continued again...
___________
... Similarly, we should not think that Jesus was able to live without sin because he was God, while we cannot because we are mortal. Hiding behind this view is partly a wrong view of sin and partly a wrong view of Jesus. The wrong view of sin is the one that views sin in terms of absolute perfection against an absolute standard, as if God is a legalistic accountant of some kind.
Did Jesus ever accidentally "wrong" someone by forgetting to meet them at sunrise to fish on the Sea of Galilee? Did he make them wait? Obviously we don't know. But if he did, this is probably not what Hebrews had in mind when it said Jesus was without sin (Heb. 4:15). Paul does at some points at least seem to invoke an absolute standard in order to do away with it (e.g., Gal. 3:10), but this is not the primary standard of sin in Scripture--or within Judaism at the time.
The normal sense of sin was that of intentionally wronging God or another, intentional wrongdoing. This is surely the sense of sin that is primary in Scripture, and it is arguably this sense of sin that Paul had in mind when he said that Jesus "had no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). Arguably Jesus was a model for us in this sense of sin--that by the power of the Holy Spirit we can also follow Jesus' example. As 1 John 3:9 puts it: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them." This is not an expectation of absolute perfection. It is about being able to follow through with a heart that intends to do the right thing.
Can we do miracles today? The perspective of Scripture and Christian history gives a "yes" answer. From a Christian perspective, we live in the same part of history that Jesus inaugurated. Jesus may not appear to people in the same way today as he did the apostles. In that sense we can question whether there are any apostles today of the sort we find in the New Testament. But the Spirit has arguably continued to work miracles throughout history, and Christians believe we have that same Spirit today.
A person can both over- and under-emphasize such things. A person can miss opportunities because of a lack of faith, and a person can get preoccupied with "signs and wonders." Jesus flatly refused to do signs on demands. "No sign will be given," he flatly says at one point (Mark 8:12). Similarly, those who refuse obvious medical treatment arguably reject an offer of healing God has brought through a knowledge of his own creation.
The key is to recognize that Jesus' humanity was not only a true humanity, but a perfect indication of what humanity can be and was supposed to be. We should not read the story of Jesus as something beyond the reach of the rest of us through the power of the Spirit. And we should not idealize him in a way that takes him beyond the realm of true humanity...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
You said that sin is primarily defined as a matter of intention. I assume this includes knowledge as well. I like this view, but I struggle with a few passages that seem to broaden the spectrum.
Leviticus 4 repeatedly speaks of sins of ignorance (cf. v.1) and indicates that those who commit them are indeed "guilty" and needing sacrifice (cf. vv. 13-14). If sin is measured as an aberration from God's moral character, then how can that change coming into the NT? Even the writer of 1 John seems to indicate that sin is transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4).
I don't mean to discount the fact that there are other definitions of sin in Scripture, such as sins committed in ignorance (primarily an OT category). And I'm arguing elsewhere that Paul did not see that sacrifice in general was no longer necessary. What I'm claiming is that this should not be our primary sense of sin or our starting point.
My problem with "tempted in every way as we are yet was without sin" comes down to the bit in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says anyone "who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" and the similar treatment of anger. If lust is sinful, then we are to assume Jesus never experienced lust, but if he never experienced lust in what sense can we really say he was "tempted"? What's the temptation to adultery, say, in the absence of an actual experience of lust (or whatever it is that actually brings people to commit adultery)?
So I find your redirection of talk about sin away from the psychological and toward "intentionally wronging God" is useful. Though isn't there something analogous to lust that tempts people to wrong God, and, if so, wouldn't something similar apply?
I guess I'm just not comfortable with a bright line definition of sin, in the end. It strikes me it must be messier and more ambiguous. We have such a vague sense of what it really means to be human (did the Biblical authors think of humans as being part of the animal kingdom in the way we do now, reflexively?), that it's not surprising our sense of what it means to be divine would be foggy.
For my own faith life, I find it important to be willing to err (if err I must) on the side of Jesus really experiencing human life -- the kind of human life I experience -- even if that means he's a little more synoptic (less Johannine) than the church has sometimes insisted.
You won't be surprised to know that I draw a sharp distinction between temptation and sin, between strong sexual attraction and lust in the sense of the SoM. To have feelings of sexual desire is to be tempted. Lust in Jesus' sense must then involve an act of mental will, lingering, fantasizing, etc. Certainly I could not tell you at what point that line is crossed, but I suspect that the very question reflects our introspective, psychologized world.
Thanks for your response, Ken. It's interesting, because I think Jesus' comments in the SoM clearly meant to take sin in a psychologizing direction ("don't think you're better than your neighbor just because you haven't actually done x, y, or z"), but, I agree, not as far as many modern people would. So the sinlessness of Jesus is a doctrine we couldn't prove the truth of even if we had 100% knowledge of his life, since, as you say, nobody could tell for certain when the line has been crossed(between, say, sexual feelings and lust). The christological doctrine always has to come first in this case, and history discussed in terms of it, rather than vice versa. Like the question of divinity in general, unlike, say, the virgin birth or bodily resurrection.
I find the whole talk about and focus on sin as "self" foscused introversion...which is unhealthy in my opinion.
It is not that I do not think that adultry is wrong, as I want to protect my marriage. But, it is the overzealousness or focus on sin that makes sin so enticing...that is, if one wants to define desire as sin! Desire is just a fact of life, but lust is a passion that ignites into adulterous action.(and this is why I believe that there are many people one could marry and have a good marriage...there is not "ideal" on person that "God has picked out before the foundatons of the world"!)
And I do not believe that anyone can judge another's heart as to what they choose to do. One must be self aware and proceed with eyes wide open, putting up boundaries where/when needed.
What counts as intentional sinning? Making someone wait because you feel a bit tired, but knowing that with a bit more effort one could have made it? Through weakness succumbing to some temptation? Or does it only count as sin if one deliberately decides to do what one knows is wrong when not under any pressure?
What are 'opportunities' and 'preoccupations'? Why wouldn't it be an opportuniy and why would it be being preoccupied if you set about healing everybody you meet who has a problem?
"the very question reflects our introspective, psychologized world"
And why shouldn't it? Isn't there more understanding of these things now than there used to be, it is more articulated and researched in eg literature and science than then, because there have been generations of people since then experiencing things. Or do you think there haven't been advances in humanity's understanding of such things?
What makes for human attraction anyway?
I shared this with a friend just a few days ago.
http://www.futurevigil.com/2009/07/sexual-attraction-hormones-pheromones-and-mathematical-models/!
"Committing adultery in one's heart" goes beyond simply experiencing the temptation of lust. Consider the following from an Orthodox Saint (whose writing here represents something of an Orthodox consensus on the matter):
http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/sin.htm
The way that cultures understand and religion teaches about boundaries in/to relationships is the way man has structured society.
The way that our government structures humans is by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
But, science is interested in how man responds to his environment, as well as how his brain makes for certain responses.
In American society, we understand boundaries by law. And law defines what is proper or normal for societal benefit.
The conflict lies when people differ (as they are allowed to do in our society), as to what defines proper boundaries. Marriage being one of them.
Even amongst Churches, people differ as to their convictions about whether homosexual marriage should be affirmed or whether it should be "disciplined behavior" according to "God's Word". Is this a call for social change and civil rights, or is it a call for moral discipline?
Civil liberties grants all to have various opinions. Civil rights, though grants protections of those differences. I think Churches should get out of the way, regarding the civil rights of homosexuals. They are wanting equal rights under the law to express desire within boundaries. Isn't that what protects society, boundaries defined by law?
Then, whether or not a particualr denomination views it "right" to affirm homosexual marriage is a different matter. It is ther civil liberty to discriminate if that is not their value.
Today, we see many Christians that don't allow for the separation of Church and State. And this is what makes for our culture wars. And all the anger that goes along with "offending God"....
Jesus as human and as moral model would affirm homosexual marriage. Paul's view was within a cultural frame that sought to protect from the cultural problems associated with homosexuality in the public baths...
Post a Comment