Continuing on this notion that 'justification' and 'sanctification' are 'two sides of the same coin.' I last left us with these questions: "What, exactly, is the 'coin' in this analogy? And how, if at all, is 'atonement' applied to it?" I'll take up these issues now.
What is the link that puts these two 'sides' on the same coin? There are a couple of options. One is to stick primarily to language in saying that they relate solely on the fact that we can rightly associate the term 'salvation' to both 'justification' and 'sanctification.' Any connection beyond that, accordingly, would be too risky in confusing the meanings of these two. If this is the case then 'atonement' will only be associated with one or the other. As such, atonement theology in the West (even in Wesleyan theological paradigms) has tended to pertain to 'justification' without ever being considered as the basis or content for God's sanctifying work in our lives.
Let me put it this way: how do we define 'atonement'? Is the atonement the means by which we are justified? Or is it the means by which we are saved? To many this appears to be the same question, but for those of us who have a broader understanding of 'salvation' (i.e., to include God's sanctifying grace in our lives) then the difference between the two potential definitions is important.
Before we can respond to that we may need to address some related questions. Namely, what historical event(s) are we to exclusively or most closely associate with the atonement? Options: Jesus' death; Jesus' death and resurrection; the entire Incarnation (conception, birth, life, teaching, healing, trial, persecution, death, resurrection, ascension, and perhaps even Jesus' second coming). Second, what is the purpose of 'atonement'? Assuming it is to overcome some sort of problem (i.e., sin), how do you understand the problem?
Good gosh, I didn't realize how many questions to which my initial one would lead.
Once we realize what sort of pickle we humans have gotten ourselves into...wait...come to think of it, I like pickles, so maybe I should think of another term...predicament... Once we realize what sort of predicament we humans have gotten ourselves into and just how complex of a problem it is, then maybe we'll begin to get a better picture of exactly what sort of solution is needed (and maybe that one response or picture of that solution can't nearly adequately respond to the severity of the problem).
So, let's take up the predicament next...
04 March 2010
01 March 2010
St. Augustine on Genesis 12.1-4
I've recently picked up (again) my copy of the Ancient Christian Devotional to read Scripture along with the calendar of the Church year. This week's Old Testament passage is Genesis 12.1-4, the calling of Abraham. St. Augustine had some simple, yet wise, words to share about this passage that I thought I would pass along (emphasis is mine):
'The right thing to do, brothers and sisters, is to believe God before he pays up anything, because just as he cannot possibly lie, so he cannot deceive. For he is God. That's how our ancestors believed him. That's how Abraham believed him. There's a faith for you that really deserves to be admired and made widely known. He had received nothing from him, and he believed his promise. We do not yet believe him, though we have already received so much. Was Abraham ever in a position to say to him, "I will believe you, because you promised me that and paid up"? No, he believed from the very first command given, without having received anything else at all.' Sermon 113A.10.
In setting our face toward Jerusalem this Lenten season, I strive for this: Trust God in his commands, promises, and calling, regardless of where they might lead. 'Go to a place I will tell you about...and I will bless you to be a blessing.' Our trust, obedience, and following the call will take us places that will be unfamiliar and at times uncomfortable and unfriendly, just as they were for Abraham and Jesus (in setting his face toward Jerusalem) before us, but it is the right thing to do...trust!
'The right thing to do, brothers and sisters, is to believe God before he pays up anything, because just as he cannot possibly lie, so he cannot deceive. For he is God. That's how our ancestors believed him. That's how Abraham believed him. There's a faith for you that really deserves to be admired and made widely known. He had received nothing from him, and he believed his promise. We do not yet believe him, though we have already received so much. Was Abraham ever in a position to say to him, "I will believe you, because you promised me that and paid up"? No, he believed from the very first command given, without having received anything else at all.' Sermon 113A.10.
In setting our face toward Jerusalem this Lenten season, I strive for this: Trust God in his commands, promises, and calling, regardless of where they might lead. 'Go to a place I will tell you about...and I will bless you to be a blessing.' Our trust, obedience, and following the call will take us places that will be unfamiliar and at times uncomfortable and unfriendly, just as they were for Abraham and Jesus (in setting his face toward Jerusalem) before us, but it is the right thing to do...trust!
19 February 2010
The Coin - Part 1
I've been struck by an analogy that is commonly used for a variety of things, but particularly how it may be applied to Wesleyan soteriology. "They are like two sides of the same coin." Though 'justification' and 'sanctification' are hardly all that comprise of Wesley's understanding of salvation (it would be fallacious not to see prevenient, convincing and glorifying grace as part of his ordo salutis), they are the cornerstones and the main points of interest. Standing in the middle on an issue often leads to false accusations from both sides. This is why the Anglican 'via media' (employed by Wesley) is such a delicate approach to take. This comes into play regarding Wesley's distinction yet connection between these two central doctrines.
Wesley held to a thorough-going 'Protestant' understanding of justification. His definition is that the plain meaning of justification is pardon. Justification for Wesley, as for the Reformers, is a forensic work by which a guilty party is considered justified (or righteous) through the sacrifice given by Christ on the cross. Though other seemingly 'relational' terms and phrases are associated with justification (i.e., forgiveness, acceptance, restored to the favor of God), these are understood through a forensic lens because the primary focus is on absolving guilt.
What makes Wesleyan theology unique among Protestants is that Wesley saw sanctification as given by God's grace rather than achieved through discipline. Therefore, it is accurate to say Wesley understood sanctification, not just justification, to be part of the salvation process. While justification is a forensic work, sanctification is a relational one as it begins with regeneration (new birth) and leads unto a stage he called 'entire sanctification,' which needs to be seen as a relational and dynamic phrase rather than a static one.
My question is about the relationship between these two aspects of salvation. What, specifically, connects them for Wesley such that we can speak of 'justification' and 'sanctification' as 'two sides of the same coin'? Wesley seemed to want to see them integrated and seen together in some sense, though not to blend their meanings into one. What, exactly, is the 'coin' in this analogy? And how, if at all, is 'atonement' applied to it?
More to come...
Wesley held to a thorough-going 'Protestant' understanding of justification. His definition is that the plain meaning of justification is pardon. Justification for Wesley, as for the Reformers, is a forensic work by which a guilty party is considered justified (or righteous) through the sacrifice given by Christ on the cross. Though other seemingly 'relational' terms and phrases are associated with justification (i.e., forgiveness, acceptance, restored to the favor of God), these are understood through a forensic lens because the primary focus is on absolving guilt.
What makes Wesleyan theology unique among Protestants is that Wesley saw sanctification as given by God's grace rather than achieved through discipline. Therefore, it is accurate to say Wesley understood sanctification, not just justification, to be part of the salvation process. While justification is a forensic work, sanctification is a relational one as it begins with regeneration (new birth) and leads unto a stage he called 'entire sanctification,' which needs to be seen as a relational and dynamic phrase rather than a static one.
My question is about the relationship between these two aspects of salvation. What, specifically, connects them for Wesley such that we can speak of 'justification' and 'sanctification' as 'two sides of the same coin'? Wesley seemed to want to see them integrated and seen together in some sense, though not to blend their meanings into one. What, exactly, is the 'coin' in this analogy? And how, if at all, is 'atonement' applied to it?
More to come...
01 February 2010
JW: who needs a redeemer?
A brief quote that stood out to me, from John Wesley's treatise on original sin:
'This is a fundamental truth; none will come to Christ as a Redeemer until he is thoroughly convinced he wants a Redeemer. No man will ever come to him as a Saviour, till he knows and feels himself a lost sinner. None will come to the "Physician" but "they that are sick," and are thoroughly sensible of it; that are deeply convinced of their sinful tempers, as well as sinful words and actions.'
'This is a fundamental truth; none will come to Christ as a Redeemer until he is thoroughly convinced he wants a Redeemer. No man will ever come to him as a Saviour, till he knows and feels himself a lost sinner. None will come to the "Physician" but "they that are sick," and are thoroughly sensible of it; that are deeply convinced of their sinful tempers, as well as sinful words and actions.'
29 January 2010
The gospel Jesus preached?
So we're studying the Gospel of Matthew with the college students at church. We're in the midst of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) now but a question was raised a few weeks ago when we were reading chapter 4, one of the students raised a question that has continually come to my mind since she raised it. Matthew 4.23 - And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. The question raised was, "What was the gospel that Jesus preached?"
Today when we hear the word "gospel" we tend to think of Jesus' sacrificial death for our sin and his resurrection for our new life. But was Jesus talking about that here? It doesn't seem so, at least not directly. After all, this is very early in his ministry, right after he had called his first disciples, and therefore, he hadn't started talking about his impending death and resurrection. So what good news was he preaching then? I think we get a few clues from what he says and does around the time this is mentioned in addition to what other the other writers (Mark, Luke, John) say about what Jesus was preaching.
1. After Jesus was baptized by John, was tempted in the wilderness, and had learned that John was arrested, Jesus began to preach the exact same message John had: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (4.17). After he started "proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom" and healing all sorts of sicknesses, etc. a large crowd started following him, which leads into his Sermon on the Mount. The first words out of his mouth in that sermon is "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." It is commonly held that being "poor in spirit" is synonymous with humility and/or repentance. Even if it is just humility, that is a right recognition of ourselves, which raises our awareness of our need to repent. I think it's an intentional thing that this is the first statement of this discourse. It marks the entrance of one ready to participate in living for the kingdom of God. Okay, so "humility" and "repentance" are important attitudes/actions when we talk about the kingdom. But it doesn't seem that's all there is to this good news (i.e., "gospel").
2. Accompanying Jesus' preaching the "gospel" is his activity of "healing every disease and every affliction among the people...they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them." This accompaniment can be no accident. And in case you thought that Jesus' activity of healing has nothing to do with what he preaches, then consider this...
3. Luke, in 4.15ff (right after the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness and the beginning of his ministry), tells us that Jesus went about teaching in the synagogues (hmm...sound familiar? cf. Matt. 4.23, in view currently) and the content of what he preached in Nazareth is recorded for us: "And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled and found the place where it was written, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, and to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor'..." which is followed by Jesus' radical statement that "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." In addition, consider the other beatitudes in Matthew 5 that follow the blessing to those who are "poor in spirit" or even Luke's account of the beatitudes, those "who are poor...who are hungry...who weep...when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil..."
Objecter: So you're saying the gospel Jesus preached was nothing more than the "social gospel"?
Me: No. I'm not saying that.
Objecter: It sure does sound like it.
Me: Yes, it does perhaps, but there is something vital that is missing in the "social gospel," and that is the theological backing and reasoning for why we do things like healing the sick, releasing the captive, weeping with those who are mourning, and to what end we do these things. And this is why I put the important statement at the beginning of this post: Jesus wasn't talking about his death or resurrection...at least "not directly." But, and this is a very important "but," when we look at the Gospel of Matthew and the life of Jesus as a whole we realize that it is all intricately woven and linked. The resurrection, while not being explicitly proclaimed here in Jesus' words, is the meat and the reasoning for why we take part in this activity...this kingdom ministry of Jesus. The "kingdom" was "near," but when Jesus was raised again, it began to be "here" and was inaugurated. So the kingdom is "now" as it began with Jesus' resurrection, but it is also "not yet" as we await our own bodily resurrection. When we get that right...that one day our bodies will be raised to new life to partake in the marriage of the "new heaven and the new earth"...we realize that doing what we can to fight diseases, to pursue the cause of justice and peace in the world, to free the captive and oppressed, is not wasted or even of second-hand importance but is integral to the very kingdom of God for which we are building. We're not building the kingdom of or for ourselves, but we do these things because we know that one day God will fully restore the creation, taking these simple things we do, resurrecting them, and blessing them (& us) to enjoy an existence that is beyond what we can imagine. That is some good news!
Today when we hear the word "gospel" we tend to think of Jesus' sacrificial death for our sin and his resurrection for our new life. But was Jesus talking about that here? It doesn't seem so, at least not directly. After all, this is very early in his ministry, right after he had called his first disciples, and therefore, he hadn't started talking about his impending death and resurrection. So what good news was he preaching then? I think we get a few clues from what he says and does around the time this is mentioned in addition to what other the other writers (Mark, Luke, John) say about what Jesus was preaching.
1. After Jesus was baptized by John, was tempted in the wilderness, and had learned that John was arrested, Jesus began to preach the exact same message John had: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (4.17). After he started "proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom" and healing all sorts of sicknesses, etc. a large crowd started following him, which leads into his Sermon on the Mount. The first words out of his mouth in that sermon is "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." It is commonly held that being "poor in spirit" is synonymous with humility and/or repentance. Even if it is just humility, that is a right recognition of ourselves, which raises our awareness of our need to repent. I think it's an intentional thing that this is the first statement of this discourse. It marks the entrance of one ready to participate in living for the kingdom of God. Okay, so "humility" and "repentance" are important attitudes/actions when we talk about the kingdom. But it doesn't seem that's all there is to this good news (i.e., "gospel").
2. Accompanying Jesus' preaching the "gospel" is his activity of "healing every disease and every affliction among the people...they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them." This accompaniment can be no accident. And in case you thought that Jesus' activity of healing has nothing to do with what he preaches, then consider this...
3. Luke, in 4.15ff (right after the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness and the beginning of his ministry), tells us that Jesus went about teaching in the synagogues (hmm...sound familiar? cf. Matt. 4.23, in view currently) and the content of what he preached in Nazareth is recorded for us: "And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled and found the place where it was written, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, and to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor'..." which is followed by Jesus' radical statement that "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." In addition, consider the other beatitudes in Matthew 5 that follow the blessing to those who are "poor in spirit" or even Luke's account of the beatitudes, those "who are poor...who are hungry...who weep...when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil..."
Objecter: So you're saying the gospel Jesus preached was nothing more than the "social gospel"?
Me: No. I'm not saying that.
Objecter: It sure does sound like it.
Me: Yes, it does perhaps, but there is something vital that is missing in the "social gospel," and that is the theological backing and reasoning for why we do things like healing the sick, releasing the captive, weeping with those who are mourning, and to what end we do these things. And this is why I put the important statement at the beginning of this post: Jesus wasn't talking about his death or resurrection...at least "not directly." But, and this is a very important "but," when we look at the Gospel of Matthew and the life of Jesus as a whole we realize that it is all intricately woven and linked. The resurrection, while not being explicitly proclaimed here in Jesus' words, is the meat and the reasoning for why we take part in this activity...this kingdom ministry of Jesus. The "kingdom" was "near," but when Jesus was raised again, it began to be "here" and was inaugurated. So the kingdom is "now" as it began with Jesus' resurrection, but it is also "not yet" as we await our own bodily resurrection. When we get that right...that one day our bodies will be raised to new life to partake in the marriage of the "new heaven and the new earth"...we realize that doing what we can to fight diseases, to pursue the cause of justice and peace in the world, to free the captive and oppressed, is not wasted or even of second-hand importance but is integral to the very kingdom of God for which we are building. We're not building the kingdom of or for ourselves, but we do these things because we know that one day God will fully restore the creation, taking these simple things we do, resurrecting them, and blessing them (& us) to enjoy an existence that is beyond what we can imagine. That is some good news!
27 January 2010
A thought on Matthew 5.9
Matthew 5.9: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.
I've always been drawn to this particular beatitude. My name, Jeffrey, means "peace of God." I always strive to pursue peace with everyone, as much as it is possible.
But today something new hit me about this passage. The thought hadn't occurred to me before but I noticed that later in the chapter (5.45), the footnotes in the Study Bible I'm reading says "The words children of commonly means persons who show the quality named or trait of character implied." That brought to mind an important connection that can be made here with how we interpret the meaning of 'image of God' (or perhaps) 'likeness of God.' Peacemaking is a continuing action of pursuing reconciliation with our enemies. I think that 5.44-45 (But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven...) is significant for the life of a peacemaker. When we pursue peace and reconciliation with others, we act like our Father in heaven and grow into the likeness of his Son who acted on the Father's behalf to reconcile the world, which was at enmity with God, back to God.
I've always been drawn to this particular beatitude. My name, Jeffrey, means "peace of God." I always strive to pursue peace with everyone, as much as it is possible.
But today something new hit me about this passage. The thought hadn't occurred to me before but I noticed that later in the chapter (5.45), the footnotes in the Study Bible I'm reading says "The words children of commonly means persons who show the quality named or trait of character implied." That brought to mind an important connection that can be made here with how we interpret the meaning of 'image of God' (or perhaps) 'likeness of God.' Peacemaking is a continuing action of pursuing reconciliation with our enemies. I think that 5.44-45 (But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven...) is significant for the life of a peacemaker. When we pursue peace and reconciliation with others, we act like our Father in heaven and grow into the likeness of his Son who acted on the Father's behalf to reconcile the world, which was at enmity with God, back to God.
21 January 2010
Press 1 for English??
Maybe you've seen this facebook status update on the profiles of a few friends of yours recently. I've seen it on a few and while, thankfully, it hasn't caught on like many I know, I was still put off by the attitude that is latent in these comments: "WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Press 1 for English. Press 2 to disconnect until you learn to speak English. And remember only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, JESUS CHRIST and the AMERICAN SOLDIER. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom. If you agree paste to your status."
I think it's pretty clear from my introductory statement that I do not agree. After seeing that status on a few profiles I decided to offer a short rebuttal that said, "...is pretty sure that Jesus died for more than my soul and that that message is available in more languages than just English." I elaborated some in the comments after my post, but I wanted to shed a little more light here into why that particular "copy & paste" status update bothered me so much.
(A note worth making before I continue: 'English' has never been established as the official language of the US. Other nations have opted for official languages, but not the US.)
I primarily take issue with the latent arrogance and inhospitality that this status exudes. If you want to be mean-spirited and unwelcoming to people, please don't start off by using the word "WELCOME" because you're negating your words by the very attitude with which you're talking (or typing, I guess we should say), though maybe I should consider the possibility that you are intending to be facetious in your so-called "welcome." Furthermore, it would be advisable not to make some sort of defense of Jesus' death "for your soul" in the midst of such a status. I'll get more into the detail of what such a comment might mean in a bit but for now, suffice it to say that I don't think attaching Jesus to this status is appropriate because I don't think Jesus would ensure that people know his language before welcoming them into his presence. We should note that Jesus (probably) spoke in Latin when he was in Pilate's presence and didn't make him learn Hebrew to communicate with him when Jesus was telling him about his "kingdom" which is not of this world. This brings me to a point that is not explicitly made in that status but it is almost as if one is required to be an American and/or know English to know that Jesus died for them...I hope that's not the intent, but it certainly comes across that way. After all, if I didn't know English and pressed 2, then I wouldn't be able to hear that other important part of the message.
Next, let's clarify exactly what we mean by Jesus dying for your "soul." That's a pretty common phrase but it could be valuable to reexamine the issue to see what exactly is communicated by this statement by asking ourselves what is a "soul" and how are we to understand how a "soul" is related to one's body and mind. But you know what, that could take a really long time and I'd like to defer most of that particular aspect of the discussion to another time. Suffice it to say that I think there has been some misguidance on what the word "soul" means. I don't think it is some "thing" that we possess (or that possesses us). The portrayal commonly given is that our "souls" are some sort of metaphysical being that is inside, or even imprisoned, in our bodies. This would make the goal of salvation to be that our "souls" escape our "bodies" which reaches its finality or consummation at death. Where did this notion come from? Not from Scripture! In fact, I don't recall reading anywhere in the Bible where Jesus died for my "soul." That is primarily because the Bible doesn't speak of "soul" as an entity within a person but rather describes a person him/herself. Genesis 2 says that God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he became a living soul. Put differently, you don't have a soul. You are a soul.
Now let me explain what I meant in my rebuttal of a post when I said that "Jesus died for more than my soul." And this is an elaboration of the point just made. I think there has been a misunderstanding or misdirection in terms of what is believed about what happens after death, in general, and the final judgment, in particular. Let me put it this way, Jesus died (and was raised again) for our bodies because in the end, our bodies will be resurrected. There's a reason that doctrine is in our creeds. It's because it is scriptural and is our hope. We believe in the resurrection of the body. Jesus' resurrection is the basis of our own bodily resurrection of the final judgment. What happens between death and that point can be debated, but the New Testament is clear that one day our bodies will be raised again and those resurrected bodies will inhabit the "new heaven and new earth" that shall know no end. Tom Wright's Surprised by Hope is a great resource to learn more about this topic.
Please don't misunderstand me here; I in no way want to diminish or take away from the sacrifices offered and paid by our current and past military soldiers. They have and continue to offer their lives for our freedom, but Jesus also died for our freedom, too. But the freedom for which Jesus died for us is a different kind. It is a freedom where we are no longer bound to an authority other than God but are freed to follow God and join in his rescue mission for the world.
In closing this post, let me offer an alternative welcome message that comes from a different kingdom:
"Welcome to the Kingdom of God, where the blind are made to see, the imprisoned are set free, and the poor have good news shared with them; where the poor of spirit and outcasts, the peacemakers, the pursuers of righteousness, the merciful and the mourning are blessed; where the weary and heavy laden can come to the One who can give them rest; where we can learn from that One a language that is not tied to any cultural or national boundaries: the language of love, which is directed toward God and neighbor; a love that does not seek its own but the good of the other. This Kingdom was inaugurated some 2,000 years ago and has yet to reach its complete fulfillment but you are welcome to come and join as we wait for the final redemption of our bodies."
I think it's pretty clear from my introductory statement that I do not agree. After seeing that status on a few profiles I decided to offer a short rebuttal that said, "...is pretty sure that Jesus died for more than my soul and that that message is available in more languages than just English." I elaborated some in the comments after my post, but I wanted to shed a little more light here into why that particular "copy & paste" status update bothered me so much.
(A note worth making before I continue: 'English' has never been established as the official language of the US. Other nations have opted for official languages, but not the US.)
I primarily take issue with the latent arrogance and inhospitality that this status exudes. If you want to be mean-spirited and unwelcoming to people, please don't start off by using the word "WELCOME" because you're negating your words by the very attitude with which you're talking (or typing, I guess we should say), though maybe I should consider the possibility that you are intending to be facetious in your so-called "welcome." Furthermore, it would be advisable not to make some sort of defense of Jesus' death "for your soul" in the midst of such a status. I'll get more into the detail of what such a comment might mean in a bit but for now, suffice it to say that I don't think attaching Jesus to this status is appropriate because I don't think Jesus would ensure that people know his language before welcoming them into his presence. We should note that Jesus (probably) spoke in Latin when he was in Pilate's presence and didn't make him learn Hebrew to communicate with him when Jesus was telling him about his "kingdom" which is not of this world. This brings me to a point that is not explicitly made in that status but it is almost as if one is required to be an American and/or know English to know that Jesus died for them...I hope that's not the intent, but it certainly comes across that way. After all, if I didn't know English and pressed 2, then I wouldn't be able to hear that other important part of the message.
Next, let's clarify exactly what we mean by Jesus dying for your "soul." That's a pretty common phrase but it could be valuable to reexamine the issue to see what exactly is communicated by this statement by asking ourselves what is a "soul" and how are we to understand how a "soul" is related to one's body and mind. But you know what, that could take a really long time and I'd like to defer most of that particular aspect of the discussion to another time. Suffice it to say that I think there has been some misguidance on what the word "soul" means. I don't think it is some "thing" that we possess (or that possesses us). The portrayal commonly given is that our "souls" are some sort of metaphysical being that is inside, or even imprisoned, in our bodies. This would make the goal of salvation to be that our "souls" escape our "bodies" which reaches its finality or consummation at death. Where did this notion come from? Not from Scripture! In fact, I don't recall reading anywhere in the Bible where Jesus died for my "soul." That is primarily because the Bible doesn't speak of "soul" as an entity within a person but rather describes a person him/herself. Genesis 2 says that God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he became a living soul. Put differently, you don't have a soul. You are a soul.
Now let me explain what I meant in my rebuttal of a post when I said that "Jesus died for more than my soul." And this is an elaboration of the point just made. I think there has been a misunderstanding or misdirection in terms of what is believed about what happens after death, in general, and the final judgment, in particular. Let me put it this way, Jesus died (and was raised again) for our bodies because in the end, our bodies will be resurrected. There's a reason that doctrine is in our creeds. It's because it is scriptural and is our hope. We believe in the resurrection of the body. Jesus' resurrection is the basis of our own bodily resurrection of the final judgment. What happens between death and that point can be debated, but the New Testament is clear that one day our bodies will be raised again and those resurrected bodies will inhabit the "new heaven and new earth" that shall know no end. Tom Wright's Surprised by Hope is a great resource to learn more about this topic.
Please don't misunderstand me here; I in no way want to diminish or take away from the sacrifices offered and paid by our current and past military soldiers. They have and continue to offer their lives for our freedom, but Jesus also died for our freedom, too. But the freedom for which Jesus died for us is a different kind. It is a freedom where we are no longer bound to an authority other than God but are freed to follow God and join in his rescue mission for the world.
In closing this post, let me offer an alternative welcome message that comes from a different kingdom:
"Welcome to the Kingdom of God, where the blind are made to see, the imprisoned are set free, and the poor have good news shared with them; where the poor of spirit and outcasts, the peacemakers, the pursuers of righteousness, the merciful and the mourning are blessed; where the weary and heavy laden can come to the One who can give them rest; where we can learn from that One a language that is not tied to any cultural or national boundaries: the language of love, which is directed toward God and neighbor; a love that does not seek its own but the good of the other. This Kingdom was inaugurated some 2,000 years ago and has yet to reach its complete fulfillment but you are welcome to come and join as we wait for the final redemption of our bodies."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
