Friday, April 2, 2010

Jesus' Death: Divine Necessity?

I hesitate to open such a large can of worms but I will for two reasons. The first is connected to my current distance from such matters. There was a time when all I thought about was questions such as these but now that I'm a small business owner of an organic lawn care business, I'm up to my knees in dirt and any spare time I do have is spent catching up on invoices and sending out quotes. I miss these questions and the discussians they create. The second reason is my apparent "love of controversy" as my wife jests - to which I respond - go make me supper woman.

As you may recall, I opened a smaller can of worms last Christmas when I intimated that Jesus was not born of a literal virgin but was written that way as an alternative to Caesar (also suposedly born of a virgin). A spirited discussion resulted - one that will hopefully continue here.

When it comes down to it, Crossan and Borg are quite right. Jesus' death was either the result of divine necessity (God needed him to die) or human inevitability (Jesus message destined him to die). I guess the third alternative is unbelief (there is no God and Jesus may or may not have existed either) but let's assume they both exist, because I believe they do (not that that is evidence).

Most of us were raised to believe, and still believe, that the death of Jesus was out of divine necessity. God's creation was steeped in sin and previous attempts to break them out of it had fallen short (flood, visions, animal sacrifice etc). God needed a permanent solution. It was decided (at some point or was known all along) that the only suitable long term solution would be the death of God's perfect and only son. Only a perfect human could free imperfect humanity from their sin. With the plan in place Jesus would appear just at that right time to accomplish God's plan. With centuries of prophecy behind him, Jesus appeared on the scene miraculously and after thirty years of stone masonry/ carpentry Jesus brought about the discussed plan.

Approximately three years later, Jesus freely gave up his life, was crucified on a Roman cross, and in his death, brought about the salvation of mankind. Three days later Jesus walked out of the tomb, spent a month preparing his disciples to take over and then returned to the God he had left 33 years ago. This of course is a brief summary of the plan of divine necessity.

The second option of human inevitability claims crucifiction was simply the logical end for any man living in the first century who taught the kind of things Jesus taught. Like Martin Luther King after him, Jesus was killed because the ruling powers/culture of the day was not able to absorb the implications of his words. If Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not, which means he's no longer all powerful and without an all powerful leader the (ironic) Pax Romana can be threatened. Rome responded swiftly to this threat and although the bible portrays Pilate as an "aw shucks, do we really hafta kill him" kind of guy, it was Rome through Pilate in the end who tortured Jesus, nailed him to a cross, and carried out his death. Sure it was the Jews idea, but the Romans made it happen.

It's important to note here that Rome didn't crucify people willy nilly. It was a brutal capital punishment reserved only for those unfortunate souls who subverted Roman law thereby disturbing Pax Romana. In other words, the Romans would not have crucified Jesus because some orny Jews pressured them "crucify him crucify him crucify him" and like tired parents they finally caved. We must remember this was an empire built on doing what it wanted, when it wanted to whoever it wanted and so in the end, they chose to crucify Jesus along with two other revolutionary, freedom fighters, as the greek word for "thieves" implies- thus killing off 3 potential threats to their rule and ideology. Rome had the Jews to thank for alerting them to this potential threat so in an odd friendship, these two enemies killed Jesus Christ.

As I reflect on the options before me, I find the second option of human inevitability to be more likely and thus inspiring to my journey of faith. Jesus passionately preached his beautiful message knowing full well it would one day lead to his death. His predictions in the gospels "the Son of Man will be.."were not indicative of his rememberance of the heavenly deal he made with his father 33 years prior but rather his intuitive sense that the world in which he lived was not yet ready to hear a "pray for your enemies, turn the other cheek, religion is not important, woman are not inferior and Caesar is not Lord" kind of message." Jesus continued preaching anyways, knowing full well it would cost him his life. And when it did, Jesus died with love in his heart for the humans he served, even the ones who brought about his death. It was a Good Friday.

A few days later an awakening occured. But that's another story.

John

16 comments:

JSC said...

God is God and we are not. What "makes sense" to us is of little consequence when it involves the Divine wisdom and will - any more than what "makes sense" to David Shelton, president of the "Flat Earth Society" alters the fact of the actual oblate spheroid shape of the earth.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Dr. Close (your dad). While your thoughts on this and subsequent post are interesting and well-written the Bible puts it simply; and I am assuming your faith in this text is concrete as opposed to other modern-day writers who are obviously good at making man question the Bible's divinity.

What God's word puts simply ii that we are to be "babes in Christ", to have "Faith as a child". Remember, it was the Serpent in the garden that gave us this supposed "fruit of knowledge", look where that lead us.

"God is God and we are not", well put indeed. Hey, unlike Physics and Chemistry, to me anyway, that makes a lot of sense!

Stay grounded in the incredible Island winds....no double-meaning here John, we were just in Vancouver and heard about its' recent activity on the island.

Cheers,

Steve

Jordan said...

Steve,

I think your post is a perfect example of mainstream Christian epistemology. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jordan,

Long time no argue, lol. That is correct though, I do give it all up to God. A faith that I will not rescind. This is the difference between you and I, so to argue is pointless. (However, I have noticed that you are a history buff, so am a little intrigued as to how you can deny Jesus' existence or the God I serve with all the proof that lies within history).

I am on the Island in late July if you wish to meet and chat in-person, or better yet, babysit our kids while the wife and I enjoy a rare night out. I think I could trust you with my kids...couldn't I?

I also may be working for this blogs' author if all pans out. (For one day only). We could both help out and chat whilst fertilizing God's green Earth....just an idea.

Cheers

JSC said...

I agree, it is mainline Christian epistemology - just like the oblate spheroid shape of the earth is mainline scientific epistemology. Truth is always amenable to good epistemology.

The Closes said...

Hi Dad. I understand what your trying to do with your spheriod earth analogy but I don't think it's quite accurate. The earth is flat. Jk. I don't think the analogy fits because while science can and has proved the shape of the earth, it has not, and can not prove the ressurection of Jesus or even the existence of God. Both are matters of faith "being certain of things we cannot see" and while faith can be a powerful way of knowing, it is not a scientific knowing, like knowing the earth is not flat.

JSC said...

Truth is truth, son, whether anyone can prove it "scientifically" or not. Much truth is beyond the ability of science to examine it. And my point is that nothing anyone can say about a truth will alter it.

The Closes said...

How do you know a truth is a truth if it can't be proved?

Anonymous said...

Listen to your father John, jk...well not really.

Dr. Close's point that "truth is truth regardelss of scientific proof" is quite true itself. Again, going back to the Bible and having such faith is something God admires deeply. Question is, do you believe in the Bible or not; just bits and pieces isn't a true belief. (I think you do believe because you're a clever guy).

That said, if you want scientific proof, there is plenty to back up the existence of Jesus and his resurrection, as well as many other narratives we find in the Bible. Problem is, the science and archeogical proof that is there doesn't suit most scientists fancy, as it would eliminate the chance of them actually deciphering the scientific codes to creation, etc. They want science to answer it all and, fact is, that there's still got to be something or someone behind that science. Logical isn't it?

Check this out if you need the scientists to boost your faith a little.
www.allaboutarchaeology.org/evidence-for-jesus.html

Knowing your enjoyment of debate in just about anything, (nothing wrong with that), I would guess that this debate will continue no matter what proof is out there. Another new "Christian" author will write another book that stirs our minds and make our souls restless. From time to time, this is good....but like it ot not...it will always come back to faith. End of story, sorry scientists.

Again, good discussion. Again, listen to your father. ;p

Steve

Anonymous said...

ooops....take out the "l" in that link. Clicking on it as is would be a boost for the scientists as it does not exsist, lol.

try

www.allaboutarchaeology.org/evidence-for-jesus.htm

JSC said...

Science is also largely based on faith. "Proving" something in science really means gathering sufficient evidence until it's convincng to you. Thus it's the basic nature of science for scientific "laws" to change. Since scientific Laws are simply our best current description/explanation of what we or others have observed, When new observations are made that don't fit the old "Law" we just write a new one.
In view of the inherent limits to human intelligence, wisdom and our experience living by faith is the inescapable destiny of all humans.
Yet in his love for us, God hasn't forced us to rely on "blind" faith. He provides bountiful evidence of Himself and his will for us. (Romans 1:16-20)

The Closes said...

Dad, you said "Since scientific Laws are simply our best current description/explanation of what we or others have observed, When new observations are made that don't fit the old "Law" we just write a new one." I think the same can and should be said of religion and biblical truth.

Steve. Your point about believing in the entire bible and not just "bits and pieces" is impossible. The fact is you believe in the bible of your religion. The parts of the bible that don't fit with your religion you discard or claim are "cultural." I could give many examples of biblical teaching that if followed today would result in prison sentences and the destruction of families. The bible can no longer be taken literally in good faith so we must take bits and pieces and follow them.

Where the disagreement lies is what the Bits and Pieces should be.

Anonymous said...

As, I said, you love debate!

Just to clarify; in belief of the entire Bible I mean having faith or beilief that in its' entirity, it is God-breathed. Yes, some obvious culture items have changed over the years....or have they? When we refer to the New Testament, the only item I can think of that some take as culture-related is the role of women in the Church. We are so "progressive" these days that women are preachers, prayer leaders, communion helpers, praise team leaders, etc. I personally don't find a problem with this, but I can see where it can get scary as to what we determine as "negotiable".

Anway, without digressing further. The staples of the Bible must be believed; Jesus and his dvinity, our God as creator, the road to salvation (belief, repentance, and baptism - although many question the "moment" of salvation in this process and which elements are more important than others), and of course, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

The point comes straight back to what your dad says...I'm sorry, to be consistent I mean Dr. Close. Truth is truth, faith is faith, and science is just that, science. Man's attempt to understand anything and everything has been the downfall of many. Again, it comes back to the clever, deceiptful serpent in the garden. Now I know why Indiana Jones hated snakes so much! (Boys are enthralled with this movie lately..."KALIMA" and removal of the heart is a fun game to play with soon-to-be 5-year olds, lol).

This part of your blog may go on forever. Kind of like my rantings about the Flames on Facebook. (Thank goodness their last game is tonight....you know, if the Flames were in the East.....)

Steve

Anonymous said...

Sorry, one more thing. After re-reading the last comment from Dr. Close, I believe what he was pointing out was that science always changes, and therefore so does our understanding of how things work. Supposedly through progression of man's mind, we understand more after each scientific equation is changed or altered. But even a good scientist will admit that as these equations change we actually create more and more questions as well. So are we really getting closer to any such scientific "truth"?

His point was this...."science changes, real truth or God's truth does not". Correct me if I am wrong sir. (And please advise that if I thought aloud like this in Physics or Chemistry I may have acheived higher grades)?!

Cheers

The Closes said...

Lest we continue to debate indefinitely, let me just say, thanks for sharing your thoughts Steve and Dad. Good stuff.

Anonymous said...

Thanks John, but just in case you think you had the last word on the matter....."word".....

I win........again.

jk