How Can a Man Atone for the Sins of the World By His Own Sacrifice? Only one way. Part 2. The Messianic Secret
Sacrifice for Sin and the Real Messianic Secret
This is an article in a series. Please see:
Well, I think that’s a pretty ambitious opening to the treatment of a topic of theology that has become about as domesticated and prosaic as cosmology in A Brief History of Time. In that, you never have to deal with the implications of origins as long as you construct a reason that sounds at once sufficiently sciency and mysterious to account for it, like “quantum fluctuations.” Our theology is pious sounding, but in its explanation of Christ and the Cross, we find only God dying for “sin” and nothing more that would deal directly with how and for what sin(s). The only thing I’m doing is what I believe is framing the right questions. If we’re honest they are going to lead us to some very un-prosaic answers if what we are dealing with is very un-prosaic.
But did you ever stop to reflect on the fact that Jesus asked far more questions than he answered, with the intention of those receiving them supplying a correct answer? Did you ever wonder why Jesus always told those who received the blessings of his healing and teaching not to respond by going around saying “this is the Messiah, this is the Messiah, this is the Messiah? Even to demons? But if Jesus was only speaking a revelation of God with its depth ending in “I am God,” or “I am Messiah, or “just believe in me and you will be saved,” why all the intrigue? I know these are pretty radical things for him to say from what is, apparently, only a man. But do we really think that what is quintessentially radical in the identification of someone who is far more than a man is a name, a conclusion of identity, rather than a motivation for its acceptance or denial?
I speak of the “Messianic Secret” spoken of in scholarly circles,” first brought to a depth of discussion by William Wrede. See Matthew 16:16-20, Mark 1:43-45, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 9:18-21,Mark 3:11-12. But if we think that this secret is only found here, we would be way off about the extent and significance in the disclosure of the Father by Jesus. It’s not really found by our scholars anywhere else only because it’s obsessed with categorizations that help maintain boundaries that keep anything of the strange and remarkable out of reach of themselves and their pedestrian audiences. After all, if the truth was not fought and worked over, what would be their job? Jesus, however, has not kept these precious transcendent truths from the street because if he didn’t it would put him out of a job. He does it not because it’s low value in relation to one’s ego, but because it’s as precious as God himself and, for faith, it is God himself. And he’s not keeping it by confusion and relegation, he’s keeping it safe by giving it under another appearance. There is no parable, no story, and very few theological statements found in the Gospels that are uttered without the reporter assuming a subtext for which the reader is expected to engage. The Messianic Secret does not occupy only several verses there, the Messianic Secret is the Gospels.
A lot my meditation on the Cross is going to come at it asymmetrically, keeping this fact about us and our adversary, with the real truth that Jesus preached in mind, not that of the adversary. Why we don’t get it is habitually because of the way we have determined to use words. Not because of the biblicality of doctrines, but the biblicality of our assumptions about ultimates expressed by ideas through words.
We all know that after Christ’s resurrection and after the Holy Spirit founded the Church the Messianic Secret was surely not the method of evangelism practiced. The one crucial mission of the apostles became openly contending for and convincing everyone that Jesus is the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. But why was this a secret when Jesus was walking the earth? When his Person was on full display before everyone, and the full fulfillment of his messianic credentials were in the process of manifestation?
Well, obviously, as I said, your not saved by a Truth until it is fully manifest for you, and he wanted the people to supply the answer that was coming upon them for themselves. But in Jesus’s work of throwing out Messianic symbol after symbol and expecting those sincerely looking for him to supply the signification, my question is if the image of Him on the Cross is not his greatest of such intentional messianic secrets that lives on as our judge as to our true affections for Truth.
Wrede thought that this strategy of Jesus was the same as his refusal to give answers to his parables, as in Mark 411: “And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables.” So do I. But Wrede also thought that he was trying to reduce the confusion that was arising from the difference between what Jesus thought his messianic ministry and his non-messianic ministry. Thus does scholarship, at every available turn, attempt to sacrifice the theological and soteriological implications of the idea and confession of Messiah so that attention turns to issues which power effects only from the fringes of possibility.
But what if I were to tell you that, far from the case, the reason Jesus was doing this with those outside of his circle was not that he had a theological problem arising that he wanted to put the kibosh on, and not even just because he wanted people to admit on their own that he was the Messiah, but that he wanted them to admit theology and religion itself is all to be in every corner of the earth contained in that Truth of “Messiah?” This comes out beautifully in Matthew 16:13–16; Mark 8:27–29; Luke 9:18–20:
Mat:16:13: “Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
In reply, Jesus said “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Now, this is very clear, is it not? I mean, take up any commentary for the cause and effect of this faith and you will find this rendered something like here, in the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible:
“but while Peter may be a rock in his role of confessing Christ (v. 16), he becomes a stumbling block in his role of resisting the meaning of that confession, namely, Jesus’ calling to the cross.”
John MacArthur does not buy that this is only about Peter. It’s about the confession of faith upon which Christ builds the Church. Here, he correctly identifies what that confession is, but won’t go past the Personal definition:
Jesus used a play on words here with petra which means a foundation boulder (cf. 7:24, 25). Since the NT makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Cor. 3:11) and the head (Eph. 5:23) of the church, it is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter.
We can go way back to Adam Clarke, who does the same thing in a different way. Notice here that he correctly mentions and puts into the exposition a reminder that “Christ” means “Messiah,” and this refers to that confession upon which the Christ will build the Church. He actually quotes the great messianic prophecy of Psalms 118 in support. He calls this the “precious faith,” the foundation stone of it.
Please go to the next page…
Pages: 1 2
2 Comments
Pingback:
Pingback: