Bible’s nature, and I agree on your basic idea that some “Biblical insights” are ‘truer,’ or should be more controlling than others. So clarifying where we differ is a challenge. (I do suspect, esp. with those of your formulation, that I bring a greater instinct that it is reasonable to look harder for more continuity between the OT, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospel, as well as between how we observe that God apparently administers our experience in this life’s realm, with what we may reasonably expect in the next.)
I don’t think the main difference is that I found your exegesis/etymology faulty or unhelpful. My problem was feeling that you too easily then deduce that other texts cannot be affirmed together with your cited preferred ones. Here you contrast, Jesus is the “object” that is determinative, not “the Biblical witness.” I don’t see why those must so disassociated. What do I know about your controlling ‘object’ apart from the Bible’s input? I would rather say, Jesus is the decisive focus such that after understanding him from the Bible’s story, He then is the key to rightly approaching the whole. But the Bible remains indispensable to defining what Jesus is about. (Whereas when you define needed “common ground” as the future Parousia, you then seem seem to agree that we have no available present basis for discussion.)
Arguing etymologically that Biblical ‘justice’ can’t be punitive seems to ignore the more decisive data: does the Bible itself reveal explicitly that the real issues debated here of ‘punishment,’ conditions, requirements, etc are in fact central to its’ view of how God deals with us. You then seem to conclude that God put us in our unavoidable punishing conditions of bondage and decay, so that Jesus could now responsibly “take upon himself the full consequences” of all such wrongs inflicted. My questions are, do you have any sense of why a loving Jesus would put us through such pain in the meanwhile? And what convinces you that Jesus has so exhausted all possible consequences?
I was under the impression that “getting rid of hell altogether” was what Jesus was all about.
