The Father of All Comfort

            “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort,” 2 Corinthians 1:3-7. The word comfort is used nine times in this passage. What exactly is implied by comfort? It is not pampering, for the idea of suffering is mentioned side by side with comfort seven times. This comfort might be likened to solace, or consolation. While it does not take away the pain or suffering, this comfort does give us the patient endurance necessary to continue onward.

            To think of God as the Father of compassion, the God of comfort, seems to truly help us in navigating what it means to be a father in our own lives. Noah got drunk, something I’m sure was not intentional. Yet, is it possible that God allowed this father to experience disgrace in order to give opportunity to the sons to cover their father’s sin with love? This might make a little more sense of why Noah had such a harsh rebuke to Ham. Maybe instead of showing the character that had been revealed by Noah on what it means to live a godly life, Ham displayed a character that was rampant before the flood. Instead of living in the righteousness that was taught and displayed by his father, Ham pursued the wickedness of the age.

            Fatherhood is about discipleship. It is about priestliness. We take up the sins of our sons upon our own shoulders. We bear their immaturity. We accept the shame and disgrace that they might bring in order to develop in them love and righteousness. As Paul told the Church in Corinth, “Follow me as I follow Christ.” In this statement we find fatherhood. To imitate Paul is to imitate Christ. God has brought this man into such a relationship with Him that you cannot separate the two. To see Paul is to see the Father – he and the Father are one. Because Paul has followed His rabbi – Jesus – and been brought unto the sonship of the Father, he is now equipped to go and call others unto the glory of being sons and daughters. No longer does Jesus look that we would be children, but brothers. To be the brother of Jesus is a statement of character, a statement of maturity. When we have been brought into the reality of maturity that we live like Christ lived, which is to say, we follow the Father’s example, we have thus been made sons and daughters, and not mere children, of God.

            In this we find God’s heart. God as Father means teaching His children to be like Him. Yet, in that it is not to make replicas, but rather to teach maturity and character. When we display the maturity and character of Christ, we are displaying the character of God the Father. That kind of character does not take us from being who we are, but interestingly calls us to fulfilling all that we are. God has called us to being the very people that He has called us to be, and that calling is predicated upon being free from everything that would cause us to live in a way that we are not. We are made in the image of God, and anything that would cause us to live in a skewed reflection of God is sin. If the Father has not revealed to you His character, then one might ask the question of whether we have truly come to Christ. To see Christ is to see the Father. They do not have two separate characters. The distinction made is their heart. The heart of the Father is directed to His children. The heart of the Son is directed to His Father, and in being directed to His Father, is also directed toward His brothers. The Spirit is the revelation of God in us. While Christ reveals the Father to us, God has given His Spirit to dwell within us. The heart of the Spirit is that we would rely upon Him in order to be brought into the image of Christ. The disposition of each member of the trinity is distinct, yet they all have the same character. To rely upon the Spirit is to be brought into the image of Christ, and to be conformed to the image of Christ is to display the Father to the world.

            God as Father is difficult for us to comprehend because we lack so heavily. The Father’s heart is never to promote Himself, nor to cause you to be Him. It is the heart of the Father that displays to us what true love is. “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” What does this verse tell us? It is telling us more than simply ‘God loves us and we need to believe in Jesus to be saved.’ God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Why did God give His Son? The reason that the Father gave His Son on our behalf is that we might also be adopted as sons and daughters – made coheirs with Christ. It is to bring many sons to glory. It is not simply so that we might make it to heaven, but instead that we might also display to the world the heart of the Father. Don’t forget that this same Son who was given told His disciples, “If any man desires to come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.”

            It is our calling as sons and daughters to be the sacrificial sons and daughters on behalf of the world. This is the heart of the Father: that the entire world would come to know Him. The way that this takes place is by our sacrifice – in living as Jesus lived, we point the way to God by imitating The Way. This is why we suffer. If we have been baptized into Christ, then we have been baptized into His death. What does this mean but that we will also taste of His sufferings? Yet, we know that if we partake in His sufferings, that we will be raised unto life by the same glory that raised Christ unto life. The same consolation that Christ received is given freely to us. This is fatherhood: to give even the most precious thing you have – your only begotten Son – in order to bring many sons unto glory.

The Cross as Life

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.

The Beauty of Holiness

I woke up this morning with a phrase in my heart: the beauty of holiness. Then I opened up my Bible to the Psalm of the day (Psalm 29 for the 29th day of September). "Ascribe to the Lord, O mighty ones, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. Ascribe to the Lord the glory due His name; worship the Lord in the beauty of His holiness."

Ultimately, I have very little understanding of this. What I do know is this: the Greeks worshipped the holiness of beauty, whereas the Jews found beauty in holiness. The Greeks found beauty as something to prize and adorn. But how do we define beauty? Is beauty objective?

I can't fathom that beauty would be objective. Actually, I assume that it is not. In the Greek form of beauty, we aren't going to be able to define what beautiful truly is. I like brunettes, but does that mean that blondes are not beautiful? Obviously it would be absurd to say that. But why would it be absurd? In the Greek mindset, beauty is skin deep. Beauty is the ultimate, and never the penultimate. The absolute end to humanity is to strive to be beautiful. Whatever that means, that is one of our primary objectives in life. If we are naturally beautiful, then we have been blessed by the gods.

There is another way to look at it. The Hebrews saw it that there is beauty in holiness. The phrase is actually, "the beauty of holiness." Beauty does not come from appearance, but from substance. A sunset is not beautiful because of the colors, nor the blend of those colors. A sunset is beautiful because of what it is: a reflection of the Divine glory (Psalm 19:1). Peter tells wives to not adorn themselves like the pagans do. You don't need all of that make-up and jewelry. Put on the beauty of holiness. What does that beauty look like?

"Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of old who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear," 1 Peter 3:3-6.

Dear brethren, this is not a text for women only, but for us who are the Bride of Christ as well. It is as much for we men to gain learning of how we ought to obey Christ as it is for wives to obey their husbands. I'm not going to get into that now, and I'll instead focus upon what it says for we who are Christ's Bride. What is the 'beauty of our inner self?' Peter defines it as a gentle and quiet spirit. But gentleness and quietness don't mean timidity, shyness, or weakness. You can be gentle and yet be strong. You can be quiet and yet make powerful statement.

This is the beauty of holiness. In the Old Testament, Divine holiness and beauty are encountered in the sanctuary. But now there is no Temple built with human hands - we are living stones built up together for God. We are the Temple. God dwells in us. The Divine holiness and beauty are not found by going to a sanctuary, but rather found in the day to day interactions between the saints. When we behold one another's faces, we are beholding the very image and glory of God. In my life, and in my character, and in my conduct, I display Christ. When I don't, it is known by all who see me. This is part of what it means to be community. I need the brethren to tell me in love when I am in fault.

"Worship the Lord in the beauty of His holiness." Isn't what is truly being asked here is to worship Him in spirit and truth? We cannot do this in our own strength and ability, but instead through the truth of our relationship unto Him and unto those other believers He has placed around us. We worship in the Spirit that God has sealed us with. Our worship is not our own, but ultimately stimulated by Him. As John puts it, "He has loved us first..."

While I sought to understand the phrase, "the beauty of holiness," I am actually coming to the idea that maybe what I need to understand is beauty. Beauty itself is not something external, but rather internal. The scandal of beauty is that we don't "see" it, but intuit it. Some of the women that I know that are not physically attractive are some of the most beautiful women after you get to know them and their heart. I noticed in high school that the more I got to know the girls I was crushing on, the more attractive they became.

To some, our beauty is actually an affront. The character that we live from is something to despise. Gentleness and quietness are things that the world sees as weak and foolish. They don't see the strength in weakness. They don't see the statement in quietness. They don't see the authority in gentleness. They don't see the beauty of holiness.

We ought to be of a different caliber. Our hearts and lives covet the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. We don't desire the strength of the world, but rather the adoration of our Husband. Christ Jesus is the one we are submissive to. Because He had the servant heart displayed manifestly unto the world, we too display that servant heart. It is grotesque when the Body will then take a servant's heart and use it as a term meaning that we are to abuse our brethren.

The beauty of holiness is the beauty of God with us. It is Christ in us - the hope of glory.

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 Summary of Theocracy

It was over the weekend that I hosted a few friends. Within our discussion, we examined a multitude of things. One of the subjects that came up was Israel and the last days. I think that this topic comes up frequently when I have opportunity to talk, because it is probably one of the biggest aspects of my theology. However, As I mused upon it, I realized that it wasn't about Israel and eschatology that is really a big part of my theology, it is the Kingdom of God.

The one topic that it seems as though the entire Bible is devoted to is this subject. God's Kingdom and rule upon this earth is the focal point. It was set up in the beginning that God would rule as God by having fellowship with mankind and teaching us to be priests unto the very creation itself. We were created in His likeness to display Him unto all things - including the angelic beings.

With the fall of mankind, the kingdom of darkness was thus expressed. It had taken captive humanity. It had somehow become the authority over this fallen world, and if it can keep that authority, then it can attempt to overcome the kingdom of light. We have this saga at the heart of the Bible. Everything is a progression forward. Mankind falls, thus sin enters the world. God's promise is that He will one day punish that serpent and rid the world of that sin. We find that as the Bible progresses, the sinfulness of humanity increased. God sent a flood, and only saved 8 people.

Out of those 8 people came all nations of this earth. Some came from Ham, some from Shem, and some from Japheth. Each of these names have different significance, and we can see in the various cultures throughout the world these different names represented. We find in Genesis 10 the "table of nations." That description of where the nations come from and where they settled is referred to throughout the Bible. It is in the next chapter that we find all nations coming together to establish a one-world government system. What was their hopes in doing so? They wanted to make a tower that would ascend up to heaven.

Where does such a thought come from? If we think that mankind in their sinful state would promote such an idea, we have deceived ourselves. There is an entire kingdom behind the scenes. It promotes selfishness and exultation. The rule of this kingdom of darkness is self. For them to build a tower that would rival the heavens is a statement of deifying humanity. And this deification of humanity is not from depravity, but ultimately from the pit of hell. Satan has influenced and manipulated the whole thing. He has sway over any kind of institution, and that sway is what caused for humanity to have such antichrist thoughts.

The question that the Bible promotes is this: who will rule over this cosmos? Will God rule, or will Satan rule? It is the plan of the devil to manipulate mankind for his own devices. We are merely tools being jerked and forced into establishing his kingdom. There is no remedy from this outside of Christ. But God confused the languages of these nations, and in so doing foiled the plans of the enemy.

Now, thousands of years later, we're back at the same scenario. We have mankind coming together and striving to promote a one-world government that will somehow rival the heavens. It is the same plan that was used at the beginning. And what was God's answer to that plan at the beginning? God's answer was a man named Abram. God called Abram out of the nations to become a nation. While Satan has his own kingdom at work in the world, God has established a kingdom as well. We trace through the Bible this man Abram to the nation Israel. We find prophecies concerning that people at a specific point in time where God Himself will come to earth and rule over them, thus defeating the kingdom of darkness and promoting everlasting righteousness.

Though I agree with the theology that teaches of "the Kingdom of God within you," at least to a degree, this mentality has actually caused us to forsake the understanding of our fathers. Because we are under the impression that God's Kingdom is already established invisibly on the earth, we are not seeking for a future time that God will rule and reign. He has established very specific places where He has chosen for His government. If we do not know, or do not examine, such claims made by God, then can we truly say that we are seeking first His Kingdom?

Many times it is that we simply don't know. This isn't a question about salvation or even somehow being eternally secure. The question that I promote is whether we are truly living in a way that would expect and fully believe that there is a time coming - and soon coming - that God will rule and reign, and He will call on His people to rule and reign with Him?

This is important because the whole of the Bible, from Genesis through Revelation, seeks to establish the answer to one question: How and why is God now able to dwell on the earth? God walked with Adam in the Garden, but there was no sin. How is it that God will somehow come down and manifest Himself on this earth with sin still present? The answer, of course, is found in the man Jesus Christ. But we mustn't stop there. Yes, He came 2000 years ago, but there are still prophecies and promises that have been stated to happen that are yet to come to fruition.

The problem of eschatology (the study of the end) is to seek an understanding of how God can come, Israel can be redeemed, the Church can be united with Israel under the same Head, and we can rule and reign from Jerusalem together. That is the question at hand when studying the Kingdom of God. We know that God will rule over this earth, but how? What must take place for His Government to be established? What must happen for the cosmos to be able to embrace His coming?

In a few days, I will be joining some brethren to discuss such a topic as this. Pray for me, and pray for us all, that we might be given the understanding that God has decreed from the beginning.

Why I Have Left "Church"

Dear "Church,"

With all of the recent articles and blog posts describing why "youth" are leaving the church, I thought it necessary for me to put down my own ideas. To be entirely honest, it was my wife who wanted to write out why it is that we have decided to leave "church" and never go back. After reading many of these related articles, she has decided that she doesn't want to write & address this 'nonsense' (in her own words), and so I'm taking the task.

In all honesty, I want to give reason to why I have left without giving any kind of hook or rude/offensive statement about church. There is absolutely nothing in me that desires to be mean or vicious, even though there have been many vicious articles written about me - since I am one of those "youth" that has left. This journey started a long time ago. I went to church, and I got burned. I think that this is true for many people that leave. Unlike many, however, I didn't leave because I got burned. I left because I realized that the system will only use and abuse, and will never allow someone like me to flourish.

How about I start with some basic thoughts? 

For someone that grows up in youth group, they are taught the same truth that they learned in the nursery. By the age of 13, they have exhausted the faith. By 16, they can lead Bible studies. By the time they are 20, they are probably youth leaders. Is this all that Christianity has to offer? When you have figured everything out, you go to seminary to learn original languages, what others have written, and maybe relearn everything that you already know? Is Christian life about relearning over and over again because humanity is too stupid to learn the first time?

But the truth is that this isn't even necessarily the reason that we are leaving. The whole thing is cheap, and it seems like what others are offering is so much more authentic... That isn’t to say that we need something more intellectually stimulating. The show must go on, but we aren't here for a show. We came to your "church" to hear reality. We came to hear the words of God. We came to hear what it is that God might be saying to this generation, but all that seems to protrude from the pulpits are "we can worship our way into heaven." Other times, we only hear a pre-packaged message. I have yet to be to one church that gives reality instead of falsity. By reality I mean a reiteration of the resurrection life. Falsity, therefore, is a life lived out of our own ability.

Generally, the objections that are being raised in these articles are fallacious. “Kids are just liberal. We didn't really let them "go to church." All they got were nursery and youth group hours. They think we're hypocritical, judgmental, and insincere. They think we're shallow. We're antagonistic to science.” The list goes on of things that really are surface issues.

These issues that people are writing only go to show the true problem. The real problem is that the articles describing how they out there who are leaving just don’t understand us who are here. It is completely the attitude. It is as though there is no problem with church as we know it, and the entire problem and blame lies on they youth. They are perverts and desire materialism and carnal pleasures. They want their gay friends to come and feel comfortable. They want to live like hellions and still have heaven. They want, they want, they want.

The real issue is the very core of what we call church. The system itself does not allow for truth. There is a remnant Church that has ever and always been present, but the vast majority of Christian "fellowship" is really only there as religious exercise. We don't need "hipper" worship, or more powerful sermons, or to be able to answer difficult questions. We need reality. We lack honesty and truth. The Church at the beginning met daily, going from house to house breaking bread. They lived according to their convictions. By and large, we "put faith" in our convictions, but we do not live from them.

You didn't need to tell the people in the first century to sell their possessions; they did that naturally. You didn't need to tell the people in the first century to meet daily; they did that naturally. You didn't need to tell the people in the first century to lay down their lives for their brethren; they did that naturally. The law of love that was shed abroad in their hearts caused for them to live and move and have their being in a very unique manner. Their lives were transparent before one another. Truth reigned supreme. And they engaged the culture by the reality of their lives. 

Why are the "millennials" leaving? It can only be because the "church" is seeing them go, and telling them, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." I cannot tell you how many people I have spoken with where they start by saying, "I would love to believe, but..." Too many of these articles only seem to talk about how great we are, and how those rotten kids don't understand. They call it a "lost" generation, and they really believe it. There is no point in trying to save them, they're a lost cause. The problem is not that we need to be more relevant. We need to be more authentic.

Paul said that he was crucified with Christ - it is no longer he that lives, but Christ that lives in him. The extent that we say that this is only rhetoric and playful word games is the extent that we have forfeited the faith. We have an entire Christianity that is based off of applauding Paul for his faith, but then rejecting that anyone today can possibly achieve such a state in God today. Perhaps there are simply too few who have witnessed or seen the reality of the crucified life. 

The whole of the Christian life is to be lived out of the life of God. We do not perform out of our own ability, but instead lean not on our own understanding. The beauty of Christianity is that when we lose self (Luke 17:33), we actually obtain it. The paradox is that when we forfeit self, we find self. True humanity is the marriage of spirit and flesh, male and female, Jew and Gentile, black and white, slave and free - that they be one as God is one. 

Christianity has nothing to do with "doing," and everything to do with "being." Ultimately, the reason that I have left "church" is because there is the lack of "being." All of the things that are applauded and accepted as truth are typically displayed as symbols, metaphor, and sometimes sentiment. Sometimes you can find a "church" that tries to put these things into practice, but even in these circumstances they fall short for reasons that I'll address later. 

The majority of church-ianity has only allowed and applauded far too often the religion performed out of our own ability. We have not truly died, and therefore we have not been brought to a place of resurrection. To defer to myself instead of trusting in God - in any moment - is to fall short of the glory of God. The glory of God is eminently and always a resurrection phenomenon. 

Speaking for myself, it is the lack of that glory that has caused me to leave. When we are starving for truth, and all that is given are cheap cliches and forgeries of truth, it is time to leave. 

In conclusion, I want to say that I have not left God. I have left "church" to find God. I have left "church" to find The Church. What is desired is reality. Our lack of reality and conviction in what we say we believe is true has driven the youth away. They see through our false identity. They watch as we say that we believe the Bible, but then live lives completely contrary to that Bible. It doesn't have to be something abominable. When we set up church services so that we can be done in time to go home and watch sports, we have lied to God.

God desires that we be progressing toward an ultimate end. There is a time that He desires to call upon us, as His Church, for ultimate purposes. We cannot fulfill those ultimate purposes if we are busy playing games and singing songs. If our Christianity is known by our Sunday services, then we have become apostate. But there is a reality that the youth are searching for, and I don’t believe that the fat woman has started singing yet.

In love, wishing you grace and peace,

Tommy Comer

The Book of Romans pt 13

It is at this point that Paul starts to expound true and false religion. From chapters 4-8, Paul seems to only have one thing in mind: separate the precious from the vile. We've looked upon how all are under sin, whether Jew or otherwise, and thus all are in need of salvation. Toward the end of Romans 3, Paul has stated the mechanism by which salvation is obtained - namely, the blood of Jesus Christ. Through faith in Him, we have received our eternal reward.

If salvation is obtained by faith, then what does faith look like? And so we pick up in Romans 4 as Paul starts to expound the great man of faith: Abraham.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those
    whose transgressions are forgiven,
    whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the one
    whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”

Note that the main point that Paul presses right from the get-go is that righteousness and faith are intertwined. Why is this so?

Lets first consider our faith in God. Then we'll move to God's righteousness. Then we'll talk about the consequence this has for community.

Our righteousness is not constituted by our deeds. It is solely constituted upon one thing: our faith in Christ. We'll discuss what this faith looks like as we continue through Romans 4 and 5. At this moment, we'll focus upon why our righteousness is only constituted upon faith in Christ.

To put faith in something is not to simply trust it. I can trust that the chair I am sitting in has enough strength to hold me up. But that doesn't necessarily mean I have faith in the chair. Faith constitutes a change in the individual. The person moves from unrighteous to righteous, and thus faith cannot be mere trust. I can trust that God will provide, but that does not mean that I have faith. I can know the principles and subscribe the to truth that God provides without ever coming to full acceptance and being changed by the belief that God provides.

Faith takes more than belief. It takes more than trust. It is only faith when the inner most fabric of our being fully subscribes to it. To have faith in Christ is to have complete and utter surrender to the character of God. It is more than trusting God that you will make it to heaven. You have complete trust that every experience that comes is from the hand of God. He is sovereign, even through the free-will of men. Nothing comes apart from God. This statement is made by Paul, who suffered lashes at the hands of the Jews 5 times, 3 times he was beaten with rods, once pelted with stones, shipwrecked 3 times, spent a day and a night in the open sea, had been constantly on the move, had been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from his fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles, in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea, in danger from false believers, had gone without sleep, had known hunger and thirst - often going without food, and has been cold and naked.

This man who has suffered more than anyone else that I know - save Christ - was able to then stand on Mars Hill and tell them about the "God who gives all things."

Does your faith look like that? Do you have that kind of faith in God that you can bear such a suffering and still not attack the character of God?

Righteousness is indeed constituted upon faith. We forfeit our glory for the glory of another. We lay down our lives for the life of another. Our comfort and convenience doesn't matter. What matters is the glory of God forever. Anything that we say, do, think, or teach that is separate from the glory of God is brought under question and immediately repented of. We all have blind spots and we have all temptation. It is how ruthless we are to be converted to the image of God and how desperate we are to display the glory of God that speaks louder than our failures.

In this sense, I can understand why it would be that righteousness and faith are intertwined. But how is God righteous? Does God have faith in Himself?

Don't forget that God is 3 persons.

Jesus was always about glorifying the Father and proclaimed that His words were Spirit. He never did anything that He hadn't seen His Father do, and never spoke anything that the Spirit didn't first give utterance. In this way, He laid aside His own glory for the glory of the other two persons in the Godhead. He cast Himself aside for the sake of His Father and the Holy Spirit.

God the Father was about glorifying the Son. The way that He spoke to Jesus and the way He speaks to us is through the Holy Spirit. He does nothing of His own, but continues to display Himself through His Son and through the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit does not speak anything to us that has not been spoken by the Father. The Holy Spirit doesn't have its own words, but is only the messenger from the Father to us. In this way, the Spirit has denied herself (the Hebrew word ruach is feminine) in order to promote the Father. But the Spirit also has the passion to glorify the Son. She speaks concerning Him and leads us into all truth.

Thus because God defers to the other two parts of the Godhead, He both places faith in the other two by giving them all glory and honor and is credited as righteous for it. One of the most challenging aspects to understand is that in deferring glory to the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Father gains a greater glory. So it is with the Son and the Holy Spirit as well. In forfeiting our glory to glorify God, we find that we are all the more glorious.

Don't think that I am speaking of humanity as being gods. Any glory that we receive can only be a reflection of God's glory; for apart from God there is no glory. Apart from God there is no righteousness. We can only truly understand righteousness in the context of God's righteousness.

And how does this pertain to community?

When we are willing to give up our names and reputations for the sake of promoting our brothers and sisters, then we have obtained to righteousness beyond the conventional dimensions. It is amazing to me how unwilling many are to give up their own names and honor. They have worked so hard for so long, why would they allow all their toil to be in vain?

It is such a worldly way of perceiving. The heavenly perception reasons that in honestly giving up our names and reputations for the sake of others - and not in hope of regaining that reputation and honor - that we find deeper manifestations of honor and glory. If there is any other reason for our humility than to honor and promote and respect those brothers and sisters around - out of our love for them - then we are the greatest deceivers. It is manipulation and deception - which are both of the devil - to try and use people so that we might gain honor and respect.

God knows our secret hearts. I haven't yet obtained to this calling. It is something altogether more pure than I have become. By God's grace, I pray that I might be able to match this one day - maybe even today - but for now I continue to fall short.

I think we ought to all be humiliated and cut to the quick whenever we read the book of Acts. Our Christianity is utterly anemic and does not even bear comparison. These men - fishermen and louts - turned the world upside down. Our Christianity doesn't come close. And I think it all comes down to this one point that Paul is making: our faith is not a faith unto righteousness.

We might be able to put faith in God, but to put faith in another believer that we only see once a week is absurd. We have not been made on as He is one, and the result is that we officially have been made into a Christian culture instead of a Church. We have a Sunday Club. Some places around the world there are people that are required to meet more than Sunday and a midweek Bible Study. In those communities, God has wrought a likeness that our Western Culture cannot comprehend.

What is it that would cause such men - as unlearned as they were - to be so equipped by God to even debate against the most pristine that religion has to offer? The Holy Spirit had its own logic and law. The law of Grace compelled them to love one another. That love was not cheap. It cost everything. It cost honor and reputation for the sake of a higher one's honor and reputation; namely, the honor and reputation of God, but secondly the honor and reputation of those believers that you are with daily.

This is what we're called to.

Do you have faith for that?