Do we ignore what Jesus got killed for?
Last night, we also looked at this passage from the sermon on the mount:
Salt and Light
13″Let me tell you why you are here. You’re here to be salt-seasoning that brings out the God-flavors of this earth. If you lose your saltiness, how will people taste godliness? You’ve lost your usefulness and will end up in the garbage.
14″Here’s another way to put it: You’re here to be light, bringing out the God-colors in the world. God is not a secret to be kept. We’re going public with this, as public as a city on a hill. 15If I make you light-bearers, you don’t think I’m going to hide you under a bucket, do you? I’m putting you on a light stand. 16Now that I’ve put you there on a hilltop, on a light stand–shine! Keep open house; be generous with your lives. By opening up to others, you’ll prompt people to open up with God, this generous Father in heaven.
Matthew 5:13-16
Then this morning on Mustard Seed Associates email I read this:
Tim Costello, head of World Vision Australia, sees western culture as focusing on Jesus without the Sermon on the Mount. We focus on the death, resurrection, second coming, maybe a miracle or two but the teaching that got Jesus killed isn’t talked about. We’re told that a good witness never gets in trouble, and yet Jesus got in trouble a lot. Jesus’ talking about loving enemies is counter-cultural and raises many questions about war. Tim believes war has outlived its usefulness.
Do we ignore what Jesus got killed for?
June 30th, 2004 at 1:28 pm
This was one of my biggest reactions to the film “The Passion”.
I know there were issues for the narative structure not easily overcome - once you chose to depict the last day of his life, of course his death is going to loom larger - as it should. But Gibson could have done more to make more meaningful links to his life.
EG The film doens’t put Herods trial of Jesus in the cotext of his and John the Baptiser’s feared critiqued of the herodian monarchy (a prphetic tradtion stretching back to Elijah). Instead it seemed to take its cues form Jesus Christ Superstar.
On the plus side, I thought the film did do a good job of showing emphasising JEsus’ love for his enemies, but even this could be seen as his accepting of the death and not the reason the others wanted to kill him.
June 30th, 2004 at 1:32 pm
there are two plans going on here.
God’s plan was for Jesus to die for our sins so we could be justified and be resurrected.
Speculation on the Jewish religious elite motives are problematic. They are held responsible however.
June 30th, 2004 at 8:06 pm
How can you hold the Jewish religious responsible when your own statement says that God is responsible solely?
July 1st, 2004 at 3:27 am
In answer to your question, Phil, I’d have to give a resounding, “Yes, absolutely!”
Homer, what part did the *life* of Jesus play in your god’s plan?
July 1st, 2004 at 11:20 am
Ah phil, its is like Job where is is said that Satan is rsponsible but that gos is also.
however we know god is incapable of sin.
If that sounds like a non-answer it is. There are frankly things in the bible I don’t understand.
however a curosty reading of the early cchapters of Acts shows who is responsible for Jesus’s death. something we must be all thankful for.
Felix we know Jesus only did what his father wanted to do despite being his equal.
July 1st, 2004 at 12:54 pm
We focus on the death, resurrection, second coming, maybe a miracle or two but the teaching that got Jesus killed isn’t talked about.
Actually, we don’t really spend that much time on the resurrection in the u.s. mostly on the death and the second coming.
there are many teachings of jesus that don’t get talked about a lot, that would tweak the noses of liberal anti-war types and conservative (nee fundamentalist) pro-war types.
I suspect we all preach on the verses we like more than the verses that challenge our own viewpoint (myself included).
July 1st, 2004 at 3:14 pm
Yep, agreed Bryan. It is a challenge to us all.
I am interested about the ressurection not being preached about most. True here, too I think. Why do you think that is?
July 1st, 2004 at 11:59 pm
I think it has to do somewhat with lack of drama, really. The crucifixion has a definite climax. The resurrection (empty tomb) is really anticlimactic in some ways. But more, I think it is easier for people to identify with the crucified christ than the risen lord. Look at the iconography of the catholic church.
I’d be interested in any other possible explanations you might have. I’ll mull it over while I’m driving today.
July 2nd, 2004 at 10:48 am
That’s interesting As I would argue it is the ressurection which is important than the cross.
It shows that Jesus was without sin thus fulfilling the prophets and had conquered sin.
no ressurection no heaven.
Having said that the cross and ressurrection are part of the same tale, neither can be viewed without the other.
July 2nd, 2004 at 8:34 pm
I’d put the life before either!
But at the end of the day, I think it’s pointless trying to distinguish between things. I’d rather simply focus upon Jesus - the whole package!
July 3rd, 2004 at 12:23 pm
Homer,
I never said that the resurrection wasn’t more important than the cross. In fact, I’ve written a sermon before on that very topic. But if you look at the marketing of christianity, the movies, the nails, the crucifixes, etc., I think you’d see a very clear bent toward the crucifixion, and not the resurrection. Consider the catholic practice of the 12 stations of the cross. Are you aware of a 12 stations of the empty tomb? I’m not. When was the last time you saw someone wearing a representation of an empty tomb on their neck, or reciting the rosary while rubbing beads affixed to an image of a risen, transfigured Christ?
What I would argue is that western preaching has mostly de-emphasized the resurrection in favor of the cross (although more evangelical preaching has had an emphasis on the second coming or millenial reign).
July 3rd, 2004 at 8:22 pm
Bryan,
It was a crticism merely an observation. If you took as such then profuse apologies.
Felix,
The problem of focussing on the life per se is;
a) you may miss the most important reasons he came ie vthe cross and the ressurection.
b) be inspired to imagine you may copy his life which you can’t. He was without sin and you and eveyone ain’t.
July 5th, 2004 at 2:01 pm
sorry for the confusion. I didn’t know if I’d made myself clear.
July 5th, 2004 at 10:49 pm
Well, I guess there’s risks with any over-emphasis, Homer - hence, my final paragraph.
However, I don’t think Jesus came to die. I don’t think his life was simply a preface to his real work.
The problem with focusing on his death is that we wouldn’t even try to copy his life.
October 2nd, 2004 at 3:07 am
I think you mean “LIVE” instead of “COPY”, Felix. Hmmmm………….metaphysical?
MEMORY = THOUGHT
THOUGHT = MEMORY
October 2nd, 2004 at 3:10 am
…..and ditto to you, Homer.