I am re-watching a 2015 TV series AD: The Bible continues; which is supposed to be a dramatization of ("based on") the Book of Acts I had seen when it came out. It is pretty enjoyable in a melodramatic way. and worth a look - a reasonably sincere production; if you are not too concerned about embellishments and looseness. I am also reading Taliesin by Stephen Lawler (1987).
In both of these (as well as many other places, over the years) I came across the often spoken phrase that "Jesus Died For Us" - used with a variety of meaning, some of which I personally would regard as untrue, and potentially harmfully-misleading.
So in what sense is "Jesus Died For Us" true, and what senses do I regard it as false?
1. Overall, I would say that it is untrue; in the sense that Jesus died because he had to die, because he was mortal.
Jesus could-not not have died.
So if the phrase is meant, or taken, to imply that Jesus might never have died at all, ever - then this is false.
2. Sometime the phrase is used to mean that Jesus could have saved himself from being killed at the time he was killed, or in the manner he was killed.
This is true; he could have saved-himself from that particular death - albeit Jesus would have died some time later, and/or in some other fashion.
3. Sometimes the phrase is used to assert that it was necessary that Jesus died in the time and manner that he did; or else Jesus would not have succeeded in his mission - and Men would not have been offered the possibility of salvation.
This I regard as false. It was Not necessary for Jesus to be tortured to death when and as he was, in order to be our Saviour.
In sum, Jesus needed to die in order to become The Saviour, but he did not need to die when he did and by torture and crucifixion; yet he could have saved himself from that particular death.
As usual, these surface inferences rely upon metaphysical assumptions concerning why salvation was needed, why Jesus could achieve our salvation but not God the Father; and in broad terms how salvation "works".
Such metaphysical assumptions need to be "in place" before we can make valid sense of "Jesus Died For Us" -- and lacking such a grounding of the structure of basic reality; the phrase is likely to lead to (what I would regard) as a wrong and harmful understanding of the very fundamental nature of what it is to be-a-Christian: to follow Jesus.
As things (mostly) are; the metaphysics and the understanding are presented the wrong way around; with the Biblical description supposedly giving us the metaphysical understanding by which it is interpreted.
Or there is a dishonest (or incompetent) assertion of unavoidable circularity of reasoning; that (wrongly) states we must believe both the metaphysics and the Biblical description as a single, given, object-of-faith.
The truth is that we can make no sense of anything without prior metaphysical assumptions - and these, therefore, need explicitly to be exposed as such: and set-up for evaluation.
I wonder how points two and three fit together. If he could have saved himself from such a terrible death and it served no particular purpose for him to die that way, then why not choose to die of ripe old age, or at least painlessly, or without the public humiliation and what that did to his disciples. That suggests to me that there must more to it than that, though I honestly don't know what.
ReplyDelete@Stefan F
ReplyDeleteTo me these are unrelated issues. Presumably you have assumptions concerning Jesus's death and his ability to provide us with the chance of salvation that create this difficulty - but I don't. To clarify the situation you would need to examine your metaphysical assumptions.
I broadly share your metaphysical assumptions, so it strikes me rather as a question of internal logic or coherence. Of course, you might say that a desire for coherence is in itself the result of particular metaphysical assumptions... Let me frame the question this way: If Jesus needn't have died at that moment, then that means he chose to do so. If he chose to do so, there must have been motivation. What was that motivation? Perhaps sheer intuition (if we can call that motivation)? And again, I can see the metaphysical assumptions behind what I've just written re actions being motivated etc.; but if we deny that we fall into the same trap Nietzsche fell into.
Delete@Stefan F - I don't see it as Jesus choosing, but almost the opposite - allowing. To know why Jesus allowed himself to be killed is not, for me, something I feel a particular need to know. The answer does not affect anything important to me.
ReplyDeleteI presume it was something-like that Jesus had done what he wanted to do (or needed to do), and let events take their course. Things would have turned out otherwise, *if* the people involved (e.g. Caiaphas, Pilate, the mob) had made other choices - because where there is freedom, the future is not fixed.
Jesus could not (and would not) compel people to have a particular attitude or take a particular action. After all, apparently most people who met or knew him; ignored or disbelieved him, regarded him as evil, or insane.
If Jesus had used miraculous powers to elude his persecutors (for a while), delay his death (for a while), or change its mode - then this may have caused other problems - perhaps not obvious to us, but evident to Jesus at the time.
Thanks for that, it makes sense and I pretty much agree with everything you say. For myself, I would like to know, because I suspect there may be something valuable behind it, but that's really just a matter of personal preference.
DeleteRereading the Gospel of John this morning, I read the verse, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." This seems to suggest that Jesus somehow raised himself from the dead, against the later epistles and creeds which say it was God, leaving Jesus passive in the matter. I'm not sure. It might be dreadful heresy.
ReplyDeleteIt may have been necessary for Jesus to experience the worst mankind has to offer before he died, such that his resurrection was an overcoming of both death and vengeance? Most other myths and legends of beaten men coming back from the dead involve long, bloodthirsty campaigns of revenge against the living. Perhaps it really was necessary for Jesus to be forced into the darkest pit of human darkness; it can't be an accident that the sacraments are offered as a kind of alchemical cannibalism.
@Epi - The way I look at it is that God cannot, and will not, compel Men to do evil.
ReplyDeleteSo the people who tortured and killed Jesus were free to have chosen otherwise.
Then I ask - would this good behaviour have prevented the work of Jesus in providing Men with the chance of resurrected life everlasting?
Framed thus; it seems clear to me that the answer is no. Those who tormented and crucified Jesus might Not have done so. Jesus could have died at an average age and from natural causes, and salvation would still have been achieved.
I have never thought of it this way---but its clear I don't understand some of my metaphysical assumptions at all. If Jesus didn't need to suffer, why did he choose that? And what does that suffering have to do with us and our salvation through Him?
ReplyDeleteI'm just picturing Jesus having a peaceful and pain free life, dying and then raising Himself from the dead-- in your view does THAT still offer and demonstrate his divine nature and path to salvation for US? Did he not have to DO certain specific things in His life?
Do you agree that is was necessary for Jesus to die and resurrect Himself-- and in that demonstration show Himself to be the Son of God and able to offer a path of Salvation and life after death?
Your perspective is interesting-- I would encourage you to expand on it. Honestly, I think a lot of us out there don't really understand what our metaphysical assumptions really are--or even might be!
Good post!
@Cecil1
ReplyDelete"If Jesus didn't need to suffer, why did he choose that? "
Yes, you are assuming that Jesus chose to suffer, rather than (as he presumably did nearly-all the time) lived his mortal life in this entropic and evil world (as we do), subject to many, many kinds of adversity that he did Not choose, but were the consequence of the nature of this world, or of other Beings choices.
"And what does that suffering have to do with us and our salvation through Him?"
You are assuming it has something to do with us. I don't make that assumptions.
Many Christians assume that is was *metaphysically vital* that Jesus was a Jew, lived in Palestine, was descended from David (etc), born in Bethlehem, and on and on through a very long list.
I don't assume any of these was necessary.
Yes it was necessary for Jesus to die and himself be resurrected, and dying happened necessarily because he was mortal.
You say "expand on it" as if this blog had not been doing exactly that for a decade! in *hundreds* of posts and a mini-book (Lazarus Writes - see sidebar) - all of which are the click of a mouse away for anyone who wants to read them.