The Captain of Our Salvation

"But we see Jesus, Who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for every one. For it was fitting that He, for Whom and by Whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering." (Hebrews 2:9-10)

Jesus, the Christ, is referred to in this passage as the "archegon" of our salvation. The Greek word actually means "captain" (or "prince" or "author") of our salvation. Now, not just anyone can be the captain! When, as a young man, I sailed on the ss Oriana, I was not invited up to the bridge to take on the responsibilities of the captain. The captain had to be, and has to be, someone who had the authority, the knowledge, and the experience, to command. If I had been immediately promoted from a lowly chef in the galley, to captain on the bridge, I fear that the ship would have experienced many difficulties.

In any team sport, the captain is not the latest recruit; the least fit member; or the one who never turns up for training sessions! The captain of a team must be experienced, physically fit, a good example to the rest of the team, and one on whom the team may depend.

So it is in life. I do not have the authority, the knowledge, and the experience, to run my own life. I am a sinner, prone to failure and defeat. I make mistakes, in my words, in my thoughts (the most frequent!), and even in my deeds. I am unable to run my life as I believe it should be run. I need someone to whom I can look up; someone who is a good example; someone on whom I may depend. I need a Captain!

The word translated 'captain' also implies one who is first in line; the beginning; the originator. So the Lord Jesus is discovered to be the first in line of an endless procession of the saints of all ages resurrected from the grave and marching to the ultimate realisation of their salvation. He is truly "the first-born among many brethren" (Romans 8:29). 

In his first letter to the early disciples of Jesus in Corinth, Paul spends some time on the topic of  resurrection.  It would appear that there were some in the Corinthian fellowship who were denying the resurrection of believers (15:12), so Paul reminds them of the basis of the Gospel message that he had proclaimed to them - "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures," (15:3-5; emphasis added). He then follows a hypothetical line: "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ... ... If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. ... If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied." (15: 13-14, 17, 19).

Having followed the hypothesis, he then makes the glorious claim:  "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep." (15:20; emphasis added). Hallelujah!

The word is used only three other times in the New Testament, each within a resurrection and glorification context. Peter, addressing the people of Israel, said that they had "... killed the Author of life, Whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses." (Acts 3:15). 

Later, we read that Peter and the other apostles, testifying before the Sanhedrin (the Jewish leadership) stated that "The God of our fathers raised Jesus Whom you killed by hanging Him on a tree. God exalted Him at His right hand as Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." (Acts 5:30-31).

As a result of what our "Captain" has done, we should be "... looking to Jesus the Author and perfecter of our faith Who, for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." (Heb. 12:2).

The only way we could ever share in His glory is for Him to suffer and die. "For He Who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why He is not ashamed to call them brethren," (Heb. 2:11).

If your life is confused, and confusing; if you are unsure as to which direction you should take; if the future seems to be dark, and uncertain; perhaps you need a new Captain. You know the One Whom I would recommend!

In the Beginning - Pt.3

If we imagine that we are still in the theatre that I pictured in Pt.2, then the opening chorus has now ended, and we may settle down to watch the hero of the play, and the heroine. We think of them as Adam and Eve. We move, now, into the main part of Genesis ch.2.

The first chapter of Genesis was what we might refer to as a cosmic, God's-eye view of the creation, with human beings, created in the image of the Creator, as the climax of the process. However, when we come to the second chapter, we find that the focus has shifted. This presentation of the Creation is down at ground level, with humanity at the centre. The account follows a repeated pattern of defining a need; providing an answer; and establishing a rule.

The first area that is dealt with is that of the earth itself. The need, here, is for cultivation: "In the day that YHWH Elohim made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up - for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground ..." (Gen 2:4-6). The answer to that need was to create man, who was intended to take care of the garden and the surrounding landscape. "... then YHWH Elohim formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. And YHWH Elohim planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there He put the man whom He had formed. ... ... YHWH Elohim took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it." (Gen 2:7-8, 15). 

However, there was a condition set! "And YHWH Elohim commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Gen 2:16-17). That condition establishes a rule - "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolises doing things our own way, and we are told that, instead, we are to trust and obey the words of Almighty God. One does not need to be a professional student of history to realise that being able to say (or sing!) "I did it my way", is a root cause for all of the trouble that has been, and is, experienced all over the world.

The second issue concerns man himself. The need that is recognised is that man needs a suitable helper: "Then YHWH Elohim said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.' " (Gen 2:18). The answer to that need is dealt with: "So YHWH Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which YHWH Elohim had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." (Gen 2:21-22). She is instantly recognised, by the man, as one who is "like himself" - as opposed to the various animals that he had named. In the first poetic passage in the Bible, he says: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Gen 2:23). The record continues: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." (Gen 2:24).

So, what is the rule here? I would suggest that it is of a one-partner, life-long, relationship that we call "marriage". This does not mean that there is anything 'wrong' or 'incomplete' about those who are not married! It does mean that any physical, sexual relationship outwith marriage is wrong in the eyes of the Creator. There is also the rule of "equality". That great old commentator, Matthew Henry, writes: "The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved." The two genders, whether married or single, need one another as equal partners - but with different needs, abilities, strengths, and responsibilities - in every activity and community. 

It's a lovely picture that we see in those earliest days of the history of planet Earth and its people. How tragic it is that all was soon to be spoiled - but that is for next time!

Do secular governments have the Biblical authority to deny Christian worship?

There is, at the current time, a point of view that claims that the Government has Biblical authority to shut down church buildings, and deny disciples of Jesus the right to meet together to praise and worship, in fellowship with one another.

This claim to Biblical authority is based on Paul's words in Rom.13:1-7, and Peter's exhortation in I Peter 2:13-17. This video clarifies the situation!

Doing it His way; and a massacre!

In the previous post, I mentioned that the Old Testament prophet, Malachi, had four main criticisms of the Children of Israel. The second of these was that they had failed to keep the covenant into which Almighty God had entered with them. 

"For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of YHWH Sabaoth. But you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by your instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says YHWH Sabaoth, ..." (2:7-8).

The covenant to which he refers was a covenant that YHWH had made, with the priests, through Levi (see Numbers 25. Phineas was a descendant of Levi. This is "another example of the Heb. concept of 'corporate personality'; Levi represents the 'tribe of Levi' of the Levites . . ." (New International Bible Commentary. Zondervan), that they would teach the people, accurately and faithfully, all aspects of the divine law. This they had patently failed to do, and so Malachi faces them with this challenging and strong indictment.

However, I would contend that we are experiencing a similar situation in the church in the 21st century (and before!). In an article that I had published, recently, I stated: "Surely the church is intended to be a prophetic voice to the nation – not a subservient reflection of the social norms that, sadly, are so much at odds with the Gospel of our Lord Jesus, the Christ! Is it not the case that the established churches that are seeking to emulate society ... .... are slowly dying as they forsake the Word on which they should be founding their message to mankind?" One friend, here in France, often makes the point that the problem in the church is one of ignorance (in the correct definition of the word!) of the Word of God, and I believe that he is absolutely correct. But who is to blame? Surely it is those who have been charged with delivering, and explaining, that Word of God. Is it really being expounded in  the way in which it ought to be?

Now, of course, there are notable exceptions, and I could rhyme off a list of congregations/ fellowships in Scotland in which the Word is faithfully preached, without the addition of 'gimmicks'! However, there are far too many places in which the Word of God is so diluted, diminished, denigrated, denied, and even destroyed, that people leave having heard no divine challenge; no word from God; no revelation from heaven. We may have a semi-professional worship team (or a fine choir and an expensive organ); we may have hearty congregational singing; we may have our programmes to help the poor and downtrodden; we may have regular visiting of the sick; we may have a hundred-and-one wonderful programmes; but if we have no sound Biblical exposition and teaching, then our 'worship services' are a hollow mockery, and an empty pantomime!

I am convinced that, if Malachi were alive today, he would be thundering into the ears of the 'spiritual leadership' of our nations: "... you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by your instruction; ..." (v.8). In that article already mentioned, I also wrote that when I consider "... the church adapting its beliefs and practices to conform with the current social zeitgeist, I wonder what Paul would think! That is the Paul who, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, enjoined that we “… be not conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Rom.12:2; emphasis added)."

Yesterday, in Texas, a young man deliberately murdered 26 people, and left another 27 seriously wounded in First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. This was no Muslim jihadist. This was no "gun-toting redneck". This was, it would appear, a young man who once taught briefly on a Christian vacation camp, but who had become a militant atheist. It begs the question - that doesn't apply only to the USoA - "What is happening to the teaching ministry in today's church?" Do our young people grasp the full meaning and implication of the Christian faith? Are they being shown how to live in accordance with the values revealed in the written Word of God? Do we provide them with clear Biblical instruction on how to cope with sexual permissiveness, and deviance; problems of authority; matters of morality?

Surely it is time that many in the church - and particularly in its leadership - became less concerned about changing the Gospel to suit society, and started to preach the Gospel that society might be changed! Paul's Holy Spirit inspired words are as relevant today, as ever they have been! It's time that we did it His way!

Were you there when they crucified my Lord?

The title to this post is, as many will recognise, the first line of an old Negro spiritual - songs that were sung by African slaves in the cotton plantations of the southern states of the "New World" of North America.  The answer, of course, is that all of us were represented as the Lamb, slain from before the foundation of the world, hung on that old rugged Cross.

But who was there, physically, on that day almost 2,000 years ago?  Well, there were the men who engineered His death - the Pharisees and the Sadducees.  The Pharisees were teachers of the Mosaic Law.  They ran the schools and synagogues and, in a sense, considered themselves to be the national conscience of the Jewish people.  They were men of high moral character.   Jesus, Himself, said "... unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:20).  They certainly had very strict attitude to life and their religious beliefs. They accepted the Scriptures (our Old Testament) as the Word of God.  Why should such men have wanted to destroy Jesus?  Simply because he was a threat to their status and authority!  They regarded it as their sole prerogative to keep the nation together spiritually, so when Jesus said: "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6), they were angered to the point of scheming His death.  They are an illustration of how men who are moral and upright can go wrong!

Then there were the Sadducees.  They were a group of aristocratic priests who were not only the spiritual leaders of the people, but also statesmen.  At the time when the Lord Jesus lived out His incarnate life, they were more concerned about politics than spirituality, and went out of their way to maintain good relationships with the occupying Roman forces.  Concerned for their own position, they were concerned that Jesus might start an insurrection that would bring the might of Imperial Rome down upon them, and upon the nation.  The well-known words of their leader - the High Priest, Caiaphas: "... that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." (John 11:50), reveal the deep intent of their hearts.  They saw the Lord as a hindrance to their self-interest and self-concerns.  So, because it seemed to them to be expedient, they had Him nailed to a Cross.

This topic is going to take two posts, but permit me to mention one other person. He was not physically present at the crucifixion - but was instrumental in bringing it about.  His name was Judas Iscariot.  I don't know what a modern psycho-analyst would discover if he could have Judas Iscariot on his consulting room couch for a full session.  However, two questions surely arise when we look at this man - how could anyone who had know the Christ so well; who hard lived with Him, travelled with Him, dined with Him, listened to His teaching; do such a traitorous thing? Secondly, why would he do it for such a paltry sum of money - the price laid down for a slave!? (see Ex.21:32).  The only answer with which we may come up is that it was a mixture of greed, and attempting to 'force the hand' of Jesus. He may have travelled with the Lord, but did he ever enter into a genuine relationship with Him?  

In the very first sermon that I ever preached - almost fifty years ago! - I made the point that there were those who sit in church buildings, Sunday by Sunday, without any serious commitment to the Christ in their hearts.  They may persuade themselves that, because they have gone through certain ecclesiastical rituals, and have their names on a membership roll, that they are "Christians"! However, they are merely using the name, without any real relationship to the Lord.  Judas Iscariot would seem to have been of that ilk!

Of course, when we look at these people, we must also look at ourselves.   Perhaps at this mid-point of this Holy Week, we need to check who is in control in our lives. Does Jesus have full authority - or is He a threat to the authority we want to retain for ourselves?  Are we more concerned for our own position in society, than for His honour and glory?   Do we have a genuine relationship with Jesus - or are we depending on externals?  These are important questions.  They are personal questions.  They are questions that need to be asked - and answered - honestly!

Children, pornography, and sex!

So it takes a study by the Office of the Children's Commissioner to inform us that children who watch porn are more likely to engage in 'risky' sex acts!

Do these civil servants not understand the basics of advertising? We tend to want what we see - and manufacturers, and their marketing departments, take full advantage of that. It is no different with children and even sex.

Of course, the answer lies in the accepting, by parents, of responsibility for the safe upbringing of their own children.  Therein lies what I believe to be a major part of the problem.  For at least a couple of generations, and certainly since the teaching of the 'expert', the late Dr Benjamin Spock, we have encouraged our children to be small-sized adults.  "Don't call me Mr Ross - it's Brian!"; "Ask Brian if he will get that for you." (from a parent); "You and I will be best pals!" or "Okay, mate!" (adult to child).  Sorry, folks, but while I would always wish to be friendly towards any child, I am not their "mate", or "pal".  I am an adult - now old enough to be the grandparent of any child who is still at school.

It was this attitude, in my opinion, that led to the lack of respect displayed by so many children towards those deemed to be "in authority" - police officers, teachers, etc.  The number of what are still referred to, euphemistically, as "single-parent" families, has not helped.  That is not to say that no single parent has ever raised a well-mannered family.  There are exceptions to every rule.  Sadly, however, they are the exceptions.

Another problem is the way in which some parents constantly give in to the demands of their children - back to the power of advertising!  Seriously, does a primary school child really need a mobile 'phone - let alone one by which the internet may be accessed without any parental, or any other adult, supervision?

"Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." writes the inspired author of the book of Proverbs (Prov 22:6) and, again, "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die." (Prov 23:13).  Oh, and please note that that latter quotation is most definitely not an excuse for any form of child abuse.  That is a different matter altogether.

Turning to the New Testament, we find Paul writing to the Ephesian believers, "Children , obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.  "Honour your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), "that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth." (Eph. 6:1-3).  However, he also provided the other side of the coin: "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Eph 6:4).

If I fail to follow the instructions for the use and service of my car, I cannot complain to the manufacturer if it breaks down.  As a society, too many have failed to even read the Maker's Handbook (aka the Bible).  We have no right to complain that society has broken down!

God, Dawking, and all that is!!

I've recently been involved in some discussion threads in the online editions of a couple ofthe 'quality' newspapers.  A lot of the discussion has come about from the alleged statement, by Prof Stephen Hawking, to the effect that God is no longer necessary!!

Obviously, the materialistic humanists are rubbing their hands with glee.  An eminenet astrophysicist has spoken - it must be so!!  Many of them won't even be aware that Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th century German philosopher and author, made the claim a long time ago!  They certainly won't know that he was merely claiming that human beings are no longer able to believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognise it!  They probably wouldn't want to know that, in the relevant book, Nietzsche has the words "God is dead" uttered by a madman!!!

Personally, I perceive a simple logic. The Creator, by definition, must be 'uncreated'. I used to inform pupils who asked me the question: "If God created everything, who/what created God?", that it was a giant cricket-bat. That led to the obvious question as to who/what created the giant cricket-bat. After a couple more, equally silly, suggestions, I came back to "God" - it's something of a circular argument!

The bottom line, surely, is that even as eminent an academic as Prof Hawking needs to accept that we have a simple choice - either an uncreated 'piece of matter/gravitational force/laws of physics/whatever' or an uncreated, intelligent, personal Being to Whom, in the English language, we normally apply the nomenclature "God". I make my choice; Prof Hawking makes his choice; and everyone else does the same.
I would have thought that it is really quite elementary!

One reader was kind enough to say that, when I wrote in the above terms, I had provided a good post!  However, (s)he did object to my statement that " The Creator, by definition, must be 'uncreated'."  Yet surely that which is 'created' is 'created' by a 'creator' - and this is true of any of the material objects with which we are familiar. It's not an original thought, but I can't imagine anyone thinking that even something as common (and relatively lacking in complexity) as the internal combustion engine having come together 'by chance'. It was 'created' by someone. We don't even fully understand the concept of time, let alone the greater concept of infinity/eternity. This, I would suggest, is because we are incapable of understanding anything that is not fully material. Yet even Prof Hawking postulates a ten-dimensional universe. What do we even begin to understand about those other dimensions?

When I look at the known (a very important adjective, in this case!) universe, with all of its, so-far, discovered laws, I am over-awed by its complexity, order, and predictability. For me, it is much more difficult, and would take a much greater 'leap of faith' to accept that it is merely the result of random coincidences (I know that I am being simplistc, but I am merely trying to make a point!).

The difficulty with the concept of a Creator God, it seems to me, is that of authority! So many want to follow Frank Sinatra and say "I did it my way". They refuse to be subject to a higher power. So, the easiest thing to do is to deny the existence of that power!

I would suggest that one of Prof Hawking's additional dimensions is the spiritual dimension. It's a wee bit more difficult to grasp than the time-space continuum with which all of us are familiar. But that is not sufficient cause to deny its existence!

Shakespeare may have been much closer to the 'truth' when he had his character Hamlet state that "There are stranger things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are thought of in your philosophies"! And, as mentioned in my last post, Einstein said “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”?