Tag: cross

What keeps me up at night?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

I am not a depressive kind of person, and neither do I see myself as a ‘glass half-full person’ but as a ‘it is only half-full, now what do we need to do to get it fuller’. The ‘restoration / New Church movement’ fitted that well – get the church right and the world will change; the ‘sowing seeds or revival’ phase (more on that in a later post) fitted it well for the united church in prayer will see the cities transformed. And now? My aspirations have not changed but we are in serious trouble globally.

I will (I hope) still keep kicking to my last day – and I will post on why Spain for Gayle and me… and what might be the next step at some point in these rambles – but if one really understood what we are facing globally I am not sure one could be as optimistic as I am. (I honour Anne who often comments on my posts who knows more about the state of play than anyone else I know but is still sowing into the future.)

2020 saw a major global scene – COVID. It was meant to call for us to wake up and realise there has to be a global reset. Did we wake up? I see the years running up to 2040 as ever so key. After that? Will there be an after that? Well one day I saw a MAJOR decline in the global population, and for sure we cannot continue for ever on this trajectory.

Global warming. Climate imbalance, the Mediterranean hotter than ever; the oceans more acidic than ever due to the CO2 levels. Migrations due to war, poverty, and famine. The rich ever richer (and economic oppression was aligned in the OT prophets with blood-shed that polluted the land)… Yes I do despair and my last prayers of the day are normally for Gaza (if we can hold the Palestinian situation and not excuse genocide under some Zionist theology we can hope to see a new economic situation arise) and for Ukraine. And did I mention that the whole banking system is sustained through ‘money is debt’ (at a simple level just for a minute work out how much money is in your local bank, how many employees, and then work out how that is sustainable!, then go the global scene and realise how much debt is held by the big economic cultures). The current economic situation is aligned to Moloch – sacrifice the future (the first-born) to get a harvest today; Scripture endorses ‘seedtime and harvest’. Sow now for the future (Bible); not raid (rape) the future for now (Western dominant economic system).

More than enough to depress. If one has a hope for some to come to faith; even if one has the hope that the more to faith the more might happen there is no need for any depression.

So what about donkos like me?

I believe, against all the odds that the cross was the open display of all hostile powers to the kingdom of God and that a new way was opened up. In my life-time – probably not, but when I pass from this life I would like to see the Lord with my eyes open and amidst the wonderful assessment of ‘Martin, all the big things you did were not so big’ that at least I can offer a defence of ‘I did all I did with a passion and a belief and hope of sowing into the future of your world’. Of course it might not help my case!!

I am deeply distressed that on my watch there are those dying in the Mediterranean; that injustices do not seem to be decreasing but increasing. I do wake up at night… but (maybe naively) think we can make a difference. Waking up but not depressed. The cross stood in the first century as a sign to Rome and still stands as a sign to all manifestations of Babylon in our day.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Where did he go?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I have just finished reading Lamb of the Free – the fourth reading of the book and if I had the energy I would need one more reading that included the footnotes, a Bible in one hand and a pen and paper to make extensive notes. That is not going to happen today and I will probably let the material settle for a while. (I highly recommend this book and a challenging read but a major pushback against ‘substitutionary’ view of the atonement.) What was not new for me is the idea that sacrifice is not something done in my place but in order to cleanse… forgiveness of sins does not require blood / death but cleansing – so Heb. 9:22 “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”; Acts 15:9 “in cleansing their hearts by faith [the Gentiles] he has made no distinction between them and us”. Cleansing, purifying being the effect of both the OT sacrifices and that of the death of Jesus. God not requiring the death of Jesus in order to forgive – indeed (from memory) in Acts we always read that ‘you’ put Jesus to death BUT God raised him from the dead. Anyway enough of the book and my smart observations!

Partly provoked by the book and also my own readings it seems clear that Hebrews focuses on areas regarding the work of Jesus from unique angles. So what took place after the death of Jesus – and death is understood as the presentation of life to God, hence the death of Jesus is the presentation of an indestructible, perfect human life to God. Maybe there are two ‘opposite’ answers – he went to ‘hades’ to proclaim freedom to the captives:

He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:18, 19).

Or the very opposite!

Thus it was necessary for the sketches of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves need better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the holy place year after year with blood that is not his own, for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:23-26).

Moses had to make the tabernacle according to the pattern he saw in heaven – and that needed cleansing (sacrifices) so as it would be a meeting point of heaven and earth. Is there a ‘heavenly’ tabernacle? And why would that need cleansing? I think rather than there being a heavenly tabernacle what Moses was to create was a reflection of heaven itself (we read ‘Jesus entered into heaven itself’)… but that still raises the question as to why heaven needs better sacrifices, and needs to be cleansed! Maybe heaven was left polluted after the fall of Lucifer (not likely to get my vote) or perhaps the sin of humanity affected heaven also (OK a tentative vote from me this time).

If I had to choose between the visit to ‘hades’ or to ‘heaven’ I go for the latter – though of course both might be possible.

And on the going to heaven I think probably what we have is the flip side of cleansing of things merely earthly but to include all of creation (‘heaven and earth’ being a merism for the whole creation).The result being that rather than the separation of the two (dualism) that the path is opened through the cross for the reconciliation of all things – things in heaven and things on earth. Jesus’ death is much more than my sins + your sins placed on Jesus (indeed I don’t see that at all!) – it is the defeat of every power that stands in the way of the divine presence manifesting through all things. Thus the death of Jesus is that of the indestructible human life that overcomes all hostile powers (narrowed to ‘sin and death’ and including ‘principalities and powers’) being presented to the Creator God, thus cleansing the Temple (heaven being the throne and earth the footstool) in totality. Jesus the one who ‘tabernacled’ among us risen and ascended to ‘fill all things’ cleanses all things by his blood (and here we have to think life, death, resurrection and ascension) – hence there can be no more need for a tabernacle / temple (ripped curtain).

Now I guess over to us – what aspect do we fill out, not with domination, but with presence?

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Release unto us Cain

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Well they actually asked for Barabbas but there is a strong narratival echo in the story that pushes us back to think about Cain and Abel.

Although I am not one who follows the ‘church’ calendar I am aware that the two festivals of Christmas and Easter come round every year (don’t think I will earn any brownie points for that!). I have posted, in a previous ‘holy week’ about the contrast of Pilate’s entry to Jerusalem with full military show each year and Jesus’ entry on a donkey (thanks to Crossan and Borg). I don’t know if others see the parallel between Jesus and Barabbas and Cain and Abel but I do believe there is a deliberate echoing in the biblical narrative.

In some manuscripts (for Matthew’s Gospel) we have the name ‘Jesus’ added to Barabbas – original or not it seemingly underlies that there are 2 possible ‘Jesus-es’ we can choose to follow, and if we tie it to John 19 Pilate is persuaded that he cannot release Jesus the Messiah and continue to be a friend of Caesar. So here we have yet another time when the Imperial aspect comes through again in the Gospels, and for sure it is there with Pilate describing Jesus as ‘the king of the Jews’ (cynical or otherwise).

Cain and Abel. Two brothers, two sons of the same father. Jesus and Barabbas, two sons of the father (the meaning of Barabbas is son of the father). Do they have the same father? One in submission to the Father, one not dealing with ‘sin that crouches at the door’ and thus being controlled by it (Gen. 4:7).

Abel’s blood crying out for a justice that punishes, God hearing the ‘blood’ but in spite of his own law that there was to be the death penalty for those who murdered he covered Cain; there is no reciprocal penalty. Redemption does not demand payment; redemption is not even as the result of someone else being punished; redemption offers forgiveness for a sin that there is no sacrifice to cover (‘You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.’ (Num. 35:33)) . In the light of our choice Barabbas goes free; in the light of our God Barabbas goes free. The Gospel’s real offence is not in who is excluded but with respect to who is included.

How strong is that prayer for forgiveness for ‘them’ (us) who have no idea what we are doing!

I ponder many times as to the cosmic significance of what unfolded in that first Easter week. I don’t think I will ever get it because I still have a ‘god’ that is too much in my image. Little wonder Paul in summarising ‘sin’ says it is to fall short of the glory of God. Glory is revealed in the cross with a wonderful invitation to enter new life the other side. An invitation that extends to Barabbas, Cain and to Martin. For that I am very grateful for the reminder.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Alienation and reconciliation

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

What words do we use regarding the biblical narrative of ‘fall’ and ‘redemption’. The Western world since the Reformation has focused on sin and used that to essentially describe the problem in a right / wrong framework with humanity on the wrong side thus being condemned for not living obediently up to the standards of heaven. ‘Guilty’ being the resulting judgement. (An unpayable debt being the forerunner to this ‘guilt perspective’, with deliverance or recapitulation predominating the early post-NT writings. Shame being another lens mainly contributed from an eastern perspective.)

I am convinced that we have to find a different set of lenses than guilt which will bring about re-definitions to how the Reformation taught us to see. God is relational, and the problem is how to bring about a relational restoration. Not only do we need redefinition of the various ‘sin’ words (sin, trespass, iniquity) but also to such terms as ‘forgiveness’ and certainly a deeper understanding as to how forgiveness comes about.

There is a very hard view of the cross which in simple terms has an angry God and a Jesus who is willing to be punished in our place, so that the wrath of God is satisfied. A softer presentation is along the lines of (illustration) we have visited a home and broken a vase and as a result someone will have to pay to replace the vase (this softer version being as much aligned with the pre-Reformation debt as it is with the guilt model). Thankfully that is a softer approach but misses it with the illustration – it is not a broken vase, or even a broken commandment that is the heart of the issue, it is a broken relationship. This is why forgiveness is so key, not forgiveness on the basis of payment, though all forgiveness proves costly.

We do need to bring redefinition to certain words when they are applied to God. We can make the error of transferring human / fallen emotion on to God. Wrath / anger – if we see this through human emotion what picture of God do we end up with? likewise when we read that God is a jealous God we tend to project emotions from a broken romantic relationship; and I also propose that we have to go a little deeper with the word ‘forgiveness’. When I am wronged I might have to process what took place, and then go through various feelings to eventually get to the place of forgiveness. Imagine if that was the process with God… eventual forgiveness but the carrying of billions of wounds, suspicions and a resultant reticence to commit again, with a great level of self-protectionism!!! We cannot, as Barth said, say ‘man’ (sic) with a loud voice and imagine we are saying ‘God’. Neither can we project human experiences of emotion on to God and imagine that we are reflecting the emotional experiences of God.

The word aphesis / forgiveness has at the roots that of releasing so the untying of a boat to sail to its destiny was an aphesis. God’s forgiveness is right at the forefront, not as a result of working through a process, but right at the forefront is the releasing of whoever to their destiny. Forgiveness is not that of overcoming a sense of being wronged but of desiring freedom for one and all and actioning that desire.

Back to the relational aspect of all things and to the relational aspect therefore of the cross: we have to understand this is not about payment for something broken, but an act to bring about the restoration of relationship, as Paul puts it ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’.

What beautiful words… the world, reconciliation, and to bring about a relational connetion. And as we follow it through we realise there must also be an annuling of wrong relatoinsips to the powers that have dominated, powers that are summed up with the two words ‘sin’ and ‘death’, with all the sub-categories of principalities and powers.

Reconciliation:

  • to God
  • to others
  • to self
  • and to creation.

(Adrian Lowe put me in touch with a video of Iain McGilchrist who approaches these dimensions from the view of a psychiatrist; a not short interview but full of insights:

Every aspect of those four relational areas in the early chapters of Genesis were broken as an account of the various ‘falls’ are outlined. The God /human might be at the forefront, but the creational rift is very evident (‘cursed because of you’) and the othering of even close familial relationships with blame shifting (Adam / Eve) and and murder (Cain / Abel) are seeds that inevitably lead to inter-tribal division.

Reconciliation is a process, for salvation is a process (and this is perhaps why ‘healing’ is a good synonym to use for salvation). And if a process perhaps salvation is more on a spectrum than ‘in/out’ language suggests.

Mending what is broken is God’s work and the invitation to participate in that work is still open.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

The cross changes what?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Personal Perspectives

A certain UK pastor was slammed a few years back for claiming that if one explained the cross to an ordinary run of the mill person as ‘God punished his Son so that he might not punish you (if you believe)’ the response would be that one has just described ‘cosmic child abuse’. There are nuances on the above presentation but something akin to that is standard for many evangelicals. Sin, guilt, justice, wrath, hell one side of the equation… Jesus in the middle being punished in our place… we can cross over.

What does the cross change? It certainly does not change God, it does not move God from wrathful to forgiving. In simple terms God does not need the cross in order to forgive us. ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’, Paul wrote. The cross does change us, but not in the simple way of being an example that we ‘see’ and then are moved by that love – the so-named moral-influence theory. It does that but that is not to touch the core. It certainly changes our subservience to the powers, the devil, sin as a power and death. Outpoured love sucks up all that is wrong, all rebellion, all domination. The cross – expressed as ‘Christus Victor’ – seems to centre there; but not one power proving to be bigger than the other (God is bigger than Satan) but as love conquers all.

God is love. Love is not simply an attribute of God but God is love. True love, love that gives, that flows for the other. The Trinity is love, a flow of love for the other; hence a hierarchical approach to the Trinity does not work. Love is eternal… Genesis 3 might be myth, but so deeply true – sin is not eternal (and even if we posit a pre-Satanic fall we still come to the same conclusion that sin is not eternal). It has a beginning and an end, sin is temporal. Although ‘battle’ as we understand is focused on ‘power and strength’ the key to overcoming in any situation is not to give up. Love does not ‘give up’, love is eternal, and the powers whether they be personal (Satan and demons) or personified (sin and death) are exhausted, nullified in the face of the cross.

The cross is the expression of the eternal nature of God within creation. That which had no beginning is expressed with a beginning – the Word became flesh; that through which (whom) all creation came became part of the creation. God becomes human. The cross is not a temporary fall of God from the place of power, but the temporal manifestation of the eternal God of love – hence ‘slain before the foundation of the world’.

The cross changes creation. The temporary sickness / poison within creation is drawn out to that event in Jerusalem some 2000 years ago. The after-results are still taking place. Maybe we see those after-results clearly when someone finds faith, but so much more than ‘Jesus died for me on the cross’ occurred at the cross. Every healing is a sign, every deliverance a pointer… and as we move beyond a greater Power over power to the presence of love, one wonders what can happen. I am all for confrontation and have enough bruises to illustrate that approach… but if I (and a few others (ekklesia)) could align with the eternal nature of the cross the inevitable response would be a manifestation of resurrection.

There is a before and an after with the cross. Forgiveness of sins is part of the before (after all God even covered the sins of the first murderer, not demanding justice or compliance to ‘the law’) in the sense of forgiveness for what someone had done that was wrong. There is an after to the cross… an empty tomb, death conquered.

The cross changed creation. By faith I was told one received the forgiveness of sins… maybe by faith I need to see the boundless possibilities of the cross, possibilities that one day will be a reality. I see a new heaven and a new earth.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

What a day!

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Good Friday… what a day to remember. I put up a post yesterday with a perspective on what is taking place on the cross; what the issue that the cross is to respond to. I used the three headings of ‘for God?’, ‘for us?’ or ‘to deal with the bondage to the powers?’. Not surprisingly I move away from ‘for God’ in that sense of turning God toward us. That never has been an issue: God is and always has been for us… we are certainly not ‘saved from God’; the cross saves us and reveals God as Saviour, and not simply Jesus as Saviour. Redemption is the united work of the Trinitarian God for us.

I read a short review yesterday saying that anyone who calls the penal substitutionary view of the atonement as ‘cosmic child abuse’ (I think that term was coined by Steve Chalke) should also then term the virginal conception as a case of ‘cosmic rape’. Really????

The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God…’ (Luke 1:35).

Sex by the gods is a pagan concept – as is appeasement / placating the gods / getting on their good side. The comparison used in the review I do not think comes close to being suitable. The Spirit’s presence is as a divine womb, a divine carrier for the one being carried within the womb of Mary. ‘The Spirit will come upon [Mary]’ is surely parallel to that of the Spirit coming on the disciples at Pentecost, or the Spirit brooding over the waters at creation. God – not defined gender-wise – is described far more as a mother in partnership with the human mother, Mary, in this text.

We cannot, for example, say that ruach (breath, wind, spirit) is feminine and ‘womb’ (rechem: vowels come later in Hebrew so same basic word structure) therefore God in this instance is ‘mother’… but we can see the nurturing element of God. In creation the Spirit is working and draws from the earth the human (Adam, Adamah – from the earth). The transcendent God embracing the immanence of creation to bring forth humanity; the transcendent God entering a room with a sound from heaven and covering those gathered so that something might arise among them, that which will be termed ekklesia.

In all three situations we do not have an image of anything approaching a god who forces entry on creation, Mary nor the disciples in that upper room.

‘Cosmic child abuse’ might be somewhat offensive, but it at least forces a reconsideration of what is being said (‘saved from God?’ or from ‘the wrath of God?’)… but to push back with ‘cosmic rape’ I consider is not appropriate.

Today we remember that we are saved from our sins, that we put Jesus to death; that we can be free from the powers of this age. What a GOOD day.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Why the cross?

For God? For us? 'For' the powers?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I am not one who is familiar with the ‘church calendar’, but do note when it is Easter, Pentecost, Christmas – the big ones. And here we are at Easter. With Noel Richards, I was on an ‘Off grid Christianity’ podcast that is due out this coming weekend. It was focused on Easter and the ‘why did Jesus die on the cross?’ question of course came up. Martin Purnell (interviewer) afterwards said he was anticipating that we would go down the ‘to fulfil Scripture’ route whereas I went down the path of by the Romans as they were nervous of him and he was handed over by the Jews. Crucified as a non-violent resister (if he had been in the camp of violent rebel his followers would also have been crucified) to bring to an end the whole Jesus-movement. That is a take on the human side of things that fits the history, the shock being that the movement did not only continue but grew and affected / infected city after city of that one-world government. [The human element is clear in the NT records; the Jewish high priest stating that it was Jesus or a threat to the Temple / the nation’s freedoms by the Romans – hence sacrifice Jesus for the nation – a whole theme that deserves more than a blog; and the consistent theme in Acts that ‘you put to death the author of life’ – God did not kill Jesus.]

[An important aside: did God need the cross in order to forgive – treading on toes here and this one needs much more than a blog… but for now just a teasing aside.]

Coming back to a more central issue: who was the cross for? There are three main aspects under which a view of the atonement can be placed. For God: either to deal with the ‘wrath’ of God or the ‘righteousness of God’. Here lines up the quoting of ‘My God, my God why have you forsaken me?’ Scriptures… The cross though does not change God – and to get a bigger picture we need to read on in Psalm 22 to see that Jesus was not abandonned, that God did not turn his face from Jesus on the cross. I find it very hard to align such views with what I read in Scripture. In my YWAM days I was heavily influenced by a view presented that a dutch lawyer and theologian seemed to initiate that of ‘moral government’ (Hugo Grotius being the Dutchman, and the theology developed by Charles Finney). It was a move forward from the straight penal substitionary view, suggesting that the cross was the upholding of the law, so that both the law and forgiveness could be in place. A move forward… but not enough. The cross is not for God… God did not need to be reconciled!

that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19).

The Trinity is not separated (as if this could happen!) through the cross. The cross is a Trinitarian response.

The cross is for us. Here we see such views as ‘moral influence’. The love of God changes us. There certainly is that element present, and this would be much more widespread in the aspects of theology influenced by the Eastern strands of our faith. And from that strand we also get the concept that ‘What Jesus did not assume he did not redeem’ – hence he took on humanity’s situation and walked another path… he finally goes to death – and overcomes. So the cross is not payment to God (payment – that concept is owed to Anselm of Canterbury some 1000 years ago, and moves to the law courts with God as the judge waiting for payment some 500 years ago) but is about opening a new way for us. Hence the cross has to be tied to the resurrection. No resurrection, nothing achieved at the cross. For us? For sure. We are the ones who need to be reconciled to God.

The cross is to deal with the powers (couldn’t simply write ‘for the powers’). Having recently read again Galatians I think this is very central to Paul:

who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age (Gal. 1:4)

And a few verses earlier – the first verse in that book – we have the reference to the resurrection. As the book continues Paul starts to write about the stoicheia, the principles / spirits that shape human life and society. He calls them weak and then with an amazing approach he basically says that what the demonic powers were to the Gentiles the law was to the Jews! It is not possible to get from the history of Israel through to Jesus and beyond to come up with that viewpoint… but it is possible and essential to come to that viewpoint if we start with the future back through the cross to Israel! [Hence we read the Scriptures narratively, historically and eschatologically.]

The cross is to deal with the powers – if they are not shifted there is no deliverance… hence the use of the term ‘redemption’ in the Gospels, being ‘redeemed from the powers’ – all referring to the Exodus where there was no payment for the release. NO PAYMENT. The cross is to set us free from this present evil age – an age when the powers rule; if set free then there is a ‘new age’ within which we live, or as Paul puts ‘new creation’.

The cross – with not just Jesus coming out of the grave but others who were ‘saints’ rising (Matthew records this). Something took place totally out of time sequence, indicating a shift, a major shift, in the tectonic time plates. The future had arrived; the powers stripped and exposed, with the pathway opened for all who wish to walk into freedom.

Jesus death did indeed open the way for the nation to be ‘saved’ (Caiaphas carefully considered words, that John says was a prophecy!). And opened the way for freedom to those beyond the nation.

The cross – not to change God. After all God was ‘in’ the cross. The cross, the result of human sin – literally, we sacrifice Jesus for us; sacrificing true humanity for fallen humanity – our choice; the choice of Barrabas (son of the father) to go free; God embraces our sin, embracing the choice we make to create a door to our freedom. The powers cannot hold their grip in the light of such a ‘God choice’. Love, eternal, self-giving love looses all such holds. Death and resurrection. The cross is for us.

Of course all the above can be reduced to technicalities. But if we see, if we ponder, freedom comes. At the end all the men disappear. The women remain. And one disciple – perhaps the one who had ‘special needs’, who is not looking to ‘understand’ what he witnesses but to ‘see / feel’ it. That is the path to freedom.

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

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