The Test – Is Jesus The Lord?
Speaking about Johannine Christianity, specifically the letters of 1 and 2 John, Hurtado writes:
Probably the most transparent accusation that the secessionists departed from traditional teaching is in 2 John 7-11. In the context of the warning about “deceivers” who do not confess “Jesus Christ come [erchomenon] in the flesh” (v. 7), and from whom the readers are to guard themselves (v. 8), verse 9 refers to “everyone who goes on ahead [ho proagōn] and does not remain in the teaching of Christ.” This must surely indicate that the author believed that the “deceivers” asserted a religious viewpoint that was a major departure from the tradition. The term proagein (to go ahead) is not a pejorative term in other uses in the New Testament and elsewhere, and here in 2 John 9, therefore, it may be the author’s sarcastic reflection of how the “deceivers” see themselves, as radical progressives offering a major improvement in Christian teaching. In this context the “teaching of Christ” in which readers are urged to remain must be (or at least must be focused on) key beliefs about Jesus, in particular, beliefs about the reality and/or redemptive significance of Jesus as the human figure who is also the divine Son.
Lord Jesus Christ, p.412-413, Larry W. Hurtado
I find this interesting in light of the current culture, which purports to offer a better path to God. There are many voices, including many Christians, who seek to present all religion as one common truth. I was reading a book in the bookstore which suggested even that any religion that presents as a core belief that there is absolute truth – or at least that it offers it – is evil and should be done away with. What is offered instead is some “inclusive” religion based on love, justice, ethics, whatever – which though claiming God has reduced him to nothing but lofty human ideals.
Religions are not all the same. And I find it hard to believe in a religion that makes no claims about truth in an absolute sense. How could it even be valid? It might be useful, but it would not be true. Even the statement that it does not contain absolute truth would be stated as an absolute. (i.e. there is not absolute truth…)
Back to what I was saying; In 2 John, the author is responding to some who have claimed special spiritual knowledge that puts them on a better standing with God than other Christians. It appears to be based on an understanding of Jesus’ divine nature, that ignores his humanity and sacrifice. The attack from 2 John is dramatic and passionate. Why? Jesus is Christianity’s distinctive ideal and core. He is more than just an idea. He is a person who was experienced in history and who was and is proclaimed as worthy of the worship only God should receive. Any betrayal of the person of Jesus in our practice and teaching is indication of the true lack of relationship and familiarity with God.
There are many who want to make Christianity “inclusive”. I agree that Jesus is offered to all, no doubt. But the Christian message is distinct from every other religious statement out there. It cannot be rationalized into a shared view with Islam or Hindu or Buddhist belief. For if it were to do so, it would lose its whole basis for existing – the thing that makes it distinct – that it offers Jesus as God’s unique Son, worthy of the worship of God, having lived and died as man in total obedience and submission to offer redemption. He is more than just an example, and Christianity cannot be reduced to a litany of statements about living virtuously or pragmatically. Christianity is first and foremost a statement about who Christ Jesus is and how we will respond to that received truth.
As an example of what some (even “Christian”) are trying to offer as truth, I found this while browsing the bookstore:
I am not saying that Christ is not God. I am saying that God is not Jesus. God is neither confined to nor defined completely by Christ. Though our theology teaches that Christ is sent of God, ordained and anointed by Him to be Savior and to redeem humankind, He is not a substitute or even a duplicate of God. he is an aspect of God, but not God in His Infinite Essence.
I have come to the conclusion that I am not monotheistic, but pantheistic – I believe God or Divinity is everything and everywhere. This is a belief in the omnipresent God. If God is everywhere, then He is in everything and everyone – all religions, people, cultures, ideologies, concepts, and beliefs.
The Gospel of Inclusion, p.184, Bishop Carlton Pearson (italics his)
This man has left any foothold in the truth! I am awed at the audacity of calling oneself a “bishop” when you have so weakened the position and authority of Christ. But the point he makes is clear: Jesus is exemplary, but not unique. He offers “a way,” not “the way.” And this is simply not reconcilable with Christian historical practice or belief. It is not new, don’t get me wrong. But as in the past, who Christ is defines the nature of those who follow Him. While seeking to be loving and open, Pearson has removed the need for a relationship with Jesus, or even an understanding of Jesus, that is the cornerstone of the message that God provides. He may have “noble” reasons – but, to be direct, his message is not from God.
Besides his statement about omnipresence is devoid of meaning. Being “everywhere” is not the point – and the words he uses are simply a string of nonsense that no one who reads critically would take as having a foothold on rational thought! To say he is in “all religions” might be ok, but to imply that that endorses every statement and ideology is comedic. Is he the Nazi’s in their anti-semitic fervor? No. Other religions and ideologies may have understanding from general revelation, but they are sorely lacking in an awareness of God’s revelation in the person of Jesus. And that is the simple point at which I demur from Pearson’s understanding of “inclusive.”
He does, by the way, add rather soon after this:
[Faith] is more a privileged state than a requirement for obtaining eternal life.
The Gospel of Inclusion, p.185, Bishop Carlton Pearson
One has to ask what is even meant by eternal life if one has jettisoned the centrality and meaning of the person of Christ. What is sought is all the “good things” in the message of the cross, without the cross, without a call for obligation or submission to something outside ourselves. It is tragic and short-sighted.
But the question remains. Do we see our savior as Lord? Is he the unique agent of God in creation and redemption? Do we see the need for redemption or do we reduce Christ’s importance to that of “example” only? Christ is our example, but it is exactly because he came, died, and rose in power as the unique Son of God, uniquely bearing the name, authority and essence of God himself.
Hello! I found your website. My name is Anders Branderud and I am from Sweden.
You write: “There are many who want to make Christianity “inclusive”. I agree that Jesus is offered to all, no doubt. But the Christian message is distinct from every other religious statement out there.”
Who was the historical “Jesus”?
Did you know that the original “Matthew” was written in Hebrew and it’s called Hebrew Matityahu. It speaks about an Orthodox Jewish leader..
I am a follower of Ribi Yehoshua – Mashiakh – who practiced Torah including Halakhah with all his heart.
He was born in Betlehem 7 B.C.E . His faher name was Yoseiph and mother’s name was Mir′ yâm. He had twelve followers. He tought in the Jewish batei-haknesset (synagogues). Thousands of Jews were interested in His Torah-teachings. The “Temple” Sadducees (non-priests who bought their priest-ship in the “Temple” from the Romans, because they were assimilated Hellenist and genealogically non-priests acting as priests in the “Temple”; they were known by most 1st-century Jews as “Wicked Priests.” decided to crucify him. So they did – together with the Romans. His followers were called Netzarim (meaning offshoots [of a olive tree]) and they continued to pray with the other Jews in the synagogues.
Christianity does not teach the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua. Ribi Yehoshuas teachings were pro-Torah.
This book is a good introduction – “How Jesus Became Christian” av Barrie Wilson, Ph.D.
If you want to learn more click at our website http://www.netzarim.co.il — than click at the lick “Christians”; click at my photo to read about what made my switch religion from Christianity to Orthodox Judaism.
Anders Branderud
Follower of Ribi Yehoshua in Orthodox Judaism
Thanks for reading, Anders.
I agree, the historical Jesus was certainly Jewish. I believe “pro-Torah” to be reasonable, though I would say he was seriously dismissive of the way Jews of the day were practicing and teaching Torah and its application.
Just offhand, Christianity (contrary to some popular belief) is not anti-Torah. Jewish Christians are never required to leave Torah-observance, and never criticized as long as their Torah observance does not hinder full communal involvement with Gentile believers. Gentile believers are not bound to Torah observance, as that would clutter the whole meaning of faith for them, seeming to bring in law as a requirement for full community inclusion. Torah is considered good, but that’s not the point!
As far as Hebrew Matthew being original, I believe that will not stand up to historical or textual scrutiny. Current scholarship finds Matthew to be based on both Mark and a sayings text, Q, neither of which is original Hebrew. It is mid to late first-century, which means there are many other texts by Christians with clearer provenance, in Greek. Nor is it likely that Hebrew was the primary language of his core followers, as most attested statements of Jesus tend to provide us with a picture of Aramaic sayings being propagated as the earliest and most reliable.
If you look at history, you will find that Matthew is later in time than the writings of Paul. Paul makes clear what the beliefs and teachings of Jesus-followers were at an earlier date. He shows that Jesus was treated in a very unique and un-precedented way by his Jewish followers. They saw him as uniquely related to their single and unique God, and gave him worship. This even when criticized directly that they were worshiping two Gods, they passionately articulated how the devotion given to Christ was to the Father, and the glory given to God was through Christ.
By this I mean to say that Jewish Christians, not some Gentile offshoot or Hellenizing force, are responsible for the statements about Jesus and the progression in history that led to Paul, the gospels, and the movement known as Christianity.
For all of this, I suggest reading the book I was quoting in the first place, Lord Jesus Christ by Larry W. Hurtado.
maranatha!
Something’s afoot. Someone named Dennis left a comment on my blog suggesting the same book and linking to the same site. Me thinks someone is trying to draw attention to their material…
Interesting… nothing like underhanded advertising.
Well, if that be the case, they are barking up the wrong tree with me. Not interested. And if nothing else, “blood out of turnip,” and all. Spent my last bit of expendable book-cash on Lord Jesus Christ!