The Seven Sayings and the Stations of the Cross

I've been doing a bit of research (mainly using Wiki and the Bible!) on two things associated with Good Friday: the Stations of the Cross, and the Seven Words of Jesus. I'm fairly familiar with the Seven Words, or sayings of Jesus from the cross. They are (mostly) biblical, and come from the four Gospels: 3 Luke, 3 John, 1 Matthew//Mark. I say mainly because the first, "Father forgive them, for they don't understand what they're doing," (Lk 23:34) is not thought to be original to the Gospel, but a later addition.

The Seven Words are the seven statements or questions Jesus speaks from the cross, and between them they express different aspects of what being crucified meant for Jesus, and by extension, suggest for us how we are to respond to or understand the crucifixion. Here are the Seven Words, from the NIV:

Luke 23.34 “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Luke 23.43 “Truly I tell you, today you will be  with me in paradise.”
John 19.26-27 “Woman, here is  your son,” “Here is your mother.”
Matt 27.46//Mark 15.34 “Eli, Eli [Mark has Eloi Eloi], lema sabachthani?”
John 19.28  “I am thirsty.”
John 19.30  “It is  finished.”
Luke 23.46  “Father, into your  hands I commit my spirit.”

The order is supposed to be chronological and tell a bit of a story as they look outwards, then upwards in despair, but then resolving to trust. They address or are about different figures: the guards, the rebel, John and Mary, and then, with the last four, God. With the first of the final four we have a bit of the Aramaic translation of Psalm 22. Instead of Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani, the Hebrew would have 'azavthani. The next two are just one word each: dipso and tetelestai.

The Stations of the Cross on the other hand do not have anywhere near the same pedigree. The story I heard was Constantine's mother Helena was dispatched to Jerusalem to find some material evidence supporting Christianity. She managed to find the cross - the other two of the rebels either side of Jesus were ruled out by not being able to heal a sick man, but when laid on the True Cross^TM, he was healed. I'm sure there's enough pieces of the True Cross^TM to build Noah's Ark. She also snaffled the Titulus (the sign above Jesus' head), which, according to a definitely true documentary I saw, is in a church somewhere in Italy. But the other thing she did was go for a walk on the via Delarosa and give a running commentary on what she imagined Jesus' journey to the cross to have been like. "I reckon Jesus fell over there," "That looks like the place Simon of Cyrene would have subbed in," and so on. It's totally made up, so it may be true, but that would be chance rather than due to research. 

The list was originally seven, was then expanded to double that size, and was then renewed by Pope John Paul II, and okayed by Pope Benedict XVI. Three of the original seven are biblical, leaving four fanciful ones. Of the additional seven only one is made up, and even then probably to take the tally to the magical 14. When the list was updated in the 20th Century, seven of the original were kept, and the whole list is biblical. 

Here is the old list of fourteen, with the bold ones the ancient seven, and the biblical ones in italics. Three of the non-biblical ones are Jesus tripping. so maybe Helena saw some trip hazards, or maybe she tripped over and before people could have a go at her she said "well if Jesus tripped over, you shouldn't laugh at me." I don't know. I also don't know who Veronica is. 

1. Jesus is condemned to death
2. Jesus carries His cross
3. Jesus falls for the first time
4. Jesus meets His mother, Mary
5. Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus carry the cross
6. Veronica wipes the face of Jesus
7. Jesus falls for the second time
8. Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem
9. Jesus falls for the third time
10. Jesus is stripped of His clothes
11. Jesus is nailed to the cross
12. Jesus dies on the cross
13. Jesus is taken down from the cross
14. Jesus is placed in the tomb

Thankfully JP II thought the list could do with a sprucing up, leaving us the following list. I've put the seven which he kept from the earlier fourteen in bold. As I said above, all fourteen are biblical.

1. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane;
2. Jesus is betrayed by Judas and arrested;
3. Jesus is condemned by the Sanhedrin;4. Jesus is denied by Peter;
5. Jesus is judged by Pilate;
6. Jesus is scourged and crowned with thorns;
7. Jesus takes up his cross;
8. Jesus is helped by Simon of Cyrene to carry his cross;
9. Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem;
10. Jesus is crucified;  
11. Jesus promises his kingdom to the repentant thief;
12. Jesus entrusts Mary and John to each other;   
13. Jesus dies on the cross; and
14. Jesus is laid in the tomb.

Finally, it is interesting to note where the Seven Sayings and the Stations of the Cross coincide. At station 10 Jesus speaks his first word; at 11 the second, and the third at 12. The remaining four are all said while dying on the cross - station 13. 

What do we do with all this? It is worth reflecting that these two ritualised things - the sayings and the stations - are a mixture of all four Gospels, of history, theology and myth. They are all meaningful for billions around the world, as they help us understand and memorialise this most central event in Christian history, theology and ritual. I obviously think the stations of the cross (at least the ancient versions) are pretty funny in how they came about, but that is not to deny the significance of remembering Jesus' death in that way. Indeed, it is in our nature and speaks to our physicality, to remember things in this way, as Christians have done for the last 1990 years or so, and will continue to do until Jesus returns.

Sabbath - first a noun or verb

In my work for Matthew 12 last week I had a think about Sabbath, what it looks like, and what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 12 with his grain-plucking disciples. (talk available here) Doing some work on the Hebrew word Shabbat - transliterated into English as Sabbath - yielded some interesting discussion on the primacy of either the verb or the noun.

The first time we meet the verb is in Genesis 2.2-3, where we hear that God shabbats after his 6 day creating week. He's done with his creating, now is time for his shabbat. When we talk about the Shabbat in Exodus 20, we find the verb accompanying is not shabbat but nuach - the verb 'to rest'. We also have a rich description of what is not to be done on that day - no one - human or animal, free or slave, is to do any work on that day. What they are to do is nuach - becaue that is what Yhwh did on the seventh day.

Where this gets interesting is that in some cognate languages the verb shabbat means not 'rest' or 'stop work' but 'celebrate the Sabbath'. The primary meaning is not to do with what is done - or should I say, not done - but with the day from whom the action (or inaction!) is named.

What the Pharisees have done is turn celebration and enjoyment of the creation God has made (one he also enjoys) into a regulatory nightmare, centering on what may not be done, so as to prohibit anything that might resemble 'work'.

What (I think) Jesus does in Matthew 12 with his 'the son of man is lord of the Sabbath' line is to explain that the very understanding of the word shabbat is wrong. It is and always has been about enjoying and resting in that joy, trusting that God is good and sovereign and trustworthy. There is no need for work, but a welcome into Sabbath rest - now for a day, but soon for eternity.

Matthew 13 Chiasm Structure

My work for Sunday. The three E's stand out as being key to understanding the chapter.

not a chiasm, but

further on Matthew 22.34-46 and the Shema - the parallel structures:

A Pharisees together (34)
        B Pharisees question Jesus (35-36)
                C1 Jesus Answers (37-38)
                C2 Jesus Answers (39-40)

A' Pharisees together (41a)
        B'1 Jesus questions Pharisees (41b-42a)
                C' Pharisees answer (42b)
        B'2 Jesus questions Pharisees (43-45)

Matthew 22.34-46 and the Shema

still thinking about the trinity (first talk this Sunday. see previous post for details).

in Deuteronomy 6, we have the Shema: "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One." and following that is the command to love your neighbour as yourself.

and then when Jesus in Matthew 22 quotes the command, which sums up all the prophets, it's interesting that he follows it with a question about Psalm 110, one of the most popular texts in the NT for pointing to Jesus' identity as the Christ.

So my question is, is Jesus (or the evangelist) saying something about the Shema, in particular, questioning the identity of Yhwh as a monad, and perhaps making room in the description of Yhwh for the Christ?

or is there not really much of a link between Matt 22.34-40 and Matt 22.41-46? (or is it just a different link?)

Matthew 18 (reprieve) - forgiving one another

part 2 of my 2 part series on forgiveness yesterday. again, like last week, i had to change it up a fair bit. but that was a good thing, it meant it was fresh, and didn't feel like a recycled talk.

it was good to read the lead article in the catechist, on forgiveness in the face of unrepentance.

i think the issue is that we have one word, 'forgiveness', and we use it to cover two semantic fields:

1. forgiving the person who repents, holding no bitterness, no grudge, but freely forgiving as we have been forgiven
2. a readiness to forgive, to stand, arms outstretched, again holding no bitterness, but in the face of unrepentance, never shutting off the possibility of a reconciliation, although that is not at the present time a real possibility

thankfully there was a question in question time precisely on this, which meant i was able to draw the two threads of the talk together - both the readiness, as well as the actual forgiving.

a good case study is forgiving the dead person - you can't actually forgive them, in that a relationship is restored. but what you can do is give up the bitterness and hatred that would otherwise destroy you.

psalm 32 (reprieve) - forgiven by God

i had the privilege of preaching from Psalm 32 again on sunday just gone. in a preaching group at college i got some great feedback leading into it. in thinking about 'exegeting your congregation', it was a completely different congregation. from the north shore to a city asian congregation was in many ways a whole different world.
i think the main change was from challenging the average north-shorer's expectations of the good life, to what the psalm promises - freedom from guilt and shame.

i'm still struggling with the both-and of exegeting the passage and exegeting the congregation, but having the talk already (from 18 months ago) and then rethinking it with a different group in mind really helped me to hone the message.
perhaps preparing a talk for one group and then redoing it for another is a good way to check if you're on message (God's) or just trying to target what you see as the particular traps a stereotyped group fall into.


this sunday: i'm redoing matthew 18vv15, the same congregation shift. just rereading the talk means there's a lot of change to do!

does social action save?

at bible study on wednesday we looked at Matthew 5:13-16; the metaphor of unsalty salt being trampled underfoot was quite frightening, and had a completely opposite effect to the reassuring metaphor of light on a hill - we were encouraged to be lights, but warned against being flavourless salt.

we then went on to read Matthew 25:31-46, which Tim Keller picks up in the Prodigal God (which i finished last night). he says

There is no contradiction to what we have heard from Jesus in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. He is not saying that only the social workers get into heaven. Rather, he is saying that the inevitable sign that you know you are a sinner saved by sheer, costly grace is a sensitive social conscience and a life poured our in deeds of service to the poor. p112

i should mention, we started out by reading Amos 5, and i just kept thinking, 'we're gonna get so hammered for this'. to define 'we', 'hammered' and 'this' in reverse order,

• this = turning aside the needy (Amos 5:12), taking pride in our buildings of stone and the ceremonies that go within them (Amos 5:21)
  
• hammered = the day of the Lord for such as these will be darkness and not light (Amos 5:18)
  
• we = pretty much all western Christians

i might add, the sunday morning before this i visited a well known church and saw a hapless welcomer faced with a homeless man joining church that morning. they didn't say 'welcome, please take a seat, would you like a glass of water, meet gerald, one of our regulars', but 'can i help you?'

James would have welcomed him with open arms, walked him up the front, kicked one of the regulars out of their personalised pews and sat this man down there so he had every opportunity to hear of the healing words of a loving God (James 2:1-7).

sermon downloads a plenty

if you don't find my voice whiney, nasal, dull, or patronising, you may be tempted to listen to some of my sermons which are available to download.


09 Mar 2008 Grace that Works Philippians 2:12-30
    i particularly liked the way Daniel 12 helped us think through what this meant.

15 Jun 2008 Between A Rock & A Hard Place Exodus 16-17
    i tried something quite different here - i tried to start with the OT, jump to the NT and explain how that increased our understanding of what is going on in the OT. i wanted to get away from the 'here's the OT, but don't worry about that so much: here's where it points to in the NT' - as if there were no value in it of itself, as if the OT were only of value for showing us the NT. tell me if you think it worked!

20 Jul 2008 The King with Authority Luke 4.1-13
    how to do a sermon on Isaiah 61 without really going there properly

11 Jan 2009 The Blessing of Forgiveness Psalm 32
    interestingly, i did a sermon in October on Matthew 18 also on forgiveness (the guest speaker in the evening is the one who made the web page, mine obviously didn't make the cut), so i really enjoyed having a second dip into this really tough topic.

19 Apr 2009 The value of wisdom Proverbs 1-3
    an introductory sermon on the prologue to Proverbs, focussing on ch3

i'm also on tonight, talking about prayer as mission, but the boss is speaking (as i write this!) on the same topic: i'm assuming i won't make the cut, but thinking about how our prayers promote the gospel has been quite rebuking for me as i think through it. perhaps i'll post some thoughts on it sometime.

UPDATE:

24 May 2009 Promoting Jesus :: Our prayers Matthew 9:35-10:5
    trying to think through where prayer fits in in promoting the gospel. i wonder where you might have gone, what you would have emphasised, whether you would have done a bit more of a systematic theology of prayer.

Fruity Gifts

what is a gift? what is fruit?
the new testament tells us both of these are from the holy spirit.
they're both great things to have.
but what's the difference?

[T]he fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23)

so the fruit is these things. these are not some of the fruits, nor optional extras - these are both things we see in all who are new creations in Christ. a lack then of these things must require earnest repentance - for these are the very lifeblood of our spirit-enlivened lives.

what of gifts? - 1 Corinthians 12:

Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit.

to one is given a message of wisdom through the Spirit,
to another, a message of knowledge by the same Spirit,
to another, faith by the same Spirit,
to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
to another, the performing of miracles,
to another, prophecy,
to another, distinguishing between spirits,
to another, different kinds of languages,
to another, interpretation of languages.
But one and the same Spirit is active in all these, distributing to each one as He wills. (4,8-11)

these are then all to each individually, each being gifted for a purpose.

as a Christian then, with regards to:
Fruit --> pursue as you would a great pearl (Matthew 13:44)
Gifts --> if you've been given them, use them for the building up of God's people.

there's more to be said on this (duh) but the distinction i thought (from my pastor at St Albans) was a really helpful one.



apologies (and thanks) to those who still bother looking at this blog - been soooo busy - exams were hectic. not sure how much i'll be on here in the next whilst...

take up your cross

how do you understand the take up your cross passage?

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

Matthew 16:24 (cf Matthew 10:38, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27)

is it:

1. follow Jesus, even to the point of death?
   
2. forget who you are, think only of the crucified Christ?
   
3. to follow Jesus is to count your life as cursed?

i always thought the third, but realise others feel quite differently about it. mind you, i've never thought super-deeply about which it is.
compounded with that, there is (at the very least) an element of truth in each of my options.
there may of course be other readings.

THE authorised version

hearing in class today about the book burning resulting from the translation in Isaiah 7:14 of

עלמה

'almah - young woman, newly married, virgin - that sort of linguistic range

apparently this bible burning happened back in the 4th century when a new authorised version of the Septuagint came out translating 'almah as young woman, not virgin (as in Matthew 1:23). this also happened last century when the worshippers of the KJV, with it's appeal to the tradition of the LXX and Wycliffe for example, was blasphemed with the alternate translation. they were obviously way too liberal in bearing in mind the range, and quite valid translation, of 'almah as young woman, maiden etc.

it particularly reminded me about this guy preaching on the KJV, being a man and not a male, and signs in German toilets, among other things.try not to get too angry as you listen.
i would have loved to see how his congregation were responding!


remember, y'all - kein pinkeln im sitzen!

the bible was written for me! or was it?

When you're feeling a bit down, reading the Psalms, it's easy to start seeing yourself in them.

When I wept and humbled myself with fasting,
it became my reproach.
When I made sackcloth my clothing,
I became a byword to them.
I am the talk of those who sit at the gate,
and the drunkards make songs about me.
[...]
Hide not your face from your servant;
for I am in distress;
make haste to answer me.
Psalm 69:10-12,14

You start saying - yeah, that's so true. That's exactly what's been happening. It's like it was written just for me, 3,000yrs beforehand!

But then you come across something like this:

Reproaches have broken my heart,
so that I am in despair.
I looked for pity,
but there was none,
and for comforters,
but I found none.
They gave me poison for food,
and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink.
Psalm 69:20-21

And then you remember that all of the scriptures point not to you, but to the Christ, the suffering servant King – to Jesus, who fulfilled this on the cross.
He was despised, abandoned, rejected; to top it all off all 4 gospels testify to him being offered sour wine to drink, fulfiling this Psalm. (c/f Matthew27:48, Mark15:36, Luke23:36, John19:29-30)

For our sake [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:21

mmm. salt.

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet." Matthew 5:13

Jesus here is telling Kingdom people, those living with him as their king, that they're to be the salt of the earth.

now, it has been put to me there are two options for Jesus' use of the word salt here:

as a flavour enhancer, and/or,

as a preservative.

how do we do that?
i'm thinking it's a great idea, but is there not a point at which you're no longer tasting the real food underneath? if i'm eating something (chips are probably the exception here), i want to be tasting what i'm eating. i want to know if whatever i'm tucking into is off. roadkill with lots of salt is still road kill. i'm not saying we're not to be in the world, we are, but we're not to be of the world. we're to show that we are different, that we don't value things which will rust and rot and the moth will eat. so does that pretty much rule out the flavour enhancer idea?

and what of salt being a preservative?
for what are we preserving this decaying world? we're told the heavens and earth will be renewed - isn't it like putting a fresh coat of paint on a wall you're about to bulldoze?

comments? what have i missed?

who da king?

on a recent holiday in Geelong (about 1hr west-south-west of Melbourne) i watched Taladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, a fairly ordinary hollywood film, replete with a few guffaw-worthy scenes, my favourite was the one that was also on the ad (so just watch the trailer - no need to watch the rest of the film).there was Ricky Bobby and his wife sitting around the table, overflowing with his sponsors' food, and he starts to give thanks, saying, "Dear Lord Baby Jesus," and then proceeds to give thanks for his "hot wife", kids (Walker and Texas Ranger), as well as his sponsors for their gracious provision of food.

his wife then gets a little narky with his constant rememberance of Jesus as a baby; "he did grow up you know!"

isn't it funny how hollywood sometimes hits the nail right on the head?

he did grow up, he did die. and (perhaps surprising to those with nightmarish visions of this half-naked man eternally hanging on a cross), he did rise again from the dead.

yet, as we read from Matthew 2 this Sunday, he "was born king". He didn't become king, didn't kill off anyone and everyone who in his paranoia may have been a rival (c/f Herod, most of the successors to Jereboam's throne).

no; he was born king, with no regent, predecessor nor successor.

his life on earth was what it was, not that he might become king, but because he already was.

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:7b-11

terseness

i quite like the hebrew section of the bible. as a written language, as a heard language, there's a lot that's great about it.

i might just qualify this by making clear that i can neither speak, read, or otherwise understand the language, but i don't think that automatically disqualifies me from commenting (feel free to correct me on that count!)

one of the nice things is the many literary devices used:

alliteration, the repitition of sounds, which one can see even looking at the hebrew, take for example ps122:

שַׁאֲלוּ, שְׁלוֹם יְרוּשָׁלִָם;

יִשְׁלָיוּ, אֹהֲבָיִךְ

יְהִי-שָׁלוֹם בְּחֵילֵךְ;

שַׁלְוָה, בְּאַרְמְנוֹתָיִךְ

it's a heap easier than rhyming!

imagery is something we don't really think about so much, considering we have so darn many words to say everything in. which would explain why the next point is my favourite.

Terseness is an expressive word, and is basically the opposite of wordiness (c/f Matthew 6:5). it's the thing out of the three that i most feel saddened by, in not being a master of many languages and being forced to read the wordy english.

take for example Proverbs 16:18,

לִפְנֵי-שֶׁבֶר גָּאוֹן;

וְלִפְנֵי כִשָּׁלוֹן, גֹּבַהּ רוּחַ

They don’t need to say, "before you are utterly wiped out like Sodom and Gomorrah was you would be filled to the brim, bubbling over, ready to explode, so it’s sort of natural to think that you would explode, this then leading to your own self-destruction". It’s a lot simpler to say "before destruction: pride"

ooooooh. ghosts!!!

fatima asked an interesting question about ghosts. well, that was basically the extent of the question, posed in response to my first (and yes, still only) review of Enoch. coincidentally, at the same time i was pondering what the bible has to say on the topic, i happened upon a talk on 2 Peter, which, as does Jude, refers implicitly (Jude explicitly), to Enoch.
this section in particular was telling:

2 Peter 2:10-15 Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, they feast with you. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray.

the point the speaker was making, was those who go on about the supernatural, described as "angelic ramblings", are perhaps those who are possibly not the best examples of Christian leadership.

that in mind (!), on to ghosts.

as far as i can tell, there are 3 words translated "ghost" in the good book:
obe (ghost, spirit of a dead one), as found in Isaiah 29:4,

And you will be brought low; from the earth you shall speak,
and from the dust your speech will be bowed down;
your voice shall come from the ground like the voice of a ghost,
and from the dust your speech shall whisper.

fantasma (apparition, apparition, spectre), seen in Matthew 14:26 (c/f Mark 6:49),

But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear.

pneuma (spirit), found twice in Luke 24:36-43,

As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit (ghost). And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit (ghost) does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.

now i'm sorry, but all this says is that people were, just as today, aware of ghosts. i mean heck, even i "know" that ghosts have neither flesh nor bones. just as i "know" leprechauns wear green and have little beards and fairies have wings and wands.

all this proves nothing (nor disproves, i might add).
what i'm still not sure of is what the saul/samuel narrative (1 Sam 28), nor the transfiguration with jesus chatting with moses and elijah (Mark 9:2vv) adds to this question. can God retrieve people from sheol? why not! and they were all highly symbolic appearances, God obviously appropriating them for good cause.

so i don't know. did you think i would? the bible is silent, and how am i to dispute people's own experiences? i can imagine the conversation now:

i saw a ghost once
no you didn't
oh. but-
-no, you didn't
...oh. ok.

God - The Ultimate Terrorist?

with no more SOCM, i am able to go to the Christianity and Contemporary Thought seminars held by CASE, and heard this talk by Andrew Cameron, entitled Terrorism and Christianity.

as the talk went on, with various definitions of Terrorism being bandied about, i kept thinking more and more (no pun intended), that God would actually fit many of the definitions of a terrorist.
Oliver O'Donovan's definition is (paraphrased, from memory), "one who furthers their viewpoint by intimidation", excluding those who would set up a viable, alternative government.
but would not this include God? i present the following reasons:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. (Deuteronomy 4:24)
Honour everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the emperor. (1 Peter 2:17)

God obviously presents a choice of Him, or destruction. if you're not on the God-Train, you're going to get run over.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

there is no viable alternative government (at least in the here-and-now) proposed. rather (as in 1 Peter 2:17 ob cit.) we are to honour, not least pray for, the secular governments placed over us.

this sounds not at all dissimilar to many terrorist manifestos, there is simply a claim to legitimacy, of heritage, of third-knowledge, and the proven ability to carry out any and all threats.

of course the thing with terrorism is the unacceptability of their methods and the questionability of their ends. God, being the creator of all that is seen and unseen, is righteous. though perhaps not not a terrorist.

is this an acceptable apologetic angle, or has psychodougie gone too far this time?

ps sorry about the lack of blogging of late. i have no excuse, my priorities have simply been elsewhere.