Speaking Sacrificially

Of course we love to think of ourselves as a self-giving society..that is the Church. A kind of counter-culture compared with Western society. We somehow find pleasure in depriving ourselves from things that are so useful...or at least satisfying. We 'obediently' give up things that help but don't help (apparently) and discover some kind of secret blessing. So New Years comes around and it's time to be more disciplined, do less of this, more of this, be more open and honest, stop and think before saying some silly things, and that is supposed to improve our lives. When deep down we know that all the motivation in the world wouldn't be enough to hold back, or even start something. That is, without Jesus. All decisions are never put in the context of Jesus, it's always our personal gain, pleasure, improvement, salvation.

I remember reading in the Old Testament (the first half of the Bible, where Jesus is only hoped for and things in His place are killing sheep, goats, doves etc.) and Yahweh says "I don't want sacrifices..." I was more than a little taken aback. Didn't God put into place the sacrificial system? There is another bit to that verse, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Yahweh would much prefer sacrifices not happening. The other half is something like I desire mercy, or loyalty. Basically God wants people that follow Him, not people who kill animals to save themselves. God put into place things that meant He could look on His people, but His people looked at the sacrifices as saving them, not God as saviour. And why is God saviour? Well, is He not the one who own all of creation? Is He not Himself named as Provider? He is the one who provides not only the means to redeem His people but the resources to accomplish it too. This is something of stewardship, but where a sacrifice is made it should really be a sacrifice, not a necessity. A sacrifice is something that takes just a little more than is sensible away to be given to God.

And God much prefers mercy and loyalty. In all of the things God asks of His people, He never ever wanted them to turn the laws into their own gods. When Paul talked again and again about the law, about religious people, he tried to show that the reason the law is in place for the same reason as any comparison is put in place to show that one cannot be the other; i.e. anyone following the law, in fact, cannot. With that in mind Paul spends time in most of the letters he writes to various churches describing himself before he met Jesus. He was the exact kind of person that Jesus spent a lot of time making fun of, challenging, or being in general conflict with.

The conflict comes when one person (let's say, Jesus) comes along living a perfectly sinless life but living in a way that is empowered by both grace and truth. The grace would be fully accepting and the truth would be completely steadfast in how He perceived the world. And another person (let's say a pharisee, or lawyer) has been living a 'blameless' life keeping in step with all the laws set by Yahweh. The trouble with this conflict comes when someone who sees

themselves as righteous but then told they are full of hypocrisy; or even children of Satan.

Imagine that someone telling you your mum had slept with satan.

Anyway, Jesus has been telling everyone that He had come to earth, not to follow the law, which is as much, and no more, than any other man could do, but that He had come to fulfill the law. What a claim.

"You see all of these commandments written in  stone here, and listed in the courts here, and the temple over here, I'm not just going to be doing exactly what they say (with the right perspective, not any of your religious mumbo jumbo nonsense like not picking an apple from an apple tree on a day of rest if you're hungry), I'm going to accomplish it, fulfill it, complete it."

That is only possible if this guy isn't just a man, but also divine. i.e. some kind of God-Man.

What does this have to do with sacrifices? Well you probably know the basic link which is Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, the most pure sacrificial lamb dying for the sins of His people. But there's more than that. Jesus had this crazy idea that people would follow Him. And this is where it gets tricky. Jesus, making the sacrifice necessary for us to do nothing to gain favour asks something of us. Jesus said, "Anyone who wants to save their own life will lose it, but anyone who wants to lose their life for my sake, will find it." It's a bit cryptic, but Jesus is getting at something deeper than our own life.

What He's getting at is a new worldview, a new perspective of life. He wants people to see their lives as something utterly different. Currently everyone would be living entirely to save their own life (the religious, for example, working up their good deeds for inspection), but Jesus came into the world knowing He would have to die. The only way someone could live a life that fulfilled it's potential would be for them to give up their own life for Jesus' sake. If people lived trying to live a good enough life, by their own means, they would lose it, because it would be motivated by their own selfishness (whether visible or not). If someone realised they couldn't save their life, but Jesus could, giving up a life for Jesus' sake, to change the world, as Jesus wants all His followers to do, that would be the fulfilling of a life, in the way it was supposed to be done.

So a sacrifice is quite simply giving life a new perspective, holding loosely to it in order that life may be lived to the full. When you hold loosely to all things perishable life is much easier to live.

Jesus at Christmas, and some insights...

I had to ask myself, what is Christmas about, really? I've been to church 5 times in 3 days and a lot of lovely things were said but I couldn't see everything adding up. We have God in Jesus being born, finally, after 4000 odd years of waiting, and on the other, after 2000 years we give gifts and sit around a tree, eating turkey and hoping some family time is established. So 1 (God) + 2 (Problem) + 3 (Israel tasked with restoration) + 4 (Jesus starting what Israel started) = 5

There's plenty missing.

This post grabbed my attention somewhat. But I think there's so much more to the Christmas story. The celebrations that happen make no sense. They sit with a conversion of a pagan festival, some use of an old viking character and mixing him with a good saint. There isn't enough of Jesus to make it worth while. On top of that, Jesus wasn't even born in the winter months. If the Shepherds were out in the fields then it would have had to have been sometime between April and October. So that adds to the oddness of all this season throws at us. Enough of the complaints you hear say that the Christmas season has lost it's meaning when, if you look at all that's going on, there isn't any meaning to it. Some could say peace, love and joy, but that's not solely a Christian sentiment. It's a general religious sentiment that has established most religions. This season has at some level that magical fairy story edge to it all. It's of the truth of prophecies and the realisation of God putting into motion the final pieces of a chess game where the opposition, no matter how well he thought he was doing, realises the last moves he makes are futile.

But that is what the season and celebrations represent. The Christmas story found in Matthew and Luke, with some alternate angles from John, has some key elements that put the birth of the universal Saviour into the steps of someone who live out a purely prophetic life in every way. Leaving a trail that can only point to Jesus as the one True God in Human form heading for the ultimate penalty to give His life as a ransom for many. etc. etc.

It begins in the temple. Zechariah (or Zacharias), some priest of the second temple in Jerusalem, was visited by Gabriel, and angel. He said to Zak that his barren wife would give birth. He didn't believe it and so, as is Yahweh's wonderful sense of humour, he was struck dumb. He couldn't speak. It could have been worse, though. Unbelief can be deadly. But this reflects the beginnings of the nation of Israel whose God is of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. These three, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, had married women who were barren. Which wasn't something to be proud of in them days. But, because this was going to be the nation of God not man, God did what He wanted and gave these three barren women the ability to bare children and give birth. So for three generations starting the nation of redemptive history, God was the instigator of the next. As is the case 3000 or so years on, Zechariah starts the preparation of this new remarkable story with the same story as Israel had begun.

We briefly stop off at a small hut. And this is all the more miraculous. Gabriel, not one to be given a lot of work, but clearly key for speaking for God when the prophets had died away, visits a teenage girl and tells her that she will be 'with child.' She says 'I'm not married,' which meant in those days 'I haven't done anything that would make it that way, and I'm not planning to until I get married to my partner to be, Joseph.' This is something that shows how this event is leading to the climax of Yahweh's redemptive plan. After Adam had condemned the world through disobeying God, Yahweh was going to use Israel to undo what Adam had done. The descendants of Abraham, from the line of king David was the key to it all. And it wasn't to save itself, but to save the world. This is how redemptive history is developing, and it starts again through the preparation of Zechariah's wife giving birth, who will prepare the way of the Lord; John the Baptist's cousin, Jesus the Christ.

In Bethlehem is where the truly significant stuff takes place. Beside Jesus being born, Gabriel takes a few of his friends out and sings to some shepherd telling them to go visit this new born King. The shepherds on the field will not have been picked because they were the only bunch of people outside at night. It's a prophetic symbol. Yahweh in the old testament is referred to as a shepherd of His people a number of times, and Jesus refers to Himself as a shepherd as well. The shepherds are prophetically chosen to show God's purposes in the birth of this youngling. On top of that they bring with them another prophetic symbol. A lamb. This is another representative symbol of Jesus. Jesus who is known in heaven as the lamb that was slain. It is a symbol of His death, as the shepherd is a symbol of His love so wide that He would go out of His way to find His lost sheep. Self sacrificial symbols and all He's done is lie in a manger,

Then some visitors arrive. Another number of prophetic symbols, visiting the King and representing Him at the same time. Some wise men arrive with 3 gifts, They're sometimes called kings, which is the first prophetically minded detail; seeing as Jesus is the new born King as told by Gabriel the angel. Wise men would mean they have wisdom, looking deeply into word of God and discovering that a sign would be certainly seen. They saw a light to follow, but it is the wisdom I am interested in. Jesus lived a life of wisdom prophetically living out the purposes of God, as these wise men, these magi, are doing the same thing, representing the walk Jesus began. They brought some gifts, Gold for His royalty, frankincense for His religious place in the history of His people, and myrrh for His eventual death, burial, and resurrection.

And we finish back in the temple. A guy called Simeon, a priest, had been promised he would see the Son of God before he saw death. He did and committed the rituals necessary for any new Jewish son. The Jewish law states: "Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord." This is symbolic, or even prophetic of the setting apart of Jesus for His ministry. A lot went on and a lot of special things took place. But in all the events surrounding Jesus birth, Yahweh's incarnation or embodiment in the world, there were probably a maximum of 15-20 people who really knew the significance. I had always thought why people thought Jesus was being ridiculous when He started His ministry after so much surrounding His birth, so much expectation. But when we look at the people who really knew what was going on, Mary and Joseph would have kept it quiet with a pregnancy outside of wedlock, Elisabeth, who knew Mary's child was significant, would have been more overwhelmed with her own womb being full of a child when she had been barren so many years, and the shepherds were local to Bethlehem, rather than Nazareth.

I'm still not sure the purpose of the celebrations when we try to make it a Christian festival and yet nothing of the 'traditions' bring anything to mind. This Christmas I have missed God a lot more than others, even though I have heard many good things said. Nothing helps me connect the two; the traditions and Jesus birth. Anywhooo

Merry Christmas.

What is prayer?

I was looking at how Jesus taught his disciples how to pray, thinking and meditating on it's various forms and came to quite a good conclusion of how we should pray. I'm not sure whether I'll share it with you, but I'll definitely share some thoughts on the lyrics of Cliff Richards Christmas number one from years ago...

Nothing against old Cliff.

Firstly, Jesus addresses His father. That's fairly important.

Circulating around Jesus' message we can quickly discover He's not a crazy man trying to give some kind of escape from what we think we need freedom of. In fact He decides to come along and show us we need freedom something that we were previously unaware of. Pretty good going Jesus. Moving on, His message moved quickly from something else to 'save' to a belief system that put God at the top of your tree. Quite literally He, God, Yahweh becomes your Father. You, by believing in Jesus, become 'grafted onto the vine,' or 'adopted into the family.' Basically you get a new responsibility, and a new pecking order. Pretty good going for something as simple as believing in Jesus. Jesus, in addressing this head-on, teaching others to pray by using a title as intimate as father, shows a family quality of this faith, that previous and alternative lifestyles wouldn't allow. Children from the same family must come together, especially when they have a perfect father, not some competitive, favouratist father.

Next we have the location of Yahweh. He's in heaven. He's in the 'not yet.' Or the kingdom of heaven that Jesus is showing is upon us. This is where He is, and this is what you inherit if you're part of the family, so join in. It puts everything at the right point, in order to set the world view in motion.

Thirdly is this interesting and dense phrase; 'let your kingdom come, let your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.' Notice it doesn't say in heaven as it is in heaven. This is definitely about changing this earth not waiting until we are taken from this place.

This is something at which we take action. Jesus tells everyone He meets that 'the kingdom of Heaven is at hand!' This only provokes this odd reaction because it's not supposed to be invisible. This phrase offers our complete surrender to God, while at the same time wanting to see more of Him. Your kingdom come; Your rule over more and more in it's invisible yet tangible reality. Your will be done; Your way of doing things, not mine. One earth as it is in heaven; bring these two conflicting realities into harmony with one another. Make them come together and be restored. Awesome.

Give us this day our daily bread; provide the things that are bear essentials
Forgive us our sins; I'm wrong you forgive, let your grace rule over me
As we forgive those who sin against us; make me more like you, Jesus

Lead us not into temptation; Renew my heart and mind into a holy and blameless living sacrifice
and deliver us from evil; be gracious and protect me from the unworking of this world

Yours is the kingdom; your rule is the greatest and best way to work
Yours is the Power; your will is so abounding I want to see it work
Yours is the Glory; and all I want to do is for your honour and praise
For ever and ever; I can't see you losing
Amen


I notice one big thing in all of this prayer. There aren't any questions. There is not explicit guidance. Imagine that. I remember a friend sharing with me an insight that said something along the lines of 'wherever you go the light of Jesus, the lamppost, the lantern; it won't lead you, it will follow you.' If Jesus wanted a lot of His sheep to follow Him explicitly we wouldn't just be a complete pen of clones, but we'd also all be tripping Jesus up wondering where He would go next. To follow 'The Way' would not be some kind of special path, although that metaphor is used. It would be closer to having the right kind of glasses on to be able to see what's up ahead and which options could be taken. Jesus never really tells us to go to God if we have three job offers and they're all pretty amazing, but one's got these extra perks that I'm not sure would be a good thing because what if it makes me less content and...blah blah etc. etc.

He says things like 'don't you expect God to provide, you of little faith?!'

What if this happens, Jesus? Well then make a decision. You have this renewed spirit that shines my light wherever you go. It doesn't really matter what decision you make as long as it doesn't mean you sin. And if it does mean you sin then turn around and come back. We all make mistakes. Basically, what His message is is 'we're not ruled by law we're ruled by grace.' Jesus taught us to pray everyday for the basics. That way we've got all the bases covered and we can live in trust that God is bigger than us, and always will be. It's a good family to be in.

Of course in all of this...I could be wrong.

This Jonah character

What would it mean if someone said to you 'the greatest sign I will perform is the sign of Jonah?'

I'm sure we'd all remember the bit where he's in the belly of a massive fish; at least that's the bit that stands out for me. Especially when he starts singing; it must have been quite a weird sensation for the fish. So we could assume the sign of Jonah would be a marvelous magic trick whereby the victim in question would disappear into the belly of a fish...only to emerge again after three days. Of course the book of Jonah's story has more in it than that. He hears clearly God's voice and clambers on to a boat going in as far the opposite direction as possible. He gets thrown out of the boat and nearly drowns (gets eaten, then thrown up on a beach) hears God's voice and tries to run away a second time, then finally gives in and does what he's told, only to be utterly disappointed with the results. So maybe the sign of Jonah is disappointment. Surely the conclusion to a story reference would be more applicable, not just a pretty extraordinary feature to the narrative. Just like the story of the prodigal son is because 042518. You work it out

Of course the prodigal son is probably a bad example. The familiarity of the story has made term prodigal to mean something utterly different from what it really is. We have this idea the a prodigal would mean someone who walks away from his family, but it doesn't mean that at all. I think in some senses the prodigal son referred to did not think through his words that carefully and perhaps what was said and taken to heart wasn't his basic motive. He was saying he wished his father dead by asking for his share of the inheritance, but I doubt he had thought that far. His living shows that, although the sign sent said 'I'm wishing you dead and getting out of here,' he wasn't bright enough to think about other people. He saw a large wealth, thought half would do him nicely and asked for it. And he went off to live as a prodigal. A prodigal meaning someone who lives lavishly.

Jesus was the one who was claiming his greatest sign would be one of Jonah. And yes (you may have already cottoned on to it) he did go into a tomb (belly) for 3 days before rising again. But was that really what He was referring to? Or, at least, was that the only thing He was referring to? Just as Jesus' life was about His death Jonah's life was about something major too. Jesus, by living established and accomplished many things. Maybe even more than that. His life had new teaching, astonishing claims, fights starting, questions asked, miracles occurring...could that be it? Who knows? I'd like to think I do, or I wouldn't speculate over here.

What miracles did He perform. Well; there was that water into wine moment, and the blind man - wait - men seeing, a couple of the lame walking, some leper cured, a woman cured of bleeding of some kind; then He fed 5000 on one occasion out of a small packed lunch, then fed 4000 on another occasion out of a smaller packed lunch; He calmed the sea, walked on it, told a fig tree to shrivel up and die and the tree didn't argue; He talked to a Samaritan, He went into the houses of prostitutes, and terrorists, Roman collaborators, and thieves, sinners in general in fact. The last set doesn't seem particularly miraculous does it. Maybe stepping out your comfort zone and taking some pepper spray with you just in case, but nothing magnificent.

Besides the fact that the various 'Jesus Critics' if His day weren't particularly happy with His choices, there was a man who wasn't afraid of divides of any nature. (After his resurrection even physical dividing walls didn't put Him off walking through them.) He came into Jewish culture to...'perform the sign of Jonah?'

What was that, really?

Jonah's mission wasn't to get swallowed up into the belly of a fish. His mission was to take the news of God's kingdom to the city of Nineveh which continued to disregard God's threats and go their own way. God stepped in, told Jonah to tell them to repent, and tried to sort the place out. God is concerned about the whole world, not just His own people, it appears. Jonah went into a fully disobedient, sinful city, that didn't know God, told them that if they didn't turn from their ways and worship God they would be destroyed and saw the whole community transform. Jonah wasn't happy, only because Nineveh were His people's enemies. That was the reason Jonah kept wanting to run away, but it wasn't worth his life, fortunately. He turned around in the end.

I'm not saying Jesus didn't come to die. He did. But the accomplishment of His death is one that removes those prejudices, and it's one that Jesus acted out while He was alive as an example of what was possible after His ascension. The idea of this reconciling spirit I discussed somewhat in a post about a month ago. The ultimate description is that Jesus died for a personal salvation and a corporate transformation. What on earth did you think the church was for. Nineveh, as a whole city, turned around. Imagine what could happen in your local community if Jesus was at the centre of it.

Why should I hope if my death is imminent?

Looking into the verse halfway through the first chapter of Philippians where Paul claims 'to live is Christ but to die is gain.' What on earth does he mean? Looking at the whole book and what Paul was writing for, it appears Paul was almost definitely heading to his own execution. Paul was the kind of guy who'd stirred everything up. Jesus was around and had told plenty of Old Testament scholars (or experts in the law, or Pharisees) that they were completely religious and were working to their own destruction making law-keeping higher than God. Paul, so oblivious to the fulfilments of prophecies and the law over the years suddenly had his eyes opened in some kind of 'Damascus road' experience. He saw Jesus fulfilling the law, and the prophets' words, and realised the 'Messiah' had come. Paul spotted, in Jesus, after years persecuting the church, that the liberator of the political system and a whole alternate life had been accomplished in Jesus. He turned things around in his ministry because of what Jesus had done on the cross.

This was good news for the body of Christ, bad news for the Jews, and the Romans, and the terrorists of the day, and almost every other belief system in effect. In practical terms that meant 'the world' was not a fan of Paul. It meant the authorities thought it best for Paul to stop preaching this 'good news' and he should be sent to jail. (In the book of Acts he is recorded to have been arrested by the Romans, by persuasion of the Jews, at least three times.) So now, writing to the church in Philippi, he's living out every day, working closer and closer to his execution. I guess, in some sense, his death looked like a relief. His letter to the Corinthians gives some insight:

I know I sound like a madman, but I have served [Christ] far more! I have worked harder, been put in prison more often, been whipped times without number, and faced death again and again. Five different times the Jewish leaders gave me thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked. Once I spent a whole night and a day adrift at sea. I have traveled on many long journeys. I have faced danger from rivers and from robbers. I have faced danger from my own people, the Jews, as well as from the Gentiles. I have faced danger in the cities, in the deserts, and on the seas. And I have faced danger from men who claim to be believers but are not. I have worked hard and long, enduring many sleepless nights. I have been hungry and thirsty and have often gone without food. I have shivered in the cold, without enough clothing to keep me warm.

Then, besides all this, I have the daily burden of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak without my feeling that weakness? Who is led astray, and I do not burn with anger? If I must boast, I would rather boast about the things that show how weak I am. God, the Father of our Lord Jesus, who is worthy of eternal praise, knows I am not lying. When I was in Damascus, the governor under King Aretas kept guards at the city gates to catch me. I had to be lowered in a basket through a window in the city wall to escape from him.

He's had a rough time of it. Now he's in prison waiting for the day when he can leave it all behind and go to be with Jesus. And we get to the point after he's just said 'But the ones who are jealous of us are not sincere. They just want to cause trouble for me while I am in jail. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is that people are telling others about Christ, whether preached in pretense [we need more converts] or truth [these people need to hear] I will rejoice [says Paul].' Then we get a bombshell. He goes from having a hard time, to death. And the gold comes forth from his lips; and it's quoted many times with little understanding as to what he really meant.

'For to live is Christ, but to die is gain.'

What?

What the hell does that mean?

If I'm alive then it's Christ, but if I'm dead it's better?!

Me living=Christ?

What?

Yes. Paul has gone mad. Twice in two letters. He's saying first that he is a much better apostle because he's been given more punishments for good than anyone else. And then he says that that life is Christ. Oh. Wait. It makes a little more sense. Jesus' life consisted of constant rejection because He was doing good. Jesus' death was complete agony, punished for not sinning at all. Well. Obviously people don't like people who make no mistakes. They wouldn't fit in. Paul has been living a life exactly as Christ. What it means is the reaction to his actions will be the same as the reaction that Jesus got to His actions. And everyone who realises who Jesus was and what He achieved through living and dying and rising and ascending really was want to be just like Jesus. A mini-Jesus; a mini-Christ; a Christ-ian.

So to live as Christ is to live with the consequences Jesus showed us. And it is to persevere through those things as if they were 'momentary afflictions.'

To die is gain? Well, perhaps Jesus' death is a lot more meaningful than any Christ-ian, but I begin to think that perhaps Paul was onto something. Jesus died, went before God suffering the death He didn't deserve but chose to take it, rose again in this wicked new body (that's wicked in a good way) that could walk through walls, tried it out on the cursed earth, probably playing a few tricks, opening scriptures, eating fish, and then He flies off to heaven to be with His dad. Pretty awesome.

Until Jesus comes back to judge all the world, to die is to just get up to Jesus be with Him and the Father, in fact be with the whole Triune God for ages and ages, until we get our fresh new bodies with add-ons. Of course, that would only be for those who have experienced the 'live is Christ' bit. That's the hope of an imminent death. Being with Jesus. Look it up; it'll be pretty cool.

What was Jesus doing, coming down to earth like that?

I started reading this book - mentioned last post - and decided to investigate the public opinions of the author and his writings. I came across this. This guy, author of the blog, has recently released a book called 'Spiritual Discernment.' After reading the review & finishing the book it reviewed I analyzed this guys thoughts. It didn't truly impress me. What I could see was some guy writing a book then attempting to show how to put it into practice. I suppose that's the trouble with the people who blog. People like me. The downside, of course, is he did a bad job. The book I read is, most definitely, challenging. One could almost say offensive. It challenges the 'Heaven after you die' mythology, the box of culture in which we put Jesus, and, although mentioning little of His death, the mission Jesus death. I see this book, not as redefining, but showing more of Jesus; a bigger Jesus, if you will. Of course if this new perspective is true some of the old perspectives must be thrown out, but that does not mean all other perspectives are wrong. We must look to hold many perspective together, as God does His own attributes.

For example, at the McLaren level of which Jesus enters the Roman Empirical culture, Jesus' mission is to show and establish the kingdom of God as a new political system, freeing the oppressed into a new way of life. His death & resurrection showed that the Romans could not succeed against the advancing kingdom of Heaven.
At the traditional level, Jesus' mission was to establish Himself as an alternate leader, a Messiah; Ultimate Mission: The Cross (i.e. His death).

Perhaps this wouldn't be so bad, but it leaves holes all over. Jesus came to proclaim the kingdom of God. His mission was to show how the kingdom the people of God envisioned, though seemingly impossible in the current situation (and, in some cases, unwanted) - too many poor, too many soldiers, too many sick, too many sinners - was, in fact, at hand; here; upon us.

Of course if Jesus came to be that prophet of challenging so many His death seems, not only inevitable, but accomplishing little. Now, if Jesus came to do both, that would show something of God that is, in fact, in perfect sync with His character. God is concerned with both body and soul, mind and matter of the people of earth. He wants to see the world working, not just into this world preached an awkward and intriguing message, each day stepping closer and closer towards the inevitable; His execution. He knew it would end this way. He wouldn't shut up about it, on occasion. And yet, He wasn't obsessed with it. He came to turn the whole world upside down; He came to take some young fishermen, tax collectors, terrorists, under His wing and send them off on the continuation of God's mission. And He ended His missionary journey with the most horrific death imaginable, treated as a criminal even though He was the only man ever to do nothing for His own selfish ambition.
What was His death?

It represented many things. It is the obsession of many of His later disciples. It is shown, quite plainly, as the ultimate act that puts His whole life into context. Every action would only make sense because He was killed/sacrificed, and that He rose from the dead, victorious over the most unnatural thing in the universe....DEATH.

I think the key sentence is putting His whole life into context. Without His death, His life makes no sense. Any other person doing the same things but escaping execution would have been a hypocrite. He had to die; not simply to be that sin-offering, that sacrifice, that man with His arms open wide as the greatest act of love ever seen. He had to die for His life to be fully meaningful. All His message taught, all He stood for, it was heading towards His death to show the kingdom of God was more powerful and was advancing and was upon us and was here and was something to be part of and was a kingdom worth the citizenship of. More powerful than the Roman Empire, advancing stronger and forcefully and not losing ground and fully sustaining; more so than the Roman Empire. It was more real than the Roman Empire, and it cost the life of Jesus for our citizenship.

Surely we can change sung Dave Crowder

And the problem is this
We were bought with a kiss
But the cheek still turned
Even when it wasn't hit

And I don't know
What to do with a love like that
And I don't know
How to be a love like that

When all the love in the world
Is right here among us
And hatred too
And so we must choose
What our hands will do

Where there is pain
Let there be grace
Where there is suffering
Bring serenity
For those afraid
Help them be brave
Where there is misery
Bring expectancy
And surely we can change
Surely we can change
Something

And the problem it seems
Is with you and me
Not the Love who came
To repair everything

Where there is pain
Let us bring grace
Where there is suffering
Bring serenity
For those afraid
Let us be brave
Where there is misery
Let us bring them relief
And surely we can change
Surely we can change
Oh surely we can change
Something

Oh, the world's about to change
The whole world's about to change

Why review a book?

I have found an increasingly frustrating aspect of me that means half the things I'd like to get down on paper don't end up anywhere useful. My mind thinks. It thinks a lot. At any one time I may have as many as 5 different concepts all trying to work themselves out of me. I theorise about ideas, world views, Jesus, people, psycho-analyse myself, and there is general chit chat in the midst meaning, during conversation, I will make a remark that seems completely unrelated that I will try and draw back to the original point but the responder simply takes hold of new subject matter and sees a shift in direction, rather than a slightly bigger picture.

I'm also struggling with sentence length.

This week my thought processes have been fairly narrow, primarily consisting of the theories of interpretation of Revelation (the final book of the Bible), what Jesus' mission was at a cultural 1st century level (which I may try and show does link back to Revelation, but wouldn't appear to), how to correctly represent the ideas of a video for the church website, and what Christianity really is all about and the need of the 'Born Again' prefix for clarification in this day and age. Oh yeah, and Christian culture.

All that in one week.

Last week I was preoccupied with the transfer of sin and righteousness with relation to Jesus' death. I thought I'd come to a definite conclusion then read another couple of opinions and realised the mistakes we make. There are draft of three posts I was going to publish, but wasn't overly confident in material so I left them. I'm not sure, yet, what to do with them. That is what predominated, at least. I don't remember what else was going on but I guess there were some odd conversations in retrospect.

I remember having a conversation which was trundling along at a steady pace, talking about food or something, and then I asked if they'd watched any '24.' This, rather than opening up some more of the subject, took the whole conversation down a different path, and, perhaps with extra observation over knowing my own mind, must have seemed somewhat strange. I also know from experience I use commas far too much.

I think, now, comma comma, I'd like to open up a little into Jesus. I wonder; what did His death and resurrection look like to the first century Jews, living in a Roman Empire?

More appropriately, I'm basically going to summarise my thoughts on a book I've just finished (Everything Must Change by Brian D McLaren). It's opened up some kind of ideological world view that is actually pretty accomplishable. Not because I'm so great, or you're so great; that's kind of redundant and, to be perfectly honest, not true. It's because God is great that these things are possible.

So Jesus looks like, either, this guy born somewhere small disrupted a bit of Jewish life, left rather abruptly after dying and rising again, never having made a political party, made loads of money, he died penniless, homeless, and rejected by his whole country. Not really that much of a big deal. Or he looks like this amazing character from history who turned millions, if not, billions of lives, upside down. He changed the course of history, fulfilled prophecy after prophecy, did many miraculous things, represented fully God on earth, was God, died to fulfill the law, rose to prove his accomplishments, went to heaven, and is now watching over His church with expectancy, waiting. Waiting until He can come back and be with all His followers in person.

These are two quite different pictures.

No one has ever tried putting the two together. It's always been one or the other for me. Historians of no affiliation to anything special have shown the world Jesus lived in, and what kind of person he was; a homeless teacher with less followers than Hitlers fan club, with a tragic end to a less than effective struggle. Theologians have shown him to be a great man, doing many wonderful things, preaching a glorious message, accomplishing what only God could accomplish (because He is God in Flesh), and He is someone worth getting to know now, before you see Him at the Judgment.

Who do you think most people saw, while He was alive?

Who is He really? Has He fooled us all?

Obviously my point is that He hasn't, but do you see the vast difference?

It turns out, actually, that His presence on the earth is as mind shattering in physical terms as the theologians rave about in the spiritual terms. Jesus' message was one of those kinds of messages that completely changes the way you think. A little like finding out Santa doesn't exist (although he still does for those naive lot out there), or working out that babies do actually come from one stork; which is why there are so many single mums out there. The fact is, Jesus wasn't trying to stay alive for 30 years, preaching stuff to upset everyone so He could be killed and fulfill some prophecy about Him, so all the Jews would realise who He was and that be done with. Jesus shows how all of Israel as a people were living a misled life, because He used the same scriptures they did and He lived an entirely different life. Why? He allowed the Old Testament to shape his world view; the lens to view life from. He didn't come at the inspired words of God from one world view trying to make them make sense, He tried to make the world make sense after experiencing scripture.

His whole message was from a different world view that should change how the world appears. The best way to put this is, as much as the cultures had different uses of language, making Jesus' words hard to decipher, at the brunt of it all was a man preaching into a self-destructive society that suffered as much in it's day, as we do in ours, over drug abuse, alcohol abuse, sexuality abuse and confusion, sickness, death, corruption, war, famine, and so much more that is all caused, and a bi-product of their and our living, not something else we have to deal with on the side.

More to come; but the point is, His physical goings on 2000 years ago caused almost as much havoc (which almost makes no sense, having an eternal effect, but not quite), as His eternal spiritual goings on did somewhere in the kingdom of God.

Revisions....

This is a rather long one...

Since writing the two part extravaganza on atonement and the issue of status transference surrounding it, I have since read up on Tom Wrights "simple" explanation of the righteousness (available here) of which Paul talks about in 2 Corinthians 5:21. With this shaping my ever malleable mind, I re-evaluate my stance. At one level some of what I have said still stands, but the relationship between sin and righteousness seems less relevant. This is mainly because the 'Jesus became sin that we me become righteousness...' is better explained as Jesus representing one thing and us representing the other. Summarising Wright's article it is basically part of an argument showing the authority of Paul. Wright suggests that Jesus is shown by Paul to have, on the cross, represented sin and taken the punishment, bearing the sin of the world as a representative, not having a clean account filled with other people's disobedience. What it means is that, with Jesus death accomplishing reconciliation, our relationship with God means we can represent His righteousness giving us authority to admonish one another. That's about as much as you're going to get until I finish thinking all this through, but the key in the PSA theory is not whether or not righteousness jumps from soul to soul, but what happens to sin. This would begin to explain an alternate title I was thinking of for my last posts; 'What happens to our soul?'

So, in light of my research I'm going to tackle sin. This is, supposedly, why Jesus had to die. Without sin, Jesus was fine where He was. Of course, if sin is not considered in a certain way, Jesus' death was unneeded, in one sense. Inevitably, sin must be dealt with, and the sacrifice laws made in Leviticus some 3000 odd years ago play much more of a part in Jesus' death than we like to say.

What is sin?

It can be described in a number of ways.

Sin is...

1. ...disobeying God, and His laws


2. ...not acting loving towards one another


3. ...acting outside the identity of Christ


4. ...the view God sees of your rejection or lack of relationship with Christ

At the most foundational level, the breaking of the first commandment (love God) means the other 9 will be broken. Similarly, Jesus' 2 commandments (love God, love others), are only possible if the first is kept. Whenever the first is broken the second follows quickly. So, to act outside the identity of Christ, or to be seen as a rejection of Him, is to not be a believer, or to not have the faith in Jesus. This means that any action ('good' or 'bad' in the eyes of the world) that isn't done when believing the gospel is a sin. But where did sin come from?

Where did sin come from?

Supposedly, Adam sinned first. First came sin, then came death. It goes right back to God's whole plan. He created Man in the image of God and, because He gives us responsibility, we can naturally assume we should know more than we do in order to do a better job. So, whether figuratively or literally, Adam eats of this fruit which gives him knowledge of both good and evil. The trouble is that makes him worse at his job than he was. He disobeyed a direct command from God and God has to give the consequences suitable to the act.

The trouble is, it wasn't a harmless mistake. The knowledge, where some think it could have freed us to make a better decision, is actually the thing that entraps the human race to slavery. There are lies in the world, telling us we have free will. It's not a biblical term, and I believe the Bible is fully truth, so I'm hesitant to use such terminology. Freedom is available, for sure. What I see, however, is not Adam making some decision of whether to be fully cooperative or not, but rather the greater choice which we have very little say in; who is your master? or, alternatively, what are you a slave to?

I would like to propose that we do not have free will. We are slaves to sin. Adam's action in the garden condemned the world. The repercussions are far greater than being chucked out of a proverbial garden. I puts the whole human race into slavery to that which condemns, destroys, and is utterly punishable. We can't break free because we, on our own, can't break the chains of the master which is, at one level, the sin which we serve, and, at another level, the law which shows us how much of a slave we are and never works for us.

The only possible way to be freed from the condemnation of the law, and the slavery of sin, is for some external source who is not a slave to sin, and is in perfect relationship with the law. Someone like that could come, and die, pay the price and free us from the destructive slavery. This act would be so much greater than the act of Adam because it purchases our redemption from sin, to be made slave, instead, to righteousness. The act is so much greater than the curse of Adam, because it dies to the "marriage" with the law (the only lawful way to be freed from a relationship of that nature), and rises us into relationship with God. Free from sin, and the law; slaves to righteousness, and friends of God, we rise victorious.

I would ask: where is the transfer of Adam's sins to us? and where is the transfer of our sins to this redemptive power of a sinless man (Jesus for those not following my thoughts)? What happens to our sins?

It turns out there was never an issue of our sins. We have a nature that isn't free and needs to be. There is no talk of a status, rather an attachment. The transfer doesn't have to take place because the righteousness is not an alien righteousness, as is argued in the doctrine of justification, but rather the righteousness is the relationship outside of law, and a slavery to it. We can now be enslaved to righteousness because Jesus dies the perfect death on the cross freeing us from condemnation by the law, and freeing us from the slavery to sin we once had. It makes us slaves to what is good and right and holy and positive, not destructive. It turns the world around. Jesus resurrection is, therefore, more important than simply some hope we have for the time when Jesus returns, some great gift of a new body with no dysfunctions or imperfections, a real body.

Jesus' resurrection means we rise into a life free from the law, and free from sin. It is not just proof of God's great redemptive work; it is necessary in this life, where we have so much to change, to live a life pleasing and holy, upright, pure, walking humbly before our GOD, Jesus.

So now you've heard both sides of what I've been thinking about. Maybe it's all wrong. I could have bits that are right. I don't know. I'll find out one day. What I do know is I am right with God because of Jesus' death and resurrection. That is what saves. The bible says so. Whether one thing happened or another, the Gospel is that Jesus died to make me a son of God and heir and to save me from the sting of death.

Hoping on the hopeful - Part 2

I haven't studied for decades on this subject, so this is most definitely not the main article to read on this subject. I'd like to show whether or not the transfer takes place through faith in Jesus' death & resurrection or not. Obviously, at some level, the most important things to agree on are the statements of faith in the accomplishments of His death. His death accomplished a reconciliation of man to God. It was accomplished by God, and it was that act done in that way that signifies His Love for us. Now, why, to take this head on, is this a display of God's love?

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and
sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

What it could be if the transfer isn't a part of this great act at all:
To be honest I can't see this side. Until I do further reading this will remain short because I haven't had time to complete my research. I've had the conflicting ideas - was there a transfer? wasn't there? - for about a week trying to see if the idea that no transfer took place could work. I came to a simple conclusion - much deliberation has made me say this because I don't think I'm wrong, but I can't see how the alternate viewpoint has come about. If there was no transfer then Jesus had no need to die. All he needed to do was come and teach the things he wanted to and then leave again. He turned the world upside down, but that would matter. This gives no hope. The sacrifices of old were of no use because they could only take sin away, not give righteousness. The spotless lambs, sacrificed for the people of Israel were representations of righteousness, but they weren't righteous.

The transfer takes place:
This is love. Jesus, on the cross, bore our sin. He was made to be sin. He was more than a spotless lamb, because he was completely clean. His status before God was RIGHTEOUS. God looked down on Him day after day and was utterly pleased with His Son. Jesus pleased his heavenly father in every way. He was utterly obedient. Obedient to death, even death on a cross. In that moment, where Jesus hung between earth and sky, Jesus took onto His shoulders the sin of the world. In that moment Jesus' Father could not look at Jesus, because God cannot look at sin. In that moment Jesus offered His perfect righteousness up to God as a sacrifice for the perfect unrighteousness of the world. The wrath of God toward sin was poured out on Jesus. This is love. That Jesus would die for me. My sin. My whole status of rejecting was replaced with Accepted.

The penalty of sin is death.

In James it says that if just one part of the law is broken, it's as if the whole of the law is broken. It doesn't matter if you've only committed one murder ever, you deserve to die. But Jesus died. He died for us. He took the punishment that sin deserves. He took our sin, and I, in my insignificance, weakness, and undeserved state, take His righteousness. He counts faith in this foolish message of a homeless peasant dying somewhere in the Roman Empire 2000ish years ago, but also His triumphant resurrection as complete proof and utter hope, as righteousness.

For those who know much about the other side to this 'argument,' feel free to respond.

Hoping on the hopeful - Part 1

In recent weeks I've come across many the article on the controversy (I call it that to see what the reaction might be) on the idea of the possibility of transferability of the state of the soul. Peter Kirk, author of the 'Gentle Wisdom' blog, brought to my attention the comments of Mark Driscoll from his recent appearance in Edinburgh, preaching on atonement in the church leaders meeting before the Men Makers conference on Saturday 17th November. Adrian Warnock, equally, comments and publishes the notes he took from the preach. The link comes as Driscoll says "I murdered God", and Warnock is publishing articles on John Piper's book in a response to N. T. Wright's theological insights. I'm throwing a lot of names around, but it's important to know that all these high profile thinkers are simply trying to understand an unfathomable God.

So, Driscoll claims he murdered God, which, by generality, means I did too. In fact, everyone did. What Driscoll is getting at is that, as I posted on 'Gentle Wisdom.'

Surely to claim we all had a part in murdering God is not on the level that you see in the gospels. At that level Pilate was the one doing the final sentencing, with the Jews telling Pilate it was the right thing to do (lucky Barabbas). But if it wasn’t for all of us, past us’, present us’, and future us’, Jesus would have never had to have gone through what He did. What I can see Mark Driscoll saying is, our lives are part and parcel of Jesus death. He didn’t die despite our sin, but because of it.

Our sin puts us at a point where we deserve to die, but Jesus came along and became sin for us. He took the punishment for our sin on the cross. And this is where problems arise. Did our sin transfer to Him and His righteousness to us in that moment? If Jesus takes the punishment for our sin, that doesn't mean our sin is on Him, only that Jesus propitiates (a posh word for divert) God's wrath from us onto Him. He is the only one who can take the wrath in our place because (2 Corinthians 5:21 for those interested) 'He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.' The words become sin have always confused me; this is how some translations portray this passage. Peter in his first epistle says something similar; 'He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.' Paul's letter to the Galatians tells us Jesus became a curse on our behalf. There is a definite relationship between Jesus and sin on that cross and it's a lot bigger than some people are trying to shrink it to.

In one simple illustration we can see that the idea of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) - the correct terminology for Jesus death on the cross as a sacrifice for sin - is not 'cosmic child abuse,' as Steve Chalke suggested in his book 'The Lost Message of Jesus.' Firtly, at the level to which Chalke has reached, to punish a child for disobeying a comman from his father would be completely within the parents rights as the one responsible for his upbringing. The argument against this is that Jesus did nothing wrong. Ever. This is most definitely true. So, without further research we can conclude simply that Jesus death on the cross was of no concern. He did not have to die because there was no reason for him to. To see more than his unfair trial and death sentence, he did die for his cause. He was teaching outrageous things that provoked, not only the religious leaders, but also the officials and authorities of the day, and the political movements as a whole as well. This was the main reason for his death, perhaps. It was prophesied some 700 years before. This 'Messiah' would come and die. But why die? According to Paul (becoming a curse; dying for our sin; dying for us), Peter (1st epistle 2:24) (bore our sins), and other New Testament authors, he died for us. At this level, he did have to die.

Without our sin, he didn't have to even come to earth. But our sin means he did. He had to come, because he loves us and wants to save each one of us. What was going on on the cross? It's important to note, here, that Jesus' life is just as important as Jesus' death. Jesus whole life pushed the inevitability of his death to a level beyond comprehension. He was never afraid to die, and, in fact, chose to talk about his death a lot. This message of his death was supposed to be hopeful. No wonder he spoke about it so much.