Jesus as the way to salvation: legitimacy of the claim

Jesus as the way to salvation: How legitimate a claim is that?

It is difficult -- if not impossible -- to assess the legitimacy of a claim that Jesus is the way to salvation. This difficulty lies not only in the subjective nature of religious faith (after all, if one is to believe the Bible, the truth of Christ will seem like foolishness to the world -- how then can one use reasoned thoughts on legitimacy to assess his mysteries?), but also on the complicated meanings of "salvation." From what and for what are we to be saved? So in responding to this question it is not possible to give a completely accurate or even objective answer, but only to muddle through as best one can on the basis of one's reason and personal faith. If faith is the evidence of the unseen, and only faith can provide salvation, then certainly it is only through the vision-granting lenses of personal faith that one can prove the legitimacy of Jesus' claim. With this disclaimer in mind, it is obvious that no honest essay on this subject can be written in the third person. So, as to my own considerations on the topic:

believe that it is legitimate to claim that Jesus is the way to salvation of the soul, but that he will somehow deliver the more eschatological salvation which many expect can no long be considered a legitimate claim. Rather I believe that the global defeat of sin and establishment of the kingdom is a metaphor for the work of salvation within the soul, and the work which those who have reached such a deliverance will help to create in the world.

In his book Understanding the New Testament and Its Message, Vincent Branick speaks of what seems to be two forms of salvation competing or coexisting within the Bible. One of these seems to be internal, having to do with the cleansing of the soul and the indwellment of Christ. The other eschatological sort of salvation deals with Christ's second coming, and his overcoming the world and finally creating a new heaven and earth. He writes that the two views on salvation stem from two different views of evil: "a specific view of evil that must be grasped if apocalyptic is to make sense at all... differs from out modern personalist view of evil, in which evil exists as a powerful problem in our hearts...or as a problem among people... In apocalyptic, evil is a cosmic power. In some apocalyptic images, it is the power of Satan...[or] the power of death and corruption as a force that is larger than human attitudes and enslaves human beings." (Branick, 108) in the apocalyptic cosmogony, the death of Jesus makes way for his triumphant Return (as prefigured in Revelations) at which point all of the earth will be changed and the evil of physical existence abolished. "Salvation is not simply getting one's soul to heaven. It is the restructuring of all creation" (Branick, 225) However, there is also a form of salvation discussed which is somewhat gnostic in nature -- which is to say that it has to do with the knowledge of Christ which provides personal salvation and enlightenment.

Branick describes the overlap between the ancient Gnostic teachings and the new gospel: "

Branick in his work seems to imply that the ultimate truth of the Bible is one which deals with this vision of the ultimate salvation of all people and the earth itself. However, I tend to disagree, partly because I both have faith in the concept of Jesus as the One who presents salvation, and because the evidence of this future physical kingdom is much lacking. Branick rightfully points out how all the writers of the New Testament seem to expect Christ's imminent return. He even suggests that the scriptures were altered to cover up the fact that Christ was running a little behind schedule. Now, 2000 years later, it seems rather obvious that Jesus is not intending a speedy physical return -- at least not as we count speed, nor as the Biblical Christians did. It increasingly seems unlikely that Christ will show up on a white horse to purge the world of sin. If this is necessary to the ideology of salvation, then one might do well to scoff at it. It does not seem to be legitimate to project that Christ will save the world from the evil which is wrecked upon it by humans or by nature. Indeed, it seems remarkably irresponsible for a modern human to merely sit waiting for Christ to save the world rather than take active steps as part of the social community to assure that the world is preserved. (for example, it has been suggested that Bush's radical policy in the Middle East is "literally and determinedly drawn, consciously and unconsciously, toward the enactment of such a [endtimes] scenario, as he believes, for God's sake" [Hill] if this were true, it would be a perfect example of the sort of irresponsibility that might arise from a faith in the eschatology of Revelations)

However, I do not believe that this physical return and conquest is inherent in salvation. On the contrary, I think that the references to Christ's physical return which will bring about global warfare and destruction are not physical prophecies, nor do they relate to the actual "endtimes." Rather, those that are not specific references to current or near-current events (such as the sack of Jerusalem or the depredations of Rome) --and possibly even those specific references-- are metaphors for that which goes on in the soul. As Jesus said in John 18:36: " John 18:36: "Jesus told Pontius Pilate, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." There was never a point in the early church where Christians took up arms, even against the most extreme oppression, for they seem to have understood what is being missed here -- that the kingdom was not physical, and could not be won with arms, nor would it ever be.