An Argument for the Resurrection's Importance

Preamble

I will present an argument that we can gain insight into the importance of Jesus' resurrection for the early church by the mere fact that the early Christians chose Sunday as their special day of celebration.  This is significant for evangelicals since we tend to think of Jesus' crucifixion as the Christ event par excellence.  However, it wasn't Friday that early Christians honored as we would expect if we adhered to the evangelical emphasis.

New Testament Evidence

In Revelation 1:10 there is mention of the "Lord's Day".  This probably refers to Sunday.  Since it refers to "the Lord" it is meant to recall events in Jesus' life, that is, the resurrection.  It's true that we are not told that this was Sunday or the first day of the week, but one would probably expect the author to have mentioned the "Sabbath" if that was the day.  Later Christian writings are explicit on this point (see below).

In Corinthians 16:1-2, Paul mentions the first day of the week as a time when he would gather the individual's contributions.  Paul mentions the Galatian churches in this regard so at least something is special about Sunday.  It's likely that this was the day Christian met which would make Paul's task of collection easier.

Acts 20:7 is also put forward int his regard.  Here, we are told that on the first day of the week (see Mt. 28:1; Lk. 24:1) the Christians met and broke bread.  There are references to a meal Jesus had with his followers after his resurrection (presumably on a Sunday) which use language associated with the Eucharist: Luke 24:, 30, 35 (breaking bread); 24:43 (taking the fish); John 20:19-29 and 21:13 (taking and giving bread. fish also); see Mark 16:14 and Acts 10:41.  It could be argued that the Eucharist practice was instituted by Jesus in these episodes and that is why the church does it Sunday and not Thursday as we would expect from the Last Supper.

Other Evidence

 Here is a list of some of the key reference to Sunday and its association with the resurrection of Jesus.

•  Didache 14.1 "on the Lord's Day we meet and break bread."
• Ignatuis of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesian Christians 9.1 "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which our life arose through him and his death." Also from this letter: "let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all days." 
• Melito of Sardis wrote a treatise titled Concerning the Lord's Day
• Chrysostom, Psalms 119 "it was called the Lord's day because the Lord rose on that day."
• Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III, 27 Referring to a group of Ebionites who "celebrate the Lord's days very much like us in commemoration of his resurrection."  It has been argued that the Ebionites (a Jewish Christian sect) would not have observed Sunday in this way if the custom had originated outside of Palestine, which is further evidence of its antiquity.
• Epistle of Barnabas, 15.9 "we joyfully celebrate the eighth day, on which Jesus rose from the dead and, after being disclosed to us, ascended into the heavens." [see Lk. 24:51]
• Justin Martyr, Apology 1.67 Christians meet together on Sunday because "it is the first day, on which God...created the world, and the same day on which Jesus rose from the dead."
• Pliny the Younger, Book 10, letter 96 mentions that the Christians meet regularly before dawn on a fixed day.

It would be difficult to imagine a change from the Jewish Sabbath (see Col. 2:16) without a really good alternative.  The resurrection of Jesus provides such an alternative, which argues for its importance in the early church.

Theological Upshot

The resurrection of Jesus was of utmost importance to the early church.  Good Friday was good, but Easter Sunday is better!  We Christians worship on Sunday and not Friday, which is a clue to the importance of the resurrection!

Power and Resurrection in Paul

Preamble

A study of the use of the word "power" in Paul's letters shows how important real transformation and/or resurrection is for Paul.  I will even argue that when Paul refers to Jesus' crucifixion he has in mind his resurrection too.  For example, in 1 Corinthians Paul proclaims Christ crucified (1:23) and that he decided to know nothing among the Corinthians except Christ crucified (2:2).  I claim these statements utilize metonymy in which the mention of crucifixion has in mind the whole crucifixion-resurrection event.  Paul does so I will argue because he wants to say something about his own ministry.

"Power" in Paul

The thesis-like statement in Romans is that the gospel is the power of God for salvation (1:16).  This already hints of the crucifixion-resurrection event.  It's possible the crucifixion is hinted at because Paul prefaces this statement with the claim that he is not ashamed of the gospel.  This could very well point to Jesus' death as a shameful outcome for a Messiah.  The resurrection is hinted at by the mention of salvation.  For Paul, salvation and resurrection are sister concepts.  Romans begins with the claim that Jesus was designated Son-of-God-in-power according to a Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead (1:4).  We see here the close association of power with resurrection.  Other verses prove the association:

• 1 Corinthians 6:14 And God raised the Lord and will raise us by his power.
• 1 Corinthians 15:43 sown in dishonor it is raised in glory; sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
• 2 Corinthians 13:4 for indeed he was crucified in weakness but he lives by the power of God.  For we are weak in him but we will live with him by the power of God toward you. 
• Philippians 3:10 to know him and the power of the resurrection of him.

The power that Jesus acquired by his resurrection (Rom. 1:4) is demonstrated by his life giving ability:

Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [1 Corinthians 15:45]
 

Romans puts it this way:

 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. [Romans 8:10]
 

Note the role of the Holy Spirit in all this.  The Spirit is also wedded to resurrection.  It is for this reason that Paul ties both power and spirit to his own ministry:  "My speech and proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power." [1 Corinthians 2:4).

Paul's use of the crucifixion

I claim that Paul based his ministry on the pattern of Jesus' death and resurrection.  He apologized for his weakness by pointing to the example set by Jesus.  For Paul, the cross was weakness, not power; see the above quote where is says that Jesus was crucified in weakness.  Paul came in weakness but power follows just as Jesus' powerful resurrection followed his shameful crucifixion.  This is why I claim that when Paul mentions the crucifixion he has the power of the resurrection tied to it (see 1 Cor. 1:17-18).  He highlights Jesus crucifixion because Paul's own ministry mimicked the Jesus death-resurrection event.  The crucifixion in and of itself was weakness and shame, but because it demontrated Jesus' obedience it was followed by the power of the resurrection.

Theological upshot

We Christians ought to imitate both Jesus and Paul by embracing obedience, even obedience unto death (Phil. 2:8).  Though the world will see our lifestyle as weak and counter-cultural, we can be assured that true power is found in weakness.  As Paul says, "when I am weak, then I am strong."  Amen.

    

Enoch, Faithfulness and Eternal Life

Preamble

The figure of Enoch in the Old Testament is a mysterious character.  I will take a closer look at the passage in Genesis where he is mentioned.  I will argue that Enoch is a classic example of Habakkuk 2:4 as I interpret that verse.  I will find excellent confirmation in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament, the only other Biblical passage where he is mentioned.  This is crucial evidence for my Gospel Beyond Belief because a certain interpretation of Habakkuk 2:4 lies at its heart, whereas its misinterpretation lies at the heart of the Standard Evangelical Story, a story that I think is a perversion of the Gospel.

The Life-Death Theme in Genesis

Since I claim that the heart of the Gospel message is Jesus' obedient death and resurrection/ascension/exaltation, and not his death as an animal-like sacrifice, it would make sense to find hints of the Gospel in the founding stories of Genesis.  That is exactly what we find.  The loss of eternal life is a major theme in Genesis.  After the disobedience in the garden, God did not want humans to attain eternal life by eating from the tree of life, so he guarded that tree with cherubim and a fiery, twirling sword (Gen. 3).  Therefore, God exiled Adam from the garden.  It is against this backdrop that we read about Adam's descendants in chapter 5.

List in Genesis 5

The descendants of Adam are listed following a set pattern: (1) A was x years old when he begot B; (2) A lived x years after begetting B and had other sons and daughters; (3) the entire lifetime of A was x years, then he died.  The list is as follows:

1. Adam
2. Seth
3. Enosh
4. Kenan
5. Mahalalel
6. Jared
7. Enoch
8. Methuselah
9. Lamech
10. Noah

What is remarkable is the addition of "then he died".  It seems added for emphasis, since one would think that that information is already given by how long A lived.  Therefore, this emphasis is telling because it was Adam's disobedience that led to death (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:19).  However, Enoch is an exception to this pattern in two ways: (1) instead of pattern 2's "A lived x years after begetting B", we read that Enoch "walked with God" (Gen. 5:22), (2) instead of patter 3's "then he died" we read that Enoch walked with God and that "he was no more, because God took him" (Gen. 5:24).

Implications

A strong case can be made that the reason we don't read "then he died" for Enoch is because he walked with God.  To walk with God is in part to be obedient.  This is why we are told that Noah walked with God (Gen. 6:9) who was "righteous" and "blameless", and why we are told Abraham walked with God (Gen 17:1) who was "blameless".  The conclusion is that Enoch was rewarded with life because he was faithful.

Habakkuk 2:4

On my website I argue that Paul and the Book of Hebrews quote Habakkuk 2:4 to mean that the righteous by faith[fulness] (obedience) will (be rewarded with eternal) live/life.  The verse is not saying that the righteous will live by faith as opposed to live by works or by anything else.  However, this is how the Standard Evangelical Story interprets Hab. 2:4.

Confirmation in Hebrews

On my website (Gospel Beyond Belief) I argue that Hebrews understands Habakkuk 2:4 as I do.  It is interesting to note that the great chapter on Faith[fulness] (chapter 11) is preceded by the quote of Habakkuk 2:4 in 10:38.  This is significant.  In 11:5, we are told that Enoch "had pleased God" and that is why he did not experience death.  The author of Hebrews is most likely using the LXX because the LXX uses "pleases God" instead of "walks with God" in Genesis 5:22, 24.  This sheds light on the famous next verse: without faithfulness is impossible to please him (God).  One must also believe he rewards faithfulness.  The next verse talks about Noah who also walked with God!  Both Enoch and Noah were rewarded with kinds of life because they were obedient.  Therefore, chapter 11 mutually reinforces the meaning of Habakkuk 2:4 in 10:38.  Life is a reward for obedience.

Jesus as Prime Example of Habakkuk 2:4

On my website I claim that Paul uses Jesus as the quintessential example of Habakkuk 2:4.  Jesus was righteous (obedient unto death) and was rewarded with eternal life (resurrection).  This is also the way Paul envisions his ministry and the Christian path in general.  This has monstrous consequence for how we interpret Paul and hence the Gospel, since the Standard Evangelical Story is wedded to a particular misinterpretation of Paul.

Resurrection as Primary

If I'm right about Habakkuk 2:4, then the resurrection of Jesus ought to be accorded the importance that it deserves, and as I argue, the New Testament proves.  Eternal life and the victory over death is the GOOD NEWS!

A Misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21

Preamble

An influential evangelical pastor/author has written a book in which he defends what I have called the standard evangelical story.  In chapter 11 (and 3) of that book he criticizes a certain interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 (see especially pp. 174-180).  I intend here to defend the interpretation that this author criticizes in part by showing that his interpretation is false and a disaster for Christianity.  It will turn out that the verses he thinks support his case actually undermine it.   


The Basic Issue

His basic error is to assume that for Paul salvation leaves the Christian "ungodly" and that the righteousness we receive "is not the moral quality of our souls" (he is quoting here Charles Hodge).  In other words, he continues to defend imputation as a legal fiction and sees 2 Corinthians 5:21 as a classic statement of that doctrine.

2 Corinthians 5:21

The one not knowing sin he made sin on behalf of us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

His contention is that Christ is made sin (as a legal fiction--for he knew no sin) so that we are made righteous (as a legal fiction--for we are not really righteous).  He highlights this by italicizing the verse as follows:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The problem for him is that one would have expected on his interpretation something like this: "he made him sin so that we would be made righteous."  But that is not what we read.  The puzzle for his interpretation is the addition "of God".  Why did Paul talk of the righteousness of God when on his reading it is with Christ's righteousness we are clothed? 

The Interpretation Criticized

According to the interpretation I wish to defend, the "righteousness of God" is not Christ's righteousness (which in his case would be a genitive of origin), but is the power of God to set things right (see Romans 1:16-17 where the "power of God" is parallel to the "righteousness of God").  In other words, the phrase "the righteousness of God" is a subjective genitive or a possessive genitive (if righteousness is an attribute of God, but an attribute that pertains to action).  So, what 2 Corinthians 5:21 is saying is that Paul and his fellow evangelists are becoming the righteousness of God in the sense that they are God's ambassadors in carrying out God's saving activity, which for Paul is primarily resurrected life (both figurative and literal).  In other words, 2 Corinthians 5:21 has nothing to do with the legal fiction of imputation. He realizes this (see his p. 175), hence his attack.

Point #1

He seems to want to discredit the target interpretation because of its novelty ("unprecedented" is the word he prefers).  However, he ought to be aware by now that there are others who share the target interpretation other than N.T. Wright (his main opponent).  Morna Hooker gave a lecture in which she supported the alternative interpretation.  This lecture was given in honor of C.K. Barrett, the same person he quotes in approval of the standard interpretation ("The root of the thought is forensic: man is arraigned in God's court, and is unable to satisfy the judge unless righteousness, which he cannot himself produce, is given him.... Christ himself becomes righteousness for him (2 Cor. 5:21), and God the judge views him not as he is in himself but in Christ").  Douglas Campbell follows Wright and Hooker in supporting the alternative interpretation (see his The Deliverance of God: an Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, pp. 912-13).  He knows that just because this reading has not been the dominant one does not mean it is not true (see his p. 115).  However, he seems overly interested in conforming to Reformed tradition instead of the Truth (see the title of his chapter 8).  The question why God allowed a faulty interpretation to last so long is a different issue but that issue is not solved by adhering to a faulty interpretation despite the claim to "tradition" (see Mark chapter 7!).

Point #2

His definition of the  righteousness of God is constructed by him to allow the possibility that God's righteousness can be passed to the Christian.  However, as N. T. Wright has responded in his Justification (p. 66):

...it is not at all clear how [his] idiosyncratic definition of "God's righteousness" works out within the scheme of imputation that lies at the heart of his own reading.  If "God's righteousness" is "God's concern for God's own glory," what does it mean to suggest that this is imputed to the believer?  It could only mean "the believer's concern for God's own glory."  But concern for someone else's glory is not the same as concern for one's own.

 Wright's basic thrust is that it does not make sense for the judge to impute anything to the defendant.  Our author is clearly making a category mistake.

Point #3

Our author criticizes Wright for thinking that the traditional interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 makes that verse a "throw in".  He points out that Christ's death is for Paul "squarely underneath his apostolic ministry as its foundational, controlling impulse" (p. 176).  He points to 2 Corinthians 5:14:

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore we all have died.

He ties this verse to 5:21.  He also ties verse 5:21 to verse 5:17 ("If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation").  He thinks that the phrase "become the righteousness of God" is analogous to "become a new creation" (p. 177). 

His logic here undermines his case!  Morna Hooker, in her lecture advocating the interpretation he is against, pointed out that in 5:14-15, 18 and 21 Paul give summaries of the Gospel.  However, Hooker posits that he did so in order to apply them to his own ministry.  She also argues contra our author that the contrast between God's righteousness and our own as seen in Romans 10:3 and Philippians 3:9 simply is not relevant here.  See my blog on Resurrection in 2 Corinthians where I give an argument totally in line with  Hooker's contentions.  In that blog, I point out that Paul defends his ministry by noting that it follows the template of Jesus.  I will return to this point below, especially in regard to the resurrection--a point totally lost on our author.

His quote of 5:14 works against him.  The verse says that Christ died for all, therefore we all have died.  Note that it says we died, not the Christ died in our place.  That is a crucial difference (noted by Hooker).  We died to sin so that we might live to him (note "resurrection" talk seeping in here).  In my blog mentions above I noted that though Paul bases his ministry on the template of Jesus, there is no analogue to Jesus' death as a sacrificial animal.  Instead, the resurrection of Jesus is the what is always on the other side of the equation of Jesus's (or Paul's or the believer's) death.  The death is a death to sin so that real righteousness can flow from the believer.  The new creation (which for me is "resurrection talk") mentioned in 5:17 is just that!  The believer is created new to evidence the real righteousness that the believer did not evidence before the Gospel came.

He goes on to quote 5:18 as proof that we are being told how people are reconciled (p. 177):

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation... 

He seems oblivious that his quote undermines his case.  The analogue to "we become the righteousness of God" in 5:21, is "gave us the ministry of reconciliation" in 5:18 and "entrusting to us the message of reconciliation" in 5:19.  We are ambassadors of God to do what God does.  Note the similarities between the "power of God" and the "weapons of righteousness" in 6:7.  The righteousness of God is an active power, not something that is transferred from a judge to a defendant.

Theological Upshot

Our author's take on 2 Corinthians 5:21 reminds me of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg, a desperate measure by the losing side.  It comes down to radically different interpretation of Christianity.  A weak, sinful humanity or a resurrected and transformed humanity.  That is the choice.  It is utterly amazing to me how little he discusses the resurrection, which for Paul is decisive!

     

  

  

Encouragement and Resurrection in John

Preamble

I claim that much of Jesus' encouragement in the gospel of John is related to resurrection (life).  This will show that salvation for John is described in terms of life and not in terms of forgiveness of sins though the latter is included in the former.

The Goal

The goal of Jesus is described by himself to be the return to the Father (see my last post: 13:1 [cf. Lk 9:51], 3; 14:12, 28; 16:5, 17, 28; 17:11, 13; 20:17).  I suggest that the reason for this is that the Father possesses life and gives that life to the Son (5:26, see also 14:19 where Jesus is said to have life).  That Jesus is resurrected and ascends to the Father is important for it makes possible the gift of the Spirit (7:39; 16:7).  I think the logic here is that Jesus makes possible the template (the "way") for the disciples to follow.

The Spirit and Life

It is the Spirit that begets eternal life (6:63: "the Spirit is the thing making alive...the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.").  Earlier Jesus had claimed that unless one be born of water and spirit one cannot enter the kingdom of God (3:5).  The reason is that the Spirit gives life (see Gen. 2:7 where God's breath (= spirit) enlivens).  Death results when God's breath is removed (Gen. 6:3).

Trouble vs. Peace and Joy

I now turn to Jesus' words of encouragement with the purpose of arguing that they are related to the resurrected life.  Early in his last discourse Jesus tells the disciples not to be troubled (14:1).  It is interesting that the word "trouble" appears elsewhere in John in relation to death (11:33 in relation to Lazarus and in 13:21 in relation to Jesus).  Jesus immediately talks about the afterlife of the disciples (14:2-4), so the consolation of 14:1 seems to mean that the disciples are not to worry because life will follow any death.  This is why he says that they ought to trust in God and Jesus (14:1) because they grant life (5:21: "for just as the Father raises the dead and makes alive, so also the Son...makes alive.").

 In 14:27, Jesus says that his peace is his gift to the disciples, but it is not as the world gives peace.  A similar saying occurs in 16:33, which I think helps interpret 16:27.  For in 16:33, Jesus says that the disciples will find suffering in this world but not to fear because he has conquered the world.  I take it as given that the suffering in this world pertains to death.  But Jesus has conquered death precisely by raising from the dead.  In Revelation the martyrs are described as "conquerors" in part because they too will escape the evil of death. Another similarity between 14:27 and 16:33 is that they both are referenced to Satan and his realm of death.  14:27 is followed by 14:30 where Jesus says the prince of this world has no hold over him.  I think the thought is clear: Jesus, by raising from the dead has dealt a death-blow (if you will) to the Satanic realm of death.

Jesus' gift of peace is worded very similarly to the gift of eternal life in 10:28 ("and I give to them eternal life").

Jesus' peace is related to Jesus' joy, which is also related to resurrected life.  Joy in the gospel is often related to eternal life:

• 4:36 the reaper is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that the sower and reaper may rejoice together.
• 8:56 Abraham rejoiced at seeing Jesus' day; this is said in the context of talk of Abraham and death.
• 9:15 Jesus rejoiced that he was not there when Lazarus died so that the disciple would believe (that he was a life giver?).

Therefore, when in 15:11 Jesus says that his joy may be the disciples' joy he is talking about life after death (cf. 17:13).

A clearer link between joy and resurrection occurs in 16.  There, Jesus says that the disciples' sadness at Jesus' death will turn to joy (16:20).  He then compares the situation to the pain of a woman in labor who rejoices at the birth of her child (16:21).  The pain corresponds to Jesus' death, but the joy corresponds to Jesus' resurrection.  In Revelation 12:5 (or so it can be argued) Jesus' resurrection is compared to birth (in Rev. 1:5 Jesus is called the first born from the dead).  Interestingly, in 16:16 Jesus uses a phrase (in a little while) that may come from Isaiah 26 and it is in Isaiah 26 where there is arguably one of the few mentions of resurrection in the Old Testament!  This is not a stretch because 16:21 also uses imagery from Isaiah 26. 

Conclusion

This exercise has shown that the resurrected life in John is the essence of the gospel message.  We are given encouragement because as Bob Dylan would say "death is not the end"!  There are few more powerful verses in the New Testament than John 16:33:

  I have said these things to you so that in me you may have peace.  In the world you will find suffering, but be cheerful, I have conquered the world.

Amen!

    

  

Why did early Christians call themselves "the Way"?

Preamble

Why did the early Christians call themselves "the Way"?  I think an answer to that question will tell us a lot about early Christianity and will provide us Christians today with a challenge as to how we ought to define ourselves.

Thesis

My thesis is this:  early Christians called themselves "the Way" because salvation for early Christians is a journey the goal of which is to be with God.  This way was exemplified by Jesus, which played out in his obedience (unto death) and resurrection--a course that is to be followed by his disciples. 

Proof

Luke is clear in the book of Acts that the early Christians called themselves "the Way" (see 9:1; 18:25-26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).  There are clues that this was a self-designation.  The term probably comes from Isaiah 40:3, a verse quoted elsewhere in the New Testament (Mt. 3:3; Mk. 1:3; Lk 3:4; Jn 1:23).  There is also evidence that the Jews at Qumran used Isa, 40:3 in a similar manner, but for them "the way" was a strict obedience to the law.  Even so, the evidence of Qumran will bolster my argument later.

Jesus Followed the Way

Another point to establish is that Jesus followed the way.  This is brought out in the reference to Isaiah 40:3 since this has to do with the way of the Lord (Jesus, for Christians), but it is also brought out in Acts (see 18:25-26).  Of course the clearest example of this is John 14:6 where Jesus says he is the Way (more on this below).

The Way Followed by Jesus is to be the Way Followed by his Disciples

The gospel of Mark is especially telling that the way of Jesus is the way of the disciples.  It is interesting that in all three major predictions of his death and resurrection, which just is "the way", we are told that Jesus said these things on the way! (see Mk. 8:27; 9:33-34; and 10:32).  These predictions of Jesus' fate are all tied to the fate of his disciples.  The way of Jesus is the way of the disciples.  Even outsiders knew that Jesus taught the way of God (Mk. 12:14).

More Evidence that the Way is about a Course in Life

The use of the word "way" in the New Testament refers to concrete actions (works if you will).  In Matthew 21:32 we are told about the way of righteousness (see also 2 Peter 2:21) and in 2 Peter 2:2 we are told about the way of truth.  A very nice segue to my discussion of the Gospel of John is Hebrews 10:20, where Jesus has opened a new and living way.

John

In John 14:6 we are told that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.  He is the way to the Father because he obeyed and was resurrected to be with God (a prominent theme in the gospel--13:1, 3, 33, 36; 14:12, 28; 16:5-7, 16-22, 28; 17:11, 13).  It's probable that in John 14:3, the way governs both the truth and life.  Jesus is the way to truth and the way to life.  He is the way to truth because he obeyed God.  In John 3:21, we are told to "do the truth"--a very odd way of talking to us evangelicals!  The way of truth as a course of action is also found in Psalms 119:30 and 86:11.  Truth even leads to life (see Prov. 15:24; Jer, 21:8; Psalms 16:11).  Jesus leads to life because he conquered death.  Jesus leads the way to the Father and his example is to be followed (see the conversation with Peter in Jn. 13:36-38).

Theological Upshot

It is a very significant fact that Christians called themselves "the Way".  The way is not just about beliefs and though it is true Christians were called believers, they were and we are to be much more than that!





 

God is (unrequited) love

To experience unrequited love is to experience the Divine.

Preamble

I want to draw a few lessons from the fact that God is love (1 Jn 4:8, 16).

God and Unrequited Love

It's not hard to show that God is intimately acquainted with unrequited love:

• God loves everyone.  God desires all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).  God loves the world, not just the "saved" (Jn 3:16, cf. Mt 5:45)
• Not everyone loves God and everyone does not love God as they ought.

Given the understatement of the last point, it is safe to say that if God is love, then God knows unrequited love like no other, it is God's predominate emotion!

Does God experience Unrequited Love?

If you take the Bible seriously, the answer is yes!  The God of the Bible is not the product of the "philosophy shop", to borrow a phrase of William James (a philosopher!).  I think the biggest obstacle in assessing God's relationship to unrequited love is that our conception of God precludes such emotions.  However, the Bible witnesses to God's emotions.  Take Isaiah 63:10 as an example:

But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit...

The Hebrew word for "grieved" here means to hurt or to pain.  A similar idea is expressed in Ephesians 4:30, where Paul commands: "do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God".  The Greek word lupeo means to cause sadness.  It is because of this verse that Barth said "the God proclaimed in Ephesians is not an unmoved mover." 

If we need any more proof that God experiences emotions akin to unrequited love we need look no further than the famous verse in John: "Jesus wept" (11:35).  The very next verse speaks of Jesus' great love associated with this weeping.

Lessons

God feels our pain when we love but are not loved back.  We need not feel guilty in loving someone who does not love us back.  God is not guilty for loving those who do not love back (most people) or do not love as they ought (everyone).

For me, the trickiest aspect of unrequited love is to let love be love and not to try to coerce or manipulate the beloved into loving back.  Love requires freedom and God risked a universe where people were free to love or not.  God does not coerce.  I claim the essence of love is a reciprocal, give-and-take relationship, based on the trinity.  The Biblical record is pretty clear that God's pursuit of our love is not coercive.  I get the hunch that when Jesus preached he simply offered himself freely but did so in a way that protected the freedom of the hearers.  The passage in Luke about the rich man and Lazarus is instructive.  At the end of this story, the rich man is sort of begging that his kin be coerced so that they will love God, but Abraham says that God's side of the love equation is sufficient (Moses and the prophets, let alone a resurrected Son!) so that the rich man's kin are without excuse.

Sure, God pursues us hard and he sent his Son to die and rise again, but this pursuit is not coercive.  God doesn't infringe on human freedom, and does so at great costs, so neither should we.  Love is a reciprocal deal and when the give-and-take breaks down love will eventually cease.  That is a bitter pill to swallow but that is the witness of Scripture.  People reject God even after the love shown at the cross.

Unrequited love is a bummer.  This is a lesson we can learn from God's love for us.  God's will is not always done here on earth.  This is why Jesus prays that it will be done!  You don't pray for something you think is a theological impossibility.  But the bummer of unrequited love is not alleviated by manipulating our beloved.  God doesn't do it and neither should we.  To borrow another phrase from William James, unrequited love proves there are always dregs at the bottom of the cup, no matter how good the coffee.