Why did Jesus come?
Thousands of sermons and talks up and downwardly the land will accept attempted to answer this question in the concluding week. Why did Jesus come, and what are we celebrating at Christmas? Justin Welby's sermon in Canterbury on Christmas Day focussed on the theme of liberty or liberation:
In the manger is something completely different from all human strivings for freedom. The infant in the manger is a paradox from the first breath he draws in his female parent's arms to the final cry he utters on the cantankerous. He is power seen in humility, and He offers freedom expressed in loving service.
Information technology is this Christly paradox of freedom springing from the overflowing of dear that leads to salvation, to the common good and human flourishing. There is no power in the universe stronger than God'south love and it is directed towards the liberation of human being beings.
Only earlier Christmas, a tweet from Tim Keller (of Redeemer Presbyterian Church building, New York) had a different (only maybe related) focus:
Jesus didn't come primarily to solve the economic, political, and social problems of the world. He came to forgive our sins.
— Timothy Keller (@timkellernyc) December eighteen, 2017
There was, not surprisingly, something of a reaction, pushing back against this merits—equally you tin see from the number of responses. The early parts of the Twitter discussion make quite interesting reading, not least because Tim Keller himself actively engages in the debate—something not many high-profile Christian leaders practise on social media. The comment that attracted my attention came from Daniel Kirk, who had been pedagogy at Fuller Theological Seminary but left when he could no longer sign their basis of faith.
But an observation: if this is right, then people who take written books about Jesus and missed the fact that the master affair (forgiveness of sins) is primary include: Matthew, Mark, and John. Y'all can merely say this if Paul is your primary theology and Jesus your secondary. https://t.co/adKVRoNG3y
— Daniel Kirk (@jrdkirk) December 19, 2017
Leaving aside the assumed separation between the theologies of Jesus and Paul (which is worth another whole debate), I idea this was a very odd manner of reading the gospels. I started at the start of Matthew to see whether sins and their forgiveness featured in his account of Jesus' birth and ministry building—and didn't need to read very far. When the angel announces to Joseph that Mary will give nativity to a son, he tells him to name him Jesus (Joshua) 'considering he volition salvage his people from their sins' (Matt i.21). In John's ministry preparing the way for Jesus, the people's response is to 'confess their sins' prior to baptism (Matt 3.6). Jesus then arrives on the scene, announcing the presence of the longed-for kingdom of God in his own person and ministry building. What is the first response to this to exist? To 'repent' (Matt four.17), meaning not and then much (as popularly preached) simply to have a change of mind, but (in the sense of the Hebrew term in the OTshuv) to plow from sin to forgiveness. For Jesus, this appears to be an integral function of the process of believing and receiving (or entering) the kingdom. In his educational activity about prayer in Matt half dozen, Jesus includes reference to the forgiveness of sins, which we pray every time we recite the Lord'south Prayer. It is interesting that, of all the petitions, this is the 1 that Jesus makes a subsequent comment on Matt 6.14).
When the paralytic is lowered through the roof, Jesus' pronouncement is surprising for all sorts of reasons: 'Son, your sins are forgiven' (Matt nine.2). Jesus then characterises the purpose of his whole ministry building as calling, non the righteous, merely sinners (Matt 9.thirteen) and Luke makes clear in his parallel business relationship that the calling of sinners is not only to beingness accepted, but to 'repentance' (Luke 5.32). Well-nigh the end of his account, Matthew is also clear most why Jesus will die and what we are remembering in the Lord's supper: 'This is my blood of the [new] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26.28). Nosotros could exercise a similar exercise in relation to the other gospels, through this noting that Luke, too, sees the coming of Jesus related to the forgiveness of sins. Although we call back of Mary'southward Magnificat every bit focused on upending social structures and power relations, Zechariah's Benedictus is articulate that preparing to receive Jesus involves 'the forgiveness of their sins' (Luke one.77).
Looking back over this cursory list, it seems odd to accept to spell this out. Just what is even odder is Kirk'south comment that the importance of forgiveness of sins is non a focus of the gospels. Information technology seems to me that 'progressive' theology often pulls abroad from what the text of the NT really says, driven by particular ideological concerns. That's not to say that other theological traditions aren't too shaped past ideology, including many strands of Us evangelical theology. Simply the answer to ideological bias isn't to offer an alternative bias; it is to read the NT more than carefully and permit it to scrutinise all our biases.
Another 'progressive' who picked upwardly on Keller's statement was Morgan Guyton, a member of the United Methodist church building in the US. Curiously, Guyton draws on Keller'southward ain writing to offer a critique of Keller'southward tweet:
In any case, the argument Keller makes in Generous Justice is what I would use to critique the fake dichotomy he creates in this tweet. In a nutshell, Generous Justice explains why a straightforward evangelical gospel of God's mercy ought to make Christians into the most ardent advocates for the poor and marginalized. And so why did Keller write this tweet in a way that perpetuates the false presentation of the social gospel and the evangelical gospel as nix-sum alternatives to ane another?
Why didn't he say that Jesus solves the economical, political, and social problems of the globe past forgiving our sins (which is the thesis of Generous Justice)? That would have been a lot more thought-provoking. I could cosign that statement as long as nosotros empathize that sin is not a privatized system of demerit for rule-breaking simply rather a global spiderweb of imprisoning toxicity in which we are all trapped.
What is interesting here is that a 'progressive' is actually aligning himself with the theological outlook of a Reformed conservative in Keller; his concern is the implications of the tweet every bit it is expressed. Keller appears to exist well enlightened of this:
Folks, fundamental give-and-take is "primarily." Of course, he addresses economic, political, and social issues. Run into my book Generous Justice. Delight don't make a tweet of mine indictive of my entire theology.
— Timothy Keller (@timkellernyc) December 18, 2017
As Tom Wright has commented, the trouble with being a theologian is that people expect you to say everything all of the time—if you ever make a detail argument, you lot get criticised for all the other things that you did not say! This is amplified on social media, and particularly a medium similar Twitter which is limited in its character count.
At ane level, this discussion is but a re-run of the question constitute in the tension betwixt reading Paul in Romans and James in his letter. Paul teaches that Christians are not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2.16; Rom 3.28). He refers to Abraham equally an example of i who was justified past faith, not works, citing Gen 15.6 (Rom 4.3; Gal 3.half-dozen). James seems to claim only the reverse: A person is justified by works, and not by organized religion alone (2.24), and he too uses Abraham as an instance, as well citing Gen xv.6. Although their points are different, the parallels in argumentation appear every bit follows (cited from Dunn, Romans I:197):
| Romans | James | |
| Consequence posed in terms of faith and works | iii.27-28 | 2.18 |
| Significance of claiming 'God is Ane' | 3.29-30 | 2.nineteen |
| Appeal to Abraham equally exam case | 4.1-two | 2.20-22 |
| Commendation of proof text—Gen fifteen.six | iv.3 | 2.20-22 |
| Interpretation of Gen 15.six | 4.four-21 | ii.23 |
| Conclusion | 4.22 | 2.24 |
The tension hither tin can be resolved by noticing that Paul and James actually apply their language in dissimilar ways. So for Paul, 'religion' is trust in Christ that manifests itself in love (Gal 5.six), whereas for James 'faith' is mere intellectual assent that only professes belief without demonstrating it (2.14, xix). For Paul, 'works' means a continuing insistence on OT ceremonial, just for James (as elsewhere in the NT) 'works' refers to the fruit of a regenerate life—acts of kindness and obedience to God (2.15-xvi). What both are concerned about is that trust in God for salvation—if information technology is real—volition brand a measurable deviation in the conduct of life, which is why Paul often follows his exposition of what God has washed for usa in Christ with quite lengthy ethical instructions. Keller seems very well aware of this connection:
That'southward not how it works in my globe Brian. Our justice arm Hope for New York @HopeforNewYork gives abroad millions a year, volunteer hours, etc. Properly placed forgiveness of sins motivates out of gratitude a centre of service. Motivation out of guilt or shame is worse.
— Timothy Keller (@timkellernyc) December 18, 2017
It is worth noting (in passing) that the language of Jesus 'coming' is often thought of as Johannine: in John's gospel Jesus appears to take a very developed sense of his pre-being, specially when talking nigh 'coming into this world' (John 5.43, viii.14, 12.46, 14.28, 16.28, 18.37 and elsewhere). Simply Simon Gathercole points out (in The Pre-existent Son) that this linguistic communication of 'coming' is as well present in the Synoptics gospels, and has similar overtones to the language in John. He highlights ten important Synoptic 'I accept come' + purpose sayings:
- "What do you lot want with the states, Jesus of Nazareth? Have y'all come to destroy us? I know who you lot are—the Holy One of God!" (Mark 1.24)
- "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come hither to torture us before the appointed time?" (Matt 8.29)
- "Allow the states get somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach at that place besides. That is why I accept come." (Marker ane.38)
- "It is not the healthy who need a md, but the sick. 32 I have not come up to call the righteous, merely sinners to repentance." (Luke 5.31–32)
- "Exercise not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come up to abolish them simply to fulfill them." (Matt v.17)
- "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!" (Luke 12.49)
- "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the globe. I did non come up to bring peace, but a sword." (Matt 10.34)
- "For I have come up to plough 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter–in–law confronting her mother–in–law—" (Matt ten.35)
- "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Marking 10.45)
- "For the Son of Human being came to seek and to salvage what was lost." (Luke nineteen.10)
Information technology shouldn't really surprise united states to observe hints at pre-existence here—since all these as texts post-date Paul'southward language in Phil ii which virtually commentators see equally clear exposition of belief in Jesus' pre-existence. There might even exist a sermon serial in this list of sayings.
Only the question remains: if at Christmas weprimarily jubilant Jesus coming for the forgiveness of sins, how can we speak of it in Christmas services? Certainly not in the crass style I in one case heard it from an earnest curate—telling the once-a-year congregation that they were all sinners, and that the beginning matter they needed to exercise at Christmas was to repent. Tom Wright argues, most recently in hisThe Mean solar day the RevolutionBegan, that we have a poor, pietistic and individualised understanding of sin, and we need to see sin as more fully that circuitous of failure which marks every attribute of life and catches us upward in its spider web. We need to recapture the wide range of vocabulary used in Scripture of sin equally missing the mark, declining, transgression, rebellion, guilt, bondage, slavery and alienation. If Jesus came to bring all these things to an stop, and then we take proficient news indeed.
The question remains: how can nosotros do this in an engaging and inviting way? Answers on a postcard please…
Don't forget to book your place at the the Festival of Theology on January 30th!
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is washed on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you considerdonating £ane.20 a month to back up the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance footing. If yous accept valued this postal service, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful contend, tin can add real value. Seek first to understand, then to exist understood. Brand the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view debate every bit a disharmonize to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/why-did-jesus-come/
0 Response to "Why did Jesus come?"
Post a Comment