Given the fact of the incarnation, what is the theological significance of the life of Jesus Christ? Is his life merely a prelude to his passion?
“How can anyone say that the rest of Jesus’ life is not substantially for our redemption? In that case what would be its significance? A mere superfluous narrative?" (K.Barth Dogmatics in Outline p.101)
“It is curious that evangelicals often link the substitutionary act of Christ only with his death, and not with his incarnate person and life – that is dynamite for them! They thereby undermine the radical nature of substitution, what the New Testament calls katallage, Christ in our place and Christ for us in every respect. (T.F.Torrance Preaching Christ Today: The Gospel and Scientific Thinking p.30)
“We affirm that Christ’s saving work included both his life and his death o our behalf. We declare that faith in the perfect obedience of Christ by which he fulfilled all the demands of the Law of God on our behalf is essential to the Gospel. We deny that out salvation was achieved merely or exclusively by the death of Christ without reference to his life of perfect righteousness.” (The Committee for Evangelical Unity in the Gospel incl. Packer, Carson, Sproul, Woodbridge, Christianity Today 43, 1999)
14 comments:
I remember being in a lecture on this last year, which emphasised the need to integrate the whole of Christ's 'career' (for want of a better word).
Interestingly, one of the elements of the life of Jesus that popped up again and again as we canvassed the Gospels was his 'Jewishness' -- his fulfilling of Israel's destiny, his doing what Israel failed to do (e.g. the temptation in the wilderness), etc.
However, this theme seemed to drop out altogether as we moved to the stage of integration and systematisation. I guess it made way for the kind of concerns with Christ's perfect obedience and righteous life articulated in the third quote, which I take it are related to Jesus' Jewishness. I'm just a little shaky on the connections.
Any thoughts, Michael?
Well only this: what is 'perfect righteousness' than being the true Israelite in the first instance? What is the form of his life but a recapitulation of the journey of Israel from Exodus to promise land?
Here's some thoughts, and they go back to bread and wine.
If the Bible were only about salvation by grace, it would be a lot shorter. It is about a growth from childhood to maturity, from nakedness to glory.
Jesus grew in wisdom and stature. That goes back to the two trees in the garden, bread (obedient priesthood) and wine (kingly wisdom).
Jesus carried the people of God through Adam's testing (breaking the bread), beyond the tree of life, to the tree of wisdom.
'of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God' (1 Cor. 1:30)
'in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.' (Col 2:3)
He is both trees, and we eat and drink Him freely before God.
Mike - it always depends what you mean by all this and what status you give it! I tend to think your symbolic readings of scripture are highly tendentious and very unlikely, though aesthetically pleasing. I find this with Wilson, too.
is there a difference between the theological significance of christ's life that is not recorded in scripture and the few episodes of his life that are?
Michael
I understand your point, but Scripture develops its symbols very consistently. This one shows up again in Rev 14 where the saints (as body to the head) are harvested as bread and wine. If we read the Bible with a 'Greek' mindset we miss half of what's going on.
Dear Mike Bull
What are you actually talking about?
Dave
I think a greater understanding of the Bible's highly developed typology would help us a lot when it comes to interpretation. Typology has been previously abused, but we have overcompensated. Our approach owes more to higher criticism than we realise.
Going back to my initial question, I guess I'm wondering about what more we might say given that Barth jumps up and down so vigorously on this point:
'The Word did not simply become any "flesh," any man humbled and suffering. It became Jewish flesh. The Church's whole doctrine of the incarnation and the atonement becomes abstract and valueless and meaningless to the extent that this comes to be regarded as something accidental and incidental.' (CD IV/1:166)
Maybe it's not that we have to say any more than that Christ's perfect righteousness is in the first instance his being the true Israelite. But I've got a hunch that there's a deep significance to saying this.
I've only got a dim sense of what this might be, but it seems potentially massive. Especially when we start asking what the fact that the obedience of the Son takes this form -- of the Word becoming specifically Jewish flesh -- tells us about the Triune God himself?
Surely it's significance has all to do with the Covenant. God narrowed His focus to Israel as a 'mediator-nation', specifically in reference to the Feast of Booths. Then this focus narrowed to Christ as the fulfilment of the Covenant. Now it works its way back out again through a new 'mediator-nation' rendered fruitful again by the inclusion of Gentiles (as per the redemption of Ruth):
The Bible begins with the entire physical creation in view and works its way down through a Covenantal ‘world’—Adam-Israel (the blood of circumcision)—to Jesus, in whom the entire old world is slain and resurrected. The Bible then works its way out again through a Covenantal ‘world’—Eve-Israel (the water of baptism)—to a totally redeemed physical creation at its end.
Also explains why this New Covenant sign includes females.
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the lecture today. I had a couple of questions remaining at the end.
1. What do you make of the revelatory significance of Christ's life? It seems like parts of the NT (John) make something of this. How does this relate to Atonement? Vicarious obedience seems to pick up Jesus' 'Godward' work, is there also a 'humanward' work?
2. All the options we reviewed in our 'theological soundings' appear to agree that our lives are related to Jesus in some form of negative analogy (he is like us but does the opposite of us at important points, tempted but without sin). Doesn't this negative analogy break down at the point of Jesus death (He becomes Godforsaken - just like us)? Maybe there isn't a straightforward continuity between Jesus vicarious life and his death (the manner in which it is vicarious changes)? Sorry if that's unclear.
What do you think?
Thanks Dan...
1 - i think that we could profitably have considered the life of Jesus in its prophetic/priestly and kingly aspects... that might have given us more. John 1 seems to speak of Christ revealing the glory of God in his tenting among us.
2 - I am thinking about it...I am not sure I follow. Can you have another go? McCleod Campbell would say that Jesus lives vicariously and then dies as the ultimate act of righteousness that fulfills the covenant - he famously denied that God punishes Jesus in that bald sense, but rather assert that Jesus averted the wrath of God on behalf of humankind.
On a re-reading it was very unclear :-)
Sorry.
From what you were saying I got the impression that McCleod Campbell conceives of Christ's vicarious Sonship as being in the same relation to our fallen sonship right through the 'whole course of his obedience' - from incarnation through death to exaltation. Jesus is always the one who gets it right, does what we can't do. Is that right?
If we adopt a more penal model of Christ's atonement do we end up changing the nature of his vicarious work at the point of his death? Prior to that he is victorious where we fail, he remains righteous where we are unrighteous. Then, at his crucifixion he is made to be unrighteous, just as we are. We are still united with him, but we are united with him in defeat and punishment rather than in victory.
Actually, now that I've written this out I think I know what I was trying to say... I'll get there eventually :)
Do we sometimes embrace Christus Victor for his life but then try to switch to PSA for his death (and probably switch back again for his resurrection)? I can see how we might maintain Christus Victor right throughout his life, death, and resurrection - what about his penal substitution, does that only occur in his death, or is that also part of his lifework?
Thanks again. This very helpful... I think you have pointed out an inconsistency, yes. And one route to rectifying the problem is to make sure our version of PSA is carefully nuanced and not the one we hear preached all the time... So, when Jesus bears our sin, does he actually become guilty of our sin? Does he get punished, or is it better to say he bears the punishment (and are these substantially different)? Is the Father angry at the Son? Or, is it rather that Son bears the anger of Father? Isn't Jesus righteous throughout? Isn't the resurrection his vindication?
Now, there ae some verses to reckon with, not least Gal 3:13, where Jesus becomes a curse for us (though notice Jesus is active in the becoming, not a passive bystander.) Also, 2 Cor 5:21, where Jesus becomes sin for us... but do these verses necessarily imply that he becomes guilty with our sin, 'is made unrighteous, just as we are'?
So, you can see I am trying to have my cake and eat it too... to maintain a PSA and Christus Victor reading throughout.
Post a Comment