Triune image bearers: Temple, Jesus and humanity as God's cruciform 'idols'

I have finished my essay on the Trinity for the module I took with WTC.  The snappy title of the essay is:

In terms of both continuity and discontinuity, describe how the Jewish understanding of the temple as God’s unique ‘dwelling place’– the ‘union’ of heaven and earth – is recapitulated and reinterpreted in the context of YHWH’s Trinitarian self-revelation in Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Taking into account the OT understanding of humans as God’s ‘idols’ (Fletcher-Louis), how do temple and image come together in the corporate reality of the Church, as the ‘body’ of the Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, by the Spirit, joined to the fellowship of the Triune God? How is this image reconstituted by Jesus’ cruciform life?

After 3,000 or so words, here's how I concluded:

"I have explored how Jesus embodies something of the Jewish understanding of the temple but how this is too narrow a means to contain the initiation of his kingdom project of restoring humanity.   For that it requires understanding of us as created in the image of the tri-une God and the restoration project of God to restore that image as shown in the perfect image bearer, Jesus.  As Smail says “God’s life and character have been perfectly reflected in the human life of Jesus.  In him the mirror of our humanity loses its distortions and regains its proper focus on God, so that in Christ the image is restored and through him can be restored in us as well.”   

It is about more than our own individual private reconnection however but for us to be communities of cruciformity for we are created in the image of the other-centred tri-une God.  The trinity exists in eternal communion and therefore the restoration of our image sees us restored both to the eternal community and a human one, as image bearers together.  This restoration sees us called to follow the same way, truth and life of our Lord Jesus and learn to live it out in other centred love and service of those around us, in such a way that that there is a cost as we learn together to give up our rights, including the right to be right. 

To live as communities of the cruciformity then come at a cost, it will cost us time, it will cost us money and, it is an inconvenience that undermines our individual rights.  Then again such is the price that has been met in the life, death and resurrection of Christ and is a price that our tri-une God continues to bear in, with and for relationship with us."

That is my conclusion but what do you think?

If you are interested you can download and read the full essay by clicking on the link below:

Download in_terms_of_both_continuity_and_discontinuity.doc

Comments

[Rupert Ward]

Sounds really good stuff Paul. Now i know what to do if i have a spare hour or so!?! Not even sure i understand the title!

I am intrigued why you see Jesus = embodiment of the temple as too limited? i would love to hear your thoughts on that...

[Paul]

Thanks rupert - it wasn't the best title in the world but the flow really is seeing the temple as a microsm of creation and setting our humanity as image bearers of a God who exists in triune other centred community.

For me I found the temple limited for a number of reasons:

- the idea that temple is a microcosim means that it can never fully capture fullness of creation/Jesus

- the temple like OT law was part of the process but not the promise therefore limited application

- instead of god presence located on one fixed spot for one people grp now presence located within humanity - embodied in Jesus relationally rather than statically and now embodied in us as individuals and gathered together as the church

what do you think?

[Rupert Ward]

This is stretching my thinking ... i hope i am getting at what you are saying!

I think i see Jesus as the embodiment of the temple ... Christ become the locus of the presence of God, the place of worship etc. But Christ is the fullness of the temple ... to use the language of Hebrews the temple was only the shaddow, but now we have the realities themselves.

But you also seem to saying that found the temple image limited when applied to the church?

I would agree with that, and perhaps add another:

The Temple is very static. Clearly there is NT imagery around temple, but the stone becoming "living" ... i think this is peter trying to see the good in the temple image, but also bringing it alive. So we also have body / bride / field / family etc as images, but all broaden the temple image.

Am i anywhere close to grasping what this essay was about?

[Paul]

heh rupert yes you are well on the way to getting the essay :)

I think my key arguement is that whilst Jesus embodies the temple he exceeds it. In the same way the church is the body of Christ, so we embody something of the temple [and it is a useful metaphor for describing something of the church - the corporate nature of the body with the spirit dwelling in the midst of us as well as within each of us] but we as church exceed that.

Our life is now not modelled around the temple which was a representation of the cosmic temple-palace around which God dwelt and us as his God idols but now around the fully revealed God/man of Jesus - the complete image bearer who restores our image/humanity.

To reflect his image is therefore to be like Jesus and to live out his cruciform life, following him in obedience to the Father in the power of the Spirit and doing so as communiites of cruciformity - his living body.

Does that help any more?

[Rupert Ward]

good stuff paul ... thanks for expanding ...