Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I've believe when the Bible mentions zoe it is talking about an experience of living that can only be found in relationship with God.
Although in one sense you can say that happy people having fun could be experiencing zoe, I don't think the Bible takes that broad a view of the word. The Bible clearly says if you don't have the Son you don't have zoe, whether you have pizza, beer and football or not. (Though all three are pretty good. Though not good enough when the Cowboys lose.  )
In one sense, however, you can call zoe God, or Jesus if you prefer.
On the other hand it includes the effect God has our existence in general. When I experience God, my human life takes on the characteristic of zoe. It becomes "the good life."
I do not think zoe means primarily "the life force that exists in God." This is the way Lee came to mean it. Again that was a move which de-personalized God into a force or power that had effect on us spontaneously. He may not have meant it that way, but that's the way it worked out. |
The intent of my brief [sic] discussion was to indicate that I agree that the real fullness of life is only found in concert with the life of God. But it is not simply the life of God. It is our life as enhanced by God's life.
I would agree that scripture uses the term in conjunction with the life of God, but I disagree that it uses as a synonym for it. It instead uses it to describe a difference between the unregenerate life and the life with Christ. Yes, the world may have its zoe, but without Christ, it is still short of the kind of zoe of which scripture is speaking. It does require Christ. But it is not simply Christ. That is an error. We do not simply blunder along in our mundane existence and declare that because we "have Christ" we have grace, love, mercy, or even a fulfilled life. We have those things because we experience them. Not just something separate from them called Christ.
To say that zoe is simply the life of Christ (or grace is simply Christ, or love is simply Christ, or mercy is simply Christ) is to remove the actual experience of any of these from our realm and make it something theoretical that we can only speak about in general terms. "I experience Christ, so I must be getting grace. I must be living the full life. I must be experiencing love." But if you cannot see any love, any grace, and you have no sense of actual fulfillment of life, then it is all theory.
I do not serve a God that calls something one thing, like grace, but provides something else that is not recognizable as grace. The scripture my God provided does not say that I should not seek or ask for benefits from him because He will be upset that I do not recognize that He is everything I need. I need the realization of forgiveness despite the wrong I have committed. I don't need to be told to just live with it and "enjoy Christ." He desires this for us. It is not something "low" to pray for your circumstances, your needs, and your foibles rather than just praying for "high things" like "God's eternal purpose." Only a small portion of what Jesus gave as the template for prayer could be called "high things" in LRC terminology. The bulk is about our daily needs, our need for forgiveness, our need to forgive others, and our need for help against the trials of life.
Interesting that praying to be delivered from the temptations and the evil of life doesn't sound like waiting for enough dispensing. It sounds like a plea to help us as we step into life to walk it. And with the intent that it be "by the Spirit."
By the way. Someone made mention of walking by or according to the spirit in an earlier post and I cannot find it now. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe that it was stated as by the "spirit" with a small "s." I am of the opinion that this is an error in itself. It is not that we walk according to, or by, our spirit, but The Spirit. We get nowhere walking by ourselves. It is only by The Spirit.