Living Like Jesus
January 12th, 2009 by JohnO
You could choose to live for Jesus. You will never live like Jesus.
There is something entirely unique about Jesus. It goes beyond the consequential facts about his life. Yes, he was crucified and endured it. Other people have suffered evils like this. Yes he forgave those who killed him. There are not many who have done this. Even Peter, as the article states, refused to be made an equal of Jesus though he matched the martyrdom and forgiveness. One could surmise that the big difference (and again the article says as much) is that Jesus paid for sin. But I think even that falls short.Jesus is more. Jesus is the climax of Israel’s story, the peak, what it was all building towards. Jesus is what Israel was supposed to be.
From our position in the ongoing story of God and humanity, trying to answer the “What Would Jesus Do?” question is an exercise in missing the point.
It is missing the point because we live after Jesus. Jesus’ vocation was very specific. His specific actions make perfect sense within the story of Israel and what God wanted done within Israel. We live according to the ethic that Jesus put forward – how the true Israel is supposed to be. Jesus was the representative of Israel, the firstborn.We have a different job that Jesus. We don’t have to start what he started. We have to spread what he started. We live for Jesus.
I hate to argue about this but I think that this is a matter of semantics. I think when someone commits to live like Jesus, it is understood that they aren’t going to be crucified for the sins of others – but rather following the idea that he took the place for us, and we take the place for him in the world (which I know you made you final point).
But when one says they will follow Jesus, they are saying they will live according to his teachings, adhering to his ways. Is there a group somewhere arguing that we really are supposed to follow Jesus to the literal cross and the article you cited is trying to correct that way of thinking?
I’m not advocating that we all take the path of Mr. Dobson (although the video that the blog post you linked to was kind of cool), but that we should continue to be as Jesus would be to the world as we are called to be.
Well yes, however, don’t we think that there are certain things that Jesus was supposed to do and we are not? And doesn’t that extend past just the obvious of “he died for me”, etc? Don’t we routinely talk to groups of people who use certain acts of Jesus for justification for their thoughts or actions? Again, I agree with you on principle, and I think you do with me as well. The article brings it up for a slightly different point of view: don’t think you’re “living like Jesus” because you do what Mr. Dobson did. I’m coming from a different angle. And you are coming from a different angle than either as well.
JohnO
Sometimes when I see your posts lately, I can’t help but feel that I have accidentally gone to the NT Wright page.
Totally off the main point, but is it a historical fact that Peter died in Rome?
Having read the ABC piece on Dobson, my first impression was that this was a stunt to sell books, just like the other guy who supposedly lived like an Old Testament Jew for a year. A show like this is not really concerned about religion, it is concerned about politics and I wonder if they would have even had him on if they hadn’t known who his vote for president had gone to. Anyone who is uninformed about Jesus can not help but come away misinformed about Jesus and how he lived and his purpose from a presentation like this. It is true, we are not to live like Jesus, as though we are the promised Messiah, come to fulfill the promises of Scripture, yet we do represent him here and now and following the example of the way he lived is something we aspire to. I agree with Victor that to some degree it is a matter of semantics. In the end, my take is sort of like Paul in Philippians “What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.” At the end he talks about reading the Bible, so if some people pick up the Bible and start to read it, well that’s a good thing.
JohnO
Could you clarify your comment: “Don’t we routinely talk to groups of people who use certain acts of Jesus for justification for their thoughts or actions?”
Brian,
Sure I can clarify that. It was primarily a line for Victor, since we’ve known each other and dealt with issues together for a long time. We’ve run into people who justify their own actions of hatred, and/or violence, by appealing to Jesus. And right they can be when they are given the blank check “Do what Jesus did”, or “Be like Jesus”. When in truth either of those two statements are very nuanced. These nuances are entirely glossed over, however. Because when we say “Be like Jesus” we do not mean, “taunt and ridicule those who you perceive as enemies” (Jesus’ actions with the Pharisees and Priests), or “take a stance of war based on the fact that the enemy is corrupt” (Jesus’ actions with the Temple). But that is exactly what people do. This post kind of goes with the post about “the Other”, neither of which have anything to do with NT Wright.
JohnO
My NT Wright comment was made, because when I read your comments like:
“Jesus is the climax of Israel’s story, the peak, what it was all building towards. Jesus is what Israel was supposed to be.”
and
“His specific actions make perfect sense within the story of Israel and what God wanted done within Israel. We live according to the ethic that Jesus put forward – how the true Israel is supposed to be.”
it just sounds so NT Wright-ish.
Brian,
Ah, well yes, climax is certainly his term. However, I think the Jesus as representative of Israel is clear from Is 11/61 and Dan 7. And if Jesus is a Jewish reformer (that is a Jew critiquing his peers, not a non-Jew saying Judaism is wrong, or even a Jew saying Judaism is wrong), then his teachings of the sermon on the mount (city set on a hill = Israel from Isaiah) are directed towards the people of God defining how they should be acting.
JohnO
I agree with your comment, although I would phrase it a little differently. I look at Israel, at least in the references you give, plus Is 53 or even Hos 11:1 as being typical of the Messiah; just as David in many respects is typical of the Messiah, and even the Tabernacle and Feasts are somewhat typical of the Messiah. Of course Israel is more than just that.
When one talks about whether Judaism was wrong, it can be tough because of the diversity of Judaism in the 1st C. For many the oral teachings were held to be on equal footing with the written Torah and I would say that it is this that Jesus most often confronted.
Brian,
Well said.
I think that is the part that makes it *not* tough. Because each of those diversities (see NT Wright, NT and the People of God, in the 255-6 pg area) show that the people are understanding and telling Israel’s history, present, and future slightly differently. But because they are telling Israel’s story means that are within Judaism.
I’m not sure Jesus had to combat oral teachings (on the footing of Scripture), because those oral teachings largely gained that footing after the destruction of the Temple and the setup of Jamnia and the subsequent rabbis (culminating in 135AD). (See David Daube, and EP Sanders) But absolutely some of the formative ideas and forces that created the oral teachings were in play in Jesus’ time.