Is a Mosque (Cultural Center) at (near) Ground Zero a good idea? Let’s work with a worse-case scenario: let’s assume that Feisal Abdul Rauf, the mastermind behind the “Mosque”, wants to stick it to the West and that he wants the “Mosque” to be a symbol of Islamic supremacy (and Western weakness in letting it get built) and that he chose the name “Cordoba House” as purposely provocative. [Cordoba was the seat of the caliphate in what is now Spain after the Islamic invasion from North Africa; in Cordoba a Mosque was built over the site of a Cathedral.] Let’s assume that every Muslim that visits the “Mosque” wants the death of America and let’s assume that Islam itself, not just the brand practiced by the terrorist few, is inconsistent with Western values. [It is a well known philosophical axiom going back to at least Plato that relativism, and in this case religious relativism, is self-refuting. Not all religions can be as good as any other for the simple reason that there can be religions that claim exclusive truth.]
So what?
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York stated his case thus: “should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.” There is no question of rights, as Bloomberg’s response evidences, but there is a question of right. The Anti-Defamation League’s national director Abraham H. Foxman argued along these lines when he stated his opposition in terms of the sensitivity of the victims.
Again, so what?
We really can’t police other people’s decency. If Islam wants to be insensitive, let them, but it is also our right to point out insensitivity without being labeled bigots, a point made by Foxman. We are so blinded by our mistaken equation that tolerance = relativism that we feel strange critiquing other’s religion. I’m a Christian and I have no qualms critiquing my religion, and critiquing versions of Christianity I once held. If you look up “tolerance” in the dictionary you will find that it often pertains to views that are against one’s own.
I think the best response is to preserve toleration and if we really want to change Islam it will be by loving Muslims as ourselves. Show kindness to the Muslim that you come across in everyday situations. Your kindness might just be the key to stopping the tit-for-tat morality that fuels Islamic terrorism in the first place.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Love (Agape), Wrath and God
Agape: Self-sacrifice or Mutuality?
Ever since Anders Nygren (Agape and Eros), the Christian conception of love has been basically equated with self-sacrifice. This conception is rooted in a Christology in which Jesus gives himself over for those whom he loves. However, some have contested this conception and prefer to define love in terms of mutuality. This mutuality is in turn rooted in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Gospel Beyond Belief, with its emphasis on the obedience of Jesus, falls on the mutuality side. Jesus’ death on the cross was not just his self-giving for sinners but operated in a mutual relationship with the Father. The Gospels tell the story of Jesus’ death with an eye on Jesus’ relationship to the Father. For example, in Gethsemane Jesus conceives of his death as God’s will and his submission to that fate as his willingness to obey. It’s clear that Jesus thought that his death played a part in God’s plan, a plan that included Jesus, for after Gethsemane Jesus states that he will be seated at the right hand of God. This is to say that Jesus’ death, while a self-sacrificial happening, cannot be solely conceived in terms of self-sacrifice but also in terms of mutuality. Of course, this isn’t to say that self-sacrifice is not a crucial component in mutuality, but it is to say that it is not the last word.
Agape and Wrath
Once one defines love (agape) as self-sacrifice, then one has a hard time reconciling God’s love and God’s wrath. If God is love and is always sacrificing his agenda for those whom he loves, then there is precious little room for wrath. However, if agape is viewed in terms of mutuality then wrath is the expression of a failure in mutuality.
Ever since Anders Nygren (Agape and Eros), the Christian conception of love has been basically equated with self-sacrifice. This conception is rooted in a Christology in which Jesus gives himself over for those whom he loves. However, some have contested this conception and prefer to define love in terms of mutuality. This mutuality is in turn rooted in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Gospel Beyond Belief, with its emphasis on the obedience of Jesus, falls on the mutuality side. Jesus’ death on the cross was not just his self-giving for sinners but operated in a mutual relationship with the Father. The Gospels tell the story of Jesus’ death with an eye on Jesus’ relationship to the Father. For example, in Gethsemane Jesus conceives of his death as God’s will and his submission to that fate as his willingness to obey. It’s clear that Jesus thought that his death played a part in God’s plan, a plan that included Jesus, for after Gethsemane Jesus states that he will be seated at the right hand of God. This is to say that Jesus’ death, while a self-sacrificial happening, cannot be solely conceived in terms of self-sacrifice but also in terms of mutuality. Of course, this isn’t to say that self-sacrifice is not a crucial component in mutuality, but it is to say that it is not the last word.
Agape and Wrath
Once one defines love (agape) as self-sacrifice, then one has a hard time reconciling God’s love and God’s wrath. If God is love and is always sacrificing his agenda for those whom he loves, then there is precious little room for wrath. However, if agape is viewed in terms of mutuality then wrath is the expression of a failure in mutuality.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Pacifism and the Lamb in Revelation
Introduction
I want to question the pacifist reading of Revelation by analyzing the use of the “Lamb” Christology. I hope to show that the Lamb Christology is meant to provide an example for a pacifist Christian response in the here and now (the “Tribulation and Persecution” stage) but is not meant to apply to the divine violence we find at the end (the “Wrath and Judgment” stage).
The Pacifist Reading of Divine Violence in Revelation
The pacifist reading of the divine violence in Revelation is to claim that it is only figurative and that the only way Jesus confronts evil is by being “lamblike”. For example, advocates of the pacifist reading find it very significant that in 19:11-21, a passage where Jesus is viewed as Divine Warrior, there is no actual description of a battle. As another example, they will point out that in chapter five the lion motif is replace by the lamb (5:5—lion; 5:6—lamb).
I agree that the lamb motif is meant to provide Christians with an example to follow in the here and now. However, this example does not pertain to how God/Jesus deals with evil at the eschatological end. To show this I want to analyze the use of the term “lamb” in Revelation.
The Use of “Lamb” in Revelation
There are 28 references to Jesus as a lamb in Revelation (a 29th involves a pseudo-Christ=13:11): 5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:1, 16; 7:9, 10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8, 11; 14:1, 4(x2), 10; 15:3; 17:14(x2); 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22, 23, 27; 22:1, 3. The distribution of this term in the structure of Revelation is highly significant. In part one of my blog, I claimed that there are basically three time periods in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution
2. Wrath and Judgment
3. Salvation
I argue that “lamb” is used mainly in stage one and is largely absent in stage two. This is a significant indication that the divine violence we find in stage two is not easily swept under the pacifist rug. This makes sense. Christians are to be pacifists in the here and now precisely because evil will be dealt with by divine powers at the end (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19). If this is the logic of Revelation, and a strong argument can be made that it is, then the pacifist reading is in trouble.
There are heavenly worship scenes in Revelation (4:1-5:14, 7:1-17; 10:1-11:14; 14:1-20; 15:1-4; 19:1-10, 21:9-22:5). Of the 28 references to the lamb, 22 appear in those sections. I claim that those scenes are meant to remind persecuted Christians of heavenly realities and encourage them to imitate the Lamb in the face of evil powers. Significantly, in those passages directly related to wrath (the trumpets, bowls and 19:11-21:8) there are zero references to the Lamb. I think the reason for this is obvious, in the wrath scenes Christians are not given a model of imitation. Rather, they are only given a vision of justice to comfort them in their suffering.
Theological Upshot
I think Revelation gives Pacifists what they really want: human pacifism; but it also gives non-pacifists what they really want: real justice. I believe that when pacifism turns into idolatry bad consequences can follow just as much as anything idolatrous.
I want to question the pacifist reading of Revelation by analyzing the use of the “Lamb” Christology. I hope to show that the Lamb Christology is meant to provide an example for a pacifist Christian response in the here and now (the “Tribulation and Persecution” stage) but is not meant to apply to the divine violence we find at the end (the “Wrath and Judgment” stage).
The Pacifist Reading of Divine Violence in Revelation
The pacifist reading of the divine violence in Revelation is to claim that it is only figurative and that the only way Jesus confronts evil is by being “lamblike”. For example, advocates of the pacifist reading find it very significant that in 19:11-21, a passage where Jesus is viewed as Divine Warrior, there is no actual description of a battle. As another example, they will point out that in chapter five the lion motif is replace by the lamb (5:5—lion; 5:6—lamb).
I agree that the lamb motif is meant to provide Christians with an example to follow in the here and now. However, this example does not pertain to how God/Jesus deals with evil at the eschatological end. To show this I want to analyze the use of the term “lamb” in Revelation.
The Use of “Lamb” in Revelation
There are 28 references to Jesus as a lamb in Revelation (a 29th involves a pseudo-Christ=13:11): 5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:1, 16; 7:9, 10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8, 11; 14:1, 4(x2), 10; 15:3; 17:14(x2); 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22, 23, 27; 22:1, 3. The distribution of this term in the structure of Revelation is highly significant. In part one of my blog, I claimed that there are basically three time periods in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution
2. Wrath and Judgment
3. Salvation
I argue that “lamb” is used mainly in stage one and is largely absent in stage two. This is a significant indication that the divine violence we find in stage two is not easily swept under the pacifist rug. This makes sense. Christians are to be pacifists in the here and now precisely because evil will be dealt with by divine powers at the end (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19). If this is the logic of Revelation, and a strong argument can be made that it is, then the pacifist reading is in trouble.
There are heavenly worship scenes in Revelation (4:1-5:14, 7:1-17; 10:1-11:14; 14:1-20; 15:1-4; 19:1-10, 21:9-22:5). Of the 28 references to the lamb, 22 appear in those sections. I claim that those scenes are meant to remind persecuted Christians of heavenly realities and encourage them to imitate the Lamb in the face of evil powers. Significantly, in those passages directly related to wrath (the trumpets, bowls and 19:11-21:8) there are zero references to the Lamb. I think the reason for this is obvious, in the wrath scenes Christians are not given a model of imitation. Rather, they are only given a vision of justice to comfort them in their suffering.
Theological Upshot
I think Revelation gives Pacifists what they really want: human pacifism; but it also gives non-pacifists what they really want: real justice. I believe that when pacifism turns into idolatry bad consequences can follow just as much as anything idolatrous.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Jesus the Divine Warrior: Violence in the NT
Introduction
Critics of religion will point out that religion, Christianity included, fosters violence. It behooves Christians to be prepared to answer those critics and persons from other faiths who will defend their violence by pointing out the violence in the Bible, even if this gambit commits the fallacy of tu quoque. I don’t think Christians can easily make some sort of Old Testament/New Testament distinction, for while it is true that in the Old Testament God is often viewed as a Divine Warrior, it is equally true that in the New Testament (Revelation) Jesus is also viewed as a Divine Warrior. I intend to assess the theological significance of the divine violence we find in Revelation. I intend to show that the divine violence in Revelation is of a specific sort and in no way justifies human violence in the here and now.
The Basic Timeline in Revelation
Without argument I claim that there are three basic time divisions in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution (directed against Christians but also includes wrath against the persecutors, since sin tends to bring about its own punishment)
2. Wrath and Judgment (directed against the persecutors of the Christians)
3. Eschatological Salvation (for the persecuted Christians)
I take it that certain passages rehearse the same basic storyline:
1:9-3:22 (7 letters)
4:1-8:5 (7 seals)
8:6-11:19 (7 trumpets)
12:1-15:4
15:5-16:21 (7 bowls)
19:11-21:8
7 Letters (1:9-3:22)
This section ties to 19:11-21:8 in a sort of promise-fulfillment relationship. In the initial vision John sees Jesus with a sharp two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. Some interpreters take this sword to represent “words” since it comes from the mouth and so the violent image would be only figurative. However, it has also been noted that a short Roman sword resembled a tongue. Furthermore, this tongue/sword functions elsewhere in Revelation in equally violent imagery:
2:16: repent therefore, but if not I will come to you soon and war with them by the sword of my mouth.
19:15 and out of his mouth goes forth a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.
19:21 and the rest were killed with the sword of the one sitting on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth.
Since the letters are tied to 19:11-21:8, it is of importance that the latter section concerns Jesus’ return and his armies and does not involve human violence at all.
Another violent image in the letters involves the promise to the conquerors in the church of Thyatira that they will rule the nations with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken (2:27). However, this scene again links up with 19:11-21:8 and there Jesus rules (shepherds) the nations with a rod of iron (19:15). It follows that when the conquerors rule the nations it refers to the time after Jesus’ return and not to the here and now (see 20:4-6).
Finally, and again in the letter to Thyatira, we read that Jesus will kill the “children” (i.e. followers) of the false prophetess Jezebel if they do not repent (2:23). This graphic image probably pertains to the Last Judgment and we are not told how Jesus will kill or how Jesus is involved in the process. The image is probably meant to foster repentance and there is really nothing unusual that the unrighteous suffer death at the Last Judgment.
7 Seals
The seven seals appear on a scroll with writing on the inside and on the back; some scholars take these to be the trumpet and bowl plagues respectively. It should not be forgotten that the seals are opened by Jesus. However, this may only mean that the plagues of the seals are under divine authorization even if they are not divinely willed. This is likely given that the divine passive (“it was given”) occurs throughout the seals and considering that the agents in the seals are most likely evil themselves. For example, in 6:8 Death and Hades are mentioned but these same two appear later to be demonic actors (20:14). Therefore, the violence of the seals need not be attributed to divine action, even if they further God’s plans.
Those plans seem to involve judgment for the persecution of Christians. In the fifth seal, the martyrs ask when God will judge and avenge their blood. The context seems to show that the plagues are on account of the persecution of the Christians. The sixth seal, the great day of divine wrath, follows this prayer in the fifth seal and therefore suggests that the great end-time battle is in response to the suffering of Christians. This also suggests that there are two stages: tribulation and persecution (the “short time”) involving the first five seals and wrath and judgment involving the sixth seal.
The seventh seal introduces the seven angels who are given seven trumpets. These angels could also be the angels involved in the bowl plagues and that they stand before God again highlights that the trumpets and bowls are under God’s authorization, even if he is not implicated in the actual violence.
7 Trumpets
The seven trumpets are introduced by an angelic symbolic event that shows their intent. In 8:3-5, an angel (who stands at the altar before the throne—which proves this angel is not demonic) takes a censer filled with the prayers of the saints (see the fifth seal) and fills it with fire and throws it on the earth. The implication is that the trumpet plagues are in response to the suffering of Christians.
The fifth trumpet features the violence of the locusts. That the divine passive occurs in this section (9:1,3,5) and that the angel ruling the locusts appears to be demonic, shows that the violence here is not God’s doing but under his authority. God allows evil to punish itself. The sixth trumpet also appears to involve demonic agents (the four angels) but they are summoned by a voice from the altar before God who tells the angel with the sixth trumpet to release the four demonic angels.
The seventh trumpet features the 24 elders who sing that God will destroy the destroyers of the earth. However, we are not told how God would do this.
12:1-15:4
The divine passive (“it was given”) appears in this section too (13:5, 7, 14, 15) which again shows that the violence is not willed by God but is perpetrated by evil agents under God’s authority.
Many scholars take the 144,000 in chapter 14 to be a militaristic image, however, we are not told how they fight and they are no longer in the here and now as they probably have already been martyred. On this score, this section has a passage that best encapsulates the attitude that Christians ought to have in the face of violence (13:10): if anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he goes; if anyone is to be killed by the sword, he by the sword is to be killed.
This section includes some passages that are not kind to the unrighteous. They will:
• Drink of the wine of God’s wrath (14:10)
• Tormented by fire and sulfur before the holy angels and before the lamb (14:10)
The unrighteous will be gathered and thrown into the winepress of the wrath of God. This violence is done by angels and is at the final Judgment.
7 Bowls
The bowls evoke the bowl which contains the prayers of the saints (5:8) and the smoke in the opening scene also evokes the prayers of the saints (8:2-5). This would indicate that the bowls are in response to the suffering of the saints. Again, the bowls are commissioned by a voice from the temple and explicitly represent the wrath of God. The reason for the bowls is also explicitly stated: because they have shed the blood of the saints and prophets (16:6). None of the violence in this section is said to implicate God.
19:11-21:8
This section contains the image of Jesus as a Divine Warrior. However, the timing of the violence is at the end of time and does not involve humans in the here and now. Jesus is accompanied by an army but this army is explicitly said to be in heaven.
In 19:13, we are told that Jesus’ is wearing a garment dipped in blood. This evokes Isaiah 63:3 where God’s garments are stained by the blood of his enemies. Some scholars believe that the blood here refers to Jesus’ crucifixion because Jesus’ garment is already stained before he enters battle (even though the winepress imagery is used two verses later!). More likely is the theory that the blood refers to the martyrdom of his followers and Jesus’ martyrdom would be included in this. In this way, the blood would be a reason why Jesus is warring with the enemies.
Conclusion
The divine violence in Revelation is in response to the violence committed against Christians. This is a clue as to the purpose of the book of Revelation. Christians are not to resort to violence in the here and now because vengeance will be had by divine powers at the end. Also, significantly, most of the divine violence is attributed to angels and not to God directly. Interestingly, Jesus’ reference to violence in the gospels follows this pattern. Violence is relegated to the end (final judgment) and is usually attributed to angels (see Matthew 8:11-12//Luke 13:28-29; Mt. 24:45-51//Lk. 12:42-46; Mt. 25:14-30//Lk. 19:11-27; Mt. 22:2-14//Lk. 14:16-24; Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 7:19).
Critics of religion will point out that religion, Christianity included, fosters violence. It behooves Christians to be prepared to answer those critics and persons from other faiths who will defend their violence by pointing out the violence in the Bible, even if this gambit commits the fallacy of tu quoque. I don’t think Christians can easily make some sort of Old Testament/New Testament distinction, for while it is true that in the Old Testament God is often viewed as a Divine Warrior, it is equally true that in the New Testament (Revelation) Jesus is also viewed as a Divine Warrior. I intend to assess the theological significance of the divine violence we find in Revelation. I intend to show that the divine violence in Revelation is of a specific sort and in no way justifies human violence in the here and now.
The Basic Timeline in Revelation
Without argument I claim that there are three basic time divisions in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution (directed against Christians but also includes wrath against the persecutors, since sin tends to bring about its own punishment)
2. Wrath and Judgment (directed against the persecutors of the Christians)
3. Eschatological Salvation (for the persecuted Christians)
I take it that certain passages rehearse the same basic storyline:
1:9-3:22 (7 letters)
4:1-8:5 (7 seals)
8:6-11:19 (7 trumpets)
12:1-15:4
15:5-16:21 (7 bowls)
19:11-21:8
7 Letters (1:9-3:22)
This section ties to 19:11-21:8 in a sort of promise-fulfillment relationship. In the initial vision John sees Jesus with a sharp two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. Some interpreters take this sword to represent “words” since it comes from the mouth and so the violent image would be only figurative. However, it has also been noted that a short Roman sword resembled a tongue. Furthermore, this tongue/sword functions elsewhere in Revelation in equally violent imagery:
2:16: repent therefore, but if not I will come to you soon and war with them by the sword of my mouth.
19:15 and out of his mouth goes forth a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.
19:21 and the rest were killed with the sword of the one sitting on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth.
Since the letters are tied to 19:11-21:8, it is of importance that the latter section concerns Jesus’ return and his armies and does not involve human violence at all.
Another violent image in the letters involves the promise to the conquerors in the church of Thyatira that they will rule the nations with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken (2:27). However, this scene again links up with 19:11-21:8 and there Jesus rules (shepherds) the nations with a rod of iron (19:15). It follows that when the conquerors rule the nations it refers to the time after Jesus’ return and not to the here and now (see 20:4-6).
Finally, and again in the letter to Thyatira, we read that Jesus will kill the “children” (i.e. followers) of the false prophetess Jezebel if they do not repent (2:23). This graphic image probably pertains to the Last Judgment and we are not told how Jesus will kill or how Jesus is involved in the process. The image is probably meant to foster repentance and there is really nothing unusual that the unrighteous suffer death at the Last Judgment.
7 Seals
The seven seals appear on a scroll with writing on the inside and on the back; some scholars take these to be the trumpet and bowl plagues respectively. It should not be forgotten that the seals are opened by Jesus. However, this may only mean that the plagues of the seals are under divine authorization even if they are not divinely willed. This is likely given that the divine passive (“it was given”) occurs throughout the seals and considering that the agents in the seals are most likely evil themselves. For example, in 6:8 Death and Hades are mentioned but these same two appear later to be demonic actors (20:14). Therefore, the violence of the seals need not be attributed to divine action, even if they further God’s plans.
Those plans seem to involve judgment for the persecution of Christians. In the fifth seal, the martyrs ask when God will judge and avenge their blood. The context seems to show that the plagues are on account of the persecution of the Christians. The sixth seal, the great day of divine wrath, follows this prayer in the fifth seal and therefore suggests that the great end-time battle is in response to the suffering of Christians. This also suggests that there are two stages: tribulation and persecution (the “short time”) involving the first five seals and wrath and judgment involving the sixth seal.
The seventh seal introduces the seven angels who are given seven trumpets. These angels could also be the angels involved in the bowl plagues and that they stand before God again highlights that the trumpets and bowls are under God’s authorization, even if he is not implicated in the actual violence.
7 Trumpets
The seven trumpets are introduced by an angelic symbolic event that shows their intent. In 8:3-5, an angel (who stands at the altar before the throne—which proves this angel is not demonic) takes a censer filled with the prayers of the saints (see the fifth seal) and fills it with fire and throws it on the earth. The implication is that the trumpet plagues are in response to the suffering of Christians.
The fifth trumpet features the violence of the locusts. That the divine passive occurs in this section (9:1,3,5) and that the angel ruling the locusts appears to be demonic, shows that the violence here is not God’s doing but under his authority. God allows evil to punish itself. The sixth trumpet also appears to involve demonic agents (the four angels) but they are summoned by a voice from the altar before God who tells the angel with the sixth trumpet to release the four demonic angels.
The seventh trumpet features the 24 elders who sing that God will destroy the destroyers of the earth. However, we are not told how God would do this.
12:1-15:4
The divine passive (“it was given”) appears in this section too (13:5, 7, 14, 15) which again shows that the violence is not willed by God but is perpetrated by evil agents under God’s authority.
Many scholars take the 144,000 in chapter 14 to be a militaristic image, however, we are not told how they fight and they are no longer in the here and now as they probably have already been martyred. On this score, this section has a passage that best encapsulates the attitude that Christians ought to have in the face of violence (13:10): if anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he goes; if anyone is to be killed by the sword, he by the sword is to be killed.
This section includes some passages that are not kind to the unrighteous. They will:
• Drink of the wine of God’s wrath (14:10)
• Tormented by fire and sulfur before the holy angels and before the lamb (14:10)
The unrighteous will be gathered and thrown into the winepress of the wrath of God. This violence is done by angels and is at the final Judgment.
7 Bowls
The bowls evoke the bowl which contains the prayers of the saints (5:8) and the smoke in the opening scene also evokes the prayers of the saints (8:2-5). This would indicate that the bowls are in response to the suffering of the saints. Again, the bowls are commissioned by a voice from the temple and explicitly represent the wrath of God. The reason for the bowls is also explicitly stated: because they have shed the blood of the saints and prophets (16:6). None of the violence in this section is said to implicate God.
19:11-21:8
This section contains the image of Jesus as a Divine Warrior. However, the timing of the violence is at the end of time and does not involve humans in the here and now. Jesus is accompanied by an army but this army is explicitly said to be in heaven.
In 19:13, we are told that Jesus’ is wearing a garment dipped in blood. This evokes Isaiah 63:3 where God’s garments are stained by the blood of his enemies. Some scholars believe that the blood here refers to Jesus’ crucifixion because Jesus’ garment is already stained before he enters battle (even though the winepress imagery is used two verses later!). More likely is the theory that the blood refers to the martyrdom of his followers and Jesus’ martyrdom would be included in this. In this way, the blood would be a reason why Jesus is warring with the enemies.
Conclusion
The divine violence in Revelation is in response to the violence committed against Christians. This is a clue as to the purpose of the book of Revelation. Christians are not to resort to violence in the here and now because vengeance will be had by divine powers at the end. Also, significantly, most of the divine violence is attributed to angels and not to God directly. Interestingly, Jesus’ reference to violence in the gospels follows this pattern. Violence is relegated to the end (final judgment) and is usually attributed to angels (see Matthew 8:11-12//Luke 13:28-29; Mt. 24:45-51//Lk. 12:42-46; Mt. 25:14-30//Lk. 19:11-27; Mt. 22:2-14//Lk. 14:16-24; Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 7:19).
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Over-interpreting Jesus
Introduction
I want to look at two passages that I believe are over-interpreted by many evangelicals: the parable of the lost sheep (Mt. 18:12-14//Lk. 15:3-7) and the saying on not calling the righteous but sinners (Mk. 2:15-17//Mt. 9:9-13//Lk. 5:29-32). I claim that evangelicals over-interpret these passages when they claim that Jesus denies that there are righteous ones and that Jesus is really only using “righteous” as code for “self-righteous”.
The Passages
Lost/Stray Sheep
The parable is basically the same in both Matthew and Luke. A man has 100 sheep and 1 is lost or strays. Would not the man leave the 99 and search for the 1 and then rejoice when it is found? The interlocutor is supposed to say “yes” and this affirmative proves the lesson Jesus intends to make. But what lesson is that? The contexts in both Matthew and Luke clarify the situation.
Luke: Jesus explains the parable by noting that there is more joy in heaven over 1 sinner who repents then over the 99 righteous who have no need to repent. Since the audience is the Scribes and Pharisees who are grumbling about Jesus welcoming and eating with sinners, the lesson is that the Pharisees and the Scribes ought to be happy that the “sinners” are receiving divine grace in the same way that the 1 sheep received grace over the 99. However, the standard evangelical gloss is to claim that since the Pharisees and Scribes represent the 99 sheep and since they are really unrighteous hypocrites, this shows that Jesus’ use of the word “righteous” is only code for “self-righteous”.
My problem with the standard evangelical gloss is that granting that Jesus wanted to show the Pharisees and Scribes that they ought to have a loving heart for those who are lost (tax-collectors and sinners), and even granting that he wanted them to identify with the 99 who are righteous (even though Jesus thinks they are unrighteous), this does not mean that Jesus in the parable thought the sheep represented the unrighteous or that the righteousness that is ascribed to the 99 is impossible. If Jesus thought those represented by the 99 in the parable were just as lost as those represented by the lost sheep, then the grace shown the lost sheep would not stand out and this would under-mind the parable to some extent.
Luke certainly thinks that persons can be described as righteous. In the beginning of gospel, Luke describes Zechariah, Elizabeth and Simeon as “righteous”. Jesus also describes person as righteous (14: 14, see also 16:10). Also, the context in the gospel of Matthew seems to rule out the interpretation of the 99 as truly unrighteous.
Matthew: the context in Matthew does not involve the Pharisees or Scribes which gives the lesson of the parable a different twist but the same basic flavor. Jesus’ point in Matthew seems to be directed against possible haughty church leaders whom Jesus does not want to mimic the Pharisees. However, in this case, there is not the same tug to claim that the church leaders, or whomever, are the 99 who claim to have not wandered but truly have. Sure, they may be haughty and that should be guarded against but in the parable, the sheep really haven’t wandered. Also, Jesus calls persons righteous: 13:16, 23:35, 25:46—said even after 25:37 where “righteous” may be code for “self-righteous”.
Call the Sinners, not the Righteous
All the synoptic gospels contain this saying with minor variations (Luke records “to repentance”). The context also involves the Pharisees and Scribes and so when Jesus says I have come not to call the righteous but sinners, it is again assumed on the standard evangelical reading that the Pharisees and Scribes are the “healthy” or “strong” who claim to not be ill but truly are.
The same basic retort to this gloss can be made as with the lost sheep. There is no reason to assume in the parable that all are really ill. The point seems to be that like the lost sheep those who receive more divine assistance need it the most. The saying’s point I think would be dulled if all were ill for then Jesus would have to justify why he is associating more with the sinners and tax collectors.
Prodigal Son
I think the same logic applies to the prodigal son. When the older son is mad and resentful at the treatment of the younger son, and even perhaps does not have the relationship with his father that he ought to have, and even if the Pharisees and Scribes are meant to relate to the older son, this does not mean that the older son is no better off the younger son. Again, I think the point is that the older son ought to be more loving toward his younger son and perhaps even his father, but he still is the one who was always with his father. The point of the grace shown the younger son would be dulled if the older son was in the same boat as the younger son.
Conclusion
The passages in question simply do not justify the claim that Jesus did not think that anyone could be attributed righteousness.
I want to look at two passages that I believe are over-interpreted by many evangelicals: the parable of the lost sheep (Mt. 18:12-14//Lk. 15:3-7) and the saying on not calling the righteous but sinners (Mk. 2:15-17//Mt. 9:9-13//Lk. 5:29-32). I claim that evangelicals over-interpret these passages when they claim that Jesus denies that there are righteous ones and that Jesus is really only using “righteous” as code for “self-righteous”.
The Passages
Lost/Stray Sheep
The parable is basically the same in both Matthew and Luke. A man has 100 sheep and 1 is lost or strays. Would not the man leave the 99 and search for the 1 and then rejoice when it is found? The interlocutor is supposed to say “yes” and this affirmative proves the lesson Jesus intends to make. But what lesson is that? The contexts in both Matthew and Luke clarify the situation.
Luke: Jesus explains the parable by noting that there is more joy in heaven over 1 sinner who repents then over the 99 righteous who have no need to repent. Since the audience is the Scribes and Pharisees who are grumbling about Jesus welcoming and eating with sinners, the lesson is that the Pharisees and the Scribes ought to be happy that the “sinners” are receiving divine grace in the same way that the 1 sheep received grace over the 99. However, the standard evangelical gloss is to claim that since the Pharisees and Scribes represent the 99 sheep and since they are really unrighteous hypocrites, this shows that Jesus’ use of the word “righteous” is only code for “self-righteous”.
My problem with the standard evangelical gloss is that granting that Jesus wanted to show the Pharisees and Scribes that they ought to have a loving heart for those who are lost (tax-collectors and sinners), and even granting that he wanted them to identify with the 99 who are righteous (even though Jesus thinks they are unrighteous), this does not mean that Jesus in the parable thought the sheep represented the unrighteous or that the righteousness that is ascribed to the 99 is impossible. If Jesus thought those represented by the 99 in the parable were just as lost as those represented by the lost sheep, then the grace shown the lost sheep would not stand out and this would under-mind the parable to some extent.
Luke certainly thinks that persons can be described as righteous. In the beginning of gospel, Luke describes Zechariah, Elizabeth and Simeon as “righteous”. Jesus also describes person as righteous (14: 14, see also 16:10). Also, the context in the gospel of Matthew seems to rule out the interpretation of the 99 as truly unrighteous.
Matthew: the context in Matthew does not involve the Pharisees or Scribes which gives the lesson of the parable a different twist but the same basic flavor. Jesus’ point in Matthew seems to be directed against possible haughty church leaders whom Jesus does not want to mimic the Pharisees. However, in this case, there is not the same tug to claim that the church leaders, or whomever, are the 99 who claim to have not wandered but truly have. Sure, they may be haughty and that should be guarded against but in the parable, the sheep really haven’t wandered. Also, Jesus calls persons righteous: 13:16, 23:35, 25:46—said even after 25:37 where “righteous” may be code for “self-righteous”.
Call the Sinners, not the Righteous
All the synoptic gospels contain this saying with minor variations (Luke records “to repentance”). The context also involves the Pharisees and Scribes and so when Jesus says I have come not to call the righteous but sinners, it is again assumed on the standard evangelical reading that the Pharisees and Scribes are the “healthy” or “strong” who claim to not be ill but truly are.
The same basic retort to this gloss can be made as with the lost sheep. There is no reason to assume in the parable that all are really ill. The point seems to be that like the lost sheep those who receive more divine assistance need it the most. The saying’s point I think would be dulled if all were ill for then Jesus would have to justify why he is associating more with the sinners and tax collectors.
Prodigal Son
I think the same logic applies to the prodigal son. When the older son is mad and resentful at the treatment of the younger son, and even perhaps does not have the relationship with his father that he ought to have, and even if the Pharisees and Scribes are meant to relate to the older son, this does not mean that the older son is no better off the younger son. Again, I think the point is that the older son ought to be more loving toward his younger son and perhaps even his father, but he still is the one who was always with his father. The point of the grace shown the younger son would be dulled if the older son was in the same boat as the younger son.
Conclusion
The passages in question simply do not justify the claim that Jesus did not think that anyone could be attributed righteousness.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Did Jesus Preach the Gospel of Evangelicalism?
It has been argued that Luke 18:9-14 is evidence that Jesus did preach the Evangelical Gospel. The Lukan passage is as follows:
9 And he said to some, the ones having put confidence in themselves that they are righteous and despising others, this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee having stood, to himself was praying these things: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, swindlers, unrighteous, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice during the week, I tithe everything as much as I get.’ 13 But the tax collector having stood at a distance was not willing even the eyes to raise up to heaven, but was beating his chest saying ‘God, have mercy on me the sinner.’ 14 I say to you, this one went down having been justified to his house rather than that one, because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, but the one humbling himself will be exalted.”
The standard Evangelical gloss on this passage is to claim (from verse 11) that the Pharisee is a moral man (he doesn’t swindle, he isn’t unrighteous, he doesn’t commit adultery, he isn’t a tax collector) and to claim (from verse 12) that he is a religious (he fasts and tithes). The point Jesus is making is that one is not justified by being righteous even if that righteousness is God-given—after all, it is pointed out that the Pharisee is thanking God for his righteousness. This standard Evangelical gloss further bolsters its position by appealing to Luke 17:10 where after having done all that is commanded, we are admonished to say we are only “worthless slaves”. Also, the ruler in Luke 18:18-30 claims to have righteousness only to be told by Jesus that he still lacks.
I find serious problems with this gloss. First, I question the assumption that Jesus sees the Pharisee as a moral man. In verse 9 there is an important “and” added to the description of those who put confidence in themselves on account of their (perceived) righteousness. The “and” adds to the description those who “despise others”. No one would want to claim that despising others is a mark of the moral man. That this “despising others” is important is proved by what Jesus says at the end of the passage: exalting oneself is bad—notice the clue about the tax collector standing “at a distance” which proves his humility. Notice also, that the Pharisee is not said to be righteous by Luke (the narrator) or by Jesus (the parable teller). The Pharisee’s so-called righteousness is only learned from his own mouth, which is dubious evidence indeed. It also ought to be noted that nothing in the parable assumes that the tax collector remains a sinner after his pentitent prayer. I would think that Jesus is commending his humility, not his sinfulness.
Furthermore, in Luke 11:39-44 when Jesus confronts real Pharisees, he grants that they have a modicum of outward righteousness but they need to be clean on the inside too. Significantly, Jesus chastises the Pharisees for tithing mint, rue and herbs but neglecting justice and Love of God. The mark of tithing is precisely one of the traits the Pharisee in the chapter 18 parable advances in his favor. Equally significant, the real Pharisees are chastised in chapter 11 for loving exaltation which is exactly the sin Jesus admonishes in the chapter 18 parable.
I also take issue with the other Lukan passages which the standard gloss advances. In Luke 17:10 the point is not that doing all the commandments is not to be encouraged , but the point is that in doing all the commandments one is only doing one’s duty and should not be exalted on that account. The ruler in Luke 18 is not chastised for obeying the commandments he lists but that he needs to do more. Jesus doesn’t say the one thing he lacks is “faith” but what he does say is “sell all, give to the poor, follow me”. Jesus is not saying that righteousness is useless, but that the ruler needs more righteousness.
Therefore, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Pharisee in the parable of Luke 18 is NOT a moral man and so the whole edifice of the standard Evangelical gloss simply cannot get going. The point of the parable is not that righteousness is bad but that what is needed is MORE righteousness. The upshot is that one cannot refer to Luke 18:9-14 as evidence that Jesus preached the Evangelical Gospel.
9 And he said to some, the ones having put confidence in themselves that they are righteous and despising others, this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee having stood, to himself was praying these things: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, swindlers, unrighteous, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice during the week, I tithe everything as much as I get.’ 13 But the tax collector having stood at a distance was not willing even the eyes to raise up to heaven, but was beating his chest saying ‘God, have mercy on me the sinner.’ 14 I say to you, this one went down having been justified to his house rather than that one, because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, but the one humbling himself will be exalted.”
The standard Evangelical gloss on this passage is to claim (from verse 11) that the Pharisee is a moral man (he doesn’t swindle, he isn’t unrighteous, he doesn’t commit adultery, he isn’t a tax collector) and to claim (from verse 12) that he is a religious (he fasts and tithes). The point Jesus is making is that one is not justified by being righteous even if that righteousness is God-given—after all, it is pointed out that the Pharisee is thanking God for his righteousness. This standard Evangelical gloss further bolsters its position by appealing to Luke 17:10 where after having done all that is commanded, we are admonished to say we are only “worthless slaves”. Also, the ruler in Luke 18:18-30 claims to have righteousness only to be told by Jesus that he still lacks.
I find serious problems with this gloss. First, I question the assumption that Jesus sees the Pharisee as a moral man. In verse 9 there is an important “and” added to the description of those who put confidence in themselves on account of their (perceived) righteousness. The “and” adds to the description those who “despise others”. No one would want to claim that despising others is a mark of the moral man. That this “despising others” is important is proved by what Jesus says at the end of the passage: exalting oneself is bad—notice the clue about the tax collector standing “at a distance” which proves his humility. Notice also, that the Pharisee is not said to be righteous by Luke (the narrator) or by Jesus (the parable teller). The Pharisee’s so-called righteousness is only learned from his own mouth, which is dubious evidence indeed. It also ought to be noted that nothing in the parable assumes that the tax collector remains a sinner after his pentitent prayer. I would think that Jesus is commending his humility, not his sinfulness.
Furthermore, in Luke 11:39-44 when Jesus confronts real Pharisees, he grants that they have a modicum of outward righteousness but they need to be clean on the inside too. Significantly, Jesus chastises the Pharisees for tithing mint, rue and herbs but neglecting justice and Love of God. The mark of tithing is precisely one of the traits the Pharisee in the chapter 18 parable advances in his favor. Equally significant, the real Pharisees are chastised in chapter 11 for loving exaltation which is exactly the sin Jesus admonishes in the chapter 18 parable.
I also take issue with the other Lukan passages which the standard gloss advances. In Luke 17:10 the point is not that doing all the commandments is not to be encouraged , but the point is that in doing all the commandments one is only doing one’s duty and should not be exalted on that account. The ruler in Luke 18 is not chastised for obeying the commandments he lists but that he needs to do more. Jesus doesn’t say the one thing he lacks is “faith” but what he does say is “sell all, give to the poor, follow me”. Jesus is not saying that righteousness is useless, but that the ruler needs more righteousness.
Therefore, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Pharisee in the parable of Luke 18 is NOT a moral man and so the whole edifice of the standard Evangelical gloss simply cannot get going. The point of the parable is not that righteousness is bad but that what is needed is MORE righteousness. The upshot is that one cannot refer to Luke 18:9-14 as evidence that Jesus preached the Evangelical Gospel.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
"Lamb of God" in John 1:29, 36
John the Baptist sees Jesus coming and says: “Look, the Lamb (amnos) of God, the one taking away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, later the Baptist simply says: “Look, the Lamb of God” [1:36]). The standard evangelical interpretation of “Lamb of God” is that the lamb refers to the animal used in either purification/sin sacrifice (Leviticus 4-5:13) or the guilt/reparation sacrifice (Leviticus 5:14-6:7). I want to argue that this interpretation is perhaps the least likely of those most often given.
Four Interpretations
Sacrificial Lamb
This interpretation is the one that evangelicals are most likely to espouse as mentioned above. The description that the lamb “takes away the sin of the world” naturally leads one to think of the sin/guilt offering because those sacrifices surely dealt with sins. Another link to these types of animal sacrifices is via Isaiah where the Servant is likened to a sheep led to slaughter (53:7) and his life is an offering for sin (53:10). John does allude to Isaiah 53 elsewhere (12:38=Isaiah 53:1—see also 12:40=Isaiah 6:10).
The first question to ask is whether the lamb in Isaiah 53:7 is necessarily a sacrificial lamb. The context of Isaiah 53:7 concerns the silence of the Servant in the face of his suffering. This silence is likened (Hebrew reads “as a lamb”) to a lamb going to the slaughter and to a sheep before the shearers. The point is the animal’s silence. We are not told that the lamb’s slaughter is for a sacrifice for the sheep being sheared definitely does not pertain to sacrifice. Also, it is not clear that if there is sacrificial meaning in Isaiah 53 that it might not better refer to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16. The bearing or taking on sin is not the same as taking away but this point is not decisive, however Isaiah 53:8 does mention being cut off from the land of the living and the scapegoat suffers a similar fate (“cut-off land”=Leviticus 16:22). Finally, the “guilt offering” in Isaiah 53:10 may not refer to animal sacrifice but might refer to another meaning (of the term “asam”) used in Genesis 26:10 and 1 Samuel 6:3-4, 8, 17. Even assuming that the Servant is likened to a sacrifice, and the words “he poured out his life-blood to death” (Isaiah 53:12) could add to this imagery, it should be noted that the Servant’s suffering is just as much in the fore as his death. He was despised and shunned, suffered, knowing sickness (53:3), and abused (53:7). These do not necessarily involve death and so the description of the Servant as a sacrifice would only be a metaphor, since there is no indication that sacrificial animals suffered as part of the cultic praxis.
Paschal Lamb
This interpretation is probably the strongest. The Passover lamb is a central feature of the Passover, whereas the lamb in Isaiah is only an incidental reference. That the Passover lamb could be said to be sacrificed is clear from Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 5:7: Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new mixture, as you are unleavened; for indeed the Passover [lamb] of us was sacrificed, Christ.” This may have developed from the fact that the Paschal lambs were killed by priests in the Temple. But strictly speaking, the paschal lamb was not a sacrifice (see below).
The Passover theme is prevalent in John, especially in connection with Jesus’ death. In 19:14, we are told that Jesus was condemned to death at noon the day before the Passover, which is the exact time when the priests began slaughtering the paschal lambs. In 19:29, we are told that wine was given to Jesus with the help of hyssop, and it was hyssop that was used to smear the blood of the paschal lamb on the doorposts (Exodus 12:22). In John 19:36, we are told that none of Jesus’ bones were broken, which seems to fulfill the requirement for the paschal lamb in Exodus 12:46. Finally, Jesus is the lamb in Revelation, a work related to John and Passover themes exist there too: Rev. 5:6 (slain lamb), Rev. 15:3 (Song of Moses=song of Lamb). Rev. 22:1 (Lamb=living water=Moses and water from rock), Rev. 5:9 (ransoming blood of lamb).
The theological upshot of this is that since the paschal lamb was not strictly atoning, there is no reason to assume that by saying that Jesus is the Lamb of God that his death just is a death on par with a sacrificial animal. The paschal blood saved not by atoning for sin but by marking the houses of the Israelites who were to be spared from God’s wrath. The Israelites were slaves and their redemption was not related to sin in any straightforward manner. In like manner, the blood of Jesus can save without being the blood of a sin/guilt offering.
However, this interpretation must still deal with the addition “the one taking away the sin of the world”. It seems likely that in the case involving Jesus, the redemption (the smearing of the blood on the doorposts, which is not a sacrifice) was redemption from the slavery to sin (see Paul!) and so the paschal lamb analogy can still work because Jesus’ redemption really was related to sin (even if the original Passover was not). However, again, this makes Jesus’ death and his blood on par with the Passover and not sacrificial animals.
This interpretation is probably strengthened by comparison with 1 Peter 1:18-19: “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” This verse is very much in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief because by describing Jesus as “without defect or blemish” (see Exodus 12:5), Peter is probably referring to Jesus’ obedience. It is Jesus’ obedience that atones, not his blood-like-an-animal.
Lamb of Isaiah 53
I have really already covered this one by its connection to the first interpretation, but there is no reason to think that John the Baptist could not have also had Jesus and his role as the Suffering Servant in mind when he called him the “Lamb of God”. However, it just does not seem like the primary one. Also, even if the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 plays a part, it is only by analogy to sacrifice and not sacrifice in reality.
Apocalyptic Lamb
This interpretation is related to how the lamb functions in Revelation and in other Jewish writings. The apocalyptic lamb would take away sin by destroying evil. Comparisons with I John are also helpful in understanding this interpretation:
3:5: the one was manifested that the sins he might take away
3:8: for this reason was manifested the Son of God, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
The weakness of this interpretation is that there is really no other reference to an Apocalyptic Lamb in John, though it does appear in Revelation. However, as with the suffering servant from Isaiah, there is no reason why this interpretation might have not also been behind John the Baptist’s proclamation.
Conclusion
It should be clear that the paschal lamb is entirely different from the lambs used in other sacrifices. Even a paschal lamb can be related to the removal of sin if the redemption itself is from the slavery to sin. If the Passover as it is conceived in Christianity is tied to the New Exodus, and if the New Exodus is from the slavery to sin, then to be redeemed from sin is the same as to be forgiven from sin or that sin has been taken away. So, when John the Baptist says that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, he can mean that the blood of the paschal lamb redeems us and it is sin from which we are redeemed. Nothing here dictates that we have to conceive of Jesus’ death as a literal animal-like sacrifice.
Four Interpretations
Sacrificial Lamb
This interpretation is the one that evangelicals are most likely to espouse as mentioned above. The description that the lamb “takes away the sin of the world” naturally leads one to think of the sin/guilt offering because those sacrifices surely dealt with sins. Another link to these types of animal sacrifices is via Isaiah where the Servant is likened to a sheep led to slaughter (53:7) and his life is an offering for sin (53:10). John does allude to Isaiah 53 elsewhere (12:38=Isaiah 53:1—see also 12:40=Isaiah 6:10).
The first question to ask is whether the lamb in Isaiah 53:7 is necessarily a sacrificial lamb. The context of Isaiah 53:7 concerns the silence of the Servant in the face of his suffering. This silence is likened (Hebrew reads “as a lamb”) to a lamb going to the slaughter and to a sheep before the shearers. The point is the animal’s silence. We are not told that the lamb’s slaughter is for a sacrifice for the sheep being sheared definitely does not pertain to sacrifice. Also, it is not clear that if there is sacrificial meaning in Isaiah 53 that it might not better refer to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16. The bearing or taking on sin is not the same as taking away but this point is not decisive, however Isaiah 53:8 does mention being cut off from the land of the living and the scapegoat suffers a similar fate (“cut-off land”=Leviticus 16:22). Finally, the “guilt offering” in Isaiah 53:10 may not refer to animal sacrifice but might refer to another meaning (of the term “asam”) used in Genesis 26:10 and 1 Samuel 6:3-4, 8, 17. Even assuming that the Servant is likened to a sacrifice, and the words “he poured out his life-blood to death” (Isaiah 53:12) could add to this imagery, it should be noted that the Servant’s suffering is just as much in the fore as his death. He was despised and shunned, suffered, knowing sickness (53:3), and abused (53:7). These do not necessarily involve death and so the description of the Servant as a sacrifice would only be a metaphor, since there is no indication that sacrificial animals suffered as part of the cultic praxis.
Paschal Lamb
This interpretation is probably the strongest. The Passover lamb is a central feature of the Passover, whereas the lamb in Isaiah is only an incidental reference. That the Passover lamb could be said to be sacrificed is clear from Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 5:7: Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new mixture, as you are unleavened; for indeed the Passover [lamb] of us was sacrificed, Christ.” This may have developed from the fact that the Paschal lambs were killed by priests in the Temple. But strictly speaking, the paschal lamb was not a sacrifice (see below).
The Passover theme is prevalent in John, especially in connection with Jesus’ death. In 19:14, we are told that Jesus was condemned to death at noon the day before the Passover, which is the exact time when the priests began slaughtering the paschal lambs. In 19:29, we are told that wine was given to Jesus with the help of hyssop, and it was hyssop that was used to smear the blood of the paschal lamb on the doorposts (Exodus 12:22). In John 19:36, we are told that none of Jesus’ bones were broken, which seems to fulfill the requirement for the paschal lamb in Exodus 12:46. Finally, Jesus is the lamb in Revelation, a work related to John and Passover themes exist there too: Rev. 5:6 (slain lamb), Rev. 15:3 (Song of Moses=song of Lamb). Rev. 22:1 (Lamb=living water=Moses and water from rock), Rev. 5:9 (ransoming blood of lamb).
The theological upshot of this is that since the paschal lamb was not strictly atoning, there is no reason to assume that by saying that Jesus is the Lamb of God that his death just is a death on par with a sacrificial animal. The paschal blood saved not by atoning for sin but by marking the houses of the Israelites who were to be spared from God’s wrath. The Israelites were slaves and their redemption was not related to sin in any straightforward manner. In like manner, the blood of Jesus can save without being the blood of a sin/guilt offering.
However, this interpretation must still deal with the addition “the one taking away the sin of the world”. It seems likely that in the case involving Jesus, the redemption (the smearing of the blood on the doorposts, which is not a sacrifice) was redemption from the slavery to sin (see Paul!) and so the paschal lamb analogy can still work because Jesus’ redemption really was related to sin (even if the original Passover was not). However, again, this makes Jesus’ death and his blood on par with the Passover and not sacrificial animals.
This interpretation is probably strengthened by comparison with 1 Peter 1:18-19: “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” This verse is very much in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief because by describing Jesus as “without defect or blemish” (see Exodus 12:5), Peter is probably referring to Jesus’ obedience. It is Jesus’ obedience that atones, not his blood-like-an-animal.
Lamb of Isaiah 53
I have really already covered this one by its connection to the first interpretation, but there is no reason to think that John the Baptist could not have also had Jesus and his role as the Suffering Servant in mind when he called him the “Lamb of God”. However, it just does not seem like the primary one. Also, even if the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 plays a part, it is only by analogy to sacrifice and not sacrifice in reality.
Apocalyptic Lamb
This interpretation is related to how the lamb functions in Revelation and in other Jewish writings. The apocalyptic lamb would take away sin by destroying evil. Comparisons with I John are also helpful in understanding this interpretation:
3:5: the one was manifested that the sins he might take away
3:8: for this reason was manifested the Son of God, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
The weakness of this interpretation is that there is really no other reference to an Apocalyptic Lamb in John, though it does appear in Revelation. However, as with the suffering servant from Isaiah, there is no reason why this interpretation might have not also been behind John the Baptist’s proclamation.
Conclusion
It should be clear that the paschal lamb is entirely different from the lambs used in other sacrifices. Even a paschal lamb can be related to the removal of sin if the redemption itself is from the slavery to sin. If the Passover as it is conceived in Christianity is tied to the New Exodus, and if the New Exodus is from the slavery to sin, then to be redeemed from sin is the same as to be forgiven from sin or that sin has been taken away. So, when John the Baptist says that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, he can mean that the blood of the paschal lamb redeems us and it is sin from which we are redeemed. Nothing here dictates that we have to conceive of Jesus’ death as a literal animal-like sacrifice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
