The Cross and the Kingdom (7)

Why did Jesus have to die?

Was there no other way for God to save mankind?

The death of Christ is often explained either as a debt being paid - that is, His death paid the price of our sin - or as one innocent person dying in the place of other guilty people who have been condemned to die (that is, as a substitute). These are two different metaphors, but they often get confused and used together in explaining the 'atonement', or how Christ's death brings about our salvation. It's one thing to speak about a 'debt' being forgiven, but to then mix this up with a capital punishment for a criminal offense would be to confuse the metaphors.

If we stick to the language of debts being paid then Jesus must have paid the debt to someone - if indeed He paid a debt. This is quite different from someone dying as a substitute in place of another for a crime.

Paul used a variety of metaphors from the marketplace, the slave trade, the law courts and the Temple, because no one analogy is adequate or complete in itself. No one metaphor was adequate for him, and no metaphor should be pushed too far.

However, Jesus himself never spoke of His death as an 'atonement'. The Gospels record only one brief saying which possibly alludes to His death in atonement-theology terms - the 'ransom saying' of Mark 10:45 (parallel Matt 20:28), which may, or may not, be a reference to His death (to give ones life in service does not necessarily mean to die). Jesus' references during the last supper to His blood being shed to seal the new covenant are the language of covenants, not atonement. So it's actually doubtful whether Jesus ever referred to His own death as an atonement.

On the other hand, Jesus spoke frequently of God's forgiveness, His abundant generosity, and His graciousness. There is nothing in any of His parables, stories or sayings which suggests that a price of any kind had to be paid to secure God's forgiveness. The stories which refer to debts being forgiven all emphasise the undeserved kindness shown by the one forgiving the debt. If any debt was owed by Adam or his descendants because of his sin or theirs, then the debt was owed to God. If Jesus death was to pay a debt then the debt must have been paid to God, and that would put God in the position of demanding the death of His own Son in order to satisfy a debt to Himself. The other alternative would be Anselm's satisfaction theory which had the debt being paid to the devil, which I personally think is absurd.

If Jesus suffered the penalty for the crimes committed by others, then He suffered the punishment for sins which was due. There is no need for forgiveness then, because the sentence has been carried out. We are free, not because we have been forgiven, but because someone else took our place.

As I see it, the only way we can understand forgiveness is to see it as a gracious act of God in NOT demanding payment or punishment for our sins. If we use the metaphor of a debt, then the debt is paid and is not forgiven. If we use the language of capital punishment then the sentence has been carried out and the guilty party has a substitute who dies in their place, but the crime is not forgiven. Neither of these analogies explains what actually happened: God chose to forgive our sins even though there was absolutely nothing we could do to merit or deserve His forgiveness, and even though it would be impossible for us to find a substitute who could suffer the punishment which our sins deserved.

As I see it, Jesus' death was a demonstration of how far God's love would go in order to save us, not what God demands in order to be satisfied. Several Scriptures point us in this direction:

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Galatians 2:20
The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Ephesians 5:2
Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

1 John 3:16
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.

1 John 4:9
This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

1 John 4:10
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

John 13:1
Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.

The death of Christ is primarily a demonstration of the love of God. It was not an act to appease an offended deity. It was not a mechanistic or legalistic sacrifice to satisfy the requirements of any religious law. It was not a demonstration of what "the flesh" deserved. It was an act of love. As the shaliach, the agent or emissary of God, Jesus was demonstrating in His own life and death the love of God, effectively doing what God could not do himself.

William Barclay puts it very beautifully in The Plain Man Looks at the Apostles' Creed:
"But why the death of Christ? If Jesus had stopped before the cross, it would have meant that there was some point beyond which the love of God would not go, some limit to his love. But in Jesus [i.e. through His agent - my comment] God says: 'You may disobey me; you may grieve me; you may be disloyal to me; you may misunderstand me; you may batter me and bruise me and scourge me; you may treat me with savage injustice; you may kill me on a cross; I will never stop loving you.' This means that the life and death of Jesus are the demonstration and the proof of the limitless, the undefeatable, unchangeable, unalterable, infinite love of God." (My emphasis).

This is the most beautiful summary I have ever read of the motivation beyond the cross.

The Cross and the Kingdom (6)

THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST (1)

It’s actually surprising how little the NT says about the death of Christ in a sacrificial sense. In fact, almost all the references to the sacrifice of Christ are in Hebrews, in a very specific context related to the tabernacle and the Day of Atonement. Paul rarely uses sacrificial language, and when he does it could just as well be in reference to sacrifices in his own life (as in “I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith” Phil 2:17; cf 2 Tim 4:6 ) or to sacrifices made by fellow-believers (“I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God.” Phil 4:18)

In fact, apart from Hebrews (which I will come to) there are only a handful of places where the NT refers to Christ's death as a sacrifice:

Romans 3:25
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

Ephesians 5:2
Live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

The Ephesians 5:2 text is remarkable in that Paul uses precisely the same language to describe charitable gifts made by Christians (Phil 4:8). He obviously is not thinking of it in terms of an atonement which could take away sin. So that leaves only Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2; 4:10 where Christ's death is referred to as "an atoning sacrifice" (and I will come back to look at them in detail later).

In addition to these texts there are a few more which speak of the blood of Christ (ignoring the Hebrews texts for now):

Ephesians 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace

1 Peter 1:2
To God's elect ... who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood.

1 Peter 1:18-19
For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

We can see from this that the emphasis of the NT is NOT on the death of Christ as any form of vicarious sacrifice, i.e. Jesus did not die in our place, or as a substitute, or in any way to suffer a penalty for our sins. He did, however, die FOR us, but what does that mean? If I say I will do something for you I may mean I will do it instead of you (e.g. you don’t have to do that – I’ll do it for you), but equally I could mean I will do it to benefit you (e.g. let me do that for you).

The language of sacrifice in Hebrews is interesting. The context is clearly the Day of Atonement so any reference to a sacrifice has to be in that context. Heb 9:22 says “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” There are two statements there which, if meant in a general way, would simply be untrue. First, not “everything” was cleansed by blood. Some things were cleansed by water (hence baptism, hand-washing, mikvahs, etc). Second, forgiveness was possible without the shedding of blood. However, in the context it’s clear that the writer meant that “everything” in the tabernacle was cleansed by blood (the furniture etc), and that on the Day of Atonement there was no forgiveness without shedding of blood (although there was at other times). So the context makes these statements quite specific – otherwise they would simply be untrue.

On the Day of Atonement the High Priest went into the Most Holy Place, and I believe that’s what is behind the argument in Hebrews . It was about one man going into the Holiest place for the benefit of all.

The NT writers (especially Hebrews) are telling us that Jesus’ death was the means by which He could be exalted and enter “the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation” (9:11). His death was “necessary” in order to pass from “this creation” and enter heaven: “For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence” (9:22).

His death wasn’t “necessary” in order for God to forgive us, because God can (and does) forgive without sacrifice or shedding of blood. It wasn’t “necessary” to take away our sin. It wasn’t “necessary” as a penalty or as a vicarious sacrifice. It was actually not possible under the Law to die for the sins of another person - to pay the penalty for their sins. This is spelled out clearly and thoroughly in Ezekiel 18 where God says “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.” On this basis the doctrine that we are somehow punished for the sin of Adam is clearly wrong. "The son will not share the guilt of the father". We do not share Adam's guilt! "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die" (v. 21). Here the basis of forgiveness and freedom from guilt is repentance not sacrifice.

Jesus therefore could not have died "in our place" or to pay the penalty for our sins. He could not have died to remove the guilt of Adam's sin. Only Adam could die for Adam's sin. "The soul who sins is the one who will die."

However, Jesus death was “necessary” in order to be exalted, to sit at God’s right hand and to enter heaven as our High Priest. Christ died for us, i.e. to benefit us, but didn’t die in our place. As a result of His exaltation we now have the outpouring of the Spirit. Ephesians 4:7-8 makes this clear: “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men". John 7:39 says something similar: “By this he meant the Spirit, which those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.” In other words, without Jesus' ascension and exaltation there could be no outpouring of the Spirit. Without His exaltation we would have no intercessor at God’s right hand, to whom all authority in heaven and earth has been given. There are many “benefits” coming to us as a result of His exaltation.

It seems to me there was nothing “mechanical” or “legalistic” about the death of Christ. It wasn’t “required” or “demanded” or made “necessary” by any law of God’s own making.

In a subsequent message (number 8 in this series)I will take a look at the handful of references in the NT to Christ taking away sins, and come back to the texts about Christ being "an atoning sacrifice".

The Cross and the Kingdom (5)

THE CRUCIFIXION

Jesus was crucified on a charge of sedition (Luke 23:2; Matt 27:11, 29, 37; John 19:12, 14). It was a political execution.

He was crucified alongside others sentenced for political crimes (“malefactors” or “robbers” interprets a word which refers to insurgents, not thieves). Earlier Jesus quoted Isaiah 53:12 “It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment" (Lk 22:37).

On the way to His crucifixion Jesus made a rather strange statement which is best understood as a riddle. (A riddle is a saying whose meaning is not obviously known. It requires pondering and the answer may become apparent only after it is explained or some related event reveals its meaning in the meantime. A famous Biblical example is Samson's riddle in Judges 14:12ff).

"A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' Then they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!" and to the hills, "Cover us!" For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?" (Lk 23:27-31).

This riddle about the green and dry tree is pointing us towards the events that would fall on Jerusalem within a generation. Josephus records how that so many people were crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem during the siege of AD 70 that the Romans had to cut down every tree to make crosses and the surrounding countryside was stripped bare of timber. Jesus told this riddle in the context of His prediction that a terrible time was coming. In this riddle He is effectively saying "If they treat an innocent man like this without provocation, imagine what they will do when they are provoked or given a reason". In this riddle Jesus was saying that He was a kind of forerunner of what was to come. As the green tree He was the first (or out-of-its-time) tree to be cut down. When the tree is dry or dead ("the time will come") it will be treated even more severely. So Jesus is saying that His death by crucifixion was just the first of many, and he was therefore identifying Himself with the fate of His people.

The crucifixion of Jesus was a political execution which foreshadowed the terrible things which would be inflicted on the people of God in the near future. His death was representative of God's people Israel, and He identified Himself with them.

This is clearly the meaning and emphasis which is attached to the crucifixion by the writers of the Gospels and Acts. Jesus Himself predicted that He would be "delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified" (Luke 24:7). Peter said it was "wicked men" who put him to death by nailing him to the cross (Acts 2:23). Paul said it was "the rulers of this age" who crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8). The consistent message is that the first Christians believed that the crucifixion of Jesus was a political murder. It was the unjust act of wicked sinful men. There was nothing in this message about God requiring or demanding a human sacrifice as necessary for the salvation of mankind, although that meaning may have been attached to the crucifixion later.

The canonical Gospels record seven sayings of Jesus while He was dying on the cross*. If Jesus' death was primarily an atonement for the sins of God's people this might have been the ideal time to say so. Instead the only thing in these seven sayings about the Gospel is Jesus' conversation with one of the criminals crucified with Him. The criminal asked a favour: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" , to which Jesus replied "I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:42-43). This political insurgent was being crucified probably because some act of insurgency had been thwarted or a plot had been uncovered or he was condemned because of his political associations. Whatever his involvement had been in overthrowing the Romans he had clearly failed. Beside him is a man who has also appeared to fail. Crucified on the charge of being "king of the Jews" - effectively a charge of treason - it would appear that Jesus too had failed. There could be no Kingdom with the King dead. Yet from this remark recorded by Luke we realise that this condemned political activist understood more about Jesus' message than did many of His disciples. He realised that Jesus was yet to come into His Kingdom, and that Jesus would have to be rescued from the cross or resurrected in order to do so. He knew that all was not over for Jesus.

In Jesus reply the emphasis should be on the word "today". The insurgent had asked "remember me when ..." and Jesus replied "I say to you today ..." He was telling this dying man that his future in the coming kingdom was assured and that he could die with this assurance. What a blessing it must have been to have died with no uncertainty about his future!

This conversation on the cross reminds us that to the very last Jesus' message was about the Kingdom. Isaiah 53 is frequently quoted by Christians to show how the death of Jesus as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind was predicted by the prophet. Strangely though, when Jesus quotes from Isaiah 53:12 Himself (in Lk 22:37) it is to say that He will be "numbered with the transgressors". (Some manuscripts also insert at Mark 15:27 "They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left, 28 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones"). Even when Peter quotes Isaiah 53 later it was to encourage his readers to follow in Jesus' steps: "Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 'He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth' [from Isa 53:9]. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats" (1 Peter 2:21-23). Although Isaiah 53 seems to be the ideal prophecy to quote with respect to the crucifixion the NT writers, and Jesus Himself, quote it only with reference to His keeping company (or being crucified) with transgressors, and to His non-retaliation. It seems that the first Christians did not think of Isaiah 53 in the way later Christians do, as a prophecy of Jesus suffering as an atonement for the sins of the world, or at least if they did then they didn't quote it in the NT with this meaning. The Gospel accounts of the crucifixion would have been the ideal place to quote Isaiah 53, yet the Gospel writers don't take this opportunity and are silent.

The emphasis of the Gospels is that Jesus was falsely accused and executed as a political activist on a charge of treason because of His preaching a message about the Kingdom. To the very end He was identified with a coming Kingdom, and His final conversation reflected this. His immediate followers spoke of his unjust murder at the hands of wicked men. It seems that the emphasis for the first Christians was on Jesus' resurrection and exaltation as the most significant events in our salvation, rather than his death.


* The traditional order of the sayings is:

1. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34)
   
2. Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43)
3. Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (John 19:26-27)
4. Eli Eli lama sabachthani? ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46 // Mark 15:34)
   
5. I thirst (John 19:28)
6. It is finished (John 19:30)
7. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46)

Picture is Crucifixion of Christ, by Diego Velázquez 1632 (in the public domain).

The Cross and the Kingdom (4)

THE DEATH OF JESUS IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

We might reasonably expect that the first recorded preaching done by the immediate disciples of Jesus would contain the 'core' of the Gospel message. The Acts of the Apostles would therefore be a good source for determining what the first Christians believed and taught.

It's surprising then to discover that Acts says almost nothing about the death of Christ. There are, in fact, only two references in Acts to Jesus' death:

Acts 2:36
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Acts 4:10
"Then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed."

The apostles' preaching in Acts puts a greater emphasis on the exaltation of Jesus than it does on the “sacrificial death” of Jesus. Matthew’s Gospel ends with Jesus saying that “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (28:18) and we discover in Acts that the apostolic kerygma* focused more on this exaltation of Jesus than it did on His death. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be any hint at all of an atonement or sacrificial death in Acts, with the possible exception of Acts 20:28 which I discuss below. The primary message is exaltation. For example in Acts 2:36 Peter says: “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." The crucifixion is mentioned almost only in passing – the message here is exaltation, not atonement.

The only mention of "the blood of Christ" with any theological significance is in Acts 20:28 where some translations suggest it is the blood of God with which the church was bought. For example, the NIV has "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood". Although some manuscripts have "church of the Lord" and some later ones have conflated this into "of God and the Lord" the evidence tends towards "of God" as the most reliable reading. However, the Nestle-Aland Greek text proposes the reading "the blood of his own" (rather than "his own blood") and a note in the NIV Study Bible adopts this reading saying this is "a term of endearment ... referring to His own Son".

This is therefore one of the only explicit statements in the earliest apostolic teachings which refers to the atoning nature of Christ’s death and it is made almost in passing without any explanation or emphasis. The church was "bought" or "obtained" or "acquired" by the blood of the Son but we get no explanation of what that means.

On the other hand, what we do get in Acts is a consistent and repeated emphasis on the exaltation of Jesus (e.g. 2:33, 36; 5:31), and this carries over into the NT letters (which I will come to later). In Acts much is made of Jesus' authority. Baptism, preaching and healing are done "in the name of Jesus" (the expression occurs twelve times in Acts, and only twice thereafter), perhaps building on the claim in 2:21 that "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved". In Acts there is "power" in the "name of Jesus". Jesus' Lordship is emphasised: for example, "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (2:36) and "Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all" (10:36). The expression "the Lord Jesus" occurs more often in Acts than in any other book.

Acts 4:33 provides a cameo of the apostolic kerygma: "With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all." This stands in stark contrast with those evangelists and preachers who insist that the core of the Gospel is the death of Christ as a sacrificial, atoning or substitutionary act on behalf of those He came to save. However, instead of saying "Jesus died for you" (as we might expect) the apostles clearly and consistently taught "Jesus was resurrected" and "for you" may be implicit but is not explicitly stated until we get to the later NT writings. The words "resurrection" and "raised from the dead" occur more often in Acts than in any other NT book, with the exception of the treatise on resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15.

So while we might expect the apostles to have taught that Christ died for us, that His death was necessary to enable us to be forgiven, or that our salvation is assured because of His supreme act of sacrifice, we actually find none of this in Acts. What we do find is that they taught that Jesus was raised from the dead and exalted to the highest position, at the right hand of God, and that as a result of His exaltation power has been given to those He has called. Jesus is acknowledged as the "Lord of all" and there is power in His name. If we were to look for one word to describe the effects of Jesus' death and resurrection it would be "power" or "authority" rather than "atonement", "forgiveness" or "salvation".


*kerygma is the Greek word used in the NT for "preaching" and is the technical theological term generally used to describe what Jesus or the apostles publically preached rather than what they may have believed or taught privately.

The Cross and the Kingdom (3)

THE DEATH OF JESUS IN JOHN'S GOSPEL

John's Gospel appears to have more to say about the theological significance of Jesus' death than the Synoptic Gospels. Apart from the record of the actual crucifixion the following list is of all the possible references in John to Jesus' death.

a. The Lamb of God sayings

John 1:29
John [the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

John 1:36
When he [John] saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"

Lambs were sacrificed daily as burnt offerings “to make atonement” (Lev 1:4). Lambs were also slain at Passover although the Passover lamb is never said to make atonement. John almost certainly was therefore not thinking of Jesus as a "Passover lamb".

John is more likely to have Isa 53:7 in mind (“he was led like a lamb to the slaughter”) as the lamb here is used metaphorically of the suffering servant who “will bear [the] iniquities” of many (v. 11).

Another possibility is that this is an allusion to the ram which was sacrificed in place of Isaac (Gen 22:8).

John says this lamb “takes away the sin of the world”. 1 John 3:5 uses a similar expression: “he appeared so that he might take away our sins”. To “take away sin” can mean either:

(a) to remove it by making atonement for it, or
(b) bearing the penalty attached to the sin, or
(c) to abolish sin.

I will come back to these possibilities later.

b. The “lay down his life” sayings

John recorded a number of sayings where Jesus is said to "lay down his life" for others. I think the following list covers them all.

John 10:11, 15, 17-18 “the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep”.

John 15:13 “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (but cp. v. 12 “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you” which shows that this saying is intended for the disciples and not necessarily referring to Jesus’ death as an atonement.)

The use of the same expression in 1 John 3:16 provides an insight into its meaning. “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” The next verse offers an example of how we “lay down our lives for our brothers”. “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” If John is here suggesting that by meeting our brothers’ material needs we are “laying down our lives” for them, then there is no implication of sacrificial death in these words. (See also John 13:37, 38 where Peter offers to lay down his life.)

The Greek word tithemi occurs 96 times in the NT. It is translated: lay (up, aside, or down, or as ‘lay a foundation’), appoint, put, set, ordain, commit, advise, purpose, settle. It doesn’t necessarily mean “to die” and its use elsewhere seems to be against this. It seems almost certain from the way this word is used elsewhere that Jesus is saying that He "laid aside" His life in the sense that His life was fully devoted to the needs of others and He laid aside all self-interest. He was referring to His life of service, not to His death.

c. The “lifted up” (hypsoo) sayings

John recorded several sayings where Jesus referred to being "lifted up" and this is often understood to be a reference to His being "lifted up" on the cross.

However, either crucifixion or exaltation (or both) may be implied by hypsoo.

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.

John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

John 12:32 - 34 But I, when I am lifted up from [ek = out of] the earth, will draw all men to myself." He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this 'Son of Man'?"

As this last text suggests that Jesus being "lifted up" related to his death we need to take a closer look at it. First we should note that Jesus used the Greek word ek, meaning out of when he said He would be lifted up out of the earth. It seems most likely that Jesus is here referring to His exaltation and His ascension "out of" the earth and into heaven.

However, it seems certain from John's editorial comment that "He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die" that Jesus had crucifixion in mind rather than exaltation. We should note however that the Greek word translated "he said this" in verse 33 is lego and refers to a systematic discourse. In other words John is actually saying ‘Jesus said all this …’ referring to the preceding discourse, not just the few preceding words. The preceding discourse was about Jesus being "glorified", during which He said "the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." In other words, Jesus is saying that His death would be necessary in order for His exaltation or glorification and to produce "many seeds". It follows therefore that when He referred to all men being "drawn" to Himself that He was referring back to the "many seeds" that would be produced as a result of His glorification.

It's possible that this text is referring to Jesus being "lifted up" in crucifixion, but it's equally possible (and in my opinion actually more likely) that He was referring to His exaltation and glorification after His death.

The Cross and the Kingdom (2)

THE DEATH OF JESUS IN THE SYNOPTICS

a. Jesus’ predictions of His death

There are three major explicit predictions by Jesus of His death and resurrection:

1. Following Peter’s confession (Matt 16: 13-23 // Mk 8:31 // Lk 9:18-22)

2. Following the transfiguration (Matt 17:22-23 // Mk 9:31 // Lk 9:44)

3. Following the conversation with the rich young man (Matt 20:17-19 // Mk 10:32-34 // Lk 18:31-33. Only Matthew’s account specifically mentioned crucifixion as the means of death).

In addition to these incidents Jesus explicitly predicted His crucifixion just prior to His anointing at Bethany (Matt 26:1-5). While the anointing is recorded by Matthew, Mark and John only Matthew records the crucifixion saying.

None of these predictions of His death give a reason for it in terms of atonement or salvation. Jesus simply declared that he will be betrayed and killed, without stating a reason for it or attaching any theological significance to it. He did not attempt to explain why he "had to die".

b. The parable of the tenants

All three synoptics record this parable about a landowner and his tenants (Matt 21:33-46 // Mark 12:1-12 // Luke 20:9-19 ) . The landowner sends various servants to collect his share of the harvest, and each in turn are beaten or killed. Finally he sends his son, expecting the tenants to respect his son. All three accounts say: “they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance’” and “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard this parable, they knew he was talking about them”.

One significant aspect of this story is that the son represents the landowner as his agent. According to the well-known Jewish principle of agency (shaliach) by rejecting the son they were in effect rejecting the father. This is spelled out in Luke 10:16 “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." Jesus is the shaliach, the agent or emissary of God, but not God Himself, although He acts with the full authority of God. Jesus was no doubt suggesting by this parable that His impending death would be a direct assault on God's agent and, by implication, an attack on God Himself. However, besides this implication that Jesus was God's agent and that the religious leaders of His day were in direct opposition to God, Jesus attaches no other significance to the death of the son. There is no hint here that it was necessary as an atonement or "for the sins" of anyone. The son in the parable was the victim of a murder. There is no other implied connection to "sin".

c. The ransom saying

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (Gk. lytron) for many”. (Matt 20:28 // Mark 10:45 )

The only other occurrence of “ransom” in the New Testament is 1 Tim 2:6 (antilytron) and there is insufficient information in either text to determine exactly what was meant by "ransom". The word can denote the price paid to free slaves while the related verb lytroo can mean deliverance in a general way without implying anything about payment. While the “ransom saying” may be saying that deliverance of many was accomplished at great cost, this saying does not specify to whom the ransom is paid. In fact, in the absence of anything to say the ransom was paid to someone we should conclude that the saying simply means that deliverance comes at a great cost, without drawing the conclusion that something was paid to someone.

This saying may, or may not, be a reference to His death - to give ones life in service does not necessarily mean to die. We often speak of someone giving their life to a cause or mision, without necessarily implying they have died - we mean that their life has been devoted to the cause. So in the 'ransom saying' Jesus could easily be saying that His life was devoted to being a liberator or redeemer. In fact, by saying that He came "to serve" almost rules out death. One cannot serve if they are dead. You can, however, devote your life to service and the context almost demands that this is the intended meaning.

d. Other sayings

There are several sayings and metaphors which imply suffering and rejection and resurrection, including:

The Temple saying
“Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”
John 2:19-22 cp. Mt 26:61 // Mk 14:58; Matt 27:39 // Mk 15:29

The Jonah saying
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"

Matt 12:38-40; 16:1-2; Lk 11:29-32

The baptism metaphor
"Can you ... be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" Mk 10:38-39

"I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!"Lk 12:50

The cup metaphor
"Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"

Matt 20:22-23 // Mk 10:38-39; Matt 26:39 // Mk 14:36 // Lk 22:42; John 18:11.

These sayings are primarily eschatological while none of them necessarily suggest atonement. They are predictions of suffering, death and resurrection but no further meaning is attached to them. None of these sayings suggest why Jeus would suffer and die, nor do they imply His death was "necessary" in order for sins to be forgiven. There is one more incident in the Synoptics which is generally understood to be a reference to Jesus' death: the last supper and the prayers over the bread and wine. I have commented on this fairly extensively in another series of articles, but I will come back to it later and examine it in this context.

In my next message I will look at how John's Gospel deals with a different set of sayings.

The Cross and the Kingdom (1)

The synoptic Gospels consistently tell us that Jesus’ mission was to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (e.g. Matt 4:23; 9:35; Mk 1:15; Lk 4:43; 8:1). The Kingdom of God is mentioned over 100 times in all four canonical Gospels. While the death of Jesus is recorded in detail in all the Gospels, very little is said about it in terms of an atonement or sacrifice. In fact, even while dying on the cross rather than speaking about the significance of his death as an atonement Jesus instead discussed the coming Kingdom with one of the men crucified with Him (Lk 23:42-43) and gave him an assurance of the grace of God.

Theologians and evangelists who preach the death, burial and resurrection as the whole Gospel struggle to find the Gospel in the gospels and in the teachings of Jesus. No wonder then that the popular New International Version translates evangelion as “Gospel” throughout the New Testament except when referring to the teachings of Jesus – there it is translated “good news”. In other words, the subtle implication is that Jesus simply spoke of “good news” while Paul taught the real Gospel! Hence C.S. Lewis declared that the Gospel is not in the gospels! [1]

A tract entitled “What is the Gospel?” (published by The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, 1980) declares that Jesus “came to do three days work, to die, be buried and raised” and that “He came not primarily to preach the Gospel . . . but He came rather that there might be a Gospel to preach.” Yet Jesus declared that He was commissioned for the very purpose of proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom (“I came to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom ... that is the reason why I was sent” Luke 4:43).

We cannot separate the crucifixion of Jesus from the teachings of Jesus. The Gospel is not declared in the event while absent from the sayings. On the contrary, for Jesus the crucifixion was a decisive event in the end of the present evil age. He encountered head-on the religious and political leaders of His day, refusing to use their weapons, and He ultimately had the victory.

So what is the connection between the cross and the kingdom? Jesus Himself said that He was sent for the purpose of preaching the kingdom, not to die. So why did Jesus have to die?

In this series of articles I hope to explore what the New Testament says about the death of Christ and how we might benefit from it. I will explore Biblical terms such as "the blood of Christ", "Christ died for us", "sacrifice" and "atonement". In particular I want to look at what Jesus said about His own death and the significance attached to it by the Apostles and the first Christians. I especially want to look at how Jesus saw His own death in relation to His preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom.

In writing these articles I am conscious of the fact that thousands of others before me have attempted to explain the reasons for the death of Christ. I'm also acutely aware of the fact that the Bible itself does not give us a detailed explanation. I agree with the comments of these two scholars:

“In spite of the rich variety of imagery employed in the NT for coming to terms with Jesus’ death, the history of reflection on the cross is littered with attempts to discern its significance in narrow terms. In reality, just as the crucifixion of Jesus is the most historically certain of the events of Jesus’ life, it is also the most widely interpreted.”

Joel Green
Death of Jesus in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Intervarsity Press 1992, p. 153

“To believe that God raised Jesus from the dead is also to believe that Jesus died for the sins of all. The theory of orthodox Christianity notwithstanding, the New Testament presents no authoritative theory of the atonement, in terms of why Jesus' death may have been necessary for the forgiveness of sins. What is clear is that, in view of Jesus' death, the Christian conscience does not condemn Christians for their shortcomings, as if they were guilty of transgression, but, instead, admonishes and encourages them to act consistently with what they are: the people of God (see Rom.8:1-17,31-34; Heb.10:1-25). This, again, is the maturity of life in God's kingdom: not fear, which has to do with punishment, but love, which comes from faith and hope (see I Jn. 4:18).”

Robert Hach
Restoring the New Testament Pattern

My spiritual roots are in a community which has attempted to define in rather dogmatic terms why Christ died and has consequently and repeatedly divided over the issue. In tackling this subject I am not proposing to defend any particular interpretation, or even to attempt a new one. Rather, I hope to take a fresh look at the subject by returning to the Biblical texts and endeavouring to capture the simplicity of the apostles' teaching.

[1] Introduction to J. B. Phillips’ Letters to Young Churches, Fontana Books, pp. 9, 10

The Body of Christ

When Paul wrote "you are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27) or "in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others" (Rom 12:5) what did he mean? What exactly is the "Body of Christ"?

We take a lot for granted. For example, in the two places where Jesus spoke about the "church" (ekklesia) we assume we know what He was talking about. It's obvious isn't it? He was referring to groups of people who meet in tidy buildings, in rows of chairs neatly set out; following the same order of services they have since the apostles (4 hymns, 2 readings, an exhortation, prayers, breaking of bread and announcements); with elected arranging brethren, presiding brethren, rostered organists, etc.

Except that's clearly not what Jesus understand by "church"/ekklesia. Even if He was thinking 1800 years into the future His audience obviously couldn't have had that vision in their minds when they heard Him speak of church/ekklesia.

So what did He mean? When Jesus referred (only twice) to the ekklesia He used a word which was used in the LXX Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible to refer to Israel as God's community. It was a word which meant (to a Jewish audience) "the people of God", and it was a word which included the whole community. So in Matthew 18 when Jesus spoke about being reconciled with a brother, He said we should first enlist the help of a trusted friend, if necessary get one or two others involved, and then if really necessary we should get the help of the whole community of God's people in order to be reconciled with a brother.

So we find in the Hebrew Bible that on important occasions when God's people presented themselves before God that they did so as HOUSEHOLDS. Passover was to be kept by the whole household. When the tithe was presented to the Lord the whole household had to be there to eat together "in the presence of the Lord" (Deut 14:22-27). When the Philippian jailer was converted his whole household was baptised and joined the community of God's people (Acts 16:33). The (unbaptised) children of believers are "holy" (1 Cor 7:14).

Scripture is screaming out to us in these verses and elsewhere that God is interested in families, households and communities. The community of God's people includes new converts, those who have passed down the Word of God for generation after generation, parents, their children who are also "holy", single people, the Sunday School, the Youth Group, the elderly with dementia in nursing homes, and all those in the care of God's people. Together they make up the "congregation of Israel", the ekklesia, the community of God's people, the Body of Christ.

The Lord's table - thanksgiving

I think we have such an emphasis on "atonement" in our theology that we might have missed the point about the bread and wine by seeing them as symbols of the literal body and blood of a human sacrifice.

However, I believe Jesus is actually picking up on a very strong theme in the Hebrew prophets.

Here are just a few verses where the prophets talk about the kind of sacrifices God desires.

Having already said that the time would come when Israel "will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol" (Hos 3:4) Hosea went on to preach about what God wants when sacrifice is unavailable. He said "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" (6:6).

In chapter 14 he spells it out further:

1 Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God.
Your sins have been your downfall!

2 Take words with you
and return to the LORD.
Say to him:
"Forgive all our sins
and receive us graciously,
that we may offer the fruit of our lips. [a]

[a] Or offer our lips as sacrifices of bulls

Reading the Hebrew literally (as the NIV footnote does above) we realise that the sacrifices of bulls are to be replaced by "our lips" i.e our words/prayers.

When he was inside the fish Jonah prayed and said "with a song of thanksgiving, [I] will sacrifice to you" (2:9).

Micah 6 has a similar view on sacrifice:

6 With what shall I come before the LORD
and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?

7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

Amos has a similar message (chapter 5):

21 "I hate, I despise your religious feasts;
I cannot stand your assemblies.

22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.

23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.

24 But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!

The prophetic theme here is consistent. God would abolish sacrifices and remove the Temple and priesthood and replace them with "thanksgiving", the "sacrifice of praise" and a people who would act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God, when God's justice and righteousness would prevail.

Malachi 1 even suggests that the time would come when the Temple doors would be shut and the Gentiles (nations) would bring a "pure sacrifice" of prayer (symbolised by "incense" see Rev 5:8).

10 "Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you," says the LORD Almighty, "and I will accept no offering from your hands. 11 My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.

Jesus' message of the coming kingdom reached a climax when He cleared the Temple, indicating that the time had come for the sacrifices to end. Almost immediately thereafter He has a meal with His disciples when He says the usual prayers (thanksgiving) over the bread and wine and says "do this" as a memorial. Do what? Offer thanks. Acknowledge God. Offer to God our lips as sacrifices of praise.

Little wonder then that the earliest word the church coined for the re-enactement of the last supper was "eucharist" which means "thanksgiving"! This partly comes from Paul's expression that we share a "cup of blessing/thanksgiving". The point of the bread and wine is that they are about giving THANKS in place of offering the body and blood of bulls. So Jesus said of the items over which the blessing/thanksgiving would be said "THIS is my body and blood" i.e. thanksgiving under the new covenant replaces the body and blood of bulls under the old covenant.

So much of what Jesus did and said was grounded solidly in the preaching of the prophets about the coming kingdom, and the cleansing of the Temple and the last supper were "eschatalogical moments" in which Jesus was declaring that they had reached a climax in God's dealings with humanity. But if we overlook the immense influence of the prophets in how Jesus understood His own role we miss these beautiful connections.

Disproportionate grace

An Australian ecclesia recently decided to "dissociate" itself from another ecclesia because they don't like the "disproportionate emphasis on the doctrine of grace" by the other ecclesia.

A "disproportionate emphasis on the doctrine of grace" sounds like an oxymoron to me. "Grace" is all about God's abundant, overflowing, overwhelming, infinite, disproportionate generosity!

Paul used the word "grace" about 80 times in his letters. John says “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17) and “from the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another” (1:16). Luke said “all spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words [or words of grace] that came from his lips” (Luke 4:22). Paul said he taught "the gospel of grace" (Acts 20:24). Many of Jesus stories and parables emphasised the disproportionate nature of God's generosity. If we don't understand disproportionate grace we really don't understand the Gospel.

Members of the ecclesia concerned would no doubt benefit by reading some of the following helpful books:

Law and Grace by Christadelphian author W.F. Barling

Conviction and Conduct by Christadelphian author Islip Collyer

Legalism vs. Faith by Christadelphian author David Levin

The Grace Awakening by Charles Swindoll

What's So Amazing About Grace? by Philip Yancey

Spiritual leadership (5)

Edward Fudge

SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP (5)

We have been considering three fundamental truths of spiritual leadership.(1) Spiritual leadership involves lowly service, not legal power. Therefore we must not confuse spiritual leadership with political position. (2) Spiritual leaders exercise grace-gifts from God, not worldly qualifications. Therefore we dare not focus on worldly achievements when choosing spiritual leaders. (3) The Bible identifies gifted people, not legal qualifications. Therefore we should not confuse technical qualifications with spiritual characteristics.

Scripture nowhere provides a single, uniform list of qualifications for spiritual leaders. There are two New Testament passages which people often read in that fashion, written by Paul to his co-workers Timothy (1 Tim. 3:1-7) and Titus (Titus 1:5-9). However, when we read these passages carefully, we discover that they differ in several significant ways. Paul gives Timothy a description of the individual gifted for the episkopes ("oversight," "episcopacy" or "bishopric"), the work of overseeing or watching over other believers. He sends Titus a description of the person gifted to serve as a presbyteros ("senior," "elder" or "presbyter"). Christian scholars differ as to whether elders and bishops served in one position or two in the first century.

These two passages also contain different descriptives. Of the 30-35 traits mentioned in the two lists, only five are the same in Greek. If Paul were listing official qualifications, we would expect his lists to be identical. In addition, the descriptives Paul does give are often negative in form (don't pick this kind of person). The named traits are almost always relative as to quality (no precise threshold given). And there is no attempt to define these sometimes ambiguous terms. Paul is certainly not listing formal qualifications for an office, but is rather giving informal descriptions of those who are divinely gifted for the ministry of spiritual leadership.
______________

Copyright 2008 by Edward Fudge. You are encouraged to share this gracEmail freely, widely and in its entirety (including this final paragraph).

Legalism - a way of life

I received this today by email from a friend. I don't know where it originated (so I hope I'm not breaching copyright by posting it here).

Spiritual Leadership (4)

Edward Fudge

SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP (4)

The mission of spiritual leadership is the transformation of God's people into the likeness of Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:7-16). It is not to construct buildings, create programs, attract crowds or to build an institution. However, the transformation of human beings is a supernatural result, which cannot be achieved through mere human planning or power. It requires supernatural means, in the form of grace-gifts bestowed on every member of Christ's body (1 Cor. 12:27-31). And the method of spiritual leadership is lowly service, performed in the meekness of Christ, in the power of God and to his glory (Mark 10:42-45; 1 Peter 4:10-11).

For all these reasons, we dare not focus on any human marker of worldly success -- whether academic, business, professional or financial -- when selecting leaders for the church of God. Such fleshly qualifications contribute nothing toward spiritual leadership. Indeed, they might get in the way, insofar as they tempt leaders and followers alike to lose sight of the divine mission, means and method of spiritual leadership as revealed in Scripture.

We do not create spiritual leaders by selecting people and ordaining them to leadership roles. Instead, we look among God's people and recognize individuals whom God has gifted for this service. Such people have a heart set on the mission of facilitating transformed lives. They rely already on the means God provides for this task -- grace-gifts to be exercised in his power and to his glory. They trust the divine method of spiritual leadership, which is humble service in the footprints of Jesus himself. The people whom God has gifted for spiritual leadership are clearly recognizable -- not by worldly markers of success, but by traits that identify them as intimates of the Savior, filled with his Spirit, committed to his service and devoted to his glory.
___________________

Copyright 2008 by Edward Fudge. You are permitted and encouraged to distribute this gracEmail as widely as possible, but only in its entirety, unchanged and not-for-profit.

Spiritual Leadership (3)

Edward Fudge

SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP (3)

What does spiritual leadership look like, when one realizes that it involves lowly service and not legal power? Paul describes its conduct under three different circumstances: correcting a wrongdoer; encountering a controversialist and dealing with a divisive person.

If required to correct a fellow-Christian who is doing wrong, the person who thinks he or she has legal power will usually be rude, domineering, harsh and perhaps self-righteous. Instead, Paul tells Timothy: “Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity” (1 Tim. 5:1-2).

Similarly, controversy often brings out the worst in people, especially those filled with self-importance because of their supposed authority or position of power. So Paul writes: "Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone . . . patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness" (2 Tim. 2:23-25).

Even if God's leader is kind, patient and gentle as Paul instructs, controversialists are sometimes rough, short-tempered and unkind -- and persistently so in each respect. When encountering such a divisive individual, the spiritual leader whose role is to serve and not to assume power or assert authority will have as little as possible to do with that one, and will seek to avoid his or her presence. This is Paul's counsel: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11).
______________

Copyright 2008 by Edward Fudge. You are encouraged to share this gracEmail freely, widely and in its entirety (including this final paragraph).

Spiritual Leadership (2)

Edward Fudge

SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP (2)

The first scriptural truth we observe is that spiritual leadership involves lowly service, not legal power. This truth raises a caution -- Do not confuse spiritual leadership with political position. Jesus leaves no room for confusion on this point (Mark 10:42-45). Secular rulers "lord it over" their subjects and "exercise authority" over them. "But it shall not be so among you," Jesus continues. Instead, "whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all." This is the pattern set by Jesus himself, the "Son of Man," who "came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Peter applies the same truth when instructing spiritual leaders among his churches (1 Peter 5:1-5). He exhorts senior leaders ("the elders among you") to "shepherd the flock of God that is among you." They will be "exercising oversight," but, if they obey the apostolic instruction, "not domineering over" those in their charge, but "being examples to the flock." Spiritual leadership is moral in nature and it is done primarily by example and by teaching.

It is entirely possible that these "elders" are not office-holders at all, but rather senior Christians who are highly-respected for their lives of faith and service. As Peter continues his encouragement, he uses the word "elders" in a relative sense regarding age and experience. "Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders." Believers of every age are told to "clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’”
______________

Copyright 2008 by Edward Fudge. You are encouraged to share this gracEmail freely, widely and in its entirety (including this final paragraph).

Spiritual Leadership (1)

The following article by Edward Fudge arrived today as a gracEmail®

It is very relevant to a series I wrote earlier on characteristics of Christian leaders. It is numbered (1) so I'm expecting it will be a series.

Very many churches suffer today from a lack of spiritual leadership. That diagnosis is true across denominational lines. It fits both urban and rural churches. It applies equally to rich and poor, to people of all races, without regard to their country, state or province, town or village. The truth is that we all can benefit from a fresh look at biblical teaching on this subject. For the next few gracEmails, I would like to challenge us to consider three fundamental truths of spiritual leadership.

The first truth is that spiritual leadership involves lowly service, not legal power. This truth raises a caution -- Do not confuse spiritual leadership with political position. Jesus teaches this in clear language, as we will see. Peter applies the principle in writing his churches. Paul describes it in action under a variety of circumstances as he instructs and guides his proteges and trainees Timothy and Titus. The apostle shows what spiritual leadership looks like when correcting a wrongdoer, encountering a controversialist and dealing with a divisive person. We will consider his guidance for each situation.

The second truth is that spiritual leaders exercise grace-gifts from God, not worldly qualifications. This truth also raises a caution -- Do not focus on worldly achievements when choosing spiritual leaders. Too often, churches focus on educational degrees, professional expertise or financial success when seeking out spiritual leaders. Yet not one of those elements has any necessary relationship to spiritual maturity, worthiness of imitation, Christlikeness or ability to teach, model and inspire others toward godliness and Christian maturity. When churches use improper standards for selecting spiritual leaders, they are almost certain to come to spiritual stagnation (even if the institutional church thrives).

The third truth is that the Bible identifies gifted people, not legal qualifications. This creates a caution -- Do not confuse technical qualifications with spiritual character. Scripture does not provide a single, uniform list of "qualifications" for spiritual leaders. Two texts which people sometimes try to convert into such a list of legal or technical qualifications are found in First Timothy and Titus. Yet a close reading reveals that the descriptions in these two passages differ from each other, as do the very names or terms used of the servant-leadership role envisioned. Further, the descriptives found in these two epistles are often negative in form, almost always relative as to quality, and incapable of precise definition -- a task which Scripture never does for us or even suggests that we should try to do for ourselves. God willing, we will consider these three basic truths and corresponding cautions one by one in upcoming gracEmails.
______________

Copyright 2008 by Edward Fudge. You are encouraged to share this gracEmail freely, widely and in its entirety (including this final paragraph).

Orthodoxy and orthopraxy

There is currently a discussion on the Facebook group "Christadelphians Worldwide" about the question "what's important (and what's not)?"

Duncan Heaster posted some excellent thoughts in response to something I'd written elsewhere, and with his permission I have reproduced them below.

"Practical teaching without sound theology is as impoverished as sound theology without practical teaching. The New Testament doesn’t make the distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy [good practice] that we often do, nor is there any hint in the Scriptures, as far as I can see, that God will forgive bad behavior more readily than poor theology, or vice versa. We need to teach them both and teach them well.” — Steve Cook

It needs to be read a few times for it to sink in. I suspect one of the barriers to accepting what you say here is the idea folk have that the word "doctrine" refers only to theology and the propositional statements which can accompany it, positive and negative- e.g. one God, no heaven going, Kingdom on earth, devil didn't fall off the 99th floor etc.

Reality is that Biblically, 'doctrine' means simply 'teaching'- and the 'teaching' of the inspired writers was largely about intensely practical things. Thus the perceived difference between 'doctrine' [as many understand the word] and 'practice' is actually false. Teaching is practical- for the NT isn't given to just ivory tower theology for the sake of it. Indeed the whole of the NT is a collection of missionary documents- preaching, letters to new converts etc. And even when there is pure theology taught, this is always in a practical context- it is the springboard for action, not an end in itself. The way the two sections of Romans tie together is a nice example - 1-11 is the theology, the theory, and 12-16 is the practical outcome of it.

Christadelphianism has some good theology, that's why I am a Christadelphian and not in some other group, but the challenge is to articulate all that true theology in practical terms. If that's not done, then the true theology hasn't been believed in the sense it is intended to be believed- it's simply been assembled and protected in a glass case. The talent has to be traded, not wrapped up and 'preserved' in the earth.

Jonah 2:9 contains the enigmatic statement that those who "hold to empty faiths" (Heb.) "forsake their own hesed". Hesed basically refers to the capacity a superior has to show mercy, grace and love to someone in an inferior position. For over 20 years I wondered what Jonah was really getting at. I think I then grasped it- those who hold to empty faiths forego the capacity to show hesed, favour to others- the implication being that the result of the one true faith is that we are empowered to show hesed, love, favour, grace, mercy, to others. And this ties in perfectly with 1 Pet. 1:22- we obey the truth unto, with the result that, we show "unfeigned love of the brethren". This is how and where true doctrine comes to its ultimate term- love of others.

AD381 by Charles Freeman

This new book by historian Charles Freeman looks good.

"'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics.' Emperor Theodosius"

In 381 AD, Theodosius, emperor of the eastern Roman Empire, issued a decree in which all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This edict defined Christianity; all other interpretations were now declared heretical. Moreover, for the first time in a thousand years of Greco-Roman civilization, free thought was unambiguously suppressed. Yet surprisingly, this political revolution, intended to bring inner cohesion to an empire under threat from the outside, has been airbrushed from the historical record. Instead, it has been claimed that the Christian Church had reached a consensus on the Trinity which was promulgated at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

This groundbreaking new book shows that the Council was in fact a shambolic affair, which only took place after Theodosius’s decree had become law. In short, the Church was acquiescing in the overwhelming power of the Emperor. Freeman argues that the edict and the subsequent suppression of paganism not only brought an end to religious and philosophical diversity throughout the Empire, but created numerous theological problems for the Church that have remained unsolved. The year AD 381, Freeman concludes, marked “a turning point which time forgot.”

The Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and the Word (3)

Some Christadelphians argue that the Holy Spirit was given to certain people in Biblical times so that they could perform miraculous signs to prove that their message was truly from God. They then go on to argue that seeing as we now have the Word of God in its final and complete form (i.e. in the Bible), there is no further need for these authenticating miraculous signs, and therefore no further need for the Holy Spirit.

However, this argument lacks Scriptural support.

For example, John the Baptist (of whom Jesus said: "among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist" [Matthew 11:11]) was "full of the Holy Spirit even from birth" (Luke 1:15). If the Holy Spirit was given to individuals for the purpose of authenticating their message through miraculous signs then we should expect that this man who was the greatest of the prophets (and indeed the greatest among those born of women!) and who was full of the Holy Spirit from birth would have performed some outstanding miraculous signs. Yet we are told very specifically in Scripture that "John never performed a miraculous sign" (John 10:41).

A couple of things puzzle me. The Christadelphian writer I quoted in an earlier post also wrote: "When God pours out his Spirit, He gives unmistakable signs so that others can see and believe."

However, this is not what I see in Scripture. David had the Holy Spirit (Psalm 51:11; Mark 12:36; Acts 1:16; 4:25), but what "unmistakable signs" did he do "so that others can see and believe"? John the Baptist was full of the Holy Spirit from birth, but what "unmistakable signs" did he do "so that others can see and believe"? What about those in the early Corinthian church who Paul quite specifically said could not speak in tongues or perform miraculous signs, yet were filled with the Holy Spirit? What "unmistakable signs" could they do "so that others can see and believe"?

Some Christadelphians resort to emotional arguments when it becomes clear that their position lacks Biblical evidence. For example, I've had Christadelphians say to me "if you have the Holy Spirit then why don't you go into hospitals and heal everyone? If you were truly a loving and compassionate person you would use this gift to eradicate suffering." This question and its accompanying comment not only lack logic, they actually ignore the Biblical evidence. If anyone could go into hospitals and heal all the sick then it would have been our Lord Himself. Yet Jesus didn't heal all the sick people He encountered, even when He had the opportunity. In Acts 3:1-10 we read of a man who had been crippled from birth and who was carried every day to the Beautiful Gate at the Jerusalem Temple. Anyone going into the Temple had to pass through this gate. It was the perfect place to beg. This would have meant that Jesus passed him every time He went into the Temple, and every time He passed up the opportunity to heal this man. Did Jesus lack love and compassion?

In 2 Timothy 4:20 we read Paul saying that "I left Trophimus sick in Miletus". Paul clearly had the Holy Spirit, yet he didn't use this gift to heal a fellow-missionary who was sick. Either he couldn't heal him, or he wouldn't. Did Paul lack compassion?

The assertion that someone who has the Holy Spirit should go into hospitals and heal all the sick is not only contrary to the examples of people full of the Holy Spirit such as Jesus, Paul and John the Baptist, but is based on the false assumption that the Holy Spirit enables its recipients to perform miracles and to heal the sick. John didn't perform miracles, and Jesus and Paul didn't heal all the sick they encountered. Paul explained very clearly to the Corinthians that while all believers have the [Holy] Spirit, they do not have the same kinds of gifts: "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit" (1 Cor 12:4). He explained that there are different "manifestations" of the Spirit. Through some people the Spirit is manifested in miracles, through another in healings, through others in faith, words of wisdom, or knowledge. Paul went on to ask the questions "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?" (vv. 29-30). Obviously not everyone can work miracles. Not everyone speaks in tongues. We can't all heal the sick. Yet everyone in the body of Christ has the [Holy] Spirit (e.g. see verses 3 and 7).

The Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and the Word (2)

In my previous post I referred to a theory advanced by one Christadelphian writer and widespread in Christadelphianism that the Bible uses the term Spirit to mean a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus created by the impact of the gospel on an individual" while the term Holy Spirit means "God's power ... given in the first century for specific purposes".

This theory does not explain the many Scriptures I quoted in my previous post where the terms "the Spirit" and "the Holy Spirit" are used interchangeably. But if we accept the theory as reasonable for a moment and apply that writer's definitions to the parallel Gospel accounts then we will see that it is impossible for these texts to have both meanings at the same time.

For example, in Matt 3:16 we read that after Jesus' baptism they saw "the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. " If the popular Christadelphian theory is correct then Matthew meant that a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus (or God) created by the impact of the gospel on an individual" descended on Jesus. That would hardly make sense, and would be difficult to reconcile with the parallel account (Luke 3:22) which says that "the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove" and would therefore mean that "God's power ... given in the first century for specific purposes" descended on Him. So what was it that descended on Jesus? Was it God's power, given for specific purposes, or was it a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus (or God) created by the impact of the gospel on an individual"?

As another example, Matt 12:43 refers to "David, speaking by the Spirit" while Mark 12:36 says David was speaking by the Holy Spirit. So was David speaking by God's power, given for specific purposes, or by a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus (or God) created by the impact of the gospel on an individual"?

John 7:39 refers to "the Spirit, which those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." How could this mean the "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus created by the impact of the gospel on an individual" and not the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost or "God's power ... given in the first century for specific purposes"?

In John 14:17, 26; 16:15 the "Counsellor" (parakletos) is also called "the Spirit of truth", simply "the Spirit" and "the Holy Spirit". How could the Counsellor be both a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus created by the impact of the gospel on an individual" and "God's power ... given in the first century for specific purposes" at the same time? How we are able to tell when the Counsellor is "a mental and moral disposition" and when it is "God's power", or can it be both at the same time?

When Jesus said "But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt 12:28) did He drive out demons by the "mental and moral likeness" of God, or by "the power of God"? If the latter, then why did our Lord use a term that we should understand to mean "a mental and moral likeness"?

Once we put this theory to the test we see that the Christadelphian distinction between Spirit and Holy Spirit cannot be applied consistently through Scripture and that in many instances an attempt to apply the distinguishing definitions makes the texts nonsensical.

The Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and the Word (1)

There is a theory which is widespread throughout Christadelphianism that in the Bible the terms "Spirit" and "Holy Spirit" mean different things. One Christadelphian writer explained the perceived difference this way:

The Spirit is a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus created by the impact of the gospel on an individual" while the Holy Spirit is "God's power ... given in the first century for specific purposes".

In this post I'd like to dispel these myths and demonstrate that the Bible uses the terms "Spirit" and "Holy Spirit" interchangeably and that any distinction between them is artificial and unBiblical.

By comparing the following parallel accounts in the Gospels we see that the Gospel-writers understood "Spirit" and "Holy Spirit" to mean the same thing.

1. Matt 3:16 "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. " (cp. John 1:32 "Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.")

cp. Luke 3:22 "and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. "

2. Matt 4:1 "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil."

cp. Luke 4:1 "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert."

3. Matt 10:20 "for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you."

cp. Luke 12:12 "for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.

4. Matt 12:31 "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ."

cp. Mark 3:29 "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." (cp. also Luke 12:10).

5. Matt 12:43 "He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'?"

cp. Mark 12:36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." '.

6. Luke 2:26 "It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Christ."

cp. the next verse (27) "Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts."

When we read further in the New Testament we see that other writers also meant the same thing by the terms "Spirit" and "Holy Spirit".

For example, 1 Cor 12:3 "Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit."

Also, Jude 20 "But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit." Cp. Eph 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions."

Again, 2 Cor 1:21-22 "Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Cp. Eph 1:13-14 "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, which is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory."

The similarity between these passages is striking. The writers obviously saw no difference between 'the Spirit (of God)' and 'the Holy Spirit.'

The following passage shows that some other terms have the same meaning and are also used interchangeably:

Rom 8:9-11 "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, which lives in you."

I believe therefore that it is demonstrable that in Scripture these terms have the same meaning:

• the Spirit
• the Holy Spirit
• the Spirit of God
• the Spirit of Christ
• Christ in you

Other texts show that the NT writers thought of 'the Spirit of God' or 'Holy Spirit' as the same as 'the Spirit of Christ' or 'Spirit of Jesus'. For example:

Acts 16:7 "When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to." Cp. the previous verse "Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia."

Also, Phil 1:19 refers to "the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ." Are we to conclude that this is a diffferent 'Spirit' to the help-giving Spirit referred to elsewhere? e.g. Rom 8:26 "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness"; 2 Tim 1:14 "Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you–guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit which lives in us."

Consequently, I believe that to say God dwells in us, or Christ dwells in us, is the same as saying the Holy Spirit dwells in us. This is confirmed by the following texts:

John 14:16-18 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth (referred to as "the Holy Spirit" in verse 26). The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."

It is through the parakletos, the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit, that Jesus comes to us. Cf. verse 23 "Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him."

The same concept (i.e. that God 'dwells' in the church and the believer through the Holy Spirit) is found in the following places:

• 1 Cor 3:16-17 "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple."

• cp. 1 Cor 6:19-21 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, which is in you, which you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

• cp. 2 Cor 6:16 "What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

• Eph 2:22 "And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

• Cp. Eph 3:16-17 "I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith."

• 1 John 4:13 "We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit."

This selection is by no means exhaustive, but it is more than adequate to demonstrate that it is quite wrong to make an artificial distinction between the Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit. The Bible uses both terms to mean the same thing, but never uses the term "Spirit" to mean "the Bible" (more on that later).

Permission needed to start a new ecclesia - IMPORTANT UPDATE

I reported earlier that a motion has been proposed for the Business session of the 2008 Australian Christadelphian Conference which would require new ecclesias to obtain the permission of five other local ecclesias in order to be recognised as a bona fide ecclesia meeting on the basis of the Unity Agreement.

Fortunately common sense has prevailed and the ecclesia proposing this has now withdrawn their motion.

This is very encouraging indeed. It tells me that we don't have to put up with the bullying intimidation of a vocal minority, and that the voices of moderate Christadelphians can still have an effect in stopping the progressive spread of extremism and fundamentalism in the Christadelphian community.

I've also heard that one or two ecclesias in the Brisbane area who were previously members of the G13 have now distanced themselves from that pressure group. The G13 was a group which met to discuss other (uninvited) ecclesias to devise ways of either bringing them into line with their own views or excluding them from the wider fellowship of the Christadelphian community. Such groups are described in clause 44 of the Ecclesial Guide as "collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life".

It's very encouraging to see that some ecclesias which were previously associated with this bunch of bullies have come to their senses and withdrawn from the group.

I am sure that these two recent developments have partially come about as a result of blogs like this and the considerable number of Christadelphians who have been saying "enough is enough" and making it clear that such conduct is un-Christadelphian and unacceptable. Let's hope that these moderate Christadelphians will have an even louder voice in the future and that the controlling and intimidating elements in the Christadelphian community will eventually be silenced.