This past Sunday, David Faust, President of Cincinnati Christian University, preached at our church, with the key passage coming from 2 Cor 2:14-15
But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him. For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.
This brought to mind a rather interesting (at least to me) topic I’d been meaning to write regarding the layout of the Gospel of Mark and its parallels to the coronation celebrations of the Caesars.
In the quoted passage from 2 Corinthians, a number of pastors will frequently tie the “triumphal procession” to Jesus’ parade entry into Jerusalem during Holy Week. However, the “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem was a term coined centuries later by church historians, and when understood in context, Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem would not fit the type of procession being described by Paul.
David Faust and others, though, recognize that the likely procession being referred to by Paul is the Roman Triumphus, a ritual celebration first used to recognize the return of conquering generals, and later as a way of coronation of Caesar as a god on Earth. This ritual was quite detailed, and the first century traditions surrounding it have been preserved by Roman historians of the time.
The Triumphus
In the Roman Triumphus, there were a number of steps which were followed:
- The Praetorian Guard, the elite of Caesar’s troops and personal bodyguards, would assemble in the Praetorium, surrounding the Caesar, along with his key supporters (the senate, magistrates, etc.)
- A golden olive-wreath (signifying a crown of victory) was removed from the Temple of Zeus, along with a purple robe (signifying royalty) and a scepter (symbolic of the full authority of Rome) were brought to the Caesar, who would wear the wreath on his head, the robe on his body, and carry the scepter to show his authority.
- The Praetorian Guard would chant “Hail Caesar! Triumphe! Show us you are a god!” over and over, in recognition of him, paying personal homage before the public procession.
- Chanting, the procession would go out from the Praetorium, through the streets of Rome, led by the Roman soldiers, followed by Caesar. Behind him, or along with him, was the sacrificial bull that would be sacrificed to give him entrance into the pantheon of the gods. A servant would accompany the bull, carrying a large axe, which would be used to sacrifice the bull to the gods. Additionally, soldiers would carry burning incense to spread the scent of victory for the Caesar – so that his aroma would be throughout the city.
- The procession continued to the top of the highest hill in Rome – the Capitoline, whose name means “Head Hill” (based on the myth that an undecayed human head was found there during the building of Rome) and stop in front of the Capitoleum.
- There, at the Capitoleum, the emperor would come forward with the bull and the servant/executioner, where he would be offered a bowl of wine mixed with myrrh. He would refuse the bowl and pour it out onto the bull, symbolically placing something from himself onto the bull so as to symbolically share its fate. As soon as he had poured out the wine, the bull was killed, so that the linkage of the sacrifice and Caesar’s godhood were clear to all of the people.
- Taking his first-in-command on his right and his second-in-command on his left, the Caesar would ascend into the Capitoleum to the throne and symbolically to godhood.
- When he got to the top of the steps, the crowd would continue to acclaim him – “Hail Caesar! Triumphe! Show us you are a god!”
- They would then wait for the gods to send them a sign that the gods were recognizing him (On at least one occasion, there was an eclipse on the same day), after which Caesar was declared to be a true son of the gods.
The people of the Roman Empire had witnessed this multiple times during the middle of the first century – at least with Nero, Claudius, and Caligula. Paul’s imagery in speaking of triumphal procession to the church in Corinth was more likely to conjure up this spectacle than Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem during holy week. However, he turns it on its head by making the One true God and His Son the objects of the procession, and not Caesar.
The Book of Mark
John Mark, the gospel writer, was traditionally a Roman disciple of Peter, who recorded Peter’s account of Jesus’ life and ministry, primarily to a Gentile, Roman audience. As such, a number of contemporary scholars have noted how, during the story of Jesus’ passion, Mark calls out specific details which seem to mirror that of the Roman Triumphus, as does Matthew (who had been a Roman tax collector).
Let us examine this:
- Jesus is brought to the Praetorium and surrounded by the company of soldiers (Mark 15:16) – note that a company of soldiers is 6,000 people! Matthew and Mark both call out the place as the Praetorium (which is not a Greek word, and is unusual to be called out specifically, using the Latin word).
- Jesus is given a purple robe and a crown (and is beaten with a scepter) (Mark 15:17-19) – According to Roman law, only those with a rank of Equestrian could wear purple (with Pilate and Herod as the only eligible people in Judea), yet they found one to borrow to use on Jesus.
- The soldiers chant “Hail, King of the Jews!” and pay homage to him (Mark’s words) (Mark 15:18-20)
- Jesus is taken in procession out to the streets, where Simon the Cyrene follows along with him, carrying the instrument of execution. (Mark 15:21)
- They took Jesus to a hill called Golgotha (which literally translates “Head Hill”). (Mark 15:22)
- They offered him wine mixed with Myrrh, which he refused. Immediately after this refusal, they crucified him. (Mark 15:23-24)
- They crucified two zealots/terrorists with him, one on his right and one on his left. (Mark 15:27) (NOTE: The term for ‘robbers’ indicates that they were likely political prisoners who were zealots, rather than common thieves.)
- “Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!’ In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. ‘He saved others,’ they said, ‘but he can’t save himself! Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.’ Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.” (Mark 15:29-32)
- Then, darkness fell over the land for three hours (Mark 15:33), and God gave a sign by tearing the Temple veil in two (Mark 15:38) and caused an earthquake and mass-resurrection of many holy people (Matt 27:51-53) and a Roman soldier declared that Jesus was surely the Son of God. (Mark 15:39)
So what should we make of this?
First off, we are given a perfect example of a meta-narrative in which Jesus is being coronated as the Son of God and he is contrasted with Caesar, who can only pretend to be a god. This was a highly subversive message, particular between Nero and Trajan when people were executed for not recognizing the “godhood” of Caesar, and it is a subversive message for us today.
(Skeptics often question why the Gospel accounts differ on certain points, and how they could be inspired. This is just one demonstration of how Gospel writers would emphasize and include certain details with omitting or deemphasizing others in order to best proclaim a message to their listeners/readers.)
Tying it Back
Going back to Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians to join him in triumphal procession – what procession have we been invited to join? It is certainly not the procession that cried “Hosannah!” one day and crucified him less than a week later. It is not a procession of conquest and gross indulgence. Rather, it is a procession of submission and sacrifice, a triumphal procession which was led by the Bridegroom of the Church, the true Son of God.
I would like to acknowledge this article’s sources, which were primarily lectures and/or discussion with Ray VanderLaan and Dr. Tim Brown, along with an archaeological journal article that I have since lost (though I will credit it here, should I find it again).
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
49 Comments(+Add)
Now THAT is fantastic…
That’s the very kind of “contextual” analysis that I love of the Gospels…
See how rich the rhetorical strategies are in the gospels?
Love it…
Thank you.
Wow, God really had everything planned out. That comparison is really cool. I’m just studying the book of Mark right now, so thanks for sharing this.
Another fantastic article with great research. Your conclusion, “a procession of submission and sacrifice” that we are called to join, is part of the core of the gospel that we so often fail to recognize. Everything we do as Christians in regards to our maturation in Christ should lead us to that very thing: our lives joining in the procession of submission and sacrifice.
Chris L,
I’ve been waiting for you to write on this for so long. This is great. I’m excited to look in to this more and more. Ever since you (I think it was you) started writing about Remez and other things like that, it’s opened up a whole new world of concepts I didn’t know existed in the Bible before. Thanks man.
Joe
What, now you deny Jesus was King?
Just kidding… wanted to be the first to get it out of the way as all the comments were nice so far.
iggy
Chris L,
Well done, friend. That was an inspiring piece. Thanks for sharing that with all of us.
I remember the days when I believed that salvation was all about me. I also remember when I believed that salvation was about only one thing: me. Over the years of hearing how subversive the gospels are and how salvation is so very politically and economically charged I have happily left that truncated and reductionist way of believing behind. It is a humbling thing indeed to recognize that God has His sights on the entire cosmos and that I can be a part of that redemptive story. He cannot be Lord of just my life if He is not first Lord of heavens and earth.
Thanks for making that crystal clear to me once more.
peace,
Chad
Wow, this is the best article I have read on CRN.Info. I’m gonna book mark this one. Thanks Chris.
Chris L,
I once had a conversation with an atheist who brought up the idea that the Gospel writers borrowed from the traditions of the day to “make a fictitious character named Jesus” so as to mock the political powers of the day. In other words Jesus is a myth/character that was created in essence to be somewhat of a “comic book” hero triumphing over the powers of evil. To give hope to the “common man”.
How would you counter that claim?
Chris,
I will be interested to hear what Chris L has to say to that question myself. One way I would approach it is by first pointing out the extra-biblical evidence we have that Jesus was a historical figure (e.g. Josephus, Trajan, etc.). Then I would defer to C.S. Lewis who made the point that people do not die for a “ficticious character named Jesus” which they themselves constructed. For most of the first disciples and many of the first eye-witnesses to suffer and die at the hands of Rome because they declared Jesus as Lord over Caesar, yet knowing this was a fictitious tale they invented, would be the height of delusion. Finally, I might lean on N.T. Wright who argues that there were many Messiah figures in Jesus’ day (and even up to this day). They claimed some of the very things Jesus made claims to. They too were killed off by Rome. Their followers had a choice to make – either find a new Messiah figure to follow or give up their dream of Messiah altogether. However, there was something about this Jesus (the resurrection?) that made a third choice suddenly viable – proclaim his message for the last 2000 years.
Just my early morning thoughts
That is a great question you ask.
peace,
Chad
With that logic you have to assume all of the discples gave their l;ives for what they knew was a lie. And no one can explain the dramatic conversion of the Apostle Paul.
My heart cannot rejoice in something my mind knows is false.
In a discussion on my blog over Wright’s Suprised by Hope book a interesting question was posed to me that I am still mulling over. I wonder if any here can help me think it through? I know I said above that, according to C.S. Lewis one of the proofs we have of Jesus being the real deal is that his followers died for the cause. They apparently thought he was very real else they would have recanted. I have always taken this at face value until my friend Mike asked me this:
Does this mean that Islam is fundamentally true since its adherants have and will die for the “truth” they believe in?
I had never thought of that before. It is true that people die for all sorts of things. Followers of Muhammad gladly went to their death for the cause in hopes of a blissful eternity in paradise. On what grounds can we as Christians say with integrity that THAT sort of death is nonsense and ultimately for a “lie” while OUR story is true and the martyrs were not in vain?
thanks.
Chad – you missed the point. If Jesus was a mythical character, then the disciples knew that and gave their lives for a known lie. The Islamic martyrs BELIVE in Allah and do not consider it a lie.
You cannot explain the apostles martyrdom which centered on their personal sighting of the resurrected Christ other than the were speaking the truth. Who constructs a lie and dies for it?
Rick,
Granted, the discussion is centered around the truth of a physical resurrection or not and not merely over whether Jesus existed. However, if we take your line…
And say this instead:
what is the difference?
The apostles knew they had not seen Jesus, a mythical character, but the later martyrs were indeed recipients of the message they believed. My point is the 12 apostles including Paul did not just Believe in Jesus, they claimed to have seen Him in His resurrection.
So in essence they died for a known lie, which would be different than dying for a lie you thought was true. Many people die for lies they believe to be true. Who constructs a lie, with not one apostle opting out of that lie, and all of them dying for a cause they knew was not true.
Martyrs all over die for causes they think is true, but you must assume the apostles died for a lie they knew wasn’t true and no one spilled the beans about their cooperative lie. Why would anyone give their lives for a KNOWN lie?
Here is the actual question posed by my friend:
You can read the whole discussion HERE.
People do give their lives for a myth, but who gives their lives for something the KNOW is a myth? That is what you must assume with the 12 apostles. They gave their lives for something they KNEW was a myth if Jesus was not real and did not resurrect.
The Islamic martyrs do not think their faith is a myth. The later Christian martyrs do not think their faith is a myth. Most if not all martyrs die for something they believe IS TRUE.
But the first apostles were telling a personal story of seeing and interacting with Jesus and in fact seeing Him after the resurrection. If that s not true they would have know it and died for a lie theywere telling. That is a BIG difference than dying for a myth you BELIEVE is true.
Chad and Rick,
Thanks for the response.
My response (or rather the Atheist) is that the “Resurrection” further elevates the “comic book hero” status of Jesus.
Political power rested in Rome’s ability to maintain order often through barbaric force. I’ve heard many a Pastor say “The cross was the most horrific, humiliating death a man could suffer” Essential Rome used this to strike fear into the hearts of it’s citizenship. Don’t question the authority or this will be your fate.
How much greater is the status of the “comic book hero” Jesus elevated when he conquers death. He could not even be held down by the greatest weapon Rome had, the fear of death?
BTW I don’t believe Jesus was merely a “comic book” hero.
Rick,
Those closest to Muhammed died believing that he did actually receive divine revelation from God. So did those close to Joseph Smith.
How do you prove the difference between the truth of Jesus and the “truth” of Muhammed?
Exactly, Chris. Every hero/god in the ancient world had some sort of resurrection story. Which then gives rise to the idea that the resurrection story was co-opted from other ancient myths (Osiris, Isis, etc.) and was never thought to be by the first disciples as “literal” but a spiritual reality. Thus, as the argument goes, the first disciples died for something they really believed was true – that God did something “spiritual” through Jesus that promised hope for the future.
I don’t buy this line of thinking myself. However, I admit that I was left without an answer to the above questions regarding Islam. Why are their martyrs delusional but ours are not? Both faiths lay claims to some mystery that is either literal or is not. Why do we get a free pass?
BTW – when 12 people get together to construct a lie it is usually for future self agrandizement. Who constructs a “We have seen Jesus after His resurrection” lie so you can suffer and die for that lie?
And give me a scenario that explains the Apostle Paul’s conversion other than how he claimed it happened. And Ananias must have been in collusion, as well as the men that heard a voice speak on the road to Damascus and led the now blind Saul be the hand.
That is some well crafted myth.
That’s the rub. Thanks, Chris, for crystalizing my question. I need coffee.
In the end, there is no scientific proof that will satisfy everyone. Deception is a s real as true faith. This I know, in 1975 I met Jesus. Take it or leave it.
Remember this?
“I don’t care what anyone else says or believes.”
The Frueh Doctrine – 1975 – 2008
Exactly. But you must believe that the 12 apostles died knowing they were lying. To suggest Christ was a myth you must also suggest the apostles started that myth, Later believers trully believed through the words of the apostles, but the original apostles were complicit in that lie if indeed Jesus was a myth.
1) While they may have believed their leader received diving revelation from God, none of them had definitive proof of its veracity – they only had the word of their leader. The disciples, on the other hand, KNEW – 100% proof positive – whether or not Jesus was resurrected. So, were his resurrection only a myth, they would KNOWINGLY be dying for something they fully knew to be a lie.
2) Most of Mohamed’s and Joseph Smith’s close friends were not martyred.
3) All but one of Jesus’ disciples was martyred, and the remaining one was severely persecuted and died in exile – all for claiming the truth of Jesus’ resurrection as proof of his exclusivity as Son of God.
None of Mohamed’s or Joseph Smith’s close friends were killed for believing something that they had first-hand, eyewitness knowledge of.
None.
They could accept that Joseph & Mohamed received revelations from a god, and they may have believed it passionately – but none of them actually witnessed it and then died for what they witnessed.
Chad reiterated many of the points I would have made, as well.
Additionally, I would note that many Christians tend to feed this fallacy in trying to create a acultural Jesus – who wasn’t a rabbi, who wasn’t part of his culture, who wasn’t really Jewish, who wasn’t speaking contextually to people, etc., etc.
Conversely, the fact that – time and again – Jesus’ life, death and resurrection are proven to fit into the culture of the first century context, borrowing and lending themes within it, is actually support for the veracity of the claims of him and his followers – Were this not the case, you would have a classic example of the ‘dog that didn’t bark’…
Too many Christians I know of would rather pretend that Jesus’ teaching wasn’t 95% (or more) aligned with Hillel, who died when Jesus was 12 years old because it ruins their self-created myth that everything Jesus said and did had to be 100% original. Instead, though, the 95% was proof of his beliefs within the culture, and the 5% difference along with the resurrection could be elevated as key to his life, his teaching, and purpose.
The fact that it is recognized that Jesus’ claims were heroic and “mocked the powers of the day” only lends credence to his existence – it certainly would explain why the “powers of the day” wanted to kill him and his followers. And, to the earlier point, the key difference between his 12 followers + Paul is that – if Jesus’ resurrection was a lie – they would have all suffered great persecution and died incredibly painful deaths, refusing to recant something which they knew – 100% proof positive – was a lie.
No muslim or mormon martyr can claim the same.
I can unequivicably agree in totality with Chris L’s comment. Thanks, Chris, you are growing.
Chris L,
Thanks; many of my thoughts as well. One point for clarification.
Every book of Mormon and Islamic texts try to hold to the veracity of the story through the agreement of witnesses. I.E. “The witness of the seven (maybe 12)” at the beginning of the book. For Muslims…well…if you really know about the religion it is very splintered because there isn’t agreement on the actual words of Muhammed.
I watched the Ravi Z. talk at UofM and a Muslim stood up and said that “with all the sects of Christianity how could he believe it was true” to which Ravi ripped off a list of about 10 Muslim sects and then said this “Don’t confuse uniformity with unity.”
Maybe that was all a bunch of rambling but it made sense in my head.
I’m just going to relate my personal experience. Looking back I can see that the Holy Spirit was drawing me to Jesus. What sealed the deal(so to speak) for me was when I was taken through the Bible prophetically.
I always scratch my head when I see people stumble at proving what they believe is right. Prophetically, the Bible, and what is said in it,, is self validating. Something that no other work can claim.
While I don’t know Islam as well as I do the LDS church, my understanding of the ‘witnesses’ of the Book of Mormon was that they were witnesses to Joseph Smith’s writing of the book (via ’seer stones’) – but that nobody other than Joseph Smith ever saw the golden plates he supposedly translated (and certainly nobody died for it, though South Park made a great video skewering it).
There were plenty of witnesses to Smith’s death – he was shot and killed, along with his brother, during a jailbreak attempt after his imprisonment for destroying the printing press of one of his critics. And certainly nobody died for witnessing this – and Smith never was resurrected.
Mohamed’s supposed ascension to heaven from Jerusalem is not recorded in the Koran, there are no prophecies of it in the Koran, and there are no recorded witnesses. Only the writing of the Koran has witnesses (which, like the Book of Mormon, doesn’t prove anything).
Good apologetics guys. Good stuff.
The book: Evidence That Demands a Verdict has a lot of the stuff you’re talking about in it. I’m sure you’ve all read it. This is a good conversation, a lot of great points have been made. These conversations are the ones we need to be focusing on, because when new Christians or non-Christians see this forum, it helps them I think.
Joe
I know this is more related to the post on PSA, yet this is the sort of thing in this post most miss… this is Christus Victor… It is the idea that Jesus was the True King who came and suffered for us… He was not only the King, but the Bull sacrifice…
Sadly people like PB cannot see this, and in so doing, deny the deeper meaning and richness of the Gospel of Mark
iggy
Ig, whats up bro?
Personally I love the all the theories of how the atonement works (ie PSA, CV, Rans., etc)(and how they mesh together), but since I was only taught (and subsequently was only able to see) PSA for the longest time, it’s harder for me to see how the other theories work. I’ll figure it out I’m sure. CV is the most interesting to me. Anywho…..
Toodles.
Iggy, maybe he just doesn’t see it. Which is perfectly fine, and not necessarily sad. He can still rejoice in God just as much as you can with the knowledge he has. I wouldn’t say he cannot see it, as in he’s not capable of seeing it, I don’t think that’s the case at all. Some people just don’t see things the same way other people do. It doesn’t make them sad, or the situation sad, or make them any less Christian. I don’t think you’re trying to say this, but I’m trying to clear things up because he could take offense to your statement and THAT wouldn’t help anything, right?
Amen. I often cringe when I go back and read stuff I had written even 2 years ago. PB may not believe this but about 4 years ago I would have been cheering his every post!
John Wesley threw away his sermons every 7 years. He beleived that if he couldn’t rely on the Holy Spirit to lead him into more truth that is relevant to his day and age than he shouldn’t be preaching. Augustine wrote a series of retractions at the end of his life, repenting of many things he once believed strongly (something about Augustine I came to admire and noted that Calvin never did any such thing).
Anyways, we are all on a journey and at different points. This is not to say that I or others are more “enlightened,” but merely to say that all of us, rarely, remain in a fixed theological position forever.
Thank God for that!
Joe,
You have a point… it is in the aggressiveness of he denial and how he attacks others over his own in ability to grasp something larger… maybe that is my frustration.
Most pastors will seek to learn more, to understand more… to be teachable… I do not see this coming from the ODM crowd at all…
iggy
Chad,
The only reason I post comments and fellowship at this site is because your statement above is very much true, and I’ve never remained fixed. I used to think I was doomed for this, but came to realize it’s just God growing me in whatever way He wants to. Thank God for that!
Iggy,
I agree, I don’t see much teachability from the ODMs, in my interactions with them, but I should caveat that with the fact that I don’t know any of them personally, so I really know nothing. Just my interactions, there is a spirit of unwillingness to budge. That can be a good and bad thing. I try not to think about it too much, it just ruffles my feathers and I don’t need that grief. I go and read CRN and see the lopsidedness of it, specially with recent issues, and it just makes me want to quit the internet forever, so…I just try to focus on more important things, like discipleship of the people I’m personally involved with, and teaching, and most importantly Jesus. And I have a LOT of improvement to make in all of those areas, so much so, it seems criminal to God of me to focus on stuff like the ODMs and the ‘discerned things’ they bring up so much.
What do you think?
Joe
I hear you, as I’ve been in the exact same boat.
CV is primarily based upon Ransom Theory, though it delves into the meaning of the Resurrection moreso than the other theories. It was my research into Ransom Theory (and its permutations) that led me to want to write more about the different theories of atonement.
Here’s an overview of a later permutation of Ransom Theory (w/o the scripture quotes, though, as I only have a couple of minutes):
1) Angels were each created by God for specific purposes. Satan (which means accuser) was basically God’s prosecuting attorney. (Gabriel was a messenger, etc.)
2) As the accuser, Satan’s job was to test others’ obedience to God. If they failed the test, he had the God-granted right to accuse them before God. After his fall (with a third of the angels), those who he could accuse ‘belonged’ to him, because of their sin.
3) When Adam & Eve sinned, Satan (as the accuser) had a rightful claim to them and their offspring before God. He had claim to them and could hold them captive.
4) God made a covenant with Abraham, which he renewed and refined with Moses that He would deliver His people, just as He had from Egypt. The sign, or reminder, of the covenant was to be circumcision of males and the sacrificial system.
5) God fulfilled this covenant with Jesus. Because Jesus was sinless, Satan could lay no claim to him. At the cross, Jesus offered himself as a ransom payment for mankind – giving Satan a chance to take captive one third of the Godhead.
6) Satan, out of foolish pride, deceived himself (though early versions of RT have God deceiving Satan, later versions of RT have Satan deceiving himself) into thinking this was a great deal and renounced his claim upon man in exchange for Jesus’ life.
7) Because death was the wages of sin, and because Jesus paid the wage without committing sin, Satan could not keep him, because he would not stay dead. Thus, Satan cheated himself out of both Jesus (whom he never had a legitimate claim to) and to man (whom he gave up his legitimate claim in order to try, again, to become like God).
8 ) Where CV comes to play is primarily after the resurrection, where Jesus’ victory is seen as not only over the grave, but over Satan, himself. Thus, the name Christus Victor.
If you’ve read The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, this is also the view that C.S. Lewis takes in explaining the atonement through allegory – The Witch had legitimate claim to Edmund for his sin, but Aslan traded himself for Edmund. The Witch fooled herself into believing she had won with the death of Aslan, not fully understanding the nature of the Emperor’s justice, and Aslan returned from the dead to defeat her.
I probably should add:
9) After Jesus paid the ransom to Satan, there was no longer a need for the covenant reminder (circumcision and sacrifice) of God’s promise to redeem His people – because He had done it (Just as Jesus said on the cross with his quotation of Psalm 22).
Dude, that’s fantastic. Thanks for that great explanation. That really helps. Oh and the Lion Witch and Wardrobe metaphor helped, thanks for reminding me (I read that book when I was much younger).
Peace,
Joe
I wonder if the difference between Augustine and Calvin is the issue of age?
Augustine came to the Christian life later…that explains some of his more strident language about certain issues. He was coping with his own past. (Not to deny his brilliance…) I would love to see what exactly he “retracted”. Based on that I’d like to see if people are fair in their critiques of him.
Also, Augustine’s more controversial views arise out of his deep commitment to a robust Christology and theology of the Church. He ended up “painting himself into a corner” on some things. The guy didn’t set out to demonize embodied living, sexuality and unbaptized babies…
Calvin, on the other hand, wrote the Institutes at 25. Is it possible he was given too much, too early? Ironic the ODM’s worship at the altar of Calvin (intentionally and unintentionally). One could easily say that Calvin was a “rebellious”, immature, upstart “pastor”.
But we’ll never know…
What is funny with Calvin is his first edition of the Institutes was not very large. In his day and age you did not say you were wrong about something – you simply wrote MORE.
Joe-
The only reason I post here is to consternate Rick
Chad – The depth of serotonin necessary to challenge me is obviously lacking in all who comment here. I must practice an incredible amount of cerebral restraint to even be understood by most on the site.
But in view of the desperate need of you and others, I humbly and gladly condescend in order to fulfill my calling to minister to the least of these. It gives me goosebumps to see some progress spiritually here, even when they are diminutive in nature.
lol Rick.
To be sure, because of you and others I feel I have grown spiritually here. It is my hope to one day reach a zenith where I can say with sincerity that I do not care what you or anyone else believes – not one.
One of the reasons I don’t care what some believe because I’m never sure what they believe!
Hey – I have actually grown in many ways by being a part of this blog and all who write and comment. And much of it has to do with love and respect among believers who disagree. I have a ways to go.
Of course Chris L. is a monster thorn for me but God told me His grace is sufficient and the Lord has refused to remove him!!
For that I am grateful.
I am grateful for you too, Rick.
And Chad,
And John (pastorboy),
And Ken,
And iggy,
And all of the Chris(es) and Christians,
And all of the non-Christians (and non-Chris-es),
And Evan,
And Tim,
And nc,
And Nathan,
And emergent pillage (jazzact)
And Amy,
And Jose,
And merry,
And Paul,
And andy,
And both Joe’s,
And Neil,
And Eugene,
And Kyle,
And Richard,
And Phil,
And Jerry,
And John Hughes,
And Bo,
And…
…you get the point.
I am grateful for this site and all who contribute to the conversations here.
Gotta run!
Shalom
Ditto, Nathanael!
Rick, at times it is necessary to maintain an aire of plausible deniability!
Wow, everybody’s getting loved today! Awesome. I can deal with that . . .
I totally got mentioned! *HONORED*
Chris L., et al,
I just listened to part one of a fascinating lectureship titled: Crass Plagiarism? The Problem of the Relationship of the Old Testament to Ancient Near Eastern Literature
It is hosted by Reformed Theological Seminary and the speaker is named John Currid. He makes his case, focussing on the book of Exodus, that much of what is in Exodus is ‘polemical theology.’ I have heard about this with respect to, say, the plagues, but Currid makes the case at even finer points of the Exodus text, for example in the ‘thus sayeth YHWH’ of 5:1 and the ‘thus sayeth Pharaoh’ of 5:10. It is a truly brilliant lecture.
He defines ‘polemical theology’ as ‘the art of the biblical author using thought forms and stories common in the ancient near east and filling them with radical new meaning.’ Anyhow, this lecture got me to thinking about your post. (I found this lecture using and itunes search.)
It made me think that if Moses knew well enough to do this (and Currid is quick to add that the Holy Spirit guided the writing) then perhaps Mark and other NT writers were as quick also. Anyhow, again, great essay.
jerry