Count Dangerous-ula of Dangerous-vania!

Thank you for your kind comment at the head of your last letter. In terms of politics, Jesus is neatly centre-ground, in that his teaching and message have strong strains of both left-wing and right-wing philosophy. This means that people from different political backgrounds can still access and hear him. I always think of his command to “give to Caesar what is due Caesar and to God what is due God.” This sums up his attitude: worship God and do your best to bear with the state. Paul writes similar instructions about praying for and submitting to rulers. When we had the last General Election in this country, we had ridiculous articles on Christian websites about how Jeremy Corbyn was the most Christ-like leader on the ballot etc. I’m all for Christians being politically engaged (I love my politics), but people need to get over themselves and realise that God has called them to something so much higher and deeper. Jesus himself said: “my kingdom is not of this world…”

I liked your idea of putting down ways in which Jesus has been re-purposed by the Church. Here’s one for you. I was in the epic, Gothic York Minster with my family this week, doing some sight-seeing. Although I am safely founded in a very informal, independent Evangelical Church, where we all show up on Sundays in our jeans and t-shirts, it struck me that we could learn a thing or two from the more formal churches about reverence for God. Has the church turned Jesus into a bit of a ‘boy-friend’ like character, who is just like our best mate although a slightly bit more powerful? Certainly some of our worship songs would suggest so (and I say that as someone who leads worship in church and enjoys the more intimate songs in my own walk with God). I always loved CS Lewis’ depiction of the Great Lion, ‘Aslan’ in the Narnia Chronicles (Aslan is a type of Christ). Lewis wrote that the Lion “isn’t at all safe…but he is good.” I would argue that when we approach the risen Jesus in worship, we should have reverence as well as love. And I wonder whether we in the church sometimes major on the latter at the expense of the former. I’m wondering whether we should rework that famous phrase: “be afraid…be (a little bit) afraid.” I don’t mean we should fear Jesus in the sense of being terrified of him. But I do think we should approach him with full respect and awe.

I do think that Jesus existed before his birth, although I respect and understand your viewpoint. Paul writes about him in Colossians 1 as having created the world (or at least that it was created through him) and John writes at the beginning of his Gospel that ‘in the beginning the Word was with God,’ and then he echoes Paul’s words about the world been made ‘through’ the Word. Now assuming John means Jesus by ‘the Word,’ these lines would suggest that Jesus was around before his earthly ministry. I do however think you are right in your assertion (in a previous letter) that I went too far by trying to identify ‘the angel of the Lord’ in the OT as Jesus. As you say, if the Bible says it was an angel who shut the lions’ mouths in the den, then it was an angel.

I’m sure we will cover the ‘Jesus defeated death’ idea in a later podcast/series of letters, but to have an initial stab, there is a fascinating piece of Scripture at the end of the Book of Revelation which talks about there being a ‘second death.’ Broadly speaking, I interpret this as meaning that we die once physically but that we die spiritually as well and it’s this spiritual death that Jesus ‘defeats’ in rescuing us from our mistakes, or sins. When mankind first sinned, we know that physical and spiritual death entered the world and that at least in some way, Jesus was the ‘second Adam’ sent to restore things. Paul in 1 Corinthians: ‘For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive…For Christ must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.’ Jesus in John: ‘I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die.’ Paul in Hebrews: ‘Christ too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.’ Sorry to quote so much Bible – it’s a sign that I’m dissatisfied with my own words. What I’m trying to say is that without Jesus we would die and stay dead: by rising from the dead – going into death and coming out the other side – Jesus ‘defeats’ this curse which hangs over us.

Love your line about Jesus no longer being simply ‘a vagrant teacher, but the one who already sits on the right-hand of God, the One in power, no longer in humility.’ That sums up perfectly what I was trying to say above!! I also agree with you about the ‘Golden rule’ and reading the OT through this. My problem comes more where you hear things like this. (I have intentional paraphrased this next bit, but I have actually read it in several places in notable Evangelical quarters and it greatly worries me): “Because Jesus never really spoke much about the Cross and Resurrection, we have obviously over-emphasised it in our own church teaching and need to re-examine whether Jesus needed to die for us to receive forgiveness.” Not only do I heartily disagree with this statement, but its main error (in my own view) is to fail to see that Jesus couldn’t teach about his death and resurrection because every time he tried, the disciples threw a wobbly (they weren’t ready to understand). So we need to read Paul, Peter, James and John to understand the deeper significance of the Cross. It’s this slavish idea that ‘all the NT must be subservient to the synoptic Gospels’ that gets my goat, because it fails to understand that Jesus had more to say to us (through the Spirit) after he had ascended. Sorry, rant over 😉

SMASHY

Sir Thomas

Sir Tom,

SMASH in all it’s fullness,

Sometimes you make it very hard to reply as you nail it all first time. I have to say I agree with you in pretty much everything.

It’s a fascinating concept, that Jesus has been misrepresented by the church for it’s own agenda. As you say there is a political slant given and I’m frankly surprised at how many politically right wing Christians I meet. I would have thought a left leaning agenda would be more in line with Jesus’ message (especially in terms of the poor). What would be fascinating in these letters would be to put out how you think Jesus has been re-purposed so that we can strip that away.

My only issue comes with your first paragraph. I don’t think Jesus was leading the Israelites through the desert. I think we have another issue of ‘who is Jesus’ and that is that He is not God (the Father). I think when you say something like this you are falling into your own trap of reading the Bible through the Jesus lens. God led the Israelites through the desert, not Jesus, the Bible makes that clear. For all our Jesus and God are the same dude, the Bible goes to great lengths to show they are separate. And apparently no one in the Bible had any issue with that. It is only 300 years later that anyone has an issue with it and run to Greek philosophy rather than the Bible to solve their issue (again an issue that no one in the whole Bible has).

I’ve said this in a previous letter, but I am still of the belief (no one has shown me my mistake) that Jesus did not exist (as the Son) until His birth.

I agree with your summary that He is God’s word, God’s voice, but I think that is in the limited role of what we see Him do in the Evangelion; after that He is granted the place at the right hand of God to be judge of the World. I think the crux of Jesus comes in what we are thinking about this Easter Saturday (as I write), that Jesus defeated death. What does that mean? I won’t answer that here fully, but I think it revolves around the idea that no one can see God and live. I think that might apply even in the Kingdom. Surely to behold God is to be as powerful as He? Are we to gain that in the Resurrection? I can’t think of a verse off the top of my head. Jesus, with His human body can still play the role of mediator even through eternity.

So I take your first paragraph a little differently; that we shouldn’t see everything through the Gospels because we should see God where it is God and Jesus where it is Jesus, though I do believe we should see both the OT and NT through the lens of Jesus’ teachings, particularly the Golden Rule (Love God with all you heart, soul mind and love your neighbour as yourself). If your understanding of an OT passage does not fit within the Golden Rule, then you are reading it wrong.

And I think we should read the Revelation passages on Jesus before we record to keep them fresh in our minds, because that is who Jesus is now. Not a vagrant teacher, but the one who already sits on the right-hand of God, the One in power, no longer in humility.

Peace

Dangerous

Sir Dangerous of Dangeroushire,

Having singularly avoided to address the topic of ‘Jesus,’ in our last podcast, we probably ought to consider it again, this time around. To keep things fresh, I would like to approach the question, ‘Who is Jesus?’ from a slightly different angle, considering how (in my view) the modern day church has misrepresented him and (in my view) sought to impose an agenda on him. This letter is likely to be a bit theological for inclusion in the podcast; but the point of our correspondence here is hopefully to ‘clear the air,’ and focus us on what really matters for the subsequent recording. Nevertheless, at the end of each of the following three paragraphs, I have sought to answer the question ‘Who is Jesus’ in non-church language.

– First, there is an (again, in my view) entirely unfair argument doing the rounds that goes something like this: “because our faith is ‘all about Jesus,’ the rest of the Scriptures should be subordinate to the four Gospels and everything we read in the OT/Paul/Peter and so on should be read through the lens of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.” I have massive problems with this for the following reasons. First, it fails to take into account that Jesus speaks through the whole Bible. It is HIM who is encouraging the churches (through Paul) in the epistles; it is HIM who is leading the Israelites through the desert in Exodus. Second, Jesus himself acknowledged on many occasions during his earthly ministry that he was unable/unwilling to speak the full truth for political and spiritual reasons. The whole tone of his teaching (paraphrased) is: “I’m trying to teach you guys the way but you are too slow and not yet ready to understand and it’s dangerous for me to speak out publicly; the helper will come after I’ve gone to lead you into all truth.” It’s very cloak and dagger, it’s not open. To bring this (clumsily) around to our question, who is Jesus? Answer: he is a physical embodiment of God’s message to us. He is God’s voice, God’s word, God’s message and he speaks through the whole Bible.

– Along with this goes the idea that: “Jesus was really nice and accepting and gracious, so anything in the Bible which doesn’t seem (to us) to fit that mold has to be thrown out.” Again, this is in my view wrong. First, he was much more multi-faceted than that. His teaching is sometimes very judgmental and sharp; he condemns nearly as much as he forgives; and (as I keep saying) when we see him in the Book of Revelation, he is a frankly terrifying prospect. John falls on the ground as if dead when he sees him. Now I’m not saying we should be terrified of Jesus; his first words to John after this incident are “Do not be afraid.” But in the ‘letters to the churches’ that follow in Revelation he is as critical as he is loving of his people. I’m just keen that we see and present Jesus for ALL he is. He is a friend, a saviour, a servant. But he is also (and the Bible says this again and again and again) God’s appointed judge over us. So he should be revered. To answer our question, who is Jesus? He is also God’s moral yardstick who will judge the world ultimately.

– Last, I feel that many people try and impose a political agenda on Jesus, either from the Right or from the Left. The truth is that he is entirely and fascinatingly apolitical and refused to get involved in all that. As he taught, he ‘came to seek and save that which was lost.’ And as Paul said: ‘here’s a trustworthy saying, Christ came into the world to save sinners.’ He came to save us from our mistakes (sins). That’s what he was about. This explains those bizarre occasions when he heals people of physical problems and then says to them: “your sins are forgiven.” You might say: “the guy couldn’t walk; this has nothing to do with sin.” But Jesus knows our most important need: forgiveness. Again in Paul: ‘God rescued us and brought us into the kingdom of his Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.’ What is salvation? (a question for another podcast) It is forgiveness. Who offers it? Jesus. So our question, who is Jesus? He is God’s Rescuer, sent to rescue us from our troubles.

Now I know I may have strayed here into ‘What does Jesus do?’ rather than purely ‘Who is Jesus?’ but I would suggest it is difficult to separate the two, simply because the Bible writers rarely do. But nevertheless, three more answers: Who is Jesus? 1.) He is God’s message. 2.) He is God’s judge 3.) He is God’s Saviour.

SMASHY

Sir Tom

Dangerous, my dear old thing,

The most reverent and humble SMASH to you, sir.

My own understanding of how Jesus’ ‘Son of God,’ status fits in is as follows: the people of Israel knew their God as ‘One’ and worshipped him in awe and wonder (and even sheer fear), largely from a distance. Sure, certain people were called into a closer, more intimate relationship with the Lord (Abraham, Moses, David) and the people knew that God loved them and provided for them, but their understanding of and relationship to God was far more detached than what we now enjoy in Christ. And throughout that whole period, God always seems to be hinting at something else: there’s something further, something deeper, something hidden and secret that is going on in the background. And that ‘something else’ is definitely a person. Think about it: remember the episode where Daniel’s unpronounceable friends get thrown into the fiery furnace? The King looks into the fire and sees a ‘fourth person’ walking about and talking with them, one who ‘looked like a son of God.’ Who is that? An angel? For me, that is too simple. There’s someone else. Or how about Daniel himself when he’s rescued from the Lion’s Den? He tells the king, “God sent his angel to shut the lions’ mouths.” Angel? Maybe? Or maybe there’s someone else here, who keeps popping up in the story. There are other examples: the man who comes to visit Abraham and Sarah in the desert; the ‘man’ with the drawn sword who appears to Joshua; the man who wrestles with Jacob until daybreak. There are countless other examples. The veiled truth that keeps popping up is that there is ‘someone else’ in the story, another player in the saga. And I’m quite happy to believe that this someone else is Jesus. The hidden truth that Israel isn’t shown is that God has a Son. Now, just how this ‘Son’ came about and how this idea fits with God being ‘One’ I do not know. Maybe we’re not meant to: Paul says that even we ‘see through the glass darkly’ and all that. But there does seem to be that sense in which all the Old Testament dudes are straining to find out this hidden truth. Many of the prophets seem to be foretelling that God will send this person and he will sort things (Isaiah’s ‘Suffering Servant’) and alongside all these prophecies about this mysterious saviour is the truth that ‘God himself will come and deliver Israel,’ so the OT prophets seem quite happy to hold together Jesus and God. Also, in that brilliant passage in John 8 (which I know you love), when Jesus is taking apart the Pharisees, he tells them “Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my coming…” which suggests to me that perhaps the likes of Abraham/Moses/David were ‘in on the secret,’ and sensed that God had a Son and that he was going to be sent to Israel and to the world. Who knows?

Maybe you’ll think this too simple, but I believe Jesus’ references to himself as ‘the Son of Man,’ to be to Daniel’s vision when he sees: ‘one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.’ I know you know of these verses, but to me, it’s the same picture as what I’ve been describing above. Daniel sees a vision and realises there is ‘someone else’ in the picture who is given ‘all authority’ by God to rule. So when Jesus calls himself ‘Son of Man,’ he is claiming to be that man.

In the spirit of ‘Mean Manish Boy Theology,’ I fear I have muddied the waters even further. Let me return to developing this idea of a ‘Window into God.’ I loved your point about the calming of the storm. And the disciples had the same reaction: “Who is this man?!” They’re starting to ‘get it’ for the first time: the man in their midst is God. And as I said in my last post, we should probably look into the vision of Jesus in Revelation 1-3. Very different from the Gospel picture. There we have the glorified Jesus, with scary apocalyptic features and a loving, but uncompromisingly righteous view of his churches throughout Asia Minor at the time. It flies nicely in the face of the traditional ‘Jesus, meek and mild’ artistic portrayals we have in pop culture. Another interesting tidbit is the fact that Jesus’ beloved friends didn’t recognise him ‘at first’ when he was resurrected. On more than one occasion, there is this kind of ‘ahhhh it’s really you,’ moment. Is this because Jesus’ identity while he lived on earth as a man was very different, do you think?

Sir Tom,

SMASH to you, dear boy.

Absolutely agree with everything you said. Feel I should qualify my position on the ‘Son of God’. I do agree with everything you say, but even in what you said, the waters begin to be muddied.

You see the Son of God really has the connotation of being a separate being, this becomes worse when we start to think of quotes such as the one you provided from Romans. This is because for such a verse to hold weight then Jesus must be someone separate from God in the way a son is truly separate from his father. Obviously this is an issue because it clashes with the doctrine of the Trinity.

And now we fly close to the Sun, if that Sun is heresy.

If we are to say that, according to the Bible, Jesus is in some way enough of a separate person from God to be like a son, a son that it would pain Him to sacrifice (and was it sacrifice if they all knew he’d just raise from the dead and head back to Heaven?) AND we wish not to stray into semi-Arianism (or even full blown) we need to find a new doctrine of Jesus.

Would you be surprised to find I have one?

This is my (not yet fully tested) thesis: Jesus doesn’t exist prior to the incarnation. Beforehand He is something else, most probably the Word of God (as in actual words) and only after the resurrection does He ascend to Heaven in a body to sit on His throne. I feel that this ties both strands of Christology together in an actual working doctrine.

But let us ignore that for now; or hammer it out in more private messages.

The point being that we quickly, if we are to think of it fully, find ourselves in deep theological waters when we talk about the Son of God. It is difficult to tie together the idea that it is only a moniker (God did not have sex and his partner did not give birth to a son) and the idea that God acted sacrificially in sending His Son because He actually is.

The second area of Muddy Waters (known now as Mannish Boy Theology) is with the New Testament understanding of the Trinity. Though the writers seem happy to acknowledge Jesus as God (to fuller or lesser extent) there is no reference to Him being so as part of a Triune God. In fact the NT writers seem quite happy with Jesus being God without some form of doctrine. It is only later that people need to try and put something together.

I realise you may throw in some objections and point to verses that suggest the trinity, but it still seems very out of place not to explain it outright. I mean the Disciples were incredibly thick and had to have things explained in Primary school language. There’s that passage where Jesus talks about the yeast of the Pharisees and the Disciples think Jesus is talking about actual bread and He has to explain again and then they’re like “ohhhh, right, ‘yeast’. Like teachings, huh, Jesus? It’s a metaphor… Good one…”

And yet they understand the Trinity with no recording teaching on it?

Third Mannish Boy Theological point is that according to my (not yet complete research) Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man more than Son of God and yet there is still no agreement on what that title means. Honestly, Jesus tells us to build our house upon the rock, but our whole theology and doctrine is built on sand. We know almost nothing about anything!

If Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man more than anything else then this should be a big part of our theology, but it isn’t. If that’s who Jesus identified as then we should follow His lead.

(But does it suit our doctrine? Ooh…)

So. All of this just to say. Hey. Let’s leave Son of God out of this for now.

And your final paragraph nails it. “Window into God”, love it. Absolutely. We can know God by looking at Jesus. We can see a perfect example of what the Bible calls us to be in Him.

I’m reminded of when Jesus calmed the storm; when He was asleep and they Disciples wake him up, terrified. His response? “Seriously? You really think we’re going to sink when God is right here in the boat with you? Come on, guys.”

If only we could nap through the storms, what a difference to the world we could make…

Peace

Dangerous