{"id":7602,"date":"2025-09-01T08:55:30","date_gmt":"2025-09-01T00:55:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/?p=7602"},"modified":"2025-09-12T05:48:02","modified_gmt":"2025-09-11T21:48:02","slug":"from-mountain-to-mountain-the-tremendous-significance-of-jesus-true-humanity-for-salvation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/?p=7602","title":{"rendered":"From Mountain to Mountain: The Tremendous Significance of Jesus\u2019 True Humanity for Salvation"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is my contribution in P. De Mey, K. Struys, V. Coman (eds), Answerable for our Beliefs<\/em><\/strong>, ISBN 978-90-429-4742-9 and is here posted after the expiry of a three-year embargo on contributors’ individual publications.<\/span><\/p>\n

The copyright on this publication belongs to Peeters Publishers.<\/span><\/p>\n

For queries about offprints, copyright and republication of this article, please contact the publishers via peeters@peeters-leuven.be<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

LOUVAIN<\/strong> THEOLOGICAL<\/strong> &<\/strong> PASTORAL<\/strong> MONOGRAPHS<\/strong> \u2022<\/strong> 48<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n

\u00a0<\/span>ANSWERABLE FOR OUR BELIEFS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

REFLECTIONS ON THEOLOGY AND CONTEMPORARY CULTURE<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

OFFERED TO TERRENCE MERRIGAN<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n

Edited by<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a>Peter De Mey, Kristof Struys and Viorel Coman<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PEETERS<\/span><\/p>\n

LEUVEN \uf6bb PARIS \uf6bb BRISTOL, CT 2022<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table of Contents<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction…………………………………………………………………… xi<\/span><\/p>\n

Peter De Mey, Kristof Struys, and Viorel Coman<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Part I<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Thought of John Henry Newman<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Rise and Fall of High Church Anglicanism in the Life and Thought of John Henry Newman, 1826-1841 …………………………. 3<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Peter<\/em> Nockles<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. How to Argue with Unbelief: Newman, Ward, and Manning Engage the Secular ………………………………………………………………………….. 41<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Geertjan Zuijdwegt<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Newman, Frankl, and Conscience: Individual Call and Eccle<\/span>sial Belonging………………………………………………………………………………. 57<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Christopher<\/em> Cimorelli<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Purgatory as Agony in Newman\u2019s Dream of Gerontius<\/em>: An Essay on the Church\u2019s Suffrages for the Dead……………………………….. 77<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Andrew<\/em> Meszaros<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Ascent Or: On Liturgy\u2019s Spirituality …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 99<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Joris Geldhof<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

            Part II<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

            Christology, Trinity, and Church<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Tilling the Ground for a Later Christology………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 121<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Raymond F. Collins<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                \n
              1. From Mountain to Mountain: The Tremendous Significance of Jesus\u2019 True Humanity for Salvation……………………………………… 135<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Jeffrey C. K. Goh<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. Who Is Christ for Us Today? Some Soteriological Re\ufb02ections along the Lines of Bonhoeffer\u2019s Theologia Crucis…………………. <\/em>155<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Annemarie C. Mayer<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. A Cumulative Approach to the Resurrection………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 173<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Gerald<\/em> O\u2019Collins,<\/em> S.J.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. Christology and Ecology in Dialogue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 191<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      Dermot A. Lane<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. Thomas Aquinas: An Indispensable Contribution to the Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity ………………………………….. 211<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        Herwi<\/em> Rikhof<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. \u201cThe Doctrine of Divine Unrest\u201d: Pneumatological Perspectives <\/span>from Karl Rahner…………………………………………………………… 229<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          Declan Marmion, S.M.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. Theological Theology and the Quest for Salvation: Soteriologi<\/span>cal Re\ufb02ections on a Theology of Non-Christian Religions………… 249<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            Kristof<\/em> Struys<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. The Absolute Newness of Love: An Innovative \u2018Agapology\u2019 in <\/span>the Trinitarian Metaphysics of Mikl\u00f3s Vet\u00f6………………….263<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              Be\u00e1ta T\u00f3th<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. Toward a Dialogical Approach of Tradition, Allowing for Coherent Self-Criticism……………………………………………………………………. 279<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                Emmanuel<\/em> Durand,<\/em> O.P.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. The Ecclesiology of Marie-Dominique Chenu: A Paradigm for Service to Humanity …………………………………………………………….. 307<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                  Gabriel Flynn<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. Ecclesia semper reformanda: Karl Rahner, Pope Francis, and Theology as Radical Critique………………………………………………. 329<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                    Jerry T. Farmer<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                    Part III<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                    Theology of Interreligious Dialogue<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    1. Revisiting the Redaction History of Lumen Gentium <\/em>16-17 in Response to a Recent Debate in Catholic Theology of Interreli<\/span>gious Dialogue…………………………………………………………….. 347<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      Peter De Mey<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      1. From De Iudaeis to Nostra Aetate: The Development of the Text <\/span>from November 1963 to October 1965………………………………… 391<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                        Mathijs Lamberigts and Leo Declerck \u2020<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        1. \u201cThe True Light That Enlightens Everyone\u201d: A Critical Examination of Dupuis\u2019 Application of Jn 1:9, 14 in His Trinitarian <\/span>Christology and Theology of Religious Pluralism……………………. 443<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                          Nguyen Thi Tuong Oanh, Sr. Maria, ZvMI<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                            \n
                                          1. Graced Religions: Ecumenical Perspectives on Revelation and Grace in the Theology of Interreligious Dialogue…………………………….. 463<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                            Wouter<\/em> Biesbrouck<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                              \n
                                            1. \u201cTread Softly! All the Earth Is Holy Ground\u201d: A Comparativist Responds Constructively to Terrence Merrigan\u2019s Sacramental Theology of Religions……………… 489<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                              Francis<\/em> X.<\/em> Clooney,<\/em> S.J.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                \n
                                              1. Is There a Judeo-Christian Approach to Religious Others? The <\/span>Case Study of Jewish and Christian Attitudes to Buddhism….. 509<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                Elizabeth J. Harris<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                  \n
                                                1. Can Christians Follow More Than One Religious Tradition? On Buddhist-Christian Dual Practice………………………………………………………….. 529<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                  Alexander L\u00f6ffler, S.J.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                    \n
                                                  1. At the Intersection of Racial and Religious Othering: Theologies of Interreligious Dialogue as a Performance of White <\/span>Christian Innocence?………………………….. 545<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                    Judith Gruber<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                    Part IV<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                    The Significance of Secularization for the Contemporary Church<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                      \n
                                                    1. Recalibrating Tradition: Renewal and Retrieval in Contempo<\/span>rary Catholic Theology…………………………………………………………………………. 571<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                      Stephan van Erp<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                        \n
                                                      1. Problematic Predictions: Religion in the Secular Age………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 587<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                        Hans Joas<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                          \n
                                                        1. Re-Imagining God in a Secular Age: Religion, Philosophy, Science …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..603<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                          James J. Kelly<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                            \n
                                                          1. \u201cWhich Wolf Will You Feed?\u201d: Good Narratives as the Basis for Dialogue and Building a Common Life……………………………………………. 625<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                            Lieven<\/em> Boeve<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                              \n
                                                            1. Secularization and Theological Ethics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 639<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                              Joseph A. Selling<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                \n
                                                              1. Common Discernment in Theology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 657<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                Jacques Haers, S.J.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  \n
                                                                1. Kenotic Solidarity in a Splinterizing World: A Balthasarian Response to the Polarization of Contemporary Society………………….. 679<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                  Robert Aaron Wessman<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 List of Contributors………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 699<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  —————————————-<\/p>\n

                                                                   <\/p>\n

                                                                  7<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

                                                                  From Mountain to Mountain<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

                                                                  The Tremendous Significance of Jesus\u2019 True Humanity for Salvation<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

                                                                  Jeffrey C. K. Goh<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  \u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  When I first arrived in Leuven in September 1989 as a nomik<\/em>\u1f79s <\/em>(as Professor Raymond Collins would call me, a lawyer from Malaysia) desiring only to leisurely read some theology, little did I suspect I would end up writing a doctoral dissertation under the tutelage of Professor Terrence Merrigan. Teaching Christology and Interreligious Dialogue at the time, he had a special interest in incarnational theology. To him I dedicate this theme-choice, with special reference to issues of salvation with which Asian students of mine seem particularly concerned.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  Since the rise of modern technology, nature and history have become increasingly contingent on humanity instead of the other way around. As mystifying forces in nature and history diminish in the face of scientific enlightenment, so too do the gods and demons lose territorial hold on human allegiance.1\u00a0In the field of creation studies, the question of pressing urgency is how the earth that came into being as a gift from the Creator, but has become so ravaged by human creatures, may again be humanized.2\u00a0With modern technology, the human condition is no longer oppressed by finitude which we experience in solidarity with all other creatures; nor do we share the world as a sacrament of communion with God and neighbors. Instead, the main problem is now the humanity <\/em>of the human world.3 Just as this humanity has been impaired in various\u00a0<\/span>ways, from \u201coppression from without,\u201d through \u201ccontamination,\u201d and \u201cwounded within,\u201d4 the corrective must entail a complete reinsertion into the social milieu the true humanity singularly displayed in Jesus Christ. In Jesus\u2019 true humanity, God endured our forgetfulness of finitude in creatureliness and entered into it to do the necessary work of restoration to our true selves.5 Jesus\u2019 fully incarnated, true human nature holds the key, his spiritual openness and obedience to God replacing Adam\u2019s rebellion6 and inaugurating a new creation. \u201cTrue humanity and true Christianity are one.\u201d7<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                   <\/p>\n

                                                                  1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Necessary Messiness<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                  The Incarnation is about truly assuming the human body and the human nature. Docetic claims have no place here. Instead, in Jesus\u2019 assumption of the human body, three elements constantly cohere. First, God became entangled in human existence and its necessary mess. Second, Jesus in his earthly mission, identified and entered into solidarity with \u201cthe human condition \u2013 its problems, longings, sufferings, failures, dreams, and hopes.\u201d Third, we are called \u201cto get involved in human beings.\u201d8<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  This call to \u201cget involved in\u201d the suffering body appears in many Gospel stories, a pair of which are notably graphic and instructive. At the Last Supper, Jesus taught by getting involved in his disciples to whom he was bidding farewell, knelt to wash their feet, and told them that they would be blessed if they followed his example and did the same <\/span>(Jn 13:15-17). So by word and deed shall an evangelizing community get involved in people\u2019s daily lives, embracing them by \u201ctouching the suffering flesh of Christ in others,\u201d and taking on the \u201csmell of the sheep.\u201d The Church\u2019s missionary mandate is best reflected in a field hospital attending to wounded bodies. Far from being \u201ca church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security,\u201d Pope Francis much prefers a \u201cchurch which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets.\u201d9\u00a0Little of these activities will be evident, however, if Catholics remain piously prayerful but supine \u2018crypto- Monophysites\u2019 as Karl Rahner accuses them of. Rahner\u2019s prognostication aims to see a Church that is mission-diligent, rather than prayerfully orthodox but indolent and failing to remember <\/em>the words and deeds of Jesus.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  And then, in his post-resurrection encounter with Christ (Jn 20:24- 29), Thomas was invited to put his finger into the nailed hands and pierced side of the previously savaged and now raised body of Jesus. That invitation was necessary, for Thomas would not and could not be a seriously believing and properly acting disciple following after the footsteps of Jesus the Suffering-Servant Messiah, unless and until he had touched \u2013 gotten involved in \u2013 the wounded body of the crucified and risen Lord. To be really involved in the vicissitudes of human existence, Scripture calls us to get into human wounds and human woundedness. For the Easter people, to truly serve someone who suffers, to be truly in solidarity with them, our resurrection-practices10 in Christian ministry first require of us to stay with their wounds. The post-resurrection Thomas- episode tells us not to avoid the wounds, nor run away from them. You come close to a person only if you come close to their wounds.11 Wherever Jesus\u2019 divinity is over-emphasized, or when Jesus is worshipped exclusively as God, his profound insights get eclipsed, his greatness deprived, and his stark challenge gets muted.12 This man of full <\/span>humanity with \u201cextraordinary independence, immense courage, and unparalleled authenticity\u201d gets underrated,13\u00a0and his role as mediator of God\u2019s love and grace in all human messiness gets eclipsed, which in turn affects the work of authentic humanism in society, and impedes the emergence of a free, compassionate, and warm social order.14<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  This significance of Jesus\u2019 humanity enjoys impeccable precedents in the New Testament. On the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, Peter spiritedly proclaimed: \u201cThis<\/em> Jesus whom you crucified, <\/em>God has raised him up and made him both Lord and <\/em>Christ\u201d (Acts 2:1-4, 36). This pristine apostolic kerygma bolted out of the urgency of the resurrection-proclamation, the disciples\u2019 most desperate need at the time being to overcome the colossal scandal and humiliation of the Roman-style crucifixion of their leader. Proclaiming \u201cJesus crucified is risen<\/em>\u201d and \u201cJesus is the Christ<\/em>\u201d became the apostles\u2019 first and most pressing task, and Pentecost accorded them both the clarity in wisdom and the courage in spirit to launch that Easter Christology.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  We have here the New Testament root of the raising of a human being to God, to be the Messiah for whom generations of Jews have been waiting.15\u00a0It represents the equating of a first-century peripatetic <\/em>preacher in ancient Palestine who died a violent and humiliating death, with the one Messiah sent by God. This linking of the particular <\/em>with the universal<\/em>, trans-historical,16\u00a0discloses an original, \u2018from below\u2019 approach as being crucial in shaping the way Christians imagine Jesus, beginning in history with his real life events, and in the early disciples\u2019 struggle with his identity.17<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  Centered on the resurrection and glorification of Jesus, this earliest apostolic kerygma18 first spoke of the active agency of God. Second, God\u2019s action was upon Jesus as the human subject <\/em>who did not rise, but was raised from the dead by God whose action the disciples perceived as affirming everything Jesus taught and did and stood for as being very good. In that vindication, God ratified and authenticated Jesus\u2019 authentic <\/em>human life and mission<\/em>. Third, God\u2019s action was ultimately carried out pro nobis<\/em>, as the resurrection of Jesus inaugurated the decisive advent of salvation of humanity19\u00a0\u2013 in raising Jesus from the dead, God began the process of raising the dead. Disciples came to see Jesus in his life and work \u2013 his earthly, human <\/em>existence \u2013 as having been endowed with messianic and saving power. This is of profound implications to Chris- tian spirituality and Christian living. All our work, our sacrifices, in service of the kingdom of God, and in the spirit of Christ, shall not be in vain. God who raised Jesus from death is faithful. He did it for Jesus; He will do it for us.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  After the New Testament period, attempts to unveil the mystery sur- rounding the person of Jesus disclose issues that include a heretical tendency towards Christological maximalism so that exclusive divinity- claims always had to be balanced with Jesus\u2019 historical specificity.20\u00a0Of note is the eventual success of the Antiochene school at Chalcedon in balancing Nicaea\u2019s divinity-emphasis in homoousios<\/em>21 with Jesus\u2019 full and\u00a0<\/span>complete humanity.22\u00a0History attests that a turn back to the historical figure of Jesus, is a helpful corrective against distorting ideologies. For starting with the earthly Jesus and moving from there to an understanding of him making present God\u2019s eternal Word, both in his person and in his words and deeds, is a helpful way to avoid the utilitarian manipulation of Jesus\u2019 image.23\u00a0Here, Chalcedonian insights on the genuine subjectivity and the conscious and free will in Jesus\u2019 human nature are essential to an integrated model of salvation. The two natures in the Chalcedonian hypostasis <\/em>being unmixed, Rahner insists that the whole- ness of Jesus\u2019 human nature is not diminished. This insight must be pre- served for purposes of countering monothelitism, as well as a piety amongst the ordinary faithful and an \u2018official\u2019 theology which are tinged with monophysitism. In this way the genuine subjectivity, the created human nature of Jesus, his conscious and free will \u2013 \u201ca created energeia\u201d \u2013 shall not be so constantly forgotten.24\u00a0Jesus\u2019 true humanity is an indispensable key in soteriological issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                   <\/p>\n

                                                                  2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 How Jesus Achieved Our Salvation<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                  In the Western dominant debt-repayment model of redemption, humanity\u2019s unrepayable sin-debt to God necessitated the incarnation of the Son <\/span>of God. Redemption became the inner motive of the Incarnation. In Anselm\u2019s 1098 classic treatment of the satisfaction theory of redemption,25\u00a0only the death of Jesus Christ the Son of God alone could be a sufficient vicarious satisfaction for the sins of the world, which was possible because of the sinlessness of his human nature and its hypostatic union with the Second Person of the Trinity. That was redemption wrought on the cross, a theory that held sway for centuries. Salient elements of Anselm\u2019s thoughts reign even in contemporary times,26\u00a0waning only with cultural sensitivities.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  Critical remarks in rejecting Anselm\u2019s theory include: the honor-rule of the medieval feudal system and the debt-repayment-rule of the Latin juridical system current in his Sitz im Leben <\/em>on which his theory is reliant;27\u00a0the negative image of a vindictive and wrathful God quite contrary to the God of mercy portrayed by Jesus in the Gospels;28\u00a0the confer- ring of exclusive redemptive value on Jesus\u2019 death without taking into account the entire paschal mystery, let alone Jesus\u2019 entire life and ministry;29\u00a0erroneous premise of physical suffering, imposed or freely accepted, being sufficient to cancel out evil;30\u00a0and too much emphasis on sin and too little emphasis on love.31<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  And yet, in all this, the significance of Jesus\u2019 humanity in Anselm\u2019s thoughts is easily overlooked. He posted a very healthy reminder on <\/span>human sin as something that leaves behind a dreadful after-effect which con<\/span>tinues to plague society, even when the sin has been punished or its continued commission halted. So God\u2019s honor which demands iustitia <\/em>and debitum <\/em>is not claimed for God\u2019s own egotistic good, but for human goodness and the integrity of creation.32 Correcting a common misinterpretation of Anselm, Gisbert Greshake points out what matters is not God\u2019s honor that has been offended, but the consequences such an offence redounds to the \u201cmarred and derailed world.\u201d Left unresolved, humans dishonoring God remain \u201cderanged creatures in a disrupted world.\u201d33 Ultimately, the theory is about the human good, not the good of God.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                  What is key here is the way Anselm understands God\u2019s honor anthropologically. Indeed, Greshake accords value to Anselm\u2019s stress on the exercise of Christ\u2019s human freedom and in his insistence that salvation is a public act \u2013 the removal of the public consequences of sin. In this light, God is neither vindictive nor seeking revenge. To this, Kasper adds the link between divine justice and God\u2019s fidelity as Creator in Anselm\u2019s theory. God could not simply secure the restoration of God\u2019s honor out of pure love, without involving humanity. Instead, by binding Himself to the order of justice, God safeguards human honor, respects human freedom, and retains faith in creation. God\u2019s self-binding to the order of justice is the expression of his fidelity as Creator.34\u00a0The significance in human<\/em> contribution in freedom thus retained by Anselm, Pannenberg incisively observes a turning point in Christology. Salvation no longer turns directly on the divinity of Jesus, but on his true human nature<\/em>. Humans have a crucial role to play.35<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                   <\/p>\n

                                                                  3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 An Integrated Model of Love, Non-Violence and Human Freedom<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                  To overcome the negative aspects of Anselm\u2019s satisfaction theory, a few elements must be integrated, amongst which three are notably requisite: love, non-violence, and freedom.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                    \n
                                                                  1. Salvation by Love<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                    God\u2019s love, which stands at the origin both of creation and redemption (Gen 1:1; Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 4:9-10; Rev 21:5), is the fundamental starting point in comprehending God\u2019s project of human salvation. Redemption operates in terms of Jesus\u2019 supreme example of love manifested not just in his death but throughout his life, death, and resurrection. Jesus preached love in his kingdom-building mission on one mountain (the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5\u20137), and he freely lived what he preached to the very end on another mountain (Golgotha, Mt 27:33). From mountain to mountain<\/em>,36\u00a0in the Matthean grand schema, Jesus preached and lived the message of God\u2019s kingdom, and called his disciples to do the same. God\u2019s love and grace in human salvation is a paramount Scriptural key.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                    To appreciate the depth of Jesus\u2019 self-giving love and courage, two dimensions of his excruciating experience are of singular importance. First is the devastating power of the passion and the cross as they lay before him, of which his triple passion-predictions (Mark 8\u201310) and the Gethsemane Garden blood-sweating agony (Lk 22:39-46) are indicative. Second is his apprehension as those critical events unfolded and penetrated his entire being. Unless we truthfully face Jesus\u2019 apprehension, we will not do justice to the human suffering he bore. Attempts to mitigate the magnitude of his suffering risk de-humanizing him and proportionately surrendering to monophysitism and a magical interpretation of salvation. Jesus was truly human (Heb 4:14-16), and he inspires all the more when we face in clarity and truth the inevitable dread and darkness as he anticipated the cross, and the immense suffering he endured in the ensuing events.37\u00a0In Jesus on the cross, the Church recognizes with clarity a truly and fully human being who was the most singularly faithful and most beloved Son of God (Mk 15:39). His victory over fear and suffering is an expression of the presence and victory of God\u2019s love and life.38<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                    But, Scriptures also insist with equal clarity that, as an element of great significance for understanding salvation, the salvific work of Christ demands positive human response to God\u2019s love. Reconciliation affects the inner disposition of the human subject. Abelard thus spotlighted personal conversion and turning away from sin as liberating the human <\/span>person for a life of love. He avoided the mythical vision of human sins having vanished upon God\u2019s Son dying on the cross. Instead, he saw clearly that giving his life on the cross out of love, Jesus wanted to trans- form human hearts by love. From mountain to mountain, from preaching to living, suffering and dying, Jesus invited a responsive love in humans. So Abelard rightly insisted on human agency \u2013 the subjective need of the human person to embark on a journey of ethical liberation.39\u00a0We are saved by positively responding to Jesus\u2019 love, not by some magical vicarious punishment on the Son of God, so we might escape punishment. Jesus, in real time, responded to God\u2019s love, lived, suffered, and died to show us how to live better, in authentic humanity. What Jesus wanted was that we remember <\/em>\u2013 the Gospels stressing this in unison \u2013 and do <\/em>the same.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                      \n
                                                                    1. Salvation<\/em> by<\/em> Non-Violence<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                      Today more than ever, a violence-saturated world needs to re-imagine and showcase the non-violence of God <\/em>in the death of Jesus, in contrast to a wrathful and violent God who planned and willed the death of His Son. Senseless massacres and oppressive power that darken an already broken world must be decisively interrupted. Only when more and more individuals and the institutions of civil society choose active, creative non-violence as a way of life, will we have a chance of creating a more non-violent society that moves towards a culture of peaceful co-existence. As people across the globe daily lament a growing reality of violence, all the more is this task urgent. A fundamental internal conversion from violence to non-violence is a very hard step, but the most courageous and the most needed moral and spiritual turning for work in human rights, justice, and peace.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                      Throughout his public ministry, Jesus was a maker of peace, an agent of restorative justice, and a proponent of non-violence. <\/em>Jesus, the human face of God (Jn 14:9), was singularly absorbed in advancing the kingdom of God on earth \u2018as it is in heaven\u2019.40 While the hated oppressive Roman\u00a0<\/span>occupation marked the historical time of his earthly ministry, Jesus pro- claimed the kingdom of God and called the peace-makers \u2018blessed\u2019.41\u00a0He proclaimed a new, non-violent order rooted in the unconditional love of God, calling all to love their enemies (Mt 5:44), to offer no violent resistance to one who does evil (Mt 5:39). From mountain to mountain, Jesus\u2019 life and ministry dramatized this call, including urging Peter to put down his sword at his Gethsemane arrest (Mt 26:52), and praying on the cross for forgiveness for his persecutors (Lk 23:34).<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                      On the cross, Christ died for peace; in death, he conquered violence. In this, Jesus showcased his kingdom-mission to humanize a not very human situation and opened up new possibilities other than violence for humanity, including the imitation of God\u2019s universal love and non- retaliation. He broke the pattern of sin, absorbing hate and malice with- out passing them on. By his attitude and behavior, Jesus showed humanity how even in an extreme situation to submit to divine grace. We are saved by imitating Jesus\u2019 non-violence, not by an alleged violent plan of God to have His Son killed on the cross to appease His anger.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                      Throughout the history of the Church, every explanation of the atoning effect of the cross had to explain why God\u2019s saving act involved a violent death. Yet, explanations slide downhill once they co-opted the idea that God used or accepted violence for the greater good of our redemption. From his study of ancient myth and Greek tragedy, however, Ren\u00e9 Girard realized that the idea of redemptive divine violence has an ancient pedigree. It dominated the ancient world of ritual sacrifice and myth, a world firmly convinced that violence and the sacred were inter- twined for the good of the many at the expense of the few. Making startling connections between religion, violence, and culture, his ground- breaking work42 enlivens theological debates, especially on the question of whether and how we are to understand Christ\u2019s death as a \u2018sacrifice\u2019. His theory of non-violence seriously affects the doctrine of the atonement, helps us to see our savage-souls, and is good teaching for a weary world that its salvation rests not in violence but in non-violence.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                      Unlike others, Girard interprets the Passion and crucifixion of Jesus as God\u2019s unmasking of the powers of violence in the world<\/em>. God is anti- violence. God exposes violence for what it is, rather than willing the violent death of Jesus. For Girard Jesus\u2019 death on the cross was not a sacrifice, for what God wants is \u201cmercy, not sacrifice\u201d (Hos 6:6; Mt 9:13; 12:7). Jesus\u2019 death on the cross was not a violent penal atonement; it was to expose and to end all scapegoating violence. Violence and exclusion in the scapegoat mechanism had served as forces of social bonding in ancient societies, but when Jesus fell prey to that mechanism and died as countless others did, Girard insists that the Gospel texts unmask the process and reveal it as a fraud and an attack on the God who is non- violent love. That unmasking is attested in two points.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                      First<\/em>, Jesus was not the guilty scapegoat but an innocent victim. The fraudulent use of the scapegoat mechanism on him is proven in the very words of Caiaphas the high priest, who gives voice to the ways of this world when he pronounces the formula rationalizing ancient sacrificial systems: \u201c[\u2026] it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation perish\u201d (Jn 11:50). The judgment passed upon Jesus \u2013 a prime instance of the scapegoat mechanism unconsciously at work \u2013 is thus a <\/em>human deed, not a direct divine act. Responsibility for Jesus\u2019 death lies entirely with human beings \u2013 \u201cThis Jesus whom you <\/em>crucified\u201d (Acts 2:36).<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                      On this count, Girard identifies the angry divinity at the cross who demanded the sacrifice of an innocent substitute victim as the same angry divinity at the ancient sacrificial altars. But this divine being was not <\/em>the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob \u2013 it was us! We <\/em>are the ones who need our anger appeased. What God did through the death and resurrection of Christ was to reveal that the sin we needed redemption from, was the way we have constructed human culture on the graves of sacrificial victims. Jesus, by taking the place of one of our victims, revealed that God was not on the side of the perpetrators. Rather the opposite \u2013 it was God we had been persecuting all along. And so, God did not <\/em>will the death of Jesus; humanity did. God did not <\/em>demand violent punishment; humanity did. God was not <\/em>the perpetrator; God was the innocent victim. And, God-in-Jesus died on the cross<\/em>, to expose our violence against all innocent victims, and to put an end to scapegoating sacrifices. But how was that exposure of fraud finally achieved? The answer lies in the resurrection.43<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                      Second<\/em>, therefore, Jesus\u2019 response in love and non-violence is affirmed as good by God who raised him in the resurrection. While his opponents plotted his death, Jesus acted in a manner consistent with his own preaching. His response to evil was not retaliation by mimetic violence, but intensification and expansion of his love to encompass even the misdeeds of his foes. In the face of violence, his response was love and non- violence. And so, in raising Jesus from the dead, God simultaneously declared that the scapegoating of Jesus is a fraud and calling him guilty is a lie, and that Jesus is an innocent man and a victim of violence. The resurrection exonerated him of all charges from the victimizers. By raising Jesus from the dead, God vehemently and definitively delivers the message that the crucifixion of Jesus is an unacceptable violence, an affront to God. All that Jesus stood for is being affirmed by God as \u2018very good\u2019. His values of love and non-violence vindicated, humanity is saved from the false claims of violence. Furthermore, in Jesus\u2019 death and resurrection, he has made all things new again, for darkness, sin, violence, and death no longer have the last word. Now, there is possibility of new life: humanity is no longer bound to death, but saved for the possibility of life eternal.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                      The Dutch New Catechism states the case with force and clarity, placing focus on the human person<\/em>, instead of \u2018guilt and evil\u2019 and \u2018the right order of things\u2019 stressed since the Middle Ages. A wrong is not put right through the simple expedience of inflicting pain and punishment, but \u2018by regrets, works and love\u2019. In fact, for order to be restored, and for redemption to be achieved by Jesus, Scripture points not primarily to his pain and his death, but rather in the direction of \u2018the service and good- ness of his life\u2019 which made for the \u2018satisfaction\u2019 on our behalf. And then, the Dutch New Catechism articulates the truth in these memorable words:<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                      The Father did not will the pain and the death, but a noble and beautiful human life<\/em>. That it ended in such a death was due to us. Jesus did not shrink from it. His death was his total obedience. And so in fact he made satisfaction for us. In this sense, his death was the will of the Father. That suffering and death appear precisely at this moment of rendering satisfaction is a great mystery. But it would be wrong to explain it by saying that the Father willed that blood should flow.<\/em>44 [Emphasis added.]<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                      The Old Testament is in a sense a long love story of God who, suffering the infidelity and the covenant-breaking Israelites as the chosen people,45\u00a0<\/span>entered into a new covenant with them again and again. To claim that God the Father turned His face away from sinning humanity until the violent, punishing death of His Son, is antithetical to Jesus\u2019 preaching. In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, by which Jesus taught the world who God is and who we are, the Father never turned away from his two sinning sons.46\u00a0His face and his suffering heart were always turned towards them, in love and mercy, yearning for them to turn their hearts home and to truly stay home where kingdom values reign over narcissistic interests.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        \n
                                                                      1. \u00a0Salvation by a Reorientation of Human Freedom to God<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                        The Chalcedonian dogma that was directed against monophysitism and monothelitism has a human, creaturely, subjective center of action. In the hypostatic union, the Council has actually laid down that Jesus is really, and in every deed is truly and fully, human. Soteriology cannot rest on an objective principle of God\u2019s will and plan to save where such a principle inactivates or worse renders Jesus\u2019 subjective will vacuous. Instead, a helpful soteriology is one that features prominently and gives credit for the authentic exercise of Jesus\u2019 human freedom, which is always a human struggle with the incomprehensible God. Only in the resurrection was Jesus vindicated of all that he stood and suffered for. So, if salvation rests upon a reorientation of human freedom to God, all the more must we credit Jesus for the terrible and radical experiences he underwent. In order not to betray God\u2019s love and compromise human freedom, it was \u201cnecessary\u201d (Lk 24:26) for Jesus to suffer and die as the only way to bring God\u2019s love to a recalcitrant humanity.47 In Jesus, an unconditional, all- embracing love went to Calvary. The painful story of Jesus thus witnesses to an unconditional self-giving in utter freedom to the Father for the project of human redemption, thereby setting an exemplary, kingdom- promoting life of faith for all the world. From mountain to mountain, absolute obedience48 to God\u2019s kingdom vision constituted Jesus\u2019 mission,\u00a0<\/span>marking a definitive break and replacement of the prototypical Adamic sinning humanity. Jesus the Christ is the archetype <\/em>of the true human.49\u00a0Some renowned thinkers help strengthen this view.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        As early as the second century, in rebutting the Gnostic spiritualizing tendency, Irenaeus rigorously affirmed the positive value in Jesus\u2019 full humanity. Anselm and Abelard diversely did the same. From Thomas Aquinas, a profound emphasis on the intrinsic value of human <\/em>acts is again evident. In raising Jesus from the dead, God the Father affirmed the human <\/em>acts of Jesus in his loving obedience <\/em>to the Spirit and will of God. In turn, our own human <\/em>actions in imitation of Christ, will like- wise receive approval from God, towards our salvation. Unlike Anselm\u2019s satisfaction by offering the one offended something over and above what was already owed, Aquinas shifted to satisfaction by offering the one offended something that he or she loves more than they detest the offence. Applied to Jesus, what makes his death count as satisfaction is the love and obedience to God <\/em>that it expresses.50<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        Of special note is that human redemption for Aquinas is not limited to the effect of Jesus\u2019 death on the cross, but must be seen in the goodness of Jesus\u2019 entire earthly life, <\/em>so that all those Jesus-events recounted in the Gospels have a salvific value. In an absolutely unique and unprecedented perfect way, Jesus during his earthly life followed the will of the Father. Jesus\u2019 God-approved \u201cnoble<\/em> and beautiful human life<\/em>\u201d is his fundamental obedience, in interior self-dedication, by which he confronted human sins. In this way, all that he stood for merited exaltation and glorification at the resurrection. God\u2019s \u2018vindication\u2019 is a salvation that heals. Thus Aquinas affirms that like all human acts, \u201cthe human acts of Jesus had an intrinsic proportion to his future.\u201d Good and evil have their own sanction in human future. From mountain to mountain, Jesus chose to put the seal on constant self-renunciation as the absolute affirmation of the Other, the Father. This meant steadfastly preaching and living God\u2019s kingdom-values till death. Towards the end, especially at the Last Supper, Jesus performed and explained a number of symbolic acts by which his disciples were to make ever present to future believers the reality of his life and death. Whenever his life and death were proclaimed during communal gatherings, believers would be summoned to proclaim Jesus\u2019 obedience and in turn profess their own commitment to self-dedication. In communal fellowship and in the power of Christ, they were to overcome\u00a0<\/span>the root of sin, to renounce egoism, for without self-renunciation, there could be no affirmation of the other.51<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        Obedience bespeaks a choice of actions, of a lifestyle. We always have a choice. Jesus chose to do what was right by God; we can do the same. Jesus saw the larger picture, the kingdom of God on earth as in heaven, without which he could not be so focused on conquering violence and the cross the way he did, or be able to hold back self-interest and triumph over temptations, or see what the death-bound humanity needed. Salvation is freedom that comes through the cross. Old Testament prophets looked forward to the cross and the saints of the New Testament looked back to it for guidance.52\u00a0From that perspective Christians learn the key lesson that the freedom of which the Scriptures speak is not the freedom to do whatever we want in life, but the liberty to choose what we ought. But obedience presupposes the total commitment of the person. That requires a human openness to God and all that God represents, and an exercise of human freedom by Jesus which Rahner \u201caccents without abbreviation.\u201d53<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        God the Infinite Mystery gives self-offering love to the world. Humans are created with a transcendental openness and the freedom to accept God\u2019s love and to promote or neglect it in the world. The more one is open to God and the Gospel, the more human and free one becomes. Scriptures relentlessly offer the vision of that irreversible point where the history of God\u2019s self-offering meets with the free acceptance of this in the world. Jesus stood precisely at that point \u201cat which God accepts the world in such a way that he can no longer let it go.\u201d In Jesus then, God is pleased to receive \u201cthat gift of creaturely freedom in which this freedom of the world definitely accepts God\u2019s offering of Godself.\u201d This is the definitive contribution of Jesus the true man, for then, \u201cwe are standing at that point at which one person,54 from the ultimate roots of his own\u00a0<\/span>being, signifies the definitive address of God to the world, and at the same time the assent of the world to this God.\u201d55\u00a0God\u2019s history thus has a human history which attains its highest point with the definitive actions of one who is the \u201cabsolute bringer of salvation.\u201d This is the one who \u201csurrenders every inner-worldly future in death,\u201d and who is thereby \u201caccepted by God finally and definitively.\u201d His complete surrender of life to God reached its fulfillment which became historically tangible precisely in the resurrection.56\u00a0To Schillebeeckx, the redefinition of God and humanity in Jesus\u2019 proclamation and way of behavior attained ultimate significance at his crucifixion.57\u00a0This individual, Jesus of Nazareth, has exemplary significance and is the \u201ceffective prototype\u201d for the world as a whole. He is what is meant by an \u201cabsolute saviour.\u201d58<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        Jesus lived and died for a cause, the establishment of the kingdom or reign of God on earth as in heaven, and his followers are empowered to carry on his mission and spread his message. Disciples did not have to see his death as a \u201cpenal victimization\u201d but as \u201cheartbreaking empowerment.\u201d59\u00a0Jesus on the cross witnesses to a quality of life which is the true life for all.60 Triumph, disciples then understood, came through failure. Their resurrection faith no longer saw Calvary as a catastrophe. Instead, the cross is now the healing symbol of Jesus\u2019 self- emptying, self-giving, self-transcending work and has become a source of joy, peace and liberation for them. The prayerful suffering and death of Jesus has transformed them.61\u00a0But how did Jesus overcome the inevitable fear and suffering to achieve what he did?<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        From Gabriel Marcel\u2019s philosophical idea of the \u201cdomestication of circumstances,\u201d Herman-Emiel Mertens describes what Jesus did as a \u201cmastery of the Golgotha-situation.\u201d62 In the life of Jesus of Nazareth, we see the actual application of the parables illustrating God\u2019s love for\u00a0<\/span>humanity. His ideal was to love, despite everything, till death if necessary. As his meaningful life-ministry was moving inexorably to the cross, that which empowered Jesus to master his fear and suffering turned on his inner attitude with its twin elements of positive non-acceptance and meaningful behavior.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        Positive non-acceptance differs from its opposite negative form and its negativities in inner imbalance \u2013 rancor, anger, rebellion, disgust, violent reactions and so on \u2013 that leads to self-alienation. In the positive form, non-acceptance is freed of the dominating rebelliousness and grimness. The sufferer takes the trials and suffering as part of life, inseparable from oneself and therefore as something that has to be assumed and trans- formed in a creative process. There is no resignation or alienation, no masochism or victim-syndrome, but self-affirmation, and a true exercise of one\u2019s freedom. \u201cDomestication of circumstances\u201d means the achievement of mastery or domination over an adverse situation, thus empowering one to affirm the goodness of one\u2019s mission against the inevitable suffering along the way. It involves an attitude of the will which allows one to rise above the circumstances without, however, evading them. Conditions are not changed by violence and external force, but from within. Upon the twin dimensions of the non-acceptance of the meaninglessness of the situation in itself, and a determination to approach the situation with a meaningful behavior, Jesus exercised mastery over the Golgotha-situation with a key difference. On the one hand, in itself, the situation was meaningless because the crucifixion of a good man was a fraud, a terrible lie and a gross injustice. Judging Jesus guilty and a heretic and putting him to death was simply absurd. Against Jesus, the Obedient One of God, therefore, the cross was a cruel absurdity, a violence against God. On the other hand, Jesus confronted the meaningless situation with possibilities for a meaningful behavior. Not rebel- ling and altogether non-violent, he loved to the very end. It led ultimately to peace, both interiorly and exteriorly.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        Jesus thereby bore witness to the words of Cicero: \u201cMy enemies have taken from me everything, but myself.\u201d Everything was taken from him: his disciples, his fame, his life, everything except his inner freedom, his ideal, \u2018himself\u2019. For that reason, the hour of kenosis <\/em>is also the hour of glorification. Shuddered before the Mystery, He went to his death in darkness, but the situation of deepest misery is at the same time the culminating point of his existence. The story of Jesus teaches that in an authentic theology of the cross, God, triumph and glory come through failure, ruin and death. The healing which Jesus accomplished on the cross, culminated the historical dimension of his \u2018Abba\u2019 <\/span>relationship.63\u00a0Jesus who became the redemptive person, is now a model, the ultimate standard, and a living principle which continues to work efficaciously in the world through his followers. They minister, neither in purely spiritual things, nor in purely practical things, but to human per- <\/em>sons <\/em>upon the ultimate goal of Christianity, which is to help people become the best human persons they possibly can \u2013 the children of God. Imitation of Christ means the steadfast acceptance of our own human existence with its goal \u2013 to authentically assume our human nature as the eternal Logos did.64<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                         <\/p>\n

                                                                        4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Conclusion<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                        At the beginners\u2019 theology class in Leuven, it was lens-changing to hear Professor H. E. Mertens say, \u201cChristianity, according to Schillebeeckx, is first and foremost a story and a practice, rather than a set of doctrines, canon laws, or liturgies.\u201d Revealing who God is and what God wants, the never manipulative but always healing and recreating life story of Jesus, his ministry and passion that climaxed in his crucifixion and resurrection, taken as a whole, makes up the stuff of true Christianity. It show- cases the relationship between humanity and the deepest convictions about life lived as if God reigns, a relationship grounded most strongly in a self-giving love,65\u00a0an inner disposition of defenseless non-violence, and a human will freely oriented towards God\u2019s kingdom-vision. With these, Jesus the true human decisively interrupted the overpowering pat- tern of sin in society. Imitating Jesus, we build upon his foundation (1 Corinthians 3), stop becoming carriers of sin-contagion, and avoid being death-bound.66<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        ENDNOTES:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        1\u00a0So J\u00fcrgen Moltmann observes in The<\/em> Crucified<\/em> God<\/em> (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 92.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        2 See Pope Benedict XVI, In the Beginning <\/em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 33-39. Pope Francis raises alarm bells in the human roots of the current ecological crisis, promotes awareness on integral ecology, and sounds a clarion call for \u201cecological conversion\u201d in his Encyclical Letter Laudato Si\u2019 <\/em>(2015).<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        3 Pope Francis, Laudato Si\u2019<\/em>, 9. Moltmann\u2019s sentiment is echoed in Pope Benedict\u2019s stress on \u201cthe human threat to all living things\u201d in the opening words <\/span>of In<\/em> the<\/em> Beginning<\/em> where chapter 3 on sin and salvation brings the focus back to the cross of Christ, the place of human obedience.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        4\u00a0Unpacked in Gerald O\u2019Collins, Interpreting Jesus <\/em>(London: Geoffrey Chap- man, 1983), 135-139.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        5\u00a0\u201cThus the Old Testament account of the beginnings of humankind points, questioningly and hopefully, beyond itself to the One in whom God endured our refusal to accept our limitations and who entered into those limitations in order to restore us to ourselves\u201d; Benedict XVI, In the Beginning<\/em>, 74.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        6 In the New Testament, an explicit comparison is twice made by Paul between Jesus and Adam. See Rom 5:19 and 1 Cor 15:22 while in verse 45 he calls Jesus the \u2018last\u2019 or \u2018ultimate\u2019 Adam.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        7\u00a0Herman-Emiel Mertens, Not<\/em> the<\/em> Cross,<\/em> But<\/em> the<\/em> Crucified<\/em> (Louvain: Peeters, 1992), 91, 105-107, referencing Schleiermacher and Paul Tillich. See Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:10; N. T. Wright, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon <\/em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 44; Monica K. Hellwig, Understanding Catholicism <\/em>(New York: Paulist, 1981), 48-49.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        8 Cardinal Luis Antonio G. Tagle, Easter People <\/em>(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005), 114.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        9\u00a0Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii<\/em> Gaudium<\/em> (2013), 24, 49.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        10\u00a0A phrase coined by Wendell Berry, \u201cManifesto,\u201d in The<\/em> Country<\/em> of<\/em> Mar<\/em>riage <\/em>(New York: Harcourt, 1973).<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        11\u00a0In The<\/em> Wounded<\/em> Healer<\/em> (New York: Image Books, 1990), Henri Nouwen suggests how Jesus shows the way to be wounded healers. To authentically minister to wounded bodies requires of us not to hide our own wounds, but to first get in touch with our own woundedness. Only when our wounds cease to be a source of shame, can they become a source of healing, and we become wounded healers.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        12 N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus <\/em>(Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2015), 11.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        13 Albert Nolan, Jesus before Christianity <\/em>(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976), 117.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        14\u00a0See Kurien Kunnumpuram, Jesus<\/em> (Bombay: St Paul\u2019s Society, 2011), 197.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        15\u00a0This raising of the human Jesus by God was so central to the faith of the early Church that within 15-20 years after Jesus\u2019 death, by around the year 50 ad when he began writing to young communities that he had evangelized, Paul was already referring to the \u2018tradition\u2019 that he had received (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f73\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd) and which he had faithfully passed on (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f73\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1) to the communities (1 Cor 15:3).<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        16\u00a0Walter Kasper puts it succinctly in Jesus<\/em> the<\/em> Christ<\/em> (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1976), 15-16: \u201cWhen we say that Jesus is the Christ, we maintain that this unique, irreplaceable Jesus of Nazareth is at one and the same time the Christ sent by God: that is the Messiah anointed of the Spirit, the salvation of the world, and the eschatological fulfillment of history.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        17\u00a0See Karl Rahner, \u201cThe Two Basic Types of Christology,\u201d in id., Theological <\/em>Investigations. <\/em>Vol. XIII: Theology, Anthropology, Christology<\/em>, trans. David Bourke (New York: Seabury, 1975), 213-223. Rahner thinks the low and ascending approach more appropriate today, which contrasts with the official Vatican\u00a0<\/span>methodology exemplified in the CDF \u201cNotification on the works of Father Jon Sobrino, SJ\u201d of November 26, 2006. \u201cOfficial Christology of the church is a straightforward descending Christology which develops the basic assertion: God in his Logos becomes man.\u201d See Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity<\/em>, trans. William V. Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 286; John Macquarrie, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought <\/em>(London: SCM Press, 1990), 371ff.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        18\u00a0The importance of resurrection would later diminish, notably so in the Fourth Gospel. In virtue of his preexistent divine glory, Jesus became a god-like man, a theios<\/em> an\u0113r<\/em>, and<\/em> was already<\/em> the \u201cresurrection and the life\u201d (Jn 11:25). See Peter C. Hodgson, Winds of the Spirit <\/em>(London: SCM Press, 1994), 247.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        19 Jacques Dupuis, Who Do You Say I Am <\/em>(Quezon City: Claretian, 1994), 61-62.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        20\u00a0George A. Lindbeck suggests that in the face of all those controversies over the identity of Christ, what ultimately became universal orthodoxy was the joint pressure of three rules: monotheistic<\/em>, historical specificity<\/em>, and christological maximalism<\/em>. See The Nature of Doctrine <\/em>(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1984), 94-95.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        21\u00a0On how the debate over Jesus\u2019 degree of divinity escalated from heated argument to violence and bloodshed at Nicaea, see Richard E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God <\/em>(New York: Harcourt, 1999).<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        22 By \u2018<\/span>true God\u2019, Council Fathers meant \u2018true God\u2019 in the experience of human beings and not the doctrinal statement of a sole metaphysical category, so it is \u201cmore sensible to talk about the in<\/em>tent of Chalcedon than about its actual con<\/em>tent.\u201d See Tarsicius van Bavel, \u201cChalcedon: Then and Now,\u201d Concilium <\/em>153, no. 3 (1982): 55-62, at 61. Rahner sees Chalcedon as \u201cnot end but beginning, not goal but means, truths which open the way to the \u2013 ever greater \u2013 Truth.\u201d See Karl Rahner, \u201cCurrent Problems in Christology,\u201d in id., Theological Investiga<\/em>tions<\/em>. Vol. I: God, Christ, Mary and Grace<\/em>, trans. Cornelius Ernst (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), 149-200, at 149. Aloys Grillmeier in Christ in Christian Tradition <\/em>(Atlanta, GA: Knox, 1975) sees hypostasis <\/em>used in an \u201cintui<\/em>tive and not a speculatively refined way<\/em>,\u201d thus always needing further elucidation.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        23\u00a0Alejandro Garcia-Rivera, \u201cWhat Are Theologians Saying about Christology?,\u201d America<\/em>, September 17, 2007.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        24\u00a0Rahner, Foundations<\/em> of<\/em> Christian<\/em> Faith<\/em>, 287. If the divinity over-stress no longer runs in academic settings today, anecdotal evidence abounds to testify to the continuing power of Rahner\u2019s \u2018crypto-Monophysitism\u2019 in the pulpits and the pews, and in popular Christology. See Enda Lyons, Jesus: Self-Portrait by God <\/em>(Dublin: Columba, 1994), 17; Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The<\/em> Meaning<\/em> of <\/em>Jesus<\/em> (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 7-8 and 157; Gordon Fee, \u201cThe New Testament and Kenosis Christology,\u201d in Exploring<\/em> Kenotic<\/em> Christology<\/em>, ed., <\/span>Stephen Evans (Vancouver: Regent College Publications, 2010), 26-27 and 71.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        25\u00a0Anselm of Canterbury, Why<\/em> God<\/em> Became<\/em> a<\/em> Man<\/em> (Toronto: Mellen, 1976).<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        26 Morphed perhaps in some ways, to such as the Penal Substitutionary Atonement model which still runs strong in the Evangelical circles.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        27\u00a0Mertens, Not<\/em> the<\/em> Cross<\/em>, 70-74.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        28 In Mercy <\/em>(New York: Paulist, 2013), Walter Kasper insists on mercy as God\u2019s most important attribute. This inspired Pope Francis\u2019 The Face of Mercy <\/em>(Misericordiae Vultus <\/em>\u2013 the papal bull of indiction for the Jubilee Year of Mercy). O\u2019Collins calls the language of anger, punishment and propitiation in any penal <\/em>substitutionary theory <\/em>a \u201cmonstrous view of God\u201d and a \u201cmisinterpretation of the New Testament\u201d in Interpreting Jesus<\/em>, 150-152.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        29\u00a0Maurizio Gronchi, Jesus<\/em> Christ<\/em> (Rome: Urbaniana University Press, 2013), 107. <\/span>Jesus\u2019 life, suffering, death, and resurrection, seen as a unit, is God\u2019s liberating deed on behalf of humanity. See Robrecht Michiels, \u201cJesus and Suffering,\u201d in <\/span>God and Human Suffering<\/em>, ed. Jan Lambrecht and Raymond F. Collins (Louvain: Peeters, 1990), 39.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        30\u00a0Gronchi, Jesus Christ<\/em>, 107-108. Indeed, to suggest \u201ca defensiveness, even a petty vengefulness on the part of God,\u201d is to misidentify \u201cthe God whose power is his compassion.\u201d Hellwig, Understanding<\/em>, 97.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        31\u00a0Gronchi, Jesus<\/em> Christ<\/em>, 107. Benedict XVI stresses God\u2019s fundamental love and forgiveness reconciling justice and love on the cross in Deus caritas est <\/em>(2005), 10. Rejecting legalistic satisfaction, Peter Abelard opted for Christ\u2019s example of love and stressed the human response. <\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        32\u00a0Gronchi, Jesus<\/em> Christ<\/em>, 107; Kasper, Jesus<\/em> the<\/em> Christ<\/em>, 220; Gerard H. Luttenberger, An<\/em> Introduction<\/em> to<\/em> Christology<\/em> (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1998), 209.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        33\u00a0Mertens, Not<\/em> the<\/em> Cross<\/em>, 71-72.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        34\u00a0Kasper, Jesus<\/em> the<\/em> Christ<\/em>, 220.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        35\u00a0Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus<\/em> \u2013<\/em> God<\/em> and<\/em> Man<\/em> (London: SCM Press, 1968), 42-43.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        36\u00a0A phrase I used in the CANews<\/em> April 2011 article, posted as \u201c30. Easter: From Mountain to Mountain,\u201d at www.jeffangiegoh.com<\/a> of 16.4.2011.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        37\u00a0Luttenberger, Introduction<\/em>, 194.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        38\u00a0Ibid., 196-197, 359, n. 21.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        39\u00a0Mertens, Not<\/em> the<\/em> Cross<\/em>, 75.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        40 Mark 1:9-15 renders three veritable catechetical panels on Jesus\u2019 baptism, temptation and kingdom-preaching and offers a blueprint for Christian life and mission. Energized by the Spirit at River Jordan, and emerging victorious against Satan in the wilderness, Jesus began to live and preach the kingdom of God all the way to the cross. See Jeffrey C. K. Goh, \u201cFamily: Seedbed of Vocation,\u201d in Slightly More Theological <\/em>category at www.jeffangiegoh.com.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        41\u00a0The God of gracious forgiveness, peace, and non-violence has a standing and urgent call to all to enter upon the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18). See Emmanuel Katongole, The Journey of Reconciliation <\/em>(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2017).<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        42 Starting with Violence and the Sacred <\/em>(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), Girard has attracted a huge following. See S. Mark Heim, Saved from Sacrifice <\/em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006); Scott Cowdell, Ren\u00e9 Girard and the Nonviolent God <\/em>(Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2018); Grant Kaplan, Ren\u00e9 Girard, Unlikely Apologist <\/em>(Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2016).<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        43\u00a0See Leo D. Lefebure, \u201cBeyond Scapegoating,\u201d Christian Century <\/em>115 (1998): 372-375.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        44\u00a0A<\/em> New<\/em> Catechism<\/em> (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), 281.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        45\u00a0See Peter Fransen, The<\/em> New<\/em> Life<\/em> of<\/em> Grace<\/em> (New York: Seabury, 1969), 16.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        46\u00a0Pope Francis said graphically that the father did not stay inside the house, or change the lock or locked the door!<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        47\u00a0Karl Rahner, \u201cThe Position of Christology in the Church between Exegesis and Dogmatics,\u201d in id., Theological<\/em> Investigations.<\/em> Vol. XI: Confrontations<\/em>, trans. David Bourke (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974), 185-214, at 198.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        48\u00a0The Gospel narratives render the identity of Jesus Christ as the one who enacted our redemption through obedience to God. \u2018He was what he did and underwent: the crucified human savior\u2019. See Gerard Loughlin, Telling<\/em> God\u2019s <\/em>Story <\/em>(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 207.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        49\u00a0Mertens, Not<\/em> the<\/em> Cross<\/em>, 91, referencing Schleiermacher.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        50\u00a0Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa<\/em> Theologiae<\/em>, IIIa, q. 46, a. 1, ad 3.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        51 In The Reality of Redemption <\/em>(Montreal: Herder, 1970), 59-60, Boniface Willems synthesizes what he sees as Aquinas\u2019 \u201cvery realistic sacramental notion of redemption.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        52\u00a0As true divinity is revealed in self-giving love, so the humility of God and the nobility of true humanness belong together; Wright, Challenge<\/em>, 193-194.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        53 John Galvin, \u201cJesus Christ,\u201d in Systematic Theology<\/em>, vol. 1, ed. Francis Sch\u00fcssler Fiorenza and John Galvin (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991), 249-324, at 318.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        54\u00a0Gerhard Lohfink suggests that to cure human misery, God has to change society at its roots. Without taking away its freedom and its humanity, God\u2019s work of liberation would have to start out small, with one person, at a single place. See \u201cthe Abraham Principle,\u201d in Jesus<\/em> of<\/em> Nazareth:<\/em> What<\/em> He<\/em> Wanted,<\/em> Who\u00a0<\/em><\/span>He<\/em> Was<\/em>, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2015), 44-46.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        55\u00a0Rahner, \u201cPosition of Christology,\u201d 201.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        56 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith<\/em>, 279 and 284.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        57 Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus<\/em> in<\/em> Our<\/em> Western<\/em> Culture<\/em> (London: SCM Press, 1987), 24.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        58\u00a0Rahner, Foundations<\/em> of<\/em> Christian<\/em> Faith<\/em>, 211; id., \u201cExperiencing Easter,\u201d in id., Theological Investigations<\/em>. Vol. VII: Further Theology of the Spiritual Life<\/em>, trans. David Bourke (New York: Crossroad, 1977), 159-168, at 167.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        59\u00a0Elizabeth A. Johnson, She<\/em> Who<\/em> Is<\/em> (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 159.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        60\u00a0John F. O\u2019Grady, Models<\/em> of<\/em> Jesus<\/em> Revisited<\/em> (New York: Paulist, 1994), 51.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        61 John J. Navone, Triumph through Failure <\/em>(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1984), 165.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        62\u00a0Mertens, Not<\/em> the<\/em> Cross<\/em>, chapter 8.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        63\u00a0John J. Navone, Triumph<\/em> through<\/em> Failure<\/em>, 165-167, 182-183. On Jesus\u2019 Abba experience<\/em>, see Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus:<\/em> An<\/em> Experiment<\/em> in<\/em> Christology<\/em> (New York: Vintage, 1981), 256-271. Vatican II teaches that the Holy Spirit offers to everyone \u201cthe possibility of being associated with Christ\u2019s paschal mystery\u201d (Gaudium et Spes<\/em>, 22).<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        64\u00a0Rahner, The Content of Faith <\/em>(New York: Crossroad, 1992), 348-349.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        65\u00a0For the deconstructed postmodern self to find itself by giving itself away, see Wright, Challenge<\/em>, 167-173.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                                        66 William A. Barry, God\u2019s Passionate Desire <\/em>(Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1993), 122.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                                                        This is my contribution in P. De Mey, K. Struys, V. Coman (eds), Answerable for our Beliefs, ISBN 978-90-429-4742-9 and is here posted after the expiry of a three-year embargo on contributors’ individual publications. The copyright on this publication belongs to Peeters Publishers. For queries about offprints, copyright and republication of this article, please contact Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sfsi_plus_gutenberg_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_show_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_type":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_alignemt":"","sfsi_plus_gutenburg_max_per_row":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"rttpg_featured_image_url":null,"rttpg_author":{"display_name":"Dr. Jeffrey & Angie Goh","author_link":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/?author=1"},"rttpg_comment":0,"rttpg_category":"Slightly More Theological<\/a>","rttpg_excerpt":"This is my contribution in P. De Mey, K. Struys, V. Coman (eds), Answerable for our Beliefs, ISBN 978-90-429-4742-9 and is here posted after the expiry of a three-year embargo on contributors’ individual publications. The copyright on this publication belongs to Peeters Publishers. For queries about offprints, copyright and republication of this article, please contact…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7602"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7602"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7602\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7611,"href":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7602\/revisions\/7611"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.jeffangiegoh.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}