Paul determined to know nothing but Jesus and the cross. Was that enough? What is the cross? Is it big enough to fill the universe?
The cross is the work of the Father, who gave His Son in love for the world; the cross is the work of the Son, who did not cling to equality with God but gave Himself to shameful death; the cross is the work of the Spirit, through whom the Son offers Himself to the Father and who is poured out from the pierced side of the glorified Son. The cross displays the height and the depth and the breadth of eternal Triune love.
The cross is the light of the world; on the cross Jesus is the firmament, mediating between heaven and earth; the cross is the first of the fruit-bearing trees, and on the cross Jesus shines as the bright morning star; on the cross Jesus is sweet incense arising to heaven, and He dies on the cross as True Man to bring the Sabbath rest of God.
Adam fell at a tree, and by a tree he was saved. At a tree Eve was seduced, and through a tree the bride was restored to her husband. At a tree, Satan defeated Adam; on a tree Jesus destroyed the works of the devil. At a tree man died, but by Jesus’ death we live. At a tree God cursed, and through a tree that curse gave way to blessing. God exiled Adam from the tree of life; on a tree the Last Adam endured exile so that we might inherit the earth.
The cross is the tree of knowledge, the tree of judgment, the site of the judgment of this world. The cross is the tree of life, whose cuttings planted along the river of the new Jerusalem produce monthly fruit and leaves for the healing of the nations.
The cross is the wooden ark of Noah, the refuge for all the creatures of the earth, the guarantee of a new covenant of peace and the restoration of Adam. The cross is the ark that carries Jesus, the greater Noah, with all His house, through the deluge and baptism of death to the safety of a new creation.
The cross is the olive tree of Israel on which the true Israel died for the sake of Israel. For generations, Israel worshiped idols under every green tree. Israel cut trees, burned wood for fuel, and shaped the rest into an idol to worship. In the last days, idolatrous Israel cut trees, burned wood for fuel, and shaped the rest into a cross. The cross is the climax of the history of Israel, as the leaders of Israel gather to jeer, as their fathers had done, at their long-suffering King.
The cross is the imperial tree, where Jesus is executed as a rebel against empire. It is the tree of Babylon and of Rome and of all principalities and powers that will have no king but Caesar. It is the tree of power that has spawned countless crosses for executing innumerable martyrs. But the cross is also the imperial standard of the Fifth Monarchy, the kingdom of God, which grows to become the chief of all the trees of the forest, a haven for birds of the air and beasts of the field.
The cross is the staff of Moses, which divides the sea and leads Israel dry through it. The cross is the wood thrown into the waters of Marah to turn the bitter waters sweet. The cross is the pole on which Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, as Jesus is lifted up to draw all men to Himself.
The cross is the tree of cursing, for cursed is every man who hangs on a tree. On the tree of cursing hung the chief baker of Egypt; but now bread of life. On the tree of cursing hung the king of Ai and the five kings of the South; but now the king of glory, David’s greater Son. On the tree of cursing hung Haman the enemy who sought to destroy Israel; but now the savior of Israel, One greater than Mordecai. Jesus bears the curse and burden of the covenant to bear the curse away.
The cross is the wooden ark of the new covenant, the throne of the exalted savior, the sealed treasure chest now opened wide to display the gifts of God—Jesus the manna from heaven, Jesus the Eternal Word, Jesus the budding staff. The cross is the ark in exile among Philistines, riding in triumph even in the land of enemies.
Jesus had spoken against the temple, with its panels and pillars made from cedars of Lebanon. He predicted the temple would be chopped and burned, until there was not one stone left on another. The leaders of the temple had made the temple into another wood-and-stone idol, and kept it so, even at the cost of destroying the Lord of the temple. Yet, the cross becomes the new temple, and at Calvary the temple is destroyed to be rebuilt in three days, where Jews and Gentiles unite in worship. The cross is the temple of the prophet Ezekiel, from which living water flows out to renew the wilderness and to turn the salt sea fresh.
The cross is the wood on the altar of the world on which is laid the sacrifice to end all sacrifice. The cross is the wood on which Jesus burns in His love for His Father and for His people, the fuel of His ascent in smoke as a sweet-smelling savor. The cross is the wood on the back of Isaac, climbing Moriah with his father Abraham, who believes that the Lord will provide. The cross is the cedar wood burned with scarlet string and hyssop for the water of purification that cleanses from the defilement of death.
The cross is planted on a mountain, and Golgotha is the new Eden, the new Ararat, the new Moriah; it is greater than Sinai, where Yahweh displays His glory and speaks His final word, a better word than the word of Moses; it is greater than Zion, the mountain of the Great King; it is the climactic mount of transfiguration where the Father glorifies His Son. Calvary is the new Carmel, where the fire of God falls from heaven to consume a living twelve-stone altar to deliver twelve tribes, and turn them into living stones. Planted at the top of the world, the cross is a ladder to heaven, angels ascending and descending on the Son of man.
The cross tears Jesus and the veil so that through His separation He might break down the dividing wall that separated Yahweh from his people and Jew from Gentile. The cross stretches to embrace the world, reaching to the four corners, the four winds of heaven, the points of the compass, from the sea to the River and from Hamath to the brook of Egypt. It is the cross of reality, the symbol of man, stretching out, as man does, between heaven and earth, distended between past and future, between inside and outside.
The cross is the crux, the crossroads, the twisted knot at the center of reality, to which all previous history leads and from which all subsequent history flows. By it we know all reality is cruciform—the love of God, the shape of creation, the labyrinth of human history. Paul determined to know nothing but Christ crucified, but that was enough. The cross was all he knew on earth; but knowing the cross he, and we, know all we need to know.
Peter J. Leithart is pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in, Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Defending Constantine (InterVarsity Press).
Comments:
The scribe of Mark 12 might have been mentioned; he who answered Jesus with "Excellent Teacher! You have spoken correctly. He is the One, there is no other than He. ...". And then there was Joseph of Arimathea, "who asked Pilate's permission to remove Jesus' body". It might also mention Anna and Simeon and those faithful Jews who faithfully prayed the ancient Psalms of Israel.
As we meditate to day on the Cross of Christ, it is imperative that we understand Jesus as he was, born of an obedient Jewish woman, Mary, and protected by an obedient Jewish man, Joseph, rejoiced in by an obedient cousin of his mother, Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist.
You say: "Jesus had spoken against the temple, with its panels and pillars made from cedars of Lebanon. . . . The leaders of the temple had made the temple into another wood-and-stone idol, and kept it so, even at the cost of destroying the Lord of the temple." Why do the apostles still go to the temple after the death of Jesus (e.g., Acts 3:1) if Jesus spoke against it?
Enough said.
... with Christ I am nailed to the cross. And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me. And that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered himself for me. ... That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. ...
and i've always wondered about the epistemic value of metaphor. it's probably not zero. it's probably quite valuable. peter kreeft writes somewhere that poetry is redeemed prose. he's probably right.
but just because a proposition is metaphorical does not necessarily mean that it's true.
in any case, christ's body and blood are salvific balm for our wounded and degenerate selves. so maybe at the center of reality is Love, whom we can only understand via the illumination of metaphor.
This meditation works on contrasts – it is through contrasts that it gets its rhetorical power, and at points even its beauty. But we must beware of cheap rhetorical flourishes – especially when they contain slanders and dismissals of whole peoples and whole religions! Is it really only possible to present Jesus’ grandeur, by finding some ‘arch foil’ to compare him to, against which he can sparkle? Surely if Jesus is who the author takes him to be, he should shine quite apart from such cheap contrasts. For Jesus to be the saviour, does non-Christian Judaism need to be idolatry?
I'm cross-eyed in love with Jesus, my Lord and Savior who died and bore the sins of this wretched sinner as me.
You wrote:
“Why do the apostles still go to the temple after the death of Jesus (e.g., Acts 3:1) if Jesus spoke against it?”
The apostles, being typical Jews, had a profound reverence for the temple. That this reverence was appropriate was confirmed by Jesus when He drove the money changers out of the temple, being indignant at their lack of reverence. (Mt 21, Mk 11, Jn 2)
Yet the veil of the temple had been rent. (Mt 27:51, Mk 15:37, Lk 23:44) The sacrifices of the Old Covenant had been replaced with the one, once and for all time, perfect sacrifice of the New Covenant. See chapters 6-10 of Hebrews. In Hebrews 10 we read:
“Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ; A new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”
There was a new sacrifice, the offering of the very body of Christ, that was not immediately (at least visibly) disassociated with the physical temple. So the apostles and their followers continued to go to the temple as we read in Acts 2:41-46:
“... then those, indeed, who did gladly receive his word were baptized, and there were added on that day, as it were, three thousand souls, and they were continuing steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles, and the fellowship, and the breaking of the bread, and the prayers. And fear came on every soul, many wonders also and signs were being done through the apostles, and all those believing were at the same place, and had all things common, and the possessions and the goods they were selling, and were parting them to all, according as any one had need. Daily also continuing with one accord in the temple, breaking also at every house bread …”
It seems strange that something as mundane sounding as “breaking bread” is included in a list of amazing events like three thousand conversions to Christianity, the apostles performing signs and wonders, and people selling their possessions so all they had could be held in common with others. It is included because the most amazing event was, in fact, the presence of Christ in the breaking of the bread:
“And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures? And rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were staying with them, Saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.”
Luke 24:30-35
The once and for all time New Covenant sacrifice, the offering of the flesh of Christ made present in the breaking of the bread, required more reverence than did the temple and the Old Covenant sacrifices associated with it. See 1 Cor 11:20-34. Here we also see that the commemoration of His sacrificial offering, performed according to the explicit command of Christ (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24), had become completely separated from the physical temple.
Thanks for your very detailed response. The thing I am wondering, though, is if it is right to say that Jesus spoke "against" the Temple. Specifically, "Jesus had spoken against the temple, with its panels and pillars made from cedars of Lebanon. . . . The leaders of the temple had made the temple into another wood-and-stone idol, and kept it so, even at the cost of destroying the Lord of the temple."
There seem to be two views. First, that the Cleansing of the Temple was a DEFENSE of the Temple. Aside from the incident, unless I have missed something, we do not see any attack on the Temple or temple worship. We have the presentation of Jesus at the Temple. And of course we have Jesus as a boy staying behind to preach in the Temple. We have the apostles going to the Temple in Acts, as you note. If Jesus was against the Temple, or even in a sense replaced the Temple, it is strange to me that the apostles would continue to visit the Temple.
Another view that I have seen is that Jesus really was ATTACKING Temple worship. The moneychangers in the Temple were really quite necessary. People came from afar to offer sacrifices at the Temple, and they could not bring live animals on long journeys. Presumably Mary and Joseph, when they visited the Temple to offer a sacrifice of "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons" changed their money and bought them there. If people could not exchange currency, they could not buy animals to offer as a sacrifice. So I have seen the interpretation that Jesus was actually attacking the whole system of Temple worship when he drove the moneychangers out of the Temple. It was like driving tellers out of the bank! But if that were the case, and if Jesus really was attacking the whole system, why would the apostles still go to the Temple after the death of Jesus?
The Temple had many functions. People went there to sacrifice, but they also went there to pray. After Pentecost, the apostles and followers of Christ had no use of the Temple as a place for sacrifice. In the second volume of the Pope's book on Jesus of Nazareth, he sums this point up nicely when commenting on the passage from Acts that you mentioned: "So two key locations are named for the life of the infant Church: for preaching and prayer they meet in the Temple, which they still regard and accept as the house of God's word and the house of prayer; on the other hand, the breaking of the bread-the new 'cultic' center of the lives of the faithful-is celebrated in their houses as places of assembly and communion in the name of the risen Lord" (36). The definitive sacrifice of Christ made obsolete Temple sacrifice; for this reason, early Jewish-Christians had no need reevaluate their cult after the destruction of the Temple, unlike their Jewish brothers and sisters.
The Pope also speaks about various interpretations of Jesus' cleansing of the Temple (11-23).
Peter Leithart wrote:
“Jesus had spoken against the temple, with its panels and pillars made from cedars of Lebanon. He predicted the temple would be chopped and burned, until there was not one stone left on another. The leaders of the temple had made the temple into another wood-and-stone idol, and kept it so, even at the cost of destroying the Lord of the temple.”
I took the “Jesus had spoken against the temple” to be a reference to His being accused of doing so as in:
“And the chief priests, and the elders, and all the council, were seeking false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death, and they did not find; and many false witnesses having come near, they did not find; and at last two false witnesses having come near, said, 'This one said, I am able to throw down the sanctuary of God, and after three days to build it.' And the chief priest having stood up, said to him, 'Nothing thou dost answer! what do these witness against thee?”
Matthew 26:59-72
He had not really spoken against the temple. After His cleansing of the temple:
“Jesus answered and said to them, 'Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up.' The Jews, therefore, said, 'Forty and six years was this sanctuary building, and wilt thou in three days raise it up?' but He spake concerning the sanctuary of his body.”
John 2:19-21
He predicted the destruction of the temple, which did indeed take place in 70 A.D.. The Jews (and Peter Leithart?) might have construed this to be speaking against the temple:
“And as He is going forth out of the temple, one of his disciples saith to him, 'Teacher, see! what stones! and what buildings!' and Jesus answering said to him, 'Seest thou these great buildings? there may not be left a stone upon a stone, that may not be thrown down.'”
Mark 13:1-2
Although the false accusation of the Jews was in regard to Jesus' speaking “concerning the sanctuary of his body,” not His prediction of the destruction of the temple.
I took Leithart's “The leaders of the temple had made the temple into another wood-and-stone idol, and kept it so, even at the cost of destroying the Lord of the temple.” to be a reference to the Jews placing the temple above the One Who dwelt in it, His having become a Man and walked among them, to which they responded by killing Him. St. Peter says they weren't really aware that that is what they were doing:
“And now, brethren, I have known that through ignorance ye did it, as also your rulers.”
Acts 3:17
I agree that the uses of the temple you mentioned were legitimate. Christ confirms their legitimacy by the various events in His life you mentioned, although He must have thought that sometimes the reverence with which things were done in the temple was insufficient or completely absent, as He did cleanse it.
You wrote:
“So I have seen the interpretation that Jesus was actually attacking the whole system of Temple worship when he drove the moneychangers out of the Temple. It was like driving tellers out of the bank! But if that were the case, and if Jesus really was attacking the whole system, why would the apostles still go to the Temple after the death of Jesus?”
I don't think Jesus was attacking the whole system, due to His making this remark:
“'Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill; for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.”
Mathew 5:17-18
Fulfilling the law and the prophets was completing it, not attacking it. So I don't agree with the interpretation that Jesus was attacking the whole system.
All the sacrifices of the temple had been fulfilled in the sacrifice of the Lamb of God which is made present in the breaking of the bread, done in remembrance of it according to the command of Christ. The early church eventually disconnected the offering of the New Covenant sacrifice from the temple completely, as I mentioned in my previous post. After 70 A.D. there was no choice about that.
My point was that on the cross everything needful for our salvation and righteousness was accomplished.
Now that we 'don't have to do' anything...then what will we do?
http://www.zenit.org/article-32395?l=english - here is more on that mission , from Holy Father !
Could the eagerness to focus on the empty cross be related to our 'greed ' for comfort -seemingly easier to marvel at The Ark than want to be inside , unless one takes in more into focus ..and so on ..
Day 2 of Novena prayers , in preparation for Octave of Easter here -
http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/novena.htm#2
May His mercy strenghten many , to do what is right and courageous !
yeah, I'm totally agree with you that the uses of the temple you mentioned were legitimate. Christ confirms their legitimacy by the various events in His life you mentioned, although He must have thought that sometimes the reverence with which things were done in the temple was insufficient or completely absent, as He did cleanse It's such a great information. . Thanks for the share!
yes...you are right. I am a bit too quick to write my reactions in these comment boxes. Have a blessed "First Day of the Week"--Happy Easter!
Andrew, my take on the "leaves" for healing the of nations in the new Jerusalem is that this is a serious statement about the nature of Heaven for imperfect, limited beings that dwell outside of the Temple. God will remain a volitional Being in Heaven...so will we. Those of extreme proximity (for example: inside the Temple area--whatever that means--will be "married" to God's perfection and very unlikely to have spot or blemish). However there seems to be another group that lives just outside--and we would assume these would remain volitional yet fully graced--who might suffer limitations that require healing. Whether these limitations are "sins" is a deeply theological question.
-Truth Unites...and Divides
We must be careful with quotes such as this. We are to LOVE Jesus and NOT be IN love with Jesus. He is our savior, not our boyfriend. Please, more majesty needs to be shown to Jesus.
We can't get so squeamishly close to Jesus nor too "buddy-buddy" with Him. We aren't going to get to Heaven and then slap Him on the back and say, "My, this is a great gathering you have here!"
Faith ought to breed a magisterial vision. Hierarchy, not equality with The Risen Lord.
Your comment has spurred a couple of thoughts for me. You wrote, "Cross with no mention of 'resurrection' is not orthodox thinking but quite alright to me."
It occurs to me that the apostle Paul wrote, in 1 Cor. 11:26, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes again."
Clearly, the resurrection is the underlying presupposition of all of Paul's writing, although he frequently only mentions the cross. Why is that? I believe it is because Christians are called to be imitators of the crucified life that was modeled to us by Jesus. The cross is not just something that Jesus did FOR us, it is a call and invitation TO us, to live by the rationale of the cross (1 Cor. 1:18), a participation in the divine life. The cross is the life we are to live, ("present yourselves as a living sacrifice..." Rom. 12:1). The power of God that was exhibited in Jesus' resurrection is the same power that makes it possible for human beings to actually live this kind of life out, even in a fallen world. For Christian orthodoxy, the resurrection is the foundational presupposition, and the cross is the divine LIFE that we are being invited to participate in. This is why, even in the Easter season, the cross must be at the heart of what we proclaim.
Thank you, James, for your comment, and to Pastor Leithart for this article.
What more can be added? To your piece...nothing. To the cross...nothing.
It is enough. It is enough.
Thank you.