Suffering Evil to Resist Evil

https://youtu.be/UopM_DSx2fg

“‘Dear Lord God, I wish to preach in your honor. I wish to speak about you, glorify you, praise your name. Although I can’t do this well of myself, I pray that you may make it good.’”[i]

Introduction

There’s a malignant and pervasive feature of Protestant Christian social and political ethic that goes like this: faith has nothing to do with the temporal realm, preaching is never supposed to be political, and obedience for obedience’s sake is law. Faith is only of and for the spiritual realm and has no activity in the temporal realm. There, in the temporal realm, the Protestant Christian is to, simply put, abide in obedience to temporal leaders and authorities, getting along nicely with others, and—if it so fits—proclaiming Christ in word to those who are without Christ by faith. There might be some room for actions of charity toward those less fortunate than we. However, when it comes to social action, even political response including resistance, the Protestant Christian is summoned into quietness and socio-political abstinence—our job is to obey whatever and whomever is in charge, bearing badges of model citizenry. The Christian is to endure passively all the actions of the temporal realm, no matter how gross and offensive they are; and not only endure but to advocate for such wayward temporal leadership and calling others into obedience. The tl/dr: faith is only about being saved from some future hell and has no legs, no arms, no hands, no words or deeds to act in the temporal realm; such action is only for those selected by God to lead, however they see fit.

I understand the impulse behind this notion of socio-political quietness and hyper-obedience. However, I also know that it’s an impulse built from a partial and thus inadequate understanding of Christian endurance in the face of violence and abuse. How we got to this quietness and hyper-obedience stems from an impoverished reading of Luther himself, a relentless influence from late 16th and early 17th century protestant and Lutheran scholars trying to further establish Protestantism and Radical Protestantism after Luther’s death, and, sadly, a corrupted reading of biblical texts like our passage from 1 Peter. While the first two are interesting and about which I would be more than happy to wax ineloquently, it’s the last one that is our focus.

1 Peter 2:19-25

For Peter, the important thing in Chapter 2 is that those who are stuck in the captivity of the institution of slavery with non-Christian masters,[ii] abide their unjust[iii] suffering when they do good.[iv] They are to direct their reverence to God and not to their earthly masters,[v] who might be taking perverse pleasure in unjustly punishing a slave for doing good.[vi] Peter writes, For this [is] grace if, through consciousness of God, one endures the unjust suffering of pain of body and mind. For what sort of fame [is it] if you endure when missing the mark and being treated harshly? But if doing good and suffering you will endure, this [is] grace in the presence of God (vv.19-20). Peter encourages his audience—people who are in slavery—to endure being mistreated when they do well. Peter credits this endurance under unjust suffering to the grace of God and the consciousness tuned in and toward God and God’s will.[vii] This endurance under unjust suffering won’t get one saved; this endurance under unjust suffering is evidence of being saved, for it is evidence that the grace of God is present and the one who has this grace of God by faith in Christ is in the presence of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. While the phraseology is exhausting and difficult,[viii] Peter is not emphasizing suffering as salvific; Peter is centering the idea that to endure is God in you enduring through you, thus, it is grace and God bearing the unjust suffering. Concurrently, this endurance of unjust suffering is not only a benefit to the person so enduring[ix] (tangible experience of the grace of God with them in this unjust suffering[x]), but it becomes a point of witness to and an exposing of the perpetrator of the unjust suffering.[xi] Patient endurance by the grace of God in the face of unjust suffering renders both the unjust suffering and the one committing it exposed and guilty.

Peter then brings up Christ’s suffering and death. He writes, for into this you were called, because Christ also suffered on behalf of you, leaving for you an example to be imitated so that you might devote yourself to his footprints, ‘he did not miss the mark and he was not found with deceit in his mouth’ (vv.21-22). For Peter, not only did Christ set an example for believers to follow, but Christ’s innocent suffering on behalf of becomes paradigmatic for believers, too. In other words, yes, Peter is making a correlation here between Christ’s work on the cross as “enduring unjust suffering” as participation in God’s mission in the world to save the world from captivity, indifference, and death—for these are present when one embarks on dolling out unjust suffering on an innocent person (or on any person). Peter yokes the believer not only to Christ, but in Christ underscoring that since their newborn[xii],[xiii] location is in Christ (like an address) they will—by God’s grace and with faith—walk in Christ’s footsteps, imitating them like a young child copies and traces over letters.[xiv] Refusing to make suffering itself salvific, Peter is practical in addressing his audience of slaves to pagans: beloved, you, too, are going to suffer unjustly…fear not, for you are not alone or lost; God not only goes with you but has gone before you.[xv] Peter is emphasizing that by enduring unjust suffering for doing good, they will reinforce their identification with Christ.[xvi]

Peter drives this idea home by making the point[xvii] that this isn’t promotion of blind endurance to suffering but actively resisting revenge and retaliation.[xviii] Peter writes, When he was being abused, he was not abusing; when suffering he did not threaten; but he was handing [himself] over to the judge who judges justly (v.23). And this is the point of it all: foregoing retaliation and revenge while trusting in Abba God who is the just judge, the Judge who was judged in our place.[xix] Peter’s audience—familiar with just and unjust violence due to their station in life[xx]—is to see their endurance under unjust suffering as a way of mimicking and following in the example of Christ that has, like Christ’s work, tangible application and implication in the world. To seek revenge or to retaliate[xxi] is to take matters into one’s own hands and determine that both God is untrustworthy as judge and deny the efficacy of Christ’s work on the cross.[xxii]

Thus why Peter then adds, [xxiii]

He himself he carried up our sins/missing the mark in his body upon the wood/cross, for the purpose and result of removing/causing to be dead sins/missing the mark that we might live for righteousness; for by his wounds you were healed. For you were as sheep being misled, but now you were returned towards the shepherd and over seer of your souls (v.24-25).

It is not by the wounds endured in temporal unjust suffering that the slave is saved,[xxiv] but by the wounds of Christ who suffered on behalf of Peter’s audience[xxv]—Christ who suffered a death reserved for rebels and slaves (Peter drives home Christ’s identification with his audience).[xxvi] Thus, for Peter, they can endure for Christ’s sake and to the glory of God because Christ is the foundation of their salvation.[xxvii],[xxviii] For they were lost like sheep, says Peter, and found and returned to the fold of God, given new life, divine love, and enduring liberation—things denied slaves, people considered not to be people worthy of saving at all.[xxix] Through them, God will work to expose unjust suffering and the person causing the unjust suffering because God is a trustworthy and just judge; Christ’s resurrection is the demonstration that unjust suffering does not go unnoticed and unvindicated by God.[xxx]

Conclusion

So, what do we make of what Peter has written to his audience? There’s wisdom to be had here that resonates with both faith and socio-political praxis (these two are not in opposition). Can we not have faith and endure suffering and be an advocate against injustice without retaliating?[xxxi] I believe Martin Luther can help us here. In his treatise, Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed, Luther writes about this very tension in the life of the Christian in the world,

…at one and the same time you satisfy God’s kingdom inwardly and the kingdom of the world outwardly. You suffer evil and injustice, and yet at the same time you punish evil and injustice; you do not resist evil, and yet at the same time, you do resist it. In the one case, you consider yourself and what is yours; in the other, you consider your neighbor and what is his. In what concerns you and yours, you govern yourself by the gospel and suffer injustice toward yourself as a true Christian; in what concerns the person or property of others, you govern yourself according to love and tolerate no injustice toward you neighbor. The gospel does not forbid this; in fact, in other places it actually commands it.[xxxii]

We—you and I—can turn the other cheek when unjust violence comes our way, enduring, as Peter exhorts, patiently by God’s grace and in faith and trust that God is who God says God is. What we cannot abide by, though, is when our neighbor is under attack—spiritually, emotionally, physically, mentally, psychologically, etc. We can let injustice directed toward us roll off our backs especially when it is for doing something good (and, these days, that “doing something good” is a rather low bar!), but we cannot let our neighbor suffer so. Just as Peter encourages us to walk in the way of the suffering Christ, he, without words, encourages those of us who are not immersed in and held captive by modern institutions of slavery to expose senseless and unjust violence for the sake of our neighbor and to the glory of God. We can suffer in a way that brings release from captivity, life where there is death, and love where there is indifference. In this way we walk in the footsteps of the Christ who redeemed us and liberated us through his death and resurrection. We love because God so loved us first (1Jn 4:19).

[i] LW 54:157-158; Table Talk 1590.

[ii] I. Howard Marshall, “1 Peter,” The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, eds. Grant R. Osborne, D. Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson, (Downers Grove: IVP Press, 1991), 87. Peter is addressing a crowd very familiar with overt slavery

[iii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 88. “This advice cannot have been easy to accept. Slaves could well suffer at the hands of their masters. Peter calls it unjust suffering. This contrasts with the view of many people who would have argued (like Aristotle) that, strictly speaking, one couldn’t be unjust to slave because slaves were not persons, but chattels and workhorses. This view was not universal (the Stoics repudiated it, for example). And naturally Christians recognized that slaves were people.”

[iv] Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, TNICTNT, ed. F.F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 106. “Thus the motive for the submission and service is not their respect for their masters, but their respect for God, who receives the service as if it were done to him and whose name is honored by their good behavior. Therefore their submission is not bounded by their masters’ actions…but extends ‘to the unjust’….”

[v] Davids, First Epistle of Peter, 106. Slave’s “reverence or fear is directed to God, not to the masters, is indicated by the facts that (1) the phrase comes before the reference to the masters in the Greek word order, and (2) fear or reverence…in 1 Peter is always directed toward God, never toward people, whom Christians are not to fear…”

[vi] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 106. “Peter…is writing in a time of persecution in which slaves, who were under almost total control of their masters, would be especially vulnerable. He can make no assumptions that their masters will not take perverse delight in torturing a slave for his faith. Even in such a case the slave is to follow the teaching of Jesus and submit…”

[vii] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 107. “..it is more likely that ‘of God’ is to be understood as describing the character of the conscience, that is, one conscious of God and his instruction, as in the normal connection of God with conscience in the NT…even if Peter makes this connection in a grammatically difficult way. What he means, then, is that God is pleased with Christian slaves who bear up under unjust suffering, not because there is no other option or because of their optimistic character, but because they know this pleases God and conforms to the teaching of Jesus.”

[viii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 88. “Nevertheless, Peter says, it is possible to bear unjust suffering in a different way. When a person puts up with suffering because he is conscious of God, this is commendable. These two phrases are difficult to understand even if their general sense is clear.”

[ix] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 108. “This endurance is an act that finds favor with God, on which he smiles with approval. It is a deed of covenant faithfulness to the God who has extended grace to them…and as such leads to the paradoxical joy already mentioned in 1:6-7.”

[x] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 89. “It stands to reason that if slaves receive a physical beating or lashing because they have committed some misdemeanor or crime, there is no particular credit to them for it, even if they bear it patiently….However, if a slave endures suffering  that is undeserved—in deed, punishment actually inflicted for doing good—then this is a different story. This is commendable in the sight of God.”

[xi] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 108. “….there is a type of fame if one does good and suffers. In this situation one can show true endurance because it is wrongful suffering.”

[xii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 91. “…right from the opening phrase it is apparent that Peter is presenting far more than an example. He briefly tells the story of the Christ who suffered for you and develops a doctrine of Christ’s death that shows how Christians can be transformed to live for righteousness.”

[xiii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 92. “Christ has called them to a new way of life which involves patient suffering like his. As his followers, they must share his lot.”

[xiv] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 110. “…we are like a child placing foot after foot into the prints of his father in the snow, following a sure trail broken for him. But this trail of Christ includes suffering, not for our sins (he has already suffered ‘on your behalf’ in that respect), but as part of the pattern of life to which he has called us.”

[xv] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 114. “For slaves this was good news. They might be suffering; indeed, they might be suffering because of their faith. But they were not lost. Christ was with him, and they were under his care even if their present physical experiences were unpleasant.”

[xvi] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 111. “This teaching fits well as an encouragement to suffering slaves, for they are concerned about suffering for doing right. Jesus their lord was perfectly innocent in every way, they are reminded, and yet he suffered. Thus their innocent suffering can be part of their identification with Christ.”

[xvii] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 111.

[xviii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 90.

[xix] Ref. to Karl Barth’s CD 4.1

[xx] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 87-88. “Unlike Paul, who taught mainly slaves with Christian masters, Peter is concerned here with slaves working in the homes of pagan masters. In a Christian household the close contact of slaves and masters could lead to brotherhood ….In a pagan household this familiarity increased the possibilities of friction, especially if Christian slaves, who now believed themselves spiritually equal to their masters, tried to force their position. Whatever their situation, Christian slaves should fulfill their obligation to be subject to their masters. Whether their masters are gentle or perverse is not the point; the relationship demands obedience.”

[xxi] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 96. “Peter’s teaching also clearly states what is involved in following Christ. The pattern that must be followed is his refusal to retaliate when he was attacked.”

[xxii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 92-93. “Jesus modeled patient suffering for Christians to follow. The way in which he endured his suffering is the binding pattern that those who have been saved by the death of Christ must follow.”

[xxiii] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 114. “For slaves this was good news. They might be suffering; indeed, they might be suffering because of their faith. But they were not lost. Christ was with him, and they were under his care even if their present physical experiences were unpleasant.”

[xxiv] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 92.

[xxv] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 92. “Jesus suffers as the Servant of Yahweh and fulfills his destiny to bear the sins of others and so bring them to God.”

[xxvi] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 94. “….Peter simply drives home the fact that Jesus really suffered physically. On the cross  may well allude to the fact that Christ shared the kind of execution which was normally reserved for slaves and rebels.”

[xxvii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 91. “….Christ cannot be an example of suffering for us to follow unless he is first of all the Savior whose sufferings were endured on our behalf.”

[xxviii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 92.

[xxix] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 95.

[xxx] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 94. “The purpose of this sacrificial act, however, is not simply that we should be set free from the consequences of our sins. Perter sees it as an act which is meant to set us free form sin itself….”

[xxxi] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 90. “One can take actions against injustice and unjust structures in society without engaging in personal retaliation.”

[xxxii] Luther LW 45 96

Mariology

This is the Christian theological study of Mary, mother of Jesus. Mariology looks to relate doctrine/dogma about Mary to other doctrines of faith, for example, concerning Jesus & ideas about redemption, intercession, & grace. Christian Marisolgy seeks to place the role of the historical Mary in the context of scripture, tradition, & the teachings of the Church of Mary.

In social history terms, Mariology may be broadly defined as the study of devotion to & thinking about Mary throughout the history of Christianity. There exists a range of Christian and non-Christian views from the veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism to accusations of idolatry. The idolatry “accusation” includes certain Protestant objections to Marian devotion.

As a field of theology, the most significant developments in Mariology (& the founding of specific centers devoted to its study) in the more recent centuries have taken place within the Catholic Church.

Eastern Orthodox concepts & versions of Mary are integral to the rite as a whole, & are mostly expressed in liturgy. The veneration of Mary is said to permeate, in a way, the entire life of the Church as a dimension of dogma as well as piety, of Christology as well as of Ecclesiology.

While similar to the Roman Catholic view, barring some minor differences, the Orthodox don’t see a need for a separate academic discipline of Mariology. As the Mother of God is seen as the self-evident peak of God’s human creation.

Eastern Orthodoxy calls Mary “The Theotokos,” “God-bearer.” The virginal motherhood of Mary is at the center of Orthodox Mariology. The title Ever Virgin is often used. Virginal motherhood is also known as the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Orthodox approach of Mariology underscores the sublime holiness of Mary, her share in redemption, & her role as a mediator of grace.

Eastern Orthodox mariological thought goes back as far as St. John Damascene (a.k.a. our boy, John of Damascus). In the 8th century, John of Damascus wrote on the meditative role of Mary & on the Dormition of the Mother of God. In the 14th century, Orthodox Mariology began to flourish among Byzantine theologians.

They believed in a cosmic view of Mariology, putting Mary & Jesus together at the center of the cosmos & see them as the goal of world history. More recently, Eastern Orthodox Mariology achieved a renewal among 20th-century theologians in Russia, for whom Mary is the heart of the Church & the center of creation. Eastern Orthodox Mariology doesn’t hold to the belief of the Immaculate Conception of…Mary.

Protestant views on Mary vary significantly from 1 denomination to another. Generally, they focus on various interpretations of Mary in the Bible, the Apostles’ Creed (which professes the Virgin Birth), & the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431, which called Mary, the Mother of God.

Most Protestants don’t venerate Mary like Catholics or Eastern Orthodox do. Martin Luther’s, John Calvin’s, & Karl Barth’s views on Mary have contributed to modern Protestant views.

Anglican Marian theology varies. The Anglican Church formally celebrates 6 Marian feasts: Annunciation (Mar. 25), Visitation (May 31), Day of St. Mary (Assumption or Dormition, Aug. 15), Nativity of Mary (Sept. 8), Our Lady of Walsingham (Oct. 15), & Mary’s Conception (Dec. 8).

The Oriental Orthodox Churches regard Mary as the highest of saints & the Theotokos. It celebrates various Marian feast days.

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

Or enter a custom amount

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Ivna Žic: Zieht die gewaltige Stille mich immer. Ein Archiv für Charlotte von Kirschbaum und Nelly Barth. Regie: Mirja Biel. Stadttheater #Ingolstadt, Premiere: 07.03.2026. – Das dürfte interessant werden.

https://theater.ingolstadt.de/programm/premieren-wiederaufnahmen/premieren-wiederaufnahmen-detailseite/2680.html

https://www.br.de/mediathek/podcast/nachtstudio/geliebte-eines-theologen-und-frau-im-hintergrund/2116009

#Theater #IvnaŽic #MirjaBiel #CharlotteVonKirschbaum #NellyBarth #KarlBarth

Mariology

This is the Christian theological study of the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus. Mariology looks to relate doctrine/dogma about Mary to other doctrine of the faith, like those concerning Jesus & notions about redemption, intercession, & grace.

Christian Mariology looks to place the role of the historic Mary in the context of Scripture, tradition, & the teachings of the Church of Mary. In terms of social history, Mariology may be broadly defined as the study of devotion to & thinking about Mary throughout the history of Christianity.

There’s a variety of Christian, & non-Christian, views on Mary as a figure ranging from the focus on the veneration of Mary in Roman Catholic Mariology to criticism of “mariolatry” as a form of idolatry.

As a field of theology, the most substantial developments in Mariology, & the founding of specific centers devoted to its study. In recent centuries, it’s taken place within the Roman Catholic Mariology.

The Eastern Orthodox ideas, & veneration, of Mary are integral to the rite as a whole (theotokos). They’re mostly expressed in liturgy. The veneration of Mary is said to permeate, in a way, the entire life of the Church as a “dimension” of dogma, as well as piety, of Christology as well as of Ecclesiology.

While similar to the Roman Catholic view, barring some minor differences, the Orthodox don’t see a need for a separate academic discipline of Mariology, as the Mother of God is seen as the self-evident apogee of God’s human creation. Apogee is the highest point in the development of something.

A significant number of Marian publications were written in the 20th century. Theologians Raimondo Spiazzi & Gabriel Roschini produced 2,500 & 900 publications respectively.

Over the centuries, Roman Catholic Mariology has been shaped by various forces ranging from sensus fidelium to Marian apparitions to the writing of saints to reflection by theologians & papal encyclicals. Encyclicals are papal letters sent to all bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.

Eastern Orthodox theology calls Mary “the Theotokos” or the God bearer. The virginal motherhood of Mary is at the center of Orthodox Mariology. The title of Ever Virgin is/was given to Mary. The Orthodox Mariology approach emphasizes the sublime holiness of Mary, her share in redemption, & her role as a mediator of grace.

Eastern Orthodox mariological thought goes back as far as St. John Damascene, who in the 8th century, wrote on the mediative role of Mary & one the Dormition of the Mother of God. Dormition is from the Latin “dormine” meaning to sleep. This is in reference to the death & subsequent assumption into Heaven to Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Eastern Christianity & some other churches.

In the 14th century, Orthodox Mariology began to flourish among Byzantine theologians who held a cosmic view of Mariology. This puts Jesus & Mary together at the center of the cosmos & saw them as the goal of world history.

More recently, the Eastern Orthodox Mariology achieved a renewal among 20th century theologians in Russia. Mary is the heart of the Church & the center of creation. Unlike the Catholic approach, Eastern Orthodox Mariology doesn’t support the Immaculate Conception Mary. Before the 20th century, Eastern Orthodox Mariology was almost entirely liturgical. It didn’t have any systematic presentation similar to Roman Catholic Mariology.

Protestant views on Mary differ between different denominations. Focus is generally on interpretations of Mary in the Bible, the Apostles’ Creed (which professes the Virgin Birth), & the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431, which called Mary the Mother of God. Some early Protestants created Marian art & allowed limited forms of Marian veneration. Most Protestants today don’t share the veneration of Mary as practiced by Roman Catholics & Eastern Orthodox. Martin Luther, John Calvin, & Karl Barth’s views on Mary, & others have contributed to modern Protestant views.

Anglican Marian theology varies greatly from the Anglo-Catholic, which are very close to Roman Catholic views. The Anglican Church formally celebrates 6 Marian feast days: the Annunciation (March 25), Visitation (May 31), Day of Mary/Assumption or dormition (August 15), Nativity of Mary (September 8), Our Lady of Walsingham (October 15), & Mary’s Conception (December 8). Anglicans, with some other Protestants, teach the Marian dogmas of divine maternity & the virgin birth of Jesus. Even though there’s no systematic agreed upon Mariology among diverse parts of the Anglican Communion. The role of Mary as a mediator is accepted by some groups of modern Anglican theology.

Lutheran Mariology is informed by the Augsburg Confession & honors Mary as “the most blessed Mother of God, the most blessed Virgin Mary, & the Mother of Christ.” The Lutheran Churches, asserts the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches regard Mary as the highest of saints & the Theotokos. They also celebrated a variety of Marian feast days.

In the Islamic perception of the Virgin Mary (known as Maryam in Arabic), she’s an extremely pious & chaste woman who miraculously gave birth, while still a virgin, to the prophet Jesus (called Isa in Arabic). Mary is the only woman named specifically in the Quran. The 19th chapter of the Quran, which is named after her, begins with 2 narrations of a “miraculous birth.”

The First Council of Ephesus, in 431, formally approved devotion to Mary as the Theotokos. Its use implies that Jesus, whom Mary gave birth to, is God. Nestorians preferred Christotokos, meaning “Christ-bearer” or “Mother of the Messiah”, not because they denied Jesus’ divinity. But because they believed that since God the Son, or Logos, existed before time & before Mary. Jesus took divinity from God the Father & humanity from His mom. So calling her “Mother of God” was confusing & perhaps heretical. Others at the council believed that denying the Theotokos title would carry with it the implication that Jesus wasn’t divine.

The Council of Ephesus also approved the creation of icons having the images of the Virgin & child. Devotion to Mary was already widespread before this point. This is reflected in the fresco depictions of Mother & child win the Roman catacombs.

Mary, as the 1st Christian saint & Mother of Jesus, was deemed to be a compassionate mediator between suffering mankind & her son, Jesus, who’s seen as a king & judge.

In the East, devotion to Mary blossomed in the 6th century under official patronage & imperial promotion of the Court of Constantinople. The popularity of Mary as an individual object of devotion only became in the 5th century with the appearance of apocryphal versions of her life, interest in her relics, & the 1st churches dedicated in her name. Like St. Maria Maggiore in Rome.

Since the writing of the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James, various beliefs have circulated concerning Mary’s own conception. This led, eventually, to the Roman Catholic Church dogma. It was formally established in the 19th century of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. This exempts her from original sin. This story goes: When Mary’s mom got pregnant with her, it was an Immaculate Conception. So when Mary was born, she was free from original sin. After Mary was born, she was sent to the Temple to live, so she wouldn’t get corrupted by the world. So Mary could be pure to have Jesus.

Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox teaching also extends to the end of Mary’s life ending with the Assumption of Mary. This was formally established as dogma in 1950 & the Dormition of the Mother of God respectively.

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

Or enter a custom amount

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

#19thCentury #20thCentury #431 #5thCentury #6thCentury #8thCentury #Anglican #AnglicanCommunion #Apocryphal #Apogee #ApostlesCreed #Arabic #Assumption #AssumptionOfMary #AugsburgConfession #August15 #bible #Bishops #Byzantine #ChristBearer #Christian #Christianity #Christotokos #Churches #CourtOfConstantinople #December8 #Dogma #Dormition #EasternOrthodox #Ecclesiology #EcumenicalCouncilOfEphesus #Encyclical #EverVirgin #FirstCouncilOfEphesus #GabrielRoschini #GodBearer #Idolatry #ImmaculateConception #Isa #Islam #Jesus #JohnCalvin #KarlBarth #King #Liturgy #Logos #Lutheran #March25 #Mariology #MartinLuther #MarySImmaculateConception #Maryam #May31 #MotherOfGod #MotherOfTheMessiah #Nativity #Nestorians #October15 #OrientalOrthodoxChurch #OriginalSin #Papal #PerpetualVirginityOfMary #Prophet #Protestant #Quran #RaimondoSpiazzi #relics #RomanCatholicChurch #Rome #Russia #Saint #Saints #SensusFidelium #September8 #StJohnDamascene #TheAnnunciation #TheProtoevangeliumOfJames #Theolgians #Theotokos #Veneration #VirginBirth #VirginMary #Walsingham

I did not expect to see Ars Technica quoting Karl Barth .

https://arstechnica.com/culture/2025/04/resist-eggheads-universities-are-not-as-weak-as-they-have-chosen-to-be/
#Barth #KarlBarth #theology #universities #arsTechnica

"Barth said the incarnation of Christ is necessary for us to have any relationship with God. T F Torrance went further and said the incarnation of Christ is necessary for physics to work."

#theology #barth #karlbarth #tftorrance #jesus

Die Feier von Christi Himmelfahrt, die oft wörtlich als der Aufstieg Jesu Christi in den Himmel betrachtet wird, bietet eine reiche Metapher für das tiefergehende theologische Verständnis der Beziehung zwischen der sichtbaren Welt und der transzendenten Realität Gottes. Diese Perspektive lädt zu einer Reflexion darüber ein, wie die Ereignisse im Leben Jesu nicht nur historische Fakten, sondern auch spirituelle Wahrheiten vermitteln, die unsere Vorstellung von Existenz und Realität herausfordern.

Die Himmelfahrt als Rückkehr und Offenbarung

In der christlichen Tradition markiert die Himmelfahrt nicht nur den Abschluss von Jesu irdischem Dienst, sondern auch seine Rückkehr in die himmlische Sphäre, von der er ursprünglich gekommen ist. Dieses Ereignis unterstreicht die christologische Ansicht, dass Jesus sowohl vollständig göttlich als auch vollständig menschlich ist. Karl Barth betrachtet die Himmelfahrt als einen Akt, der die Permanenz von Jesu Menschlichkeit in der göttlichen Trinität betont. Dieses Ereignis bestätigt somit nicht nur die Menschwerdung, sondern auch die unaufhebbare Menschlichkeit innerhalb der göttlichen Natur.

Das Unsichtbare sichtbar machen

Dietrich Bonhoeffer sprach oft von der „vorletzten“ und „letzten“ Dinge. Für ihn zeigt die Himmelfahrt, dass unser gegenwärtiges Leben und unsere Leiden im Licht der ewigen Hoffnung gesehen werden müssen, die in Christus offenbart wird. Bonhoeffer betont, dass der Glaube uns befähigt, in der sichtbaren Welt das Wirken der unsichtbaren Hand Gottes zu erkennen. Er erklärt, dass durch den Tod und die Auferstehung Christi die Tore zur Ewigkeit geöffnet sind. Die Himmelfahrt erweitert diese Vision, indem sie zeigt, dass Jesus nicht nur ein historisches Ereignis war, sondern eine fortwährende, gegenwärtige Realität in der göttlichen Dimension.

Die metaphorische Bedeutung der Himmelfahrt

In der modernen theologischen Diskussion wird die Himmelfahrt oft metaphorisch gedeutet. Diese Interpretation versteht das Ereignis als symbolisch für die Überwindung der materiellen Beschränkungen und die Eröffnung eines Zugangs zu einer höheren Wirklichkeit. Moderne theologische Strömungen unterstützen die Ansicht, dass das Göttliche nicht ausschließlich in historischen oder materiellen Phänomenen verankert ist, sondern auch eine tiefere, spirituelle Dimension besitzt, die unsere alltägliche Wahrnehmung transzendiert.

Die existenzialistische Interpretation von Rudolf Bultmann

Rudolf Bultmann, bekannt für seine existenzialistische Theologie, bietet eine besonders provokative Sicht auf Christi Himmelfahrt. Bultmann argumentierte, dass das Neue Testament, einschließlich der Erzählungen über Christi Himmelfahrt, entmythologisiert werden müsse, um seine wahre Botschaft zu enthüllen. Für ihn repräsentiert die Himmelfahrt weniger ein historisches Ereignis als vielmehr eine tiefgreifende existenzielle Wahrheit über den Menschen und seine Beziehung zu Gott. Bultmann würde sagen, dass die Himmelfahrt symbolisch für die Überwindung der Weltlichkeit und die Erhebung in die authentische Existenz steht, die durch den Glauben erreicht wird. Dies bedeutet, sich von weltlichen Bindungen zu lösen und in eine neue Art des Seins einzutreten, die durch Jesus Christus ermöglicht wird.

Hans Küng und die universale Perspektive

Hans Küng, ein anderer moderner Theologe, nimmt eine universellere und inklusivere Haltung ein, die die Bedeutung von Christi Himmelfahrt für die heutige pluralistische und interreligiöse Welt betont. Küng würde argumentieren, dass die Himmelfahrt Christi eine Botschaft des Hoffens und der ultimativen Versöhnung darstellt, die über konfessionelle Grenzen hinausgeht. Für Küng ist die Himmelfahrt ein Zeichen dafür, dass Gott in allen Kulturen und Religionen gegenwärtig ist und dass die spirituelle Wahrheit, die Jesus verkörpert, eine universelle Dimension hat. Dies öffnet einen Dialog über gemeinsame ethische Werte und die Vision einer globalen Verantwortungsgemeinschaft, die durch das Beispiel Christi inspiriert ist.

Integration moderner und traditioneller Ansichten

Die Ansätze von Bultmann und Küng ergänzen die traditionellen Interpretationen von Christi Himmelfahrt, indem sie moderne theologische Überlegungen und Probleme einführen. Während Bultmann uns auffordert, die metaphysischen Aspekte des Neuen Testaments neu zu interpretieren und in einen zeitgenössischen Kontext zu setzen, ermutigt Küng uns, die universellen Botschaften der christlichen Tradition neu zu bewerten und sie als Brücke für interreligiösen und interkulturellen Austausch zu nutzen.

Durch diese verschiedenen Perspektiven wird deutlich, dass Christi Himmelfahrt sowohl eine tiefe persönliche Transformation als auch eine universelle, kulturelle Herausforderung darstellen kann. Sie fordert die Gläubigen auf, nicht nur die spirituellen, sondern auch die sozialen und kulturellen Dimensionen ihres Glaubens zu reflektieren und aktiv zu gestalten. Diese fortlaufende Relevanz von Christi Himmelfahrt zeigt, dass sie mehr als nur ein historisches Ereignis ist; sie ist eine fortwährende Inspiration, die dazu anregt, sowohl das eigene Leben als auch die Welt umfassend zu transformieren.

Einladung zum tieferen Nachdenken

Christi Himmelfahrt fordert uns auf, über die offensichtliche Realität hinaus zu denken und die Existenz einer spirituellen Dimension anzuerkennen, die unser materielles Leben durchdringt und erhebt. Diese Lehre lädt die Gläubigen ein, in ihrem täglichen Leben nach Zeichen dieser höheren Wirklichkeit Ausschau zu halten und durch ihren Glauben eine tiefere Verbindung mit dem Göttlichen zu pflegen. In dieser Hinsicht bietet die Himmelfahrt nicht nur einen historischen Rückblick, sondern auch eine fortlaufende Inspiration für alle, die nach einem tieferen Verständnis der Präsenz Gottes in der Welt streben.

Durch das Erkennen und Feiern der metaphorischen Bedeutung von Christi Himmelfahrt können wir eine Brücke schlagen zwischen unserem irdischen Dasein und der göttlichen Wahrheit, die jenseits unserer sichtbaren Welt liegt.

https://god.fish/2024/05/09/christi-himmelfahrt-ein-metaphorisches-fenster-zu-einer-verborgenen-welt/

#ChristiHimmelfahrt #christlicheFeiertage #DietrichBonhoeffer #GöttlichePräsenz #Gott #HansKüng #Jesus #JesusCasa #KarlBarth #RudolfBultmann #spirituelleDimension #theologischeMetapher #VatertagTheologie

I love the #BBC #podcast In Our Time. Listening to an episode on #KarlBarth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001t2zf

http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/6/redir/version/2.0/mediaset/audio-nondrm-download/proto/http/vpid/p0gxpkw3.mp3

In this episode of Wipf & Stock's podcast, Luminaries, host Zechariah Mickel and I discuss eco-theology, #MartinLuther including the Nazi's vile misuse of his teachings, modern Lutheran theology, #KarlBarth and #DeitrichBonhoeffer, and doing theology from the margins.

https://wipfandstock.com/blog/2023/05/02/luminaries-h-paul-santmire-eco-theology-bonhoeffer-and-barth-and-doing-theology-from-the-margins/