Here are the questions we have had in our question box for me to answer so far.
1. If Jesus is the Son of God, why do we call him God?
2. In 1 Corinthians 15.29 what does it mean about “those who are baptised for the dead”?
3. So if Jesus died to pay for our sins, who is he paying?
4. What would you give Sooty to eat & is he a Christian? (He appeared in a recent sermon!)
5. If you continuously turn your cheek with offensive neighbours, do you persevere, & if so for how long? Do you keep saying hello or do you give up?
6. Why do the Jews celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday? I know they must count Sunday as the first day, but there must be more to it than that.
I’ve had a go at number 1 so far. And you know, I think my answer was great, but I think others would disagree. I mentioned it this weekend to someone who replied – “Great! Trinitarian theology!” and I thought to myself, “No, not really.”
I mean, I could have chosen to answer it that way, but I didn’t. “Son of God” biblically is surely primarily a kingship title; not a relational one? It occurs forty-odd times, as opposed to “Son of the Father” which actually only gets the one look in. And the Father/Son relationship of Jesus and the Father is complex because although Jesus calls God “Father”, there is a question about how equivalent this is to a human relationship in the dynamic of the Trinity.
I didn’t go there.
I stayed with Kingship. Which is what I think “Son of God” as a phrase is actually about, though I accept that there is a bigger question as well. Because Scripturally I think it is clear that the true king of God’s people is – God himself. So when the Gospels (and especially Matthew) spend time establishing that Jesus is the true King of God’s people (“Son of God”), they are by that route making it clear that Jesus is God, and not doing some daft false confusing relational maths equation of “Jesus equals his own Dad” standard.
But what would you have said? And how would you answer the ones I have to do when I get back from holiday?
2 comments:
OK. I'll try a few answers...
1. Language fails us when we try to describe God. There are two aspects or characters within the Godhead which are intimately connected yet somehow distinct. Kind of like a Father - Son relationship; there is an intimate connection there, in many ways they are of the same flesh, the same type, but also distinctly different. But both are part of the Godhead, so both are God.
2. Have a look at the language Paul uses in 1 Cor 15. He speaks to the church in Cortinth ("you") he speaks of things common to all Christians ("we") and he then refers to this practice (using "they" language) which is clearly not only outside of the practice of the church in Corinth, but outside of the practice of all Christians.
I think we get thrown by the use of the word "baptise" here and assume that this must be some Christian practice, but it isn't. Baptise was a secular word and it is a pagan practice being referred to here.
Note that the next verse Paul makes it clear that this is not a Christian issue by saying "But as for us..."
In context Paul is saying how important resurrection is - look, resurrection is even important to pagans...
3. I think that's a language failure again. Perhaps you could think of it in terms of our sin broke something and Jesus death fixed it.
4. I think I'll let you answer this one Marcus, it's too theological for me.
5. How long did Jesus keep taking the abuse the world threw at him? Until it killed him. Jesus responded to violence with peace and love. We should do the same.
Then again, the question seems to be less about turning the other cheek and more about how long we should try to reach out to others in Jesus name... here I think there is teaching from Jesus that says if people aren't open to the Gospel we should just let them be. Don't cast pearls before swine (Matt 7v6).
6. No idea. Marcus?
Ricky - good to have your thoughts.
Without going through them all (cos I need to give my answers first in church and then here) the one that I think is really interesting linguistically (and of course I am in a hotel in Italy so don't have all my usual library of stuff around me) is the "pay for sins" one. I'm looking forwards to working on that because I suspect that you are right and that we are using shorthand there for other concepts (Redemption?) which in fact come out a bit different in the theological wash when spelled out properly.
We'll see!
Anybody else want a go? Come on! It can't just be Ricky from his safe distance north of the border!
Post a Comment