December 2000 the synod of the Uniting Protestant Churches in the Netherlands (UPCN) adopted this document on Christology, called "Jezus Christ, our Lord and Savior". This text on Christology is one of the first theological documents the combined synod of UPCN reflected on. Therefore, it is an important document to the three uniting churches in the Netherlands.

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior

Synodical report of the synods of the Dutch Reformed Church (Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk), the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland), and the Evangelical-Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Evangelisch-Lutherse Kerk in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden).

October 2000
© Translation: Reformed Ecumenical Council, Dr. Sierd Woudstra

Contents

Introduction

1. Who is Jesus Christ for us?

As synods of the Uniting Churches (Together-on-the-Way Churches) in this report we wish to put into words who Jesus Christ is for us. Inside and outside the congregations there are many questions and ideas about the meaning of Jesus Christ. The belief in him is also experienced and expressed in a great variety of ways. This diversity calls for reflection on our communal faith in Christ.

This variety of views about the faith is an important reason for this report, but not the sole or deepest reason for it. It is part of our calling as church to always anew confess Jesus Christ. Who the Lord is and what he means to us is set forth in the confessions of the church. His person and presence is a great mystery, however. Therefore we cannot assume from the outset that the confessions have said the last word about him. Therefore, in every age and next to her earlier confessions, the church tries to find new terms and fresh accents with which to articulate the mystery of the Lord as it relates to current questions it has to deal with.

Members of the church possibly find this document superfluous. Perhaps they will find their faith in Christ clearly expressed in the wordings of earlier confessions and they fear that other formulations are a relativization or even denial of the heart of the Christian faith.

There are also those, outside and inside the church, who by themselves want to discover the meaning of Jesus Christ for their life. They need room for a spiritual search by which the faith can really become their own. Perhaps they fear that this document will tell them, even dictate, what they must believe and that this restricts their freedom to make up their own mind. However, as church we cannot avoid the question concerning Jesus Christ as it is raised in our time. Nor can we leave this question to each person’s individual preference, for then we would cease to be a community of faith. So when in this report we describe who Jesus Christ is for us, all we aim to do is articulate anew the faith of the church. At the same time we hope that this portrayal will help people with their own search.

Here it is as church that we inquire about Jesus Christ, that is, as a community of faith which lives in communion with her Lord. We cannot nor do we want to forget this bond for a moment. If we should detach ourselves from this context and talk about Christ as about a stranger, we would no longer speak as church.

Because of this bond, when we talk about Jesus Christ our own identity as church is also at stake. How we view Christ, believe in him and follow him, is one of the ways which shows where we stand as community of faith. Therefore the subject of this report touches the core of what it means to us that we are a church and Christians. We have received the faith in Christ from God. That Jesus is Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) has been proclaimed to us by the apostles. It is not due to our own effort and the result of our own reasoning that we agree with this proclamation. Faith in Jesus Christ is a gift from God, a work of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). Our speaking about Christ is our response to a reality that has manifested itself to us and that has convinced us. Hence this speaking is confessional in nature. To confess means to give an answer to the question who Jesus Christ is for us today.

When a confessional answer has been given, the question is not thereby out of the way. Even when we confess him, the question concerning Jesus Christ keeps us occupied. This question leads us to have another look at and reexamine earlier answers. Confessing is never an obvious given.

The one question concerning Jesus Christ can be broken down into many questions and every age has put its own slant on it. In our time we see a new interest in Jesus as a person of his own time and in extra-biblical givens which may shed light on Jesus’ life. We also have acquired more of an eye for the various ways in which the New Testament expresses the significance of Jesus. For example, the gospel writers and the apostle Paul approach the meaning of Jesus’ death from a variety of perspectives. New scholarly research and discoveries in recent decades have enlarged our understanding of the Jewish world to which Jesus belonged, an understanding that produces new questions about his significance. Not a few suspect that the picture the Bible gives us of Jesus is colored by later faith perspectives.

These questions, discoveries and hypotheses do not remain within the walls of the studies of the scholars. Exegetes present their findings to the churches and theology. Theologians sometimes draw far-reaching conclusions and do not hesitate to discard traditional beliefs as unnecessary ballast. Moreover, outside the church and the theology of the church new pictures of Jesus come to the fore.

All this sometimes gives the impression that each individual can create his or her own Jesus. It may give believers the feeling that there are more questions than answers. Or that there is no longer one answer but only many contradictory answers. Or that new answers negate earlier answers in the church’s tradition. No wonder that many feel confused and no longer know what to believe and what they can be sure of.

There is, however, no reason to become paralyzed by these feelings. On the contrary. After all, believing and confessing has never been without questions. At heart the question concerning Jesus is evoked by Jesus himself. "Who do people say that I am?" (Mark 8:29). Also after the answer "You are the Christ" the questions have not disappeared. Dogmas and creeds that now seem simple and clear to us are the outcome of lengthy discussions about burning issues about which the church was unable to reach a consensus. Many questions that seem new to us have occupied the church from the beginning. Fact is that early on in the church’s history questions that can confuse us were already studied in depth and given an answer that reflected the faith. That questions can agitate the church is thus nothing new. It shouldn’t trouble us. By this we do not mean that there are no new questions or that in principle all questions have already been answered. There are questions which were unknown to previous generations in the form in which they present themselves to us. Some of these were already mentioned above. But why should these questions be a threat to our faith? Why should we have to fear them? True, it is risky to posit new questions. But to stop asking questions is at least as risky. Therefore we do better to face these questions head-on and to view them as challenges that can help us give a new answer to the question concerning Jesus, and give us a better understanding of the contents and meaning of our faith. New questions can also be a stimulus for a renewed faith and confession. The history of our Lord and the history of his church give us every reason to trust that such can be the case.

In this document we confess our faith by summarizing and pondering what the Bible tells us about Jesus Christ and his salvation. The challenge to embark on this task comes from questions raised in our time relative to the faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore throughout this document we keep in mind real discussions. We make no attempt to present a complete exposition of the doctrine about Christ. Nor do we restrict ourselves to a discussion of the views of, for example, professor Harry Kuitert and professor Cees den Heyer. We try, as church, to set forth what we have learned from the biblical witness about Jesus Christ and his salvation. And as we do so, we first let ourselves be led by what past generations have confessed. Where we deemed it necessary, in light of current discussions, we take up questions concerning the historicity of the faith in Jesus Christ and the figurative language used for faith. We also deal with some important questions and perspectives of Kuitert and den Heyer though without mentioning their names, since what they write is on the minds of many. As might be expected, in those passages our presentation will be more in the nature of a theological discussion.

To believe in Jesus Christ and in reconciliation between God and humankind is not an obvious given. For believers Jesus is important because of his unique relationship with God. Reconciliation with God presupposes that also for our own happiness the relationship with God is of decisive importance. If we find it hard to believe in God, the relative weight of questions concerning Jesus changes. And if we find it hard to find a meaningful place for God in our life, reconciliation with God is of much less importance to us. But if we do actually seek God and know of Jesus’ unique relationship with God, talking about reconciliation presupposes a number of things that are not obvious givens. Such as, that originally and ultimately God does not want evil and that therefore we may have hope of deliverance. That in addition to the evil we experience, there is evil which we do and bring about and for which we are responsible. That we, by choosing evil, have broken our relationship with God and cannot mend it ourselves. That someone else can represent us before God and make right our relationship with God. We experience none of these presuppositions as naturally true. That means that they can be formidable obstacles when it comes to understanding reconciliation. We are aware of these difficulties and therefore, where it seemed desirable, have briefly noted them. However, since this treatise aims to offer no more than an overall description of our faith in Jesus Christ and of reconciliation, it lies outside its purpose and scope to deal with the pastoral aspect of these intellectual and spiritual problems.

Following this introduction, we describe in the second part of this report faith in Jesus Christ (chapter 2) and what is meant by reconciliation (chapter 3). In the third part we show first of all how this faith was confessed in the past and what is implied in the bond with this confession (chapter 4). Next we deal with the specific role theology has to play in the confession, proclamation and instruction of the church (chapter 5). In the fourth part we tackle in greater detail two problems which today play along in every discussion about Jesus, and thus also in chapters 2 and 3, namely, the historicity of the faith (chapter 6) and the figurative nature of faith language (chapter 7). These chapters are bound to be rather technical, but may not be omitted since every thoughtful believer in one way or another runs into these questions. We conclude our report with a reference to the wellspring of our faith from which it lives (chapter 8).

(contents)

Jesus Christ and our reconciliation with God

2. Our Lord and Savior

2.1 Christ
As a rule we use the terms Jesus and Christ as two names. This word usage is already found in the New Testament. This is remarkable, considering that this word is the Greek translation of a Hebrew word meaning Anointed One (mashiach, from which Messiah is derived). The term Anointed One is used in the Old Testament in reference to persons who are divinely appointed for a special task. For that they are anointed, with oil or by the Spirit of God. This was done with kings, the (high)priest, and the prophet Elisha. When they are called ‘anointed ones’ it is not a name but a title. It does not refer to their person but to their office. The term Messiah also occurs in non-biblical Jewish writings to designate someone who will deliver the people of Israel from their enemies and will bring peace as the beginning of God’s kingdom in this world. Ideas about how and through whom this will be done (a king from the line of David or a high priest) vary. Already during his earthly life Jesus’ followers gave him the title Messiah (Mark 8:29). After the resurrection the term became the common name for Jesus. When we use the word Christ (Anointed) as an official title, it is a summary of the special functions Jesus performed on behalf of God. God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit as prophet, priest and king.

Two historical notes should be made here. Scientific research has shown that in Jesus’ days there was not just one specific view of the Messiah. Different notions about a Messiah abounded. There were also expectations of a coming deliverance that did not include a Messiah. Therefore we cannot say that Jesus’ ministry was clear proof to all who saw him that he was the Messiah. We cannot say either that because he did not free Israel from Roman occupation he was not the Messiah whom Israel expected.

Historically considered, it is not likely that Jesus let himself be called Messiah (Mark 8:30). What does seem likely is that he regarded his mandate as messianic, though such cannot be proven. For that matter, the opposite, that he did not view himself as Messiah, cannot be proven either.

For our faith it is important that the only way to get a good grasp of the meaning of the name and title Christ is by turning to the Old Testament and other Jewish writings. The task of the Messiah, the role he was to play and the salvation he brings only become clear in God’s way with his people Israel. In the synagogue the Messiah was, and still is, expected as the coming deliverer of Israel. When we confess Jesus as Messiah, we acknowledge thereby that Jesus has come to Israel. He is a "servant of the circumcised" (Rom. 15:8). The large majority of Israel, however, did not accept Jesus as Messiah. Therefore there is a deep division between synagogue and church. Because God remains faithful to the people he chose, Israel remains God’s chosen people. The church has not come in the place of Israel. Our faith in the Messiah Jesus connects us to the people for which he came and to which he belongs, the people of God. Through Jesus we have been given access to the God of Israel (Eph. 2:11-13), and because of him we may share in the expectation of the kingdom of God given to Israel.

The name Christian is derived from the name Jesus Christ. This name means that we share in his anointing, in his special God-given mission, and that we as his followers are called to lead a kingly, priestly and prophetic life. The Spirit of God who filled him wants to be active in our life as well.

(contents)

2.2 Lord and Savior
The special place of Jesus in our life and in the world is indicated by the title Lord. A Lord is someone who has authority and power to rule and to give orders to his servants. Jesus is Lord because he has authority over our life. The term Lord was used in the Hellenistic culture, in which the church originated, for deities or divine rulers. However, only Jesus is entitled to the position they demand for themselves (1 Cor. 8:6). Jesus established his claim as Lord by humbling himself for us. This Lord is at the same time the unique servant (Phil. 2:7,8). Greek-speaking Jews were familiar with the term Lord as the rendering in the Greek translation of the Old Testament of the proper name YHWH, a name which Jews were not allowed to pronounce. This Lord manifests his rule in his gracious and merciful presence. By calling him Lord, Jesus is placed on the same high level as the God of Israel. Things in Old Testament texts attributed to God can now also be applied to Jesus. This does not mean that Jesus takes the place of God and as it were replaces God. But what is implied is that he shares in God’s kingly rule. God exalted Jesus through the resurrection and made him share in his kingship and rule (1 Cor. 15:23-28). Jesus sits at God’s right hand. He is exalted, so that all should bow before him and confess him as Lord (Phil. 2:9-11). He is not only Lord of the church but also of the world. That means that in the deepest sense of the word, we can acknowledge no other lords in the world.

That Jesus is our Lord means that we serve him and obey his commandments. Confessing him as Lord entails wanting to be his servant. He is not a Lord who only demands obedience, but a Lord who has gone before us in being a servant. Obeying him means that we follow his example (Phil. 2:1-5).

The term Lord is not enough to indicate the place Jesus has in our life. He is our Lord and Savior (2 Pet. 1:11). In Hebrew and in Greek the term for Savior, which can also be translated as Deliverer or Savior, is related to a verb meaning to save, set free, redeem, preserve, and with a noun meaning deliverance, preservation, salvation. So the name points to what Jesus does for us and gives to us. He delivers us from evil and destruction in many forms. He preserves and guards us and gives us wholeness, a full and whole life before the face of God. When we call Jesus "Christ" or "Lord," we always do that also with a view to the salvation he gives us. He is Christ and Lord not just for himself, he is it for us. For our salvation he came to us.

Jesus’ rule and salvation belong together. Talking about the one without the other would lead to misunderstandings and misconceptions. A Lord who would not save us would remain cold and distant from us. Belief would be no more than doing our duty. The Christian life would only be about our deeds and achievements. Conversely, a Savior who would not rule over our life would be no more than a means to assure us of a peaceful life. Faith would only serve to satisfy our own needs. The Christian life would be centered on our feeling of well-being, and there would be no effort toward, no ministering to and no real love for God and the neighbor. Therefore faith in Jesus Christ impacts our life, making us people who both receive and give, who are at once relaxed and agitated. We make an effort to confess him with two words: as our Lord and as our Savior.

(contents)

2.3 Son of God
A frequent title, one found in virtually all the books of the New Testament is that of "son." This title is of special importance because it signifies Jesus’ relationship to God. Who Jesus is, the secret of his person, is best disclosed in this term. Jesus is the Son of God.

The word son points to Jesus’ special relationship to God. This relationship can be seen in his entire ministry. He prays to God as "my Father" and teaches his followers to pray to "our Father." With prophetic authority he announces that God’s kingdom has come near and he calls for repentance. He speaks about this kingdom in parables, whereby he also alludes to his own role in the coming of the kingdom. He does his work empowered by the Spirit which he received from God in his baptism. He casts out evil spirits, heals the sick, forgives sin, and calls people to follow him. He confronts people with the choice of being for or against the kingdom, a choice that coincides with the choice of being for or against himself. So he acts on behalf of God and as God.

The term son of God is not exclusively reserved for Jesus. In the Old Testament, the people of Israel and king David are also called that. In the New Testament, believers are called "sons of God," and also a few Jewish charismatic miracle workers are called "son of God." They all have a special relationship to God. Jesus’ relationship to God is unique, however. In his words and deeds he identified himself with God and his deeds, and God affirmed this and identified himself with Jesus by raising him from the dead (Rom. 1:3). Therefore he is called the only begotten son of God (John 1:14; KJV).

Particularly in the gospel of John this unique relationship is defined and given further reflection. In fact, even the term relationship is inadequate to express the intimate fellowship between God and Jesus. God and Jesus do not stand alongside each other as two separate persons, but constitute a unity. In his mission and in his words and deeds Jesus is one with God and God is one with Jesus. The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (John 10:30; 14:10).

Jesus’ followers experienced this oneness with God and after the resurrection put it into words in a variety of ways. In Jesus God is at work, is present and comes to us.

This oneness with God marked all of Jesus’ life. It was there from the very beginning and always remains. To avoid even the slightest impression that this oneness might be accidental and incidental, some witnesses have emphatically confessed this oneness as the eternal ground of Jesus’ earthly and temporal life. If God himself comes to us in Jesus, evidently Jesus’ existence has its unique origin in God himself. He who was in the form of God did not keep this equality with God for himself, as a very early confession says it (Phil. 2:6). In John 1, Jesus’ divine origin is further defined. The relationship between the Father and the Son is the relationship between God and his eternal word from the beginning. There is no time and no place when God was without Jesus and Jesus without God. The Word that is with God and is God (John 1:1) assumed the human mode of existence and in Jesus lived as a human being on earth. The eternal divine Word is the Son of the Father.

The church in its confession has adopted this way of articulating the unique tie and oneness between Jesus and God. Following John and the tradition of the church, we too confess that God the Son became human. It is also important to have a good understanding of such terms and locutions. Thus the phrase "the deity of Jesus Christ" aims to express the unique origin of Jesus in the eternal life of God, and the unique oneness with his Father, in which he lived, died and was raised. At the same time we should remember that Jesus as the Son remains distinct from the Father. The Son is not the Father. The Father is not the Son. Jesus "is" not God. He is the Son of God and in that sense divine. His unique oneness with God remains a unique relationship to God.

Thus Jesus’ divinity, his unique oneness with God, does not replace his humanity, his unique relationship to God. It cannot be that with the confession of Jesus’ deity we would deny his humanity and regard him as a second God beside God or even in the place of God.

This confession of Jesus as the Son of God has in our time (again) evoked the historical question of whether Jesus himself knew of his divinity and viewed himself as only begotten Son of God or as the Word become flesh. Relative to this question, we should first of all be aware that the reality and the secret of Jesus’ bond with God does not coincide with our terminology for it. The fact that Jesus himself did not speak of himself as the Word become flesh or the only begotten Son of God does not preclude the possibility that these later terms are an adequate description of his oneness with God.

Next we should realize that with the means of historical research we cannot determine whether Jesus thought of himself as divine. Historically it cannot be demonstrated, nor the opposite. What is fact is that in Jesus’ uncommon conduct there are some pointers (mentioned above) which show that he was aware of a unique mission and of a unique oneness with God, which set him apart from other servants of God.

(contents)

3. Reconciliation with God

3.1 Deliverance from evil
Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, the Son of God. In him God has come to humankind and given us salvation. This does not mean, however, that Jesus has freed us from all our suffering and from all our shortcomings. Our life on earth is still vulnerable and finite. Our life can suddenly be threatened by illness and natural catastrophes. After Jesus’ appearance we long more than ever for a life that is perfectly new and whole (Rom. 8:19-21) and we wait for new heavens and a new earth (2 Pet. 3:13).

Jesus has proclaimed to us in word and deed that the kingdom of God has come near. This proclamation is at the same time a call to repentance (Mark 1:15). In his teaching and by his example he shows us the way to his kingdom. He opens our eyes to this kingdom by telling parables, which at once both portray and hide it. His healing miracles are signs that promise a life without pain, suffering and death. He was raised as first fruits from the dead and reigns over us as king till the end (1 Cor. 15:23, 24). The kingdom has begun in Jesus Christ, but it is not yet fully realized among us. We still await the redemption, along with Israel.

This redemption is not a liberation from our earthly and physical existence as such, no purely inner bliss, no hidden insight, not a higher spiritual knowledge. That kind of redemption would mean that our earthly and bodily existence as such would be the source of suffering and evil. This present existence we have received as a good gift from God our Creator. Therefore our life on earth is no evil.

God did not create heaven and earth bad, and evil is contrary to and does not fit in God’s kingdom. Even so, in the world and in our own life we encounter the reality of evil. Sometimes we experience it as a power that threatens our existence from the outside, that causes us pain and makes us unhappy. There are also evil inclinations in us that we give in to and wicked acts around us that we go along with. We also cause a lot of bad ourselves, we do it to others and to ourselves. Evil is an unfathomable mystery. There can be no place for it in God’s good creation and in God’s kingdom, but in our life it is an undeniable reality.

We hope to be delivered from evil. We cannot acquiesce in it. If we would put up with the evil in the world and in ourselves, we would not long for deliverance. And if we suffer under the evil in the world and yearn for deliverance but see no possibility that it can actually happen, we abandon the hope for deliverance. In that case all we can do is resign ourselves, like it or not, to what befalls us, whether good or evil. However, as believers we can have no peace with the bad things that happen to people and that people do themselves. We believe that this evil is not what God wants for our life. We believe that our life on earth and the history of humankind is intended for what is good and that therefore our existence is not meaningless.

Because evil is beyond our understanding we are unable to give an exact description of what it is, but must use symbolic language for it. In our confessions it is summed up in such words as devil, death and sin, loaded terms that are full of symbolical meaning. "Devil" points to the power of the evil that is outside of us, "death" to the evil that threatens our existence, and "sin" to the evil that is stronger than us, to which we give in or which we choose ourselves. These summarizing terms are, of course, generalities. Evil as such takes on concrete shape in natural phenomena, human deeds and societal structures. Its form varies from time to time and from situation to situation. Consequently, it presents itself in different ways and is also called by many different terms. The same holds for the deliverance from evil. History offers many different forms of evil and of expectations of deliverance. Also in the worldwide church fortune and misfortune are variously experienced. This hangs together with the fact that our existence is to a large extent determined by historical, social and cultural conditions. This need not, however, result in mutually contradictory conceptions. For amid all the diversity, evil as such remains recognizable and nameable. Evil is not good and will never become good. Furthermore, in all circumstances there remains the difference between evil as suffering and death, evil as evil power and evil as wrongful actions.

From suffering and death God will completely deliver us in his kingdom. But the power of evil, the devil, is no longer the master of our life; that master is now Jesus Christ. Of his power over evil we can at times see signs already in our history and in our life. Yet evil still remains at work in the world and so also in our life. A life without sin is impossible for us and we are unable ourselves to undo our sins. Jesus, however, has freed us from our guilt and from our loss of the communion with God. When we talk about reconciliation, this is the deliverance we have in mind.

(contents)

3.2 Reconciliation and our guilt
For the word atonement the Greek of the New Testament has two terms. The one, reconciliation, denotes the restoration of the relationship, the other, expiation (Greek: hilasmos; see Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament), the removal of sin. Reconciliation is a keyword of our faith. The term does not imply that sin and guilt are the only forms of evil and that reconciliation would be the only form of deliverance. We do not just pray "Forgive us our debts," but also "deliver us from the evil one" (Matt. 6:12,13). But when we take a closer look at what evil is, we sooner or later hit upon our own sin. We cannot ignore this form of evil. Therefore atonement for sin plays a key role in our faith. At the same time, precisely this key religious term is open to numerous misconceptions. So much so that the doctrine of reconciliation has produced seemingly ‘irreconcilable’ differences. A reason why reconciliation merits our special attention.

The Bible talks about sin. The word sin denotes something that goes deeper than the violation of a law, a morally wrong deed, or a deviation from a natural or cosmic order. When humans sin, they endanger their relationship with God and with their neighbor and along with it their future and their happiness. Sin is not just an individual act, but also something communal. From the beginning of human history people have turned away from God and their neighbor and lived for themselves. It has alienated them from God. All people share in this alienated from God existence. In this sense, sin is a burden and a power from which we cannot extricate ourselves by our own strength.

When we sin we turn away from our Creator and his salutary will, which is the basis of a life of peace. We take the gift of our life into our own hands and no longer put our trust in the Giver. We break the bond with the source of our existence. We condemn ourselves to a life without God. We do not love God above all and our neighbor as ourselves. We rob God of what belongs to him and so wrong him. We break the relationship and are unable to repair it in our own strength. We become guilty before God and can no longer live in peace with him.

We discover our own sin when God seeks fellowship with us, and it turns out that we are not interested in his move toward us. In the Old Testament we see how the people with whom God made his covenant, time and again broke it through disobedience. Jesus on behalf of God proclaims the kingdom that has come near and calls us to turn away from our old life and to set our sights on his future. But then it comes out that many refuse to follow him. When he maintains his claim on our life, more and more people turn away from him. Finally, all abandon him and he dies on the cross. In the crucifixion our sin is fully revealed as enmity toward God. He came to what was his own and his own people did not accept him (John 1:11). One can only talk of guilt in connection with a relationship between persons. Only someone who himself or herself does what is wrong and so harms another we call guilty. In a relationship between persons, guilt is more than just doing something wrong, it is wronging another. Our deepest guilt is that we wrong God. Those who do not see their life as a relationship with God or take such a relationship for granted will not sense this guilt. They will not feel the need for reconciliation, even though they long for salvation and hope for redemption. A good relationship with God is not the deepest bliss for them and the loss of this relationship not their greatest tragedy. When the relationship with God does not determine our experience of fortune and misfortune, the message of reconciliation does not touch our heart.

Not every type of adversity we experience is due to human guilt. There are natural disasters for which humans are not responsible and need not feel guilty. Furthermore, we look at technical accidents and social injustice such as hunger and poverty more as unintended effects of human actions than as something that should make us feel personally guilty. Even so, talking about guilt cannot be omitted. There is too much evil that humans do to each other. We are also more than victims of circumstances over which we have no control. We are responsible for our actions and their consequences. It comes with being human and our human dignity rests on it. One who acknowledges guilt assumes personal responsibility and with it affirms his humanity. The failure to recognize human responsibility and looking at a human being as nothing more than a natural organism or mechanism without a will minimizes guilt, and along with it also the need for restoration and reconciliation. In the face of that, we hold on to our human responsibility in our relationship to God the Creator and therefore make so much of sin and guilt.

(contents)

3.3 "died for our sins"
The New Testament proclaims to us the good news that God in Jesus Christ has set us free from sin and guilt. God himself has restored the broken relationship with him and so renewed our life that we can and want to live in new obedience to his will. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). Jesus Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). Paul preaches a crucified Christ (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2). On the cross, symbol of curse and shame, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13,14). In the Christian tradition the cross is a symbol of God’s salvation. In line with that New Testament outlook, we call the day on which we remember the death of Christ "Good Friday."

Paul stresses the decisive events of the cross and resurrection so much that he hardly pays attention to Jesus’ life. With this sharp focus he highlights the fact that in Jesus’ death something decisive happened. It does not mean that we can see Jesus’ death as separate from his life. Jesus’ readiness to die is in line with and the consequence of his way of living. In this sense his death is the consequence of everything he said and did. In his death he completed his life’s mission all the way to the end. He died for others even as he also lived for others. In his death he was true to what he himself had said (Mark 8:35). He served to the end and surrendered his own life (Mark 10:45).

Jesus’ life was not exclusively a life of suffering. He knew moments of joy and peace. We may not separate the message of his suffering and his death for others from the story of his life and from his resurrection. We need both the epistles and the gospels to learn what he was all about and to experience his salvation to the full.

Questions are bound to arise. For example, the question of how God was at work in Jesus’ suffering and death and the question whether Jesus himself viewed his death as bringing salvation and chose it. Paul’s preaching was that God was at work in Jesus’ death. In the gospel of Luke we are told that it was "necessary" for the Messiah to suffer (Luke 24:26). Was Jesus’ death willed by God (Acts 2:23)? At the same time the gospel writers make it unmistakably clear that the leaders of the Jewish nation and the Roman governor, humans like us, were the ones who had Jesus put to death (Acts 2:23; 3:15). Humans are responsible for his death.

It is very difficult for us to intellectually combine the work of God with human responsibility. The temptation is great to emphasize the one at the expense of the other. If we stress God’s work in Jesus’ death, man’s responsibility for this misdeed tends to fade. Conversely, giving priority to man’s involvement in it makes it harder to see God’s involvement. How must one construe the relation between the work of God and the work of humans and the relation between God’s will and human responsibility? These questions have been under discussion from the beginning of the history of the church. People who live in modern times face an additional difficulty. We have, consciously or unconsciously, become accustomed to operate with a view of human history in which there is little or no room for divine activity. God’s work is not on the same level as that of humans and the relationship between the work of God and that of humans is not always the same. It is possible that God acts outside of all human activity. It is also conceivable that he incorporates human acts in his purposes, in which case he works above and along with human activity. He can also act in and through human activity. But no matter how God’s activity is related to human activity, his work does not negate human deeds and responsibility. Therefore it is wrong to say that it is either God who acts or man. In the Bible there is no "either-or," but an "and-and." The fact that Jesus was killed by humans does not exclude that also God was at work in it. And the fact that God was at work here does not undo human responsibility for it.

If it is suggested that God "willed" Jesus’ suffering, we ought to ask ourselves what is meant in this connection with "willed." If "will" is understood here in the sense of "to mandate" and "to order," the meaning cannot be that God willed Jesus’ death. But if we take "will" to mean "to purpose" and "to pursue," we could say that God included Jesus’ death in his purposes. Jesus came to announce on God’s behalf the kingdom of God. But this announcement and claim evoked resistance. This resistance, which at bottom was directed against God’s purposes with his life, finally led to Jesus’ suffering and death. Thus while this opposition to God’s rule resulted in Jesus’ death, it in effect established God’s rule. So God made Jesus’ death part of his purposes and included it in his plan. In this sense God willed that Jesus’ death would bring our salvation.

Another question arising from the proclamation that Jesus died for us is whether Jesus himself viewed his death as a mandate and as bringing salvation. This historical question cannot be answered with certainty with the means of historical research. The gospels which relate Jesus’ ministry deal to a large extent with his suffering. No doubt they contain recollections of things said by Jesus himself. At the same time they are shaped by the faith of his disciples that Jesus’ cross and resurrection were for the world’s salvation. This faith assumed shape after Easter and found expression, for example, in the gospels. It would be very strange if the story of Jesus’ life would not be colored by it. Precisely this coloring makes the gospels gospel, that is, good news. This implies that not all the facts are recoverable with the precision and certainty required by historical research. Historical investigation cannot always establish what Jesus himself actually said; at the most it can say that something is more or less probable.

In the announcement of his suffering, death and resurrection (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33,34) Jesus talks about his approaching end, but says nothing about the meaning of it. That Jesus viewed his approaching death as belonging to his mission is evident from the parable of the wicked tenants (Mark 12:1-9). An indication that he viewed his death as bringing salvation is found in his words at the last supper (1 Cor. 11:25; Matt. 28:28). It is also quite possible that he recognized himself and his work in the figure of the suffering servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 (Mark 10:45). That is as far as we can go, historically speaking.

The same considerations apply relative to Jesus’ sonship. The historical question of what premonition Jesus may have had of his impending death and what he predicted about it is not of overriding importance for the message that he died for our sins. The proclamation of the apostles and evangelists rests on their association and encounter with Jesus before and after Easter and on the work of his Spirit who opened their eyes to him. Our faith rests on their proclamation, to which the Spirit opens our heart. Our faith is based on the encounter in the Spirit with our Lord and Savior who lives and who lived on earth. In that respect, the question of whether the factuality of all the details of the gospel story can be demonstrated with historical research is of less importance.

In the proclamation of the New Testament the cross is an essential part of the salvation which in all of Jesus’ life, death and rising from the dead happened on behalf of God. His death is more than the result of wicked human activity, though it is that too. In his death more is at issue than his own relationship to God, though also that is included. In a wonderful way God was acting in this event and this event was decisive for God’s relationship to the world and our relationship to God. The proclamation of the New Testament is based on this fact.

(contents)

3.4 Picture language
Reconciliation as such is a mystery. We cannot fully explain or fathom how through the death of Jesus our broken relationship with God is restored. It is not done in the New Testament either. What it does is "picture" the wonder of reconciliation. Not in just one picture but in many pictures. The various images illustrate what reconciliation is and show the varied aspects of it. These pictures (analogies, images, symbols) give us an idea of the mystery of reconciliation. But no one image brings out fully and exhaustively the richness of reconciliation. Therefore no one picture of reconciliation may be equated with the fact of reconciliation as such.

As we attempt to understand what the biblical witnesses with their analogies are trying to say, we need not restrict ourselves to these pictures but may make use of other, new images as well. We can also try to connect the various pictures and seek to understand them in relation to each other. For that we make use of more precisely formulated concepts. The result is a "doctrine" of reconciliation. More than one "doctrine of reconciliation" can be constructed, as is evident from church history. Every doctrine of reconciliation runs the risk of so "mingling" the various pictures that the meaning of the separate pictures remains underexposed. Another danger is that one particular picture is made central and others are subordinated to it. As a result certain aspects of reconciliation may fail to get included or get misconstrued. A comprehensive picture, which a doctrine aims to construct, easily becomes one-sided. Therefore no one doctrine of reconciliation can replace the biblical (and contemporary) pictures of reconciliation. Even less than the pictures of reconciliation can a doctrine of reconciliation be equated with the reality of reconciliation. Believing in reconciliation and living from it is something else than espousing a doctrine of reconciliation.

The New Testament uses a variety of images when it talks about reconciliation. Sometimes these pictures portray reconciliation as restoration of a relationship; people are reconciled with God. Other pictures show that sin is atoned for; here reconciliation means wiping out. Several situations can serve to illustrate reconciliation. Thus reconciliation is talked about in terms derived from warfare and making peace with enemies. Through Christ, God made peace and reconciled to himself all things (Col. 1:20). Christ brought about peace between God and people who were enemies of each other (Rom. 5:10; Eph. 2:16). Also the world of finance provides analogies for talking about reconciliation. We are redeemed from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13; 4:5), we are bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). Here the financial also has a juridical aspect. Many pictures are derived from the administration of justice. Thanks to Christ we are no longer guilty, but free from guilt and "righteous" before God (Rom. 3:4, 25; 4:24, 25). Our transgressions are forgiven and the record of it has been erased on the cross (Col. 2:13, 14). Also the slave trade can serve as an analogy: Jesus gives his life as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Many of the terms and pictures used are derived from the sacrificial system of worship. Christ is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). We are redeemed through his "blood" (1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:9); his blood cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). In the letter to the Hebrews he is both sacrifice and high priest at the same time (Heb. 9:10). It is striking that in a number of these passages several pictures are used together.

All these pictures are eloquent in their own way. They speak to our feeling and to our imagination. A difficulty is the precise determination of what each image aims to convey, that is, what is the precise extent of the similarity between figure and reality. Careful study is needed to establish the literal meaning of a term and the meaning when it is used figuratively. We are not always able to determine what the writer was thinking of. An example of this is found in Romans 3:25 where Paul calls Jesus a "means of propitiation." Does this term have something to do with Leviticus 16? There an atonement ritual is prescribed that involves two goats. The blood of one of the goats is sprinkled on the mercy seat. The other goat is not slaughtered but sent away into the wilderness. Did Paul, when he called Jesus a "means of propitiation," think of the mercy seat? But the blood to which Romans 3:25 alludes is sprinkled on the mercy seat. Does this mean that Jesus is at the same time both the place of the sacrifice and the sacrifice itself? Or does Paul not at all allude to Leviticus 16 but instead was thinking more in terms of an atoning sacrifice in general? This example shows how difficult it can be to determine precisely the meaning of a picture.

The military, financial and juridical analogies can speak to us, familiar as we are with war, finance and courts of law. On the other hand, we are not personally familiar with the sacrificial worship from which the cultic images are derived. Since the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 Jews no longer bring sacrifices. That makes it much more difficult to understand and define statements about reconciliation in which cultic figures are used. For example, in the atonement ritual in Leviticus 16 it is very difficult to get a feel for how atonement is accomplished through the prescribed rituals. In any case, it is clear that the language is figurative. When the talk is about Jesus’ sacrifice, this is not a sacrifice in the sense in which an animal was slaughtered and burnt in accordance with the prescribed ritual.

In the history of the church’s reflection on its faith and its formulation of doctrine, some analogies have been further elaborated, in part with the use of new pictures and concepts. Thus in order to elucidate the confession that Jesus bore our sin and redeemed us from the wrath of God the church has employed such terms as "to make up," "reparation," "satisfaction," "payment," and "merit." Even as Paul used images derived from his world, so theologians often derived their terms from their own world or they used this cultural context for interpreting existing terms. As a result, their explanations can be both elucidating and at the same time hard to understand for people who are not part of or are unfamiliar with this particular cultural context.

(contents)

3.5 Main points
Reconciliation is an act of God. "In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). God himself takes the initiative to restore the break in the relationship with him and he brings about this restoration by removing the guilt which blocks the relationship with him. In bringing about reconciliation God shows his love to people who had become his enemies (Rom. 5:10). This love initiative is entirely from him and from him alone. He did not first have to be moved by some outside force. God is love (1 John 4:8, 16).

In his love for people God remains just. He himself is just in his commandments and he expects of his people that they keep his commandments and walk in his ways. It does not leave God cold and indifferent when his people transgress his commandments and forsake his ways. Sin provokes his wrath and he punishes sinners. Particularly the prophets proclaim God’s anger over sin. This anger is not forever, however (Ps. 103:9). With his anger God seeks to move his people to repentance, to turn from their wicked ways, and to live a life of new obedience (Ezek. 18:23). Those who confess their transgressions God will forgive and reconcile them to himself (Ps. 65:3; 78:38; 79:9). Through repentance and conversion sinners acknowledge their sins and God’s claim on their life. Because God remains just in his love, we cannot say that God’s justice gives way to grace. Forgiveness is not the same as turning a blind eye to evil. Forgiveness is the restoration of a relationship of love and trust by condemning evil and removing it.

Guilt does not disappear by ignoring or remaining silent about the evil which people have done to each other. Something must be done about it. There must be a concrete removal of guilt. One of the ways used in the Old Testament is the sacrifices that are made for sin and for effecting reconciliation. It is a ritual to restore the fellowship with God. Not that it is automatic. Sacrifices without repentance and conversion are worthless.

We can talk about the reconciliation in Christ in both ethical and cultic terms. Jesus is the righteous One who acknowledges God’s claim on our life and does what God expects of us. He is obedient, keeps God’s commandments and walks in his ways. He is faithful to the covenant. He does what is right in God’s eyes, also when he has to pay for it with his life. His life before the face of God and the people leads him to the cross. For him this is a way of agony (Mark 14:32-42), in which he finally feels himself forsaken of God (Mark 15:34). He lives and dies as the servant of the Lord. But this righteous one dies for the unrighteous (1 Pet. 3:18). In this suffering and death for others a strange exchange takes place (2 Cor. 5:21; 8:9). Jesus lives, suffers and dies for us and in our stead. He took upon himself our alienated existence from God and bore God’s wrath upon it. So he acknowledged God’s claim on our life, including the claim as expressed in the form of wrath. He bore God’s judgment on our sins. He redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13).

The New Testament often talks about Jesus’ passion and death in words from the sacrificial rituals. The healing that was brought about in the relationship between God and humans through Jesus’ dedication and surrender to God even unto death is comparable to the atoning effect of sacrifices in the temple. This surrender of his life restores our fellowship with God, brings peace and enables us to live a new life in wholeness and love. This does not mean that his death is a sacrifice in the literal sense of the term. His ‘sacrifice’ was not one of the customary ritual slaughters and burnings of sacrificial animals. It was of a different order. The letter to the Hebrews calls his death the one sacrifice that once for all removes sin (Heb. 9:12-14; 10:10, 14), of which sacrifice those brought in the temple are a shadow (Heb. 10:1; 8:5). If we look at the figure of sacrifice from the ethical perspective we can say that Jesus’ sacrifice was that of an obedient life, marked to the end by love for God and people (Heb. 10:5-10).

Looking at the whole of Jesus’ life, suffering and death for others in obedience to God, we begin to realize what had to be done on the part of man to restore the fellowship with the righteous God. Jesus’ human obedience and his sacrifice answer to God’s righteousness.

This does not mean that God’s justice is something alongside his love or even in opposition to it. It is wrong to say that God did not start loving people until he was moved by Jesus’ life and death. The opposite is the case. God’s love was the driving force of Jesus’ life and death, so that this life and death were for our good. Also when God asserts his justice and his claim on our life by making Jesus our substitute, he shows therein his love for us.

This comes out already in the Old Testament, both in the ethical and cultic dimension. The obedience which God requires he will himself instill in the heart of the people (Ezek. 36:27). As demand from God it is at the same time a gift from God. The sacrifices which the people are required to make are a God-given instrument for restoring the broken relationship. God instituted the sacrifices to enable people to obtain forgiveness of sins and be reconciled to him (Lev. 17:11). Also here God’s love and grace come first.

Reconciliation is an event between God and people, between God and us. Like love, reconciliation must also come from two sides. If there should be no response to it, a reconciling move does not bring about a new communion. We are reconciled to God if in turn our reconciliation with God becomes the driving force of our life. Therefore we are called to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20), and the church is entrusted with the ministry of reconciliation. The gospel calls us to confess as our own sin the evil for which we are responsible, to make things right and to turn our life around into a new life of service to God and our neighbor. What Jesus did for us is not something that is far removed from our life. What he did for us was also an example he left us that we should follow. We walk in his footsteps (1 Pet. 2:18-25). We imitate our Lord and Savior in the expectation of the kingdom and with deeds that are oriented to that kingdom.

Reconciliation with God does not leave other relations untouched. It impacts our whole life. It also includes a social obligation wherever people, generations, sexes and groups are alienated from each other and can no longer live in peace with each other. Here, too, forgiveness and renewal are impossible so long we ignore evil or don’t talk about it. Reconciliation is needed: guilt must be acknowledged, there must be attempts to undo the harm and put right what was wrong, and concrete efforts must be made to work for a new society.

The reconciliation that we as humans need to bring about and the reconciliation that we have received in Christ belong together. On this point we cannot think in terms of an "either-or," only in terms of a "both-and." Reconciliation happens for us and then also through us. A reconciled person is a reconciling person, someone who does his or her utmost to restore broken relationships.

(contents)

3.6 Questions
Reconciliation is proclaimed to us both as a reality and as a wonder. We are, in Christ, reconciled to God, and through the Spirit may live in a new fellowship with God and with each other. Trust becomes the foundation of the life of the believers. To believe is to live in this trust. Apart from this faith, we cannot demonstrate the possibility and necessity of reconciliation in Christ and through the Spirit. The reasons for this reconciliation we cannot explain from the outside. At most from within and looking back we can stand in thankful amazement at what moved God to go this way with us. This creates room for further reflection and for asking questions.

For questions indeed. Questions need not be a sign of doubt and unbelief. Within a community of faith there is room for raising questions and for a personal search for answers. The church does not dictate questions and answers. What it does is hear the gospel, explain it and call people to heed the gospel call. In that context, questions that are raised always play a role. We mention some questions that are important in our time.

Was it necessary for Jesus to die so that we might be reconciled to God? Could God not forgive sin without the death of his Son? This question cannot be answered without taking into account the message of the New Testament that it was through cross and resurrection that God reconciled us to himself. We are told that this is the way he did it and apparently wanted to do it this way. That still leaves the question why he wanted to do it this way. It is a question that has been given a lot of thought in the history of the church and in theology. Here we do no more than make a suggestion that can hopefully help us in the search for an answer.

Throughout the Bible it is assumed that we live in a personal relationship with God. Only in this relation does it make sense to talk about guilt and reconciliation. God desires a relationship with us that is marked by love and justice. This is comparable to relations among humans. In a relationship one person can so hurt another that the other can no longer trust that person. The relationship is broken. Violated trusts cannot be healed with just a few words. Excuses are not enough. Words of forgiveness do not work. Something must be done. Something must be made right. Guilt must be acknowledged. There is damage to be repaired. Some form of compensation is necessary. Additionally, this compensation must be accepted. Also in our own world today the awareness of this is alive and well again. Many refuse to be content with an "excuse-me culture." Victims of violence and sexual abuse deserve compensation. Something similar must be done where it concerns our relation with God. That relationship is violated. We have so much wronged the God who loves us and who is just that something needs to be done to remedy the situation. Expressions of excuse and forgiveness alone will not do. Something must be done. Satisfaction must be made and accepted. Only then can we be really sure that everything is right again and that the peace is not a pseudo peace or a cold war. This analogy is not the same as an explanation of reconciliation. It is an attempt to understand the reasons for it. But the analogy does help to make us see that it is not God for whom satisfaction had to be made, but that we are the ones who needed it. Reconciliation means that the damage has been repaired and remedied and that we can approach God without fear. It has been made possible for us to trust and love him.

Another question is whether reconciliation is only through Christ. Can there be no reconciliation between God and humankind without him? Was there, for example, no reconciliation in the time of the Old Testament? When we say that God through Christ reconciled us to himself we actually talk about ourselves, about something Word and Spirit have done to us. With that we do not say that no reconciliation took place in the time before Christ. Then, too, God by his grace and forgiveness restored his relation with humankind. In that time too, people were able to restore, from their side, the relation with God through repentance and conversion and by means of sacrifices. However, in Christ, God once for all in a definitive and comprehensive manner restored our broken relationship with him and made possible a new life with him. In our time too, reconciliation with God and among people can happen through conversion and repentance. But this is not apart from what God has done in Christ. We believe that every genuine reconciliation that happens corresponds with it and ultimately rests on it.

Finally, a third question is whether another person can pay for my sins. Is this strange exchange, in which Christ represents me and takes my place, even possible? Aren’t all individual human beings responsible for their own deeds? In our culture the autonomy of the individual is presumed. From the perspective of this autonomy any notion of representation or substitution appears indeed impossible. But must we and may we use that as our starting point? The Bible talks about man in two ways. On the one hand, each individual is fully responsible for himself or herself, while at the same time being part of a community. No one exists all by himself, separate from others. Life is living with others. Including living from what others are doing for us. One is part of a community. Moreover, it is in part due to the others we meet in life and the community to which we belong that we are what we are. Therefore, autonomy cannot be the only and final word about our humanity, not about our humanity in relation to God either. Also in our relationship to God we are part of a community. As there is togetherness in sin, so there is also togetherness in reconciliation. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and "are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:23, 24; cf. 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:15). Believers live in fellowship with Jesus Christ. So they share in his death and resurrection. In this bond of fellowship he represents them before God, and his death and resurrection determine who they are before the face of God.

(contents)

3.7 Living with Jesus Christ
If we were to stop here, something essential would be lacking. The significance of reconciliation is not limited to the work done by Jesus Christ in God’s redemptive history. In this work we meet Jesus Christ himself, and in the mystery of his person we meet God. We can make a distinction between Jesus’ person and his work, but we cannot split them and understand them separate from each other. Jesus Christ is more than a tool in God’s hands and a means in God’s work. The righteous and loving God is present in him. His humanity is the human analogy of God’s justice and love. This presence did not remain restricted to his life on earth. He arose and lives with God. Through his Spirit he also, now and always lives with us. He is present in Word and Sacrament and in our daily life. Jesus Christ is in our midst. That enables us to live in fellowship with him. To believe is more than to enjoy the fruits of Jesus’ work; it is fellowship and union with himself. This fellowship changes and renews our life from within.

The intimate bond with the living Lord is the mystical dimension of the Christian faith. This fellowship imbues our life with an inward glow and strength. This can be so pervasive that we can no longer understand ourselves apart from Jesus Christ. Then Christ no longer only lives for us and outside of us, but also in us and through us. "It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me" (Gal. 2:20). This bond of faith with Christ can assume various forms in our life, but it will never be completely absent. For living from reconciliation means living with Jesus Christ.

(contents)

Confessing and reflecting on the faith

4. In communion with the confession of previous generations

When we articulate our faith in Jesus Christ, we listen carefully and reverently to the Bible and as well deal with the questions which present themselves today. We listen with an eye to those questions and try to answer them from Holy Scripture. Fortunately, we have more than Scripture and the questions of our own time. We are part of a community of faith which transcends the boundaries of our own time and place, namely the church of all times and places. We are not the first and only ones who believe and confess. Many have gone down this road before us. We are conjoined with them. We are thankful for what they have transmitted to us. We recognize in their faith and their struggle our faith and our struggle. Their words inspire and hearten us, give direction to our search and serve as a touchstone for the question of whether we are still on the right path. Therefore we listen also to these fellow believers and precursors and are willing to let them have their say. We can and only want to believe in fellowship with the confession of generations who came before us.

These generations before us expressed their faith always at a certain time and place in history and their confession shows the traces of it. The way they expressed their faith is the fruit of listening to Scripture as they dealt with questions that agitated people’s minds at the time. Creeds were often written in a situation of great confusion and disunity. They are attempts to articulate, in a particular moment in history, what it is that binds believers together and to express clearly the contents of the Christian faith. Notions that cannot be harmonized with the Christian faith are rejected explicitly or implicitly. The intent is to bring about and maintain peace and fellowship in the church. Unfortunately, in the history of the church one finds not only good intentions and proper deeds. An investigation of how particular creeds originated makes it plain that often there was also an unholy power struggle between ecclesiastical groups, in which gain for the one meant loss and exclusion for the other. We do not wish to downplay this shadow side.

Our tie with the confession of previous generations does not mean that we can simply and thoughtlessly repeat all their questions and formulations. Important is that we scrutinize what they wanted to say and to compare this intention with Scripture and our own questions. The result might be that we discover that parts of the Biblical witness are only insufficiently or one-sidedly brought out in a particular creed. It can also happen that burning questions of the past leave us cold, or that terms and concepts which had a clarifying effect at the time have lost much of their meaning for us. In that case we should search for new terms to express the same faith in such a way that it becomes intelligible to people today. We are not bound to the letter of the creeds, our bond is with their contents. The tie with the confession of those who came before us is a living and spiritual matter.

Now, in brief, we wish to show how this confession is of special importance for us as we reflect on and discuss christology and reconciliation.

In virtue of our agreement with the creeds of the early church we are part of the one holy catholic church. In the Apostles’ Creed Jesus Christ is succinctly confessed as God’s only begotten Son and as our Lord. Emphasized in this creed are the facts of Jesus’ birth, suffering and death, his resurrection, exaltation and return. This reminds us that the source of our salvation lies in his earthly existence as a human, and that we expect our salvation from the living Lord and his coming. This salvation is summed up as forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

The Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed (325, 381) emphasizes that in Jesus God himself comes to us and gives us salvation. The unique oneness of the Son with his Father is expressed in words and concepts derived from Hellenism, whereby at the same time the thought patterns of this Greek culture are cut through. The eternal Word which became flesh in Jesus is not a demigod, not an intermediate being, not a fluid transition between God and man. It is not an abstract and impersonal cosmic principle either. This divine Word is "the only begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father." He came down from heaven "for us and our salvation."

The Reformers heartily agreed with this confession of the early church of Jesus as Son of God. In their theological reflection and articulation of it they placed their own accents. Luther emphasizes that in Jesus Christ it is God himself who assumes our existence, shares in our sufferings and our death, so that in this way he might redeem us. Calvin, following the line of the Old Testament, put greater emphasis on Jesus’ mediatorial office, which he develops in the three offices of prophet, priest and king.

The key component of the renewal of the church in the Reformation was, however, the discovery of how sinners are made right with God, that is, how the benefits of reconciliation become theirs. This was the key issue at the beginning of the sixteenth century, on which there was so much difference with the Roman Catholic Church that a church split was unfortunately unavoidable. The question at issue was how God can accept sinners as his children. What needs to be done so that godless people can live again before the face of God? How can sinners be righteous before God? According to the religious thinking of the time, this was possible through a combination of divine forgiveness and the human performance of good deeds which are counted as merits. In the eyes of the church reformers, this view detracts from God’s grace and failed to recognize human inability to trust and love God above all and the neighbor as oneself. They maintained, with an appeal to Paul, that our righteousness lies in the obedience of Jesus Christ. If we believe in him, his righteousness is reckoned as ours. Only in and through Christ are we righteous before God. Righteousness is not a human achievement, but is given as a gift. This does not mean that good works are unimportant. If we believe, good works are bound to follow. However, they are not the source of our righteousness before God, but its fruit. In the words of a Reformation confession, "It is further taught that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sins and righteousness before God through our merits, our work and satisfaction, but that we receive forgiveness of sins and become righteous before God out of grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith, when we believe that Christ suffered on our behalf, and that for his sake our sins are forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given us. For God is pleased to reckon and impute this faith as righteousness" (Confessio Augustana 4). Not our works reconcile us to God; it is through our only Mediator Jesus Christ. In Jesus there is all we need for our salvation. We depend and rest only on the righteousness of the crucified Christ. God imputes to us the righteousness of Christ "as if I myself had accomplished all the obedience which Christ has rendered for me." Only so our conscience is quieted and we have peace in our heart. This gospel was liberating and gave joy. It still does the same for all who are burdened by their inability to trust and to love, or who want to prove themselves by their achievements without being able to find peace and quiet. They may rest assured that they are accepted by God’s unconditional love. The Heidelberg Catechism starts with the confession that Jesus delivered us from the power of evil and from our sins.

In the explanation in the Reformed tradition of the meaning of reconciliation, the notions of punishment and satisfaction play a big role. This explanation raises big questions. Did the righteous God have no other option than to punish fallen humankind? Could he do no otherwise? Can he not accept people in love unless his punishing justice has first been satisfied? It would seem that demanding satisfaction becomes a condition for God’s love, so that God’s love is no longer unconditional. In this construction an abstract necessity for an abstract righteousness seems to replace God’s great love for sinners. Is God perhaps the captive of his own justice?

This view of reconciliation is often called "Anselmian" or "classic." It is open to question, however, whether these labels are correct. Anselm (1033/4-1109) wrote his book Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) as a Christian believer who pondered the divine motives for incarnation and crucifixion. The precise interpretation of his treatment of atonement remains to this day a subject of serious study and discussion. For our purposes, two points are of importance.

Anselm contends that justice must be done to God’s honor that was violated by human sin. But what is meant here by "honor?" It can be taken to mean the inviolability of a Lord who does not want to be mocked and who is bent on avenging the least offense. Newer interpretation contend, however, that for Anselm God’s honor consists in the fact that God remains faithful to his goal with creation, and looks for ways to restore the fellowship with people which do not conflict with his justice.

Secondly, Anselm considers that God can remain just in two ways, the way of punishment or satisfaction. If sinful human beings cannot make satisfaction, all that awaits them is the punishment of death. But because Christ rendered satisfaction, it is no longer punishment that awaits sinners, but eternal blessedness. According to Anselm, Christ reconciles us to God by rendering satisfaction, not by enduring punishment. Thus God’s justice does not demand punishment and satisfaction, as the Heidelberg Catechism has it (answers 10-12). On this point the Heidelberg Catechism follows a different line of thought than Anselm.

It is worthwhile to compare the Heidelberg Catechism not only with Anselm but also with Calvin. For one could ask to what extent the interpretation in the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Days 2-6, agrees with Calvin. At any rate, the notion that God cannot be merciful until there has been satisfaction and punishment is foreign to him. The opposite is the case. God’s love comes first and is the deepest motive for the atonement and reconciliation which Christ brought about by rendering satisfaction to God and by bearing God’s punishment.

It appears that the Heidelberg in its own way expands on earlier traditions. It sharpens Anselm’s view, while the love of God, which is prominent in Calvin, is in danger of losing out. Compared to Anselm and Calvin, the Heidelberg Catechism is not classical. It can only be called classical insofar as it has put its mark on the Reformed tradition in the Netherlands. On this point it has become a stumbling block to many. The picture of God and of humankind which comes to the fore in the Heidelberg Catechism evoked in their minds only sentiments of fear and powerlessness. On the other hand, those who recognized here the heart of the Gospel often made the argument in the Heidelberg Catechism the shibboleth of orthodoxy. Let us not, however, allow our discussion about atonement and reconciliation to degenerate into a slugfest about whether the Catechism is right or not. It offers one of the possible explanations of atonement and reconciliation, and this interpretation, like any systematizing description, is one-sided. This does not take away the valuable and permanent insights which are brought out in the Heidelberg Catechism. Think, for example, of the statement that we come to know our misery from Christ’s commandment to love God and the neighbor. Also the emphasis on Christ’s humanity is important; humans have sinned and humans must make up for it. So justice is done to our responsibility. So the Heidelberg Catechism in its way champions human dignity.

Even as in the sixteenth century it was learned anew that Jesus Christ is our only salvation, so in the twentieth century, in the confrontation with the ideology of Nazism, it has again become clear that Jesus Christ is our only Lord and that we follow and obey no one but him. Jesus Christ may never be subordinated to the aspirations of groups and nations who exclude and despise others. He is not one of the many powers by which nations and groups are moved, and certainly not a representative of such powers. He stands above all powers as Lord and Savior. He is the only One we can trust and obey. "Jesus Christ, as Holy Scripture testifies about him, is the one Word of God which we must hear and which we must trust and obey in life and in death. Through him we enjoy liberation from the wicked bonds of this world and are set free to render willing and thankful service to his creatures."

Beside the classical confessions that are cited in the Church Order of the United Protestant Churches in the Netherlands (VPKN), our faith receives stimulus from confessional documents that freshly articulate what we confess or which deal with new questions. Our churches in the twentieth century have produced a number of contemporary confessions: "Foundations and perspectives of confessing the faith (1947) and Sample of a unanimous faith witness (1974). The reflection on the meaning of reconciliation received a clarifying boost in two important synodical study reports: The dividing wall broken down: On the preaching of reconciliation (1967), which deals especially with the notion of substitution, and Reconciliation with God and man (1976), which deals specifically with the question of whether Christ bore God’s judgment upon sin. These contributions too help us along in our efforts to confess the faith and deepen our discussion about reconciliation.

(contents)

5. Bible and doctrine

While we believe and confess what the Bible proclaims to us, the contents of the biblical message cannot be summed up in one word. The message comes to us in a motley collection of kerygmatic, narrational, prescriptive, didactic and extolling utterances from very different times. Each situation highlighted its own points. Not all these locutions are equally meaningful to us. Like in the Bible, in the Christian church one finds a corresponding wide diversity of experiences and expressions of the faith.

Yet this plurality of voices does not turn into a cacophony when we listen to the Bible in church services and in the faith community of the church. In all these voices the Holy Spirit breathes and we hear in them the voice of the God of Israel and of his Son Jesus Christ. Different situations are part of God’s one way to the kingdom with his people and with the nations to the kingdom. The alternating images point to the salvation which God gives in numerous forms. In the church are found a great variety of experiences and expressions, but it is really one Lord and one faith that makes us church (Eph. 4:5).

To believe means to agree wholeheartedly with the message of the Bible. This faith is especially expressed in hymns and declarations of praise. In them we praise God for what he has done for us and for who he is for us. Every expression of faith and every creed contains an element of praise as well. A confession is a response to God’s Word. A confession may be very brief when it succinctly captures the core of the faith. Such confessions are found already in the Bible. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4). "But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness" (Ps. 86:15). "You are the Christ" (Mark 8:29). "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil. 2:11). The contents of these confessions can in later times be repeated in different words, which at that time are intelligible and relevant. A succinct and post-Biblical confession is the Apostles’ Creed.

The church keeps listening to the Bible and responds always anew to its message. This message and confession is passed on and explained to new generations. In doing so, it cannot ignore questions and objections. The rejection of its message the church seeks to counter with arguments. This instruction in the faith produces the doctrine of the church, a comprehensive body of affirmations in which faith and confession are explained. The Augsburg confession characteristically states: "The churches, with common consent among us, do teach ..." Protestant creeds from the time of the Reformation, such as the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, have a strong didactic flavor.

Sometimes a crisis arises as the church listens, confesses and explains. The many voices are so contradictory that the one Voice can no longer be heard. Pluriformity degenerates into division. There is talk of the formation of different churches. One can no longer speak of faith in the one Lord, for there are different faiths and there are other lords. When the church’s identity is at stake, it becomes imperative that the one faith in the one Lord be affirmed anew. Room for a variety of expressions of the faith is not without restrictions. In such circumstances the church feels compelled to issue special doctrinal pronouncements. Their intent is to mark the boundary between believing differently and believing something different. Notions which misinterpret or deny the core of the Christian faith are rejected, and in a doctrinal pronouncement this core is reaffirmed as lucidly as possible and made binding. Such a normative doctrinal pronouncement is called a dogma.

The classical dogma is the confession of the deity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit (Council of Nicea in 325 and Council of Constantinople in 381) and the confession that Jesus is one person, truly God and truly human (Council of Chalcedon in 451). It is not unusual that in the formulation of these confessions use was made of philosophical concepts which were turned into technical theological terms. This theological jargon is only an aid in explaining the biblical message. Thus it was stated in Nicea that the eternal Word "is of one substance" with the Father, and Chalcedon spoke of the two "natures" of Jesus Christ, namely, the divine and the human. Dogmatic pronouncements can also be included in a confession of faith, sometimes with the use of technical theological terms. For example, the doctrine that Christ is of the same substance as the Father is found in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the doctrine of the two natures of Christ in the Augsburg Confession and the Belgic Confession.

Dogmas are meant to reestablish peace in a time of crisis and divisive controversies about the faith. But also afterward they continue to function in the church as a rule of faith. They warn the church against ideas about God, humankind and the world, about Jesus and the Spirit, which would make it impossible to believe and proclaim the biblical message. A dogma is meant to keep the church’s proclamation and ministry on the right track, but itself is not content of the church’s proclamation and confession. We do not believe in dogmas but in the Lord. We do not proclaim dogmas but the biblical message. We only teach the dogma in the church if it can help to elucidate the biblical message.

When the contents of the Christian faith are made the subject of academic scrutiny and research we talk about doctrine, systematic theology or dogmatics, and Christian ethics. This study connects with the Bible, the confessions and dogmas of the church, but does so in its own, independent and critical manner. Earlier confessional and doctrinal pronouncements are compared with the results of newer exegetical and historical research. Contemporary scientific ideas and world-and-life views are included in the scrutiny. The study of the faith can utilize existing concepts but also construct new ones. Doctrine is thus more than repetition of church teaching. Owing to its independent and critical method, it stands at some distance from the church. It is that characteristic that enables it to render useful service to proclamation and discussions about the faith.

Doctrine aims at capturing the faith in a coherent conceptual whole, void of contradictions. It makes a determined effort to grasp the various aspects of the faith and rethink these. However, a complete and closed system of the entire contents of the faith is an impossibility.

Various thought models are examined in doctrine. Models are developed and compared with each other. Evaluation is done on the basis of arguments. This procedure is followed, too, in the teaching about Christ. The traditional logos Christology formulates the unique oneness between Jesus and God through use of the concept "Word." Other approaches are also possible. For example, developing a Christology which articulates this unity by using the term Spirit, which would produce a pneuma Christology. A similar variety of models can be seen in the doctrine of atonement and reconciliation, depending on whether love, justice, or the religious-cultic aspect is made the starting point. This constructing, comparing and testing of various theories gives systematic theology something of an experimental character. Thus it becomes a search for a contemporary articulation of the faith.

The distinction between gospel message, confession, doctrine and dogma is not always easy to use and apply. Sometimes they are very close together. In Paul, confessional statements alternate with passages in which the apostle argues the theological pros and cons of certain ideas. Nicea speaks exultingly of "God of God, Light of Light," but beside it uses the theological formula "of one substance with the Father." The Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, in their explanation of redemption and reconciliation, utilize the old theological terminology of the two natures. It is also conceivable that one and the same biblical text can be characterized as message, confession and teaching. Deuteronomy 6:4 is at once confession and teaching.

Even so it will be useful in our discussion to keep message, confession, doctrine and dogma apart. There is an unmistakable difference in function, weight and connotation between the various faith statements. Dogmatic pronouncements can never take the place of a devotional use of the Bible. Our faith is mainly nurtured by words from Scripture, though liturgical and confessional pronouncements or parts from a catechism can also become very dear to us.

Especially the distinction between Bible and doctrine is important. The doctrine that God in himself is triune (the so-called Athanasian creed) and of the two natures of Christ is not expressly stated in the Bible. The term reconciliation occurs only a few times in the New Testament and the Bible has no comprehensive doctrine of reconciliation. Rather, the biblical statements contain a number of key thoughts about God, Christ, the Spirit and reconciliation. We can try to articulate these thoughts and connect them. For that we follow certain procedures. We interpret biblical passages, pick and combine biblical terms, and augment them with non-biblical terms. That is how a doctrine is formed. Whether the particular doctrine really follows from the Bible is always open to question and further study. Especially the theological discipline of exegesis stimulates this type of critical research.

The fact that a doctrine is not literally found in the Bible is no argument against it. That it need not literally be in the Bible follows from the nature of doctrine and the difference between doctrine and message. The question is not whether a doctrine is found in the Bible, but whether its main contents and purport agree with the main contents and purport of the Bible.

Not every believer will find every word about Christ and reconciliation equally meaningful. It will vary from believer to believer. Also in the Bible there is a rich diversity in words and images. Does it follow that it is thus up to each individual believer to pick and choose, accepting only those words and images they feel meaningful for them? This would only be the case if the Bible were a loose collection of varied images of Jesus and faith were a purely individual concern. We believe, however, that the various Jesus images point to the one Lord and that together we believe in the same Lord. In the believing community we seek to comprehend the richness of it all. Though we will never fully succeed, it does not mean that we are therefore content to limit ourselves to what we personally have come to know as true and valuable. That would be a shortchanging of the faith community and of our own faith..

Can one believe without subscribing to dogmas? Indeed, our faith is not in dogmas but in the living Lord. Our faith lives from the biblical message, not from parsing dogmatic concepts. For ourselves we can do without dogmas to experience and articulate the faith. However, if we want to share the faith with others, we have to define it and deal with the question of what can be said and what not. That makes rules for discourse indispensable. Therefore we make thankful use of dogmas to ascertain whether the sharing of the faith within and outside of the church is in harmony with the Bible. The church community cannot do without reflection on the faith. If we were to drop independent and critical scrutiny of what the faith is about, it would eventually evaporate into a vague and nondescript emotion. It would mean losing touch with the surrounding culture and intellectual world and we would no longer be able to articulate our faith in understandable language. The discipline of systematic theology is an exercise in talking clearly and intelligibly about the faith, inside and outside the church, without being able to mark precisely the boundary between inside and outside.

(contents)

Contemporary challenges

6. Faith and historical research

As new questions come up, we are called to deal with them. These questions challenge us to articulate our faith afresh and as clearly as possible, for images and formulations that used to be adequate may no longer be so in light of newer questions, and may even be unusable. Taking contemporary challenges seriously is really nothing new. Previous generations did the same in their confessions when confronted with questions concerning the faith. In fact, it is precisely the confrontation with such questions that has given the church new insights of lasting value.

In our time, two questions stand out. How does the historical investigation of the Bible impact our faith in Jesus Christ? Secondly, what does it mean that the Bible often talks about faith in figurative language? Both questions bear directly on how we read the Bible and therefore also affect what we confess. For the Bible is the source and standard of our faith. When we confess our faith we express our agreement with the message of the Bible, and if earlier formulations of the faith lead to questions we go back to the Bible. However, our understanding of the biblical message also hinges on our valuation of historical research and of the metaphors used for the language of faith. These questions, to be sure, are not new, but they have gained importance in the last two hundred years. In this chapter we take a look at historical research.

In the church community we take the writers of the Bible at their word. We trust them as trustworthy witnesses of the good news. We hear in their words the Word of God. Their words breathe the Spirit of God, the Spirit who speaks to our heart and creates our faith.

However, there is also another approach to the Bible. Not that of listening to it in faith, but of looking at it as an object of historical-scientific study. In this case the Bible is studied as a source from which we can draw historical information. Such research can be directed at different aspects. One can research the genesis of the biblical text. One can explore the history that is related in the Bible. One can explore how certain people at a particular time in history—the biblical figures or the biblical writers—thought about all sorts of things. One can also explore the origin and development of the Jewish and Christian religions.

A characteristic of all historical investigation is the endeavor to date the texts and place them in a historical order. This historical order of texts and fragments of texts may vary from that in the Bible. For example, the letters of Paul are placed before the gospels, and the gospel according to Mark before that of Matthew. Also in a single Bible book there can be older and younger layers. Then one does not listen to the texts in the context of the Bible book and the order in which they appear in the Bible, but they are read and explained within the framework of a particular period in history.

A further characteristic of historical investigation is the need to judge, from case to case, whether the events that are related are truly actual historical happenings. Distinction must be made between fact and story and between factual stories and those that are myths, sagas, legends and parables. Owing to this critical approach, historical investigation is a scientific discipline. In science one cannot go by what are presumably authoritative voices; it bases its judgments on independent and carefully conducted research.

Historical judgments are seldom absolutely certain. There are events that are considered factual, while of others it is certain that they did not happen. In between are doubtful cases, about which one can only say that it is more or less probable that an event may or may not have happened. Different historians may arrive at different conclusions and each conclusion is provisional.

It is not just a historical-critical but also a world-and-life view question whether an event is to be judged as one that could or could not have happened. In the evaluation of miracle stories, creation stories and resurrection stories it makes a lot of difference whether one believes in the possibility of God having acted in human history. If a historian holds that such is impossible, it is not a historical judgment but a philosophical presupposition. In the evaluation of the factuality of an account such presuppositions always play a role in the background.

The approach used in historical research of the Bible is altogether different from the devotional approach. Yet the scientific approach and the faith approach are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The belief that God has acted savingly in the history of Israel and in Jesus Christ, and that the Spirit reveals this to us through the Bible, does not require that we reject historical study of the Bible. This belief rests on the persuasive power of the biblical message itself. It is the fruit of Word and Spirit. We believe in God, not in historically established facts. Therefore our faith is not to be confused with a conclusion based on historical-scientific investigation.

The belief that God has acted in history is in fact what gives us full freedom to explore that work of God with scientific means. The Bible which relates this history was written by humans. If it turns out that not everything has happened exactly as the Bible tells it, we do not lose our faith. To cite an example, it is entirely possible that not all the words which the gospel writers attribute to Jesus are an exact reproduction of what he actually said. That need not diminish the value and truth of these words for faith, for they can still accurately convey what Jesus said.

Historical research can also help to deepen our faith in the biblical message. It sharpens our eye for the actual historical context in which God was at work, and it makes us more aware that God’s acts were experienced and interpreted by people in their historical situation. The content of the Bible is no timeless teaching but an actual history. That is precisely the reason the church needs historical research.

Historical study and faith do not always go harmoniously together, however. Such research can operate on assumptions that are less than congenial to the Christian faith. We mention three.

The historian who arranges his data chronologically and searches for the earliest established facts can easily be led to assume that the earlier is true and genuine and the later false and not genuine. What Jesus himself said is regarded as true and genuine, in contrast to the account of his message in the words of the gospel writers. What Paul says about Jesus is sometimes regarded as a misrepresentation and distortion of the message of Jesus himself. This kind of judgment is not necessarily correct. Later words about Jesus, perhaps on the basis of new experiences of his Spirit, may reliably express who he was, even if Jesus himself never used these words.

For the historian who before all else wants to find out what actually happened it is tempting to restrict history to those isolated facts. But do such bare facts really exist? Aren’t all events observed events, things that were experienced, judged, appraised and "believed?" That should caution us not to turn the methodologically necessary distinction between fact and meaning into a watertight division. That would create two worlds, one of so-called objective facts, open to scientific exploration, and a world of so-called subjective perception, accessible only by faith. There is more to history than supposedly bare facts. History also includes the meaning of these facts for people. In scientific studies it is possible to make a distinction between a historical Jesus and what Jesus meant for the believers. When the writers of the New Testament talk about Jesus and proclaim the Christ, they do not talk about two different entities that can be looked at separately from each other, but about one and the same person. A Jesus as such, separate from his meaning for others, is a theoretical abstraction.

The historian who seeks to explain the rise and growth of religious beliefs will try to do it in a manner that is clear to everybody. He or she will not use supernatural factors in explaining something. Rather, he will make use of comparable phenomena and processes. Thus he will try to find a historical explanation for the belief that Jesus was raised from the dead by comparing it with other resurrection stories in and outside the Bible. The belief that Jesus died for us he tries to explain historically by comparing it with other texts that attribute redemptive import to someone’s death. Such scientific explanations make no reference to acts of God. A religious development is explained as coming from people who were believers. This can be done because human faith is also a human activity and as such is open to scientific scrutiny. The historian goes beyond that, however, if it is suggested that the origin of the faith in Jesus Christ is and can be nothing else than a human activity. In that case acts of God are not only excluded methodologically, it is assumed in principle that they cannot have happened. This is, however, not a historical judgment but a philosophical bias.

Things are made hard for what we believe about Jesus Christ and reconciliation if this belief is regarded as a later subjective interpretation which differs from the words of the historical Jesus himself. Therefore we must also here, in brief, deal with the quest for the historical Jesus. Many scholars have searched, behind the biblical text, for the real Jesus. He must as it were be peeled free from the gospels, which were written from the perspective of faith. Jesus’ actual words and deeds are to be distinguished from his words and deeds as they are recorded by the evangelists. An immediate big question that presents itself is that concerning the criteria to be used. Are only those words from Jesus himself which distinguish him from the Judaism of his days? Or should it be the other way around? Are the words of Jesus himself those which agree with that Judaism? The choice of criteria to a large degree determines the outcome. The next step is that of reconstructing the "historically true" life story of Jesus using the critically established givens. The historical reconstruction that is presented is the one that is considered the most plausible, in light of the givens at hand. This search has yielded diverse results. In the nineteenth century "1ives of Jesus" were published that reveal more about the authors than about Jesus himself. For that reason the quest for the historical Jesus was discontinued for a while. Theologically this can be defended with the argument that we do not believe in the historical Jesus, but in Jesus Christ as he comes to us in the gospels and through the Spirit, the "Christ of the Scriptures." As such this is true. Yet unintentionally it creates the impression that the message about Jesus stands entirely separate from Jesus himself. At the very least there must have been points of contact for the gospel in Jesus’ own life. But precisely what are these? How are they to be determined? That is what the new discussions are about and a consensus is not yet in sight.

These historical discussions also affect our search for a contemporary articulation of the faith in Jesus Christ. If one seeks to base the faith on certain historical facts while mistrusting the history in the gospels—our most important sources for Jesus’ life—because they were written from the standpoint of faith, the results can be far-reaching. Take, for example, the line of thought to which many people can relate and which goes as follows: If we try to say who Jesus Christ is for us this may not conflict with what Jesus himself must have thought. The historical Jesus was a Jew. Jesus believed what Jews believe. Jews believe in one God. It is therefore impossible that Jesus thought of himself as God. Consequently he was not divine. If he is viewed as divine, this is a later interpretation of believers who articulated Jesus’ significance by "wrapping" him in this interpretation. Christians have "blown up" Jesus and so "made" him God, but he was not that.

This way of reasoning contains at least five basic assumptions which almost unnoticeably become determinative for the contents of our faith in Jesus Christ. But are these basic assumptions as plausible as they appear?

To begin with, there is the assumption that Jews believe in one God. As such this is true. But from Jewish sources from the time of Jesus we know that this belief can be accompanied by the belief in other heavenly or even divine beings who belong to the sphere of the one God. Why could Jesus not, like other Jews from his days, have believed in the existence of such divine beings?

Secondly, there is the assumption that Jesus believed what Jews believed. Now suppose that there were Jews in Jesus’ days who believed in one God but not in divine beings alongside God. Does it automatically follow that Jesus did not believe in such beings either? Is there no possibility that Jesus believed something which his devout contemporaries did not believe? Why can someone not believe something else than what all the people around him believe? Can a person have no new thoughts and ideas?

The third assumption is that Jesus was not divine because it was others, not Jesus himself, who thought of him as divine. But now suppose that Jesus indeed was not aware of his divinity, does it follow that therefore he was not divine? Being divine is not the same as being aware of one’s divinity. Even if Jesus should not have been aware of his divinity, it could still be true that he was divine. What you are and knowing what you are are different things. One can be someone’s daughter without knowing it, while others do know it. Jesus’ knowledge of his divinity is no prerequisite for his divinity.

There is, fourthly, the assumption that Jesus can only have been divine if he was aware of it himself. If we include omniscience with his divinity, this would indeed seem to be the case. However, if in this connection we think of his divinity as his unique origin in God and his unique oneness with the Father, things are different. In that case the fact that the human Jesus was not fully aware of his divinity need not exclude the possibility that he nevertheless was divine.

The fifth underlying assumption is that Jesus was not divine because only later he was viewed as such. But the fact that it was not until after Easter that his followers attributed divinity to him does not disprove his divinity. Whether something is the case or not is not dependent on the moment when it was discovered.

It is of course true that these considerations do not prove that Jesus was indeed divine. Jesus’ divinity cannot be demonstrated with rational arguments. What we can do is make clear that arguments intended to prove that Jesus cannot possibly have been God are less cogent than they appear at first sight.

The above example also shows that we should be careful with basing the faith in Jesus Christ exclusively on historical considerations. Some considerations rest on underlying philosophical assumptions, for instance the notion that the earlier is normative for the later. Other considerations rest on hypotheses that can be disputed or invalidated through new material, for example, that a Jew cannot believe in divine beings beside the one God. Even if for the moment we grant the historical arguments, it does not mean that anything has been decided about the contents and truth of our faith; Jesus can have been divine without having been aware of it himself. We do not deny that historical questions can be asked here. We do not deny either that to answer these questions one must employ the means of historical studies. One must also recognize that by no means all historical questions and answers have overriding significance for the contents of our faith.

A similar discussion can be carried on about the meaning of Jesus’ death for others. That Jesus died for others belongs to the core of the gospel. Is this also what Jesus thought? This question can only be answered historically by looking at other texts that attribute unique significance to someone’s death. For example, one could think of texts that talk about a prophet sent by God as the final messenger to his people. Or of texts about righteous servants of God who are vindicated by God after their death. Or of the death of a servant of the Lord who dies for others. A historian can do no more than posit possibilities and probabilities. Our faith in the meaning of Jesus’ death is not dependent on a historical answer to the historical questions concerning Jesus’ own ideas. This faith rests on the proclamation that comes to us in the Bible and of which the Spirit assures us.

Historical research focuses our attention on the facts of the past. This is not the only way in which we deal in the church with the history of Jesus. In the church we know that Jesus lives. His history is not finished. His life, death and resurrection are not past for us. In the liturgy we remember his life, death and resurrection and expect his coming and his kingdom. In this remembrance and expectation his history is present and real. The meaning of this history we experience in Word and sacrament. In the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus’ death and resurrection and our reconciliation with God and with one another are a living, concrete reality that makes us look forward to the coming of God’s kingdom. The Lord lives in the midst of the church.

(contents)

7. The language of faith

Reconciliation is often talked about in the Bible with the help of figuratively used terms. Jesus is the lamb of God (John 1:29). The word lamb here denotes something else than its normal usage. Jesus does not belong to the category of beings that are called "lamb." He does not fall under the concept "lamb." Yet in a certain way he does look like a lamb. Words or phrases which literally denote one kind of object but which are used figuratively for another object that resembles them are called metaphors. The Bible is full of metaphors; the realm of death opens wide its mouth (Isa. 5:14). Metaphors are also used for God. God is "my rock" (Ps. 92:15). Sometimes a metaphor is so familiar to us that we don’t even notice it anymore: "The Lord is my shepherd" (Ps. 23:1).

We discover that a word is used metaphorically when the literal meaning of the word makes no sense. Take the expression "he is a man of iron." If we take "iron" literally, the designation is not true. That means that "iron" must have been used metaphorically. If a statement, taken literally, cannot be true, it contains a metaphor. This does not mean that a statement with a metaphor cannot be true! It only means that such a statement is not literally true. A statement with a metaphor can certainly be true and denote what is real, but it is true and denotes what is real in another than its usual sense. If with the statement "He is a man of iron" I mean to say that this person is no push-over, I say something about what that man is like, and that assertion can be true. The figure of iron does not literally apply to the man, yet it applies to what he is like.

This is important in the discussion of reconciliation. From the fact that a metaphor is used when the literal meaning cannot be true, it is sometimes wrongly concluded that a metaphor is not true and does not refer to a reality. This wrong conclusion results in a false dilemma. Either a statement is metaphorical, but in that case it cannot be true. Or something is really true, but in that case every statement about it must be taken literally. One feels the choice is between reality and analogy; something is reality or analogy. A telling illustration is the text "the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). Is the word blood used literally here? If the answer is affirmative, one must assume that a specific liquid (specific due to a certain chemical composition) has the power or capacity to remove sin from people. Reconciliation is thus turned into magic. Reconciliation is actually and realistically effected by the blood of Jesus. The motive behind this understanding is understandable. The aim is to maintain the reality of the reconciliation brought about by the death of Jesus. On the other hand, one who refuses to adopt this magic-realistic notion feels forced to abandon the reality of reconciliation along with it. Both positions stem from a false dilemma. We do not have to choose. It is not about analogy or reality but about analogy and reality. The blood that cleanses is a cultic analogy, which is distinguished from the reality of Jesus’ death and at the same time talks about this death as redemptive reality: Sin is removed from us through Jesus who gives his life, who gives up his own body to death.

If a metaphorically used term is taken literally, the statement becomes unintelligible. One who asks, when hearing the statement "God is my rock," of which mountains God is a part, betrays his ignorance of the meaning of the statement. It makes no sense to ask where the sheepfold of God our Shepherd can be located (unless also the term sheepfold is regarded as a metaphor).

It is not always clear, however, whether a word is used metaphorically. There are doubtful cases in which a term can be read both literally and metaphorically. "Save me from the mouth of the lion" (Ps. 22:21). Is "lion" meant literally or figuratively here (as in Ps. 7:2; 10:9; 17:12)? One can argue both ways.

It is often said that the difference between metaphorical and literal word usage is that a metaphor does not describe something as it is in reality. True enough, metaphors do not describe reality with the use of concepts such as "iron’ which are used to classify existing things. But is the implication that therefore they do not describe reality? Is using words in their literal sense the only possible way to describe something? Even when we say "this man is made of iron" we describe the person as he is. Analogies, it should be noted, are not picked randomly. Iron is an apt likeness of that man because in a certain sense it resembles him and shows something of what he is like. Therefore it is better to find the difference between metaphorical and literal word usage first of all in the manner in which reality is being described. The metaphor describes something by mentioning something else that looks like it.

If we no longer think of metaphorical language as a particular way of describing reality, we run the risk of reducing this kind of speech, restricting it to an expression of our vision on reality. Of course, in metaphors also our own vision comes to expression. Yet not separate from reality.

This excursion may seem rather abstract and theoretical. However, what has been said here has immense consequences for the way we talk about God and reconciliation. What would be left of our metaphorical speaking about God and his redemptive acts if we could no longer think of it as a way to describe reality? Such speaking might then be no more than a mouthing of words about what we think. The pronouncements we use would amount to no more than signifying how we view God and reconciliation. Whether these statements are true or not would no longer hinge on the reality of God and reconciliation. The yardstick for the truth of a statement would then be our experience or the effectiveness of the statement. Statements about God are true if that is how they come across to me or if they are effective in my life. In that case even fictitious images could be called true.

Moreover, experience and effectiveness differ from individual to individual. The consequence would be that each person could decide for himself or herself the truth of metaphorical statements about God. So the various ways in which the one faith is experienced might become a tangle of vastly different experiences, truths and images. All these experiences, truths and images would in principle be equally true and valuable. Why should the one experience be more true or valuable than the other? Pluriformity degenerates into relativism. Religious discussions would be no more than comparing notes on individual experiences and truths.

This situation is unacceptable in the church. Therefore we insist that metaphorical language about God and reconciliation, however indirectly and fragmentary it may be, is also language about something that is real.

It makes a lot of difference whether we try to describe reality in concepts or analogies. Concepts are denotations, strict descriptions. We define them very precisely, outlining what they mean and which things are included in them, all for the purpose of speaking clearly and accurately. Not so with images and analogies. Such language is not well defined but open. How likeness and reality relate to each other, which features the two have in common, is not always immediately clear. Does "God is my rock" mean that God is cold and hard as a rock? Taken by itself, that is what the picture of the rock might suggest. The context makes it clear that the correspondence lies elsewhere. The Psalmist proclaims, "the Lord is upright, he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him" (Ps. 92:15). God is a rock has to do with his uprightness and righteousness. It means we can trust in him.

The extent of a particular correspondence is not always clear right away either. Jesus gave his life as a "ransom" (Mark 10:45). Is it right to ask "to whom?" Or does the question betray the same ignorance as inquiring about God’s sheepfold? Because the meaning of a metaphor is less well defined than that of a concept, there always remains room for discussion.

This vagueness makes metaphors so powerful. They don’t define too much, do not stifle our imagination, and do not prescribe everything. That is why they can offer surprises, be suggestive, conjure up new images, be evocative, speak to us and give new insights. Newer, fresher images touch and affect us more than precise and complete definitions. Metaphors also make us aware that the reality we talk about is a mystery we can never completely understand. This is especially true of the greatest mystery, the mystery of God himself. This has led some to contend that we can only talk about God and his acts in metaphorical language, since we cannot use conceptual language for him. It would indeed seem that all human thought and speech about God is inadequate. Yet it is open to question whether metaphorical language is the only way in which to speak about God. The word "God" is not a metaphor. Also a word such as Creator is not one that is normally used for human beings and then analogically used for God. Furthermore, are words such as "merciful" and "righteous" metaphors when they are applied to God? Isn’t God literally merciful and righteous? Therefore it is better to say that speech about God is both metaphorical and non-metaphorical. The statement "God is faithful" can have the same meaning as the statement "God is a rock," but it is a different way of saying it.

Doubtful cases remain. The term ‘reconciliation’ as translation of a Hebrew or Greek cultic term can be called a metaphor. But if in a confession or in theology reconciliation is defined as restoration of a broken relation, this term can be applied literally to reconciliation with God and reconciliation among humans.

If in our time we are going to be talking about God and his redemptive work in a way that touches people, fresh and gripping metaphors are more effective than concepts. On the other hand, if our language would only consist of new metaphors (suppose this were possible), our words would become unintelligible. We would have to explain them, including with the use of familiar concepts.

Therefore it goes too far to say that our faith language consists exclusively of metaphors. Faith language employs both images and concepts. For the interpretation of the gospel and especially in theology, specific concepts are needed, if only to understand the metaphors of the Bible and faith, to explain them and to work them out. An additional factor is that in our ongoing study of the faith we aim for clarity and precision. It is also a fact that however precisely we define our concepts, they remain human concepts. At the point of conceptual thinking God remains the great mystery.

Talking about reconciliation and conveying its meaning requires us to search for and try out new images. For that room is needed, room for a legitimate diversity of images and religious experiences, as they are also found in the Bible. We do not substitute our new images for those in the Bible and tradition. We do not construct them in isolation from the reality of reconciliation as it is proclaimed in the Bible. We do not limit them to our particular view of reconciliation. Such new images we use as a linguistic vehicle for making possible a fresh experience and understanding of the reality of reconciliation as we have learned it from the Bible and tradition. As we do this, we drink from the wellspring, the fellowship with our Lord and Savior. And we seek to discern the direction in which the Spirit guides us.

(contents)

Conclusion

8. The source of our faith

We have traveled a long road which began with the question about who Jesus Christ is for us. Next, in light of Holy Scripture and in reference to the questions of today, we have set forth the faith in our Lord and Savior. We recalled our tie with what was confessed by past generations and reflected on the role of theology in the assimilation and interpretation of the biblical message. Finally, we looked at the questions which arise from the historical study of the Bible and the peculiar nature of the language of faith.

Having come to the end of our reflection, it is good to return to the beginning, the source of our faith. Faith, to be sure, calls for summary and reflection, but itself is not reflection. It is trust in God the Father and a life with Jesus Christ in the communion of the Holy Spirit. It is worked in our hearts by Word and Spirit and nourished by devotional reading of and listening to the Scriptures. This living with the Scriptures is practiced in the gatherings of the church and the daily life of the believer. In addition, when an individual believer meditates on words from the Bible, spiritual speaking that believer is in church. In that space the words from and about Jesus start to live for us. His Name becomes music in our ears that refreshes our soul (Cf. Psalter Hymnal, CRC Publications, 1987, Hymn 487:5). This experience awakens our faith and causes it to grow, always and again, sometimes tumultuously, sometimes against great odds. The words we "hear" are answered antiphonally with words we sing to God together or just to ourselves. Along with the antiphonal words of the celebrating congregation and the listening and praying believer, the words which come to us in Scripture form the bedding of our faith.

It is fitting that we conclude this report with some of these words. They are not a summary, nor even representative of the rich biblical language about Jesus Christ and reconciliation. But they do show something of the source and bedding of our faith. They give us a glimpse, each with its own slant, of our Lord and Savior.

In Philippines 2, in the translation of the New Revised Standard Version, we hear these words:

6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited.

7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness
and being found in human form,

8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death--
even death on a cross.

9 Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name

10 so that at the name of 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.

We sing this hymn (based on 1 Pet. 2:19-25 and here translated from the Dutch):

Christ has suffered for us
as an example of our life,
that we should imitate him,
follow in his footsteps.

He who committed no sin,
from whose mouth was never heard
any word that was amiss,
but only the breath of life.

Who when he was struck
did not even open his mouth,
who did not threaten when he suffered,
but bore it silently.

Who carried our sins
in his body on the cross,
that you might live to God
having died to sin.

Through whose wounds you have been healed,
through whose death you are alive,
living for righteousness,
sign and symbol of the being of God.

Like sheep who once had gone astray,
now consecrated to the shepherd,
who guides you into truth.
Your Protector will not sleep.

Yes, the Lord will protect you,
He the Shepherd, He the Lamb,
who for you came down to earth,
who for you has ascended!

And at the table of the Lord we praise the Most High God and celebrate his great deeds in creation and redemption:

For you have created us
for a life of love and praise,
and when we let go of you
you did not let go of us,
but called us back from a dead-end road.
You have freed us
from the power of darkness and death,
and made us see
a future of light:
freedom, peace, joy,
for all your dear people.

And we remember the way and the work of Jesus Christ:

Blessed are you, God our Father,
and blessed is Jesus who comes in your Name.
For He went to the utmost
so that we might be saved for You.
He went before us,
preparing the way for us
through the narrow of death,
to the spaciousness of life.
So He is our shepherd,
the guardian of his people.

(contents)

Bibliography

• Apostles’ Creed
• Augsburg Confession, 1530
• Barmen Declaration, 1934
• Belgic Confession, 1561
• De Bijbel. Taal en teken in de tijd, SoW-kerken, 1999
• Dienstboek, Een proeve, Schrift - Maaltijd - Gebed, Zoetermeer, 1998
• Fundamenten en perspectieven van belijden. Proeve van beschrijving, Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, 1949
• Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms, 1529
• God with us. On the nature of the authority of Scripture, 1979
• Heidelberg Catechism, 1563
• Klare Wijn. Rekenschap over geschiedenis, geheim en gezag van de Bijbel, Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, 1967
• Kerkorde van de Verenigde Protestantse Kerken in Nederland
• Kondordie van reformatorische kerken in Europa, Leuenberger Konkordie, 1973
• Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, 325, 381
• Proeve van een eenparig geloofsgetuigenis, Gereformeerde Kerken, 1974
• De tussenmuur weggebroken. Over de prediking van de verzoening, Herderlijke brief, Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, 1967
• Verzoening met God en met mensen, Herderlijk schrijven, Gereformeerde Kerken, 1976

(contents)