The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1)
In the previous mediation I told the interpretation of the Old Testament that understood Exodus and captivity’s return as ‘good news’ has no more effectiveness in the New Testament. I would like to excuse for may be a certain misunderstanding for this saying. It doesn’t mean to change our oppressed structure of life, mostly it is related to economy and politic, into the structure of liberty is meaningless. Today in Korea, the thing to change our social structure in order to help foreign laborers’ life without any indifference is directly related to the gospel that church should proclaim. Not only this, there are endless problem inside and outside of our country that should be overcome with our cooperative solidarity. I mean church should bring forward a problem with awakened spirituality in order to actualize justice and peace in the life of this world. At this level I have been participating for a long while with KNCC Daegu and Kyungbuk Human Rights Commission and Pastors’ meeting and I will continue this activities. It includes an ecological movement too. We have to develop the necessary actions in detail in order to keep the earth as the lasting possible planet. These also can be the universal evangelical movement on the whole level.
However, if these activities are the only and unique choice is Christian faith necessary? Such things are possible with consciousness, ethics and humanism. Christian faith neither thinks these things are meaningless nor these things can be postponed but totally depends on something beyond such things. That is no other than God. Early Christian experienced that God through Jesus Christ. So Jesus Christ was a gospel for them. Such faith tradition is continuing to us.
However, it is sorry to say we still face difficult to find out the verified answer for the relationship between the reality of gospel and Jesus Christ. It is because it can be solved with a few words but belongs to the ultimate secrets of all existence. We would ultimately wait for the hour when the secret completely reveals doing our best to understand and explain it.
Think of it why it is a secret. The first paragraph of so called ‘the eight blessings’ that show a reality of gospel a little bit is, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:3) Though Luke’s gospel omits ‘spirit’ whether poor in material or spirit the teaching that such people will possess the kingdom of heaven gives us feeling of a little alienation with our real life. Our experience is just opposite to this. This world just isolates such poor people. Even then after reading such teaching if you think simply that it is just teaching of ‘empty my heart’ also not much correct. It is because Christian faith is not a religion to cultivate our heart. It will take much more complicated discussion to know why a poor can possess the kingdom of heaven. If I give a simple answer, only the poor people desire the kingdom of God where all material discrimination will be ended. Though we interpret this word with this way the reality is still in secret. At the situation of not knowing what the kingdom of God is we cannot say we know two relationships.
Now if you understand ‘the gospel about Jesus Christ’ first thing should be arranged is what ‘good news’ is. Mark began to write his gospel in order to explain it. At this point, to heed to his speaking is the top prior and necessary attitude for us who is living with Christian faith.
Showing posts with label Mark 01:01. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark 01:01. Show all posts
20081119
The gospel (03)
20081118
The gospel (02)
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1)
The meaning of gospel (evangelion) is blessed and good news. In the Old Testament that had written based on the history of the Jews, the best news was Exodus and return from Babylonian captivity. We can easily imagine Israel people’s suffering as minor national in Egypt where they went for their survival, and insult they had to go through in Babylonian Empire where they were captured as POW. At this point, Exodus from Egypt, return from Babylonian was the best news, that is, gospel.
In this incident we have to pay attention to two facts.
First, Egypt and Babylonian who destroyed Israelite’s life were empire. A little precisely speaking, we may call them imperialism, the attribute of empire. Imperialism is the power to excise its hegemony by limiting authority of truth to them only and Egypt and Babylonian were topical empires. Their ruler was rightly regards as a god. If anyone has eyes to see the world they are able to see what is empire and imperialism of today. Is Christianity of Korea today crying out freedom from imperialism that oppresses public’s life with such almighty power? Do we know the object that we have to fight against? Reversely, we don’t know clearly Christianity itself excises empiric hegemony. It is so that a desire to extend self endlessly is imperialism in content aspect. Seeing at the point, church that should preach gospel brining up the evil power in their inside that they should overcome.
Second, Exodus and captivity return was an act of God. The core of the story of Exodus was that God has nullified the empire’s almighty power. The reason that Egypt who already has equipped a strong battle power couldn’t but give up Israel was not because of Moses’ charisma but help of the Lord God. The reason Cyrus king of Persia was able to drive out Babylonian also caused by God’s power. God freed Israel from Babylonian by using Cyrus was Israel prophets’ historical interpretation. It means salvation begins from God. The salvation incident that God raised was gospel for them.
Because the Old Testament testified God’s involvement in Israel’s history which should survived in between empires gospel mainly related to politics, social incidents. At this paragraph we have a possibility to loss our direction. Identify gospel with political liberation is a direction error of Bible reading. Gospel can be raised politically but political liberation is not rightly gospel. The core of the Old Testament that stated Exodus and captivity return also rather God’s action than political incident itself. They experienced God in that way among severe international order.
Now the New Testament approaches gospel totally new horizon by Jesus Christ. Though the political background of the New Testament also Roman Empire the gospel of New Testament declares the utmost liberation through identification with a certain personality rather than a political liberation. Probably, the New Testament faces up to the reality of impossibility of political liberation in fundamental level. Yes. Though political liberation is so much serious it is not gospel in real meaning. If we think maximization of welfare which is the final target of politic the answer is very clear. The community in the New Testament finds out the reality of gospel in a personality, an incident and a destiny in a person called Jesus. However, question about gospel isn’t end here it but continues in this way. What is the reality of gospel? How do we think seriously?
The meaning of gospel (evangelion) is blessed and good news. In the Old Testament that had written based on the history of the Jews, the best news was Exodus and return from Babylonian captivity. We can easily imagine Israel people’s suffering as minor national in Egypt where they went for their survival, and insult they had to go through in Babylonian Empire where they were captured as POW. At this point, Exodus from Egypt, return from Babylonian was the best news, that is, gospel.
In this incident we have to pay attention to two facts.
First, Egypt and Babylonian who destroyed Israelite’s life were empire. A little precisely speaking, we may call them imperialism, the attribute of empire. Imperialism is the power to excise its hegemony by limiting authority of truth to them only and Egypt and Babylonian were topical empires. Their ruler was rightly regards as a god. If anyone has eyes to see the world they are able to see what is empire and imperialism of today. Is Christianity of Korea today crying out freedom from imperialism that oppresses public’s life with such almighty power? Do we know the object that we have to fight against? Reversely, we don’t know clearly Christianity itself excises empiric hegemony. It is so that a desire to extend self endlessly is imperialism in content aspect. Seeing at the point, church that should preach gospel brining up the evil power in their inside that they should overcome.
Second, Exodus and captivity return was an act of God. The core of the story of Exodus was that God has nullified the empire’s almighty power. The reason that Egypt who already has equipped a strong battle power couldn’t but give up Israel was not because of Moses’ charisma but help of the Lord God. The reason Cyrus king of Persia was able to drive out Babylonian also caused by God’s power. God freed Israel from Babylonian by using Cyrus was Israel prophets’ historical interpretation. It means salvation begins from God. The salvation incident that God raised was gospel for them.
Because the Old Testament testified God’s involvement in Israel’s history which should survived in between empires gospel mainly related to politics, social incidents. At this paragraph we have a possibility to loss our direction. Identify gospel with political liberation is a direction error of Bible reading. Gospel can be raised politically but political liberation is not rightly gospel. The core of the Old Testament that stated Exodus and captivity return also rather God’s action than political incident itself. They experienced God in that way among severe international order.
Now the New Testament approaches gospel totally new horizon by Jesus Christ. Though the political background of the New Testament also Roman Empire the gospel of New Testament declares the utmost liberation through identification with a certain personality rather than a political liberation. Probably, the New Testament faces up to the reality of impossibility of political liberation in fundamental level. Yes. Though political liberation is so much serious it is not gospel in real meaning. If we think maximization of welfare which is the final target of politic the answer is very clear. The community in the New Testament finds out the reality of gospel in a personality, an incident and a destiny in a person called Jesus. However, question about gospel isn’t end here it but continues in this way. What is the reality of gospel? How do we think seriously?
The gospel (01)
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1)
There are not only the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Holiness Church and the Baptist Church but also a denomination named ‘gospel’ in Korea. ‘The Gospel Church’ is the very denomination. It is comparatively healthy denomination with not much conservative but even not the progressive. There is a denomination which is much more closed to the word of gospel though it doesn’t put the word gospel at front. ‘The Assembly of God’ is the very denomination. I cannot remember the exact name for it has divided. However, the Assembly of God is famous for not such official name but another name so called, ‘Full Gospel Church’. The reason that the popular name ‘full gospel’ overtakes their official name is due to ‘Yoido Full Gospel Church’ while a pastor Yongki Cho is attending his pasturing work. Unknown people can misunderstand full gospel as a name of denomination. The name full gospel is funny. Is there false gospel in the world? A false gospel is not rather gospel. If it goes in this way there will be a possibility to come named ‘true full gospel church’.
When we indicate a tendency of faith we use ‘evangelism’. It seems to call the believer’s attitude as ‘evangelism’ that try to keep a certain distance with society by keeping Christianity’s tradition and recognizing evangelical work as their important mission. Though they call themselves as ‘evangelist’ practically they are conservatism or fundamentalism. We call the people’s faith attitude as ‘Neo-evangelicalism’ who has same stands with conservatism in all but comparatively has openness toward ecumenical movement. They involves in social salvation differs from conservatism who biased on individual salvation only. It doesn’t mean that they are able to carry on dialogue with a liberation theology or Minjung(Popular) theology at some level. I don’t remember clearly but they seemed to raise their voice about social justice after Lausanne international meeting in Switzerland in end of 1970.
However, it is right to divide their faith and theological tendency as conservative and progressive, fundamentalism and liberalism but it seems conceptually incorrect to arrange it by making ‘evangelism’ stand before ranks. In German, all protestant churches are called ‘evangelical church’ (evangelische Kirche) except Roman Catholic. Literally ‘evangelische Kirche’ means gospel church but practically it means protestant church. Why do they call it in this way should be studied at the church historical point. Strictly speaking, Roman Catholic churches also an evangelical church. As Mark’s gospel sees it clearly at the first verse, Christian community which regards Jesus Christ as gospel is basically evangelic church whatever their forms.
As no one can possess wind exclusively gospel is either. Gospel is not give to those who approach to Jesus’ incident conservatively neither is give to the people of progressiveness. Gospel is not the object of possession to the church that shows a certain tendency toward Jesus’ incident but God’s salvation incident of God that is raised through Jesus Christ. Practically those who want to be sincere to gospel should concentrate on the things to believe and follow it absolutely. If a conservative churches want to find out their identity from gospel they have to protect the tradition of church. If a progressive church wants to remain as an evangelical church they have to participate in present history with evangelical way. If a conservative and a progressive in Korean church extents the power of gospel showing their own special quality, there will be no more quarrel each other. When it will come? Such day surely will come? The day evangelical conservative and evangelical progressive entrust each other and work for the kingdom of God!
There are not only the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Holiness Church and the Baptist Church but also a denomination named ‘gospel’ in Korea. ‘The Gospel Church’ is the very denomination. It is comparatively healthy denomination with not much conservative but even not the progressive. There is a denomination which is much more closed to the word of gospel though it doesn’t put the word gospel at front. ‘The Assembly of God’ is the very denomination. I cannot remember the exact name for it has divided. However, the Assembly of God is famous for not such official name but another name so called, ‘Full Gospel Church’. The reason that the popular name ‘full gospel’ overtakes their official name is due to ‘Yoido Full Gospel Church’ while a pastor Yongki Cho is attending his pasturing work. Unknown people can misunderstand full gospel as a name of denomination. The name full gospel is funny. Is there false gospel in the world? A false gospel is not rather gospel. If it goes in this way there will be a possibility to come named ‘true full gospel church’.
When we indicate a tendency of faith we use ‘evangelism’. It seems to call the believer’s attitude as ‘evangelism’ that try to keep a certain distance with society by keeping Christianity’s tradition and recognizing evangelical work as their important mission. Though they call themselves as ‘evangelist’ practically they are conservatism or fundamentalism. We call the people’s faith attitude as ‘Neo-evangelicalism’ who has same stands with conservatism in all but comparatively has openness toward ecumenical movement. They involves in social salvation differs from conservatism who biased on individual salvation only. It doesn’t mean that they are able to carry on dialogue with a liberation theology or Minjung(Popular) theology at some level. I don’t remember clearly but they seemed to raise their voice about social justice after Lausanne international meeting in Switzerland in end of 1970.
However, it is right to divide their faith and theological tendency as conservative and progressive, fundamentalism and liberalism but it seems conceptually incorrect to arrange it by making ‘evangelism’ stand before ranks. In German, all protestant churches are called ‘evangelical church’ (evangelische Kirche) except Roman Catholic. Literally ‘evangelische Kirche’ means gospel church but practically it means protestant church. Why do they call it in this way should be studied at the church historical point. Strictly speaking, Roman Catholic churches also an evangelical church. As Mark’s gospel sees it clearly at the first verse, Christian community which regards Jesus Christ as gospel is basically evangelic church whatever their forms.
As no one can possess wind exclusively gospel is either. Gospel is not give to those who approach to Jesus’ incident conservatively neither is give to the people of progressiveness. Gospel is not the object of possession to the church that shows a certain tendency toward Jesus’ incident but God’s salvation incident of God that is raised through Jesus Christ. Practically those who want to be sincere to gospel should concentrate on the things to believe and follow it absolutely. If a conservative churches want to find out their identity from gospel they have to protect the tradition of church. If a progressive church wants to remain as an evangelical church they have to participate in present history with evangelical way. If a conservative and a progressive in Korean church extents the power of gospel showing their own special quality, there will be no more quarrel each other. When it will come? Such day surely will come? The day evangelical conservative and evangelical progressive entrust each other and work for the kingdom of God!
The gospel about Jesus Christ
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1)
The four gospels located at the first position of the New Testament are all about the story of Jesus. Partially there are Jesus’ birth story and an episode in his twelve years old but as a whole his public life from his leaving home, goes through Galilee, Samaria and Jerusalem where he is captured and executed on the cross is the core of these gospels. The period was one year at short and two year at long. Compare to the founders of other religion or saints not only his whole life is short but his activity period also too short. It is a shorter period of 3 years collage life in India. If Jesus lived a little longer in this world, what changes would be happened to the history of Christianity, Europe and world? If he lived in this world as long as his life was given from the heaven like the Buddha what had happened to him and this world? It was a futile imagination. However, Jesus’ story that had happened in very short period is content of the gospels.
I found the word noun ‘Gospel’(evangelion) and its verve ‘to evangelize(evangelizo)’ two times in Matthew, six times Mark and four times Luke. Mark’s gospel the shortest among the four used it mostly and the longest Matthew’s gospel rarely. John’s gospel that had written in latest strangely didn’t use it even in single. As we confirm from the conception of Logos or light and darkness, because he had received the influence of Greek philosophy greatly, did the author of John think a word ‘gospel’ in rustic? In Apostle Paul’s epistle we can find out this word many times. However, not only the fact Mark’s gospel used the word ‘gospel’ mostly (1:1, 14,15, 8:35, 10:29, 13:10) but also the author of Mark brought ‘gospel’ abruptly signifies its’ seriousness. Why did Mark plainly prescribe the storybook about Jesus as ‘gospel’, good news?
It seems Christian faith begins and ends with the fact that Jesus Christ is rightly gospel. If someone is not pleased with this fact then he has to choose other religion or live without religion. Either this or that life is the same, if we see it superficially it doesn’t have much differences between the person who accept Mark’s statement and the person not. Each people live their own given lifetime and go. I don’t have any desire at all to say something this and that about those people. They can live more elegant and nobler life than me. What life they maintain I don’t care and I accept Jesus Christ as the gospel of my life. I don’t have much room to take care of others for it is too much burden for me not only to understand the relationship between Jesus Christ and gospel but also the trial to enter into abyss of such spiritual world. Other things in this world are just references for me to live in this world. Those who have experiences to write a thesis may now an importance of references and footnotes. Despite this a thing is very clear that these are not the theme of a thesis.
However, the statement that Jesus Christ is gospel is not simple one. Firstly we have to understand the difference of the term in Jesus and Christ and look into how it has identified. And we have to look into a personality as Jesus, his work, his teaching and finally the incident that had happened to him as whole step by step. Literally too we have to think the difference between Jesus Christ’s gospel and gospel ‘about Jesus Christ. Jesus is the subject in the former and the object in the latter. Such matters will be gradually clarified and we don’t need to enter in too death today.
Do we know who Jesus is today or do we give any effort to know him? Do we know what is the world lied before us or even try to know it? Do we know my wife, my husband, my children, my mother, my father or even try to know them? Everything is placed likely dead as a still-life painting. Merely we are appreciated with these in order to cheer up our mood like housewives who laugh frolicsomely while changing their cloth. (Ladies, don’t feel bad.) We may be nothing but the people who enjoy religious game by changing Jesus’ position here and there according to our mood. Does really the word Jesus Christ is gospel live for us?
The four gospels located at the first position of the New Testament are all about the story of Jesus. Partially there are Jesus’ birth story and an episode in his twelve years old but as a whole his public life from his leaving home, goes through Galilee, Samaria and Jerusalem where he is captured and executed on the cross is the core of these gospels. The period was one year at short and two year at long. Compare to the founders of other religion or saints not only his whole life is short but his activity period also too short. It is a shorter period of 3 years collage life in India. If Jesus lived a little longer in this world, what changes would be happened to the history of Christianity, Europe and world? If he lived in this world as long as his life was given from the heaven like the Buddha what had happened to him and this world? It was a futile imagination. However, Jesus’ story that had happened in very short period is content of the gospels.
I found the word noun ‘Gospel’(evangelion) and its verve ‘to evangelize(evangelizo)’ two times in Matthew, six times Mark and four times Luke. Mark’s gospel the shortest among the four used it mostly and the longest Matthew’s gospel rarely. John’s gospel that had written in latest strangely didn’t use it even in single. As we confirm from the conception of Logos or light and darkness, because he had received the influence of Greek philosophy greatly, did the author of John think a word ‘gospel’ in rustic? In Apostle Paul’s epistle we can find out this word many times. However, not only the fact Mark’s gospel used the word ‘gospel’ mostly (1:1, 14,15, 8:35, 10:29, 13:10) but also the author of Mark brought ‘gospel’ abruptly signifies its’ seriousness. Why did Mark plainly prescribe the storybook about Jesus as ‘gospel’, good news?
It seems Christian faith begins and ends with the fact that Jesus Christ is rightly gospel. If someone is not pleased with this fact then he has to choose other religion or live without religion. Either this or that life is the same, if we see it superficially it doesn’t have much differences between the person who accept Mark’s statement and the person not. Each people live their own given lifetime and go. I don’t have any desire at all to say something this and that about those people. They can live more elegant and nobler life than me. What life they maintain I don’t care and I accept Jesus Christ as the gospel of my life. I don’t have much room to take care of others for it is too much burden for me not only to understand the relationship between Jesus Christ and gospel but also the trial to enter into abyss of such spiritual world. Other things in this world are just references for me to live in this world. Those who have experiences to write a thesis may now an importance of references and footnotes. Despite this a thing is very clear that these are not the theme of a thesis.
However, the statement that Jesus Christ is gospel is not simple one. Firstly we have to understand the difference of the term in Jesus and Christ and look into how it has identified. And we have to look into a personality as Jesus, his work, his teaching and finally the incident that had happened to him as whole step by step. Literally too we have to think the difference between Jesus Christ’s gospel and gospel ‘about Jesus Christ. Jesus is the subject in the former and the object in the latter. Such matters will be gradually clarified and we don’t need to enter in too death today.
Do we know who Jesus is today or do we give any effort to know him? Do we know what is the world lied before us or even try to know it? Do we know my wife, my husband, my children, my mother, my father or even try to know them? Everything is placed likely dead as a still-life painting. Merely we are appreciated with these in order to cheer up our mood like housewives who laugh frolicsomely while changing their cloth. (Ladies, don’t feel bad.) We may be nothing but the people who enjoy religious game by changing Jesus’ position here and there according to our mood. Does really the word Jesus Christ is gospel live for us?
20081112
Jesus Christ
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1)
A certain manuscript copy omits the expression of ‘son of God’ that we have dealt with yesterday. Might be for that reason, Luther translated verse 1 in this way. “This is book is the beginning the gospel about Jesus Christ.” Likewise we don’t need to mention the reason of content difference of the Bible, though it took very small portion, according to manuscript copy. And that not even the same manuscript copy has been found among thousands of copies. However, we can drift from this subject to another after confirming two points based on such objective fact that everybody should recognize. First, the verbal inspiration of the Bible doesn’t have any persuasive power. We have a difficulty to make judge the original manuscript copy among many copies that has minor varies. Moreover, the contention that the Bible is complete word of God in verbal level is not true faith but a religious fanaticism or a self-opinionated person for we don’t have the original copy now. Second, the common opinion of the Bible scholars who studied various manuscript copy comparative way is that the Old and New Testament we are using now is almost closed to the original. This is rightly our reality. The Bible we Christians believe today as the word of God is though not the original copy but is second to the original.
Let’s ask a little detail. Why is the phase ‘son of God’ missed in certain copy? If we want to deal this matter in real earnest we may write a book. We not only have to look into the matter how the conception of son of God was treated in Egypt civilization, Mesopotamia civilization, and furthermore in the Old Testament but also we have to try to find out what happened in the process of editing Mark’s gospel. We leave such matter to the special scholars and for us the following answer is enough to get our needy. The statement as ‘son of God’ is not a decisive fact in Mark’s gospel. It means this term prescribe the character of Mark’s on the whole. However, the foundation of Mark’s gospel doesn’t receive any damage.
The foundation of Mark’s gospel is ‘Jesus Christ’. ‘Son of God’ is a phrase to qualify ‘Jesus Christ’. If Jesus Christ is the subject then son of God is the predicate. It doesn’t mean that the term of ‘Son of God’ is unnecessary. It is necessary but not decisive. The early Christian community borrowed the term of ‘Son of God’ in order to explain ‘Jesus Christ’. However, a calligrapher of the copy boldly omitted it. The reason of his omission of ‘Son of God’ in his copy was probably to reveal Jesus Christ more.
Do we need such discernment in our faith life today, the discernment to distinguish a constant and a variable? However, generally necessary but not an absolute often becomes the major in our faith life. Church organization and its administration, visiting and various meeting, social service and welfare activity and etc are some of this. It should stay in the place of subordinate in church life though these are really necessary and valuable facts for the organization. Otherwise the pastors may be burnt out soon.
Let’s ask a little detail. Why is the phase ‘son of God’ missed in certain copy? If we want to deal this matter in real earnest we may write a book. We not only have to look into the matter how the conception of son of God was treated in Egypt civilization, Mesopotamia civilization, and furthermore in the Old Testament but also we have to try to find out what happened in the process of editing Mark’s gospel. We leave such matter to the special scholars and for us the following answer is enough to get our needy. The statement as ‘son of God’ is not a decisive fact in Mark’s gospel. It means this term prescribe the character of Mark’s on the whole. However, the foundation of Mark’s gospel doesn’t receive any damage.
The foundation of Mark’s gospel is ‘Jesus Christ’. ‘Son of God’ is a phrase to qualify ‘Jesus Christ’. If Jesus Christ is the subject then son of God is the predicate. It doesn’t mean that the term of ‘Son of God’ is unnecessary. It is necessary but not decisive. The early Christian community borrowed the term of ‘Son of God’ in order to explain ‘Jesus Christ’. However, a calligrapher of the copy boldly omitted it. The reason of his omission of ‘Son of God’ in his copy was probably to reveal Jesus Christ more.
Do we need such discernment in our faith life today, the discernment to distinguish a constant and a variable? However, generally necessary but not an absolute often becomes the major in our faith life. Church organization and its administration, visiting and various meeting, social service and welfare activity and etc are some of this. It should stay in the place of subordinate in church life though these are really necessary and valuable facts for the organization. Otherwise the pastors may be burnt out soon.
20081106
Son of God
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1)
The author of Mark’s gospel begins with the statement that Jesus is “the son of God”. However, such explanation put us into trouble in many ways. First of all, the word God has a son itself difficult to understand. It is nonsense that the God of the Bible who exists with the Spirit has a son like gods of Greek myth. Despite we accept it as granted and what is more we have a tendency to accept it as the root of Jesus’ supernatural power.
When we read the Bible we have to always keep the fact in our mind that all these statement is nothing but an ‘interpretation’. It means that the fact Jesus is the son of God not because of he declared “I’m the son of God.” but Christian community interpreted Jesus as the son of God. The New Testament community interpreted about Jesus in various ways. So there are many names about Jesus in the New Testament. Messiah, Kurios, son of David, the Lord of second coming, son of man, only son etc. many name sometimes overlap or comes independently. It signifies the early Christian community that experienced totally different salvation from Jesus clarified Jesus through names that handed down in those days.
Returning to the contents, what does Mark’s interpretation that Jesus is the son of God comes from? In fact the expression of the son of God already came in the Old Testament. Though it is slightly indirect expression Psalm 2:7 says, “I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” When Israel’s king hold a coronation ceremony this Psalm was sung by a chorus. Jesus was acknowledged as the son of God according to such Old Testament tradition. And also this expression contains the fact that Jesus confessed God as a father. In this connection the core of such statement laid in the fact that the early Christian community experienced Jesus as Messiah.
Does the statement that Jesus is the son of God effect to us today? Perhaps woman theologian might feel a little burden to call it saying don’t say a son of God but a daughter God. If Jesus is a man biologically calling as a daughter doesn’t fit then call him just as ‘Child of God’. If they say in this way then I don’t have much word to say more. The people who have a similar faith as Gnosticism of early Christianity era might deny Jesus’ humanity from such statement. Jesus was the son of God not a man. If people insist on this way they are not the person to read the Bible rightly. The Bible and Christian tradition didn’t accept such names in order to reduce Jesus’ humanity. It is important that they experienced Jesus as Messiah. One of many expression for such experience is rightly Son of God.
What had happened to Jesus then early Christians confessed Jesus as the Son of God? Have their experience delivered to us vividly? This question again leads us to ask again who God is? It is important to concern on God. Do not linger in having faith unconditionally or simply memorize the creeds but pour out our soul to God himself. Then only our life get life for God is rightly the source of life.
The author of Mark’s gospel begins with the statement that Jesus is “the son of God”. However, such explanation put us into trouble in many ways. First of all, the word God has a son itself difficult to understand. It is nonsense that the God of the Bible who exists with the Spirit has a son like gods of Greek myth. Despite we accept it as granted and what is more we have a tendency to accept it as the root of Jesus’ supernatural power.
When we read the Bible we have to always keep the fact in our mind that all these statement is nothing but an ‘interpretation’. It means that the fact Jesus is the son of God not because of he declared “I’m the son of God.” but Christian community interpreted Jesus as the son of God. The New Testament community interpreted about Jesus in various ways. So there are many names about Jesus in the New Testament. Messiah, Kurios, son of David, the Lord of second coming, son of man, only son etc. many name sometimes overlap or comes independently. It signifies the early Christian community that experienced totally different salvation from Jesus clarified Jesus through names that handed down in those days.
Returning to the contents, what does Mark’s interpretation that Jesus is the son of God comes from? In fact the expression of the son of God already came in the Old Testament. Though it is slightly indirect expression Psalm 2:7 says, “I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” When Israel’s king hold a coronation ceremony this Psalm was sung by a chorus. Jesus was acknowledged as the son of God according to such Old Testament tradition. And also this expression contains the fact that Jesus confessed God as a father. In this connection the core of such statement laid in the fact that the early Christian community experienced Jesus as Messiah.
Does the statement that Jesus is the son of God effect to us today? Perhaps woman theologian might feel a little burden to call it saying don’t say a son of God but a daughter God. If Jesus is a man biologically calling as a daughter doesn’t fit then call him just as ‘Child of God’. If they say in this way then I don’t have much word to say more. The people who have a similar faith as Gnosticism of early Christianity era might deny Jesus’ humanity from such statement. Jesus was the son of God not a man. If people insist on this way they are not the person to read the Bible rightly. The Bible and Christian tradition didn’t accept such names in order to reduce Jesus’ humanity. It is important that they experienced Jesus as Messiah. One of many expression for such experience is rightly Son of God.
What had happened to Jesus then early Christians confessed Jesus as the Son of God? Have their experience delivered to us vividly? This question again leads us to ask again who God is? It is important to concern on God. Do not linger in having faith unconditionally or simply memorize the creeds but pour out our soul to God himself. Then only our life get life for God is rightly the source of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)