Spot on. Just want to add that I think the most blatant way Jesus asks more of us is in his command for us to love our enemies. I’ve been wrestling with the social and political dimensions to that command in my recent thinking and writing, because I think it so neatly encapsulates the difference between the way that pagans love and the way that Christians (are called to) love.
I enjoyed your analysis in the first half — very interesting as an interpretive frame for the teachings of Jesus relative to natural law. I’m less convinced by your comparison of Peterson with Jesus towards the end. It’s not that I don’t appreciate that it’s worthwhile to be willing to endure censure for your best attempt at the right thing to do, just that there’s something off about framing “standing up for what you believe” as an uncomplicated self-sacrifice. In practice, most of us have a variety of attachments to our beliefs, some of which are essentially selfish and others of which are more outwardly-directed.
Thanks, Gemma! Yes, the question I want to ask is whether a figure like Socrates can be anticipating the self-sacrificial love of the New Commandment, or only the natural law.
My trouble with the claim about selfishness is that Christ too has self-interested motives: “For the joy set before him,” and to get himself a bride (Eph 5).
I am led to the view that, just as literature includes the Christ archetype, human history includes figures who are philosophical martyrs, and Christ himself fits that pattern. This suggests to me that Socrates, and to the extent that Peterson fits it, he can be images of Christ’s sacrificial love.
One point I wonder if you could nuance a bit is speaking of grace as asking nothing of us / the recipients of Jesus’s gift(s). As I see it, Jesus did expect something from people when he came, lived, taught, healed, died, rose, appeared, ascended, sat down with the Father, sent the Holy Spirit, appeared to Paul, and promised his return.
So could it be that Jesus gave his life before we proved ourselves worthy of it and without the condition of our worthiness and in a way that exceeds our ability to repay him (3 of the aspects of “grace” or “gift”), as opposed to without expecting anything (a modern idea of gift that doesn’t improve the quality of the gift if it has an intended use). I’m relying on John Barclay’s study on “grace” (Paul and the Gift) and the multiple ways it can be understood.
I do agree that there is a non-circular feature to Jesus’s ministry. He does things for us that we can only give thanks for and try to impart similar blessing to others, but his expectation or intention of our response seems important to what Jesus is doing.
Spot on. Just want to add that I think the most blatant way Jesus asks more of us is in his command for us to love our enemies. I’ve been wrestling with the social and political dimensions to that command in my recent thinking and writing, because I think it so neatly encapsulates the difference between the way that pagans love and the way that Christians (are called to) love.
Very thoughtful. Thanks for this. As one who values Paterson’s psychological insights, this will stick with me moving forward.
I enjoyed your analysis in the first half — very interesting as an interpretive frame for the teachings of Jesus relative to natural law. I’m less convinced by your comparison of Peterson with Jesus towards the end. It’s not that I don’t appreciate that it’s worthwhile to be willing to endure censure for your best attempt at the right thing to do, just that there’s something off about framing “standing up for what you believe” as an uncomplicated self-sacrifice. In practice, most of us have a variety of attachments to our beliefs, some of which are essentially selfish and others of which are more outwardly-directed.
Thanks, Gemma! Yes, the question I want to ask is whether a figure like Socrates can be anticipating the self-sacrificial love of the New Commandment, or only the natural law.
My trouble with the claim about selfishness is that Christ too has self-interested motives: “For the joy set before him,” and to get himself a bride (Eph 5).
I am led to the view that, just as literature includes the Christ archetype, human history includes figures who are philosophical martyrs, and Christ himself fits that pattern. This suggests to me that Socrates, and to the extent that Peterson fits it, he can be images of Christ’s sacrificial love.
Thank you, Joel. This is very helpful.
One point I wonder if you could nuance a bit is speaking of grace as asking nothing of us / the recipients of Jesus’s gift(s). As I see it, Jesus did expect something from people when he came, lived, taught, healed, died, rose, appeared, ascended, sat down with the Father, sent the Holy Spirit, appeared to Paul, and promised his return.
So could it be that Jesus gave his life before we proved ourselves worthy of it and without the condition of our worthiness and in a way that exceeds our ability to repay him (3 of the aspects of “grace” or “gift”), as opposed to without expecting anything (a modern idea of gift that doesn’t improve the quality of the gift if it has an intended use). I’m relying on John Barclay’s study on “grace” (Paul and the Gift) and the multiple ways it can be understood.
I do agree that there is a non-circular feature to Jesus’s ministry. He does things for us that we can only give thanks for and try to impart similar blessing to others, but his expectation or intention of our response seems important to what Jesus is doing.
Thoughts?