God
The following six posts are an answer to Nathan’s question from the post entitled The Bare Minimum.
In Matthew 5, verses 17 and 18, Jesus explains that he has not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. It’s easy to assume that this means the law is still in effect today. But, that idea doesn’t jive with what the rest of the New Testament says. Consider Romans 10:4, or Galatians 3:23-25, or even Ephesians 2:15.
So, where does this leave us? Is the law still in effect? Has it been abolished? What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law?
Well, how about we start at the very beginning…
Let’s talk about God. Not just any God, but the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It would be nice if we could just get him onto and operating table and examine him, wouldn’t it? We would learn so much, but it’s simply implausible to even consider such a ludicrous idea!
Why, you ask? Well, the author of Ecclesiastes has a very good answer to that very question: “God is in heaven and you are on earth” ( Ecclesiastes 5:2, ESV). This statement, of course, leads to a few problems. What does heaven mean? The biblical writers meant both the sky above us, as well as the place where God lives. When talking about the place where God lives, they certainly didn’t mean next door, or even in some remote distant corner of the universe. They meant God’s existence outside of our limited physical space, i.e. the physical earth. Is it possible that this “heaven” interacts with the physical world in which we exist?
This particular reference to heaven also doesn’t mean “the place that, as a Christian, I go when I die.” It’s not a final destination. Funny thing is, God’s been there all along. So, it’s actually more like, “the place that, as a Christian, I go to join God where he’s been since the beginning.” Heaven is not something yet to be created. It is simply where God is. And, of course, that brings us right back to the question, of whether or not this dimension where God is interacts with this dimension in which we are in.
Well, from a philosophical standpoint, there are really only three ways in which God’s space, heaven, can interact with our space, better known as earth.
The first possibility is to combine both spaces into one. This is known as pantheism. Basically, God is everywhere and everything, and everything and everywhere is God. Our main job, under pantheism, is to connect with God by getting in tune with the divinity in our surroundings and in ourselves. Essentially, we are God. A fairly well known form of pantheism is Stoicism.
The trouble with this thinking is that it doesn’t deal with the problem of evil. We have no one to come to our rescue when things go badly. We are left with two options: (1) deal with it, or (2) die (the Stoics taught suicide).
The second possibility is to separate both spaces, and not allow them to interact at all. This is a line of thinking taught by Epicurus, and later by Lucretius. More recently, this view has been known as Deism. Basically, in this view, God, or the gods, are off in their own realm doing whatever they do without a second thought about our realm. We’d better get used to being alone in the universe. Of course there is a god out there, but he won’t be intervening, for any reason. Not only was this line of thought popular in the ancient world, but it still holds sway today. Consider the number of people that, when asked if they believe in God, will readily admit they do, but have nothing to do with him. The problem with this line of thinking is that it ignores the echoes of beauty, and spirituality, and true relationships and justice that run throughout our world. It ignores the very things that echo God’s existence.
This brings us to our third option: Not only is our sphere of existence separate from God’s, but they are constantly interacting with each other. This is the view held by both Christianity and Judaism. The Old Testament shows, over and over again, that God belongs in heaven and we belong on earth. But, Abraham keeps meeting God. Jacob sees a ladder between heaven and earth. Moses interacts with God on numerous occasions. He interacts with Elijah and Elisha. God’s sphere is interacting with our sphere!
Interestingly, there is one specific place where our spheres of existence overlap: the temple. The temple is God’s dwelling place, which means that the temple is somehow connected, directly, to heaven, God’s dwelling place. Specifically, the temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, was the connecting point between our dimensions. Consider Psalm 132:13-14:
For the LORD has chosen Zion;
he has desired it for his dwelling place:
“This is my resting place forever;
here I will dwell, for I have desired it.
This mountain, this temple, this place is the point where God was physically present on earth! God created the world. Then, he remained an active part of it, without being contained in it, or having it contained within himself.
Unfortunately, this world, this creation in which God is so active, became corrupt. He, of course being involved in, and yet separate from, the world, became intimately concerned about this corruption. He set forth on a rescue operation to restore the earth to the creation he intended it to be.
This rescue operation started with a man named Abraham. But, we’ll get into that in the next post…and yes, I promise, this is an answer to Nathan’s question!
September 10th, 2007 |
@joe:
Flavius Josephus was a Jewish, Romanized historian. Which works of his influenced you in this?
Philo of Alexandria tried to create a fusion of Hellenistic Stoic Philosophy and Judaism. Although he spoke of the divine principle of “Logos”, he certainly wasn’t talking about Christ. What did you find of value in his works?
September 8th, 2007 |
Actually, I have yet to read Simply Christian. It is a consolidation of some of his larger works, i.e. Jesus and the People of God, Jesus and the Kingdom of God and Jesus and the Victory of God. I have read the larger works (well, I am in the middle of Jesus and the Victory of God, from the library), but I have not yet read Simply Christian (except for the last chapter, in the bookstore. I’m always sneaking a peak at the end of the book!).
These ideas are actually being pulled from a number of sources, which include, first and foremost, the Bible, NT Wright’s Jesus and the Kingdom of God, the first half of Origin of the Christian Religion (I haven’t read the second half…it’s HUGE!!!!), some historical texts, including stuff by both Flavius Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Randy Alcorn’s Heaven, and a myriad of other books I have read over the last two years.
What I am writing in these posts is a consolidation of pages upon pages of notes that I have been making for some time. It would fill a book if I included every last bit of the thinking that the notes represent. So, I have been going over the notes and consolidating.
I certainly don’t agree with all of NT Wright’s conclusions. No single person or theologian or scholar has a corner on the entire truth. We all see in a mirror dimly.
September 8th, 2007 |
Everyone needs to realize that these ideas are being pulled directly from a book called “Simply Christian” by N.T. Wright. The reasoning that is being laid out here is from Chapter Three entitled Made for Each Other. N.T. Wright is a brilliant and very well written theologian from Great Britain, but he has completely walked away from normal exegetical principles in intrepreting Paul. Some of his stuff is great, but some is very dangerous. I’ve read most of his works excpet for his massive Origin of the Christian Religion. I would encourage you to read the book for yourself and see if you agree. I would also encourage you to read the articles on “The New Perspective on Paul” from monergism.com. Use caution when delving into these areas, I beg of you.
September 5th, 2007 |
this certainly looks to be a foundational beginning to your world view. You have yet to say anything really questionable.
September 5th, 2007 |
Nathan,
I appreciate that, it might help give a better understanding of where I’ve been coming from all along.
However, I am really condensing and making some pretty big logic jumps in places (for the sake of space), and if the logic doesn’t flow or things don’t add up between posts, please ask! I may have misspoken, or made too big of jumps.
September 5th, 2007 |
I am not going to comment until all your posts are done, then.
September 5th, 2007 |
In order to properly take that scripture into context, we certainly must consider it within the fuller context of Romans 3:21-31. But, in order to not end up with a myopic view of what Paul is saying, we must continue on and consider how Romans 3:21-31 fits into the argument being developed in Romans 1-8, and how that argument fits into the entire letter to the Roman Christians. And even how that letter fits into the rest of what Paul wrote, and then on to how that fits into what Jesus said, and so on and so forth.
In order to understand what Paul is trying to communicate, we must understand something about Paul and the culture he has come from, the one he is immersed in, and the culture he is trying to communicate with.
The cultural understanding leads us to consider the context of those cultures in relation to God.
Once I have reached this point, I can begin to work towards trying to understand the context of what Paul is saying here, and what to do with Jesus.
I really am working towards an answer to your questions, but I have realized that the answer is not simple. It is my entire world view. I have tried to consolidate my views as much as possible, and the shortest I can get it to is six blog posts. This is still a very poor representation of my perspective. But, if you are willing to hang on, I hope I can accurately communicate where I’m coming from.
This is a little bit like working backwards from the less complex to the more complex, and then moving back forward to the less complex again. That way we get a better understanding of what it is that we are looking at.
September 5th, 2007 |
“But, that idea doesn’t jive with what the rest of the New Testament says.”
Please consider Romans 3:31: Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (ESV)
In context: Romans 3:21-31
This doesn’t jive at all with your inference that we are not under the law.