Unknown's avatar

“The Self-Emptying God” A Sermon on Philippians 2:1-13

SCRIPTURE READING: Philippians 2:1-13

“1 If, then, there is any comfort in Christ, any consolation from love, any partnership in the Spirit, any tender affection and sympathy,  2 make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or empty conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not to your own interests but to the interests of others.  5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

6  who, though he existed in the form of God,

    did not regard equality with God

    as something to be grasped,

7  but emptied himself,

    taking the form of a slave,

    assuming human likeness.

    And being found in appearance as a human,

8      he humbled himself

    and became obedient to the point of death—

    even death on a cross.

9  Therefore God exalted him even more highly

    and gave him the name

    that is above every other name,

10  so that at the name given to Jesus

    every knee should bend,

    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11  and every tongue should confess

    that Jesus Christ is Lord,

    to the glory of God the Father.

12 Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence but much more now in my absence, work on your own salvation with fear and trembling,  13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

It’s good to be with you. I always love to preach here. You know me, and I know you. You love me, and I love you. What could go wrong?

As many of you know, I had a very bad fall the day before Easter almost six months ago. I fractured my skull in three places, and broke my neck in a couple places, And I put a big scare into my family, didn’t I? Yeah. I want to thank you all for the care, for your prayers, for the meal train, and for your love that surrounded me and my family these past months. My late mother would have said that my guardian angel was working overtime. I figure my room wasn’t ready. Anyway, here I am, and here you are, so let’s hear some good news.

Would you pray with me: May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, our rock and our Redeemer. Amen.

When Brent invited me to guest preach today, he told me what the reading was and I shared with him that Philippians 2:1-13 is a foundational reading for my Christian faith. 

Now, Brent is not on vacation; he’s at the Southern New England Conference of the United Church of Christ Annual Meeting, with John and Janet Canning, our delegates. And right about now he’s listening to The Rev. Dr. Senator Raphael Warnock preach. And you get to hear me. But Jimmy Carter told us long ago that life isn’t fair, so, you know. 

But anyway, Brent said this is the reading. And I thought, oh, that’s right in my wheelhouse.

Let me share a little background on the text, and then I will tell you why it is important for me. The whole reading is a series of encouragements from Paul to the church in Philippi, and admonitions about how to live the Christian life. He had founded this church in Philippi and had this very warm relationship with them. And the letter reflects this warmth and this sort of intimacy and love. He is writing to them from a Roman prison, but you wouldn’t know it from the tone of the letter. You’d think he’d just won the lottery. The church in Philippi had sent him a gift of money in prison by way of his friend Epaphroditus, who got there and gave him the money. And Paul sent this letter back to the church in Philippi with Epaphroditis. There was no postal system to speak of. (There actually was a postal system in the Roman Empire, but that’s neither here nor there.) But Epaphroditus brings this letter back, and we have the letter.

Embedded in the center of our passage is a poem, a beautiful poem about Christ, which most likely was a hymn that the Philippians would have known. Paul most likely did not write this hymn, but he’s quoting this hymn that they would have known.

You know how the words to hymns are sticky. You know what I’m talking about? You remember the words to hymns, but you don’t remember just texts from the Bible as well. Hymn texts are sticky. A good deal of what I know about the Christian faith I acquired from hymns, singing hymns in junior choir and senior choir. For example, there is more good Christology in “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” than in many a theological book. 

So this is a hymn. It’s a hymn about Christ’s humility, that though he was in human form he shared Divinity with God the Father. He did not consider it something to be exploited, or held on to, or grasped or gripped. But he gave it up. He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, even dying a slave’s death on the cross. And it has this form where it kind of goes down to his death on a cross, and then there’s a “therefore.” Therefore his name is highly exalted. It’s a wonderful, wonderful hymn. I know it by heart (not in this translation).

I’ll tell you why that hymn is salient for me. I grew up in the church. I sang in the Junior and then in the Senior Choir. My Sunday School faith was a pretty simple moralistic dualism. If you’re good God is happy, and if you are not good God is displeased. “He sees you when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake. He knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.”

When I was 15 my mother became ill with colon cancer, and when I was 18, after many years of suffering, she died, two weeks into my first semester of college. To say I was lost would be an understatement, but my Sunday School faith didn’t have much to offer really, and I really didn’t want to have too much to do with this god who took my mom, or at least allowed her to be taken. I know she didn’t abandon me, but you feel abandoned when you’re a kid and your parent dies.

It’s a long story from there to here, and I will spare you the details, but when I ended up in seminary and started to really think deeply about who this God was, I was drawn to Jesus as the crucified and forsaken one. God incarnate in his human form who has solidarity with all of us humans in all our suffering, our sense of abandonment, our sense of forsakenness, all the marginal people, the last, the least, and the lost. That was a God I could embrace. I went to seminary looking for answers, and when someone asks me if I found them, I say, “Not really, but I got better questions.”

And so, the cross and all it means became a theological preoccupation of mine through most of my ministry. I’m kind of a “Johnny one note.” It’s a good note, an important note. And I had three academic sabbaticals in Britain with my family, in 1989 at Oxford University, in 1995 at St. Andrews University in Scotland, and 2001 at Cambridge University in England. And I studied the subject of the cross and what it means, and I wrote a book about it. The title of my book is “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross: Reflections on the Atonement.” That title comes from the Isaac Watts hymn we will sing after the sermon.

Isaac Watts, by the way, was a Congregationalist. I don’t know if you knew that. When I was a kid, I thought he was an Episcopalian, because it always said Isaac Watts in the Episcopal hymnbook. But no, he was one of us. His English Puritan church sang only the psalms in meter. They were good Calvinists, and were kind of suspicious of music and things like that, dangerous stuff like music. And one day as a teenager, he came out of worship and complained to his father that the music was boring. That music was really boring. His father, as fathers would do, said, “Well, do you think you can do better?” And 756 hymns later, the answer is “yes,” he could and he did! Some of our favorite hymns: “Joy to the World,”“ When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,”“ Our God Our Help in Ages Past, ”“I Sing the Mighty Power of God,”“ My Shepherd Will Supply My Need, ”just to name a few.

So the cross, for me, is the symbol of God in his human form in Jesus Christ, being God with us. God With Us, in the whole smear of human existence, the whole struggle of being a human being in this life. He shared our humanity in all its fullness.

I was born at the very end of the middle of the Twentieth Century, which was the bloodiest and most brutal century in human history, though, sadly, we are on pace to set a new record. I came of age during the time of the assassinations in our country of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and the war in Vietnam. It was the cross that led me back to the Christian faith as a young adult. Only Christian faith with a cross at its center was adequate to make sense of these tragedies of my early adulthood, and the brokenness and brutality of life in this world.

While I was in seminary a very important book came out: Jurgen Moltmann’s “The Crucified God.” Jurgen Moltmann was a German Reformed theologian. I still remember a question from the Introduction, “What does it mean to recall the God who was crucified in a society whose official creed is optimism, and which is knee deep in blood?” Pretty good question, huh?

In 1990, I was honored to meet Moltmann, and to be on a panel with him in Princeton, at the Center of Theological Inquiry. He told his story of being a German teenager at the end of World War 2 when the Germans were running out of troops, and they started enlisting old men and young boys to fight what was left of the war. I think he was 16 when he was enlisted to man an anti-aircraft battery, and he told of watching his other young teenage boy comrades being maimed and dying around him. And then when the war was over, the Allies took him prisoner and he went to a prisoner of war camp in England, where some good Christian gave him a King James Bible, which he read from cover to cover, and had a conversion experience, which I guess that’s one way to call it. He concluded that only a crucified God could help him make sense of what his country had been involved in, make sense of the manifold brutalities of the war and the European Holocaust. He became a Christian and one of the finest theologians of his time.

Now, the theme of Paul’s letter to the Philippians is humility.  I just read an article in the Atlantic about how there have been 3 or 4 recent books assaulting humility and compassion. “We’ve got to get rid of that. We’ve got to stop taking care of people. You know, it’s the welfare state.” Popular books. No compassion, no empathy, no humility.

But for Paul, his model was Christ, the self-emptying of God in Christ. The Greek word for self-emptying is kenosis. It means “relinquishing,” “giving up”, “handing over,” “letting go.” Opening your hands. It is contrasted with “grasping,” “clinging,” “holding on,” “gripping.”

There is a wonderful contrast hidden in plain sight in this little hymn in Philippians: Adam — did you know Adam is not a proper name, it means “human” in Hebrew. Adam, the first human – any grasping in that story? What did Adam grasp? The fruit. It wasn’t an apple. Apples don’t grow in the Middle East. It could have been a date or pomegranate. But it was a fruit, and he grasped it. Christ in the New Testament is often contrasted with Adam. Adam, the first human, and then Christ is the new human. So Adam, humans in our natural state are grasping, whereas Christ, the new Adam, the new human, isn’t grasping, but relinquishing, emptying, humble.

So, Paul’s admonitions to the Philippians are based on Christ’s humility. I need to say a word about humility in the ancient world. There are many lists of virtues in the New Testament that echo similar lists of virtues in pagan writings of the time. They are what we might expect: courage, honesty, strength, and the like. But notable in its absence is humility. It is hard for us to realize how radical the Gospel message of humility was at the time. A crucified messiah was on nobody’s bingo card. That Jesus chose humility, taking the form of a slave, even dying a slave’s death on a cross, was a scandal then, and it’s still a scandal.

Humility was not a virtue. The word virtue derives from the Latin “vir,” which means male. To be virtuous was to be manly. Humility was not considered a manly virtue. We men have a lot to answer for, really. But Jesus freely chose to humble himself and be an atoning sacrifice for the whole world. Somebody should tell hyper-Christian Pete Hegseth to have a closer reading of the Gospels as he touts his manly warrior-ethic version of Christianity. Perhaps he should start with the Letter to the Philippians. Or the Sermon on the Mount. Or the “Golden Rule.”

As some of you know, I am part of a wonderful Zoom Bible study that meets every Wednesday at 1:00. You are welcome to join us! The link is on our church website. Our group this week was a great help to me on Wednesday when I asked them what might this passage means for us as Christians today.

One person said that what Paul is describing here is exactly the opposite of the world we live in. Humility is still radical and still a scandal. Grasping, on the other hand, is widely accepted as the way to get ahead in our society. Rugged individualism is the American way, whereas Paul believes that faith is a team sport and takes place in community. Does anybody know where the Bible says, “God helps those who help themselves?” No. It’s not in the Bible. Who knows where that came from? How about ambition, competition, anything goes, dog eat dog. None of that is here. Paul, rather, admonishes them: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or empty conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests but to the interests of others.” Do we see a lot of that in our leaders and “successful” people? Do we see it in celebrities and famous people? Maybe Dolly Parton… Does the world we live in reflect the humility that Paul describes?

The late writer David Foster Wallace gave a now famous commencement speech at Kenyon College in 2005. He told this story: “There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”” Fish don’t see the water they swim in and we don’t see the socially-constructed world we take for granted, with all its assumptions about the way things are, and who’s in and who’s out, and who’s worthy and who’s not worthy, and who’s cool and who’s not cool. 

The people in Jesus’s day didn’t see the water they swam in either, which was the occupation of the Roman Empire, the most powerful empire in the history of the world at that time, which they kept in power in collaboration with the religious authorities in power. Power was maintained by violence and the threat of violence. Crucifixion was a slave’s death, reserved for those who threatened the power of Rome. One of the reasons the four Gospels are reticent about talking about Jesus’s crucifixion — this wasn’t Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” which goes into agonizing ongoing details of the death of Jesus. They were reticent about any details. And why do you think that is? Because everyone had seen a crucifixion. They knew what it was like. They didn’t need to be told. When there was a slave revolt the Romans would line the streets with dead and dying men hanging on crosses, sometimes thousands of them. It was a warning. It was “See that? You mess with Rome’s power and that’s what you end up with.”

Jesus’s death was a state execution. Does that happen today in our world? Sadly, it does. The extra- judicial killings of people in the Caribbean in small boats who may or may not be drug dealers, but we’ll never know because they don’t get due process, they don’t get their day in court. The administration decides they don’t like them, so they kill them. Or what we saw on TV, the murder of Renee Good and Alex Pretti  by ICE authorities in Minneapolis. Which we saw. We saw the video.

The alternative realm that Jesus proclaimed and embodied, that he called the kingdom of God, was a threat to those in power, and so they murdered him. And that was that.

Except it wasn’t! Because he didn’t stay dead, and his followers turned the world upside down by seeking a new world, seeking a better way, living a better way, a way of compassion, of empathy, of love, kindness and humility.

So, here’s Paul, moldering in a Roman prison writing to the church in Philippi, admonishing them to be loving as Jesus loved, and humble as Jesus was humble. Was this new way easy? No, it was not easy. Philippi was the capitol of Greek Macedonia and many Roman soldiers retired there. It was like the Berkshires, you know? So, the church was surrounded by fellow citizens who had sworn an oath to Caesar as Lord. The Greek is “kyrios,” the same word that Christians used to talk about Jesus. Jesus is Lord. So, there’s a conflict in values and culture. There was social tension and occasionally outbreaks of persecution for these Christians.

Still, Paul encourages them. He says, “Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence but much more now in my absence, work on your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

Now, I have always been a bit intimidated by the phrase “work on your own salvation with fear and trembling,” but Paul softens it a little bit by saying “it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” I really like how the Message paraphrases these two verses: “What I’m getting at, friends, is that you should simply keep on doing what you’ve done from the beginning. When I was living among you, you lived in responsive obedience. Now that I’m separated from you, keep it up. Better yet, redouble your efforts. Be energetic in your life of salvation, reverent and sensitive before God. That energy is God’s energy, an energy deep within you, God himself willing and working at what will give him the most pleasure.” I like that energy, that vitality.

So imitating Christ should not scare us, it should not frighten us. It’s not the same as impersonating him. There is only one Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God. Only one. His humility is the model for Christian humility. But we can imitate his humility. The way of Christ does not mean pulling yourself up by your spiritual bootstraps. It means walking together in community into the new and better way that Christ has begun among us. It means recognizing the water we swim in. It may mean changing the water we swim in. It means rejecting the fear that divides us and warns us off challenging unjust power and evil.

And the best Good News for today is that you are already in Christ by virtue of your baptism, and by your participation in the church, which is Christ’s body. You’re already in. Here you are, God’s beloved, worshipping and being the church by your very presence. So, just be who you already are! Love God, love your neighbor. And as Paul wrote to the little flock in Philippi, so long ago, “Be energetic in your life of salvation, reverent and sensitive before God. That energy is God’s energy, an energy deep within you, God himself willing and working at what will give him the most pleasure.” Amen.

“I preached this sermon on September 27, 2026 at the First Congregational Church of Stockbridge (UCC), Massachusetts. For the YouTube video go here: https://stockbridgeucc.org/sermons/the-self-emptying-god/?fbclid=IwY2xjawU0oZRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBwZG9mAXNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR7PxH_0Nswq_aI-7G2Pz34PJl3HAFU7kyzWvpCmBErhTRuvR9bz1Q9MPdjpoQ_aem_9lV7HZDh2WsRXvhYPzuEZQ)

Unknown's avatar

“The Cross and Forgiveness”

Lent 2014As we enter Holy Week and look ahead to Easter I would like to reflect on some of the threads of our Lenten study these past few weeks in the light of the cross and resurrection.

You will recall that forgiveness means a wiping away from memory of the offense, so that it is as if it never happened, leading to restoration of the relationship.

At the very first meeting we reflected on how extraordinary the idea of forgiveness is, since the human impulse for retribution and revenge runs very deep.

So if forgiveness is such a hard thing for us, what explains the amazing stories we saw and heard, first about Desmond Tutu and the South African Truth and Reconciliation Committees, and then the story of Louis Zamperini forgiving his Japanese captors decades after his imprisonment? (As told in Laura Hillenbrand’s best-selling book Unbroken). Continue reading →

Unknown's avatar

“I Crucified Thee!” A Sermon for Palm/Passion Sunday

Crucifixion(As we prepare for Holy Week I offer this sermon of mine from 2004, my last year (as it turned out) as pastor at First Church in Pittsfield. Mel Gibson’s controversial film Passion of the Christ had brought the issues of the cross into the public view, and provided an opportunity to address this (quite literally) “crucial” subject.)

“This year  more than other years, there has been interest in the meaning of the passion of Christ because of the new Mel Gibson movie. I am not going to talk about the movie very much since I haven’t seen it. Seth Rogovoy from the Berkshire Eagle asked me to see it and be on a panel, but I said I wasn’t going to see it. But I had read the book!

I haven’t seen it for two reasons. The first is the same reason I have never seen Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan. I’m a wimp. I experience film as a powerful medium, and I am emotionally effected by movie violence. Somehow I can deal with battles between hobbits and orcs, but the depiction of historical violence I find very disturbing.

The second reason I haven’t seen it is subtler, and perhaps harder to understand. It is my feeling that there are some things that shouldn’t be put on film, and I personally feel that the death of Jesus is one of them. That may seem hypocritical since I have a reproduction of Matthias Grünwald’s Crucifixion on the wall of my study. Artists have always depicted biblical events. Why not film artists? For me, it is the appearance of reality about film, that “You Were There” quality that makes it so powerful.

I know people who have loved this movie and people who have hated it, people who have felt their life changed by it and people who have walked out of it. I have spoken to people who felt the movie was anti-Semitic and people who didn’t. It seems the movie for some people has served as a kind of cinematic Rorschach test for beliefs people already hold.

However accurate the film is, there is at least one sense in which the movie is not quite biblical, and that is in its detailed depiction of the event. None of the Gospels really describe the crucifixion. There is a restraint about the Gospel accounts, a kind of modesty before the obscenity and horror of the event. Of course, the harsh truth is that none of the Evangelists needed to be told what a crucifixion was like. Whether they wanted to or not most of them had seen crucified slaves along the roads. Tens of thousands of the enemies of Rome, real or perceived, were crucified in the first century AD, so Jesus’ crucifixion was just another one of those.

When the movie came out the cover of Newsweek asked in boldface type: “Who really killed Jesus?” That question arises out of a long and shameful history of Christian anti-Semitism. The foundation of this anti-Semitism has been the attempt to attach historical blame for the crucifixion to the Jews. For centuries in Christian Europe violence toward Jews frequently took place on Good Friday.

We must acknowledge the sad truth that for Jews the cross has been an emblem of persecution just as for Islam it has been an emblem of the Crusades. To admit this is not to apologize for the cross, but it is to apologize for the reprehensible acts that have been done in its name.

The truth is that the responsibility for Jesus’ death lies at the feet of all humankind. That the characters in the Gospel accounts of the Passion were Romans or Jews is incidental to the significance of the cross. We must never forget that Jesus and all his followers were Jewish. Let us remember, too, that “Second Temple Judaism” was not monolithic, but had parties and factions, and some of them were hostile to Jesus.

We do know that crucifixion was never a Jewish method of execution; that would have been death by stoning. A cross was a Roman device, and his executioners were Roman soldiers. So from a strictly historical point of view it must be said that Jesus was the victim of a Roman state execution.

But to the question, “Who killed Jesus? The better answer must be, “I did.  You did.  We did.”  Which is to say that it was human sin that killed Jesus. He not only died for our sins, he died because of our sins. That is expressed in the second verse of the hymn “Ah, holy Jesus,” which asks:

“Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon thee?

Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee!

Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee;

I crucified thee.”

And the second station of the cross in the Roman Catholic Church prays: “My Jesus, this cross should be mine, not Thine; my sins crucified Thee.”

How can this be? How can a man who died two thousand years ago in Jerusalem have anything to do with me? How can I be guilty? In much the same way church members have sometimes told me that they don’t feel like the confession of sin in our service relates to them. They don’t feel as if they have done any of the things we confess, such as being unjust to their neighbors, or fouling the environment, or what have you.

I try to explain to them that a general confession is just that, general. The prayer speaks for a broader constituency that any of us, or even all of us within the congregation. For when we come before God we don’t come merely as individuals, we come as part of the human family. And as part of the human family we participate in vast social, political and economic networks, many of them unjust and even evil.

Which is to say, that to some extent, we all have blood on our hands, although none of us likes to think about it. In Dostoevsky’s profound novel The Brothers Karamazov, he tells the story of “The Grand Inquisitor.” Christ comes back again to earth, and who he is and what he stands for are too threatening to the status quo for him to be allowed to live. The question is asked, “If Christ walked among us again, would we kill him again?”

John Thomas has written, “Our fingerprints on the nails are easy to overlook, but they are there. Holy Week presses us to see that we too, are violators. Some years ago,” he writes, “I watched a documentary on the Holocaust, titled “Shoah,” which included expected scenes of horror. But for me, the most disturbing portrait of evil was the benign face of an elderly man who had worked for the German state railroad. His job was to issue tickets to Jews forced into cattle cars for transport to the gas chambers. This bewildered-looking man couldn’t comprehend that his bureaucratic job had anything to do with the horror of the Holocaust. He didn’t shoot Jews or toss them in the ovens. He just issued tickets.”  Thomas concludes, “You and I don’t flay the skin off Jesus. But we do issue tickets. Our complicity in evil is real and often profoundly undramatic. Until we face that reality, the Passion is little more than a tragic movie, and we will miss the truth of our own profound need for the redemption of Easter.” (United Church News, April 2004)

But at the foot of the cross we can be set free to recognize ourselves among the guilty. We can identify ourselves among the crowd, both on Palm Sunday when they cried, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” and on Good Friday, when they shouted “Crucify him.” A disappointed angry mob is dangerous, probably not all that different from the crowd that mutilated the bodies of the slain American workers in Fallujah in Iraq this week. Such shameful acts of violence and horror take place all the time, not just in the past, not just “in history.” At the foot of the cross can we acknowledge that even the very best of us bears some resemblance to the worst of us? Can we recognize ourselves as sinners in need of redemption?

Can we put aside the tendency to blame “the other” for human sin and evil? Can we leave behind the need to point an accusing finger at those who are not like us, whether they are poor, or black, or Muslim or Jewish, so that we don’t have to confront our own sin?

This sounds like a grim exercise, but it is a necessary one. Because the Gospel is often bad news before it is able to be Good News. God’s judgment and mercy are two sides of the same coin. And so when we admit our sin, and the sin of the human family of which we are a part, we can then receive the forgiveness God wants for us. At the foot of the cross we can see that Jesus died not only because of our sins, but also for our sins, to take them away and free us for new life with him and for each other.

And this is only possible because Jesus’ death is not just any death. No, the incredible claim we make is that “In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself.” If Jesus had been just another man, even a very good man, then he is, at best, an example to us of the power of sacrifice, and, at worst, just another martyr to human violence. Then his death is merely a tragedy. Because suffering is never, in and of itself, redemptive. Just ask anyone who suffers. To believe otherwise is masochism.

But why is his death redemptive? Why is Jesus’ death different from all the other tragic deaths in history? Why is his death different from all the other men who ended up on Roman crosses? The answer is not that he suffered more. Others have suffered more, even at the hand of Christians.

So what is it that makes his death different, and makes his cross not a symbol of shame, but a symbol of faith? The full story will be told next Sunday on Easter. It is the resurrection that makes the difference. It is the resurrection that transforms the cross from an emblem of horror into an emblem of God’s wondrous love.

To the eyes of Easter faith the bitter cross is viewed as an act of Israel’s God, consistent with who God had been in the past, a God who rescues and saves, who liberates and reconciles. So the cross is transformed into an atoning, redeeming, reconciling divine act of grace. God in Jesus Christ gives up his life in humble obedience. He takes our sin and the judgment that goes with it and puts it to death on the cross with himself. That is how the cross becomes the symbol of Christian faith, not as a way to blame others for sin, but to admit our own sin and marvel at the lengths that God will go to take it away.

If you want to know what God is like, look to Jesus, and him crucified! There you will see the very nature of God. As C. S. Dinsmore once wrote, “There was a cross in the heart of God before there was one planted on the green hill outside Jerusalem.”

The cross tells us that God’s grace is bigger than our sin. The extent of that love should humble us. As Isaac Watts penned, “When I survey the wondrous cross, on which the prince of glory died, my richest gain, I count but loss, and pour contempt on all my pride.”

That is what the cross stands for, the vast love of God, and our humble contrition before it when we consider the weight of our now-forgiven sins. To turn the cross into a symbol of Christian triumphalism, or of a Crusade, or of persecution is to betray its meaning. To make the cross an emblem of hate like the twisted crosses of Nazism or the Ku Klux Klan is to crucify Christ all over again.

But to admit “I crucified Thee” is not an empty pious gesture. Nor is it mere breast-beating. It is an honest admission of our need to have our sins forgiven, and not only ours but the sins of the whole world, our need to be reconciled to God and to our neighbors. The Good News that we preach is that God has already accomplished this for us through the cross. We need only take what he gives us, and we will find that when we turn to him, he is already coming to meet us.

So let us come to his table today in humility and contrition as those who need forgiveness, as those who need God’s grace.  And let us find in him, whose body was broken for us, and whose blood was shed for us, both bread for the journey and food for eternal life.  Amen.

(I preached this sermon on Palm/Passion Sunday, April 4, 2004 at First Church of Christ, Congregational in Pittsfield, Massachusetts)

(Painting: “Crucifixion” by Matthias Grunewald)

Unknown's avatar

Book Review of “God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament” by Richard Bauckham

God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament
By Richard Bauckham
Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999. 79 pp. $12.00.

Richard Bauckham, professor of New Testament studies at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, is perhaps best known for his studies of the book of Revelation and for his commentaries on Jude and 2 Peter. He is also a thoughtful theologian who has written an introduction to the theology of Jirgen Moltmann. God Crucified displays the craft of both a careful exegete and a deft theologian as Bauckham explores the riddle of how the radically monotheistic Jews who composed the earliest church could have come to call Jesus “Lord.”

His argument turns much of mainstream christology, which has often assumed that a high christology is both a later development and incompatible with Jewish monotheism, on its head. According to Bauckham, “the earliest Christology was already the highest Christology,” a theology of divine identity that focuses on “who God is” rather than on what “divinity” is. In the Jewish monotheism of the Second Temple, the identity of God was understood by analogy with human identity, which includes both character and personal story. This unique identity had two key features: (1) God as the creator of all things and (2) God as the sovereign ruler over all things. God is also identified by God’s acts in Israel’s history, especially in the exodus, and by the character description God gives to Moses: “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Exod 34:6). The acts of God and the character of God together identify God as the one who acts graciously towards his people.

This God, then, by his very identity, was expected to act in the future. For example, Second Isaiah, an important source for early Christians, expects a new exodus, which will show decisively God’s identity as creator and ruler of all things. So the first Christians, who had experienced this new exodus in Jesus, understood that God was continuing the story, and “a new narrative of God’s acts becomes definitive for his identity.” The God who acted in the exodus had now acted again in the cross and resurrection of Jesus.

When the church included Jesus, a human being humiliated and exalted, into the identity of God, they were saying something radically new about God’s identity. Nevertheless, the novelty of God crucified did not betray the identity of the God of Israel. On the contrary, as the early church examined the Scriptures it could find consistency in the novelty. It found the God of Israel and the God of Jesus Christ to be one and the same God.

Bauckham helps us understand early Jewish monotheism as the context for New Testament christology. On one hand, he takes issue with “strict” approaches, which claim that only a radical break with Jewish monotheism could allow for the attribution of divinity to Jesus. On the other hand, he rejects “revisionist” approaches, which focus on intermediary figures– principal angels, exalted humans, and the like-as models by which to understand the divinity attributed to Jesus. Bauckham also maintains a strict view of monotheism but argues that a high christology was possible precisely within a strict monotheism by identifying Jesus directly with the God of Israel. Bauckham rejects the second view as being unimportant for the study of christology, for the intermediary figures were never worshipped. He understands the presence of divine attributes such as word and wisdom as expressions of God’s identity and not separate creatures. They demonstrate, he believes, that Second Temple Judaism does not find distinctions in the divine identity inconceivable or threatening to divine uniqueness.

Such a christology of divine identity helpfully moves us beyond functional and ontic understandings. A functional christology, in which Jesus exercises the functions of lordship without being ontically divine, would have been problematic for Jewish monotheism, since the unique sovereignty of God was not something God could delegate to someone else. The ontological approach has often assumed that while early Jewish monotheists could speak of divine functions when speaking of Jesus, they shied away from speaking of divine nature, something that only later patristic development spelled out. Against this view, Bauckham shows that throughout the New Testament there are clear and deliberate uses of the unique, divine identity to include Jesus. Bauckham’s christology of divine identity offers a proper way to understand the New Testament within its Jewish monotheistic context by including Jesus, cross and all, within the unique identity of Israel’s God.

Richard L. Floyd.

(This review first appeared in Theology Today in April 2001, in a slightly edited form that eliminated my masculine personal pronouns for deity, an editorial practice I find stylistically awkward, theologically problematic, and troublesome to free speech. This is closer to what I originally wrote.)