Wisdom: The Art of Living Well...Pastor Phil Strong

Jesus: The Wisdom of God (Part 7)

11-7-10

I suggested last week that…

If we needed to summarize the story in one word, it would have to be “restoration/reconciliation”.

       Ephesians 1:9-10

And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things (‘summing up of all things’) in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

“times” (Gr.)- the decisive epoch waited for.

● “Epochs” are not meant to be reduced to doctrinal statements or creeds (although they are of some benefit in establishing systems of belief). If so, they become diluted and lose their capacity to inspire us.

            Epochs are “grand-stories” which seem to defy logic/rationale, but engage our passions… for justice to win out over injustice, for good to conquer evil, for purpose and meaning to arise from the chaos.

● A good epoch seems to always involve an element of unpredictability; a “twist”, you might say: not one that forfeits or completely alters the outcome of the story, but one that arrives in ways which are unforeseen.

When that happens, you get the feeling as if the author has accomplished his purpose, but in ways that have left you feeling a bit unsettled as the means: “I didn’t see that coming!”

● In telling the story, we discover that language, by its very nature, is ‘subjective’: meaning, that when we hear a word or phrase, we immediately access our memory for help. So, if I use the phrase, “outhouse”, and you have no past experience with one, the word would hold no meaning for you. When I hear it, it immediately conjures up some disturbing images and emotions.

The Jewish people not only told and retold the story, but they also re-enacted the story and used symbols as a means of expressing the story.

Symbols (ritual/ceremony) only possess value as they connect us to deeper meaning; it takes something ordinary (common) and attaches deeper significance (i.e. wedding ring- $7 from a street vendor in Toronto). It’s the story we tell that infuses it with meaning.

Jesus, in very cryptic and coded ways, was announcing the epoch arrival of God’s Kingdom.

All of this was a means of portraying his belief that he was Israel’s long-awaited Messiah through whom God would fulfill his restorative purposes for the whole world [that whatever healing, restoring work that God did for Israel would eventually benefit the whole world: see Luke 2:30-32].

Interestingly, at the point of their journey with Jesus when it seemed that what his followers needed were explanations and information, he gave them a “meal”. A meal with a story attached to it… “Passover”.

Before any words were ever spoken or any explanation offered, the meal was saying something (e.g. Thanksgiving table).

It was really a “double-drama”, of sorts. In one sense, it rehearsed an historical event (God’s loving intervention and deliverance from Egypt), but in another sense, it celebrated a future event, the “final exodus”, the real return from exile that would happen when God would become King.

At that time, the prophets kept insisting, that God would make a “new covenant”, one which would involve not just laws on a tablet, but laws “written on their hearts”; a “new heart”: God’s life in us which shapes us into the kind of people who routinely follow his heart (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 11:20, 18:30-31, 36:25-27).

The meal linked the past and the future with what was happening in the present.

In Numbers 13, Moses sent the (12) spies on a recon mission. Although there were mixed reports, they brought back a cluster of grapes from the Valley of Eschol (lit. ‘cluster’). In a sense, they were partaking in the present of a future reality.

● It’s telling the same story, but in a “new” way; a way that infuses the story with its “fullest” meaning: such re-telling of the story does not abandon or discount certain elements which have been so central to the story, but suggests that those elements alone failed to convey the story adequately (i.e. Temple, Law, feasts/festivals, etc.)

            We all know of systems/structures which had such authentic and seemingly pure beginnings, but have now actually become, themselves, so corrupt that they contradict their intended purposes (Temple: place of prayer, forgiveness of sins, restoration to community--- for which sacrifice was the prescribed action. Law: had become burdensome and restrictive).

Jesus linked the elements and actions of the story to his own life.

Jesus’ words about the bread identified it with his own body. Gamaliel, a rabbi who was a contemporary of Jesus, explained that the bread signified the rescue from Egypt. It was prepared without yeast because of the immediacy and urgency of the mission. Jesus may have been alluding to the urgency of his mission, as well.

Jesus’ words about the cup are identified with his blood. The phrase, “the blood of the covenant” echoes the actions of Moses in Exodus 24:8 (sprinkling the blood of the sacrifice on the people to identify them with the covenant).

Leviticus 17:10-12 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life… The blood symbolized the life of the sacrificial victim.

I would suggest that even when presented with images such as “the cross”, it is infused with varying meaning and emotions.

Much of our theology sees Jesus as the one who bore the brunt of the Father’s anger, taking upon himself the punishment for all of the ways that we have abused and corrupted his good creation and thought we could get away with it. “Someone’s gonna pay!”

● So, God is depicted as generally repulsed by humanity, but fond of his Son, Jesus. So, he says, “Well, I love you and since you seemed to have developed such a relationship with them, I’ll let you take the heat.”

● There are at least (2) things wrong with this perspective: 1) it implies that Jesus’ actions somehow changed God’s mind about us, 2) it suggests that the only way God could ever tolerate us would be if someone would allow him to “vent” on them.

● The NT never seems to depict the attitude of God toward us in that way. To the contrary, it says that Jesus did not die “for our sins” in spite of the fact that he was God, but because of the fact that he was God. It’s what you should expect from love. It’s what you should expect from God.

Romans 5:6-8 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

1 John 4:9-10 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

● Now, we are called to live in the present in light of God’s future… “you do this to celebrate the Lord’s death until he comes again”. Living fully aware of the fact that things are not as they should be, but with a fixed expectation (hope) in God’s determination to “set things right”!