Take Up Your Cross

As I've been reading scripture lately I've been taking a new interest in references to the work Jesus did on the cross. I used to mostly think of the cross in terms of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory... but I'm now recognizing there are other aspects that I've overlooked.

What did Jesus have to say about the cross?

Matt 16:24-28 (NIV)

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew records Jesus saying something similar in Matt 10:38-39, and , Mark 8:34-38, and Luke 9:23-27. There is something to this passage that the gospel writers agreed was important.

So what could Jesus be asking of us here? By taking up our cross is Jesus asking us to pay the price for our sins like he did on the cross... no, I won't go there.

I think this lines up with what Paul talks about in Romans 6.

We used to let our own selfish ways rule in our lives. Jesus took our sins to the cross. He modeled putting sin to death. Jesus is saying we need to do the same. Our sin needs to die on the cross with Him.

Now with Jesus on the throne, we are now ruled by His will, guided by the Holy Spirit. In a sense we died on the cross with Jesus... our selfish ways are dead. The life we live now is Christ's.

Don't just take my word for any of this, read how Paul describes it in Romans 6.

Related Posts:

• Importance of the cross - a look at many verses talking about meanings of the cross
• Slaves to sin or God
• Difference between ransom and paying a debt
• Kingdom of God
• 10 reasons why I'm not a fan of Penal Subtitutionary Attonment
• Whodunnit Who Killed Jesus
• What gospel does your neighbor need to hear

Signs that say it all

OK, maybe a bit harsh... This is not a reall sign, and this is not what I believe.

But what if Calvinists actually wrote on their signage what they believe.

Many Calvinist theologians believe that God hates sinners.

If God hates sinners, shouldn't we? We are to strive to be about our Fathers business... follow Jesus... etc.

The logic is crazy... so I put "Fun-Da-Mental".

Difference between ransom and paying a debt

Paying a debt

Most Christians I know like using phrases like:

• "Jesus paid our debt"
• "Jesus paid the penalty for our sins"
• "We need to accept Jesus payment for our sins"

I have noted for some time that none of these expressions are found in Scripture. But whenever I have tried to express this concern with others they don't seem to see the problem as I do.

In the paying a debt analogy. Somebody owes something to someone, and somebody pays the bill.

So we think of us sinners, owing God something (our lack of holiness?). Jesus dies to pay the price God requires of us so our debt is canceled. Instead of God killing us (or torturing us for eternity), God in a sense kills Jesus.

(Please correct me if I'm wrong... but I think this is sort of how the thinking goes.)


Paying a Ransom

Scripture does talk of Jesus paying a ransom

1 Timothy 2:5-6:

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time." (NIV)

Matthew 20:28 (NIV)

"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Hebrews 9:15 (NIV)

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

In the paying a ransom analogy some bad/evil force is holding somebody captive. Somebody with enough resources pays off the bad/evil force, and buys back or sets free what was captured.

In this scenario, we don't think of God as being the bad evil force that is holding sinners captive. I think it is our selfish (sinful) ways that are holding us captive. We don't have the resources to free ourselves. Christ's work at the cross defeats sin and sets us free.

Redeemed

Redeemed also shows up a number of times. It means to buy back. I think the logic is very much the same as the ransom analogy. Here is two verses:

Galatians 3:13 (NIV)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Titus 2:14 (NIV)

who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

Are you OK with the emphasis that God is against us, but Jesus is for us?

I don't know why the work of the cross is usually described in a way that fits with the Penal Subtitutionary attonment theory instead of looking at the rest of Scripture. Maybe it's not this simple. I know theologians have been debating this for centuries. I just don't feel comfortable anymore with the emphasis this theory often gets.

There are also other ways Scripture describes Christ's work on the cross. I plan to do a few more related posts soon.

Related Posts:

• Importance of the cross - a look at many verses talking about meanings of the cross
• 10 reasons why I'm not a fan of Penal Subtitutionary Attonment
• Bearing our burden
• Whodunnit Who Killed Jesus
• More on Penal Substitution
• Penal Substituion
• What gospel does your neighbor need to hear

Playdough Scripture Heb 4:12

"For the word of God Bible is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. "

Heb 4:12 (Playdough Version)

Is there anything in the surrounding passages that would lead us to think this verse is talking about the Bible? Why do we read it that way? Tradition?

The verses surrounding this are talking about Jesus.

Jesus was often called the word of God. 'Word' here in greek is λόγος or logos, which is the same used in John 1:1 - referring to Jesus.

Why wouldn't we think this verse is about Jesus?

Jesus is living, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

True... and challenging. When I read this verse as "the Bible is"... it was only piercing my heart when I opened it to read it... But if this is about Jesus... He can be piercing my heart whenever I'm off track, any time of the day.

Related Posts:

• Word Study on Word of God
• Word study on Word of the Lord
• Word study on the Word
  
• Do you know God's voice

Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy

To lead does not always mean to plan or make decisions for those you want to follow.

Sometimes leading means just doing what you need to do. You may become a leader if others recognize they should be doing the same. If someone starts following, just encourage them as they find their place in the movement as well.

Leadership is not decision making

Alan over at the assembling of the church got me thinking this morning with a re-post of Leadership is not decision making.

He makes the claim that:

When we study the idea of leadership in Scripture, we find that leadership in the church is not decision-making, and decision-making is not leadership. When we study the idea of leadership in today’s church, we find that leadership is primarily about decision-making.

Then he summarized a few passages to support this notion. This caught my attention. Is Alan onto something?

Acts 6:1 - 6 (NIV)

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."

This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

Interesting. The leaders gave their idea, but the whole group took the idea, found workers to solve the problem, and presented them back to the leaders. I have never noticed this before.

I suspect if a similar senerio happened in a typical 'church' group today, it may look more like this:

• Somebody observes a problem (possibly either lay person or clergy)
• The problem is reported to the leaders
• The leaders meet to discuss and pray about a solution behind closed doors
  
• If the decided upon solution requires volunteer workers, the leaders will seek out suitable volunteers
• If the decided upon solution requires more paid staff, the the leaders will seek out suitable staff
• The leaders will present the solution to the rest of the body

Alan also looked at examples in Acts 15, and 1 Cor 5 with similar observations. But... I am wondering if there are also other examples in the New Testament Church where the leaders imposed their decisions on the body. There may be. However Alan has pointed out these passages that show the leaders didn't assume it was their right or duty to make these decisions on their own.

Is it too much of a pie in the sky idea that we could actually just let Christ be head of His church? That he could lead each of His children individually. Members of His body would give discernment, encouragement, teaching, admonishing etc to one another. Leaders would be examples of those who serve others... leading the the way that others would want to follow... but not leading by lording over or making decisions on behalf of others? I'd like to taste a piece of that pie. :)

Related Post:

• Church Leaders
• Community I desire