anointed

Narrative Sermon

LAW IN THE GOSPEL 

The law was a unifying factor in Israel and not easily rescinded or modified whereas Jesus appeared to have an authority to do so.  Moses introduced the law in Exodus 20 where Israel lived by in an effort to uphold God’s will.  The law served as an embodiment of behavioral expectations and central to the lives of God’s chosen people.  Accordingly, when Jesus openly “changed the requirements” of the law, Israel demanded an explanation for His authority to do so.  This authority is found in Matthew 5:17: “Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it.”  In other words, it was not God’s will to revoke or remove the law from His people but rather to satisfy that which was required of them.

Significance of the Law in Israel

The Exodus is the primary event where God sets forth a set of regulations.  In Exodus, God enters into a covenant with his people.  Generally a covenant is an agreement between two parties.  In the covenant rendered at Mt. Sinai, Israel took an oath to obey God and Israel’s obligation is obedience to the covenant stipulations.  The entering into a covenant with God is significant, because Israel has agreed to “serve no other God” (Ex. 20:1).  The covenant itself is redemptive in nature after God delivers Israel from Egyptian bondage and assigns the law which is designed to keep Israel under God’s protection.

Mosaic Law was supposed to give the people a sense of conscience between right and wrong so that they would not sin against their God (Deut. 6:2).  In having a “fear for God” through knowledge of the laws, the Israelites would uphold their covenant obligation of obedience.  As a result of obedience, God’s people would also be sanctified for his use and purpose (Lev. 15:31).  In other words, the laws given to the Jews were a list of required acts, which resulted in a sacred walk with God.  Absent the guideline of the laws unto righteousness, Israel waked in a state of lawlessness and required that sacrificial offerings be made to make up for those transgressions against God as defined by the law (Ex. 29:36). The laws conveyed by God held a point of sacredness given the manner which they were delivered to God’s people:

On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning with a thick cloud over the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast.  Everyone in the camp trembled.  Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meed with God and they stood at the foot of the mountain.  Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LOrd descended on it in fire.  The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently (Ex. 19:16-18).

This event must have inspired a new respect for God’s greatness and certainly gave momentous experience to the significance of the laws which were conveyed in that moment.  Until the arrival of Jesus Christ, the Israelites were to uphold their promise to obey God’s laws subject the “ultimate price for disobedience which was a curse of exile.  The exile was not just one of removal from the promised land, but also a type of exile which presumably removed the disobedient from the will of God.  “Once removed from the will of God, the community suffered collaboratively and engaged in discipline or consequence in a collective manner” (Lev. 24:23).  Adherence to the law was not necessarily a matter of establishing a personal relationship with God, but rather a means of unity as a group that God ordained as sanctified.

Embodiment of the Law in Christ

Jesus boldly declared that He was greater than the laws that governed Israel (Acts 7:37).  Jesus was a fulfillment of what head been prophesied about Him in the Old Testament as the promised Messiah (Luke 24:44).  Israel was expecting a deliverer that would save Israel from all her sins and Jesus Christ satisfied that profile:

“And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written.  The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.  And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins” (Rom. 11:26-27, Isa. 59:20, 21; 27:9; Jer. 31:33, 34).  

As the Messiah, Jesus had to fulfill several expectations which included an explicit description of His crucifixion (and final sin offering) in Psalm 22:16-18:

“Dogs have surrounded me, a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hand and my feet.  I can count all my bones, people stare and gloat over me.  They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.”

Additionally, Jesus Himself conceded to being the Messiah when questioned by the priests during the course of his “trial” prior to the crucifixion, (Mark 14:61-63):

“But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.  Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus.  “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes, “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked.”

According to Old Testament practice, a sacrifice had to be offered every time an Israelite sinned thereby creating ritualistic sacrificial offerings to God for different reasons.  Jesus Christ, as the sinless Lamb of God (John 1:36), was the ultimate sacrificial offering in fulfillment of God’s law.  In other words, instead of continually making sacrificial offerings to God for sin that was committed, Christ was offered once and for all to redeem mankind from sin.  Consequently, those who believed in the “final offering” fulfilled the laws of righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ, (Rom. 10:9).  

The New Testament references “works of the law” in Paul’s letter to the Romans.  The righteousness through Christ’s fulfillment of the law was offered by God through grace alone and apart from works of the law.  This righteousness came through faith alone and without the necessity of human work.  This righteousness without works was best demonstrated in that it wasn’t for the Israelites alone who adhered to the laws given on Mt. Sinai, but now included “Jew and Gentile” alike (i.e. all of mankind even those who did not carry the sign of circumcision which was consistent with the request of the law) (John 7:22). God presented Christ as the final atonement through faith in the shed blood of the sinless Lamb, because without the shedding of His blood there is no forgiveness or cleansing (Hebrews 9:22).  As a result, there was no one who could “boast about attaining righteousness on their own,” because it had been achieved in complete absence of human contribution in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-27).

Consistent with the sacred status of Mosaic Law in Israel, Christ’s message of redemption in Him did not come without resistance (John 7:19).  Those which were responsible to uphold Israel’s “legal status” opposed Christ’s message with the most fervor (Matt. 21:23).  On a purely legal basis, the priests assigned to keep Israel under God’s laws had a responsibility of executing discipline and watching over God’s people (Ex. 28:41, Lev. 4:3, 5, 16).  However, their own hearts had turned away from God’s intended protection of the laws of Israel and had turned into a self exalting endeavor (Luke 20:46-50): 

“Beware of the teachers of the law.  They like to walk around in their flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.  They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers.  Such men will be punished most severely.”

In other words, God’s chosen priests were no longer adhering to the laws in a manner consistent with worshiping God, but instead maintained leadership roles for personal gain.  As a result, Israel was not being led according to God’s will to honor Him, because the leaders were not guiding God’s chosen like they were supposed to. 

Christ’s crucifixion became a necessary and final sin offering for his people.  While the initial address of righteousness was toward Israel alone, Christ’s sacrifice was ultimately offered to Jew and Gentile alike (Rom. 1:16).  Christ carried the sin of humanity before “being led in silence to die for the sins of others” (1 Cor. 15:3).  As Christ carried the sins of the people, all sin was put to death on Calvary thereby fulfilling the requirement of laws which had been broken or yet to be broken in effort to reconcile mankind to God once and for all.  Christ fulfilled the law in those who believed in his final work and would be alleviated not only from fulfilling laws on their own but attaining a reconciliation of purity to God which was not possible in human might alone.  

While Christ is the fulfillment of the laws of Israel, it was never the intent to remove the laws.  The laws still have to be obeyed (Rom. 2:13), but now the obedience is acquired through the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:32).  The laws remain intact and now those who believe in not only God’s laws, but also Jesus’ sacrifice, are empowered to fulfill God’s requirements of lawful behavior.  The state of human righteousness itself is attained in Christ alone, because He is the sinless Son of God.  But righteous behavior is still expected from God’s people in conformity with what the laws were intended to convey by requiring obedience.

Adherence to God’s laws still serves as a point of separation from what the pagan world is doing.  The laws still provide for behavior that allows for a redemptive walk with Christ that is progressive.  No longer are believers expected to shed sinful behaviors on their own, but as a result of fulfilled law, are granted the Holy Spirit as a continual source of renewal (Titus 3:5).  Sanctification is acquired through grace consistent with the same laws, which were decreed on Mt. Sinai.  Without the law, mankind walks in reckless disregard to God’s presence thereby dishonoring Him.  The laws are still and will always be a guideline that teaches and guides righteous character (2 Timothy 4:2).

Conclusion

It was necessary that Christ fulfill the law once and for all as the ultimate sacrificial offering, because the law through the obedience of men could not fully satisfy the requirements to abolish sin in its entirety.  Without the “embodiment of the law” as Christ HImself, Israelite (and Gentile alike) could not be set free from the law of sin and death (Rom. 7:5).  Of greater significance was the reconciliation that was allowed between mankind and God through the sinless life of Christ.  By believing in the sacrificial atonement in Jesus, God has done away with separation from Him by the sins of His people and new believers.  The laws stand fulfilled and those who have believed in the redemptive work of Christ can never be separated from God again:

“For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39).

References

Bible Gateway. Online bible. www.biblegateway.com (Available as of March 31, 2010).

Thematic Sermon

GOD’S PROMISES 

The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. "I will make you into a great nation 

and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gen 12:1-3).  

    God made an offer to Abraham.  That offer was contingent and was premised on an action that Abraham was supposed to take.  God said, “IF you leave your country, THEN I will do the following for you.”  It was up to Abraham to make a choice between leaving a location that was familiar to him and having the confidence in God to believe in the promise. If an ordinary person had made the same offer to Abraham, then the same result is unlikely to have transpired.  Abraham’s act of compliance with God’s offer infers that Abraham had previous contact with God; a pre-existing relationship with God; or at the very least, that Abraham had knowledge of who God was.  How many of us would be willing to act on an offer that was unseen and possibly not audibly heard?  

    Abraham’s belief that it was “the Lord” who was speaking to him, shows Abraham’s conviction about the faithfulness of His God. The statement that follows concerning “leaving his country” is a series of promises made by God to Abraham.  The excerpt of this particular scripture does not explain why God made such an oath or if there was an event that led up to it.  However, the promises appear to surpass Abraham’s lifetime and extend into future generations. In fact, God promises to make Abraham a blessing and to exalt him beyond a point that would be conceivable to Abraham! God promises to honor Abraham and his descendants by blessing and cursing those who harm or support Abraham (and his descendants).  The promise is a potent one which validates Abraham as one of God’s own.  Abraham is essentially handed a set of promises that would require God in Abraham’s life and beyond.  It is interesting that the promise appears to be without motivation and an act of sovereignty on God’s part.  Similarly, we are chosen as an act of grace on God’s part that has nothing to do with our behavior or standing in life.

    Patriarchal history begins with the election of Abraham.  His call comes dramatically and definitively (LaSor 46).  The bible does not provide reasoning for why Abraham was chosen among other men.  We are not told what attributes Abraham held that were appealing to God only that Abraham acted on God’s word.  The chosen individual seems an arbitrary decision by God, but given the lineage of patriarchs that followed, Abraham’s call proves to be more deliberate than not.  LaSor speaks to the contradictions of Abraham’s call: “He is to be a great nation (Gen 12:2) but Sara is barren (Gen 11:30).  The land belongs to Abraham’s descendants (Gen 12:7) but the Canaanites occupy it (Gen 12:6),” (LaSor 47). Nevertheless, Abraham obeys God’s instructions and follows in faith.  I have to wonder how many of us were given promises that we missed simply because we did not believe that God could do what was seemingly impossible?  

    God’s promises in Abraham’s life almost seem intentionally contradictive.  It’s as if Abraham himself could not fulfill any of God’s promises in his own might and it would literally take the power of God to fulfill what God had promised.  In spite of Abraham’s futile efforts to “help God” perform his promises, God appears “when old age makes the promise seem inconceivable in human terms” (Ibid.)  A question might arise between the time when God made His promise and when He fulfilled His promise: What were Were all the events that took place supposed to happen? (i.e. the birth of Ishmael? Gen 16).  This point is relevant, because it shows that when God makes a promise, He keeps it in His own time in spite of any obstacles that may arise in the interim.  In other words, if we heard God make a promise, and various incidents to the contrary have taken place that make the end goal seem beyond repair - it’s not over.  If God said He would do it, He will.  Even the patriarch of many religions got it wrong!  

    The same promises were affirmed to the other patriarchs.  Abraham could not have known about these subsequent affirmations.  This only substantiates that it was Abraham’s faith that allowed God’s promise to take hold in the first place! It is why, Abraham is called the Father of our faith. “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all” (Rom 4:16).  

    God’s faithfulness to His own word was apparent when Abraham and Sarah conceived...and it remains a point of faith, because that which was promised has not fully come to pass.  It is at this stage where previous instances of God’s overt actions are held on to for the sake of preserving a point of contact with faith to an incomplete promise that is still pending.  In other words, here lies the crux of the Israelites’ ongoing belief that God will redeem their nation and fulfill the promise made to Abraham and affirmed in Isaac and Jacob.  Similarly, we await the return of our Savior to fully redeem the Body of Christ (Rev 22:20).  We also have a promise that we hold on to premised on Christ’s resurrection which is associated with Abraham’s lineage.  

    The course of Abraham’s path towards his promise was not an easy journey.  There were several instances where Abraham “did not understand the promise” and acted on his own without God.  Notably, “Abraham avoids catastrophe by his calm faith in God’s ability to fulfill His promise” (Provan 109).  Provan specifically speaks to the division of land between Lot and Abraham, but in reality there were other significant instances like when Ishmael was conceived only to be told by God that this would not be the promised heir (Gen 17).  Abraham had to part with Ishmael in spite of the fact that Ishmael was Abraham’s first born (Gen 21).  It was Abraham’s faith that persisted and kept believing in spite of the difficulties that arose.  Can you imagine having to send away a first born? Abraham could have easily blamed God for having to part with Ishmael, but in reality it was Sarah who asked that Ishmael be sent away.  This arose out of Sarah’s perceived dissent between Isaac and Ishmael.  In other words, Abraham and Sarah’s disobedience became a hindrance when the promise of Isaac was fulfilled.  

    At first it seems as if the intrusion of an illegitimate son might pose a problem between Abraham and God, but God’s ability to fulfill a promise was above their human condition.  Especially when God also made Ishmael a nation! (Gen 21:11) By not allowing Ishmael to become heir demonstrates that God is exceedingly technical about His conditions.  Although, Abraham did produce a son (with Hagar), it was not the circumstances by which God was willing to act.  God made clear and succinct statements that were upheld at all cost.  The promise to make Abraham a great nation invokes a first born to continue the patriarchal legacy.  It was of significant value to God that His promise be implemented in a specific manner with the intended individuals that He chose in the first place that would later affect the outcome of believing in the Messiah by faith.

    Abraham is the patriarch, because he was explicitly chosen by God.  It is difficult to believe that any other person would have carried out God’s wishes in a more fitting manner than Abraham.  In other words, there wasn’t anybody else that could perform Abraham’s calling except Abraham.  That statement seems redundant, but sometimes God uses repetition to get His point across.  In conclusion Abraham’s faith is every Christian struggle with the promises of God.  Sometimes God makes statements which do not make rational sense, but in the end it is His word that is at stake.  God’s promise to Abraham affects our Christian faith to this day.  It is in Abraham’s promise that “God’s chosen” will be fully restored.

References:

Bible Gateway. Online bible. www.biblegateway.com (Available as of March 31, 2010).

Provan, et al. A Biblical History of Israel. Knox Press: Kentucky (2003). 

Lasor, et al. Old Testament Survey. Eerdmans: Michigan (1996).

Dialectic Sermon

Here is my second sermon.  I received an A on this one.  Feel free to comment, make suggestions or ask questions.  Thank you!

REGENT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY

DIALECTIC SERMON

SUBMITTED TO DR. ANTIPAS HARRIS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF PMIN 524 PREPARATION OF BIBLICAL MESSAGES

SUBMITTED BY

CRYSALY A. AVILES

MARCH 20, 2010

FRUITFULNESS 

PROPOSITION

     The Spirit of the Lord is concerned with the Body of Christ being fruitful. 

TEXT 

    The text for today will be primarily taken from Psalm 92:14 and Psalm 125:24.  Psalm 92:14 states: They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green.  Psalm 125:24 states    : The LORD made his people very fruitful; he made them too numerous for their foes.

ANTITHESIS 

    The United States is a goal oriented and driven country.  In spite of race, color or creed, most strive towards the “American Dream” of attaining a greater life compared to what “our parents or ancestors had.”  This drive to improve can include “climbing a corporate ladder,” achieving academic success or confronting an addiction or fear.  Many if not all Americans with the resources to do so have engaged or know someone who has strived towards self-improvement. Protestant, Catholic and Christian are not exempt from participating in this type of endeavor.  Accomplishments such as these are meant to bring personal enlightenment or a type of “self-fulfilling prophecy” where goals are set and achieved according to what the person believes they are capable of achieving.  This type of goal orientation does not have anything to do with God or His purpose.

    Being aware and resourceful with talents is much more common in a country where resources abound.  In other words, the level of ambition in this country is consistent with ample opportunities.  In contrast, a third world country would probably not be as preoccupied with achieving “full potential” where talents are concerned and would be much more focused on acquiring basic living necessities.  Everybody has an ability to excel, however, success is more readily attainable by those who are exposed to the resources needed to help them succeed.  For example, in America we have countless seminaries to choose from if pastoring is an end goal.  Whereas, in a foreign country, someone pursuing a similar career path might not have the option of a formal education or of openly practicing their faith.  Everybody has a talent.  However, if we pursue success on our own without the power of God, bringing a talent to full fruition becomes challenging and sometimes an impossible endeavor (like openly practicing faith in a country that does not allow it.)  

THESIS 

    In Scripture, believers and unbelievers alike prosper. The difference between the two is that believers succeed in a manner that is everlasting and unbelievers’ efforts eventually dwindle away.  Prosperity is equally pursued by those who believe in God and those who do not.  God is concerned with those that will bring a greater purpose and glory to His name.  God sends provision to those who are His.  In contrast, those who are without God inevitably find failure in their efforts to flourish.  In our selected scripture, God helps His people remain vibrant over time and He makes them productive and successful against their enemies.  Consistently, in Luke 13:9, the tree that does not bear fruit is cut down: “If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'"  In other words, God is concerned with those who are interested in producing fruit.  Anything to the contrary does not belong in the kingdom of God.

RELEVANT QUESTIONS 

    What does it mean to be fruitful?  What kind of fruit is God looking for?  How do I know if I am being fruitful for God? Does everybody have the capacity to be fruitful?

SYNTHESIS 

    In the Book of Galatians the fruit of the Spirit is identified as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal 5:22-23).  This type of spiritual fruit is what believers ought pursue as an end goal when seeking progress.  An unbeliever might not concern themselves with this type of discipline and only focus on superficial increase.  It is here where everybody has an opportunity to be productive, but the type of fruition pursued determines whether the end goal is for the glory of God or for personal gain.  Believers and unbelievers strive to succeed during many similar stages in life.  The clear difference between the two is that a believer will maintain focus on a greater purpose as revealed by God and a non believer will be focused on a personal agenda.  One approach is not necessarily better than the other, but there is a clear distinction between those who want to serve God and those who don’t have an interest in doing the same.

    The Holy Spirit is clearly interested in those individuals who are fruitful.  In the greater scheme of things, those who are fruitful help bring the kingdom of God to others through their giftings or God ordained talents.  The Spirit of God wants the Body of Christ to be active in faith as referenced in James 2:17: “love without works is dead.”  If we are to achieve a level of Christ-likeness, it is important that we use our gifts to strengthen the Body of Christ that will benefit everybody around us.  It is only through active fruitfulness that we will plant seeds and grow more fruit.  Scripture also says that “good fruit can only come from good fruit” (Luke 6:3).  In other words, all we need to concern ourselves with is producing more fruit, because the bible says that it will be ‘good’ indeed!

    God is able to open doors and create opportunities for His own.  Psalm 92:14 states: “They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green.”  In other words, God will continue to provide until we die.  He will maintain our sense of purpose every day of our lives.  Most Americans retire after a certain age, but God’s people will likely maintain their fruitfulness until the very end! Psalm 125:24 states: “The LORD made his people very fruitful; he made them too numerous for their foes.”  God made us to be fruitful.  He did not set up a trust account that we can make monetary withdrawals from.  God fully expects His own to work, grow and succeed.  The fact that, “God made us fruitful” means that we really don’t have an excuse to not produce, because we are made to be that way.  God even made us successful against our enemies which can include temptation, distraction or even unmotivation.  We are destined to succeed, but to do that we have to take that first step and believe that God has something for us to do.  There is something purposeful and meaningful within the Body of Christ assigned to our specific skill-set, talent and/or gifting.

    Finallly, our relevant questions are addressed: 

• What does it mean to be fruitful?  I think that being fruitful is any effort to improve and grow within the Body of Christ, consistent with the word of God and toward a godly end.  
• What kind of fruit is God looking for?  God is looking for the type of fruit that helps another to change or grow. More than likely fruit will be shared and planted through the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ as referenced above in Gal. 5:22-23.  
• How do I know if I am being fruitful for God? God is readily visible in the midst of His own.  God’s fruit does not die.  It is everlasting.  It is pruned and it grows continually and consistently.  
• Does everybody have the capacity to be fruitful?  I believe that we all have the capacity to be fruitful.  However, there are some who will be fruitful for Christ and others who will undoubtedly succeed on their own.  However, as scripture has stated, our success outside of God is “short lived “ because we “cannot take it with us when we die”; whereas, success in Christ will benefit humanity long after we’re no longer on Earth.

Nazareth Presentation

REGENT UNIVERSITY

NAZARETH

ISRAEL - JORDAN STUDY TOUR DEVOTIONAL

SUBMITTED TO DR. MARK WILSON

DGN 689

BY

CRYSALY AVILES

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA

MARCH 6, 2010

Old Testament References 

Nazareth isn’t mentioned in the Old Testament.

New Testament References

Jesus and Nazareth: 

When Jesus Calls Philip and Nathanael. The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me." Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see," said Philip (John 1:46).

Joseph is told to escape to Egypt.  After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead" (Matt. 2:19).  Joseph then took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." (Matt. 2:20-23).  

Jesus leaves Nazareth to live in Capernaum and begins His preaching (Matt. 4:13).

The crowds recognize Jesus, as “the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee” (Matt. 21:11).  Jesus is referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth” when Peter disowns Him (Matt. 26:71).

Evil spirits refer to Christ as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Mark 1:21-25).

Jesus returns in “the power of the Spirt” and is rejected by Nazareth (Luke 4:14).  Jesus taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.  He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

 

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, 

 because he has anointed me 

 to preach good news to the poor. 

 He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners 

 and recovery of sight for the blind, 

 to release the oppressed, 

 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him (Luke 4:17-20).  This is also where Jesus declares that He is God: "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:21) and when He says that: “no prophet is accepted in his hometown” (Luke 4:24). 

Post-resurrection, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus is referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Luke 24).  

When Jesus is crucified, “Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS” (John 19:19).

After Pentecost, Peter refers to Christ as “Jesus of Nazareth: "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22).

When Peter heals a crippled beggar he uses “Jesus of Nazareth”: Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk” (Acts 3:6)

Peter filled with the Holy Spirit before the Sanhedrin refers to Christ as “Jesus of Nazareth”: “hen know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed” (Acts 4:10).

Christ refers to Himself as “Jesus of Nazareth” when He appears to Paul: " 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied” (Acts 22:9).

During the trial before Felix, Paul is referred to as a “leader of the Nazarene sect”: “We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect” (Acts 24:5).

When Paul gives his testimony about opposing Christ, he refers to Jesus as Jesus of Nazareth: “I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9).

Biblical Jerusalem

Nazareth was off the map.  It was estimated to have a population as little as 100 people and 20 homes (Walker 30, 41). This is the village where “Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:51-52).  Nazareth’s significance becomes strategic, because Jesus needed to be hidden - below the radar screen - until the time was ripe (Walker 33). 

Sepphoris was the capital city of Galilee during Jesus’ childhood and was only 4 miles away from Nazareth.  When Herod died, Sepphoris became the focus of a Jewish rebellion which was soon put down by the Romans.  Herod Antipas then decided to rebuild the city from scratch making it his capital.  This means that, when Jesus was growing up, Sepphoris offered great employment prospects for people such as Joseph (Walker 34).  

Jerusalem Today

Nazareth today is a large sprawling town.  The population is made up of Israeli Arabs (65% Muslim, 35% Christian).  The ancient village lies at the centre, on the north-west side of the busy High Street.  The modern church, built by the Franciscans, stands over some ancient ruins that may well have been Jesus’ childhood home.  

Spiritual Application

The story of Jesus Christ is not told.  Not because it did not matter, but because without the anointing, Jesus’ life was incomplete.  Similarly our lives begin as “good, bad or ugly,” but that is not the end.  We begin to be known in Christ when we begin to live out our purpose like Jesus did when He left Nazareth and begun to preach.  We may still be in a “nowhere” location under the radar and feel like “nobodies” but there is a point where we will also walk out of Nazareth.  Like Christ said, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown.”  It is not about “when I am ready to leave my Nazareth,” - it’s about walking out my calling as God appoints.  

I pray in silence.  “Be still and know that I am God” (Ps. 46:10).  Let’s take 30 seconds to sit in stillness and know Him in quiet worship.  Amen.  

Expository Sermon

As promised, I'm posting my first graded sermon.  I got a B, mostly because of scope and technique. Please feel free to comment, question or make suggestions.  

REGENT UNIVERSITY

GOD’S LAW

AN EXPOSITORY SERMON

SUBMITTED TO DR. ANTIPAS HARRIS

PMIN 524.02

BY

CRYSALY AVILES

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA

FEBRUARY 13, 2010

    Did you know that to be separated from God all you have to do is break one of His commandments?  It doesn’t matter which one.  The question is not whether we have sinned against God?  The real question is whether we are willing to change? In other words, repent. Many of us have struggled with the idea of being “sinners.” Sometimes it almost seems like an accusatory term used to condemn one another.  God isn’t interested in condemnation.  We stand condemned the second we break one of God’s laws.  In other words, it is not God who condemns, but our failure to act according to the commandments given to us.  God wants us to reconcile with Him.  He is not interested in “keeping a record” of our wrong doing.  God wants to forgive and help us change our lives for the better.   

    How many of you have heard of the Ten Commandments that were given to Moses by God? These laws hold us accountable to a standard of godliness.  We are to follow the commandments to maintain our relationship with God.  Seems simple enough, doesn’t it?  God did not overburden us with unreasonable demands or infinite commandments.  There are only ten.  How many of us can honestly affirm that we’ve followed all Ten Commandments without breaking one?  Let’s look at them (Ex. 20:2-17):

    Commandment No. 1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.”

We serve one God, right?  We are not tempted to follow any pop culture new age material or spiritual trends that are out there, or do we? 

    Commandment No. 2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.”

 

Do we idolize our heroes, movie stars, favorite athletes more than we do God? (It’s not bad to have any of these, but do we worship any of these people, symbols or images?)

    Commandment No. 3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Do we honor and revere the name “Jesus Christ” (or any variation) every time we use it?

    Commandment No. 4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath.”

I really like this one.  If God created everything in six days and took a day off, then he expects us to do the same.  We need rest and time to spend with our spouses, children and families.  God specifically set apart one day out of the week for us to do this.  How many of us fail at this commandment every week?

    Commandment No. 5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.”

This is a two-fold commandment.  Children are to honor their parents.  Period.  Did you know that the bible also says: “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). And, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart” (Col. 3:21). 

    Commandment No. 6 “You shall not murder.” 

Did you know that Jesus considered anger the same as murder? (Matt. 5:21-28).

    Commandment No. 7 “You shall not commit adultery.” 

Did you know that, “Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28).  

    Commandment No. 8 “You shall not steal.”  

That does includes the smallest of items like post-its and staplers from the office!

    Commandment No. 9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” 

Did you know this includes “gossip”?  Think about that.  If we help to spread rumors by repeating something we heard without having first hand information, how are we not hurting that individual?

    Commandment No. 10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.” 

How many of us try to “keep up with the Joneses”? 

    My point here is not to condemn anybody.  What I want is for you to think about what you’ve heard and determine for yourself if you’ve broken any of God’s laws.  Even the smallest one and even if it seems insignificant.  If you find that you have sinned, God doesn’t want to “come and get you” to seek revenge or punish you.  He wants to reconcile with you.  But like any transgression, there should be an apology and a change of heart (if you are genuinely sorry for your actions.)  I don’t have a recipe for a perfect apology.  Most of the time I tell God that “I’m sorry.” And then I ask Him to “help me understand the error of my ways to cease engaging in that particular behavior or thinking.”  In other words, I ask God to change my heart in accordance with His Commandments.

    Is it really that easy to reconcile to God?  It is.  Is it easy to make changes in our lives? Not always.  Sometimes sin becomes second nature and we don’t even realize it.  Usually, sin results in loss and suffering, and only through these difficulties do we reflect on the bad choices we allow into our lives.  God does not want us to suffer.  He wants us to live out the purpose He already has planned for each one of us, without exception.  But to do that, we have to stop being captive to our own bad habits and bad judgment. If we stop to reflect on how breaking these commandments breeds havoc on our lives, we’d understand why God put them there in the first place. God is not trying to restrict us from fun to turn us all into monks. He wants to help us achieve our goals, heal our relationships, and draw us closer to Him.  Where is the harm in that?      God’s commands are sensible.  Basically, He is asking that we honor Him and love one another.  In fact, this is how Jesus summed up all Ten Commandments: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matt. 22:37-40).  Adhering to these Commandments shows God that we love Him: “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him” (John 14:21).

    These commandments are set up to help us and not harm us.  Think of the statutes we follow every day that keep our society functional.  Can you imagine what one day without these laws would be like?  A simple drive to purchase Starbucks coffee would become a burdensome effort!  Consider all the statutes that govern such a mundane task.  There are vehicle codes that govern driving; required licensing to drive a motor vehicle; zoning statutes that allow Starbucks to stand at that particular location; there are health and safety codes that govern how our coffee is made; and there are even laws that govern the transaction to purchase a cup of coffee! We live by laws.  Similarly, God has laws to govern and encourage discipline.  The difference between our statutory laws and the Ten Commandments is that statutory laws result in a fine or imprisonment if they are violated.  Breaking God’s laws generally infringes on (or hurts) another or results in some type of personal loss (like integrity, freedom or relationships.)  There are those who believe that laws confine and there are others who affirm that laws maintain order. Regardless of which group we choose, the bottom line is that laws exist and there is a guaranteed consequence that follows if we obey or rebel.

    It is important to understand that obeying the Ten Commandments does not “earn” our reconciliation with God.  Reconciliation to the Father once a law is broken is only possible through Jesus Christ, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17).  While God acknowledges a change of heart, it is only through the sacrifice of His Son on the cross that we are able to return to God.  Once we sin, we are separated from God for all eternity.  Sounds severe, doesn’t it?  It is.  Disobeying a commandment means that we are no longer in covenant with God.  It’s like being in violation of a stipulated contract.  If a party fails to comply with the terms and conditions of an agreement, then that deal is broken.  Once we break that covenant with God, we separate ourselves from His holiness, because we have literally sinned against Him by breaking His commandments even if in the smallest of ways.

    We’ve all done it.  We’ve all sinned and separated ourselves from God.  It’s a logical sequence: If we break a commandment, then we transgress the Supreme Authority, which is God.  There is no jury, court of law or formal hearing to condemn us.  We stand condemned by knowing (in conscience and heart) that it was wrong to engage in the sinful behavior in the first place. We stand condemned by our own conscience (it’s why we feel guilt or regret.)  “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them” (Romans 2:14-15). 

    God doesn’t sentence us to community service or jail.  Instead, the consequence of breaking a commandment is worse.  We literally become separated from God. This is why Jesus Christ suffered and died.  He paid the penalty for our sin.  When Jesus resurrected He defeated the punishment that was meant for those who broke God’s laws.  Jesus Christ defeated death, the penalty assigned to those who sin, “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). If we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, died and resurrected for our sins, then we are reconciled to God (Romans 10:9).  We are reconciled to God by faith, because we believe that Jesus has “paid the price” for our lawlessness.  However, even though Jesus interceded on our behalf and defeated the penalty of sin, we are still expected to obey God’s commands.  

    I am not ashamed to admit that I’m a sinner, because Jesus died for me.  I have a Savior in my life.  I cannot stand condemned for my sin, because I believe in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.  We all have sin in our lives.  Any claim to the contrary is simply not possible.  I sincerely believe that most of us want to be forgiven for the wrong choices we have made.  While an “I’m sorry” acknowledges a wrongdoing, it is not the same as having a change of heart.  And changing our heart is not an easy endeavor!  Sometimes anger, resentment or unforgiveness get in our way.  I can personally attest that through prayer and faith, God removes these burdens from us. Being under God’s grace is good for us.  

    Only you know what stands between you and God.  As I conclude this message, I encourage you to search your conscience and talk to God.  Ask Him to help you see His presence in your life.  Or ask Him anything you want, He will answer.  God listens.  If you are under the erroneous belief that your transgressions are too great to forgive, you are wrong.  In fact, as Jesus was being nailed to the cross, He prayed to His Father that we be forgiven, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” (Luke 23:34).  That is a potent image.   God forgives.  I don’t have anything to gain by “selling” an idea or theory.  God is real and when we allow Him in our life He is able to fix even what is impossible.  

Reference:

NIV Study Bible. Zondervan (2002).

A Wideness in God's Mercy

A Wideness in God’s Mercy” by Clark H. Pinnock”

Introduction

    In this course we explored various world religions through the eyes of our Christian mindset and with a heartfelt effort to understand practices and value systems that were unlike our own.  If the premise of our faith is that, “Christ is Lord,” then it only follows that, Christ is Lord over all of Creation.  Our scripture supports it, as do the Jews who maintaining God’s role in the creation of mankind.  However, we run into several challenges when we wholly believe in our Trinitarian faith and come across another doctrine that does not support or even resemble our Father, Son or Holy Spirit.  The focus in this course was to “listen” to what the other religions were saying and finding common ground or similarities on which to establish communication between our Christian faith and another’s.  

    Various texts in this course discussed inclusive salvation.  This paper will focus on Clark Pinnocks, “A Wideness in God’s Mercy.”  Pinnock analyzes how it is possible to understand salvation in bountiful terms.  If it is the case, that some are predestined for salvation, then there isn’t much hope for those individuals who were not chosen for “the glory of God” (Eph. 1:11).  A Wideness in God’s Mercy, makes a case for the offer of salvation that includes all people in all nations.  Pinnock divides his argument into five systematic sections that include:

Optimistic Salvation

Christology

Other Religions

Divine Power

Eschatological Hope

The first part of this paper will discuss Pinnock’s five main points in an effort to demonstrate how it is possible to understand salvation in generous terms.  The latter end of this paper will discuss whether or not God is interested in saving all sinners.

Optimistic Salvation

    Pinnock describes a global reach of salvation as optimistic.  His purpose is to “refute the fewness doctrine and replace it with an optimism of salvation based on scripture” (Pinnock 17). Throughout the book, Pinnock follows his findings with specific verses from scripture to support his views: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:16-17). If as Christians we maintain that only a few are called to share an eternity with God, then we create a pessimistic view that only “some of us” are going to be saved.  

    A minimalist approach to salvation is likely to turn away many believers and unbelievers, if they don’t perceive that they are predestined as described in scripture.  If it were the case, that only a few are chosen then, “What criteria is being used to make this determination?”  If it is God who chooses those who are saved, “Who affirms that state of grace in this world?”  “How would we know, who was in or out?”  Besides setting a pessimistic tone to the purpose of the gospel, it would also create a state of “exclusivity” with many standing outside of the mercy of salvation.  As Pinnock states: “The question concerns God’s intent.  Is God interested in a race or is He interested in saving all of humanity?” (Pinnock 18)  “God is patient with you not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

    Pinnock speaks of: “ control belief” where Christians read scripture with a negative tone that results in an erroneous theological belief that “exclusion” is socially desirable contrary to the idea of inclusivity.  ”We have been taught that God chooses a few who will be saved and has His sovereign freedom to send most of those outside the church to hell and he is perfectly within his rights to do so. If as a result large numbers perish...God would feel no remorse and certainly deserve no blame” (Pinnock 19).  This begs the question: “Does God love sinners too?” (Ibid.)  This type of pluralistic theology can lead a believer to extreme views concerning salvation.  In other words: Is God interested in saving those who were rejected as predestined candidates?  Is salvation for them too or are they the hopeless “unchosen” who will perish without an opportunity to repent? 

    “The Bible says that there are true believers in the wider world who trust God and walk faithfully before him...Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ until after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world” (Pinnock 22).  Basically, Pinnock refutes pessimistic salvation with the optimism that there are believers in God who act according to His commands and are not familiar with Christ.  These individuals have not been exposed to the gospel, but are nevertheless saved.  “The light shines in the darkness which the darkness did not put out” (Jn 1:5).  Additionally, Pinnock argues that God has continually appointed messengers of His word throughout history.  If God had only wanted to save specific people then He wouldn’t have referenced a savior when Man fell in the Garden of Eden: “I will put enmity between you [the snake] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gen 3:14).  It appears as if, God in fact, had a plan to save all of the descendants of Adam and Eve.  This is poignant argument for inclusivity, because all of humanity is the offspring of the First Family.   

    “The election of Abraham is also evidentiary of God’s desire to save the world” (Pinnock 23).  The faith of one man opens the door to the salvation of all the nations and generations to come: “This is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations...I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Genesis 17:4-7).  The Judaic, Christian and Muslim Patriarch in the Old Testament by the name of Abraham represents the generation yet to come that would be saved through him.  “God loves the world and therefore elects a people, prophets and apostles in order to implement his love for the entire human race” (Pinnock 25).  In other words, being “chosen” is a matter of representing a much larger scope of people than just the one elected to perform a work for God.

    Another contemporary for inclusivity is Christ who continually preached of His Father’s grace and mercy.  Christ did not discriminate and did not distinguish between sinner or believer. Jesus’ mindset was consistent with Matthew 9:12-13: "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."  Christ was literally looking for those who needed Him most and likely didn’t know it.  Christ seems the strongest point of evidence for optimistic salvation, because He was the Servant Lord.  Through Christ’s acts of servitude, He showed others that His Father was interested in the “least” of them.  If those who were chosen had already attained glory, then Christ was concerned for those who had not. “For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest" (Luke 9:48).  

    Pinnock concludes with several warnings concerning optimism salvation.  “First, optimism does not entail relativism...God’s generosity does not imply that all religious claims are equally valid.  Second, optimism does not entail universalism either...Salvation is not automatically conferred upon people, a decision must be made.  Third optimism does not require unitarian Christology....denying the Incarnation undercuts any hope of salvation” (Pinnock 43).  Optimism salvation is an affirmation that God is available to the world and other religions.  Pinnock’s warnings are significant, because while we remain optimistic, it is not our goal to validate all religious claims by removing the Incarnate Christ.  It’s also very important to remember that, everybody can be saved, but it does require a choice.  

Christology

    Jesus Christ is the final and only point of salvation.  “Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (Heb 9:28).  The striking significance to this is that if Christ’s offer of salvation is not accepted in this life, there will not be a second chance to do so.  “There is a finality of Jesus Christ as the decisive manifestation and ground of God’s grace toward sinners” (Pinnock 49).  As sinners, we can only be reconciled to the Father through the Son: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).  “God is reconciling the world to himself, not through religious experience, not through natural revelation, not through prophets alone, not through all the religions of the world, but through Jesus Christ” (Ibid.)  That is the Christian faith in a nutshell.  Our faith is grounded on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Without the full manifestation of the Christ who took the sins of the world upon Himself there would not be any other way to reconcile to the Father.

    In the eyes of unbelievers who have never been exposed to God, church or scripture, the idea that salvation through One person alone is not easily accepted.  How then do we bypass this narrowness?  Pinnock goes back to the Old Testament.  “This God with a strange name (Yahweh), a name to distinguish him from other gods is of such a nature and possess such attributes as to put him in sharp contrast to the quarreling, warring deities of the Ancient Near East” (Pinnock 53).  Other gods have always existed, and still the God of the Israelites was unique in His deity.  This infers that, Yahweh’s work was not limited knowledge for Israel alone, other peoples who worshiped different gods were familiar with the God of the Israelites.  

    The God of Israel is a type of “precursor” to Jesus Christ, because the Son cannot be understood without the Father.  “Uniqueness belongs to God, if Jesus is said to be unique it is because of the special relation to God as Son... The major claim of uniqueness in the bible is the claim made on behalf of Israel’s God and only afterward on behalf of Israel’s Messiah...Not only is the God of Israel unique among deities, the coming Messiah is presented as unique and decisive for all peoples” (Pinnock 54).  Here we see Christ as a representative for all peoples and presumably all nations.  However, this “representation” is not possible without the sovereignty of the Father who appointed the Christ for this very purpose.  “He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him.  His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed” (Dan 7:14). 

    Christology cannot be adequately assessed without the context of biblical theism.  In other words, the Son does not represent “Christianity” without the Father (and the Spirit.)  Jesus Christ did not “just appear” out of nowhere.  His purpose as Savior was rooted in the Old Testament with the God Yahweh who was unique among other gods before Christ.  The “narrowness” factor is not present to exclude unbelievers from salvation, but instead is used as a specific point of reference detailing the origins of the Messiah “Jesus Christ” as Savior of the world to the Creator of mankind.  Pinnock makes an excellent observation in this section by reminding Christians that we are not to take substance away from Christology to make it “fit” our own agenda concerning salvation.  “It is not our place to change what the original writers intended” (69).  

Other Religions

    Generally speaking, other religions outside the scope of Christianity are viewed negatively as idolaters, because other religions have gods that are not the Christ we worship.  The negativity only increases when secularists define religion as “self-deception and self-delusion” (Pinnock 83).  Even conservative Christians “judge Christianity as a true religion and other religions as false” (Ibid.)  However, Pinnock takes a “middle” approach which “couples the churches confession of Jesus Christ with genuine openness to the truth and the goodness found in other religions” (Ibid.)  In this manner, Pinnock maintains Christianity as the foundation and also incorporates God’s desire to bring salvation to other nations through different religions.

    Pinnock defines religion and then divides it into two categories: false and true religion (53).  Christ spoke harshly about false religion when he addressed Israel’s religious leaders (Mt 23:1-31.) “Christ was disturbed by the love of ritual and status; such religion was human unbelief and rebellion. Along the finest of impulses lay dark hypocrisy and wickedness” (Pinnock 89).  “Satan is the deceiver of the whole world.  His conspiracy exploits sin’s potential in the sphere of religion (Rev 20:30).  “According to the Hebrews, it is faith or subjective religion which God is most concerned about” (Pinnock 85).  For example, Jesus addresses a person individually to address the spiritual needs of that person.  Generally, those who belong to a religion will either wholeheartedly pursue their faith and seek their god, while others will carry on with a facade and want to escape God. 

    In contrast, there were pagan saints who lived godly lives.  These people were not accepted as mainstream, but that did not take away from their faith in God.  It is here that Pinnock is able to connect “other religions” or non-religions (like pagans and heathens) to the equation.  There have always existed men and women who were not completely immersed in the practice of religion, but who chose to live a life of godliness.  The examples of similar people in the bible include: “Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Daniel, Melchizedek, Lot, Abimelech, Jethro, Rehab, Ruth, Naaman, the Queen of Sheba, the Roman soldier and others” (Pinnock 92).  These individuals played “minor roles” in scripture and nevertheless are chosen as the example for salvation.  Christ is not interested in grandiose efforts, He honors genuine faith regardless of whether there is a “Christian seal” that affirms that person as “chosen and predestined.” “After all, if saintliness is possible apart from religion, then God’s grace might well occur outside rather than inside the religious sphere when operating in the wider world” (Pinnock 93).  

    As human beings we naturally seek God.  We were made in His image to know Him.  “There is a drive to discover the basis of the meaning and worthwhileness of our lives, and to deal with our finitude and death.  All persons know God pre-cognitively and most acknowledge him cognitively as well”  (Pinnock 102).  As humans we are wired to seek truth for ourselves and find purpose to our existence.  This self-exploration is not limited to Christians alone, but is true about humans in general.  Whether we believe in the same Christ or not, most individuals will seek to find significance in their life and death.  Inevitably, this raises a question about a God or gods.  

    Pinnock warns that “being more positive does not require us to conclude that every religion is a vehicle of salvation or an ordinary way to salvation.  After all, religions are part of fallen human culture” (107).  However, it is important to recognize God’s work in other religions but that is certainly not an invitation to “deny salvation through Christ” (Pinnock 113).  Witnessing God’s presence in other circles of faith or religions should be seen as the “beginning” toward a faith of salvation in Jesus Christ.  It could be the case that Christ’s work in a Muslim for example, results in a conversion to Christianity, but that isn’t necessarily an absolute.  It is possible for an unbeliever to repent and remain within the context of their current religion.

Divine Power

    All religions are subject to change according to God’s purpose.  Religions are not static entities, but rather viable changing organisms that are unlikely to remain the same as we know them today.  It makes sense that God will bring in the Kingdom and become sovereign over everything (including all religions) in the world.  “It also follows that God has designs for other religions just as he has designs on everything else.  God is not going to leave out anything as important as religions from the work of transforming all things” (Pinnock 116).  “He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" (Rev 21:5).  Religions seemingly represent a nesting phenomenon that will not come to full fruition until God is ready to complete His design. While religions around the world with varying gods do not resemble what Christ has revealed to us does not mean that those individuals are marked with an eternity in hell.   Different doesn’t mean hopeless.

    Jesus Christ said that, “the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come” (Mt 24:14).  In other words, it sounds like every man will have had an opportunity to hear the gospel regardless of what religion he belongs to.  If the end of times is contingent on this premise, then it follows that God is interested in evangelizing the world at large before moving on to His divine plan of eternity.  “The Gospel cannot be preached to all nations without encountering other religions.  Therefore, the church cannot escape a confrontation with the world religions - nor is it the will of God that we should escape it.  There is no alternative to this encounter unless we are not serious about reaching the nations” (Pinnock 118).  

    “Religions represent powers that Jesus Christ is challenging in the coming of the kingdom of God.  If he gospel is true, if Jesus is Lord, the future of rebellious gods and powers is in doubt.  He has been given a name higher than theirs” (Pinnock 120).  In other words, we’re not just seeking political and social change by “confronting” other religions, the fundamental result is the impact that Christ will have on religions too.  If all spirits are subject to Christ, then it only follows that Christ is the authority of all religions in the world.  If this is true, then those currently standing in a role of leadership in other religions, is subject to Christ.  It’s a simple argument: if Christ is Lord over all creation, then everything in it is His to govern.  And if this is the case, then why not convert everybody to Christianity today since God has the power to do so?  I think this is where the agency of free will and the mysteries of God’s eternal purpose come in.  Technically, God can do anything He wants, but I imagine that the different religions were put there for a reason that may not make sense to us yet.  “Revelation sees movement toward the future and recognizes that before the end of time we will not be able to see everything clearly.  Jesus is the prolepsis of the end of history, but until then we will not know what all that means” (Pinnock 147).  

Eschatological Hope

    “People will come from the east and west from the north and south and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God” (Lk 13:29).  This verse is filled with hope and optimism that salvation will come from “all the ends” of the Earth.  Pinnock speaks of those currently hostile to the gospel who will repent upon the return of Christ: “The people who put Jesus to death will weep on account of him at his coming” (Rev 1:7).  This could mean that the people weep, not selfishly for themselves, but for what they did to Jesus by nailing him to the cross” (153). How is it possible that those who do not know Christ would not repent when they witness His supernatural glory in all of its majesty when he returns?  How is it possible to not believe when He is visually manifested?!  Jesus is also an optimist. Jesus makes a poignant statement concerning fate when he states: “The man who tells his brother that he is doomed to hell is in danger of hell himself” (Matt 5:22).  In other words, nobody really knows who will be saved and who won’t.  It is best to maintain a positive outlook on salvation and encourage unbelievers that there is hope in spite of the obstacles that present themselves.

    If God desires that the whole world be saved, how is that going to be possible?  There will likely be people who did not hear the gospel or those who are saved but don’t know Christ, how is that feasible?  According to Pinnock: “The faith principle is the basis of universal accessibility.  According to the Bible, people are saved by faith, not by the content of their theology.  Since God has not left anyone without witness, people are judged on the basis of the light they have received and how they have responded to that light.  Faith in God is what saves, not possessing certain minimum information” (Pinnock 158).  Succinctly stated, it is the faith in our hearts that God will look to and determine whether we are saved or not.  Presumably, this application of faith will supersede religions, knowledge and geography.  And rightfully so.

    Pinnock warns: “It is important to realize that heaven is not a bribe or extrinsic reward.  It is not like receiving a million dollars for being good, or for returning the right answer to god’s appeal.  Heaven is an intrinsic kind of reward - an intrinsic reward offers consequences homogenous with the actions being rewarded; it is extrinsic when it differs in kind from them.  In essence, to desire heaven, which is life in the presence of absolute goodness, implies a love of goodness” (171).  In other words, the reward is the reward itself.  To be in the presence of absolute majesty, with a Savior that is all goodness seems like the ultimate reward where eternity is concerned.

Conclusion

    In conclusion, Pinnock sets forth an evidentiary argument for the “Wideness of God’s Mercy” while maintaining the absolute integrity of the gospel of Christ.  Pinnock addresses, biases, erroneous theology and fear which contribute to the a negative view of salvation where only few are chosen in this grace instead of many.  Even without Pinnock’s systematic approach to the subject of inclusive salvation, the visual of Christ hanging on a cross reveals the character of an obedient Son and a loving God who set the eschatological sacrifice in motion to “save everybody who might believe” (John 3:16).  Pinnock even addresses those individuals who do not know Christ, but serve and live a godly life without realizing that it is God working in the midst of their lives.  The book concluded with a poignant statement relating to God’s Lordship and overall plan over other religions.  If Christ is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings (Rev 17:14), then His dominion is not limited to Christianity but to all religions in this world.

My Theologia Religionum

    Through this course I have maintained that there are “unknowing Christians” in other religions.  There are individuals who have the fruit of the Spirit visible through their actions and lifestyles without realizing that God is at work in their lives.  Christianity is a heart for Jesus Christ, that lives the greatest commandment of all “to love one another.”  These individuals are found in the midst of Indigenous Religions, Hindus, Buddhists and other Eastern religions.  The mark of Christ is not an external one defined by our association with a specific religion, but rather a life that lives for goodness instead of darkness. 

    The conclusion of this course reaffirmed my position as an inclusivist.  I also associate my eschatological position with universalism.  Universalism as defined by Fisher (11): “Acceptance that the truth may be found in all religions.”  The idea that salvation is only for “Christians” sets up boundaries that make Christ’s graceful sacrifice inaccessible to all.  This is the equivalent of saying, “This is my God, but He can’t be yours, because you simply weren’t chosen to share in His presence.”  This position is contrary to the intent of the Grand Commission: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19).  

    Sanders discusses this restrictive position and points out the implication that God “cannot save those he would like to save” (61).  How is that possible?  Does that mean that our sin is greater than the very atonement offered through Christ?  Doesn’t this take away from the absolute power of the cross?  Sanders states that, “Restrictivism seems to be saying that God does not truly love all people since it teaches that he has not provided an opportunity for all people to benefit from the redeeming work of His Son (Ibid.)  As a Christian who has experienced God, this rejection of those who were “not elected” for salvation, seems contrary to the God of grace who “sent His only begotten Son” to save humanity (John 3:16).  If Christ is the incarnate image of the Father, doesn’t it follow that God is similarly compassionate and loving like Jesus Christ?

    Sanders also discusses the role of Christ in salvation that supports an inclusivist/universal accessibility.  “Is it truly necessary to know Christ in order to be saved?” In other words, “Restrictivism confuses the ontological necessity of Christ for salvation with our human epistemological necessity of knowing about it” (Sanders 62).  Would God really make “conscious awareness of Christ” a contingency for salvation?  I would imagine that as Christians who know and practice “Christianity” would say, “yes.” However, I’m inclined to believe that we were elected to represent the Christ that we do know and bring knowledge of Him to others through our actions, versus limiting accessibility of salvation to this “knowledge of Christ.” 

    It makes complete sense to me that we are “all are damned to hell” for being sinners, but it doesn’t make sense that there isn’t a uniform manner to make amends for everybody.  The restrictivist approach is basically saying that “we must be chosen to make amends.”  “What kind of God is he who gives man enough knowledge to damn him, but not enough to save him?  The kind of God that does not truly desire to see all people redeemed” (Sanders 68).  Once again, this idea seems contrary to the Spirit of John 3:16, “God desires that none should perish, but that all should have everlasting life.”  It almost seems to me that this restrictionist approach is simply another human tendency that separates us from Christ-likeness to want to segregate and be superior to “those who are damned.”  

Restrictionist add other burdens like absolute damnation for not being elect.  “Some restrictivists pose yet more troubling problem by arguing both that the unevangelized are justly condemned for rejecting the light of general revelation and that even a total acceptance of that revelation would still be insufficient for salvation” (Sanders 69).  Sander gives a practical example of this, “This is like my telling my daughter that I am angry with her for not washing the dishes and then acknowledging that I would still be angry with her if she had washed them.  By this logic, the unevangelized are truly damned if they do and damned if they don’t” (Ibid.)  And in the spirit of this absolute damnation, I have to wonder if this is how unbelievers today view the accessibility of salvation?  Is the Church damning unbelievers by restricting access to the grace of Christ’s atonement?  Grace by definition means, “The free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God” (Merriam-Webster Online.)  Isn’t that what salvation is? 

    If God truly doesn’t care about the whole world, then why redeem it at the end of the times?  “If for God a billion rational creatures are as dust in the balance; and if a billion perish, God suffers no loss,” (Sanders 72) then why sacrifice His only begotten Son for a chosen few?  The idea that God does not want everybody to be saved implies favoritism. Does God really like Christians more than anybody else?  According to Matthew 5:45: “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”  By these standards it sounds that we are all treated equally.  Then why not uphold the same standard for salvation? What would God lose by offering salvation to everybody?  It seems that His greatest loss was the death of His righteous Son who was able to reconcile mankind with the Father.  Wouldn’t God want to honor Christ’s sacrifice by saving as many as possible? 

    Even in other religions who don’t know the benevolent Christ who gave up His own life to offer salvation, desire to live in eternal unity with their idea of a greater being or order:  

Hinduism: “Everyone will attain God-consciousness and be liberated.  Some receive their meal early in the morning, others at noon, still others not until the evening.  But none will go hungry.  Without any exception, all living beings will eventually know their own true nature to be timeless awareness” (Novak 45).

Confucius: “To find the central clue to our moral being which unites us to the universal order, that indeed is the highest human attainment” (Novak 119).

Islam: “If the unbeliever knew of the extent of the Lord’s mercy, even he would not despair of Paradise” (Novak 314).

Is it the case that other religions know a more compassionate God than our own if eternity with their god is equally offered among them?  

Conclusion

    In conclusion, I left this semester with a greater appreciation of my own religion and Christ’s eschatological plan for all religions.  The course offered diverse texts on the matter of salvation, but it was Pinnock’s conclusion that “God had a plan for all religions” that put my mind at ease and refocused my energy to God’s will to evangelize instead of defending the notion of inclusivism.  Regardless of biases out there, the ultimate purpose for all of these religions and gods is up to Christ.  Christ knows who has a heart for Him and believes in Him. As those who are “chosen,” we are here to represent those who don’t know that they are also set apart for God.  I know for certain that I am not “predestined” in my own right, but rather that God set a purpose in my life that would bring His word to others who were also predestined, but just didn’t know it yet.



References

Bible Gateway Online: www.biblegatewayonline. Internet website.  Available as of December 13, 2009.

Merriam-Webster Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com.  Internet website.  Available as of     December 13, 2009.  

Pinnock, Clark H. “A Wideness in God’s Mercy.” Zondervan; Grand Rapids, (1992).

Sanders, John.  “No Other Name.” Eardmans; Grand Rapids, (1992).

Fisher, Mary P. “Living Religions.”  Pearson; Upper Saddle River, (2008).

Novak, Philip.  “The World’s Wisdom.” Harper; San Francisco, (1994).

Systematic Theology

Pneumatology

As I understand, Gregory describes the Holy Spirit as a separate entity from both the Father and Son, because each has their "own role to play."  For example, the Father is the only Creator, the Son is the only begotten and the Holy Spirit would necessarily follow as a separate identity, because otherwise the Son and Father would be "lacking" in some manner.  This lacking cannot be the case, because a deity is both complete and perfect.  In a sense, this argument concludes that the Holy Spirit is whole (almost) by default (i.e. by virtue of the Father's wholeness and the Son’s).  Additionally, Gregory adds that if the Father and Son each hold wisdom, power, mercy, grace, etc. then it follows that the Holy Spirit is also a whole being with those similar yet separate attributes.  This thinking is consistent with what I have found so far in Karakkainen who is much more detailed in his exploration of the Holy Spirit's identity.  Karakkainen speaks of a specific preparation in the Roman Catholic Church that I personally remember participating in as a Catechist.  Basically, specific years were set to honor each Person of the Holy Trinity (12). This allowed for theological (and spiritual) familiarity on a focused level with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  I vividly remember the year of the Father and Son, because the Western church tends to focus on Christology whereas the Eastern is much more comfortable with Pneumatology (18).  Specifically, Karakkaien speaks of the theological groundwork for filioque (Ibid.)  The traditional Treatise on the Holy Spirit reads: Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.  Whereas the Eastern treatise reads: Glory to the Father, with the Son, with the Holy Spirit (44).  Consistent with my Roman Catholic indoctrination, I immediately related to the traditional treatise.  I didn't realize where my resistance to call the Holy Spirit "God" originated, but now I know!  I simply wasn't taught to.  The theology that I grew up with doesn't explicitly state that the Spirit is lesser than the Father and Son, but it is implied since the focus of the Trinity almost seems hierarchical in nature.  Gregory also touches on this when he describes the Trinity as "the lamp that communicates its light to another lamp and through that lamp a third one."  Again, Karkkainen explains that the Eastern view of the Trinity emphasizes the unity as opposed to the individuality within the Godhead, while at the same time recognizes the reciprocal nature of the trinitarian persons" (44).  Having studied at Regent for two years now, I have shifted from the traditional mind set to ignore the work of the Spirit as absolute and separate to maintaining the Father as the Source, the Son as the open door to the Father, and the Spirit which provides mankind with the necessary knowledge of reconciliation and the sanctification process that is part of our salvation.  These are three united functions,  the Trinity is incomplete with the absence of one, and at the same time, it's three different Persons of the Godhead that make up this union.  In other words, salvation cannot occur if all three Persons are not present.  Karkkainen further adds to this argument by reminding the reader that "faith does not occur without hearing" (84).  And again, there needs to be a Gospel (Christ as the Word; a need for this Gospel (reconciliation to the Father after the Fall); and the Spirit which makes it all possible by providing the essential faith necessary to recognize a state of sin (88).

I think theologians are like puzzle pieces to a greater picture.  They "fit together" and the edges have to match up. Each is endowed with an image that cannot be seen in its entirety without the other puzzle pieces.  That said, theology really is a smorgasboard!  There is a variety of elements when discussing the Trinity that is central to our faith (the same can be said about other religions who do not believe in Christ.)  The section on "contemporary theologians" was my favorite.  Karkkainen began with a somewhat conservative theologian and moved into a liberal scope of pneumatology.  Also, I think the author was trying to make a point, each theologian belonged to a different religion and yet all were concerned with "the doctrine and theology of the Holy Spirit" (105).  In other words, no one person holds all of God's truth except the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:11).  

Karkkainen begins with Zizioulas, the Eastern Orthodox theologian. Zizioulas is concerned with "communion ecclesiology is based on an integral relationship between Christology and pneumatology" (107).  Basically, he distinguishes Christ "as an individual" and Christ "the corporate personality" (the Church) (108).  In the first instance, "the Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity who actually realizes in history that which we call Christ"; and in the second, "the corporate personality comes into being pneumatologically" (Ibid.)  Zizioulas is not suggesting that "the work of the Spirit is subordinate to the Son, nor is Pentecost a continuation of the incarnation but rather it's sequel" (109).  I agree with Zizioulas that the work of the Spirit is not subordinate, however, a sequel by definition is a continuation.  But upon closer examination, a sequel is also an extension that follows a pre-existing work (i.e. the resurrection of Christ.)  In conclusion, Zizioulas contends that "it is not enough to speak of the Spirit in relation to the Church but rather to make pneumatology (along with eschatology) constitutive in regard to ecclesiology; in other words, pneumatology must qualify the very ontology of the church" (110).  

Eschatology

I had some difficulty grasping post and pre millennialism; and post and pre tribulation.  I found similarities between post tribulation and pre millennialism, which seemingly make the most sense to me.  I've always wondered why the church believed that we would be "taken up" (or raptured) during the hardest times in history on this earth?  I would imagine (as Erickson stated) that we would be adequately equipped to survive the tribulation if that was God's will.  Also, I had difficulty understanding the "second coming" because if the argument of pre-tribulation is true, then it looks like Christ comes to earth twice and not just one time.  Thus making it a second and third coming.  After reading Erickson, I was finally able to see why some of these theories were not making sense!  I was particularly struck with Erickson's chapter 39, where he emphasizes the reality of death.  He distinguishes death as something to be feared for unbelievers, and "the purpose of the eschatological truths in God's Word is to comfort and assure believers" (374).  I think I took the inevitable experience of dying and was focused on my existence on earth-(skip dying entirely)-and the afterlife.  While we are supposed to be comforted by the grand plan of the eschatological process, there will also come a time when our bodies on this earth will expire.  And while we hope in the promises of Christ and His return as written in scripture, there is a time when we really won't know what happens during the "intermediate state" of death (378-382).  It sounds like we will have "an absence or presence of God" (381), but specifics were not offered or found in scripture.  I think this is where the ultimate state of hope lies, truly believing in our hearts that God won't leave us in a state of death but will resurrect us to be with Him in due time.  I think that's the ultimate test of faith.

So far, as I understand there was a liberal tendency to think of "God's imminent return" as something that would happen in the future and "not now." Both Weiss and Schweitzer did not believe that the "eschatology" was taking place "now" in the completed work of Christ (105).  In other words, it seems that the time between the cross and "the end" had nothing to do with present life.  In contrast, Barth believed that the "eschaton was God's revelation of what He wanted to do in Christ" (106).  Here, Barth distinguishes between our current life and eternity.  He acknowledges Christ's salvation "that will stand before the eternal God for all time" (Ibid).  Barth basically brings the work of the cross into the picture of how the past affects eternity.  

Bultmann takes the analysis further and de-temporalizes the eschaton. He brings the living progressive work of the Christian forward through the "faith that brings man into a world of freedom in this present reality" (110). "In Bultmann's theology the mythical elements are not eliminated but existentialized. All is focused on the eschatological "now" and the future disappears behind the horizon" (Ibid.)  Bultmann references Paul's letter to the Corinthians: "If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come" (2 Cor. 5:17). Here, there is a direct connection with the work of Christ on the cross which is relevant now and eternal.  As Christians, our progressive Christianity is ongoing and will continue until the return of Christ.  The connection between this "sanctification" and the eschaton is that the "less sin there is, the closer we draw to God" (Dr. Vondey's lecture).  Bultmann states: "The coming of Christ is an eternal event, hap- pening again and again in the inner self of each Christian, in whose soul Christ is born, suffers, dies and is risen to eternal life" (110)  Bultmann's observations are significant, because he brings "the end" to "the present" as if eternity were taking place right now.  And while we are not fully reconciled to God now, the eschaton directly affects us today as was referenced in Matt. 25, 2 Thess. 1 and Rev. 6-22 (i.e. we must remain awake and be prepared for His return).  

I think all of our readings have touched on the hope of eschatology.  "On one side have stood the theologians who view eschatology as the delineation of the sequence of events marking the end of life as we know it and inaugurating eternity, thereby focusing on the eschata rather than the eschaton...While other theologians have tended to "spiritualize" the expectations of an end of the age found in the biblical texts and see its message of the kingdom of God as referring to the Church on earth or to the ethical task of God's people in the world" (339).  To both ends hope is required.  There is the end of this world and the beginning of eternity; and the spiritual affect that this has on believers who have faith in God's promise of everlasting life through His Son.  I seemingly cannot separate the two because the visual effects of our decaying earth serve as a "sign" that our world is also bound by the curse of sin.  "Christian theology speaks of the specific hope Christians anticipate (or ought to anticipate), which hope is articulated in the Bible. Like human experiences of hope, hope in the Bible is always specific. Biblical hope is always directed toward, anticipates and draws its life from a particular vision of the future" (339).  In this instance we have a specific measure of hope, a clear descriptive and even the expectations on us as believers to "await" this coming of the Lord.  I don't think it is humanely possible to conceive the return of Christ on our own.  Scripture clearly shows us that God opens our hearts to Christ and matters which concern His Kingdom.  If this hope is of God, and we're granted the stamina to undergo the challenges in this life until the time of the eschaton, then it follows that this is a foundational principle to our Christian beliefs.  Without hope, eternity might not be feasible for those of us who know we are sinners.  And without the promise of God for a resurrection and eternal life, then there is nothing to hope in.  Death would become a matter of nothingness.  "In the end, then, the object of Christian hope is not the future itself but the God of the future; not our creaturely destiny but the God who destines; not the telos of our existence but the God who is leading us toward that glorious goal. In short, Christian hope rests in the God who declares, "I am making all things new" (Rev 21:5) and thereby promises to speak a final "No" to evil and "Yes" to creation so as to accomplish what from the human perspective is impossible, namely, through resurrection to bring life from the dead" (341).  Our hope is to know Him, walk with Him and spend an eternity with Him.  Our spiritual eschatology results in growth as Christians, but of more significance is our ongoing relationship with Christ.

Ecclesiology

I think of the Church as an olive tree as is referenced in Romans 11:17-18: “If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.”  

The olive tree is referenced many times in the bible, including:

Fertility of the Land:  In the Old Testament, scripture references Olive trees where “fertile land” is concerned (Deut. 8:8; 24:20; 28:40).  Similarly, the Church is alive, abundant and fruitful.

Noah: The sign of a new beginning was represented by the Olive branch the dove brought back: “When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth” (Genesis 8:11).  The Church brings the Good News to others with the message of a new beginning in Christ.  

Mount of Olives:  It’s where Jesus prayed (Luke 11:39).  The Olive Tree also marked Jesus’ joyful entrance (Matt. 21: 1-11) and exit when He was arrested (Matt. 26:47-51). I think it’s striking that Christ chose the Olive tree to pray.  It’s where He took His disciples to teach them, where he prayed the night before His crucifixion and where His ministry came to an end when He was arrested.  Jesus almost used the Olive Tree as His “church” to disciple those He had chosen.

Revelation:  There are Olive Trees next to the lamp stands in the Kingdom of God (Rev. 11:4) perhaps denoting everlasting life.  Similarly, the Word of God is life through the Church.  

The Olive tree is referenced in both the Old and New Testament thereby associating the Old and New Covenant of Jews and Gentiles.  Paul spoke of the wild olive branches that would be “grafted” in with the cultivated olive tree.  Similarly, the cultivated tree represents the Jews that God has planted, plowed and prepared for His ultimate plan of salvation.  If you’re familiar with wild plants, like the ones growing on the side of the road, they’re almost there by grace.  Natural elements provide for the wild plant, but there is little if any management that is required to fertilize and encourage these plants to grow.  A cultivated plant on the other hand requires specific measures of water, sunlight and attention to maintain their health!  The combination of the wild and cultivated (or lawful) plants result in the Church, founded on God’s laws and purified by the grace of God.  

A regular tree is generally associated with wisdom, strength and life.  An Olive tree, like the Church, holds those similar characteristics in a sanctified manner anointed and set apart for God’s purpose.  As the “Head” of the Church, Christ is the caretaker and life of the Olive Tree: “So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow” (1 Cor. 3:7).  It makes sense that the Olive Tree would have a caretaker, because it is not the “wild plant” that grows without a specific “path” or “way.”  An well cared for plant will sprout new leaves, like the Church should in terms of increased Holiness and “branches.”  

I followed the example Vondey provided in "People of Bread."  I think Vondey took the significance of "bread" in general to a completely different level.  In fact, I wasn't sure how the church could be viewed as "bread" until Vondey began to explain "fellowship and communion" during the breaking of bread in chapter three.  I could easily see how as individuals we are "people of bread" (i.e. the body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist) but I didn't make the connection between church and bread until Vondey provided a history of what bread represented to individuals during biblical times.  In my mind, I never stopped to consider that the references in the Old Testament of bread as a key symbol for the Israelites' dependence on God for everything and especially the element necessary for their survival.  I was particularly struck when Vondey speaks of the "manna" that God sent the Israelites from heaven.  First, I did not know that "manna" means "what is it"-it made me chuckle, because those would have been the exact words out of my mouth too!  However, in terms of how this provision relates to the church, it's awesome to imagine that God literally sent His people bread from heaven.  Similarly, it's easy for me to imagine a vine to represent the church, because my mom has a green thumb for plants.  I've watched her graft plants together and successfully grow them.  With that image in my mind, the need for a "cultured plant" (or a foundation) is necessary for the grafting of gentiles or a wild plant.  Reading about how important and foundational bread was to the Israelites, I began to connect how the bread drew in God's people in all aspects of life.  Vondey also mentions how the bread should literally bring Christians together for "the breaking of bread" and how we simply lack in this practice.  I have been to several Church events where as Vondey mentions, "church people" separate themselves from others (like the homeless in Vondey’s example) and I must agree that it was never intended to be this way.  

Identity

I think that much of my Christianity has to do with knowing who I am.  Part of the remarkable change in Christ  requires self awareness to properly ascertain what God has changed within me.  There is a striking difference between where my self perceived identity lies and where He walks in to change my heart in accordance with His promise to make me whole.  The transformation is subtle in some cases, because it is change within myself that I have longed for but was unable to attain on my own (i.e. inner peace).  Other changes are remarkably obvious, because there isn’t any way I could have fathomed the transformation in my own capacity (i.e. having a love for His church and people.)  The familiarity with my self identity has led me to understand that there are certain bona fide traits within me that cannot be removed, like my resilience and determination.  It is comforting to know that my individuality is not being removed in Christ, but rather made much more undivided in His care.

Julian of Norwich on God as our Mother

I thought this was an interesting read coming from a Catholic background who acknowledges the Virgin Mary as a significant role in the life of Christ.  In my personal walk as a Christian practicing in a Roman Catholic parish, I was taught to honor Mary as the mother of Christ and to rever her Son Jesus.  As a Hispanic Catholic this was particularly striking to me, because my mom set the foundation to my faith and I was close (and continue to be close) to her.  I was able to "honor Mary" because I "honor my mom."  Mary was the chosen vessel that brought Christ to life on this Earth, just like my mom had brought me here.  I felt a special kinship to Mary, because my mom did such an amazing job as a parent.  In my heart I knew that Christ was Lord and that God was God, but in my heart as a young woman sometimes it helped to relate to Mary as a female.  I think that's what Julian of Norwich is saying when she refers to "God as our Mother."  Without bringing up the Catholic religion, Julian is saying that Christ is comforting.  God is this being of grace that I've come to connect with who my mom has been to me.  The parallel between my mom's parenting and Christ is the love, devotion and sacrifice that I knew in my mother.  I'm not suggesting that men are not capable of this "comfort" but for me, I experienced this in my mom as Julian describes: "Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?  Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you" (Isaiah 49:15).  This verse is STRIKING to me, because in my "world/mind" a woman could never forget to have compassion for her own child....and according to scripture, Christ's love is still much greater than that.

McGrath: The Christian Theology Reader

Pluralism

My initial thought before I even read the text was "separation of church and state." Sure enough, Davis covers the topic toward the latter end of the first chapter. Davis argues that it was never the founding Fathers intent to separate the value systems between church and state, but rather "to rule out preferential treatment for any single Christian denomination" (Davis 24). Which I happen to agree with. However, given the fact that Emerson v. The Board of Education has "begun and progressed in the wall between church and state" (p.24) then relevant factors must be taken into consideration. Other factors here inevitably include those who are unbelievers. Contrary to the word of God, but within their American right to not be subject to evangelism if that is their choice. The reality of our nation is that we live in a pluralistic society. Sounds redundant to the assignment topic itself but it's true! Over time, pluralism became the norm and I question whether there is any viable return. My logical mind doesn't think so.  Simultaneously, I believe that Christ can reach anybody at will and is able to use other means beyond traditional evangelism. I think it's important to note that although there is a clear separation between church and state in our country, God's wisdom and law are active in our legal system. It is not termed "morality" per se, but "killing another, stealing, trespass, etc." are a violation of our criminal/civil codes. These may not be in reverence to Christ, but they are a form of maintaining respect for each other. In my view, pluralism isn't good or bad, it's simply a reality that cannot be overlooked.