The Lord Jesus had to bring to naught the power of sin. He could do this only in His own person. Therefore He came in the closest possible likeness of sinful flesh; in the weakness of flesh; with the fullest capacity to be tempted as we are. From His baptism with the Holy Spirit, and the temptation of Satan which followed, up to the fearful soul agony in Gethsemane, and the offering of Himself on the cross, His life was a ceaseless strife against self-will and self-honour; against the temptations of the flesh, and of the world, to reach His goal – the setting up of His kingdom – by fleshly or worldly means. Every day He had to take up and carry His Cross, that is, to lose His own life and will, by going out of Himself and doing, and speaking nothing, save what He had seen or heard from the Father.… But His supreme power to remove guilt and the curse did not lie merely in the fact that He endured so much pain and suffering of death, but that He endured it all in willing obedience to the Father, for the maintenance and glorification of His righteousness. It was this disposition of self-sacrifice, of bearing the Cross willingly, which bestowed on the Cross its power. – Andrew Murray from The Blood of the Cross (Christian Literature Crusade, 1968 edition, pp. 27-28)
It is a sad day. We
learn that Britain’s Iron Lady – the last of the Triumvirate of the 1980s, has
passed on to her reward. On perhaps a
smaller stage, Friday night, Rick Warren’s youngest son, Matthew, committed suicide at age 27. I have very little
direct knowledge about what Rick Warren believes, having never read any of his
books or heard him speak. He has always
elicited a surge of utter indifference in me.
However, even if I hated him and thought him the worst heretic in
history, I would grieve with him and his family today. As
Someone said, So whatever you wish that
others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
I think sometimes that I have it rough. And maybe I do. Sometimes.
Jesus never got a day off. Not
His whole life. Every morning when He
woke up, He faced the same set of tugs and impulses that you and I face. Probably He often heard a voice saying, “You
know You don’t have to put up with all this.”
There had to be times when He was thinking, “If Peter goes off just one
more time …”, when He wanted to grab some smug Pharisee by the throat. OK, maybe not. Maybe that’s just me.
But what He did want to do in His love and compassion was to
give a broken people the Messiah they thought they had been promised, to give
them a King and a throne forever, and to do it right then and there without the
pain, suffering, and death of the Cross.
It wasn’t just Himself that He would have spared. He could have saved His people from loss, terror,
destruction, and exile – except that it would not have worked. All that had to go on the Cross. To say that it is beyond my understanding
doesn’t even come close. It is beyond my
misunderstanding and the most fantastic reaches of human imagination.
While we live in this world, we are offered the same choice
Christ had. We can live our lives to
ourselves. A little better, we can live
it to our families, our clan, our community, our church, maybe our nation. We can really expand out and live for humanity. I have always found it odd, though, that
those most dedicated to the cause of humanity are frequently the ones most
willing, and even happy, to kill humans in the process. Be that as it may, while we may call the
last more noble than the first, our only true choice is between the flesh and
the spirit. Are we going to live for and
to the flesh, or are we going to live for and to God the Father? By going to the Cross, Christ broke the
chains that held us in bondage to the flesh.
He made the right choice, and, by doing so, by living His entire life in
obedience, He made it possible for us to follow Him in that choice.
We like to tell ourselves that technological advances are
the same as human improvement. We like
to think that better drugs and a better understanding of genetics, not to
mention Science! are making or will make
us better people. We prefer to ignore
the evidence that technology has always been a way to further destruction, to
deliver death wholesale, to build better traps and shackles. The flesh always ends the same way, in bondage
and madness, violence and blood and horror.
There is, in the end, only our way or God’s way.
7 comments:
He could have saved His people from loss, terror, destruction, and exile – except that it would not have worked. All that had to go on the Cross. To say that it is beyond my understanding doesn’t even come close.
I'm with you Bro!
I do like your thought that one of the reasons for His sacrifice was to set an example of selflessness and obedience.
What you and others have been educating me about lately is that He endured temptation as a human. I used to think that since Jesus was part God, temptation and suffering wasn't a big problem for Him. But then that would diminish the power of His sacrifice.
The whole Crucifixion aspect is all so strange but one of the reasons I believe is that the theology doesn't fall apart under scrutiny. In fact, the opposite occurs. Things become more meaningful the deeper you dig.
That's right. There's so much good that we know already, and we can live a pretty good life just going by Micah 6:8 -- do justly, love mercy, walk humbly. But if we want to find out why that works, or if we need a little more support in tough times, that's there, too.
Did Jesus struggle in his day-to-day living? Or was it that "effort without effort" or however UF puts it. His words seem to come so easily. As well as His decisions. He invites us to His way; His yoke is easy; His burden is light...
I've also seen the argument that He "climbed up on that cross" as if to say "try and stop me!"
Yet it seems to mean little if He wasn't tempted, and so on..
Both? I think you have to have the struggle with surrender, but the surrender itself is peace.
This is at the heart of what confuses many Christians and leads to superficial, pseudo-peace.
Being as little children is easy. Becoming as little children is really hard, and it's not a step you can skip even though you don't really need it.
He is a fascinating man, this God.
(Thank God) And He is both.
I know he is right and yet I don't know how I know it. His yoke does look easy, I seem to intuitively know it's easy and that He is right. Yet I don't know how to go about it. I often say to my son, "it's easier to be a good and honest man."
When I have this solved, I'll let you know :-)
Fine posts these tough ones.
Btw, I find I have to remind myself to forget what I've seen in movies about Him and get back to his actual words. Even get away from painting and theological depictions , etc. from time to time. I bring this up because, I don't know if you had a chance to catch the recent TV series "The Bible". It was mostly rather strange (things they focused on vs things they left out or just changed for I don't know what reason). Mary was played by one of the co-producers who looks like (forgive me) a cross between Joan Rivers and Steve Tyler thanks to some typical-look surgery. I'm sure she's a fine person -- but to cast yourself as Mary? She had lipstick on! But there were a few good parts. Most (if not all) film depictions of the NT seem to stop at the resurrection. This one did not. Saul/Paul was good (the guy who played him was an excellent cast -- I got weepy when he meets Luke). Anyway, the actor who played Jesus was ok, but a bit too Country music-handsome/hippie/easy-going. He seemed self-conscious or maybe even a bit vain. But I say that based on what? My tastes - or someone else's?
I've heard a little about it, but I haven't seen it.
...a cross between Joan Rivers and Steve Tyler...
That is scary.
Actors playing Jesus have a hard time. There used to be an outdoor musical they did in Glenrose, TX called "The Promise" and the gentleman -- I think his name was Randy Stone -- I'm not sure -- he did a pretty good job. But it's got to be a fine line to walk. Caveziel's portrayal in "The Passion" is good but so much more limited in scope it's almost unfair to compare him to anyone else.
There is one great Book of Acts film or TV mini-series that I recall -- "Peter and Paul" -- with Anthony Hopkins playing Saul/Paul -- 30+ years ago. I can see the face of the actor who played Peter but I can't think of his name. And Hopkins is so good that I didn't dawn on me until years later that Paul was Hannibal Lector (and C.S. Lewis and Burt Munro and Odin).
Ah, I'll have to check out "Peter and Paul". I think the whole thing is on YouTube.
Post a Comment