tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166404490802362685.post7614761274570396446..comments2008-05-17T07:40:00.945-07:00Kyle A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10422762583277582744KyleARoberts@gmail.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166404490802362685.post-81428036442340129182008-05-17T07:40:00.000-07:002008-05-17T07:40:00.000-07:00Carn-Dog,<BR/><BR/>That's a great point. The cross was "the best (or worst?) the Roman govt. had)." There was no cruder, no more humiliating death for its political opponents and threats. So Christ's resurrection subverted, not only the "principalities and powers" of the spiritual realm, but also the destructive and evil powers of human, political institutions. So Christ is "victor" through the cross-death in ways he wouldn't have been through dying by disease. <BR/><BR/>Ben,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the link to Ernst.<BR/><BR/>KyleKyle A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10422762583277582744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166404490802362685.post-18920856256802652722008-05-16T09:08:00.000-07:002008-05-16T09:08:00.000-07:00Oh, here is the Wikipedia entry of the Max Ernst who did the wonderful painting that Kyle posted.<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_ErnstBen Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06288739075071570086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166404490802362685.post-43775565856866976272008-05-16T07:36:00.001-07:002008-05-16T07:36:00.001-07:00Hi, got here via Tony Jones' blog. I'm not a Calvinist, but I do think there is intentionality in the kind of death Jesus died. And hear this as a question, not a statement, but could it have been that the cross was the ideal politically subversive instrument of death? Said differently, maybe the cross and not measles because then Jesus' resurrection trumps not just death, but the death dealt him by the best the Roman government had. And the Roman Government functioning here as "the kingdom of the this world." Just a thought. I strike out a lot on these questions.Carn-Doghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14917496428097681875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166404490802362685.post-85311645624584385352008-05-16T07:36:00.000-07:002008-05-16T07:36:00.000-07:00Hi Kyle, I came via Tony Jones's blog.<BR/><BR/>Also a cruifixion was a slow death. Because at the "speed" that Jesus dies, it could be said that He "willed" Himself to die.Ben Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06288739075071570086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166404490802362685.post-5002616145621631972008-05-14T05:34:00.000-07:002008-05-14T05:34:00.000-07:00Hi Josh,<BR/><BR/>Excellent question. The question "would it still have been salvific" (if Jesus had died of the measles) requires the prior question, "what, exactly, was salvific about Jesus' death on the cross"? (e.g. was there something uniquely salvific about that way of dying?) I think it's best to think of salvation as a consequence, not so much of a particular way that Jesus died, as of the fact that the Son of God was incarnate in Jesus and suffered death--and, subsequently resurrection. Jesus was the "second Adam" for us, and thus by God uniting God-self to creation, and in particular, to the crown of creation in humanity (the image of God), Christ mediates salvation from "both sides" (God and humanity). So salvation may not "hinge" on the cross-death, but is a consequence of the incarnation, and the sacrificial death of Jesus. If Jesus had died of a disease, wouldn't that still have been, in a way, sacrificial? Philippians 2 tells us that Christ "emptied himself" and became a human being, and Hebrews reminds us (as do the synoptics) that this meant "becoming like us in all things..." including human weakness, perhaps susceptibility to disease, etc. That is a kind of sacrifice.<BR/><BR/>All that said, the cross-death, it seems to me, was the most profound way that Christ could have died a sacrificial death (the cross was the culmination of the covenant of God with Israel, and Christ, as our high priest, also became the sacrifice). <BR/><BR/>So, in sum, I would answer, both "yes and no." Christ could have died another way and it could have been salvific (he would have been resurrected by God after his death, no matter what kind of death it was), but there was a divine intentionality behind the cross-death that connected Jesus on the cross to the covenant scheme of sacrifice/atonement.Kyle A. Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10422762583277582744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166404490802362685.post-45466473796922534352008-05-13T18:28:00.000-07:002008-05-13T18:28:00.000-07:00I finally found your blog!!!..A question that I do not necessarily have myself, but one that has been asked regarding the crucifixion is whether or not that particular death was necessary. I think we agree that the entire life, death and resurrection of Jesus in effect is inextricably connected to salvation not simply the death of Christ. But the question that has been circulating around me is whether or not any sort of death that Jesus suffered would have been salvific as well? Or to put it more simply, if Jesus had died of natural causes, like the measles before the crucifixion, would it still have been salvific. What are you thoughts on this? <BR/><BR/>peace K-Rob <BR/><BR/>JJoshua David Bau IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02494377096511239901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166404490802362685.post-84732258225644407382008-05-11T14:17:00.000-07:002008-05-11T14:17:00.000-07:00That's a good quote from Moltmann.Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11912653730884160224noreply@blogger.com