ARTICLES
Why Believe?
FAITH – but not blind Faith
The equation of salvation is relatively simple. God gives us love (John 3:16) and grace (Ephesians 2:8) – and only asks for love (Matthew 22:36-40) and faith (Hebrews 11:6) in return.
God’s love and grace are perfect, but we often fall down on our side of the equation (Mark 9:24, Matt 8:26). So, God is always willing to help us – to give us a reason to believe and a basis for a reasoning faith.
So, God reveals certain events beforehand so we can be assured of His existence (Amos 3:7).
“Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.” Amos 3:7
This is not proof of God’s existence (if it was proof we would need no faith), but it is overwhelming evidence of God’s existence. Many Old testament prophecies contain the phrase “then you/they will know that I am the Lord” (Ezekiel 12:15, 33:29, 28:24, 37:13), as though the fulfilling of prophesy is evidence that the Lord is God.
See:
Not a Sword or Shield in Israel – Why?
In all the stories of Israel’s battles given in the books of Judges and Samuel, a common theme is a lack of weapons. There can be a spiritual meaning to this – that God did not want Israel to depend on their own strength to win battles. However, there was probably a physical meaning also. Here is a list of occasions where the Israelites apparently had a lack of weapons.
Ehud makes his own two-edged sword (Judges 3:16). Why? It’s not a very sophisticated weapon. Two edges is common. About 45 cm (18 inches) long – pretty common. Why did he have to make his own, instead of dropping into the local sword shop? He was left-handed – but I don’t think a left-handed sword is much different from a right-handed one.
Shamgar kills 600 Philistines with an ox-goad (Judges 3:31). We don’t know the circumstances, but again it is likely that no better weapon was available. I would think that an ox goad would be pretty useless against spears. Obviously, God helped him – but why use such a weapon?
Samson goes to Timnath of the Philistines. A dangerous trip. He confronts a lion, but he carries no weapons (Judges 14:5-6).
Samson kills 1000 with an ass’s jawbone (Judges 15:15) as revenge for the death of his wife. He came down, knowing he would exact revenge – and yet with no weapon.
There were no weapons for Barak & Deborah. “Not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel” (Judges 5:8). Oppressed by Jabin and his men – they had no weapons.
Gideon’s men were few and only armed with a jug, a torch, and a shophar. (Judges 7:16). Apparently, there were no weapons until the Midianites fled, leaving their weapons behind.
Consequently, the sling gained popularity in the early days of the book of Judges. (Judges 20:16). There seems to be no reference to slings in the days of Moses. Battles in the days of Moses and into the days of Joshua were ‘at the edge of the sword’. Exodus 17:13, Numbers 21:24 etc. In the early days of Judges (chap 20), the fighters were “all those that drew the sword”. But later, there are few references to metal weapons.
Israel was driven to ignoble weapons during oppression. The sling was despised. Goliath calls it a weapon to fight against a dog.
There are some suggestions that even in the time of Saul, metal amour was fairly rare. Saul offers his amour to David to fight Goliath. The amour doesn’t suit David. One would think that if there was a whole armory, then Saul could have selected the best fit for David.
Finally, 2 Samuel 1:21 “.. the shield of Saul, no longer anointed with oil.” The NET Bible notes that this implies that Saul’s shield was made of leather. Multiple layers of leather would make an impenetrable shield. But the leather would have to be regularly rubbed with oil to keep it supple and to avoid cracking. Again, the implication is that the Israelite shields were made of leather and not metal.
A spiritual lesson can be drawn. God supplies the strength – that’s all we need. But – we see that later, in the time of David and subsequent kings, there were weapons of metal. So, there seems to be another reason.
Possible Conclusions
Perhaps the Israelites had not yet learned how to smelt iron. Bronze was well known in Egypt as well as the surrounding nations and the use of copper and tin would have been well known by the Israelites. It was the Hittites who first smelted iron and it is possible that the Israelites were not aware of this process as they come from Egypt. I feel that this explanation fails to explain multiple Bible passages.
Numbers 35 16 “‘If anyone strikes someone a fatal blow with an iron object, that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death.” This implies that iron was a common item in Israel from Moses day.
Deuteronomy 27 5 “Build there an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones. Do not use any iron tool on them.” This implies that the Israelites had iron tools. Why not iron swords?
Deuteronomy 33 25 “The bolts of your gates will be iron and bronze…” Iron seems to be a common item.
There are many other verses implying that iron was well known and utilized by Israel during the time of Joshua and the Judges.
A much more plausible explanation comes from: 1 Samuel 13
19 Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” 20 So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plow points, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened.
This gives context to all of the stories throughout Judges and into first Samuel. There are many times when Israel lacked weapons and it would seem that this was the reason. When Israel was subject to any nation, that nation would kill all the metalsmiths so that no weapons could be made. A simple and effective plan. The enemies of Israel throughout Judges and Samuel, when they subjugated Israel, would kill all the workers of metal.
Deborah – Breaking the Mould
I have always loved the story of Deborah. All other women of faith in the Bible, seem to be in a subservient role to men. They obeyed husbands, priests and rulers. Deborah bowed to no man – they bowed before her. No man passed judgment on her; she passed judgement on them. They came to her for wisdom.
The book of Judges contains great stories of Jewish heroes. These stories loom large in Jewish folklore. When the Jewish people think of great heroes, they certainly think of a Moses or a David but also of characters like Ehud, Gideon, Deborah and Sampson – all of which are found in the book of Judges.
The story of Deborah and Barak stands out as different from all the rest, as the great hero of the story is a woman. She is a leader and judge of men and without a doubt was the greatest person in Israel at the time. The other thing that stands out in the story is that it features a second woman who becomes a fundamental part of the narrative. There is a reason for this.
There are some who suggest that God resorted to using a woman leader simply because there was no man ‘up for the job’. I certainly believe this represents a profound misunderstanding of the purpose of the story. It is no accident that two women feature in the story. It is absolutely deliberate.
The story begins with the Israelites again sliding into evil ways after the leadership of Ehud ended. God let Jabin the Canaanite and Sisera his army captain, oppress the people and they cried out. The Canaanites had 900 iron chariots. I think smelting of iron was first practised by the Hittites – and this knowledge extended to surrounding nations. Deborah was already a judge in Israel before this adventure begins. We have no knowledge of why she was selected, but she seems to be firmly established in the role by time our story starts.
She summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him “Has not the Lord God of Israel commanded, ‘Go and deploy troops at Mount Tabor” Judges 4:6
The command is directly from the Lord.
It has been further suggested that Judges 4:8 “And Barak said to her, “if you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go!” illustrates cowardice on the behalf of Barak. This could not be further from the truth.
They go on to suggest that verse 9 -“so she said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman,” was some form of punishment for his cowardice. This belief shows utter ignorance of God’s purpose. Barak did exactly what he should have done – it shows absolute dependence on God. We will explore this more a little later.
Four Judges are listed in Hebrews 11, as examples of great faith. All of their stories contain some elements that would make us possibly reject them as being suitable for faith heroes. They are maybe not the ones we’d select.
Hebrews 11: 32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah,
Gideon: Didn’t he doubt and need repeated miracles to assure him of God’s help? Didn’t he make an ‘ephod’ idol which became a snare to him?
Barak: Didn’t he play second fiddle to a woman and appear to hide behind her skirts?
Samson: Didn’t he hang out with harlots?
Jephthah: Didn’t he sacrifice his daughter?
I am always thankful when I read of these characters, because then I am assured that to be a person of faith doesn’t mean we have to lead a perfect life, but simply rely on the grace given to us through one who did lead such a life.
Why is only Barak mentioned in Hebrews and Deborah omitted? Because neither was superior – they were equals with different jobs, separately and individually great, and the author of Hebrews just ‘grabbed’ a handful of names from Judges.
Judges 4:4 records the words “Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time”.
This may seem to be a straightforward statement but is actually far from it.
The word Deborah is a proper feminine noun meaning ‘bee’.
How do we know that the subject is a woman and not an insect? This may seem trivial, but in a moment, we will see that it is important. We can tell from the context. The ‘bee’, judges, speaks, and rules. Clearly not an insect. There are other women with this name in the Bible.
Now look at Lapidoth – A feminine noun meaning ‘torches’ (flames).
So, is this a name or a real torch? Let’s look at the context. This word never appears again – no context. This name never appears anywhere else in the Bible – so we have no contextual way of knowing. But – here is the answer.
In Hebrew, many neuter objects may have masculine or feminine gender. E.g. Spirit (ruach) is a feminine noun, but spirit is not female sex. Sea (yam) is a masculine noun, but the sea is not male sex.
However, if an object has a sex, then it always has a matching gender. E.g. Young woman (Betula) is a feminine noun – as it must be since ‘woman’ has female sex. King (melek) is a masculine noun – as it must be since king has ‘male’ sex.
Now – here’s the kicker!!
Lapidoth is a feminine noun. It cannot possibly apply to a male sex person.
So, Lapidoth is a torch, not a man.
So, should Judges 4:4 read “Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of a torch, was judging Israel at that time” ? I guess not. So, we turn to the word wife.
Wife in Hebrew (issa) means woman, wife, or female animals. Having established that Lapidoth was not a man, we conclude that ‘issa’ means woman.
Finally, we come to this:
“Now Deborah, a prophetess, the woman of fire or flames, was judging Israel at that time”.
So now we come to why Deborah was chosen. Was there no man good enough? Clearly Hebrews 11 judges Barak as a great man of faith. But God did not choose him. God wanted a woman – this is the critical point of the story.
Let’s visit Judges 4:8 again. Does it represent some sort of cowardice on the part of Barak. Absolutely not. Here is a literal translation.
Judges 4:8 And Barak saith unto her, `If thou dost go with me, then I have gone; and if thou dost not go with me, I do not go;’ 9 and she saith, `I do certainly go with thee; only, surely thy glory is not on the way which thou art going, for into the hand of a woman doth Jehovah sell Sisera;’ [Young’s Literal Translation.]
Deborah was correctly warning him that he would not get the glory of killing Sisera – that ‘privilege’ would go to a woman. It was not a ‘punishment’ for wanting Deborah to come along – but rather a revealing of the plan of God. Barak should have done exactly what he did – The Holy Spirit was upon Deborah. She was a chosen one. Barak wanted the Spirit of God to go with him, exactly as he should have. And so should we. Every battle we face should be faced with the sword of the Spirit beside us. That was all Barak wanted.
Judges 4 tells of the Battle.
Judges 4:2 Jabin reigned in Hazor.
We have come across Jabin of Hazor before (Joshua 11:1). This was well before the time of Deborah. Jabin means ‘he who God looks upon’ and was very possibly a ‘title’ of the king of Hazor rather than a name. So, the Jabin of Judges 4 would be descendant of the Jabin of Joshua. Joshua destroyed Jabin and the city of Hazor.
Joshua 11:10 Joshua turned back at that time and took Hazor, and struck its king with the sword; for Hazor was formerly the head of all those kingdoms. 11 And they struck all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them. There was none left breathing. Then he burned Hazor with fire.
Evidently, Hazor was rebuilt and again became the major city of the Canaanites. God finally decreed it for eternal destruction. See YouTube:
Is the Bible Believable From 5:50
Deborah instructs Barak to gather 10,000 men to Mount Tabor.
We are also introduced to Heber the Kenite, of the family of Moses’ father-in-law. This family had settled at “Zaanaim, which is beside Kedesh”, probably about 30 kms north of the Sea of Galilee.
The battle is joined at the Kishon river, which runs through the valley of Jezreel, from the lower Jordan to the sea at Mt Carmel.
Barak’s army came down from Mt Tabor and defeated Sisera’s army with its iron chariots. Little detail of the battle is given in Judges 4, but more is added in the Song of Deborah and Barak in Judges 5.
20 From heaven fought the stars, from their courses they fought against Sis′era.
21 The torrent Kishon swept them away, the onrushing torrent, the torrent Kishon.
March on, my soul, with might!
It would seem that God sent a torrential rain which caused the Kishon river to flood, thus causing its flood plain to become a sea of mud. Here iron chariots were not just useless – but became a trap as they sunk in the mud. This explains Sisera having to escape on foot.
Sisera escapes to the tents of Heber the Kenite, who had previously been on good relations with Jabin. Jael, Heber’s wife, welcomes Sisera into her tent and promises to hide him there. He is thirsty after the long battle, and he asks for water, but Jael offers him milk. Milk is a soporific, and so the exhausted Sisera falls asleep. Jael takes a tent peg and a hammer and strikes Sisera through the temple, killing him. When Barack comes looking for Sisera, Jael goes out to meet him and shows him the man he has been seeking. The power of sin is struck in the temple by a woman.
Judges 5 is one of the most powerful pieces of poetry in the Bible. It contains hints of the real meaning of the story.
6 “In the days of Shamgar, son of Anath, in the days of Ja′el, caravans ceased, and travellers kept to the byways. 7 The peasantry ceased in Israel, they ceased.” This shows the desperate plight of the Israelites under the oppression of Jabin.
7 ….. until I Deb′orah arose, until I arose as a mother in Israel.
This verse is critical! We need to tuck it into our memory banks. Deborah was not married and had no children (as far as we know) and yet she is styled a mother. The spirit of the lord was on her. She is a mother overshadowed by God’s spirit!
12 Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam. (KJV)
This verse is also critical! We need to also tuck it into our memory banks. The KJV is the only one that gets the words right. Now, look, David takes up the same refrain. David and Deborah link the great deliverance at Sinai, and David adds the torrent of rain at the salvation wrought by Deborah.
Psalm 68:8 the earth quaked, the heavens poured down rain, at the presence of God;
yon Sinai quaked at the presence of God the God of Israel.
Judges 5:5 The mountains melted from before the Lord, even that Sinai from before the Lord God of Israel.
But now, David links God’s blessings to the deliverance of Deborah.
Psalm 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; ….
Exactly the same phrase as Judges 5:12. But now David connects gifts with this.
But wait …there’s more !!
Paul picks up exactly the same phrase in Ephesians –
4:7-8 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
Barak led captivity captive i.e. the captors of Israel (Jabin and Sisera) were themselves taken captive.
We were captive to sin and death, but Jesus led our captivity captive, when he destroyed the power of sin and death. Jesus gave gifts to us rather than receiving them.
The phrase ‘captivity captive’ only occurs in these 3 places.
So, the salvation by Deborah and Barak mirror our salvation by Jesus.
Deborah, and unmarred woman (virgin?), is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and is called a mother in Israel, and produces the child of salvation- Barak. The mother in Israel (Judges 5:7) produces the spiritual son to overcome sin (Genesis 3:15).
An undoubted parallel with Mary in Luke 1:28-31.
But – we now find a parable within a parable.
Sisera is sin’s power. He is struck in the temple and killed by a woman, using a nail. Jael is called ‘most blessed of women’. Judges 5 24 “Most blessed of women be Ja′el, the wife of Heber the Ken′ite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed.”
Only one other woman has ever been called ‘blessed of women’-
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Jael and Mary are the ‘most blessed of women’.
Jael struck sin (Sisera) in the temple Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”
Jael’s tent peg struck Sisera in the head – the fatal blow.
The seed of Mary struck sin, a fatal blow, in its head.
Jesus has the title of a tent peg in Isaiah 22:22-23
The key of the house of David
I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open. 23 I will fasten him as a peg in a secure place, And he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house.
So, the most blessed of women, took Jesus (the tent peg) and struck sin in the head and so freed the people from sin and death
A powerful parable within a parable. Deborah, an unmarried woman, became a mother in Israel by the power of the Holy Spirit and so produced the son of salvation Barak who saved his people from the consequence of their own sin. Jael took hold of a tent peg (Jesus) and smote the power of sin in its head, crushing it and so freeing the people from the consequences of their own sin.
It is now obvious why God chose these two women as a symbol of His greatest salvation.
YouTube version at Woman of Flames
The Tower of Babel: Fact or Fiction
The oldest recorded civilization in the world is the Mesopotamian civilization. Overall, the 4 oldest civilizations are the Mesopotamia Civilization, Egyptian Civilization, Indus Valley Civilization, and Chinese Civilization. https://byjus.com/social-science/oldest-civilization-in-the-world/
The first 11 chapters of the Bible take place in Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq and Southern Turkey). This was the first civilization on earth and was essentially the totality of the known world to the characters in the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Their concept of ‘the world’ was this region.
The Garden of Eden was in this region as identified by the rivers [Genesis 2:13-14]. Noah’s ark came to rest here [Genesis 8:4], and Abraham was called from the Sumerian civilization near the mouth of the Euphrates [Genesis 11:28].
Genesis 11 leads us into the generation of Shem which produced Abraham. It would seem that the whole story prepares us for the important bit at the end – God calls Terah (or Abraham).
Genesis 11:1 The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary.
Firstly, the earth (Eretz in Hebrew) is usually translated ‘land’ and can (and usually does) mean some localised land. Eg. Genesis 26 There was a famine in the land (eretz) …. 2 The Lord appeared to Isaac and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; settle down in the land that I will point out to you. 3 Stay in this land. Then I will be with you and will bless you, for I will give all these lands to you and to your descendants…” Obviously not the whole earth.
The lands were local. So, the ‘whole earth’ in Genesis 11:1, represented the whole of the then known world. i.e. all of Mesopotamia. I think it’s important to note that this chapter only applies to the descendants of Shem – who lived in Mesopotamia. The other sons of Noah populated other regions.
Genesis 10: 5 From these the coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according to its language, according to their families, by their nations.
This covers a vast time period and I feel that their language divergence was quite separate from Babel story.
Genesis 11 3 Then they said to one another, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” (They had brick instead of stone and tar instead of mortar.)
This again suggests that the building was in contrast to other civilizations which used stone and unbaked mud bricks – the civilizations of the other sons of Noah in Genesis 10. Stone and unbaked mud bricks were the exact building materials of the most ancient Egyptian constructs. “Most buildings were built of locally available mud brick and limestone.” [Wiki : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_architecture ]
Also, the Sumerians were the first people recorded to use tar as a joining material. “In the ancient Near East, the Sumerians used natural bitumen deposits for mortar between bricks and stones, to cement parts of carvings, such as eyes, into place, for ship caulking, and for waterproofing. The Greek historian Herodotus said hot bitumen was used as mortar in the walls of Babylon. Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitumen
Genesis 11 4 Then they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves.”
A translation of “heavens” for שָׁמַיִם (shamayim) fits this context because the Babylonian ziggurats had temples at the top, suggesting they reached to the heavens, the dwelling place of the gods. [NET comment.]
Genesis 11: 5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people had started building.
A contrast to the desires of the people, to build a tower which would reach up to God, but here the Lord comes down to the people.
So, the tower was built in the plain of Shinar, and the town was called Babel (confusion) – presumably near or at the location of Babylon of later times.
It’s interesting to note that Babylon is between Akkad and Sumer.
Now – do we have any archaeological evidence that the languages were confused.
We certainly do.
The people of the Northen region, Akkad, spoke a Semitic language, as expected.
Named after the city of Akkad in northern Babylonia, Akkadian was the most important language spoken and written in the ancient Near East between the third and first millennia BCE. Akkadian belongs to the Semitic language family and is related to Arabic and Hebrew. It can be divided into a number of dialects, the most important of which are Old Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian. https://nelc.yale.edu/languages/akkadian
What of Sumerian?
The Sumerian Language was spoken in southern Mesopotamia before the 2nd millennium BCE and was the first language to be written in the cuneiform script. It is an isolate language meaning we know of no other languages that relate to it ancestrally. Although there are some theories that Sumerian is a member of the Uralic languages like Hungarian and Finnish, or other language families, this is a minority view with insufficient evidence to make a definite claim. The language was spoken in a region where Semitic languages were also spoken, particularly Akkadian, and it eventually fell out of use in favour of those languages by the turn of the 2nd millennium BCE. https://www.worldhistory.org/Sumerian_Language/
How spectacular is this. Akkad and Sumer were right next to each other – mixed – and yet the Sumerian language has no known relatives. Almost as if it were given a language all its own. The regions of Sumer and Akkad originated as small city states with their own Gods. Over time, they aggregated into city groups, but with no clear distinction between Sumer and Akkad.
How is it possible that a completely new language emerged with absolutely no relationship to surrounding languages? The Babel story.
Under Sargon l (the Nimrod of the Bible) the Akkadians defeated the Sumerians and gradually the Akkadian languages took over.
Was Paul a member of the Sanhedrin ?
Firstly, many rumours abound about the 1st century Sanhedrin (or Great Sanhedrin of 71 members).
In New Testament days, the Great Sanhedrin met in the Temple in Jerusalem, in a building called the Hall of Hewn Stones. The Great Sanhedrin convened every day except festivals and Shabbat.
People confidently state that a member of the Sanhedrin, in the days of the apostles, must be of age greater than 40 (the Leader (or Nasi), must be over 50 years old) and must be married. I can find no authoritative historical statements about these conditions, although, like Christian Overseers, it may have been a condition that they do not have rebellious children. After 191BC, when the High Priesthood became corrupted and politicised and the Jewish Leadership Hellenised, the High Priest was no longer a member of Sanhedrin.
In the Christian era, the high priesthood and the Sanhedrin often colluded.
So, is there any evidence that Paul was a member?
Extremely weak- if any.
Acts 26:10 – 11 NET
“And that is what I did in Jerusalem: Not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons by the authority I received from the chief priests, but I also cast my vote against them when they were sentenced to death. I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to force them to blaspheme. Because I was so furiously enraged at them, I went to persecute them even in foreign cities.”
This is said to imply that the ‘vote’ Paul cast was that of one of the seventy elders. There is no evidence of this. The fact that he ‘received authority’ means that he had no such authority himself – others had to grant it. Casting a vote, I should think, means consent.
Galatians 1:13-14
“For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.”
Some have suggested that ‘advanced beyond my contemporaries’ suggests Sanhedrin membership. I would think the very opposite. Surely, if Paul had been a Council member, and he is here trying to prove his hardline Jewish credentials, he’d have loudly proclaimed that he was one of the Sanhedrin. But he’s silent on this matter.
Acts 8:1 “Now Saul was consenting to his death.”
Some have suggested that this implies that Paul was a Council member. I don’t think that is implied at all. Consenting just means approval of a decision already taken. And the clothes minder seems a very menial position for a Council member.
Now – evidence against.
The High Priesthood and the Sanhedrin has joined forces against the Christians.
Acts 23:6
“But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!”
Had Paul been a member of the Sanhedrin, even in the recent past, they would know his history. But clearly, it came as a surprise to them, that he was a Pharisee. Also, Paul ‘perceived’ that the Council was split between Pharisee and Sadducees – a fact he would have been well familiar with had he been a Sanhedrin member himself.
Acts 22:3-5 “Then he said: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today. I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women, as also the high priest bears me witness, and all the council of the elders, from whom I also received letters to the brethren”….
Here Paul lays out his credentials as a Jew. He was taught by one of their supreme Rabbis. He appeals to all the council members to verify that he was given Commission to persecute the Saints. Surely, if he had been a council member, that would have been a supreme testimony to his Jewishness, but he clearly does not claim this.
Philippians 3:2-6 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless
Here, again, Paul lays out his “confidence in the flesh”. He lays out his credentials as the “perfect Jew”. He quotes his receiving his Commission as a pharisee, his zeal for the law but nowhere does he say he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Surely, if he was, it would be the crowning achievement of his “Jewishness”.
Although we can’t be certain, it seems to me that the weight of evidence is that he was not a member of the Sanhedrin.
Jehoshaphat – Flawed Hero
Jehoshaphat was the fourth King of Judah. He had a good example in Asa his father, although Asa also fell through a failure to understand how to deal with Israel. When Israel made war against Judah, Asa had asked the King of Syria for help, and not God. Why? Most likely because he felt he couldn’t ask God to fight against the children of Abraham. Hadn’t God said, “I will bless those who bless the seed of Abraham”, how could Asa fight and kill them? His brothers?
The prophet Hanani scolded Asa for not asking God’s help. Asa failed to realise that the children of Abraham were those who did the deeds of Abraham, not just a blood line. Once Israel gave their love to the golden calves, they ceased to be Abraham’s children.
Asa was furious, and locked the prophet in jail, in the stocks. God effectively said ‘so, you’ve locked up the word of God by its feet – try this on Asa’. God struck Asa with a foot disease – such that he eventually died. Perhaps the origin of the phrase ‘my feet are killing me.’ Asa also inflicted cruelties on the people at this time. You’d reckon Asa was a failure, but 1 Kings 15 says 14 …Asa’s heart was perfect with the Lord all his days. (AV). How great is God’s forgiveness and grace – and His mercies are overwhelming.
Asa may well have also been intimidated by the words of the man of God in 1 Kings 12:22
But this word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God: 23 “Say to Rehoboam son of Solomon king of Judah, to all Judah and Benjamin, and to the rest of the people, 24 ‘This is what the Lord says: Do not go up to fight against your brothers, the Israelites. Go home, every one of you, for this is my doing.’”.
Asa may have felt that these words prevented him from asking God’s help against Israel. But he should have brought his concerns to God.
2 Chronicles 17 3 Now the Lord was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the former ways of his father David; ….and sought the God of his father, and walked in His commandments….. 5 Therefore the Lord established the kingdom in his hand; and all Judah gave presents to Jehoshaphat….. 6 And his heart took delight in the ways of the Lord;
2 Chronicles 18. This chapter chronicles the downhill spiral of King Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat was a great king who tried to walk correctly in the footsteps of David his forebear but unfortunately, he was absolutely obsessed with the desire to unite the two kingdoms. Jehoshaphat made terrible decisions based on this desire. He should have laid his plan before the Lord instead of taking it upon himself to unite Judah and Israel.
2 Chronicles 18 Now Jehoshaphat had great wealth and honor, and he allied himself with Ahab by marriage.
In an effort to weld the two kingdoms together, he married his son to the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. This daughter was twice as evil as her mother Jezebel and brought Baal worship into Judah, which finally led to Judah’s downfall. She also almost wiped out the line of David.
2 Some years later he went down to see Ahab in Samaria. Ahab slaughtered many sheep and cattle for him and the people with him and urged him to attack Ramoth Gilead. 3 Ahab king of Israel asked Jehoshaphat king of Judah, “Will you go with me against Ramoth Gilead?”
Jehoshaphat went to see Ahab. It is generally the lesser who goes to the home of the greater. Jehoshaphat obviously put himself in the position of the lesser of the two kings in the hope of gaining Ahab’s favour. Jehoshaphat knew that Ahab and Jezebel worshipped Baal and yet he still went. Ahab asked him to come and help him take the city of Ramoth which had fallen to the Syrians. Ramoth was a Levite city and all the Levites and priests had fled down to Judah leaving the city undefended. Of course, Ahab asked for help, as we are told that Ahab’s army numbered only 7,000, whereas Jehoshaphat’s army number 1.16 million. Jehoshaphat replied, “I am as you are, and my people as your people; we will join you in the war.” 4 But Jehoshaphat also said to the king of Israel, “First seek the counsel of the Lord.” This was a profoundly ignorant and stupid thing for Jehoshaphat to say. His people were not the same as Israel’s people nor was Jehoshaphat the same as Ahab. Jehoshaphat thought that because they were all descendant from Abraham, then they were the same people. They were not. The children of Abraham do the works of Abraham and Israel had abandoned Abraham a long time ago. But at least Jehoshaphat asked that they should seek the Lord’s advice.
5 So the king of Israel brought together the prophets—four hundred men—and asked them, “Shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I not?”
Where did Ahab find 400 prophets? Hadn’t Jezebel killed all the prophets of the Lord? Didn’t Obadiah hide the prophets of the Lord by 50’s, in caves to escape Jezebel? How was Ahab able to find 400? Presumably because these prophets prophesied both for Baal and the Lord and were acceptable to Jezebel.
“Go,” they answered, “for God will give it into the king’s hand.” 6 But Jehoshaphat asked, “Is there no longer a prophet of the Lord here whom we can inquire of?”
Why did Jehoshaphat want one more prophet? Why would 401 prophets be better than 400? Because Jehoshaphat knew that the 400 were not true prophets of the Lord alone.
7 The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, “There is still one prophet through whom we can inquire of the Lord, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah.”
We are not told how Micaiah escaped the wrath of Jezebel.
14 When he arrived, the king asked him, “Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I not?” “Attack and be victorious,” he answered, “for they will be given into your hand.” 15 The king said to him, “How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?”
We can only assume that Micaiah replied in some sort of ironic or sarcastic way, because Ahab clearly could see that he was not telling what he believed to be true.
16 Then Micaiah answered, “I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the Lord said, ‘These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.’” 17 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Didn’t I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?”
Micaiah prophesied that Ahab would be killed in battle. He then goes on to explain a scene in heaven where the spirits are asked by God, how they might deceive Ahab. All this is in the hearing of Jehoshaphat, whom we may have expected to abandon the venture.
25 The king of Israel then ordered, “Take Micaiah and send him back to Amon the ruler of the city and to Joash the king’s son, 26 and say, ‘This is what the king says: Put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely.’”
It is amazing to see that Jehoshaphat did not object to the abuse of the prophet. The prophet is slapped by Zedekiah and then confined to gaol on bread and water. And Jehoshaphat does not raise a finger in his defence.
28 So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah went up to Ramoth Gilead. 29 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “I will enter the battle in disguise, but you wear your royal robes.” So the king of Israel disguised himself and went into battle.
It gets even more bizarre. Jehoshaphat asked for a prophet to inquire of the Lord and when he hears that the battle will be a failure he still goes with Ahab. Not only that, but knowing that the prophet said the king of Israel would be killed, Jehoshaphat accepts the deal that he wears the kings clothing and Ahab goes in disguise. Unbelievable. Jehoshaphat will do anything to please Ahab.
31 When the chariot commanders saw Jehoshaphat, they thought, “This is the king of Israel.” So they turned to attack him, but Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him. God drew them away from him
I am sure that Jehoshaphat cried out to God and was saved. This was not the end of Jehoshaphat’s foolishness. He also joined ventures with Ahab’s sons which similarly failed.
2 Chronicles 19: When Jehoshaphat king of Judah returned safely to his palace in Jerusalem, 2 Jehu the seer, the son of Hanani, went out to meet him and said to the king, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, the wrath of the Lord is on you. 3 There is, however, some good in you, for you have rid the land of the Asherah poles and have set your heart on seeking God.”
Through the prophet Jehu, God squarely laid the blame for the defeat at the feet of Jehoshaphat. God expressly told him that the people of Israel were sinners and had lost their right to God’s protection. You would think that this would be enough to stop Jehoshaphat from ever joining forces with Israel again. But not so.
2 Chronicles 20 10 “But now here are men from Ammon, Moab and Mount Seir, whose territory you would not allow Israel to invade when they came from Egypt; so they turned away from them and did not destroy them. 11 See how they are repaying us by coming to drive us out of the possession you gave us as an inheritance. 12 Our God, will you not judge them? For we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you.”
Jehosaphat seems to be faced with the same dilemma. He felt that he could not make war against Israel because they were God’s people and now, he feels he cannot fight against the peoples of Ammon, Moab and Edom because God had protected the inheritance of these people when Israel had come out from Egypt. But this time Jehoshaphat did the right thing in bringing the problem before the Lord – and he was answered. God effectively says ‘Yes, the children of Israel were forbidden to make war against Moab, Ammon and Edom (Mt Seir) when they left Egypt. This was because God had promised the children of Lot could have an inheritance and that Esau could also have an inheritance. But these nations deserted the God who gave them these promises and so God allows Israel to destroy them on this occasion’. It is worth noting that Jesus was a descendant of Moab through Ruth the great grandmother of David.
God’s condemnation concerning his association with Ahab could not have been clearer and yet, unbelievably, Jehoshaphat makes exactly the same mistake again.
2Chronicle 20 35 Later, Jehoshaphat king of Judah made an alliance with Ahaziah king of Israel (Ahab’s son), whose ways were wicked. 36 He agreed with him to construct a fleet of trading ships. After these were built at Ezion Geber, 37 Eliezer son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, “Because you have made an alliance with Ahaziah, the Lord will destroy what you have made.” The ships were wrecked and were not able to set sail to trade.
I am sure the desire in Jehoshaphat’s heart was noble. It would have been good for Israel and Judah to again join in the worship of Yahweh in the Temple at Jerusalem. But it was not God’s timing. Many years later the prophet Ezekiel was to speak of a time in the future when the two houses of Judah and Israel would be united but it was not to be in the time of Jehoshaphat.
A lesson for us. We may have noble plans – but never ‘bend’ God’s commands to make things happen which we think are right. The end never justifies unrighteous or questionable means.
A Brief History of the Arab-Israeli Wars
This is a table of the timeline of the Arab-Irael wars over the last 120 years. It was written for an “English as a Second Language” course, so it is simplified
Arab Israeli WARS Last 120 Years
World War 1 happened, Turkey lost and much of the land they had owned was now ruled by Britain (England) and France. England now ruled Palestine. Many more Jews came into Palestine. The Arabs did not like this and so trouble began.
For related topics see:
Quantum Christianity
Quantum mechanics and Christianity may seem to be totally unrelated. But perhaps one can extract a parable that connects the two.
Quantum mechanics was born in the early decades of the 20th century. The two great pillars of modern physics appeared almost simultaneously. Quantum Mechanics and Special and General Relativity. It is easy to credit the fatherhood of relativity to Albert Einstein, but less easy to give this title in the case of quantum mechanics. Names like Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg immediately come to mind, but there were many others.
Max Planck was able to show that the mathematics related to the frequencies of light emitted by hot objects could only give the correct description of the phenomena if we assume that light appears as small packets of energy. These energy packets were named quanta (singular quantum). A light quantum is called a ‘photon’. This was further proved by Albert Einstein in his explanation of the photoelectric effect which could only be explained if light appeared in packets or quanta. Einstein was rewarded with the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for this discovery.
Isaac Newton had postulated that light was a stream of particles as early as the 17th century, stating that the behaviour of light, reflected from surfaces, was exactly the same as for a stream of particles being reflected from a surface.
Thomas Young showed, in 1801, that light could be diffracted as only waves could be. This was proof that light was a wave.
But now, light was again proved to be a particle by Planck and Einstein. It clearly had both properties.
Louis de Broglie (pronounced Lewy De Broy) thought that, if waves of light could appear as particles, then particles (like electrons, protons etc.) could appear as waves, for which he received the 1929 Nobel Prize. This has led to such inventions as the electron microscope. The mathematical description of a quantum particle or a photon is called its ‘wave function’.
Diffraction experiments have conclusively proved that electrons behave as waves – and can be diffracted, and yet, when we ‘observe’ or ‘measure’ electrons, they appear as particles. Here are tracks of subatomic particles in a ‘cloud chamber’, clearly showing particle properties.
So – which is it? Are electrons waves or particles? They are both and neither. The subatomic or quantum world does not correspond to our macroscopic world. There is no distinction between waves and particles in the subatomic world. In fact, subatomic particles behave as waves until they are observed or measured, then they immediately behave as particles.
When a wave passes through two slits, it forms an interference pattern. An electron forms an interference pattern as it encounters two slits. It’s a wave.
But, if we observe which slit an electron goes through, it immediately behaves as a particle, and passes through either of the slits, with no interference pattern.
As soon as we observe or measure the electron, it stops being a wave and becomes a particle. We say the ‘wave function’ collapses.
Superposition
Superposition is the existence of multiple states within one quantum system, until a measurement is taken. Then all except one of the ‘wave functions’ collapse, leaving only one outcome.
Hydrogen is the simplest of all atoms, containing one proton around which circles one electron. The electron can be thought of as circling the nucleus (proton) in any one of many circular orbits. If the electron absorbs some energy, it moves to a ‘higher’ orbit. If the electron drops to a lower orbit, it emits energy, or a photon of light.
If an electron was in the 7th orbit, it could drop down to any of the lower orbits. Each transition has its own wave function (7 to 6, 7 to 5 etc), and while the electron is in the 7th orbit, all wave functions exist at once. They are in superposition. Each transition has its own frequency (colour) photon. When we observe the colour of the omitted photon, all other wave functions collapse. Only the observed one remains.
Many physicists found this concept impossible to believe. Erwin Schrödinger (who invented the wave equation) made up a ridiculous thought experiment to show it could not be true.
A cat is in a box with one uranium atom (U) connected to a machine with a vial of hydrogen cyanide. The U atom has a 50% chance of radioactive decay in the next hour. If the U atom decays, it triggers a smashing of the vial, the cyanide is released, the cat dies. Quantum mechanics tell us that the wave functions of the decayed U and undecayed U are in superposition. Both exist at once. The cat is both alive and dead. It is only when we lift the box lid and ‘observe’ that one wave function collapses, and one exists. The cat is alive OR dead, not both.
Entanglement
Quantum particles have properties like mass (may be 0), charge (may be 0), spin (may be 0) etc. One such property is called spin. This does not mean they are rotating on an axis. Quantum mechanical spin has some correspondence to the rotation that we know (called angular momentum) but is NOT identical. Quantum spin has only two types, up and down, whereas in our world, rotation can be around any of millions of axis directions. I think physicists learned from this confusion, and have since called new properties ‘charm’, ‘colour’, ‘beauty’ since no one thinks subatomic particles are charming, colourful, or beautiful.
In any quantum interactions these properties are conserved. That means that the amount of mass, charge and spin going into a reaction must equal that coming out.
Entanglement means that two or more subatomic particles share a connection between these properties. They are not independent.
An example: A photon can spontaneously turn into an electron and anti-matter electron (positron),
The electron and the positron are now entangled as they were created together. The positron will exist for only a fraction of a second, before it annihilates with an electron forming photons again.
If a hypothetical system of spin 0, decayed to form two electrons, and then we separated these two electrons to opposite sides of the universe, examining one would reveal the spin of the other. If the one we looked at had spin +1/2, the other must have spin -1/2. If we could suddenly ‘flip’ our electron to the opposite spin of -1/2, then the other electron, billions of light years away, would instantaneously flip its spin to +1/2, to make their sum 0. How did it know that we had flipped the spin of our electron? Information travelling faster than light? This is entanglement.
So, we have been instantaneously able to determine properties of both electrons, billions of light years apart.
Christianity
This is just an analogue situation – humans are not quantum systems. Don’t take it too seriously.
Romans 7.
15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
For what I am doing, I do not understand: This is the cry of every quantum physicist. We can manipulate it, calculate it, but no one understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman is reputed to have said ‘if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, then you don’t understand Quantum Mechanics’.
19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.
In his body there abides the man of the flesh, and the man of the Spirit. Sin and Good. They are contained in the same body. They are in superposition. The two wave functions exist at once – and it’s only when we observe the man’s actions, that one wave function collapses, and one remains. Then we see him as either sinful or holy.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
Again, the superposition of the two states – good and evil. And it is only in observation that we find which one is happening.
For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Superposition of states. We can only see which ‘me’ wins when we make an observation. If we, as Christians, exhibit a Christ-like action in our life then the wave function for the law of sin collapses and we are left with only one outcome. The good one. But this is not continuous. A new set of wave functions occur at out next temptation – and again we have a new set of superimposed wavefunctions, awaiting a new observation.
Another example. In the letters called the letters of John, we find statements like:
1 John 1 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth…..8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Again, the superposition of two states. If we have fellowship with Him, then we don’t sin. But, if we say we don’t sin, then we lie. The two states are darkness and light. Only the observation of our behaviour collapses one wave function, leaving only the other.
1 John 2 :1… And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous…3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Again – the two states. If we know him, we keep his commandments. If we don’t keep his commandments, we are liars. But, we all sin, so we all ‘don’t know him’. But, when we keep his commandments, we ‘know him’. Two wave functions of keeping commandments and not keeping them.
1 John 3 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. But, 1 John 8 …8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
We cannot sin, but we deceive ourselves if we say we don’t sin. Two superimposed states. We fluctuate between states. One collapses at observation.
Genesis 1: 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Just like the case of the two electrons created simultaneously above, God creates the human – and so God and the human are ‘entangled’. Their destinies are linked. We know God’s properties and God knows ours.
God created man and woman from the human ‘adam’. Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his sides (not a rib), and closed up the flesh in its place. The man and woman are now entangled as they are created together. Their entangled state is described in Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Finally, the entangled states of God, man and woman will unite in one state: God. 1 Corinthians 15:28
When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
P.S. The one-dimensional time dependant wave function:
Atonement
I’d like to start with the word break up;
AT-ONE-MENT (from 16th C English)
How does sinful man ever achieve oneness with God?
This was Jesus’ prayer, that we could be one with God.
John17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.”
This topic has plagued the church for 2000 years.
Wiki defines it as:
In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ which made possible the reconciliation between God and creation. Within Christianity there are numerous technical theories for how such atonement might work.
In my own experience, there are two main approaches to understanding how the sacrifice of Christ can achieve the forgiveness of sins.
One is called the “substitutional” sacrifice of Christ.
The other is called the “representative” sacrifice of Christ.
Basically, the substitution approach claims that Jesus took all of our sins upon himself and suffered the death which we deserved as the punishment of our sins. He took our sins to the cross. We are absolved.
The representative approach says that Jesus’ death on the cross shows us the way. We must follow him to sacrifice our own lives and live for Christ.
I feel that both approaches can be illustrated on the day Jesus died. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.
Two of the people in the story of Jesus crucifixion illustrate the two approaches to atonement.
When offered a choice between the life of Barabbas and the life of Jesus, the people chose Barabbas as the one to live. They asked for Barabbas.
Barabbas is a composite name. Bar is Aramaic for ‘son of’ and ‘abba’ is Aramaic for ‘father’. So, Barabbas means “son of a father” and he was a prisoner who was a robber and a man caught in an insurrection and he was in jail under penalty of death.
He represented every son of every father, every daughter of every mother. He was locked up and the only way out was his crucifixion. He had no escape. We are also sentenced to death. We can’t escape. Our very first sin brought our death sentence. We have been rebellious. Death is the fate of all humanity.
Then somebody came along and threw the jail gate open and said, “you’re free – someone else has died in your place”. And so, Barabbas walked out having had Jesus die for him. Jesus died for Barabbas’ sins.
The cross was reserved for a robber, a rebel and Jesus took the place of the sinner. He took the sins on himself. Pure substitution. Jesus was substituted for sinful Barabbas and took his sins to the cross.
So, what of Barabbas. I like to think that maybe he was about Jesus’ age, about 35. He walks out blinking in the sunlight, suddenly free. But what does he gain? Another 35 years or so – and then he will still die unless he comes to Christ.
Jesus died for our sins just as he died for Barabbas’s. We can imagine ourselves cowering in a corner like the disciples, or standing in the mocking crowd calling out “crucify him, crucify him”. Or standing in front of the cross calling out “if you are the son of God, come down and save yourself’. And Jesus’ answer: “Father, forgive them for they don’t know what they’re doing”. Jesus took our abuse on himself and in his last act achieved forgiveness for us and for every sinner.
BUT….
The other person who interacted with Jesus that day was the thief on the cross. He didn’t escape crucifixion; he was crucified with Jesus, and yet he was the one who was promised everlasting life, not Barabbas. Through absolute faith – he connected himself with Jesus’ sufferings – not escaping them.
He followed Jesus to the cross – not escaping it as Barabbas did.
Barabbas got maybe another 30 or 40 years but would have died just the same unless he came to Jesus as well. And the lesson is, yes, Jesus will die for us and carry our sins to the cross, but oddly enough we must pick up our cross daily and willingly go with him to be crucified ourselves.
The faith of the thief on the cross is illustrated in his statement “Remember Me, when you come into your Kingdom”. What astounding faith! Here was Jesus, being crucified like a slave, dying in agony and yet this man believed that somehow, he would rule in his Kingdom.
Some verses –
|
Substitution |
Representative |
|
Isaiah 53 4 Surely, he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 8 …. for the transgression of my people, he was punished. |
Matthew 16 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it There was only one reason to take up your cross in the Roman world – the be crucified on it. We must lose our life to gain life.
. |
|
1 Peter 2 . 24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed. . |
1 Peter 2 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. ….To the cross |
|
Galatians 3 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” Hebrews 2 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
.
|
Romans 6 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him…. 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. |
|
1 Timothy 2 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
. |
Galatians 2 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. |
Why did Jesus have to suffer such an horrific death?
Jesus died this type of death so that no one could say; “well, I’ve got it tougher than Jesus”.
Just imagine, if Jesus had lived into old age, and died in his sleep.
Every one of us, who suffer in this life, would be able to say; “well Jesus doesn’t know what I’m going through – he had it easy”.
But suffering the death on the cross leaves us saying; “it doesn’t matter what I am suffering – it is not nearly as bad as Jesus suffered, and he still clung on to the ‘joy that was set before him’.”
Two other approaches to the atonement are worth a mention.
Ransom. We are all held to ransom by sin and death. The only way out is to pay the ransom. Jesus paid that ransom, and the price was his blood on the cross. Matt 20:28, 1 Tim 2:6
Propitiation. A sacrifice to appease God. Not that God wanted to torture Jesus, but His wrath to us is appeased or turned away when we attach ourselves to the cross of Jesus. Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10 – all in KJV (new versions get it wrong).
Representative Atonement
Substitutional Atonement
THIS CROSS
Reserved for
A thief, a robber, and a rebel
Renewed 