Although the life, teachings, and interactions of Jesus serve as the substance for the majority of the historical narrative which have become known as the synoptic gospels by-and-large they have neglected by the church. Taking the Apostle Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 1.23 as their own, the Christian faith, at least in recent years, has become fixated upon the image of “Christ crucified.” Admittedly, the salvific work of Christ is of utmost importance and it should rightly command a great deal of our time and discussion.
However, is the cross of Christ truly the best hermeneutical framework for interpreting and understanding the life and teachings of Jesus. For example, if Jesus is merely concerned with our eternal destinies (which He resolves at the cross for those who believe) then why does he bother to heal the broken and lame? Why does he turn water into wine? Why does he tell parables about parties, wayward sons, mustard seeds, leaven, etc.?
Does the cross of Christ, in other words, provide us with a hermeneutical lens which takes into account the full revelation of Jesus Christ? Or does it as a hermeneutical lens render all that he does before the age of thirty-three as non-consequential?
In your opinion, taking into account your study of Scripture, is “Christ crucified” the best lens for understanding and interpreting the life of Jesus? Or, is there a better hermeneutical lens? If there is- what is it?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joshua Rhone, Joshua Rhone. Joshua Rhone said: “Christ crucified” as a hermeneutical framework for interpreting the life and teachings of Jesus http://bit.ly/62mWcU [...]
[...] joshrhone.com » “Christ crucified” as a hermeneutical framework … [...]