The Liturgical Nature of Christ's Death

My favorite Christology text to date is titled The Mystery of Jesus Christ by Ocariz, Seca, and Riestra. I think they've taken a very smart route in writing the book by employing three authors with different disciplines (one has a degree in Biblical Studies, another in Historical Theology, another in Systematic Theology). I read something last semester, however, with which I don't entirely agree. They write:

Some authors have raised the objection (against the sacrificial character of Christ's death) that that death did not have a cult-like character (or, to put it more accurately, lacked the external rite of an act of cult); others (defending the idea that Christ's death was a sacrifice) have sought that ritual character in the interior offering Christ made of himself on the cross...Therefore, it can be stated that Christ's death is cult-like without being liturgical; it is also the origin, the source and the centre of all liturgy. (Emphasis theirs)

I agree that Christ's death is cultic in nature. However, I think there is a liturgy involved - a very ironic liturgy. The irony is found throughout the passion - for instance, Jesus has already prophesied about his own death and resurrection, but the people yell out to him "Prophesy!" (Mt 26:68//Mk 14:65).

So how is the death of Christ liturgical? Jesus is wearing a purple garment (a high-priestly color - Ex 28:6) and a crown of thorns (Mk 15:17, Ex 28:4 and also see Zech 6:11-12). The cross is a mock altar upon which the sacrifice is given, even though it is "outside the camp" (Heb 13:13). Instead of the ritual washing the High Priest was to do before entering the Holy of Holies, Jesus is washed in his own blood after the scourging (Mk 15:15). There is the recitation of Scripture (Mt 27:46 reciting the opening lines of Ps 22). There are even "conversions" (Lk 23:42). There's probably a myriad of other things that I've thought about and since forgotten that seem to parallel the liturgy of the Temple, but certainly in an ironic way.

A Rebuttal to Matthew Rondeau

Generally I try to keep things around here on the neutral side of things, not discussing my own faith beliefs and such. However, over on the blog "Splanknois tou Christou", Matthew Rondeau is having a go at the Catholic Church in a series titled "Why I am not a Catholic". We're up to part 2. He posts :

I am hearing of more and more protestants who are joining the Roman
Catholic Church. As I think about this trend, I am intrigued as to what the impetus might be behind such a move.

Later, he writes about the long list of reasons why one might become Catholic, none of which I'd endorse. For instance:

Is it the magical fixation with the belief that “corpus meum est” actually refers to a piece of bread?

For one, I don't know how magical one's fixation can be. Secondly, it does, in fact, not refer to a piece of bread. That's the point.

Or:

Is it the megalomanaical [sic] lust for a single leader that the Israelites had before they were given what they asked for in King Saul?

Leaders are not, in and of themselves, bad. What the Israelites did wrong is desiring their own leadership over God's. They were subverting the authority that God had established because it did not fancy them (perhaps something to think about).

Then, in "Why I am not a Catholic (part 1)" he begins his argument against the Catholic Church. I will here give a rebuttal as one of those formerly of the Protestant persuasion who has found a home with Rome (no, my rebuttal will not rhyme....or will it?).

He states:

For instance, my presupposition, first principle, axiom, whatever you want to call it, is that the 66 books contained in the old and new testaments - commonly called the Bible - are the inerrant word of God...I am not a Catholic because I place no faith in the tradition of the Church.

I have to ask: Why? For one, where is the idea of sola scriptura in the Bible? And where exactly does he get this canon of 66 books? Can he show me where in the Bible the list is? If the Church hadn't the authority to convene a council and decide which books are Scripture, then Matthew is with a "fallible collection of infallible books", as R.C. Sproul puts it. If he has put no faith in the tradition of the Church, I would hope he would stop using their NT canon.

Also, the idea of sola scriptura is anachronistic. This idea isn't even possible until the 4th century. Why was Peter able to write an infallible book, but not able to say things that were infallible that were carried on by his disciples? Is infallibility somehow particular to writing? Can it not pertain to speech?

As I've stated in previous comments/posts, that tradition was alive and well during the Apostolic age is a Biblical idea. For instance, 2 Thess 2:15 has Paul encouraging the people to believe everything that was passed down to them, both in writing and orally. Or perhaps 2 Tim 2:2 where Paul encourages Timothy to remember "that which you have heard from me..." so that he could "entrust these (the teachings) to faithful men who will be able to teach also." Sounds a bit like carrying on traditions.

On John 3 and Baptism he writes:

Relying solely on the Bible, and reading John 3, I conclude that baptism is not even in view here, but that being born of “water” refers to the first and natural way we are born from the wombs of our mothers, and the birth of the “spirit” is what takes place the moment we have faith.

The key here is context (as always). For one, Jesus' ministry begins after St John the Baptist's, who came baptizing with water. John states in Matt 3:11 that he came "baptizing with water", but that someone was coming after him who would baptize with the "holy spirit." Who makes a reference to "water and spirit"? Also, I'm unaware of the phrase "born of water" being used idiomatically for natural birth. And it would've been a tautology for Jesus to say, "Unless you exist, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Jesus was cryptic, but not ridiculous. So, I'm skeptical that being born of water means natural birth. I think the plain reading of the text, through Christian lenses, is that Jesus is speaking of something that happens with "water and spirit", that is, Baptism. Secondly, I think 3:22-23 has some gold for us. After discussing these things with Nicodemus, what does Jesus go and do?

"After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. John also was baptizing..."

We seem to have a real emphasis here on Baptism. This isn't without reason. John places these baptisms immediately after Nicodemus for a reason. Also, I'll refer to my friends, the Fathers, who viewed this passage as a reference to Baptism: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.

We'll pick up Part 2 later.

Academic Politics?

A new systematic theology has been released: A Theology for the Church. The general editor is the President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Daniel Akin. After taking hermeneutics with Dr. Akin, I can tell you, he is one smart guy. I like him, too, because he's a bit fiesty. He's not scared to let you know what he thinks and I dig it.

However, last week when I was helping a friend get her books at the bookstore, I noticed that every theology class I saw was using his book. Before, Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology" was the primary book. After having thumbed through "A Theology for the Church", I'm left wondering: What does this book accomplish that J. Millard Erickson and Wayne Grudem haven't already accomplished? What's new? And is it just politics at school vs. academic interests that have caused the switch from Grudem's to this book?

Something I worry about for myself is that I won't have original ideas. I would rather go my whole life unpublished than to crank out article after article and book after book of rehashed ideas. I remember reading Mark Goodacre's The Case Against Q and thinking, "I will never come up with something this brilliant. This is amazing." I realize this is the second time I've mentioned this book, but it's amazing! Go read it! Stop wasting your time here!

God and Logic

I should preface this by saying I'm not much of a theologian (which becomes extremely apparent if you discuss anything theological with me for any extended period of time). I've studied theology at school, and my second major focuses around a lot of philosophical works, but I'm far from being a theologian.

That said: I went to Chapel Hill tonight to visit my cousin and hang out. We always have good conversations and tonight was no different. We discussed Hume a bit, and then we moved into Leibniz's best possible world argument. In discussing a paper that my cousin is writing, I objected to Leibniz's idea that logic was "created" by God. I said that it made far more sense to me that logic is part of God's nature. Now, it's muddled down here and we can't fully grasp the concept of "pure logic", but I imagine that rationality has its place within God's very nature (likewise with existence, goodness, etc). I then gave the example that I think triangles are inherently triangles. God, although omnipotent, cannot make square triangles (because this would be against His nature). Side Note: if logic is arbitrary, or if God 'created' logic, then on a whim, He could essentially create something illogical (or illogical to our current standard of logic) like a square triangle. But, since I don't think logic is arbitrary or created, but merely part of the spirit of life breathed into us, I don't have that problem./Side Note So, I believe that the concept of triangles is, in some way, part of the rationality that comes from God. Triangles have to be three-sided shapes whose interior angles add up to 180 degrees. This isn't because God decided it, or that a triangle could actually be a square if God so chose, but because there is an inherent triangleness within the mind of God.

You may say, "Gee, Josh, I think some philosopher beat you to the punch about 2400 years ago." Yeah, I sound like Plato. I dig Plato and I dig forms. However, I think that these "forms" exist within the mind of God. I think before creation ever existed, the idea of triangles existed within the mind of God. "Before the beginning, there was triangleness...."