It has been difficult for me to comprehend the doctrine of the cross for a long time. What I mean by this needs a little introduction. I understand perfectly well the notion of dying to self. I understand perfectly well the crucified life. I understand perfectly well that we are new creatures. Yet, in that last statement I find my exact point: we are resurrected. The point of the cross, as I understand, is not simply to die, but that we would be raised up with Christ by the same glory that raised Him up. So, I've been confused about this for a while. How is it that Christ Jesus would say, "I came to give you life, and life abundantly", but then we want to say that we have to continue to die to self?
I've heard many times about the notion of dying to self. We take up our crosses so that God might raise us up. Yet, if you've been raised, then you've been raised. If your life is hid with Christ in God, then your life is hid with Christ in God. If you are crucified with Christ, it is no longer you that live but Christ that lives in you, then you are crucified with Christ. If you are a new creation, then you are no longer the old creation; you are now a new creation. Do you see my dilemma? In one sense, I understand full well that I need to die to the sinful passions of my old lifestyle, and thus be raised by the glory of God unto newness of life. I understand full well what it means to taste death and now be alive in Christ. But, once I'm alive in Christ, I can no longer die.
In Romans 6, Paul makes an interesting statement: "If we have been united with [Christ] like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection... that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died once and for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive in God in Christ Jesus."
Did you catch it? If you have died, and have been raised unto newness of life, then you cannot die again. This has an implication with the second death - the lake of fire. We know that because we have already died, we cannot die again. That old man has received its judgment, if you will allow me to say such things. Now, here is my confusion. If we have died and been raised unto life, then we can no longer die. Yet, it is told to us that we are to die daily, and that we are to continuously be giving our lives and dying to self. Just because you quote Paul's words that he dies daily doesn't necessitate the validity of the statement. This has perplexed me for quite sometime... until a couple days ago.
My wife and I have been looking through the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 2-3. While discussing the words of Jesus to these churches, it dawned on me what is going on with the cross here. Jesus said, "No one takes my life." He actually believed that. His life was taken by no one. Instead, He laid it down willingly. Now, when we talk about His life being laid down, what exactly are we talking about? I would like to suggest something rather profound. The "my" being used here might not refer to Christ in totality. Who Christ is, His essence, is found in His relationship with God the Father. Likewise, the true you, the true me, is not found in my body, but instead is something more than my body. The true Jesus could not die, because it was already alive to God. Though His body went into the grave, and though Jesus descended into the depths of the earth, the statement that Jesus is making is not about death like we think it is.
Let me try to explain a different way. Because Jesus was alive to God, He could not die. So, because He willingly gave His life, it was His to take it up again. The point of the cross in this sense is not about death, but about life. It isn't that Jesus is going to die, but that He will continue to live. Though He gives His own life, it is His to take up again. Why? Because Jesus had already passed from death to life. The reality of the cross was already at work in Him. The epochal moment of death on the cross was an ultimate climax of a succession of events that were all crosses before it. He had already died, and therefore He was already raised unto resurrection. Yet, the literal and bodily death and resurrection had not yet taken place.
Are you starting to see where I'm going here?
When we talk about dying and taking up our own crosses, what exactly are we talking about? There is a time and place to die to self and live unto God. There is a legitimacy to our phraseology of dying and being raised again. Yet, once you have passed from death to life, you no longer have to die again. You have already passed through unto eternity. You are already alive unto God. This is why Paul gets into Romans 7 and deals with our struggle with sin.
"Do you not know brothers... that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?"
Did you catch it? What is the point of Romans 6? WE ARE NO LONGER ALIVE TO SIN, BUT INSTEAD DEAD TO SIN. The whole point of Romans 7 is, then, to be understood as those who have not yet passed through death unto life. We might technically be saved, but we have not yet come unto the place of resurrection. One man said it this way: Many saved, few converted. Paul continues:
"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might believe to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God."
Our life is hid with Christ in God. For they who have been raised unto this glory no longer face the death to self that is required of those who have not yet died. This is why later in Romans 7 Paul says, "As it is, it is no longer I myself who [sins], but it is sin living in me." And again, "Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." Why does Paul say this? Because the "me" being spoken of is not the same "me" that was put to death. The "me" that Paul is speaking of is the relation that I have with Christ. It is the new life. I am now alive to God, and that "me" cannot sin.
So, when we come back to our theology of the cross, we ask the question of what it means to die daily. The cross of Jesus was not about death, but instead about sacrifice. It was not about death, but instead servanthood. It was not about death, but instead selflessness. That which needed to die - the sinful man - had already died. Likewise, the cross that I bear daily is not a cross unto death that I might be resurrected. That has already happened. It is about me giving my life as a ransom for many. It is about me giving my life for my friends. Even if I descend into the deepest depths of the earth on their behalf, it is still my life to take back up. I am both priest and sacrifice, pouring myself out like a drink offering on behalf of my friends.
That is the cross as life. It doesn't diminish my life. It doesn't take away from who I am in God. It isn't about dying to self. It isn't even about dying to selfishness, because that selfishness has already died. It is about giving my life as a ransom for many. It is love covering a multitude of sins. It is me being merciful, so that through my mercy, they may obtain mercy. It is me being a living sacrifice. This theme is taken up through the whole of the book of Romans, and yet I've never heard anyone else proclaim it. I've heard others come close, but I can't say I've ever heard anyone who would speak this. I no longer live, but Christ in me. Therefore, when I lay down my life as a living sacrifice, it is not me dying - it is me obtaining even greater life. Because I lay down my life willingly, it is mine to take back up again - not because I am somehow on par with Christ, but because that kind of sacrifice is what attains unto eternal reward. It is the wisdom of the Kingdom: he who loses His life shall obtain life. How much greater life do we obtain when we willingly lay down our lives in apostolic priestliness for the benefit and glory of another?
Maybe this helps us to understand why Paul tells the Philippians, "...in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing." Again, he tells the Thessalonians, "For this reason, when I could stand it no longer, I sent to find out about your faith. I was afraid that in some way the tempter might have tempted you and our efforts might have been in vain." Paul has been a living sacrifice to these churches. Has this sacrifice been a waste? But, alas! In neither instance does it seem as though Paul concludes that it has. It is a labor of love - even my own death - because I know that God has already raised me up unto life. To die is to be with Christ. My cross that I bear is no longer one of death; it is now a cross of liberty. I am not forced to die upon this cross any longer, because I have already died upon it. I now walk according to the Sprit. But, that Spirit bids me back to the cross so that I might express the same love that Christ expressed on Calvary.
The cross is life for the believer, not because we constantly die to self, but because in the laying down of our life, others find life. This challenges me, but also excites me. I hope it has the same affect on you. May the Lord work this deeply in both of us that we might obtain life and meet in Zion.
Showing posts with label cross of calvary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cross of calvary. Show all posts
Monday, December 8, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Do we need blood to be atoned for?
I've been listening to some Dr. Michael Brown lectures on "answering Jewish objections." The first couple were fabulous, but then we hit this point where it seems like the main point for every message is to talk about how repentance is not enough and we need blood sacrifices or there is no remission of sin. Of course, Dr. Brown is saying that we rely on the blood of Jesus, but it has gotten me thinking. Do we need the blood? If so, why do we need the blood?
A simple reading of the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) that sacrifices and offerings are necessary to "draw near to God." The first chapter of Leviticus is about the burnt offering. Out of everything that could be spoken of, this is the first one. Why? Because it is the blood that takes away sin, for "the life is in the blood." In order for the priests to be consecrated (Leviticus 8), there needed to be blood sacrifices. In order to consecrate the things of the tabernacle, and even the tabernacle itself, there needed to be sacrifices (Exodus 40:29).
Obviously blood atonement is a huge factor of the Old Testament. The High Priest needed to offer a sacrifice for himself and for the congregation of Israel on the Day of Atonement. What Dr. Brown was attempting to do was show that in exile, there is no way to have remission of sins. Prayer isn't good enough: you're under judgment. It is upon the restoration of Israel from exile that they start to rebuild the Temple and offer sacrifices again. Why? If prayer was enough, then why did the generation of Nehemiah and Ezra need to start offering sacrifices again?
But what got me thinking wasn't so much the necessity of blood atonement. What caught me was that in the many statements being made, the point being argued was that God looked forward to an ultimate sacrifice. We presently look back to Jesus the Messiah, but they previously looked forward to the Messiah. I'm not sure that I truly agree with this. It's nice; it's cliched; it's glib. Ultimately, what I have a problem with is not so much about the blood atonement. What I have a problem with is that God had established this covenant with them. If you walk in the ways that He has ordained in the Law, then you were righteous. That's it. There wasn't anything outside of that that was necessary. That was the covenant that God had set up.
So to argue the Jewish people about whether they need blood sacrifices in order to be blameless is pretty well missing the point. The question is not whether prayer suffices. Lets say it does! The question to ask is when God changed His covenant. As soon as you start talking about a change in the 'eternal covenant,' you are coming to a place where it gets very sticky very quickly. What exactly is the eternal covenant? Has that covenant ever been changed?
It says in Galatians 3:8 that Abraham believed in the Gospel. But Jesus hadn't died! Does this mean that Abraham believed that God would send a man named Jesus that would die upon a cross to take away his sin and pave the path for him to enter heaven? Certainly not. For Abraham to believe the Gospel is explained in the rest of the verse. He believed God when He said, "In you shall all nations be blessed." That was the Gospel. Where is it mentioned about blood, or the Messiah, or a cross, or repentance? The point isn't about any of that stuff. There is an eternal covenant that the animal sacrifices and the Levitical Law was only a shadow of.
The cross wasn't necessarily part of that eternal covenant either. What I'm trying to get at is that Jesus fulfilled all of the sacrifices. He didn't just fulfill the blood sacrifices, but even the meal offering, the offering of firstfruits, the peace offering (which is also a blood sacrifice), and even the sin and trespass offerings. Jesus is the fulfillment of them all, or the fulfillment of none. He is the eternal covenant because it is in Him, not just His blood (although it is extremely important), that we find all of these sacrifices and offerings fulfilled.
He is our High Priest. He is our offering. He is our sacrifice. He is our Passover Lamb. He is our Firstfruit (the feast). He is our Unleavened Bread - the Word of Truth. It was upon Pentecost (Feast of Weeks) that the Spirit was poured out. Guess who's Spirit that was! It is upon the Last Trump that Jesus will return (Feast of Trumpets). He is going to judge the nations as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:32; Day of Atonement). He will then tabernacle with us for 1000 years (Feast of Tabernacles).
In fact, it is mentioned in Zechariah 14:16 that any nation that does not come up to the Feast of Tabernacles to celebrate when Jesus returns will have no rain. There is a judgment given to those nations that will not come up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.
Are you starting to see my point? Yes, blood is necessary. Yes, without the blood there is no remission of sins. But if we solely base Jesus on a blood atonement, then we lose the holism. We lose the extravagance. Why is it that we can pray and not need to offer sacrifices anymore? Why is it that God sees repentance as enough? Because Jesus has taken upon Himself the fulfillment of that eternal covenant. The covenant was not made with us that we have to do something. Even salvation itself is a work of the Spirit!
Back in Genesis 15, God establishes a covenant with Abram. Abram offers these sacrifices to God, he lays them in halves opposite one another to make a pathway in which you must walk through the sacrifices. The context is that if you wanted to covenant with someone, you would do this and one person would stand on one side, the other person would stand on the other side, and then you would both walk to the middle in order to make the pact. You are essentially making the statement, "Let it be unto me like these sacrifices if I break my covenant." But when you read Genesis 15, God walks through the sacrifices while Abram is just waking up. God walks through the whole thing. It is saying, "Abram, you offered these sacrifices, but it won't be about you. I will do this because I have established my covenant. Let it be unto me like these sacrifices if I don't fulfill my covenant with you. You aren't held responsible by any means."
God has taken upon Himself the eternal covenant. It isn't about us. It is about Him. It is about His faithfulness.
In Revelation 6:6, the claim is made that there will be famine in the last days. But an angel calls out, "Do not hurt the oil and the wine..." Why? These are representations of the Spirit and the Covenant. The wine is the wine of the Covenant, which is to say Christ. The oil is the anointing of the Spirit, which is to say the Holy Spirit. Many believe that the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the earth during the time of the Tribulation. This cannot be so. God says do not take these out. He desires that there be some who are saved. How can they be saved if there is no Spirit? How can they be saved if He removes the covenant?
It is eternal - stems from the foundations of the world to the consummation of the age. The covenant is not that Jesus must die upon a cross, but that God will provide the Lamb (Genesis 22:8). Though during the time before Jesus' death and resurrection the sacrifices were ordained of God for the remission of sins, now God has ordained a different covenant. You aren't considered righteous because of what you perform, but instead because of what you are. Because God has now written the Law upon your heart, and has transformed you in the very deeps of who you are (put truth in the inner parts - Psalm 51:6).
Why does David say in Psalm 51:16 that God does not desire sacrifice or burnt offering? The answer is found in the next verse: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." The point is not that the sacrifices have been abolished, but instead that God wants to make our lives a sacrifice. He wants to do such a work in us that we are a priesthood. We are the sacrifice and the altar. Jesus alone is the one to fulfill that, but it is through Him that we are now made like Him. We are now transformed to being the sacrifice and altar - true priestliness.
In being the sacrifice and altar ourselves (Romans 12:1-2), we are no longer obligated to offer sacrifices. We have the blood poured out once and for all by our great High Priest. He is the ultimate fulfillment of all oblations and sacrifices. Now we go and do the same by pouring ourselves out like drink offerings to anyone and everyone that we know are in need. This is the eternal covenant. This is why we no longer need to offer sacrifices.
If we're witnessing to the Jews, and this comes up, how do we respond? How should we tell them that their prayer is not enough? How do we know that our prayer is enough? It is solely based upon the resurrection reality. Because we have been raised from the dead - something that you will know whether indeed it has or has not happened to you - we know that our prayers are answered. Resurrection does not mean that we are somehow now holier than thou, but in contrast would indicate a life of meekness.
Our righteous deeds are not something manifest to us. We live and move and have our being in simply doing good works. You don't need to ask me in order for me to do something for you. Typically, it seems like I end up buying groceries, sending money, encouraging and edifying, promoting and glorying in, and providing for any and every need that I am able without being asked. We know that so and so doesn't have much money, so we provide them food. We know that so and so is a single mom with 3 kids, so we buy school supplies, or pay the bills, or donate a gas card. We know so and so is entering into a new phase of life, so we encourage them however the Spirit leads.
Why do we need the blood of Messiah? We need the blood of Messiah because we need His Spirit poured out as a drink offering. We need the blood of Messiah because we need His Unleavened Bread - the Word of Truth - as a living reality within us (Psalm 51:6). We need the blood of Messiah because we need the incense, the sin offering, the burnt offering, the peace offering, the drink offering, the meal offering, and even the priestly functions that I haven't mentioned. We need the blood of Messiah because we need Him to fulfill all of the Law and Prophets. We cannot do this on our own, and so we look to Him to do it in us, through us, for us, and by us.
The blood is as important as every other aspect of the Law. For, "To sin in one aspect is to transgress the whole Law," James 2:10. We aren't under the Law in the sense that we are obligated to offer sacrifices. We are under a new Law. We are under the Law of Grace, which is in all aspects more difficult to follow than the written Law. God expects much more of us. These Jews that live more devoutly than we have even considered possible - it is in regard to them that Jesus says, "Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
A simple reading of the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) that sacrifices and offerings are necessary to "draw near to God." The first chapter of Leviticus is about the burnt offering. Out of everything that could be spoken of, this is the first one. Why? Because it is the blood that takes away sin, for "the life is in the blood." In order for the priests to be consecrated (Leviticus 8), there needed to be blood sacrifices. In order to consecrate the things of the tabernacle, and even the tabernacle itself, there needed to be sacrifices (Exodus 40:29).
Obviously blood atonement is a huge factor of the Old Testament. The High Priest needed to offer a sacrifice for himself and for the congregation of Israel on the Day of Atonement. What Dr. Brown was attempting to do was show that in exile, there is no way to have remission of sins. Prayer isn't good enough: you're under judgment. It is upon the restoration of Israel from exile that they start to rebuild the Temple and offer sacrifices again. Why? If prayer was enough, then why did the generation of Nehemiah and Ezra need to start offering sacrifices again?
But what got me thinking wasn't so much the necessity of blood atonement. What caught me was that in the many statements being made, the point being argued was that God looked forward to an ultimate sacrifice. We presently look back to Jesus the Messiah, but they previously looked forward to the Messiah. I'm not sure that I truly agree with this. It's nice; it's cliched; it's glib. Ultimately, what I have a problem with is not so much about the blood atonement. What I have a problem with is that God had established this covenant with them. If you walk in the ways that He has ordained in the Law, then you were righteous. That's it. There wasn't anything outside of that that was necessary. That was the covenant that God had set up.
So to argue the Jewish people about whether they need blood sacrifices in order to be blameless is pretty well missing the point. The question is not whether prayer suffices. Lets say it does! The question to ask is when God changed His covenant. As soon as you start talking about a change in the 'eternal covenant,' you are coming to a place where it gets very sticky very quickly. What exactly is the eternal covenant? Has that covenant ever been changed?
It says in Galatians 3:8 that Abraham believed in the Gospel. But Jesus hadn't died! Does this mean that Abraham believed that God would send a man named Jesus that would die upon a cross to take away his sin and pave the path for him to enter heaven? Certainly not. For Abraham to believe the Gospel is explained in the rest of the verse. He believed God when He said, "In you shall all nations be blessed." That was the Gospel. Where is it mentioned about blood, or the Messiah, or a cross, or repentance? The point isn't about any of that stuff. There is an eternal covenant that the animal sacrifices and the Levitical Law was only a shadow of.
The cross wasn't necessarily part of that eternal covenant either. What I'm trying to get at is that Jesus fulfilled all of the sacrifices. He didn't just fulfill the blood sacrifices, but even the meal offering, the offering of firstfruits, the peace offering (which is also a blood sacrifice), and even the sin and trespass offerings. Jesus is the fulfillment of them all, or the fulfillment of none. He is the eternal covenant because it is in Him, not just His blood (although it is extremely important), that we find all of these sacrifices and offerings fulfilled.
He is our High Priest. He is our offering. He is our sacrifice. He is our Passover Lamb. He is our Firstfruit (the feast). He is our Unleavened Bread - the Word of Truth. It was upon Pentecost (Feast of Weeks) that the Spirit was poured out. Guess who's Spirit that was! It is upon the Last Trump that Jesus will return (Feast of Trumpets). He is going to judge the nations as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:32; Day of Atonement). He will then tabernacle with us for 1000 years (Feast of Tabernacles).
In fact, it is mentioned in Zechariah 14:16 that any nation that does not come up to the Feast of Tabernacles to celebrate when Jesus returns will have no rain. There is a judgment given to those nations that will not come up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.
Are you starting to see my point? Yes, blood is necessary. Yes, without the blood there is no remission of sins. But if we solely base Jesus on a blood atonement, then we lose the holism. We lose the extravagance. Why is it that we can pray and not need to offer sacrifices anymore? Why is it that God sees repentance as enough? Because Jesus has taken upon Himself the fulfillment of that eternal covenant. The covenant was not made with us that we have to do something. Even salvation itself is a work of the Spirit!
Back in Genesis 15, God establishes a covenant with Abram. Abram offers these sacrifices to God, he lays them in halves opposite one another to make a pathway in which you must walk through the sacrifices. The context is that if you wanted to covenant with someone, you would do this and one person would stand on one side, the other person would stand on the other side, and then you would both walk to the middle in order to make the pact. You are essentially making the statement, "Let it be unto me like these sacrifices if I break my covenant." But when you read Genesis 15, God walks through the sacrifices while Abram is just waking up. God walks through the whole thing. It is saying, "Abram, you offered these sacrifices, but it won't be about you. I will do this because I have established my covenant. Let it be unto me like these sacrifices if I don't fulfill my covenant with you. You aren't held responsible by any means."
God has taken upon Himself the eternal covenant. It isn't about us. It is about Him. It is about His faithfulness.
In Revelation 6:6, the claim is made that there will be famine in the last days. But an angel calls out, "Do not hurt the oil and the wine..." Why? These are representations of the Spirit and the Covenant. The wine is the wine of the Covenant, which is to say Christ. The oil is the anointing of the Spirit, which is to say the Holy Spirit. Many believe that the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the earth during the time of the Tribulation. This cannot be so. God says do not take these out. He desires that there be some who are saved. How can they be saved if there is no Spirit? How can they be saved if He removes the covenant?
It is eternal - stems from the foundations of the world to the consummation of the age. The covenant is not that Jesus must die upon a cross, but that God will provide the Lamb (Genesis 22:8). Though during the time before Jesus' death and resurrection the sacrifices were ordained of God for the remission of sins, now God has ordained a different covenant. You aren't considered righteous because of what you perform, but instead because of what you are. Because God has now written the Law upon your heart, and has transformed you in the very deeps of who you are (put truth in the inner parts - Psalm 51:6).
Why does David say in Psalm 51:16 that God does not desire sacrifice or burnt offering? The answer is found in the next verse: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." The point is not that the sacrifices have been abolished, but instead that God wants to make our lives a sacrifice. He wants to do such a work in us that we are a priesthood. We are the sacrifice and the altar. Jesus alone is the one to fulfill that, but it is through Him that we are now made like Him. We are now transformed to being the sacrifice and altar - true priestliness.
In being the sacrifice and altar ourselves (Romans 12:1-2), we are no longer obligated to offer sacrifices. We have the blood poured out once and for all by our great High Priest. He is the ultimate fulfillment of all oblations and sacrifices. Now we go and do the same by pouring ourselves out like drink offerings to anyone and everyone that we know are in need. This is the eternal covenant. This is why we no longer need to offer sacrifices.
If we're witnessing to the Jews, and this comes up, how do we respond? How should we tell them that their prayer is not enough? How do we know that our prayer is enough? It is solely based upon the resurrection reality. Because we have been raised from the dead - something that you will know whether indeed it has or has not happened to you - we know that our prayers are answered. Resurrection does not mean that we are somehow now holier than thou, but in contrast would indicate a life of meekness.
Our righteous deeds are not something manifest to us. We live and move and have our being in simply doing good works. You don't need to ask me in order for me to do something for you. Typically, it seems like I end up buying groceries, sending money, encouraging and edifying, promoting and glorying in, and providing for any and every need that I am able without being asked. We know that so and so doesn't have much money, so we provide them food. We know that so and so is a single mom with 3 kids, so we buy school supplies, or pay the bills, or donate a gas card. We know so and so is entering into a new phase of life, so we encourage them however the Spirit leads.
Why do we need the blood of Messiah? We need the blood of Messiah because we need His Spirit poured out as a drink offering. We need the blood of Messiah because we need His Unleavened Bread - the Word of Truth - as a living reality within us (Psalm 51:6). We need the blood of Messiah because we need the incense, the sin offering, the burnt offering, the peace offering, the drink offering, the meal offering, and even the priestly functions that I haven't mentioned. We need the blood of Messiah because we need Him to fulfill all of the Law and Prophets. We cannot do this on our own, and so we look to Him to do it in us, through us, for us, and by us.
The blood is as important as every other aspect of the Law. For, "To sin in one aspect is to transgress the whole Law," James 2:10. We aren't under the Law in the sense that we are obligated to offer sacrifices. We are under a new Law. We are under the Law of Grace, which is in all aspects more difficult to follow than the written Law. God expects much more of us. These Jews that live more devoutly than we have even considered possible - it is in regard to them that Jesus says, "Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
Sunday, April 27, 2014
The Book of Romans pt 12
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
I have heard people say that this passage is possibly the most important passage of all Scripture. I happen to disagree, but not because I think there are other more important passages. I believe that unless we have the context of the whole Bible story, this passage doesn't make sense. The freedom we have in Christ isn't an issue that we find strictly in the New Testament. From the very beginning God stirred the creation into more and more manifestation of order and light.
It is from the foundations of the Earth that we find a God who is not content to simply speak over the creation in order to bring it into fullness. He gets down into the nitty-gritty. He isn't satisfied with being afar off; God comes into the darkness and chaos. So it is in the sinner. God isn't content to speak over the sinful heart, "Be clean." God comes into that unclean heart to purify and to make new. Jesus had a similar experience with a leper. The leper approached our Lord and said, "You can heal me if you are willing..." Jesus wasn't going to allow that mentality to last another minute. He didn't only say, "I am willing." Jesus actually reached out His hand and touched the unclean thing.
The Gospel isn't so much about the cross and resurrection as it is what these things symbolize. The Gospel is the proclamation of a God who came into His creation to rescue it from the darkness and death that binds it. The cross and resurrection are the medium by which God brings deliverance. It is not a one time moment in history, but an epoch of all God's moments in history. This is the crux of God's character. He has always been one who suffers for the betterment of His creation. It is not sufficient to say that God died upon the cross and that is it. He is the Lamb slain from the foundations of the Earth, and indeed God's character is and always has been to live in the reality of the cross and resurrection with His people.
It is by this that we are justified freely by grace. It is all about the blood of Jesus, and it is not limited to the one time event. Jesus' blood is eternal. From the beginning, all the saints have pleaded upon the mercy of God. God could only have justified them by the blood of Christ that had not yet come. It was through their faith in the character of God that saved them. Jesus hadn't died for forgiveness to come to David after he sinned. How can God forgive him?
So please understand that I don't mean to diminish the cross and it's importance. On quite the contrary, I'm trying to establish the importance. It is in the context of understanding that God is and always has been the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world that we can fully embrace the cross of Jesus and plead His blood for the redemption and remission of sins. God's plan of salvation has been established from the very first.
I think this is why Jesus rebuked the two saints on the road to Emmaus. It has always been the character and pattern of God to suffer before the glory. The cross was laid out in the prophets, but also in the stories of the Torah and historical books. It has always been God's character to embrace suffering and not reject it. God isn't a coward to flee from suffering. He embraces it.
And so we can approach the cross of calvary as an event that effects all of history because it is a culmination of all of God's events in history. Every time God interacts with humanity is a cross and resurrection. His character is displayed through every word, action, reaction, judgment, and mercy.
Thus we conclude that it is upon that cross that God was able to be both just and the justifier of the wicked. But why is this a problem?
How can God forgive the wicked and appease justice?
Those who break the law demand the punishment required. This is the set up for the next few chapters. We'll dive into further detail, but for now let us consider a general overview to chew on.
When we ask God to forgive us of sin, we are asking that He would break the law. The law demands punishment. How can God both exact punishment and give grace to the repentant heart? God took upon Himself that punishment of death. He took upon Himself the full wrath and punishment that deserved to go to we that call upon Christ Jesus' name. It is by grace that we have salvation, and of works lest any man should boast.
But the requirement of repentance is not simply a prayer of forgiveness. Repentance requires that we have a change in mindset and heart. It takes a death. Jesus is our sacrifice of atonement, but the wages of sin is still death. There must be a death in the believer in order for there to be freedom from sin. Anyone who has tasted of death and come out victorious by the same power that raised Jesus from the dead is now free from sin (examine Romans 6). Christ is our atonement, and we willingly go to death with Him that we might also be raised with Him to life eternal.
This is how God is able to be both just and the justifier of the wicked. All wickedness is put to death so that resurrection life might come to wholeness within the believer. Little wonder, then, as to why the next statement out of Paul is about the Law and how there is no boasting:
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
We are freed from the Law in the same sense that the married man is free from the law that tells us to remain obstinate. While I were single, it would be sin for me to have sexual intercourse. But now that I am married, this no longer applies. It is still sin, however, to commit adultery. So the Law hasn't been abolished, but has been transformed. It is all the more imperative now that we have been made new. Law hasn't been nullified nor made an object of ridicule. Law is now inescapable - for the law has been written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
So then we conclude that all who are free from Law are free from death and sin. There can be no death nor sin where there is no Law. But this statement doesn't mean that we no longer have to hold up to a moral standard as some in the hypergrace movement have claimed. Should we continue in sin now that we are free from it? No - if you have died to sin, then how can you live in it any longer? Our very conduct has changed to that of us no longer desiring sin. If we no longer desire to perform wickedness, then why bind ourselves to unnatural habits?
As we continue through Romans, we'll continue to deepen this mentality of freedom and faith and how to walk it out. And we'll also start to look at some practical implications this has as we get into some of the later chapters in Romans.
I have heard people say that this passage is possibly the most important passage of all Scripture. I happen to disagree, but not because I think there are other more important passages. I believe that unless we have the context of the whole Bible story, this passage doesn't make sense. The freedom we have in Christ isn't an issue that we find strictly in the New Testament. From the very beginning God stirred the creation into more and more manifestation of order and light.
It is from the foundations of the Earth that we find a God who is not content to simply speak over the creation in order to bring it into fullness. He gets down into the nitty-gritty. He isn't satisfied with being afar off; God comes into the darkness and chaos. So it is in the sinner. God isn't content to speak over the sinful heart, "Be clean." God comes into that unclean heart to purify and to make new. Jesus had a similar experience with a leper. The leper approached our Lord and said, "You can heal me if you are willing..." Jesus wasn't going to allow that mentality to last another minute. He didn't only say, "I am willing." Jesus actually reached out His hand and touched the unclean thing.
The Gospel isn't so much about the cross and resurrection as it is what these things symbolize. The Gospel is the proclamation of a God who came into His creation to rescue it from the darkness and death that binds it. The cross and resurrection are the medium by which God brings deliverance. It is not a one time moment in history, but an epoch of all God's moments in history. This is the crux of God's character. He has always been one who suffers for the betterment of His creation. It is not sufficient to say that God died upon the cross and that is it. He is the Lamb slain from the foundations of the Earth, and indeed God's character is and always has been to live in the reality of the cross and resurrection with His people.
It is by this that we are justified freely by grace. It is all about the blood of Jesus, and it is not limited to the one time event. Jesus' blood is eternal. From the beginning, all the saints have pleaded upon the mercy of God. God could only have justified them by the blood of Christ that had not yet come. It was through their faith in the character of God that saved them. Jesus hadn't died for forgiveness to come to David after he sinned. How can God forgive him?
So please understand that I don't mean to diminish the cross and it's importance. On quite the contrary, I'm trying to establish the importance. It is in the context of understanding that God is and always has been the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world that we can fully embrace the cross of Jesus and plead His blood for the redemption and remission of sins. God's plan of salvation has been established from the very first.
I think this is why Jesus rebuked the two saints on the road to Emmaus. It has always been the character and pattern of God to suffer before the glory. The cross was laid out in the prophets, but also in the stories of the Torah and historical books. It has always been God's character to embrace suffering and not reject it. God isn't a coward to flee from suffering. He embraces it.
And so we can approach the cross of calvary as an event that effects all of history because it is a culmination of all of God's events in history. Every time God interacts with humanity is a cross and resurrection. His character is displayed through every word, action, reaction, judgment, and mercy.
Thus we conclude that it is upon that cross that God was able to be both just and the justifier of the wicked. But why is this a problem?
How can God forgive the wicked and appease justice?
Those who break the law demand the punishment required. This is the set up for the next few chapters. We'll dive into further detail, but for now let us consider a general overview to chew on.
When we ask God to forgive us of sin, we are asking that He would break the law. The law demands punishment. How can God both exact punishment and give grace to the repentant heart? God took upon Himself that punishment of death. He took upon Himself the full wrath and punishment that deserved to go to we that call upon Christ Jesus' name. It is by grace that we have salvation, and of works lest any man should boast.
But the requirement of repentance is not simply a prayer of forgiveness. Repentance requires that we have a change in mindset and heart. It takes a death. Jesus is our sacrifice of atonement, but the wages of sin is still death. There must be a death in the believer in order for there to be freedom from sin. Anyone who has tasted of death and come out victorious by the same power that raised Jesus from the dead is now free from sin (examine Romans 6). Christ is our atonement, and we willingly go to death with Him that we might also be raised with Him to life eternal.
This is how God is able to be both just and the justifier of the wicked. All wickedness is put to death so that resurrection life might come to wholeness within the believer. Little wonder, then, as to why the next statement out of Paul is about the Law and how there is no boasting:
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
We are freed from the Law in the same sense that the married man is free from the law that tells us to remain obstinate. While I were single, it would be sin for me to have sexual intercourse. But now that I am married, this no longer applies. It is still sin, however, to commit adultery. So the Law hasn't been abolished, but has been transformed. It is all the more imperative now that we have been made new. Law hasn't been nullified nor made an object of ridicule. Law is now inescapable - for the law has been written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
So then we conclude that all who are free from Law are free from death and sin. There can be no death nor sin where there is no Law. But this statement doesn't mean that we no longer have to hold up to a moral standard as some in the hypergrace movement have claimed. Should we continue in sin now that we are free from it? No - if you have died to sin, then how can you live in it any longer? Our very conduct has changed to that of us no longer desiring sin. If we no longer desire to perform wickedness, then why bind ourselves to unnatural habits?
As we continue through Romans, we'll continue to deepen this mentality of freedom and faith and how to walk it out. And we'll also start to look at some practical implications this has as we get into some of the later chapters in Romans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)