Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
If ,as we used to sing "Everything is in Christ and Christ is everything" how can we argue with ZNP's interpretation? The NT authors saw the Christ narrative in the Hebrew Bible in passages where it was far from obvious or necessary. So ZNP and WN and WL arguably follow a long practiced method of Christian hermeneutics. On the other hand, the practice may involve projection, reading into the passage what is not there, or creative misreading.
In 40:14 it should be noted that Jesus' right hand did not save him. God's hand or the Father's hand was required for that. Of course, one could reply that Jesus could have saved himself but chose not to in deference to the father's will, which argument is already made in the Gospels.
Nevertheless, none of this answers the problem of evil in anything like a parsimonious way. Evil has a pivotal role in the Christian interpretation of the Biblical narrative. Theoretically, as far as we know, God could have spared his creation the existence of evil, but for reasons of his own which are perhaps intimated but never explicitly stated or explained in the Bible, chose not to. He allowed evil in order that history would express his glory which includes a greater good than would be realized by a simply perfect but static creation. Still, we must recognize, that this is a theodicy which is by no means self evident in the empircal world. It is thoroughly and completely the answer of faith "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
|
If you accept that the trial, false accusations, conviction and crucifixion of Jesus were evil, and that the crucifixion of Jesus is the foundation of our salvation, then evil was used to lay the foundation of our salvation.