Metaphors of the Cross Part 4

Redemption - The Captivity Metaphor

Redemption; the Captivity metaphor, is one of the strongest 'Metaphors of the Cross' that we are looking at in this series. The central idea to this doctrine is that we are captive and imprisoned as a result of our sin, and need someone to be our redeemer, to pay the ransom for our release and to rescue us.

In this 17th Century painting by the Italian artist Antonio de Bellis we see the Acts 12 passage of Peter in prison, chained between two guards, and the angel of God coming to free him.

Peter and the Angel (Antonio de Bellis):

Here then is a picture of our redemption; just like Peter, we are imprisoned  and need some to redeem us and rescue us. Our chains are the emotional and spiritual chains of sin, but we still need release. To the church at Colossi Paul talks of Christ as the one who:

"has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of  his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgive- ness of sins"    [Col 1:13-14]


And in that verse there this idea of deliverance and rescue, but what does it really mean? 

Part of the challenge we face is that we use the words 'redeem' and 'redemption' as part of our everyday language and so we think we know what is meant by them:

• If you go shopping at the supermarket you might have some vouchers that you can redeem for groceries
• We talk of someone who has let people down of needing to 'redeem' themselves
• And we live in a hostile world where people can be taken hostage and held for ransom (the price that is paid to redeem someone)

All of these ideas are in this world and so we have this idea that redemption means to 'buy back' or 'to exchange'. and certainly with the idea of hostages we have the idea of people being held captive - the Captivity metaphor. 

But all of that falls far short of what this would have meant to people reading Paul's letters in the first Century because this was a word rich in meaning and implication - it was a very profound and significant statement to make, the idea that we have been redeemed by Christ would have excited the early church.  To explore the deep meaning of this doctrine we need to look at it through the lens of the culture of the time, and in particular, through the story of Ruth, because her journey of redemption parallels ours.

The story starts with a man called  Elimelech; an Israelite from the town of Bethlehem, in Judah. Elimelech is married to Naomi and they have two sons; Mahlon and Chilion. However as the story opens there is a famine in Israel, and it is not possible for Elimelech to support his family on the land he has and so he sells his land and takes his wife and their two sons to live in the neighbouring country of Moab. Elimelech then died, but the family carries on; his two sons married women from the region and so we have Naomi with here two sons and her two daughters in law; Orpah and Ruth.  Then tragedy struck again and both of Naomi's sons died leaving her with her two widowed daughters in law. This was a tragedy beyond this obvious heartache of losing loved ones for in a time where there was no welfare state and no men to head up and provide for the family Ruth and her daughter in law had no means of support.

Parallel One - The Need for Redemption

Here are these three women lost in a hopeless situation, captive to circumstances beyond their control, and we can parallel that with our position outside of Christ, lost and alone, indeed held captive, and in need of someone to rescue us. Outside of Christ we are in an equally desperate situation - held captive by our sin and in need of rescue.

Returning to the story, Naomi decides to return home to Judah. partly because she hears the famine is now over and there is again food in the land, but also because the were laws in place to protect widows and orphans, an Old Testament welfare state, if you like, that did not exist in Moab or the surrounding countries, and this will be key to the story. Orpah decides to stay in Moab, but Ruth decides to return with Naomi,

One part of the law was the law of 'gleaning'. This meant that when the men harvested the fields they were not allowed to pick up any barley that fell to the ground. This had to be left and the poor and the widows and orphans could come a pick, or 'glean' this. And so Naomi and Ruth return the region around Bethlehem and Ruth starts to glean in the nearby fields, and in particular a field belonging to a man called Boaz, who happened to be related to Elimelech, Naomi's dead husband.

Ruth & Boaz
(George Frederick Watts 1817-1905)

Boaz comes notice Ruth and indeed starts to have an affection for her such that he tells her to remain in his field and with the women that were part of his household because there she will be afforded  degree of protection rather than wandering around other fields as a single woman. All of this Ruth tells to Naomi. And Naomi wisely says:

"It is good my daughter that you go out with his young women, lest in another field you be assaulted." [Ruth 2:22]

But this is good news for another reason that brings us back to the doctrine of Redemption. Naomi also says to Ruth:

"This man is a close relative of ours, one of our redeemers" [Ruth 2:20]

And here we find another aspect of Old Testament law that is so key to this story, the year of Jubilee. Although it seemed at the beginning of the story that Elimelech sold his land that wasn't strictly true. In an agricultural society that depended on the land for survival, the law prohibited the outright selling of land otherwise it would be very easy for the land to be owned by a minority of rich people and leave the majority of the population to be poor and destitute, this is another  example of a social equality that God gives his people through the law that was far superior to that which existed in the surrounding nations.

When the famine came and Elimelech could not sustain his family on his land he could not sell it outright, but he could lease it, and this did, and took the money and relocated to Moab. But the freehold of the land remained in his family, and more-over ever fifty years the year of Jubilee came around and all land was given back to its original owner.  Naomi, as Elimelech's widow still holds title to this land, but as a widow, even if the year of Jubilee came around,  she would be unable to work the land and provide for herself and so she would be no better off. All she could then do would be to lease the land again and go back to gleaning, however another law now comes into play, the role of the kinsman-redeemer and this is the phrase that Naomi uses of Boaz.

Just as it was unacceptable for land to change hand permanently, it was just as unacceptable for a family line to end because of a lack of descendants. Naomi's sons are dead and their wives never had children and so Elimelech's line will end. The law made provision for this and is laid out in Deuteronomy:

"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family. [This is the position Naomi finds herself in]. Her husband's brother [Boaz] shall go into her and take her [Naomi] as his wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his [family] name shall not be blotted out of Israel. [Deuteronomy 25:5-6]

To preserve Elimelech's line the law requires that a relative of Elimelech, marry Naomi and that children from that marriage are regarded as children of Elimelech and Naomi and so continue the family name and gain the land back at the next Year of Jubilee thus keeping the land in the family as well This might offend our 21st Century social patterns, but this was clear provision for those in distress with no one to continue the family name. The only change here is that because Naomi is past child bearing age, the responsibility fall to Boaz to continue Elimelech's line by marrying Ruth - not a bad turn of events as he is falling in love with her.

Parallel Two - The Home of Redemption

From what has happened so far there are two more parallel between us and Ruth. Notice where does this redeemer come from? He comes from Bethlehem. Years later a far greater saviour who would redeem us would also be born in Bethlehem

Parallel Three - The Closeness of Redemption

There is a third parallel, that is really important, and this is the idea that you can only be redeemed by a family member. Someone with good intentions cannot redeem you; even a friend cannot redeem you, the law requires that it be a family member that performs this duty. This is the point that would have so excited the early church. If Christ has redeemed them, then apart from the obvious aspect of his saving act it means he is closely related to us - he is our brother.

"For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have the one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise" [Hebrews 2:11-12]

There is this inexorable link between redemption and close family relationship that would not have been lost on the early church. Indeed to jump to the end of the story, Ruth and Boaz do indeed marry and have children and in particular Obed who was the grandfather of King David. And fourteen generations later we come Joseph who betrothed to Mary who gave birth to Jesus Christ - our redeemer. This family bond or relationship runs all through the story and indeed through scripture.

Back to the story and  in Chapter 4 we find Naomi putting up for sale the land that belongs to Elimelech:

"Naomi who has come back from the country of Moab is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our relative Elimelech"  [Ruth 4:2]

This might seem odd because Elimelech has already sold, or at least leased out the land, so how can it be sold again? Well now that Naomi has identified a close family relative who can redeem them, Boaz has the duty of not just providing offspring for Naomi but also materially providing for them by paying off the outstanding lease on the land - paying off the person who currently has use of it, and buying it back for Naomi and the children that they will have. They children will then inherit that land. Chapter four seems like a fairy tale ending, but there is one problem, Boaz , it turns out is not the closest male relative to Elimelech, there is another, to whom this duty of redeeming Naomi and Ruth should fall, and so we have this exchange that takes place in the market place before the elders. Boaz points out to this man his duty - we have already read the verse

"Naomi who has come back from the country of Moab is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our relative Elimelech". [Ruth 4:2]

and he says to him:

"If you will redeem it, redeem it. But if you will not tell me that I may know for there is no -one beside you to redeem it and I come after you." And he said, "I will redeem it".  [Ruth 4:4]

This is a good deal for this man. He has to marry Naomi and spend some money buying back the land. but because Naomi is past the age of bearing children there will be no-one to inherit the land and so it will become his, he stands to profit. But now Boaz plays his trump card and points out that whilst Naomi cannot have children, her daughter Ruth can, and the law will extend that far in order to preserve Elimelech's line.

"Then Boaz said, the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi you also acquire Ruth, the Moabite, the widow of the dead [Elimelich]. [Ruth 4:5]

This now changes the whole deal. Now this man has to spend money buying land that he will then have to give away to his step-children and never gain the benefit of it - and so with this news he now changes his mind.

"I cannot redeem it for myself lest I impair my own inheritance - Take my right of redemption yourself for I cannot redeem it. [Ruth 4:6]

Let us not see this as a shirking of duty, this man was quite right that in fulfilling this obligation he would erode the inheritance that was stored up for his own children and so this is both an understandable response and importantly for us, a perfectly legal response - for it brings us to our next parallel - the option to redeem.

Parallel 4: The option to Redeem.

With all that has been said so far about the law and duty and the rights of redemption we could come to the wrong conclusion that Christ has no choice but to redeem us. It was his job, his duty. Almost as the Roman church though it was acceptable to sin because that meant more grace came to them, so we could think; "why do we even need to be thankful - this is Christ's job- to redeem us." And of course that is not the case. The job of redeeming was optional and if someone did not want to fulfil the role they were first in line for then they could refuse, a principle that is covered clearly in the Old Testament law:

"You shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the first born of your animals that are males shall be the Lord's. Every first born donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck"  [Exodus 12:12-13]

The principle in law is very clear; the first born belongs to the Lord and that means your donkeys, and if we had carried on reading the passage your sons as well. Thankfully you do not have to sacrifice them, because you can redeem them by offering a lamb instead, but the point is you don't have to redeem them. And importantly for us, just as the man who was first in line as redeemer for Naomi and Ruth did not have to redeem them if he did not want so, so Christ is under no compulsion to redeem us. It is something he does willingly.

There are two more parallels we can draw from this story

Parallel 5: The Cost of Redemption.

There isquite a money trail to follow here; Elimelech sells some land, someone else buys it, Boaz then buys it - there is a lot of 'person A' paying 'person B'. And if this is a picture of the redemption that Christ secures for us then the question we are left with is "Who does Christ pay?". If redemption is all about paying a price to rescue one held captive who walks away with the money?

Does Jesus pay satan? That seems wrong for it would imply satan had some power over Christ and could compel him to act - and we know that is not the case. The simple answer is it is possible to pay a great price in other ways that by exchanging money.

We talk of an athlete who paid a great price to win the medal. The athlete did not spend money but spent time and effort to train and to compete. In a similar way Christ pays the price for our release through his sheer effort and the sacrifice of the cross.

"You with your arm redeemed your people"    [Psalm 77:15]

"I will redeem you with an out-stretched arm and with mighty acts of judgement   [Exodus 6:6]

And of course Jesus did not redeem us with money, the cost that Jesus paid to redeem us was his precious blood:

"...knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ."  [1 Peter 1: 18-19]

Parallel 6: The Extent of Redemption.

And then lastly, as we have followed Ruth's story, we need to remember that she was not from the tribe of Judah, or indeed any of the twelve tribes of Israel. She cane from Moab - and was outside of God's people, she had just married into Naomi's family. Nevertheless redemption extended to her, and we can rejoice in the fact that no matter how far away from God we feel, no matter how undeserving of his love we imagine ourselves to be, his redemption can still reach out to us. As Peter reminds the crowd on Pentacost:

 "For the promise is for you, and for your children, and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lod our God calls to himself."  [Acts 2:39]

Application Questions:

1) Of the six parallels mentioned, which one particularly spoke to you; either as something you had not realised before or as something you wanted to apply to your life?

2) John 8:36 says; "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.". Do we feel fully rescued for every aspect of the bondage of sin? Are there areas in our life where we could realise that freedom more? And if so, how do we go about doing that.

3) There are so many other references to Redemption in both the Old and the New Testament. Can you think of any others that have fresh meaning or depth in the light of the story of Ruth?

Metaphors of the Cross Part 3

Recapitulation - The Summation Metaphor


In the last part of this blog series we looked at one of the clearest aspect of the Cross, namely sacrifice, and the idea that Christ died in our place; He was sacrificed for us and from this we get the 'substitutory' metaphor of the Cross. Christ was our 'substitute' and died in our place for the sins we had committed.

In this next part we will look at another metaphor, or way of viewing the Cross, and this is called 'Recapitulation Theory' or the 'Summation' metaphor. The idea is found in a number of verses but is most clearly expressed in Ephesians Chapter 1:    

"[God's purpose is, in] the fullness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth..." [Ephesians 1:10]

The Greek word to 'sum-up' was translated into Latin as 're' (again) and 'capitulum (head). God had great plans for humanity yet Adam's sin caused a separation and a breaking of that relationship. Christ comes, as a man, to undo the failure of Adam; to be a 'second Adam' and to succeed where the first Adam had failed. Christ comes to  'again' be the 'head' or fulfilment of all of God's good plans - they are recapitulated in Christ.

Exile from Eden by Domenichino

We see the tragedy of Adam's sin in this 15th Century painting as the angel casts out Adam and Eve from Eden and bars the way back to the garden. The distress and anguish is so clearly portrayed. So much loss, so much pain how can this be reversed? 

Of course God had not given up on mankind. He comes into the world in the person of Jesus Christ to take our place (as we saw last time) but with regards to this metaphor, he comes to retell Adam's story.

Much of the Paul's teaching in the middle part of Romans also talks of Christ as the 'new Adam' - the one who would correct the failures that were made before.

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"  [Romans 5:17]

This view was championed by the early Church Father, Iraneus in the 2nd Century

"He [Jesus] commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam—namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God—that we might recover in Christ Jesus."

To fully appreciate this idea however we need to see the extent to which Christ 'retells' Adam's story, but before we do that we must stress a vital point; to retell the story in the first place Christ must be fully human, The great mystery of the incarnation in that Christ was both fully God and fully man is vital here, any theology that denies the real humanity of Christ loses this whole aspect of the cross. Put simply if Christ were not a man he has no right to retell the story of a man. With that thought in mind notice how Adam's story is 'retold':

1) Obedience (Philippians 2)

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" [Romans 5;17]

Adam's failure was a lack of obedience and is highlighted by a tree. He was forbidden to eat from the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, (Genesis 2:17). Christ however was obedient unto death:

"And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!" [Phillippians 2:8]

Adam's failure was on a tree and so it is fitting that Christ's triumph was on a tree, namely the cross of wood.

2) Temptation (Matthew 4)

Think also of the battle Christ faced when tempted by satan in the wilderness in Matthew 4. This is far more than just an isolated incident it is a re-telling of Adam's story with a successful outcome to the temptation. In what way did satan first tempt Jesus?

"Command these stones to become loaves of bread." [Matthew 4:3]

Adam was tempted with food, the apple, the desire for immediate satisfaction. He fell yet Christ successfully resisted that same temptation.

The Temptation of Christ
Av Sheffer

The second challenge was to test God:

"If you are the son of God throw yourself down for he will command his angels concerning you and on their hands they will bear you up lest you strike your foot against a stone." [Matthew 4:6]

Christ resisted this challenge, yet when satan came to Adam (strictly to Eve, but the failure was equally his)  and said:

"Did God really say you shall not eat from any tree in the garden?" [Genesis 3:1]

Adam and Eve tested the word of God and fell.

Thirdly Adam and Eve were tempted with power and authority:

"If you eat of it [the apple] your eyes will be open and you will be like God." [Genesis 3:5].

And to Christ satan also offers power and authority:

"And he showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. All these I will give to you if you will worship me." [Matthew 4:9]

3) Mission (Genesis 1)

God blessed Adam and Eve and gave them a task:

"God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."  [Genesis 1:28]

They were to bring an expression of God's rule on the earth and multiple and bring their sons and daughters into that same relationship with God. Sin prevented that happening yet Christ comes to restore God's rule and reign and present us again holy and blameless before God.

"...to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." [Ephesians 5:27]

In every case Adam fell, and in every way Jesus was tempted in a similar way and resisted, He undid the failure of Adam, he recovered for us that which had been lost. Christ as the second Adam died on the cross as a perfect man who had resisted the enemy. This whole recapitulation metaphor shows Christ retracing the steps of Adam and succeeding so that He can bring us into God's presence as that true representative of restored humanity.

"He became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."[Iraneus]

Hallmarks of the Kingdom

Hallmarks of the Kingdom (John 2:1-11)

The miracle of the wedding at Cana is in many ways an unusual miracle; no-one was healed, no-one was raised from the dead, no great crowds accepted the gospel,  the only person who was saved was the host of the wedding who was merely saved from the embarrassing social situation of not having enough wine for the wedding. Coupled with verse 4 where Jesus seems reluctant to work at all we are left with a somewhat unusual story.

If we are to truly understand this miracle then we need to put it in the context of the overall ministry and mission of Jesus Rather than seeing it as an isolated event we must see it defining and fore-shadowing all that comes later in Christ's teaching. Jesus came to announce the coming of the Kingdom of God

"The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand repent and believe in the gospel"      [Mark 1:15]

This was the dominant theme of his ministry. And rather than being a furtive and secretive act, this miracle helps to show us the hallmarks of the kingdom. All the principles and characteristics that Jesus would expound over the next three years concerning the Kingdom of God can be seen here in this first miracle.

1. The Kingdom is hidden

The first parallel between this miracle and the kingdom of God is that the kingdom is hidden.

If we look in Matthew chapter 13 where we have all these parables of the kingdom the common thread that runs through all of them is that the kingdom is hidden,

• Good seed hidden among weeds
• Mustard seed, tiny, hidden, yet growing into a great tree
• Treasure hidden in a field
• A pearl of great price, hidden until the merchant finds it

Why can't the gospel be so plain and obvious that everyone gets it? Because it is hidden. The disciples once asked Jesus why he always spoke in parables and he answered:

"To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given."     [Matthew 13:11]

It is such a reversal of the normal order of things. For the kingdom speaks of the first being last and the last being first, it speaks of those who have nothings being privy to great insights.

If we drop back into the narrative for a moment, we can see this so clearly. The one person who should know all that was going on at this wedding, the master of the feast, has no idea where this wine came from. The servants who are there to just fetch and carry have a front row seat and great insight into this miracle. And that is the strength of this passage of the wedding at Cana, it shows us this hidden nature of the kingdom.

We carry within us such a precious message.. What a privilege to have these truths revealed to us, truths that are not known to kings and presidents, truths that have not been revelled to the most powerful, the most influential, the richest people in the world - but they have been revelled to us.  No human intellect or wise words or slick presentation can do that. There is no secret formula that will convince people of the truth - only us carrying that truth to them time and time again - in our feeble and broken way but seeing a miracle happen every time God opens blind eyes and moves people a bit closer to himself.

"For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are.    [1 Corinthians 1:26-28]

But still we must ask why is the kingdom hidden? Why does God choose to work in this way? I think there is value is searching for something, for only when we search and find do we appreciate something. Something that is obtained without effort can be easily dismissed. We live in a generation where advances such as the internet make it so easy to search out and find information, and we almost object when something is difficult or hard to discover, but God in his infinite wisdom chooses to hide his kingdom and say; "The kingdom is given to those who will search for it, who will value it, who will be serious about it

2. The Kingdom advances in small steps

The second parallel between this miracle and the kingdom of God is that the kingdom advances in small steps. We often think of the mission before us, how can we save out neighbours, how can we save our town or city,  how can we plant new churches. These are big steps and whilst I would not want to under-estimate the enormity of such tasks, still those big steps are just the sum of many small steps that almost go unnoticed, and this is a key kingdom principle.

I said before that no-one was saved or healed through this miracle, but who am I to say that? People certainly came closer to God and that ultimately is what it is all about. No great sermon was preached, no great parable was spoken - but what Jesus did, almost in secret, still impacted people.. In verse 9 there is this small phrase about the servants. It's also in brackets so it is almost presented as an aside, not worthy of being part of the story itself, but it is so important,

"The master of the feast tasted the water now become wine and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew).     [John 2:9]

These servants had witnessed a great miracle - no-one had explained it to them but something had been planted in their hearts - maybe they would follow Jesus to find out more about him. They probably did not even know who he was on this day but their knowledge has grown, ever so slightly and it will continue to grow, that is how the kingdom advances.

We can look at the Lazarus being raised from the dead, thousands being added to the church through one sermon, we can look at our own witness and ministry a bemoan the fact that we don't see such event happening, but does it really happen that way? We advance the kingdom in small steps by the conversations we have, the example we set and who knows what impact that has on people around us to enquire more.

Let me give you a great example of the Kingdom advancing in small steps and this is Jesus trying to educate his disciples. There were two great feedings of multitudes in the Bible. In Matthew 14 Jesus is confronted with a crowd of 5,000. The disciples come to him and say:

"This is a desolate place and the day is now over send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves."     [Matthew 14:15]

According to the disciples mindset nothing can be done, the crowd have to go. We know of course that Jesus takes five loaves and two fish and feeds the crowd, but notice the disciples response for now - "send them away nothing can be done". Jump on a Chapter to Chapter 15 and Jesus is again talking to a hungry crowd this time of 4,000. Jesus says to his disciples

"I have compassion on the crows because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat and I am unwilling to send them away hungry less they faint on the way"     [Matthew 15:32]

What do you think Jesus was looking for in terms of a response from the disciples? Maybe "hey, we have done this before let's see what food the crowd have" would have been good. How did they respond?

"Where are we to get enough bread in such a desolate place to feed such a great crowd"?    [Matthew 15:33]

I had been Jesus I would have been tempted to remind the disciples of what they had witnessed just recently, perhaps even to rebuke them, but there is no rebuke, Jesus just performs a similar miracle all over again and with seven loaves and a few fish the crowd are fed.

The point I am making is that Jesus was content to advance his disciples understanding in this small way and I think one small word gives it away. In Chapter 14 the disciples response was 'they need to go away' no argument no discussion it's not going to happen. In Chapter 15 the response is 'Where do we get bread?'. No longer an impossibility just an uncertainly -maybe a big uncertainty, but not an impossibility. And Jesus has happy that it took 9,000 people to move his disciples from believing something was impossible to being unsure how something could happen - small steps. The "It can't happen" has become "where" or even "how" - the outright rejection has been replaced with a question. "You must send them away" becomes "where are we to get bread?"

And for us this is such an important point to realise, this is right at the heart of how the kingdom works and is revealed, When we speak to people our friends our family who don't know Jesus yet each conversation is a small step that will move that unbelief to uncertainly to interest, to curiosity to seeking and to acceptance. And it might take ages; conversation after conversation but slowly that outright rejection will be replaced with questions, and curiosity and slowly the wall of disbelief is broken down. If Jesus was content which such small steps of progress for such an investment of time then so should we.

We praise God when people get it, when the kingdom explodes into their lives and suddenly their eyes are opened, and in some instances God does just break in on one great revelation - praise God for those times, but more often the kingdom advances in these small steps - let us not be afraid to reach out in what may seem small ways.. Talk with someone this week, encourage someone this week, invite someone to church or to a church event this week.

3. The kingdom is received by faith

The third parallel between this miracle and the kingdom of is that the kingdom is received by faith. No study of this passage is complete unless we look at this discourse between Jesus and Mary. It seems a strange response to make, almost discourteous when Mary points out the situation and Jesus says:

"Woman, what has this to do with me? My hour has not yet come."      [John 2:4]

Most translations will have a footnote for this verse that gives a slightly different translation to it, others say Jesus is gently reminding Mary that he has not yet started his public ministry, however what I want you to notice is Mary's response, when, at least from her perspective she has not got the answer she wanted.

"His mother said to the servants - do whatever he tells you."  [John 2:5]

It was a great step of faith, for as far as the response she had received Jesus was not prepared to act, but Mary by faith, persists. Again, this is a key hallmark of the kingdom - we need to have faith and we need to persist. It's a great attitude to have - I will do what I can and trust you God to open their eyes because I know you are working even if I can't see it.

"Do whatever he says". I am sure Mary had no idea what Jesus was going to do; sometimes we can have no idea of what God might or could do in such a situation, but faith says "I'll trust you anyway". Faith for Mary was saying "Do whatever he says". Again this passage speaks so clearly of kingdom values and the attitude we need.

4. The Kingdom speaks of abundance

The last parallel between this miracle and the kingdom of God is that the kingdom speaks of abundance.

I came that you may have life and have it abundantly.      [John 10:10]

We must never lose sight of the abundance of life that comes through following Jesus. Jesus never gives half measure or part blessings. Six water jars each holding twenty to thirty gallons. That makes 180 litres or 240 bottles of wine. Would it have been any less a miracle if he had turned the water into ordinary wine such that he Master of the Feast was not surprised by its quality - but the finest wine speaks of abundance.

Going back to the feeding of the multitudes the point of these miracles for me has never been that 5,000 or 4,000 were fed. We can all feed 5,000 with five loaves, you don't get much bread but if you break it small enough you can do it, The remarkable thing about these miracles was the amount left over.

From five loaves and two fishes, twelve baskets of left-overs were collected

From  seven loaves and a few fish seven baskets were collected

What was gather up afterwards exceeded what was started with. The point is the miracle speaks loudly of abundance that is a hallmark of the kingdom.

Questions:

• Who are you reaching out to for whom the kingdom is currently hidden. Pray that God will use you to help them to start their own search for God. Pray that God would give you opportunities to help them discover God for themselves
• What small steps can you take this week to advance the kingdom?
• What are you trusting God for that you have not yet seen fulfilled. Will you be persistent in praying for that this week?

  

Metaphors of the Cross Part 2

Sacrifice - The Substitutory Metaphor

 

In the last blog I introduced the general idea of 'metaphors of the cross'; different  ways in which sin had impacted our lives and how, through the cross, Christ addressed those issues. Now we can start to look at each 'metaphor' in more detail starting with Sacrifice.

  

In general terms sacrifice speaks of loss; we speak of the sacrifice parents might make for their children, or the sacrifices an athlete might make to train and compete in a race. We also talk of soldiers who lay down their life by making the 'ultimate sacrifice' and in this sense we come closer to the biblical understanding of sacrifice. Christ suffered and died on the cross in our place, he experiences loss and pain and indeed death for us and as such this is the over-aching concept of the cross, in many way Christ's full work on the cross can be summed up in this one idea of sacrifice:

 

 

"...he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."  [Hebrews 9:26b]

 

 "And walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." [Ephesians 5:2]

`

 

We call this the 'Substitutory Metaphor' because Christ is substituted for us. Just in the same way as a footballer is substituted and leaves the field so another can come on, so Christ takes our place. We are the ones that deserved to be punished, we are the ones who should have been on the cross, we are the ones who deserved to be separated from God, yet Christ is substituted for us, and takes our place.

 

This is a very strong concept that runs all through scripture, so let us start back in Genesis with the story of Abraham and Isaac, here illustrated by the 17th Century French artist Laurent de la Hire.

 

Abraham sacrificing Isaac by Laurent de la Hire

 

Abraham in obedience to God was prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac, in the picture he has the knife ready, Isaac is bound to the alter but at the last moment God sends an angel to stop Abraham going through with the sacrifice. And in the background you can see the lamb that God provided for Abraham to use instead. Right back in Genesis we have this idea of a lamb as a substitute for a human. The lamb takes Isaac's place and is killed instead of the boy. This sacrifice back in Genesis was not primarily because of the sin of Abraham or Isaac, it was a test of Abraham's obedience, but nevertheless a model or pattern is set for the idea of sacrifice that will grow and finally be fulfilled by Christ.

 

There are many parallels here; if you look closely in the picture you can see the lamb with its head caught in the thorn bush. Does that remind you someone who came as a sacrifice years later and whose head was crowned with thorns? Mt Moriah on which these events took place is the hill outside of Jerusalem - Calvary, where a far more significant sacrifice took place. Also, Isaac is often depicted as a young boy, in fact he was a young man in his thirties when this event took place. The point here is that he was willing to be sacrificed, if he had not been prepared to go through with this he could easily have overpowered his elderly father, however he went willingly, just as later Christ would go willingly to the cross.

 

 

"Father if you are willing remove this cup from me, nevertheless not my will but yours be done."  [Luke 22:42]

 

 

These are all a fore-shadowing of the greater sacrifice that was to come.

 

In Exodus Chapter twelve the people of Israel are told to sacrifice a Passover lamb and sprinkle the blood on their doorposts. The night the Lord struck down the first born of each family - the tenth and final plague that was visited on the Egyptians because of their enslavement of God's people, but the Spirit of God passed over those houses that had the sprinkled blood. Again the lamb was a substitutory sacrifice for the people, it died instead of them, and years later when Christ sacrificed himself; there would be another outpouring of blood that enabled God's judgement to pass by.

 Sin, the wrongs things we do, the rebellion to God's laws that we engage in, is something that taints and sullies us. There is a penalty that needs to be paid for that sin, and throughout the Old Testament we see that the way that sin was dealt with was by sacrifice either a lamb or a bull or some other animal and the rules for that are outlined at the beginning of Leviticus. This culminated each year on the Day of Atonement. The High Priest would take two goats one to be the 'Lord's Goat' and this was sacrifice for the sins of the people and the blood sprinkled on the alter. The other was the 'Azazel' or scapegoat would have hands laid on it to symbolise the sins being transferred from the people to the animal and then it was driven out into the wilderness - the sins were taken away.

 

 

"He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him." [Leviticus 1:4]

 

The sacrifice was not abstract or distant from the one making the sacrifice, by placing hands on the animal there was a clear identification with it, the sins of one are transferred to another. We can see a parallel with Christ in that he comes as a man, identifying with us rather than just and distant, divorced or abstract sacrifice.

 

St John the Baptist bears witness to Christ
by Annibale Carracchi

 

And so when we get to the New Testament and John the Baptist sees Jesus and cries;

 

 "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world"  [John 1:29]

 

As shown here by the 16th Century Italian painter Annibale Carracchi. It was a very poignant phase, it was prophetic, here was one who would be a sacrificial lamb for us, who would identify with us and die in our place for our sins.

 

We should also stress that Christ takes our place not so much in regard to a physical punishment, but a spiritual one. We can so easily focus on the gruesome physical aspects of the crucifixion; the pain the beatings, the humiliation, but the spiritual suffering of separation from God was, for Christ, far more extreme.

 

 

"My God my God, why have you forsaken me"  [Mathew 27:46]

 

The punishment for our sins was never crucifixion, but separation from God and for the first, and only time, in all of eternity the harmony of the Trinity was broken as God the first person of the Trinity was separated from Jesus, the second person of the Trinity. Our sins were upon his and the barrier between us and God became a barrier between God and Jesus. God's curse was upon him, a curse that should have be borne by us, yet Christ took our place and was sacrificed for us.

 

So if we were to sum up sacrifice as an idea, as one colour in the spectrum of the atonement that we have this:

 

  

How does sin presented?	Our sin leaves us deserving of punishment from God
How does Christ address sin?	Christ takes our place and takes our punishment on himself
What previous examples are there?	Abraham & Isaac Moses and the Passover The teaching in Leviticus
What key verses express this idea?	John 1:29 Hebrews 9:28 Ephesians 5:2
What objections are there?	If we can forgive rather than demanding punishment, why can't God?

 

With regards to this objection the whole idea of killing and of blood is less acceptable these days than it was in the past. Years ago hymns would contain such lines as;

 

"There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Immanuel's veins

And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilt stains"

 

Probably not the most popular hymn these days and people do object to this fixation on blood and death that sacrifice brings to the fore. God however is a just God and whilst we can very easily ignore certain crimes, God as a perfectly just God cannot. Some once said if we have difficulties in this area it is because we have not fully grasped the absolute holiness and righteousness of God - but that is a whole different subject!

 

An animated explanation of

sacrifice and atonement

 

 

 

Next time we will look at Redemption - the Captivity Metaphor of the cross