Christ the Infinite

'Christ Harrowing Hell'
Courtesy of Shako

(This is a set of hymns chanted today in many Orthodox churches)

The Bright Resurrection of Christ

Christ is risen from the dead, trampling on death by death, and on those in the tombs bestowing life.

Though You descend into the grave, O Immortal One, yet You destroyed the power of hell, and rose again as Conqueror, O Christ our God, saying to the myrrh-bearing women, Rejoice! and giving peace to Your Apostles, and offering to the fallen resurrection.

O great and holiest Passover, Christ! O Wisdom, Word and Power of God! Grant that we may more perfectly partake of You in the unending Day of Your Kingdom.

Having slept in the flesh as a mortal, O King and Lord, You were raised on the third day. You raised up Adam from corruption and abolished death, O Passover of incorruption, Salvation of  the world!

Though You descended into the grave, O Immortal One, yet did You destroy the power of hell, and rose again as Conqueror, O Christ our God, saying to the myrrh-bearing women, Rejoice! And giving peace to Your Apostles, and offering to the fallen resurrection.

In the grave bodily, in hell with the soul as God, in Paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit were You Who fill all things, O Christ the Infinite.

Premise of History

'Adam Crouching' by
Paul Wayland Bartlett

Back when I first got interested in Jesus of Nazareth I sometimes watched a televangelist who was given to making startling, bombastic statements. Come to think of it, that describes most of the televangelists I saw.  This particular preacher held the belief that, because Jesus once predicted in Matthew's gospel (and nowhere else) that, "the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights," it meant he would be laying in the tomb for precisely 72 hours -- no more, no less. 

Evidence of how ancient Jewish people reckoned time counted for nothing with him. "If Jesus wasn't in the grave for exactly 72 hours," he would proclaim, "you have no Savior!"

J. R. Daniel Kirk, whose blog I read, wrote an article recently trying to answer a question that can sometimes elicit a similar response: Does St. Paul's explanation (found here and here) of how Jesus counteracts Adam's sin fall apart if it turns out an actual Adam never existed? Does the current scientific understanding of human origins, which has precious little room for Adam, Eve, and their garden, shoot holes in Paul's theology?

Such ideas are enough to move some people to exclaim, "If Adam and Eve never existed, then Christianity is nothing more than a fable!"

I have an idea about this. Maybe I'll post something about it at some point. But whatever the ultimate answer to this question is, I believe the key to understanding it probably lies in this section of Kirk's paper:

New Testament scholarship over the past half century has developed the insight that the first data point in Paul’s Christian theologizing was his understanding that the cross and resurrection formed the saving act of God. In the 1960s, Herman Ridderbos argued that this fundamental conviction becomes the great act of God by which all other acts and ideas are understood.5 The significance of this focus on Christ is that it ripples out in all directions: not only does Paul rethink the future in light of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but he also reinterprets what came before. Thus, Ridderbos concludes that “Paul’s whole doctrine of the world and man in sin . . . is only to be perceived in the light of his insight into the all-important redemptive event in Christ.”6 A decade later E. P. Sanders concurred, claiming that Paul reasons “from solution to plight.”7 Because Paul knows that God has provided the solution to the problem of human sin in the crucified and risen Christ, he therefore reassesses the place of the Law, in particular, in God’s saving story.

Both Ridderbos and Sanders have come to the same conclusion: what is a “given” for Paul is the saving event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The other things he says, especially about sin, the Law, and eschatology, are reinterpretations that grow from the fundamental reality of the Christ event.

Not just for Paul but for all faithful early members of the Christian Movement, the crucifixion and resurrection  of Jesus, when the Kingdom of God began, when the universe's High King was crowned, is the lens through which all of history makes sense. We need to take Paul's perspective and look back through history -- especially scriptural history -- from inside the vortex of Christ's transformational work on the cross and in the tomb. That, I believe, is where the answer to this problem can most clearly be seen.

"Good News" About What?

Oddly enough, I was putting together an article on what exactly this 'Gospel' is that we proclaim, when I chanced upon this video that says everything I was going to say, says more, and says it better.

To me, 'Gospel' (along with the sentiments and terminology usually associated with it) is one of the main concepts that has become ossified among Christ's followers over the years. Largely for that reason calls to believe the Gospel are no longer terribly effective in inciting people to follow Jesus of Nazareth. 'Good News' is not far behind.

Fortunately, scholar Tom Wright has posted this video (which I borrowed from the 'Near Emmaus' blog who got it from Vimeo who got it from Evangelical Alliance) that shakes loose some of the shards of ossification.


Tom Wright on What the Gospel Is

The Man Who Won Ireland

Saint Patrick was never about green beer and corned beef. One of the Christian movement's boldest heroes, Patrick was by his own account a slave who escaped his harsh Irish owner only to be sent back by divine vision to evangelize his former captors. And evangelize them he did, almost single-handedly winning the nation's loyalty to Jesus by persuading them that the God of the Christians was much kinder than the bloodthirsty spirits they worshiped -- kind enough to die for them, rather than insisting they die for him.

Patrick was no myth. Read his autobiogaphy, or "Confession,"  here, or listen to it here.

"...Ashes to Ashes..."

Ash Wednesday is one of the more mysterious observances of Christians, but it's origin is pretty straightforward...

Christian Cliches

Christianity Today has an excellent article by J. D. Greear on one of the ways we followers of Jesus obscure our own message and thereby put people off that otherwise might have given it fair consideration. The cliches, jargon, and petrified, stereotyped methods that are second nature to us are a cloudy foreign language to people used to speaking mere normal English.

Now, of course, the Gospel is, "the power of God for salvation" as Paul the Apostle pointed out, and it can still work through any number of obstacles. But then, Jesus had rather sharp words for those who might put obstacles (or in Christian jargon, "stumbling blocks") in the way of his "little ones." How sad if the way we prefer to make the 'Great Announcement' actually makes it harder to understand and accept.

In The Wilderness

Why did Jesus fast 40 days in the wilderness? Why do we fast that length of time to imitate him? Here's one reason.

Only three people in the entire Bible are recorded as fasting for 40 days: Moses (Book of Exodus, chapter 34 verse 28, Common English Bible), Elijah (First Book of Kings, chapter 19 verse 8, CEB), and Jesus. These three men marked the most important epochs in the history of the people of God. Even Abraham was never called upon to fast 40 days, important as he was...