Bradley Jersak - "A More Christlike God"

The Need for a More Christlike God: An Interview with Brad Jersak

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/04/the-need-for-a-more-christlike-god-an-interview-with-brad-jersak/

by Peter Enns

April 29, 2015

Comments

Today’s post is an interview with Brad Jersak, author of A More Christlike God, which came out last week.

The book, with a foreword by Brian Zahnd, is about how replacing whatever image of God we have with a more Christlike image of God is central to the Gospel being truly good news. ​Brad Jersak (PhD) serves on faculty at Westminster Theological Centre (UK), where he teaches New Testament and Patristics. He is also senior editor of CWR Magazine. 

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your spiritual journey

I grew up in the Canadian Evangelical scene and sensed a lifelong call to ministry from a very early age. In the course of pursuing theological training, I met and married Eden. After seminary, I eventually pastored in two congregations (one Mennonite, one Renewal focused) for twenty years (1988-2008).

In 2003, I began writing books (10 now) and doing seminars, especially on the topic of ‘listening prayer.’ In 2008, I left pastoring and completed a PhD in theology (Bangor, Wales). I am now on faculty at Westminster Theological Centre (UK) teaching New Testament and Patristics and am senior editor of CWR Magazine (Pasadena). Over the last 12 years, my journey progressively led me toward and finally into the Eastern Orthodox Church, where I was ordained ‘Reader’ in 2013.

So, in a sentence or two, can you tell us what your book is about?

In the church and the world, toxic images of God abound—retributive notions of God that look nothing like what Jesus revealed in his life or teachings. A More Christlike God portrays God as exactly like Christ crucified: self-giving, radically forgiving, compassionate love.

Why did you write this book? What’s your big vision?

I want to share the good news that if God is perfect love revealed perfectly through Christ, then the gospel is more beautiful than we ever imagined. People who find that God is actually Christlike might be freed to love him again.

So many people, from Christian to Muslim to Atheist, believe in soul-damaging images of God. They either live in fear and bondage within that abusive belief system; act as its agents who perpetuate the abuse, or reject faith altogether because of their distorted conceptions of God no longer work. This book is especially for Christians who are ready to consider the Christlike God, especially post-Evangelicals who already instinctively know something is “off” and want confirmation that their faith has not been in vain.

Can you give us an overview the book? What should we expect to find?

Part I is called What is God like? Competing images of Will and Love. When we ask, ‘What is God like?’ we soon discover many toxic and un-Christlike images of God, even among Christians. These images range from the almighty God of raw will to the good God who reigns by love and consent. The New Testament claim is that the perfect image of the invisible God is revealed in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Part II is The Cruciform God where I state that the God revealed through Christ is seen most clearly at the Cross. A ‘cruciform’ God, by nature, consents to the afflictions caused through natural law and human freedom. But he also participates in and transforms our suffering world as self-giving, radically forgiving, co-suffering love.

Finally, Part III is Unwrathing God. Since Christ reveals God as cruciform, the biblical notion of ‘wrath’ shifts from any active violence in God to a metaphor for God ‘giving us over’ (consenting to) the intrinsic, tragic consequences of our own defiance. It establishes the Cross, not as a place where God demands wrath as appeasement, but renounces wrath in favor of forgiveness. This plays out in a more beautiful gospel, where God never turns from or against sinners, but is relentless in his mercy, demonstrated on the Cross.

Can you give us 3 compelling quotes that really capture what the book is about?

“We believe Jesus has shown us the face and heart of God through the fullness of his life on earth: revealed through eyewitness accounts of his birth, ministry, death and resurrection. We regard this life as the decisive revelation and act of God in time and space. That’s still a faith statement, but for Christians, it is our starting point. To look at Jesus—especially on the Cross, says 1 John—is to behold the clearest depiction of the God who is love (1 John 4:8). I’ve come to believe that Jesus alone is perfect theology” (9).

“When I personally turned my gaze to the God who is completely Christlike, I was confronted with how un-Christlike the ‘church- God’ or even the ‘Bible-God’ can be. Setting Jesus as the standard for perfect theology, many of our current Christian beliefs and practices would obviously face indictment. Even significant swaths of biblical literature don’t line up well with the Christ of the Gospels. Claiming that God is revealed perfectly in Jesus triggers tough questions about the God I once conceived and preached” (13).

“For our own sakes, we might take a break from trying to convince ourselves that Jesus was and is God and to spend this twenty-first century meditating on the truth that God is like Jesus. Exactly like Jesus. When the veil that obscured God was torn in two, what did it reveal? A Suffering Servant who hangs on the Cross (Zech. 12:10)! Thus, every human conception we previously associated with ‘God’ is uprooted, root and branch!” (22)

If you had to name them, what 1-2 parts of the book are you particularly excited about?

I am enthusiastic about introducing and explaining the language of ‘cruciform’ (cross-shaped) and ‘kenotic’ (self-giving) so that any thoughtful person can ‘get it’ quite easily.

I also work hard to explain ‘wrath’ in biblical context as a metaphor for the intrinsic consequences of sin rather than active violent intervention. Clarifying the language we use for God is important because the words themselves become images that either reveal or distort our perception of who he is.

I am even more excited about chapter 14, our description of ‘The Beautiful Gospel,’ which is an adaptation of a presentation called ‘The Gospel in Chairs’ (originally composed by Fr. Anthony Karbo). It demonstrates how God does not turn from anyone until they turn to him, but rather, is always for us and always toward us, as seen over and over through the life of Christ … supremely on the Cross. A growing network of friends has been trying to popularize the presentation in many settings (including prisons, S. African townships, university classrooms) with incredible responses. As people’s image of God becomes Christlike, the gospel once again is heard as good news.

An Apocalyptic Jesus - Numbering Christian Interpretation, Part 2

Constantine's Vision

"In this sign you will conquer"

 or

"By this Cross conquer"

- Emperor Constantine's vision

October 28, 312 ad

Wikipedia - In hoc Signo Vinces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_hoc_signo_vinces

In hoc signo vinces (Classical Latin: [ɪn hoːk ˈsɪŋnoː ˈwɪnkeːs]; Ecclesiastical Latin: [in ok ˈsiɲɲo ˈvintʃes]) is a Latin phrase meaning "In this sign you will conquer." It is a translation, or rendering, of the Greek phrase "ἐν τούτῳ νίκα" en toútōi níka (Ancient Greek: [en tóːtɔ͜ːi níkaː]), literally meaning "in this, conquer".

The Greek Symbol Chi Rho

Constantine's commemorative coinage

Wikipedia - Chi Rho

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Rho

The Christian Christogram
of Chi-Rho

The Chi Rho (/ˈkaɪ ˈroʊ/) is one of the earliest forms of christogram, and is used by some Christians. It is formed by superimposing the first two (capital) letters chi and rho (Χ - Ρ) of the Greek word "ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ" (Christos = Christ) in such a way as to produce the monogram. Although not technically a Christian cross, the Chi-Rho invokes the crucifixion of Jesus, as well as symbolising his status as the Christ.

The Chi-Rho symbol was also used by pagan Greek scribes to mark, in the margin, a particularly valuable or relevant passage; the combined letters Chi and Rho standing for chrēston, meaning "good." Some coins of Ptolemy III Euergetes (r. 246–222 BC) were marked with a Chi-Rho.

The Chi-Rho symbol was used by the Roman emperor Constantine I as part of a military standard (vexillum), Constantine's standard was known as the Labarum. Early symbols similar to the Chi-Rho were the Staurogram () and the IX monogram ().

* * * * * * * * * *

Depiction of Constantine fighting his Roman foe Maxentius at Rome’s Milvian Bridge.

Background by Dan Graves {In Context}

In AD 312, the Roman Empire is up for grabs. Its previous emperor, Diocletian, divided the realm between two senior and two junior emperors, but the complex arrangement has collapsed. The successors are at one another’s throats. Young general Constantine, son of Constantius, one of Diocletian’s co-emperors, has military successes under his belt, but now he faces a formidable veteran with a larger army and a better strategic position. What shall he do?

Constantine realizes that he needs help from a power greater than himself, but who or what? He has his doubts about the traditional Roman gods. He prays earnestly that the true God, whoever that may be, will “reveal to him who he is, and stretch forth his right hand to help him.”

He does not know it yet, but that prayer will change the course of Christian history as well as of western civilization. Later he will tell his friend Bishop Eusebius the incredible story of that hour. When Eusebius reports it in his history, he admits it is hard to believe.

What happens that is so hard to believe? Constantine suddenly sees a bright cross of light emblazoned against the noonday sky and upon it the inscription: “In hoc signo vinces” —“In this Sign Conquer.”

It brings Constantine the assurance he needs. He accepts this as the answer to his prayer and orders his soldiers to inscribe crosses on their shields. Encouraged by his vision in the heavens, he hurls his troops against his rival Maxentius at Rome’s Milvian Bridge. Surprisingly, Constantine is victorious. Maxentius is among those who drown in the Tiber.

The Chi-Rho with a wreath symbolizing
the victory of the Resurrection,
above Roman soldiers, ca. 350.

Afterward Constantine does not forget to whom he owes his victory. For close to two hundred and fifty years, since AD 64 when Nero initiated violence against it, the Christian church has been a persecuted minority in Roman lands. Only a few years earlier, between 303 and 311, it suffered through Diocletian’s savage “Great Persecution.” Now Constantine issues orders that the Christian church is to be tolerated just as other religions are. Although he does not make Christianity the official religion of the empire, Constantine bestows favor on it, builds places of worship for Christians, and presides over the first general church council. He becomes the first emperor to embrace Christianity and will be baptized on his death bed—waiting so late for fear his duties as emperor might cause him to sin after he receives the solemn rite, blotting out its efficacy.

Writing Constantine’s biography, Eusebius will describe him as God’s gift to a suffering church. His Greek account will give the quote simply as “Conquer by this.”

For the first time in its short history, the church can worship and grow without constant fear of deadly persecution.

- Dan Graves, {In Context}

https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/incontext/article/constantines-cross/

For further references to Constatine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great

Sculpture of Constantine the Great in York, England: "By this sign conquer".

* * * * * * * * * *

The Symbol of the Cross and Its Meaning

What does the symbol of the Cross mean? What did it mean to the early church? To the pre-Catholic church? To the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Churches of Christ to come after the Reformation?

Overall, the symbol of the cross is a symbol of mystery. We know it as God's "paschal mystery" in reference to God "passing over His people" in order to protect them by His sacrifice in Jesus using both the Old Testament concept in Exodus on the eve of Israel's departure as well as to the New Testament image in Christ-on-the-Cross atoning for our sin.

In essence, the paschal mystery of Christ refers to His passion (that is, His life and life's ministry), death, and resurrection, and by these accomplishments signifying the completed work of God the Father whom sent His Son in the power of His Spirit to make atonement for the fallen world of man.

Moreover, Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox Christian churches celebrate this mystery through the season of Lent culminating on Easter. It is further remembered and celebrated at every Eucharist (or Communion) event on Sunday which is also known as the Pascha of the week.

Ultimately, the Pascha of Christ is a symbol of grace and peace as much as it has been used as an iconic symbol of war and violence as begun by Constantine when taking the Christian symbol of the cross and making it a political symbol of conquering his enemies in a bid for power from Rome.

In the Old Testament under the Law of Moses we read of the Jewish people implementing a "Law of Measures" in Exodus 21.23-24:

23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

But no less is this concern for civil justice not also demonstrated throughout human societies as symbolized by the more modern icon of the Scales of Justice hung in the balances waiting to being meted out between men with one another, their community, and with other societies.

Throughout church history we read of the church's violence to each other and to other societies based upon its understanding of the commandments of God as given through Moses. A theology that reflects not God but the violence set in its own heart. Begging the question why God would say this or why early Israel so long for this institutional mandate of civil justice?

Was God speaking to Israel in order to give them a baseline of civility between one another? Did Israel wish to be like the other nations of the land around them in its infancy? We could go round-and-round on this question but nonetheless, the civil institutions of Israel were first laid down in the book of Exodus.

The Myth of Violence

It is the myth of violence that war, brutality, and fighting can put back together again a kind of civil peace between human beings. In the story of Samson we see this sorrowful cycle of revenge repeating itself again and again in the ragged prophet's life as it spins out of control eventuating in his heart-rending death.

Into this myth enters Jesus who comes to yet another mountain of God to speak a new law to His people not unlike Moses' institution of the Deuteronomic law. A law that would remove the cycles of violence man has committed himself to by a greater law. A law of peace and forgiveness. We call this new set of laws the "Sermon on the Mount" as taken from Matthew chapters 5 - 7.

Mt.5:38 "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,
let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him
two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would
borrow from you."

In Jesus' new words He is saying that concretely, or pragmatically, there can be no end to violence. The only end to violence is through forgiveness and the turning away from any further violence. And it is in this response that the mystery of redemption begins to work its power like leaven kneaded into a loaf of bread. It doesn't solve any one problem one-for-one but addresses the whole nature of the problem of relationship between individuals, communities, and nations.

"But Justice Matters!" Yes, this is made very clear in Scripture. Both old and new. But in Jesus' new words we are not to resist evil but to accept it. To not continue in the myth of redemptive violence as a thing that can bring peace and enclave to the world. That His cross will not be a thing, a symbol, or a mindset for violence but a symbol to be known for its grace and forgiveness. It is by this kind of cross that we conquer together as crucified communities of our Lord.

What is Jesus doing? Is He challenging the bible? Is He challenging both Jewish theology and later Christian theology to come? Is He being too naive when saying that "By this New Torah that I give to you on this New Mountain of God I have become both a New Moses to you as will as a New Law of God?" Yeah, verily, He does.

So then, why did God institute Law in one era and Love in another? Did His people mis-hear Him? Have we divided the Scriptures up in error? Not if we reflect on the actions of those believers in the New Testament who, upon hearing Jesus' new law of love and forgiveness are immediately revitalized in their redemptive walk with Yahweh. How many accounts do the Gospels list of a forbidden woman coming before Jesus to wash His feet with her hair to the unfavorable sentiments of many? Or of Jesus forgiving a woman of prostitution before a condemning Sanhedrin wishing to stone her according to their law? Or of Jesus healing people on the Sabbath as a holy day consecrated to the Lord? Or of tax collectors dropping their collection rolls to take up their call to follow Jesus as his new disciples of redemption and healing? Too many.

Moreover, Jesus lives out His own words. To His betrayer Judas He says, "Friend, I forgive you. Go do what you must do." Or to His Father-God in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Lord, not my will but thine be done." To those hated and despised by society He calls friend. To His servant Peter He removes the sword from his hand and repairs the severed ear of the temple servant so that he might continue serving once more without mar or wound.

Does this cause the stricter interpreters of God's Torah emotions of rage and violence? Certainly. So much so that we come to see these scribes and pharisees not as God's servants but as their own masters committed to power and prestige and religious delusions of self-atonement (we call such works of the flesh legalism). They become like the dogs and vipers that Jesus speaks of who turn upon the True Servant of Yahweh to beat, humiliate, and kill the Holy One whom they vilely hate. Initiating yet again the dictum of "violence begetting violence" not understanding that it is but a pitiful human redemptive myth for putting things aright when undone by sin.

And so we must observe, "Jesus wasn't simply a good teacher but a g-r-e-a-t practitioner of God's Word. But does love and forgiveness actually work? If by the evidences of a torn temple curtain opening up the Holy of Holies to all men, or by the confessional submission of a Roman Centurion before the foot of Jesus' cross, or by the many testimonies of betrayed and martyred men, women, and children, then yes, we must clearly say so. The teaching of Jesus was to powerfully, practically embrace God's willful redemption and reclamation of mankind in a way not like any other way. That it is the most complete, most unifying, most significant action that we as God's people might commit towards one another every moment and every day of our lives.

To take up Jesus' Cross and follow Him is not to bear sword and shield in hand to slay our enemies declaring rightful power in God's name but to stay our hands and hearts and bow down before our King in obedience to His will of grace, peace, forgiveness, and hope. It is by this kind of Cross that we conquer and no less. The Cross now becomes a place of personal redemption and transformation and no longer an vacant symbol of sin, revenge, and violence.

May then the Cross of Jesus become a symbol of love and transformation. A symbol of renewal, revival, and resurrection. May it no longer be used by the church to commit works of hatred towards others by exclusion, meanness, bullying, or of ill-will, oppression, and unkindness. Let the Cross of Christ become our Paschal Cross of Resurrection bourne in the power of the Holy Spirit unto the deep satisfaction and great good will of our holy God who Himself is our Paschal Peace. Amen.

R.E. Slater

March 2, 2015

Dedicated to the martyrs

of flesh, hopes, and dreams

become as Christ-bearers

and Testimonies of Light

to a new Torah of Shalom

granting grace and peace

by El Shaddai's infilling

Shekhinah-glory, the

Paschal mystery of  God,

whose holy presence

would dwell amongst men.

continue to -

Numbering Numbers

An Apocalyptic Jesus - Numbering Christian Interpretation, Part 1

An Apocalyptic Jesus - Numbering Christian Interpretation, Part 2

The Radicalness of God's Incarnation: "For God So Loved the World that He Couldn't Stay Away"

For God So Loved the World…That He Couldn’t Stay Away:

A Christmas Meditation

Source Link

by Roger Olson

December 25, 2014

Comments

The Incarnation of God as "one of us"

This is the heart of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore of authentic Christianity: the incarnation of God as “one of us.” Take it away and Christianity is little more than a moralistic, therapeutic deism (MTD). The incarnation, as event and doctrine, is the distinctive note of the Christian witness and the basis of Christian hope.

But many Christians believe in the incarnation of God in Jesus, but fail to grasp the fullness of it as good news about God. Karl Barth best expressed this good news about God in a nutshell: the humanity of God—the startling title (given his early emphasis on God’s “wholly otherness”) of one of his last books.

If Barth was right, and I believe he was, God was always inclined toward us, always determined in himself, by his free decision, as “He who loves in freedom,” to be for us in Jesus Christ. Thus, we must think of the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead, the Word, as the “Platzhalter” for Jesus Christ in the Trinity.

Thinking Wrongly of the Incarnation

1 - Many Christians think of the incarnation as God’s rescue mission, its only purpose being to get God the Son onto the cross to change God’s attitude toward us from wrath to love. This does not take the truth of the incarnation seriously enough.

2- Many other Christians think of the incarnation as God’s identification with us, to reveal himself to us, but they too fail to take the incarnation seriously enough because, for them, too often, the incarnation is something of a charade insofar as it was simply a divine “addition” of an impersonal human nature to the Son’s pristine, impassible divine nature.

If we take the incarnation radically seriously, we must conclude that it was not merely a “Plan B” because of humanity’s rebellion or merely a pretense that made God appear to be one of us, with the “God part” of Jesus remaining incapable of suffering.

The Incarnation of God is Radical

I believe the one of the most beautiful, inspiring and truthful pieces of theological literature (which is also profoundly devotional) is Barth’s essay in Church Dogmatics IV/1 entitled “The Way of the Son of God into a Far Country.” There Barth, perhaps almost in spite of himself, grasps and expounds the radicalness of the incarnation. The Son of God, God the Son, God himself in the person of the eternal Word, too leave of the Father’s house and entered into the depths of human misery for our sakes. The result is, for Barth and for me, that God cannot be thought of as untouched, pristine, unaffected by what happened with Jesus Christ.

Because of the incarnation our misery is forever imprinted in the life of God but so is our transformation to glory. The wounds of Jesus (and not just the ones put there by the nails of the cross) are part of God’s life but so is his glorious resurrection. Because of the incarnation God’s grace and glory are part of every human person’s being (in potency) and, with faith, every human is capable of participating in God’s divine life and family forever.

Jesus did not “drop his humanity” when he ascended into heaven; he took his resurrected, glorified (but still wounded) humanity with him and he remains human forever. Because of the incarnation, the event of God’s love, one of "us" is "one of God"; our "being" is God’s and "God’s [being]" is ours—if we have faith in his Son. There’s no hint of pantheism in that; it’s all due to God’s grace which means God could have remained God without the incarnation. But he chose not to be himself without us.

The Incarnation was God's Intended Purpose of Creation

I believe, with the Eastern churches, that the incarnation was God’s great plan and purpose in creation all along; it was not merely a “rescue mission.” It became a rescue mission, but it would have happened even if humanity had not fallen due to rebellion. The purpose of God toward the world, toward humanity especially, was to join with it and join it with him by becoming one of us so we could become part of him. The original plan (to speak mythically) did not include the cross, but it became part of the plan when humanity rebelled. Because of our rebellion and God’s refusal to give up on his plan, the wounds of Jesus remain forever embedded in God’s life.

Love is the Fabric of Reality in God's Incarnation

What’s the final outcome, the “cash value,” of such a vision of God and the world? It must be that love is the fabric of reality, the heart of what it is all about to be, even for God. This narrative, this story, this eventful reality of the incarnation, if taken fully seriously, cannot help but push aside and out-of-the-way any notion of God as desiring glory above all.

Or, rather, it requires a redefinition of “glory” from our fallen notions of it. This truth tells us that Jesus’ wounds are the most glorious thing possible—even for God. The doctrine of God cannot be what it would be without the incarnation and crucifixion of Jesus.

It is sad that so many Christians disregard this and prefer instead a philosophical idea of God as glorious according to human conceptions of glory—immutable, impassible, apathetic, self-enclosed, infinite (in the sense of incapable of limitations).

My prayer this Christmas is that all Christians will come to grasp the radicalness of the incarnation and allow it to transform their understanding of God as one of us.

- Roger

Peter Enns - "How Jesus Read His Bible," by Michael Hardin (Parts 1-4) + Videos: A Non-Violent Atonement

How Jesus Read His Bible

(Michael Hardin part 1)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/04/how-jesus-read-his-bible-michael-hardin-part-1/

by Peter Enns

April 8, 2014

Comments

Today begins a 4-part series by Michael Hardin, “How Jesus Read His Bible.” Hardin is the co-founder and Executive Director of Preaching Peace a non-profit based in Lancaster, PA, whose motto is “Educating the Church in Jesus’ Vision of Peace.” An internationally known speaker, he is one of the earliest members of the Colloquium on Violence and Religion and is a co-founder Theology and Peace, also based in the United States. Michael was educated at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago and is a PhD candidate at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia.

Hardin is the author of the acclaimed The Jesus Driven Life and What The Facebook?: Posts from the Edge of Christendom, and co-editor of Stricken by God?: Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ, Peace Be with You: Christ’s Benediction amid Violent Empires, Compassionate Eschatology, and editor of the forthcoming book Reading the Bible with Rene Girard.

His current book project is Lamb Up!: The Resurrection Gospel. He has published over a dozen articles on the mimetic theory of René Girard in addition to essays on theology, spirituality and practical theology. 

Michael participated in the recent documentary Hellbound? and is working with director Kevin Miller on a television project on the work of René Girard.

These posts are adapted by Hardin from The Jesus Driven Life.

- Peter Enns

---

We have learned from modern theologians that what one says about Scripture and how one uses it can be two different things and that how one uses Scripture is the real indication of what one believes about it.

I notice, for example, that many preachers use Scripture as a diving board, they quote it and then jump off into a pool of ideas, leaving the biblical text behind. What they say might be good or true or even relevant but it has little or no connection to the passage under discussion.

Other preachers I have heard treat Scripture like they are in a 7th grade science class dissecting a frog. They notice with some repugnance the things they don’t like and can be quite critical of the process of having to figure out what lies before them.

Some have a "high" view of Scripture by which they mean Scripture is the Word of God, inspired and without error, yet the way in which they use it betrays that they really don’t take it very seriously. These folks ignore context and, "a text without a context is a pretext" or as my Australian friend Jarrod McKenna says “a text without a context is a con.”

These folks have what I call the Old McDonald approach to the Bible, here a verse, there a verse, everywhere a verse verse. Contemporary fundamentalist preaching is like this; a string of verses on a chain like pearls that all make whatever point the preacher is seeking to get across.

That makes the Bible flat and you can do all kinds of strange things with a flat Bible. It’s like silly putty. A flat reading of the Bible is like a 2D grainy black and white silent film compared to reading the Bible on a Hi-Def BIG HDTV screen with Blu-Ray color and Bose Surround Sound in 4D. Now what would you rather have? A thin schemer of old butter on cold toast or a rich robust Feast?

There is a way to read the Bible that is life-giving, thoughtful and joyous. How Scripture is deployed says a lot more than what is believed about it. Believing something to be true about the Bible does not make it true no matter how many have shouted it.

What counts, ultimately, is the way the Bible is rendered in your life, that is, how your life is the living interpretation of the Bible.

Protestants frequently argue that because Jesus quoted the Jewish Bible, this means that he accepted its authority as a whole. When they do this they import a modern view of the authority of Scripture or canon back into the past.

The fact is that there were many and varied views of the authority of the biblical writings and not all groups in Jesus’ time had the same view of biblical authority. It is also true that the way the New Testament writers and Jesus quote and interpret Scripture follows certain patterns in their culture.

Groups in Jesus’ day had rules or guidelines for interpreting the biblical text. The key question for us and one that is rarely raised is this: Did Jesus have a way of using his Bible that was different from those around him? I suggest that he did.

The key text for us to explore in this section will come from Jesus’ inaugural sermon at his hometown synagogue in Nazareth found in the Gospel of Luke (4:16-30).

To be fair, many critical scholars see the hand of the Gospel editor all over this text, noting that many phrases are typical of Luke. Nevertheless, I suspect that there is an authentic story underlying this text inasmuch as Jesus’ first sermon almost gets him killed.

There is also a tremendous congruity with how Jesus interprets the Scripture in this text and his way of understanding both theology and ethics that we find in his teaching, e.g., in the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6).

In Luke 4 Jesus returns to his hometown in Nazareth after having been baptized and then tested in the wilderness. He enters the synagogue and is asked to be the Scripture reader.

In Jesus’ day this could have taken two forms, the first is the actual reader (a vocalizer) of the Hebrew text that would not have been understood by Galileans. It would be like someone reading from the Greek New Testament in church today.

The second role would be that of a translator/interpreter known as a targumist. This person would not read from a scroll but recite from memory a ‘standard’ translation (a Targum) in Aramaic that was the common Semitic tongue in Palestine. Luke appears unclear as to which role Jesus took, perhaps conflating both roles into one. Nevertheless in Luke, Jesus arises takes the scroll and reads from Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to

release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

After this he rolls the scroll up, hands it over to the attendant, who puts it away and then Jesus sits down.

The sermon was short and sweet. He further says,

“Today this text has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

Now what follows is strange for at first it appears that the listeners are quite glad for what Jesus said. But he retorts rather sarcastically and then proceeds to cite two examples (Elijah and Elisha) to justify his sarcasm. It is at this point that the crowd wants to take him out and kill him by throwing him off a cliff.

This really doesn’t make much sense. Some interpreters might argue that what got Jesus in trouble was some sort of ‘divine’ claim, that God had anointed him to be special. But is such the case?

In my next post, in order to see what is happening here in Luke 4, we shall note three critical but interrelated aspects of this episode. First, we will note the way Jesus cites the book of Isaiah compared to what is actually in Isaiah. Second, we will look at the translation problem of verse 22. Third we will look at why Jesus uses these specific examples from Elijah and Elisha to make his point.

- Michael Hardin

* * * * * * * * * *

Are you irked at the thought of God not being wrathful?

(Michael Hardin part 2)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/04/are-you-irked-at-the-thought-of-god-not-being-wrathful-michael-hardin-part-2/

by Peter Enns

April 9, 2014

Comments

Today we have part 2 of a 4-part series by Michael Hardin, “How Jesus Read His Bible.” Hardin (see full bio at part 1) is the co-founder and Executive Director of Preaching Peace a non-profit based in Lancaster, PA whose motto is “Educating the Church in Jesus’ Vision of Peace.” Hardin has published over a dozen articles on the mimetic theory of René Girard in addition to essays on theology, spirituality, and practical theology. He is also the author of several books, including the acclaimed The Jesus Driven Life from which these posts are adapted.

In today’s post, Hardin continues his discussion of Luke 4 and and how Jesus’s use of Isaiah 61:1-2 reframes our understanding of “wrath” and the retributive violence of God.

- Peter Enns

---

When teaching Luke 4, I point out that Isaiah 61:1-2 was one of the more popular passages in Judaism. It is cited in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other writings as well as in rabbinic literature. Have you ever seen a football game where after a touchdown somebody holds up a sign in the end zone seats that reads “John 3:16?” If they had played football in Jesus’ day that sign would have read “Isaiah 61:1-2.”

What made it so important was that it was a lectionary passage for the Year of Jubilee. This was a text that expressed the hope of Israel for liberation from the bondage not only of spiritual disease but also political and economic oppression. The vision of Isaiah was one of shalom, wholeness in all of life.

The first thing to notice is that Jesus does not cite the entire text but eliminates one very important line, “and the day of the vengeance of our God.” The question is: why did he do this?

Some suggest that now is the time of grace and so Jesus holds off on quoting the text about God’s vengeance since that will come later at the end of time. But nowhere else does Jesus seem to quote the biblical text in this fashion, and he never seems to break the work of God into dispensations or periods of time. [Therefore,] something else is going on here.

Second is the problem of translation that arises in Luke 4:22. Most translations indicate that the crowd was pleased with Jesus. These same synagogue hearers then comment, “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?”

Jesus reading Luke 4

The intonation we are supposed to supply would be something like “Oh, what a fine sermon and what a fine preacher Jesus has turned out to be, his father would be so proud!” But is this the case?

The Greek text is quite simple and the King James has adequately translated this “and all bore witness to him.” This bearing witness in the KJV is neither positive nor negative. Why then do translators say, “all spoke well of him?”

Translators have to make what is known as a syntactical decision, they have to decide whether or not the “bearing witness” is negative or positive. Technically speaking they have to decide if the dative pronoun “to him” is a dative of disadvantage or a dative of advantage; was the crowd bearing witness to his advantage or to his disadvantage?

If it is the former case then the intonation we gave to “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” above would make sense and Jesus immediately following gets sarcastic for no reason, but if it is the latter then we could just as well translate this text as “and all spoke ill of his sermon,” that is, they didn’t like what he said.

Then the intonation of the phrase “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” should be rendered something like “who does Jesus think he is coming into our synagogue and saying such things?” With this alternate, preferable translation, of verse 23, Jesus is not being sarcastic but is responding to the negativity of the listeners.

A third point to be made concerns the two examples Jesus cites from two of Israel’s greatest prophets, Elijah and Elisha. In both cases Jesus notes that God worked not within the bounds of Israel but outside the chosen people when he sent these prophets to feed and heal.

What is the connection between what these prophets did and what Jesus said when he quoted the Isaiah text, and why did the crowd get angry enough with him to want to kill him?

We noted that when Jesus quoted the Isaiah text he did not quote the phrase “and the day of the vengeance of our God.” If, in popular opinion, part of the promise of jubilee was that God would deliver Israel from her oppressors, and if that expectation was that God would punish her oppressors, then the phrase “and the day of the vengeance of our God” would be an aspect of the longed for and hoped for deliverance by which Israel’s enemies would be cast down.

Political deliverance was perceived as an aspect of God working wrath on Israel’s enemies. By eliminating this line, Jesus also eliminated the possibility that jubilee included God’s wrath upon whoever was oppressing Israel. His words were indeed “gracious words” (“words of grace”).

The citation of the two examples of Elijah and Elisha then justify Jesus’ exclusion of this vengeance saying, for both prophets had worked their healing miracles among foreign outsiders, those whom God was supposed (in popular piety) to hate.

In short, Jesus is saying to his synagogue hearers:

Jubilee is here, not only for you but also for those you hate; in fact God also goes to your oppressors with this message of jubilee, deliverance and salvation. God will become their God and thus you shall all be family.

Now we can begin to understand why they got so mad at him.

But there is a further implication to be drawn from this. By eliminating the phrase regarding God’s vengeance, Jesus is removing the notion of retributive violence from the doctrine of God.

Noah's Flood

He is in effect saying that God is not like you think, loving you and angry with those you hate. There is a great bumper sticker making the rounds these days that captures this problem. It says “Isn’t it convenient that God hates the same people you do?”

Like the Galileans, we too have a tendency to want to believe that God is on our side and will judge “the other” who is over against us, or different from us. Such was not the case with Jesus. He observed that God makes no distinctions between righteous and wicked, between oppressors and oppressed, they both need deliverance and God’s blessing. Did he not say, “God makes rain to fall on good and evil and sun to shine on just and unjust?” (Matt 5:45)

This is perhaps the most important point I am seeking to make in my book The Jesus Driven Life, namely that, like Jesus, it is essential for us to begin to reframe the way we understand the “wrath” or retributive violence of God.

To suggest that God is nonviolent or better yet, that God is not involved in the cycle of retributive vengeance and punishment will undoubtedly strike many as wrong. Some having read this far are no doubt ready to run me out of town. If you are feeling this way, then what is the difference between how you feel and how Jesus’ hearers felt that day when he preached in his hometown synagogue?

Nothing irks some folks more than losing a God who is wrathful, angry, retributive and punishing. This is only because we want so much to believe that God takes sides, and that side is inevitably our side.

- Michael Hardin

* * * * * * * * * *

What does a God without retribution look like?

- Ask Jesus!

(Michael Hardin part 3)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/04/what-does-god-without-retribution-look-like-ask-jesus-michael-hardin-part-3/

by Peter Enns

April 10, 2014

Comments

Today we have part 3 of a 4-part series by Michael Hardin, “How Jesus Read His Bible.” Hardin (see full bio at part 1) is the co-founder and Executive Director of Preaching Peace a non-profit based in Lancaster, PA whose motto is “Educating the Church in Jesus’ Vision of Peace.” Hardin has published over a dozen articles on the mimetic theory of René Girard in addition to essays on theology, spirituality, and practical theology. He is also the author of several books, including the acclaimed The Jesus Driven Life from which these posts are adapted.

In today’s post, Hardin continues his discussion of Jesus’s use of the Old Testament. Hardin argues that the manner in which Jesus quotes his scripture shows us the God Jesus proclaims is not retributive. And, as you’ll see, John the Baptist was confused about this (as you might be).

- Peter Enns

---

We ended the last post by saying,

Nothing irks some folks more than losing a God who is wrathful, angry, retributive

and punishing. This is only because we want so much to believe that God takes

sides, and that side is inevitably our side.

So much of Jesus’s teaching subverts this sacrificial way of thinking.

One example is the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector found in Luke 18:9-14, where what counts as righteousness is completely and totally turned on its head!

If, in fact, as I argued in my last post, that Jesus begins his ministry by asking what God without retribution looks like (Luke 4), and if he acts this way in his ministry, and if he interprets his Bible to say such things, the question arises:

• Shouldn’t we also follow Jesus in interpreting our Bibles in the same way?
• Is biblical interpretation also a part of discipleship?
• Does following Jesus include more than just living a virtuous life?
• Might it also have to do with helping folks change the way they envision God?

Such was the case for Jesus who called people constantly to “change your thinking.” This is what repentance is, changing the way you think about things (Greek metanoia). When we change the way we see and understand the character of God, everything else changes and we turn back (Hebrew shuv) to the living and true God.

John the Baptist

We can see Jesus doing the same thing in Luke 7:18-23 when he responds to the followers of John the Baptist. Herod had imprisoned the Baptist for his preaching against the Herodian family system. John did not want to die without knowing whether Jesus was the one to come.

Now what could possibly have created this doubt in John’s mind? The answer comes in Jesus’ response to John’s followers. “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard,” Jesus says and then follows a list of miracles. Is Jesus saying, “Tell John you have seen a miracle worker and that God is doing great things through me?”

Doesn’t John already know these things about Jesus? Surely he does. Healers were rare but they were not uncommon in Jesus’ day. What then is Jesus really saying?

Luke 7:22ff is a selection of texts, mostly from Isaiah but also including the miracles of Elijah and Elisha (blind, Isaiah 61:1-2, 29:18, 35:5; lame, 35:6; deaf, 29:18, 35:5; poor 29:19; dead/lepers, I Kings 17:17-24 and 2 Kings 5:1-27).

The Isaiah texts all include a consequent or subsequent reference to the vengeance of God none of which Jesus quotes. As in Luke 4 what is at stake is the retributive violence of God that was an important aspect of John’s proclamation (Luke 3:7-9).

John, like the prophets before him, believed that God was going to bring an apocalyptic wrath. Nowhere in Jesus’ preaching do we find such and this is what confused John, just as it confused Jesus’ synagogue hearers.

Janus

Jesus implicitly tells John, through his message to John’s followers, that the wrath of God is not part of his message, rather healing and good news is. That is, Jesus is inviting John to read Isaiah the way he did!

The last thing Jesus tells John the Baptists’ disciples is “Blessed is the person who is not scandalized on account of me?” What could have caused this scandal? What had Jesus said and done that would cause people to stumble on his message? The clues are here in both Luke 4 and 7.

Jesus did not include as part of his message the idea that God would pour out wrath on Israel’s enemies in order to deliver Israel. Violence is not part of the divine economy for Jesus.

Sad to say, most Christians still think more like John the Baptist than Jesus.

Christians have lived a long time with a God who is retributive.

• We say that God is perfect and thus has the right to punish those whom he deems fit.
• We say that God will bring his righteous wrath upon all those who reject God.
• We say that God can do what God wants because God is God.

All of this logic is foreign to the gospel teaching of Jesus about the character of his heavenly abba.

Jesus does not begin with an abstract notion of God or Platonic metaphysics, but with the Creator God whom he knows as loving, nurturing and caring for all persons regardless of their moral condition, their politics, their ethnic background or their social or economic status. God cares for everyone equally and alike.

By removing retribution from the work and character of God, Jesus, for the first time in human history, opened up a new way, a path, which he also invites us to travel.

Sadly few have found that this path and church history is replete with hundreds, even thousands of examples of a Janus-faced god, a god who is merciful and wrathful, loving and punishing. Some have said that we need to hold to both of these sides together.

Jesus didn’t and neither should we. It is time for us to follow Jesus in reconsidering what divinity without retribution looks like.

- Michael Hardin

* * * * * * * * * *

“Scripture is like a cracked jar” -

the glory of an imperfect Bible

(Michael Hardin part 4)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/04/scripture-is-like-a-cracked-jar-the-glory-of-an-imperfect-bible-michael-hardin-part-4/

by Peter Enns

April 11, 2014

Comments

Today we come to the final post of a 4-part series by Michael Hardin, “How Jesus Read His Bible.” Hardin (see full bio at part 1) is the co-founder and Executive Director of Preaching Peace a non-profit based in Lancaster, PA whose motto is “Educating the Church in Jesus’ Vision of Peace.” Hardin has published over a dozen articles on the mimetic theory of René Girard in addition to essays on theology, spirituality, and practical theology. He is also the author of several books, including the acclaimed The Jesus Driven Life from which these posts are adapted.

In today’s post, Hardin talks about how he sees God speaking through Scripture: through the cross.

- Peter Enns

---

If God speaks through Scripture, and I believe God does indeed speak, how shall we understand God speaking? I begin with several criteria.

1 - The first is that in Jesus the “fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily” (Col 2:9). Jesus is the figure who reveals the character of the Father (so Heb 1:1-3, John 1:1- 18, etc).

2 - The second is this: God speaks through broken vessels. The greatest speech/act of God can be found in the cross. God did God’s best work on the cross reconciling a stubborn, blind and rebellious humanity by forgiving them their sins.

The cross is the ultimate place of God’s brokenness. It is in this brokenness that we see most clearly the affection of God for humanity, an affection or love that takes even misjudgment, torture, humiliation and shame and still announces forgiveness.

Paul in 2 Corinthians 4 says we have “this treasure in clay jars.” This treasure is the gospel (vs. 3). If a jar could contain light, say, the light of the gospel, and it was perfect, then that light would not be seen, for it would have nowhere to shine through. If it is cracked, then there are places for that light to leak out and shine forth.

For me, Scripture is liked a cracked jar, it is because it is cracked that light is able to shine forth. If in our brokenness God shines God’s light in and through us, can we not also assert the same of the prophets and the apostles? Can we not say that we are most like God, not when we are whole, but when we are broken? Does not the Fourth Gospel (John) suggest as much in its view of the relationship between ‘glory’ (doxa) and the cross?

In other words, we do not need to have a theory of Scripture where the Bible must be perfect in order for God to reveal God’s self.

Some may object and say but if that is the case how do we distinguish between what is “man’s [sic] word” and what is “God’s Word?” This has already been answered by suggesting that revelation comes through the voice of the forgiving victim.

It is the Crucified that speaks the eternal word: shalom. The forgiveness announced by Jesus on the cross is no different than the ‘shalom’ announced by the Risen Jesus. They are flip sides of a coin. God is at peace with humanity.

For this reason, I see the cross as the evacuation of all concepts of divine wrath, existential and eschatological. There was no wrath of God poured out on Jesus on the cross; the wrath is strictly ours. Nor is there an eschatological wrath, as though God was only partly ameliorated at the cross but will make sure to vent holy anger come The End.

The cross is the death of all our god concepts, and we humans are the ones who, through the justification of scapegoating, believe that God is one with us when we victimize. After all, ‘God’ victimized plenty of people and people groups in the Old Testament.

This sacrificial way of thinking is terminated by the anti-sacrifice Jesus. Jesus’ blood covers our sin, not through some divine forensic transaction but as we lift our blood stained hands we hear the divine voice, “You are forgiven, each and every one of you, all of you.”

The New Testament writers say this was all done “for us” (hyper humon), for our sakes, for our benefit. This is what the Nicene Creed affirms when it says Jesus “who for us humans and our salvation came down from heaven.” Just as Hebrews 10:5-8 says, this coming was not to be a sacrifice but was the opposite, it was anti-sacrificial.

Jesus did not come to fulfill the logic of the sacrificial system (either Jewish or pagan) but to expose it and put an end to its reign in our lives.

The cross of Christ is the place of revelation, the resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of that revelation, and the ascension, where Jesus is given the Unpronounceable Name (Phil 2:5-11) is the place where that revelation is confirmed for all time.

This is the good news, this is the gospel, and this is why we trust God to use our brokenness to shine his light from our lives into the lives of others, just as God uses the broken prophetic and apostolic witness to continue to shine light to us and for us today.

How can we break through to this new reading of the Bible? What is it that hinders us from really seeing and hearing and experiencing the good news? What keeps us in bondage to our old sacrificial ways of thinking?

It is time to name the interpretive prison system in which Christianity finds herself. We must discern how the ‘satanic’ sacrificial interpretation manifests itself in our theology. Just as a prison has guards or warders so also sacrificial Christianity has warders that keep it bound to the false logic of sacrifice.

It is the revelation of the resurrected victim that creates the possibility, hitherto an impossibility, for reading texts outside the box of our anthropological mythmaking and justification of reciprocal vengeance.

Christopher Marshall also points to this way of understanding our changed relationship to God:

God’s perceived involvement in the infliction of violence is over. God no longer fights fire with fire. God has changed – or, perhaps more accurately, the human experience of God’s association with violence has changed. God no longer permits his identity to be defined by violence; God actively repudiates the violent behavior which has hitherto clouded his character so that the duplicity of violence itself may be exposed and defeated. (“The Violence of God and the Hermeneutics of Paul” in The Work of Jesus Christ in Anabaptist Perspective [Telford: Cascadia Publishing, 2008], 89.)

I suggest a correlation of hermeneutics with resurrection and discipleship as the three legs of a new paradigm of biblical authority. This anthropological reading of the text is a formative new paradigm for framing the specifics of how the Bible is to be read, understood and lived within the Christian communion.

It is a liberating paradigm for it moves beyond the contentious debates regarding the relation of truth to language and brings to the fore the key problem that has bogged down the church since Marcion on the relation of violence to divinity.

The lens of the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus reveals our total sin and God’s total grace. It is a paradigm that calls for more than just intellectual assent; indeed it requires the risk of obedience to Jesus so that, just as he is the Light of the World, so we too, in listening to him and following him, may be light to our world.

- Michael Hardin

Kevin Miller and Michael Hardin - How Jesus Read the Bible?

(Gateway Alliance Church 29.09.2013)

* * * * * * * * *

Michael Hardin on the Bible & Atonement

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2014/04/14/michael-hardin-bible-atonement/

April 14, 2014 by Bo Sanders Comments

Michael Hardin is the author of several books among others [you can find here]:

Stricken by God?: Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ

Compassionate Eschatology: The Future as Friend

The Jesus Driven Life: Reconnecting Humanity With Jesus

He is the Executive Director of Preaching Peace, an organization co-founded with his wife Lorri. You can see all that they are up to at www.preachingpeace.org

“Our hope is to see the church re-examine its theology in the light of the good news of Jesus who proclaimed a truly distinct and unique vision of God. When we do so we encounter a God of radical free grace, forgiveness and love and our lives are transformed by the Spirit of God sent to us through Jesus.”

HomeBrewed Interview & Audio Link Here

* * * * * * * * *

YouTube Vids

Michael Hardin: A Nonviolent Atonement

Published on Dec 11, 2013

Michael Hardin and Non-Violent Atonement (Nomad Podcast - 10 December 2013)

Tim and Dave (from Nomad Podcast) are chatting with theologian Michael Hardin, founder of Preaching Peace and author of 'The Jesus Driven Life'. The boys ask him whether God is really as violent as the Old Testament makes out, and whether he really had to kill his own son in order to forgive us.

Source: Nomad Podcast http://www.nomad.libsyn.com