The big bad devil: deception

The third in the triad: accusation, temptation and deception. This one is perhaps the most subtle one. Vey subtle when one of the doors in is the door of truth.

I discover that I have been deceived does not come at the moment that I might be deceived, rather it comes much later. I drive in my car, I am driving from A to B and I think I know the road fairly well. Location ‘C’ is not on the way… My radio is playing away, I enjoy the ride; I jump off at a service station, get back in and carry on my way… Two hours later I should be getting close now to ‘B’, so I check the next signpost to see if it will give me a distance marker. Shock, horror it states ‘C: 10 kilometers’. I am not deceived when I see the signpost – that is my moment of reality to let me know that some time back I took a wrong turn. The sign told me I was already deceived.

OUCH.

Back in 2005 I was in a particular country and somehow I saw the future about the political realm. ‘The candidate who enters your presidency in ’08 will not be the person you are hoping for, praying for, prophesying will be successful… but you need to embrace him (yes I used masculine language)… if you do not embrace him you will get a double blow in ’12’.

Lo and behold the ‘non-popular person to the Christian (charismatic) population’ got elected in ’08 and ’12. (Followed I consider by the ‘one God would really choose if we were God’ in 16… either then seen as we are back on track, or raising the question of where did we go wrong?)

Asking the question of where did we go wrong takes bravery because, as per my driving illustration above, we will probably find we are just a few kilometers from location ‘C’. Yes we were heading for ‘B’, but getting back to that path will take so long, and hey ‘C’ might just be a great place to get to.

When we discover we are deceived we need to go back to the wrong turn. Takes time, and the recent part of the journey seems such a waste. As far as the journey goes it was a waste; as far as God at work in us there is no such thing as wasted time. Go back is the best piece of advice.

And the ’08, ’12 scenario? I added at the end of what I brought that ‘this will happen to show that you are already deceived’. That is sobering. In the situation there is a truth, a door that was gone through, that the church is there with a responsibility to transform society… a door that is not a problem, but maybe the excitement of that understanding or undealt with issues of control, desire for power just messed it all up.

The devil deceives. Not normally with ‘jump off this cliff now…’ No. The door of appeal is something that is ‘of God’ and then our excesses, undealt with inner issues, naivety or whatever just takes us beyond where we should tread. It is said that all ‘error contains half-truths’.

Scepticism is healthy. If I hear, for example (big picture), of unreserved approval for a certain leader who has said some pretty damaging things about women, has a ‘gift’ to insult everyone who is different to themselves, I think the minimum response should be ‘I am not so sure’. (Such a disguised paragraph with no names added.)

We got to go deeper than naivety, enthusiasm.

Big picture, but at the smaller picture of my life, I want to get through the door that God opens, go through it with faith, and take along with me a measure of scepticism, and certainly healthy questioning. I might end up being deceived, if so I back up and just get on course again on my journey to ‘B’.

The big bad devil: temptation

Do not give in to temptation! But it looks so appealing.

The big ones – sex, money, power. Oh yes indeed – I have been behind the scenes in too many situations not to know the reality of those; the backroom where things are out of order, and the front stage where ‘God is present’ and the ‘anointing is breaking yokes’.

And there sits a dilemma. Useful, let’s be spiritual, being used by God, ‘proof’ that God approves and yet something later gets so uncovered and we end up disillusioned. Damaging to faith, and so it should be, damaging to that kind of faith that has a contorted view of God. The bells and whistles are not the proof.

Maybe more intense – and tying a little into yesterday also on accusation – it is easy to see where the big ones mentioned (sex, money and power) are present and yet also God is present… BUT it is very hard to see where there is continual discouragement and also the tangible presence of God. The big ones don’t really clobber us (though they obviously can) but the little and continual discouragements do.

Why temptation(s)? Well obviously to bring us down and into bondage. That is one perspective. However… let’s see the positive side for the pattern of Jesus being anointed by the Spirit immediately led to a series of temptations. The temptations were not a sign of failure, quite the opposite. Intense seasons – following the pattern of Jesus – are markers for a positive shift.

Temptations are really helpful for they expose where God is coming to bring about healing. In all our lives there are areas that simply are not temptations. Maybe ‘bitterness’ when wronged is simply not a temptation for you, but for someone else it really is. This is where temptation is so helpful. I am tempted (using the example above) to be bitter and unforgiving, awesome – shows me where there is a weakness. So following the path of honesty I do not have to ‘do better’ but face the reality of what is inside and allow the Spirit of God into that space, for temptation appeals into the area of wounding, relational absence, wrong persepctives.

The temptations are real. We fall to the temptation. The devil as tempter is real. But even the fall is not too big an issue. The uncovering of where we fall is key; God loves to cover what we uncover.

The big bad devil: accusation

I am agnostic as to who / what is ‘the devil’, the one called ‘the Satan’ in the Hebrew text. Personal – ontological existence? Maybe. (My agnosticism also goes to ‘what / who are demons’… don’t worry I am pretty clear over God and humanity, and that seems enough to get me through to a place of reality. Maybe one day I will do a post on those agnostic areas of thought.)

Anyway back to the ‘big bad devil’. Glad the Bible personifies it all – Jesus tempted by the devil / the satan; Jesus casting out demons; Jesus explaining that houses should be cleaned and restored to purpose otherwise we end up creating all sorts of problems; of the warnings that ‘the devil goes about as a roaring lion’. All of that helps me to approach the whole real as if I am confronting personality.

There are three major ways by which the devil comes to us. To accuse, to tempt and to deceive. We can see that with such phrases as ‘the accuser of the family of God’; that ancient serpent – the deciever of the world; ‘the tempter tempted you’ / tempted by the Satan etc…

The ‘deception’ approach is the most subtle so I will leave it for the final post of these three.

Accusation

Ever faced the onslaught of accusation? If you haven’t I figure it could be that the devil has not got round to you yet, with limited energy and time maybe he is too occupied with me! Accusation, we should be able to recognise it:
‘Never’, ‘always’, ‘again’, ‘no good’. Some tell-tell words. Often feeding off a whole set of false values.

Maybe our distinctive personalities lay us open to different approaches. I love to pray for people, but am not too sharp at responiding myself to what I pray. I had opportunity two days ago and spoke of ‘false responsibility’. Taking on what is not theirs to bear. How clear I was.

And yet… most things in life I am responsible for. Even at times the war in the Ukraine. If only I had not done (can’t think what it would be, but what the heck) then I would not have contributed to the war in Ukraine, after all a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon contributes to the storm in…

I do have a theology of how due to the interwining / labyrinth of all things that my behaviour does make a difference; the woman’s two coins pulls down the big corrupt temple; the body of Christ has authority beyond anything else on the planet etc… And so maybe I have contributed to the war in Ukraine! But give me a break!!

Perfection, as I have not quite made it yet, imagine what damage I am causing. Not being perfect – there is the crack through which accusation comes.

Yes, to all who read these words, my big confession is about to follow – not perfect, guilty as charged. But to ‘the devil’, ‘the accuser’ naff off (a whole lot of ‘f’s in those last two words I noted).

Yes I do believe the solution to the world’s problems was always intended to be the body of Christ, the earth itself looking to the freedom of the children of God etc. BUT there is grace for the imperfections, the cross is not helpless to cover. At a very real level the cross is incomplete, for we are to fill up the afflictions of Christ, but the cross covers all the ‘you really are a Pratt, Martin’ stuff; it covers the ‘always getting it wrong’, ‘done it again’, ‘I will never be free’.

The cross of pain is to release the carefree laughter. Seems the irresponsible laughter is quite an antidote.

[Personal note to self: give that a go.]

Mount of Olives

I am pretty convinced that most of us will be somewhat surprised if we hang on too tight to our convictions about the parousia of the Lord (literally meaning ‘presence’, and used in the Graeco-Roman world for the arrival / presence of the emperor upon visiting the city, so the opposite of ‘absence’). If the expectations among Jews at the time of Jesus was diverse – one Messiah, a kingly one, a priestly one, two Messiahs, no Messiah – not to mention how do we bring in the kingdom – hence the sects, the debates as to who was Israel, and the classification of ‘the sinners’ was not as a result of a quoting of Rom. 3:23 evangelistic style, but a classification that ‘birth certificate says Jewish’ but cos you don’t fit with our approach, you are not viewed as ‘a true Jew’ but a ‘sinner’. OK point of that convulting sentence was that the ideas and practices surrounding Jewish expectations regarding the kingdom of God was varied. Turned out none of them were right… hence ‘repent’ was the first requirement, a change your mind, not a repeat after me ‘I am a guilty sinner and a very bad person’.

The likelihood is none of us have it all right either. There are some views that just seem so untenable, others such as mine that I don’t think distort Scripture, but who knows? Anyway been thinking about an OT Scriture so want to put a spin on it today. OT Scritures relating to the future are so challenging, for once they are read through the NT lens the meaning they seemed to have carried gets significantly changed (yes I am in Ezekiel in my readings this morning… wow not even sure where to begin with a NT lens at times on that one!).

Jesus is coming back to the MOunt of Olives, the mountain splits… blah, blah, millennial rule from Jerusalem etc:

On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley; so that one half of the Mount shall withdraw northward, and the other half southward (Zech. 14:4).

The kingdom… future, past, ongoing? Or to put it another way how many horizons are there in reality? For me some big ones: the Incarnation through to Ascension; the outpouring of the Spirit; the Jewish wars of 66-70AD; some final parousia and maybe a few smaller horizons in between and among all of those when the kingdom comes in some way, where we ‘see the Son of Man coming in the clouds’.

At Passover time Jerusalem became ever so crowded, those with money and connections and got in there early could get accommodation in the city, but a sizeable number, certainly in the thousands made camp on the Mount of Olives and slept there overnight. This is why the authorities needed Judas to guide them to Jesus as his group was one of many on the Mount, as it would have been an incredible task to find someone amidst that number.

So ‘on that day’ his feet did indeed stand on the Mount of Olives, and the thousands of Jews there were split (and split representatively of the nation as a whole) as a result of the ensuing events, some for Jesus, a crucified Messiah (getting over the offence of such an idea), and others who could only see such a figure as a blasphemer who was judged by Rome, Jewish Torah obedience and ultimately by God.

I throw this concept out there. Might not be right but I think (if we are looking for a ‘fulfilment’) fits much better than the idea of Jesus descending to the Middle East at some future time.

A text I have read

Ever read Scripture and then come across a text that you have not read before. Maybe I was reading it in the NIV and so it read differently (I am not competent to comment on the Hebrew translation). Here it is:

We were with child, we writhed in labor,
but we gave birth to wind.
We have not brought salvation to the earth,
and the people of the world have not come to life (Is. 26:18).

I know some translations push toward the idea that Israel had not been victorious in the world, maybe indicating a lack of military prowess. However, I thought what if something is creeping through in this verse as the purpose of Israel, not one of being ‘saved’ and others damned, but of being the means through which salvation was to be made available to the non-covenant nations? So that those within the nations who in turn truly find God could be the means of salvation expanding? In Acts we read of the amazing gift of God to the non-Jewish nations: the gift of repentance (thinking) to LIFE.

OK the text might not be clear but I do like Jeremiah, I think way ahead of his contemporaries. There is a big ‘pray for the peace of Jerusalem’ theme that is present in the OT. Classically expressed (and loved to be quoted by the ‘come let us pray’ people):

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
“May those who love you be secure.
May there be peace within your walls
and security within your citadels.”
For the sake of my family and friends,
I will say, “Peace be within you.”
For the sake of the house of the Lord our God,
I will seek your prosperity (Ps. 122).

Jeremiah?

Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper (Jer. 29:7, emphases added).

The similarity is amazing… and the context delivers us a marked contrast! I do wonder if Jeremiah was light years ahead of his contemporaries, or maybe more in touch with Israel’s call. I wonder if he even thought the idea of a promised land was a compromise, and like Paul much later, understood that the promise to Abraham was not a piece of real estate but the whole world? After all it was promised that as far as he could walk and see would set the boundaries, and given that promise included his descendants, I wonder if Jeremiah sneakingly thought now that we are in Babylon (even though it is cos we have not been very good!) we might be able to really get hold of this vision that any prayer for Jerusalem is small-minded. I kinda think that his critique of the prophets who came prophesying what the people wanted to hear, was a critique of them saying ‘we are being persecuted, we can’t sing our songs in a strange land, but God will restore us to safety, we will once again be mighty and rule…’

Of course I read Exod. 19:5,6 as so key. Israel as a priesthood for the world, the means of salvation, the means of blessing coming. Maybe it was understandable that Israel fell into ‘we are the people, the others are the outsiders’… but the people who follow Jesus?

I will respond to the book I am reading of the ‘strange death of Europe’… A vision from the past for Israel in Exile would be, we got to repent, God will restore us, and back to Jerusalem we will go… A vision from the future I think begins with, the past is gone, it was never sufficient to get us into the future, our sin has got us to this point, let’s repent that a deeper sin was going on of exclusion. Babylon is our home.

Cross – Tom Wright in summary

A pretty smart communicator this guy on the video… no not me!… a certain Mr. N.T. Wright. In a short 8 minutes he manages to squeeze in – the cross understood within the story; Israel’s exile; Messiahship; and the defeat of dark powers… and effectively side-steps ‘did God foreknow all this’. Pretty smart. I am nowhere as smart but he also does a good job of explaining my perspective… and perhaps wiser to sidestep the foreknowledge part, that I simply don’t sidestep!

Time warp

There is a Scripture that records a strange event post-the resurrection of Jesus. So strange that a number of commentators suggest it was symbolic / theological not an actual event in space-time. I beg to disagree.

Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many (Matt. 27:50-53).

It takes place in two steps. Tombs were opened at the moment of death. The realm of the dead is manifestly being impacted at that moment. Something happening visibly with the tombs and probably something happening invisibly to sheol / hades. Then after the resurrection of Jesus there was a resurrection, ahead of schedule(!), for those whose tombs had been made visible. Those saints, in resurrected form, appear to many in the city. The language and the timing of the events indicate to me that we are to read it as a literal occurrence, that was verifiable through eye-witnesses. The language is no different to that of the resurrection of Jesus, who appeared to many eye-witnesses.

A time warp? I think so. It seems to me that the resurrection of the dead is a future event, one that takes place when Jesus returns. Those who are dead rise, and come with the Lord and we are bodily transformed at that time, the time of the parousia. Yet here are saints in Matthew’s account who are raised – and it would seem raised (as per Jesus with resurrected bodies) not simply resuscitated (as per Lazarus, raised to die again). One of the the major future events happening out of time sequence… says a lot about the resurrection of Jesus. (Maybe an implication here such as what I wrote yesterday; the clock no longer being the instrument that tells the time, but people conversing together?)

I have very little idea what happens to those who have died; or to put it another way as to where they are / what is their state. I do know they are secure in the Lord, and the text I am considering suggests that I think there are some big surprises in it all. After all if time was disturbed (understatement!!) it is not likely we can work it all out, and along the way experiences that do not fit neatly with biblical material – after all this Scripture just does not fit well… maybe the other writers decided to stay well clear of recording this event for that reason!

Necessary – for us

Last night I completed a Zoom on the final chapter in the book, The LifeLine, on the cross. Always an interesting discussion as the cross can and should be viewed from many perspectives (and is in Scripture… though no surprise here, not I think from that of penal substitution). I put forward a couple of aspects last night that are not in the chapter with ‘yes I am probably willing to stand in a corner and have stones thrown at me as a heretic for this…’

Given that we have to be agnostic about how much we have a grasp on ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’, my beliefs are ‘I lean toward’, and I lean strongly toward that of the future not being fixed, in fact I lean so strongly that way that I have probably fallen over. If the future is not fixed in what sense was the cross always planned? (‘Slain from the foundation of the world’ springs to mind here.)

Oh, what a roundabout way I am about to travel in this post…

Reading a few days ago in 1 Chronicles 11:15-19 (I have emboldened the text I am considering):

Three of the thirty chiefs went down to the rock to David at the cave of Adullam, while the army of Philistines was encamped in the valley of Rephaim. David was then in the stronghold; and the garrison of the Philistines was then at Bethlehem. David said longingly, “O that someone would give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem that is by the gate!” Then the Three broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was by the gate, and they brought it to David. But David would not drink of it; he poured it out to the Lord, and said, “My God forbid that I should do this. Can I drink the blood of these men? For at the risk of their lives they brought it.” Therefore he would not drink it. The three warriors did these things.

Drinking blood – something that Jesus said both in terms of the Last Supper, and in John 6:53 that those who do not drink his blood will have no life in them. To drink blood is to metaphorically to receive the gift of the substance of a person (true love) at the cost or potential cost of their very life. It is not some pagan ritual, and this blood poured out is indeed the life poured out (life of the flesh is in the blood) not some appeasing act to the divine. Blood in the OT is for cleansing not for appeasement, life poured out cleanses, for life is stronger than all other opposing forces, even in the case of Jesus, that opposing force of death. To drink the blood of Jesus is to receive deeply his outpoured life that comes to us, not simply through him risking his life, but through losing his life. (And maybe I should add that as a human he has to take the risk that love is stronger than hate; life poured out stronger than death… he, as human, being faithful to live out God’s life. He dies in faith – into your hands I commit my spirit… God raises him on the third day.)

God’s life is revealed in the cross, there we understand that God is kenotic, self-pouring out, life-giving, not life-taking. As I have stated in previous posts Jesus did not humble himself in spite of being God, but because he was in the form of God he emptied himself and went all the way to the cross. God will go, God did go, to whatever depth was necessary for human and cosmic redemption.

The cross is not an aberration of God; it is not at the resurrection that Jesus defeats the powers but at the cross; the resurrection being the visible sign that Jesus has overcome all enemies to the fulfilment of cosmic destiny (and I mean cosmic, within which of course is included human destiny).

In Acts the consistent testimony is that ‘you killed Jesus.. the Author of life…’ If we do not read a theologically biased reading of ‘eternal foreknowledge’ into Acts 2:23,

this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.

we can understand it as the cross fulfilling the plan of salvation, not in some predetermined way set before the foundation of the world, but in fulfilment of the life of God. (Foreknowledge is simply to know something beforehand, the ‘when’ of the knowledge is only determined to be eternal if there is a presupposition that is the case.)

God will self-give to whatever level is necessary, there is not a ‘thus far and no further’. The cross became necessary for us; the death within critical history (the fullness of times) in the place of strong captivity (Jerusalem, strong captivity because of the religious / political alignment)… You (religion) handed him over to those outside the law (the one world government of Empire). Handed over the life giver (human act) and death was swallowed up, it could no longer hold him, indeed Peter says it was impossible for death to hold him. It is not primarily that he dies our death (substitution and penal?), I would rather suggest he dies because of our death and he takes our death to a new place; our death is carried into his life poured out, and so he tastes death for everyone, and brings death to our death!

The subsequent invite is to find our identification with him – to die with him so that we will be raised with him. The Triune God gladly took our death to the place of death, for that death is swallowed up in the life poured out. If I then drink of his blood, I will receive the flow of that outpoured life, I will die… and rise with him. It is not guilt that is to be dealt with, so that my ledger is marked ‘innocent’ but cleansing that comes to heal the soul and to restore the familial relationship, the cross not seeking to deal with legal issues (leave that aspect to the Jewish aspect of the cross) but the estrangement issues. The ‘Prodigal Father’ will run to us, leaving the law weakened, running the risk that sin will indeed abound yet even more… but for those who receive the embrace, shame (and guilt) disappear, sin is condemned, death is conquered.

Slain before the foundation of the world? Indeed. How can it be otherwise? That is the eternal God, not simply the historical Jesus in the first century. Each time we take the bread and the wine we proclaim his death… till he comes.

The mighty promises of a deliverer, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah… but when we turn (repentance) and see (bear testimony to) it is not a Lion that fills our view, but the eternal nature of God, a Lamb slain… the One found worthy to open the book of destiny.

Yes I do believe there could have been other possibilities if we (the ‘Adam’ that we all are and participate in) had made different choices. What could never be changed is that the God of Creation is the Redeeming God who will go wherever s/he has to go in order to redeem. The cross is not necessary for God, it was necessary for us. It becomes inevitable for God because God is kenotic.

Sin is condemned

In Jesus ‘sin’ is condemned. It is certainly not that Jesus dies as a sinner; he is holy, separate to God throughout his life and death. It is not that God killed Jesus, for the continual phrase in Acts is ‘you put him to death’. He is killed as an act of corporate humanity, poignantly with religious and political powers finding their way of colluding together. In that situation Jesus does not resist the inevitable path, but embraces it. There is a submission to the hostile powers. Submission to the powers that we could describe as human, but in reality they are non-human powers for what is taking place is simply an ultimate demonstration of dehumanisation. Those non-human powers we can describe in terms of ‘principalities’ or we can describe them under the heading of ‘sin’ and the partner / consequence to sin, the power of death.

Sin, a way of living, in alienation to God, in denial of the God-path for humanity is condemned in Jesus (Rom. 8:3). Sin could not reign over this man. It is condemned as his life is poured out like a cleansing agent and the poison is pushed back – not only into every aspect of human life on earth, but even into the very heavens (Heb. 9:23-28. The Hebrew writer continually uses the sacrifice / cleansing paradigm for the work of Jesus. Perhaps what we read here of ‘the heavenly things themselves need better sacrifices than these’ is a way of saying the death of Jesus reaches into all creation, but perhaps it is also saying that the heavens were touched by the sin of humanity?)

Why such a radical effect? Yes the innocent doing something on behalf of the guilty, a theme that was very Jewish indeed, with the remnant doing something for the whole, or the (Maccabean) martyrs giving their lives and the vindication of God will be manifest in the nation. But something more than this is going on, for ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’.

The effect is so powerful because of the ‘when’ and the ‘who’. It occurs at the fullness of time, when the domination of that one-world government and the fall of Israel has reached a point that the whole world is in the hands of the evil one, the one called the prince of this world. The poison in the wound cannot be healed, the situation is terminal, not meaning that all are condemned, but we are all condemned to live under the domination of ‘sin’ (NB the singular use). The when.

The life of God is poured into the situation, and not from the outside but the inside. A deliberate embrace of whatever the powers can summon, and a submission to those powers. Sin and death; devil and demons. That level of powerful coming together of hostile powers though cannot overcome love. Death cannot overcome life, not the kind of life that has eternally been poured out (hence we can read of the cross ‘being before the foundation of the earth’).

Jesus submits to powers: the ‘human’ or better the ‘non-human’ powers.

He also submits to God. The human Jesus submits to God. It is far to crude to say he is submitting to the Father, rather he, as human representative, is submitting to the God-flow. Not my will – human will, and a very real will that was – but yours, and perhaps if I take a liberty, he could have said ‘but our will be done’, other than he is speaking as the Son of Man, the human representative.

In submitting to God he is not submitting to the punishment coming from God, he is submitting, as human, to the God-flow.

The when… the who – this is the act of God in humanity. The cross is for us. Sin cannot survive in that environment, regardless of what form that sin takes. Sin is condemned in the ‘flesh’ (humanity) of Jesus.

All sin was gathered to that place, for that place (the cross) was where the literal outpoured life of God was focused. In that sense we can suggest Jesus was made sin for us (perhaps could be ‘sin offering for us’), not made a sinner. Sin is fully manifest, the totally innocent one, the one who never wavered in pulling for the future of humanity, that flesh becomes the place where sin is condemned.

Can God forgive without the cross? Absolutely. He has no issue with forgiveness. There is no need for payment. Can the power of sin be broken without the cross? No, for God does not come with power to remove what has been chosen by humanity; other ‘gods’ might do that. But he will come in human likeness, when the powers are at their maximum, and he will demonstrate that he was always journeying eastward from Eden. ‘In the day that you eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil you (and I will be counted among you) will surely die’. From Eden to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to the cross where those full of knowledge crucify him, but life calls for a forgiveness pleading that they don’t know what they are doing. But that is OK from God’s perspective. I’ll submit, is Jesus response. This is the moment of glorification, this is the hour.

Creation responds, earthquake, tombs open, darkness. Sin is condemned.

Now comes our grateful response. Not to fear of judgement, but to love. If he died there for me, I died. I died with Jesus. I can begin a path, begin with repentance toward God. A change of mind, a change of mind about God, for the cross reveals who God is (no one comes to the Father except through me). A repentance for sin committed. A cleansing from the pollution that we have both experienced and contributed to. An imperfect journey in that new way, for the powers are defeated, yet remain present. The cross is not about transaction, it is about transformation; transformation of the whole of creation, and about personal transformation.

God does not seem to be looking for perfection… just too realistic for that. Genuineness, openness, receptivity, and a faltering ‘let your will be done’ response. That response takes faith and trust that God is for me, that a submission to God is not about killing me (!) but bringing me truly to life, to a fullness of life.

As a Gentile I gladly affirm that ‘even to us Gentiles God has given the gift of repentance that leads to life‘. For the Jew, as those ethnically descended from the patriarchs, so loved because of that, a repentance toward God, no longer looking to defend themselves because they have names they can call on, for now ‘there is only one name under heaven by which we can be saved’ (a Scripture directed to an exclusively Jewish audience). To all, whether Jew or Gentile, for we both have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the good news is that at the cross, the male Jew, in whose person the life of God was present in fullness, went there for us. Surely this is what gripped the Jew of all Jews (Paul) to become the herald of good news, to glory in nothing but the cross, a herald to all of creation. He knew a new time / creation had come. The old had passed away; sin had been finally not simply confronted nor simply contained, but condemned. He died for us. So in him now we all have died. He was raised for us. So in him we become witnesses (based on what we see) to that resurrection.

Foolishness to the Greeks, a stumbling block to the Jew, but to those of us who believe it is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16).

For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength (1 Cor. 1:22,23).

Finally let me finish this short series with a suggestion. Theories will take us so far, but something beyond theories is at work in the cross. The heart is touched, and touched deeply. The men disappear from view. The women stay, they see. Along with one man, John, who was marked by love. Maybe defined as ‘with special needs’ (after all he leans on Jesus at the Last Supper), so a little bit on the outside of the acceptable. Hearts open at the cross; minds offended. Perhaps we should read the narrative that way. Certainly I will not be closer to God the more I understand, but the more open I am will make all the difference. Maybe if I open myself I can be one of those who see that he is raised, and gladly think that the one raised is the Gardener, returning to the place of work, encouraging me to find what part of the ‘garden’ I too can tend to, and in that part if my heart is open I will find there are trees of life for me to take of the fruit and to give to others. Yes there will always be present that other tree, the result might be that my eyes will be open… but open to the shame that comes.

He has died. He is risen.

Perspectives