Category: Theology

Our Father

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Prayer… not so good at that one, but at least we are instructed to pray ‘with all kinds of prayer’. Mine is not very meditative, so for sure lacking at that level, but just squeezes in under the ‘all kinds’ of definition. And maybe if we are to ‘pray without ceasing’ it is as much to do with heart attitude as it does with words and practices. I hope so!

Been thinking a bit about ‘the Lord’s prayer’ and as we have it in two different versions it is probably a bit of a guide rather than a formula to follow. Here it is in Matthew’s gospel:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not bring us to the time of trial,
but rescue us from the evil one.

And the verse added after the prayer relates back to it and is key for our progress, with an interesting change from ‘debt’ to ‘trespass’.

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

So heart attitude… First word ‘Father’, second word ‘our’. Maybe the word order is incidental as per many languages, but probably quite helpful. First word is beyond ourselves and our world; first word is not to an unknown deity. The promise of Jesus was not to bring us to God, but that he was the way to the ‘Father’. I appreciate that word can be a tough word for some, and within it certainly is contained the whole concept of ‘mother’. Intimacy is suggested, for the relationship is the one that we can see Jesus had. We cannot insist on the correct word, but push for the intimate relationship, and sadly the word can even prevent that intimacy if we project on to God any negative experience we have had.

However, by starting with that word we are being invited to move beyond projectionism from our experience so that eventually any negative experience will be covered by the intimacy of ‘true parenthood’. Love covers a multitude of sins… and that has to cover sins that we have experienced as well as all our (my?) bad behaviour.

The prayer is short when we count the words, but pretty long when we walk the journey. Many days we will get the first few letters of the prayer out. ‘Fath……’ First word is a life-long journey to a place of deep rest and security, particularly when we face situations where (in our opinion) God could have done something. The fact he didn’t maybe indicates something wrong with our theology. We want to believe in an all-powerful God, Jesus introduces us to a relational being.

Second word ‘our’. Those first two words are familial words, belonging words, corporate words. If the first word puts me in touch with intimacy the second word puts me in a horizontal context. Amazing how connected those two words and concepts are. Private religion nor separatedness seem to be what it is about. Familial context, belonging, me not more important than you… and truthfully the more I know of intimacy the more I will see you, and see you and me connected.

How wide does the ‘our’ go? Maybe like the meals of Jesus, with a ‘sitting down with his own’, that close identity with those who have imbibed of the Spirit, and the thousands in the desert who were not even clear about what the food was all about. We probably should lose our desire to draw the in / out lines and seek to live in a way that we have many overlapping circles of ‘our’ as possible. The more ‘ours’ there are the more likely there will be those who also come to the place where they can utter the first word.

Some days we might be praying the second word. Intimacy can lead to a very loud ‘our’. I don’t think religion leads us there. If people exclude themselves from the ‘our’ that is their choice; if we include people in the ‘our’ that is our choice.

‘In heaven’… no reductionism there. God among us, ‘one of us’, yet not one of us. Not a God made in our image. However far I have progressed – and if only you knew you would be impressed beyond belief!! – there is more.

Father, our – among us, intimacy. In heaven – not simply among us, not simply one of us. And an invitation not to stay where we are but to grow.

This first line seems to be a healthy starting point and maybe a line that we might never get much beyond, certainly a line that will be repeated many times over.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Freedom from the big bad devil

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Someone who impacted me a lot was the late John Barr (d. Jan, 2001). He was a great public figure but what impressed me much more was the time he had for people at a private level, marked by who showed up at his funeral. In this post I unapologetically draw from his perception of ministering healing and freedom to people. He said:

  • There are wounds to be healed
  • There are bondages to be broken
  • There are demons to be cast out
  • There are sins to be forgiven.

Any breakdown such as above can be counteracted when another lens is used, but I have found those distinctions to be helpful. The last three posts have been on the big bad devil so maybe start with ‘demons to be cast out’. What is a demon? Multiple choice answers to the question:

  • Evil spirits, originally fallen angels, servants of the big bad devil. (Probably only fully formulated in the Second Century by the Christian theologican, Tatian.)
  • The ‘spirits’ of the offspring between humans and angels (the ‘strange’ text of Genesis 6 and also of Enoch (not written by the aforementioned!)).
  • Not ontological, yet present as personal realities… ‘created’ through the circumstances, choices or events. (The work of Water Wink in the bigger picture on principalities and powers, where he posits spiritual powers being the interiority of a corporation.)
  • All of the above / none of the above / some of the above / not got a clue.

(The last option was the opt out option – always good to have one of those! The varied possible answers I increasingly favour as it seems Scripture does not give a simple answer to many of the questions we ask… and I do see Jesus as teaching but not tying a whole bunch of stuff up. There are probably answers in the book, but maybe the answer to our question might not be what we need.)

I am very happy to cast out demons, and very happy for someone sharper than I to say ‘that is not what really happened’. Well possible… though if a freedom comes and there is some parallel with what Jesus did then I am happy to be wrong. Could the person have found freedom through some sort of counselling / inner work? Probably. But probably not in every situation.

The huge danger of ‘demon casting out of’ is that every situation is a demon, and of course demons can be seen through the eyes of one’s theology – and the damage caused with certain ‘conversion therapy’ practices is anything but aligned to the practice of Jesus.

(And on the multiple choice question I actually, when push comes to shove, land on option #3, in spite of many experiences of ‘demons’ manifesting. I land there tentatively as the interaction of the spiritual realm and the material realm is somewhat complex. I even had in one situation certain occult priests manifest materially inside a locked building – they really should not have been there with the poison they were carrying to put in our food… that was naughty!)

Those undefined ‘demons’ always look for a landing place. Persistent behaviour, hence the instruction to ‘not give the devil a foothold’. Behaviour such as unforgiveness, anger, addictions. As per Jesus’ instruction the need to sort out the door of ‘entry’ is a necessary part of coming to freedom.

A whole complex area, with the verb used maybe indicating a spectrum of coming under the influence of demonic powers. Hence in some situations ‘deliverance’ maybe can come through something other than some form of exorcism, in other situations the freedom accelerated through the deliverance, and probably other situations where freedom will only come through the demon being cast out.

‘My method / teaching is correct’ does not normally cut it. Paul did not say ‘the greatest of these is [my] truth’. Back to how we relate to people… love.

In this vague post let me also touch on ‘sins to be forgiven’. Two thoughts that I am pretty close to thinking is definitely the truth(?)!! Sin is better defined along the lines of failing to act as a human, in other words failing to image God, falling short of the glory of God. Yes involves guilt and also shame, but not the fear of being dangled over hell fire. The judgements of God are over humanity and our corporate falling short – hence ‘all have sinned’ cannot be reduced to you + me + this person + that person… it is we all, as a whole, whether Jew or Gentile have sinned. I am not minimising personal ‘sin’ but I am solidy putting corporate sin on the page – sady witnessed to for all to see / increasingly experience with the crisis our planet and life-styes have produced.

There is though also the personal aspect of sin, and in the context of this post they are to be forgiven. Second thought, we need to see forgiveness as freedom, the same forgiveness word being used of untying a ship to go on her voyage. It is more than a release from guilt (or shame if that is the dominant culture), but the word of forgiveness is to untie and say go – maybe like the woman caught in adultery, the non-condemnatory response of Jesus was freedom for her, but there was also a ‘go’ word in the forgiveness.

Kick out demons, proclaim forgiveness on the foundation of repentance. Yes, but how? My way, your way, the highway, whatever way. The way seems secondary, the means is love and the result is freedom. Oh, and the best of us (even me) are finding freedom bit by bit, it is a process, and in the process we might categorise what needs addressing differently, but I am grateful to Mr. Barr whose four phrases have helped me on my journey.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The big bad devil: deception

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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’.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The big bad devil: temptation

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The big bad devil: accusation

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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.]

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Mount of Olives

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

A text I have read

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Cross – Tom Wright in summary

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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!
SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Time warp

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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!

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Necessary – for us

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

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.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives