Mary - blessed shame for better glory

(photo- screenshot from a Whatsapp status post)

The first Sunday of Advent has arrived….as we move into this week and think about the coming of our Saviour into the world as a humble baby, we also anticipate his return to this world as the reigning King of Kings.

The arrival of 'Advent' led me to think about the fact that this is less than one month out from Christmas. Although the time of our Saviour's birth was probably not December, Advent is still the time we mark in the weeks leading up to our Saviour's birth in Bethlehem. I began to also ponder that this point in the 'time line' is the time at which Jesus was not yet born, and the Shepherds and Wise Men were not yet alerted to his birth….but his birth was still anticipated by his parents, who were well aware of identity of the baby Mary was carrying.

As protestants I feel we can sometimes shy away from thinking too much about Mary, for fear of deifying or idolising her. However, Scripture tells us she is 'blessed among women' and the reality is that God chose her body to be the 'home' of God the Son from 'conception' till birth, and her life and testimony has much to teach us.

There is a modern song often sung at Christmas which asks the question: 'Mary did you know?' …if you don't know it,  The song poses various thoughts, phrased as questions you might want to ask Mary about various things we know now as we look back, but might wonder if she knew about at the time. The reality is that Mary did know some things about her special calling and mission. She was not totally walking 'blindly' unaware through her specially begun pregnancy and parenthood. The angel Gabriel had told her some facts about who this baby was going to be, and it's not something she could have just 'forgotten'. But she also didn't know all the details. Gabriel didn't tell her everything.

SO….As I ponder about this 'Advent' point in the lead-up to the birth which we remember at Christmas, 

I am reminded that Mary:

• would have been heavily pregnant and just a few weeks from the anticipated birth. Her days of waiting for this baby would soon be over and she would hold him in her arms. And maybe the census call had already gone out and she and her husband Joseph had to process the reluctance to travel at such a critical time, especially for her first pregnancy

• has had to move through the months of a pregnancy becoming evident, amidst the shame that she and Joseph had to bear from their entire community of 'becoming' pregnant before their full wedding had taken place. After all, how many people are going to believe some story of 'becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit'?

• accepted a life-road of earthly shame by becoming the mother of Jesus. 

• gives me an example that what looks shameful to the world can be God working the glory of his purposes and plans.

• shows me if we are walking in God's will and calling, we will be misunderstood, mistreated, and maligned, as the world has no concept or category for God's work when it moves out of their sphere of understanding and experience.

• and her story highlights how a miracle (the virgin birth) in God's agenda can feel like a mystery or even a mire of false accusations and insults. Not only as we walk with God must we not rely on our own understanding (Prov 3:5-6) but we must also not gauge glory by whether other people understand or give glory or not. 

• had to trust God more than friends, family or community. 

• had to wait for the birth, and she would have had a mix of eager anticipation and anxious anticipation. She knew that her 'son' was going to be the Messiah, but she didn't know all that it would mean and she and Joseph would be entrusted with the immense responsibility of the earthly nurture and instruction of the Messiah as he grew.

• understood that God chooses the humble, lowly and unexpected, not the proud or elite. She understood that God's glory doesn't come the world's way.

•  sees herself as blessed and accepts the reality of the words that she is 'favoured'. 

• knew that to be 'favoured' by God can mean being shamed by the world.

• had to live in the experience of being shamed by the world in order to be favoured by God, but this prepared her for the unfolding of the story of the One she carried in her womb. Because... the Angel did not tell her every detail of what her baby's life would entail, or that her boy would have to die on a shameful cross. 

• also had to walk by faith. That which is recorded of what her cousin Elizabeth told her, and what the Shepherds and Wise Men told her, didn't mention the way he would be the Saviour and peace-bringer (Luke 1:41-45; 2:17-19; Matthew 2:11-12). Simeon however (Luke 2:45), told Mary when they took Jesus to present Him at the temple, that a sword would pierce her son's soul to accomplish something related to the needs of people's hearts. How much Mary understood, is not clear. But as much as Mary knew some things, there were other things that Mary didn't understand, at least at first. She, with Joseph, didn't understand what he was telling them when they couldn't find him one year on their trip to Jerusalem (Luke 2:50). She did know, however, that Jesus was the one to ask when shame of running out of wine at a wedding needed to be overcome and the host's loss of honour needed to be avoided (John 2). The Jews' understanding of the coming of the Messiah, the Christ, was to reign and rule in glory and release them from foreign rule. Mary seems to give no clear indication that she knew or understood about what was really coming for her son in relation to the cross. 

• stood at the foot of the cross looking up at her son when many others had fled and at least some of his earthly relatives had earlier thought him a mental health case (Mark 3:21). She was one of the few who were willing to stand in shame with the shamed one hanging on the cross. 

• was not just accepting shame in the eyes of the world as part of the 'package' of being Jesus' earthly mother, but she chose shame in the eyes of the world. She could have stayed away from the cross like so many others did. But she, with the other women (and John the disciple), willingly chose the associated public shame of being 'with' the shamed one being crucified. 

• knew that what seems like shame in the eyes of the world, may not be shame at all in God's eyes…it might be favour, it might be blessing, it might be glory. She knew that in God's plans, what earthly eyes see is never the whole story. Her song (Luke 1:46-55) tells us that she understood that God can turn the world's honour codes upside down. She would have had some idea that the shame of the cross might be God doing something else. And maybe it was her personal testimony story of assurance of God's blessing in the midst of the world's shame, that gave courage to a few other women and the one disciple John who stood with her at the foot of the cross watching in faith filled hope and trust, that even if it felt bad and others only accused or fled in fear, God was still doing something that they didn't understand. Mary Magdalene who was with her also certainly knew that Jesus could bring God's glory into situations of earthly shame.

• can teach me a great deal in regard to accepting, facing, enduring, and choosing shame and lack of honour in the eyes of this world, and trusting in God's better glory. In the light of the sure knowledge that as a servant of the living God and letting life be according to His word, we are given the gift of being able to look at circumstances with a different perspective. We can have the confidence that being divinely blessed can require being earthly shamed, and that's ok. It does not mean God has forsaken you, but rather in the midst of it all we can be assured that God is with us. We need to have eyes like Mary that weren't blind to God's favour just because of the appearance of earthly circumstances.

I am reminded that a few days after she stood at the foot of the cross, she would have given him honour and bowed down at his resurrected feet. She would have remembered once tiny feet that were now not just grown and road-worn, but permanently scarred and nail pierced. Her son had become her Saviour in a way she never dreamed of, and way beyond any thoughts she had pondered back when the angel visited her. 

I am reminded that one day those nail-pierced feet will return to earth again, and I with Mary and millions of others await His appearing.

I am reminded that in heaven I will get to meet Mary, the humble girl who willingly endured shame to be a blessed submissive obedient vessel, so that both she and I could receive the same salvation from the same Saviour, the gift of undeserved glory. 

I am reminded though that she will not want any glory for herself and will just point me and others to the Risen and glorified Christ, just as she did at the Cana wedding (John 2:5)

I am reminded as another Christmas nears to praise the Lord, that God by His grace, continues to grow my awareness of His grace more and more and little by little expand my understanding of the what the glory of Christmas really means.

Forgotten Honour - Spurgeon and the Easter Story

One of the most well-known names from more recent church history is Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892).

He has been described as the Prince of Preachers. Not only is there extensive record of his powerful sermons over 40 years of preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, and so we have much accessibility to his prolific preaching, but there is another reason why I think we should take note of Spurgeon's sermons.

His preaching and writing is saturated with looking at Scripture and life with strong realisation of the realities of honour and shame.

That might surprise you…as it did me a few years back.

Honour and Shame are not new ideas to be wary of.

In our current era of history, we can feel that the 'honour and shame' perspective is something new, novel and maybe even to be viewed suspiciously. Some suppose that this way of looking at life and the gospel could be a diversion or even departure from the 'traditions passed down' in the church through history. Some see it as possibly useful in missions, and maybe even in counselling, but to bring it into every area of Christian discipleship and Biblical exegesis is going too far and bordering on the heretical.

I know many who read this blog have travelled with us for years, and are enthusiastic about a renewed awareness of the dynamics of honour and shame, but still many are not too sure if we are making too much of something and at risk of over-emphasis and even heresy.

Yet, (as mentioned before), to not be daily living and breathing and navigating the dynamics of honour and shame, would have seemed strange and neglectful to those theologians of past centuries. It seems only we in the last century or so have forgotten its importance and priority.

Honour and Shame are 'normal', but yet even can be missed in the Easter Story

Spurgeon on the other hand has much to teach us about the 'normalness' of factoring in the dynamics of honour and shame to every page of scripture. For Spurgeon they were not concepts that were strange or or only part of 'other cultures'.

I could take you to multiple examples, but as we are about to once again ponder and celebrate the events of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, I thought I would highlight just one rarely spoken of part of the events leading to the Cross, and how Spurgeon walks into such a verse of Scripture without hesitation that there are, first and foremost, honour and shame factors to be observed, pondered and applied.

Here is what he says in his 'Morning and Evening' devotional for the morning of April 5th

"On him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus."

Luke 23:26

We see in Simon's carrying the cross a picture of the work of the Church throughout all generations; she is the cross-bearer after Jesus. Mark then, Christian, Jesus does not suffer so as to exclude your suffering. He bears a cross, not that you may escape it, but that you may endure it. Christ exempts you from sin, but not from sorrow. Remember that, and expect to suffer.

But let us comfort ourselves with this thought, that in our case, as in Simon's, it is not our cross, but Christ's cross which we carry. When you are molested for your piety; when your religion brings the trial of cruel mockings upon you, then remember it is not your cross, it is Christ's cross; and how delightful is it to carry the cross of our Lord Jesus!

You carry the cross after him. You have blessed company; your path is marked with the footprints of your Lord. The mark of his blood-red shoulder is upon that heavy burden. 'Tis his cross, and he goes before you as a shepherd goes before his sheep. Take up your cross daily, and follow him.

Do not forget, also, that you bear this cross in partnership. It is the opinion of some that Simon only carried one end of the cross, and not the whole of it. That is very possible; Christ may have carried the heavier part, against the transverse beam, and Simon may have borne the lighter end. Certainly it is so with you; you do but carry the light end of the cross, Christ bore the heavier end.

And remember, though Simon had to bear the cross for a very little while, it gave him lasting honour. Even so the cross we carry is only for a little while at most, and then we shall receive the crown, the glory. Surely we should love the cross, and, instead of shrinking from it, count it very dear, when it works out for us "a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory."

(last paragraph emphasis mine)

What a refreshing, and encouraging lesson!

But the reality of the whole lesson, the impact of it, the counsel of it, the comfort of it, the motivation for perseverance of it, the glory of God in it….is lost to us without viewing from the awareness that we are meant to 'see' the dynamics of honour and shame in it and apply it to our own lives in terms of honour and shame.

We begin to rediscover the depth of meaning and blessing in the words of Scripture, when we rediscover the awareness and alertness to honour and shame dynamics that for Spurgeon and many others of his time and before him, took as a 'given'. 

Honour and shame are not just the dynamics of some cultures in the world, or the culture of bible times, but are the dynamics of life….its just that the church seems to have forgotten about them and become blind to them …and thus separated from their truth and blessing, and guidance toward seeking and finding true glory.

As we progress through the days of 'Easter' this year, let us ask the Lord to teach us afresh of the richness and 'weight' of the glory/honour that comes from Him and to Him, all that He may be exalted and lifted up.

Easter Women and the Honour of Knowledge

photo credit - Sunday School Zone

As I write, the International Women's Day with this year's theme of 'Embrace Equity', has just passed, and Easter is just a couple of weeks away.

I have various messages from the first still lingering in my mind, and various contexts of the second beckoning me to think on them once again.

But this year for some reason those two issues have seemed to intersect for me in a fresh way.

The World's Confusion about Women

International Women's Day is often an opportunity for championing women's rights of various kinds. It might be highlighting the difficulties women in some countries have just to be able to drive a car or be seen in the streets. Or it might be giving awards to women, or highlighting high achieving women in sports or community. 

But of course we live in a crazy 21st century mostly God-less world. So this year it was reported that the USA First Lady awarded a women's 'courage award' to a biological man. And then in other quarters recently it seemed some leaders in the world struggled to even define a 'woman'. So, as the world on one hand wants to promote the 'rights' of women, it is at the same time undermining the meaning and value of who a woman even is.

When a world sadly ignores or rejects God this should come as no surprise.

On the other hand, Easter is a great time to be reminded that God knows and cares about women. He created the gender distinction with clear biological sexual markers and is deeply concerned about the women in this world, just as much as He is concerned about the men in this world. He doesn't need a 'Women's Day' in order to properly value women.

The Concern of Christ for Women

A reading of the gospels brings clear reminders of how Jesus' showed honour to women who were not culturally honoured, giving them equal value alongside men, on many levels. 

One of these ways was in regard to knowledge and learning. Like Paul explains (Acts 22:3) that he sat 'at the feet' of Gamaliel, it was common for a man to be a 'disciple' of a great teacher and learn in this way. 

So when we read in Luke 10 about Mary sitting and learning at the feet of Jesus as her 'rabbi' (teacher), this has counter-cultural significance. The average Jewish man would have found this unacceptable. Jesus not only allowed the situation of a woman being in the position of one of his devoted 'disciples' but endorsed it as being of even greater value (thus honour) than doing the normal culturally expected household tasks associated with the cultural honour of a woman. So while he may have chosen men as His core disciples and be the ones to later lead the post-pentecost church, He also promoted the idea of women having the opportunity to learn and grow in their understanding of Biblical truth and even be in a position of what we might call today a 'theology student'. 

One of the ways in which honour is culturally assigned in any culture is related to who has knowledge (or access to knowledge) and who does not.

Here in Africa, traditionally an oral society, knowledge (particularly cultural knowledge but not limited to that) is something still seen very much as a sign of honour status. It gains a person a level of superiority above others, not only through power of how to use that knowledge more than someone else, but simply having others realise that some people have a certain exclusivity to access certain knowledge.

But the issue is not limited to the culture of Jesus' day or of Africa. I couldn't tell you how many times in my school days (too many to count) when someone would proudly chant: 'I know something you don't know'! It was a statement of superiority and higher importance and greater status than others.

Even today, there is a sense where the degree to which women are given access to certain fields of study, is taken as the signal of whether women are considered equally mentally competent to learn something that may have been previously considered only for men to learn.

While Jesus (as Creator) knows perfectly why He chooses to have men in certain leadership roles, it is in no way a reason to say he thought of women as having 'less' value as people or as disciples. 

*we must be careful to differentiate between a woman's identity value as a human being and member of the body of Christ, and her activity roles which very much depend on how God created us to be  having differing skills, strengths, weaknesses, physical capabilities and calling, and thus hold differing positions from men in some instances, both in human society as a whole and within the church (see a previous blog post on understanding this often mis-understood vital distinction).

Jesus made it clear that women could and should learn and have equal value in that regard. They didn't need to gain their sense of identity and honour from what was culturally expected of them, nor did they need to feel angry or threatened by those who moved away from having culture as defining and directing them and had rather chosen Christ to be their standard and Lord.

All of Scripture shows God's counter-cultural view of women, from including women in the earthly genealogy/lineage of Jesus (Rahab, Ruth, Tamar, Bathsheba and of course Mary) to using someone like Esther to be the means of saving the Jews from extinction and annihilation, we are shown in Scripture that Jesus not only valued women but chose women for critical service to Him and His people. 

The Gospel, and Women at the Cross

I find it very interesting how all of Jesus' disciples forsook him (except for John  - John 19:25-29), being unwilling to risk being associated with the shame of the cross. And yet we have recorded that it was the women who were willing (along with John) to be seen supporting and being identified with the shame of the cross. They stood watching when others had abandoned Jesus.

Then along with Nicodemus, it was women who were concerned about showing honour to Christ, and who visited the tomb despite the difficulty, discouragement and shaming they may have faced. But their love for their Lord outweighed such obstacles. And thus it was the women who were the first to learn of the good news of the resurrection - while the men were hiding away in fear. It was Mary Magdalene who was the first to see and talk with the risen Christ, and it was her and a couple of other women, to whom Jesus gave the first 'go, tell' gospel (good news) 'commission' (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:9).

It is easy in a Western setting to miss the significance of this occasion. In the West we are generally used to women being supposed to have some level of equality to men. In the West we are also not as cognitively attuned to the realities of how honour and shame play out in many other cultural social contexts. We may not notice or be impressed by the fact that the culturally less-thought-of women are the 'first' to see the risen Christ, speak with and be spoken to by the risen Christ, and be entrusted first with the message of the risen Christ.

Women were culturally more in the category of 'last' than 'first', but here Jesus' puts life to his previous but profoundly honour-oriented words, about the 'last shall be first'.  

Here, the women were elevated to 'first'. They became the first ones to have the most important knowledge ever gained - 'He is not here, He is Risen'!

The Gospel, and Women on Commission

Matthew 28:19-20 gives us the most well known 'Great Commission' verse…

...But it is also the chapter (28:7) that gives us the description of the instance of the first post-resurrection gospel message 'sending' out. This wasn't the 'go into all the world' message, but before that could be given to the disciples, the disciples had to hear, comprehend and believe the resurrection message themselves. 

It was women who were sent by Jesus to 'go quickly and tell' the message to the disciples who for all kinds of reasons had closed their minds to even the possibility of such a reality. 

The men were still locked away and focused on themselves and their own fears and shame risks, and although they had had the privilege for 3 years of being the most deeply exposed to the Truth, at that point they were missing the most significant truth of all. Thomas was so filled with doubts about this new 'unbelievable' and maybe heretical message, he took quite a bit of extra convincing. They had got locked into only part of the story, part of the truth and were missing the most important factor.

Instead, it was the women who were the first to hear and know what must have been the most profound relief and joy of their lives - their Saviour was alive, there was no reason for shame, for hiding, for fear. Though the world might shame them for association with the cross, they knew this good news turned all that upside-down…or right-side-up. They now knew that the cross was not the end, the shame was not the end, the resurrection victory had been won and Christ's honour had been not only restored but magnified. This was not a message to hide from, but to share.

The gospel is a message which not only overcomes the shame of sin, but it also is a message which overcomes ungodly social shame boundaries and brings new value to a person. To understand we are all equal in value as God's created human beings in His image (which sadly our modern world has rejected), is a gift of inherent fundamental honour, but in Christ we are given the further ascribed honour of being 'in Christ' where there is no male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile. No gender, social position or ethnicity matters or determines such foundational value. We don't have to switch genders, or change social position, or achieve great feats, or share 'sameness' in appearance or capacity, or try to redefine or rely on our ethnicity for significance. This is wonderful good news.

The gospel is something which we all equally have the opportunity to rejoice in, and the responsibility to share.

This Easter, be reminded of what good news about 'honour' the gospel message truly brings…and then 'go quickly and tell' it to others.

Christ is Coming! The Cradle, Cross... and Crown of Christmas

Christmas is Coming!

with its season of traditions of Trees, tinsel, songs, food and presents.

But we could also say 

Christmas has Come

 - 2000 years ago Jesus entered this world as a baby in a manger cradle as - Immanuel - God with us.

- we remember that first Advent of Jesus when we celebrate Christmas each year (although sadly our world thinks little of the fact that Christmas is about Christ!)

- and yes, the Cradle led to the Cross, Jesus was born to die, for us and thus Christmas is also about Easter, and then about the Ascension of Christ too.

Yet there is a Coming we can often forget, that is truly still to come, a Coming that is the whole purpose of Christmas….

But I rarely hear this talked about at Christmas … this is the 'Coming' spoken about at the end of the last chapter of the last book of the bible - Revelation 22...and I would encourage you to read the whole of the book of Revelation in the lead-up to Christmas Day.

(it is interesting that Handel's 'Messiah' links the gospels to words from Revelation, and is sung at Christmas)....

It's the second Advent, the Coming of Jesus again, his second Coming, not as a baby to die, but as a King to reign.

So maybe we should be saying….Christ mas is Coming

Interestingly enough, for anyone who uses a 'read the bible through in a year' bible reading plan, Christmas lands right at the last book of the Bible. Yet we rarely, if ever, pause to make the connection.

But the cradle and the cross were not the end of the story. The end of the story is yet to come. The purpose of the cradle that led to the cross is yet to come. A shame story is yet to end in full glory.

The Garden of Eden began in glory and quickly descended into shame after only a couple of chapters. From there, until the last couple of chapters in Scripture, that shame of sin stays present in our human story. In the midst of that, from Adam and Eve's sin that ushered in shame for this world - to the shame filled birth of our Saviour laid in a manger - to the shame filled cross on which our Saviour died, it is the  mess that fills the story of humanity's hopeless state. 

But alongside this was another story, one of hope in the midst of hopelessness. 

Jesus let go of his heavenly honour to be born into an honour-less situation in the eyes of people of the world. 

But God gave a glimpse, for those who cared to think and see,

that the road to restored honour had begun. 

For though laid in a manger for a cradle, 

Jesus' birth was announced to the lowly shepherds with a huge angelic choir from heaven, and    

     surrounding them with the glory of the Lord, 

and then he was brought highly valuable gifts from kings. 

Joseph and Mary were willing to endure a life of shame in the eyes of their community 

in order to glorify the Lord and say, 'be it unto me according to your word'.

Then after the most shameful death after a shaming lead-up to death, 

Jesus was given the tomb of a wealthy man from which death could not hold him and he rose again on the third day as he had said

and then he was received back into heaven to the place of honour at the right hand of the Father's throne.

Yet, we who follow Christ, and are found 'in Him' and belong to God's Kingdom family, still endure the shame and suffering as servants of the Master who endured for us.

But we are told that though we experience sin in this world, we have already been given the positional place of glory in Christ, seated with him in heaven.

And the story hasn't yet ended…..

It is the end of the story and the ultimate glory yet to come which delivers our true dignity, defines our lives on earth, drives our perseverance, and determines our destiny. 

It is in the last chapters of Revelation that we see the hope fulfilled of the glory that flows through the story of Scripture, where Satan is defeated to suffer and be shamed forever along with his workers and followers on earth and his demonic forces, and where the saints that make up the church are adorned, and rewarded with crowns, as the full glorification of Christ's body is completed and brought into the presence of God forever and ever.

Immanuel - God with us isn't only a Christmas cradle story, and doesn't even end with the cross, 

but culminates with God's purpose to dwell with man forever (Revelation 21:3) in unhindered glory. 

And yes that is only possible as the holy glory of man, lost at the Fall, is restored in the holy glory of Christ 'in whom we live and move and have our being', so that man and God can dwell together in eternal glory and honour. 

The purpose of the manger-cradle and the cross is not just to have our sins forgiven as an end in itself, but so that the purpose of God's glory story can be fulfilled. 

The shameful cross is only filled with glory and honour for the Christian because the resurrection and ascension leads us to look to the ultimate second Coming of Christ, with his Crowns of honour as King of Kings….where we are not just going to attend a Christmas day roast turkey and ham, but we are called to an eternal marriage supper of the Lamb, as his bride the church, and with the example of the 24 elders, honouring him by laying our crowns at his feet. 

It is as the true glory of man is restored - through being 'in' the glory of the Son and his glory lived out through us, and brought to completion (all to God's glory and honour), that God's glory plan is fulfilled.  Christ's crown of thorns is yet to become the multiple crowns of Revelation 19  (not just in victory over all the kingdoms of the earth, but from the saints crowns given back to him our King).

As the coming year is set to be the crowning of the new King Charles III and media has just announced the late Queen's crown has already been taken to begin alterations to make it fit for the new king, maybe we need to turn our thoughts to much greater crowns and the King of Kings!

Jesus is yet to return to this world with the golden crown of honour as King. We are yet to receive our reward crowns. He is yet to ride and rule with his multiple crowns as King of Kings. We are yet to have the true Christ-celebration feast. We are yet to leave suffering and pain and sin's presence behind. Satan is yet to be judged. Full glory is yet to be known and full honour is yet be given to our God.

But that day is coming!

But also, let us also remember that while we are still on this earth, the Christmas trees and tinsel, songs and presents, must remind us that Jesus is coming again. It means hope for those of us who are found in the glory of Christ. But it also means there is an urgent message to bring to those still in shame and without hope. Let us be spurred on in motivation to share Christ and to more eagerly look toward His Coming again.

Amen, Come Lord Jesus!

Jesus - Pierced with shame to the glory of God!

Jesus was 'Pierced for our transgressions'…(Isaiah 53:5)

I don't know about you, but I had never thought of the fact that Jesus was 'pierced' being anything except the physical nails piercing physical hands and feet with physical pain, and moreover as John 19:37 states, the physical piercing of Jesus' side in fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10.

However, it is amazing how living cross-culturally can open one's eyes to parts of Scripture that have been there all along, hidden in plain sight from 'one-eyed' Westerners like me, who don't even have a clue there is anything else to recognise.

Some years back I was fascinated to realise that when a Motswana (person of Botswana - sing.) speaks about being shamed, it isn't just one word that is used... Well many concepts in Setswana (language of Botswana) are collections of words, kind of an explanation for something, rather than having just a single word... Instead its a phrase…. a phrase which means to be 'pierced with shame'.  So someone isn't just shamed, they are pierced with shame.  

According to biblehub, the word used for 'pierce' in Scripture is 'chalal' - and is also used for contexts such as to defile or pollute or 'violate the honour of/dishonour'

So isn't this interesting!…

The Zechariah Context 

It gets even more interesting when you go back and read the end of Zechariah.

Chapter 12:10 mentions that people will mourn when they look 'on him whom they have pierced'.  We take that on the basis of it foretelling how Jesus would die - that his body would be pierced, as per John 19:37. And I don't doubt that for one moment.

But did the people of Zechariah's day only understand it in the physical sense. And in relation to expecting the Messiah's side to be speared, did the piercing only have physical connotations, or is there a greater context that is culturally assumed within and surrounding such a physical 'piercing'?

Since we must keep in mind there are no chapter divisions in the original Scriptures, it makes sense to read the context of the text prior to and following Zechariah 12:10. So it shouldn't be surprising that just a few verses later in 13:3 it talks about a prophet who speaks lies and will have his mother and father 'pierce' him through when he prophesies.  

What is that all about?  Will they physically spear his body through and kill him or just punch a hole in his hand or foot or earlobe…or what?

Well whatever, it is, the prophet wasn't expected to be dead afterwards. The purpose wasn't to kill him, - at least not have him dead physically - instead, we are told in the next verse, he is still very much alive because he has a reaction to this terrible state.

Immediately after in the next verse (verse 4) it says 'on that day every prophet will be ashamed of his vision'. (Italics mine)

The purpose of the piercing, whatever it was, was in order to bring shame on the prophet of lies.

In other words, for the guilt of his wrongdoing - (his 'lies') - he was to suffer shame - the shame of piercing…piercing shame!

It turns out that in the following verses we get a bit more of a context when we are told that such a prophet ends up with wounds on his back. He was going to have to live with these wounds forever and thus the accompanying shame forever, as they prompt questions from onlookers which he has to answer about how he got such wounds. Every time he had to explain, the shame would be exposed again like it was just yesterday. He would live with ongoing, constant, unescapable shame.

So he was shamed for the guilt of his lies, - in other words the punishment is the shame, he bore the shame to pay for the guilt.

The John Explanation

What I am thus prompted to ask is: whether the piercing of Jesus' side was the only thing that fulfilled the 12:10 prophecy or was it the final 'piercing' act in a series?  First the 'stripes' on his back that would have ripped into (ie 'pierced') his flesh, then an even further piercing of his hands and feet, and then finally even his side.

From the Zechariah prophecy it seems to me that the Jews wouldn't have had too much trouble maybe connecting the dots from 12:10 to his 'stripes' and the subsequent wounds he would carry on his back forever after.  But Jesus' shame wasn't just the life-long shame of a whipping 'at the hands of family and friends' as in Zechariah 13. He also suffered the extreme humiliation of pierced hands and feet on the cross in the hands of his enemies - a death that the Romans perfected to deliver not only the most physical pain but also the most extensive public shame possible. But not even that was the whole story. 

Why didn't John comment on the piercing connection when he wrote of Jesus being whipped like a lying prophet, or when his head was stabbed by painful thorns, or even when he had his hands and feet punctured and was humiliated by his friends and enemies and family on a utterly shameful Roman cross? Instead John only commented on it when Jesus' side was pierced. That piercing was not usual in any context and seemingly not even as extreme in the original Zechariah context. The Roman soldiers only did it because they didn't have the 'normal' signals of whether Jesus had actually died, since he wasn't overcome by death, but gave himself up to death, so he died more quickly than normal. They would normally have just broken the legs of the person to speed up their death by suffocation. 

This was, we could say 'a one-off' piercing of the highest most extreme and unexpected level. 

This was even beyond the Roman piercing. Not only was his back ripped apart to be scarred with shame forever, not only were his hands and feet pinned down torturously and excruciatingly immobilising him, but his insides were then also ripped apart by a spear. His body was destroyed in its function to the very core, not just its appearance and movement.  This was unique. This was ultimate.  This was beyond even the most extreme human torture and shaming process.  He was made 'nothing' - nothing except a mangled, bleeding destroyed lump of human flesh - for you, for me.  

While this makes the resurrection even more amazing, it also makes his death something far greater than even what the cruelest humans could do. Now we also know that not breaking his legs was also part of fulfilling Scripture as the Passover lamb (Numbers 9:12), but this also took the punishment of 'piercing' to a whole new level - a level that clearly made him a unique God-appointed sacrifice who took a 'piercing shame' punishment like no one has taken before or since. Was this physical piercing (of a whole new level), demonstrating a shame piercing that was also being borne (also of a level greater than any other)?

He wasn't taking a 'piercing shame' punishment for his own transgression, such as the prophets in Zechariah were, Jesus was taking a 'piercing shame' punishment for the sin of the whole world (1John 2:2).

According to Zechariah 13:6-7, the purpose of the 'piercing' was so that the prophet would forever after carry the shame - the scars that would require explanation, an explanation that would be humiliating.  The purpose of the physical pain event was in order to have perpetual relationship-impacting 'shame pain' through the perpetual scars. He could never walk with full honour ever again.

It is therefore an incredibly humbling thought that Jesus still carries the scars of his physical suffering. It is, and will be, an ever present reminder to us all for all eternity, that someone else was shamed for us. He was our substitute.

The Shame Becomes Honour

But the amazing fact is that his shame actually brings honour - to him, to God and to us. God has exalted him, and we are clothed in him, and every time we will see those scars, like Thomas, we will just be overcome with worship - with giving glory and honour and praise and adoration to him as our king…as we join with Thomas in saying 'my Lord and my God'. Because those scars, unlike the lying prophets, will not be proof he is still the shamed one, but that he is the One who despised the shame - he shamed sin's shame by rising from the dead. Even the most extreme measures could not keep him physically dead, nor can the most extreme shame of sin, keep him defeated. Even with his scars, he is not rejected by his Father, but welcomed back to the Father's right hand, the position of honour, where he reigns for all eternity…and one day we will reign with him………..and all to the glory of God!

"Do you love Me?" - Honour-Shame issues in Jesus' weighty conversation with Peter

Over the years, in the weeks between Easter and Ascension Day, I have listened to several sermons which mentioned or examined John 21, (including this sermon mentioned in a previous blogpost) where Jesus asked Peter 3 times, "Do you love Me?"

Most of these sermons highlighted that in the Greek text there are different words for 'love' used ('agape' the first two times by Jesus and 'phileo' on the third, and 'phileo' by Peter all three times).   All kinds of 'reasons' are put forth and various applications made as to 'levels' or 'types' of love referred to by these two words.

For sure when Scripture uses a particular word we should take note, even if we don't fully understand the 'why'.  Since all Scripture is God-breathed, we shouldn't dismiss variations in words used, as irrelevent.  However, there is debate amoung the scholars about what the differences mean and how much we can extrapolate from those different words and their use.  There is a call to think beyond 'words only' and look at meanings and contexts.

Yet, this 'debate' also got me thinking further on the matter, and a counseling situation recently awakened my heart to a context I hadn't deeply contemplated before. (Cross-cultural counselling has a way of doing that with me!)

One point that was raised in the sermons I listened to (both in my own church and on-line) was how Peter denied Christ three times and then Jesus asked the 'love' question of Peter, also three times. The interpretation that was brought was that Jesus was showing Peter that for as many times as he denied Christ, Jesus was offering him a fresh start, forgiveness and a call to service and restored honour….and the call to service was an encouragement to Peter that true repentance means Jesus still has a job He wants you to do, don't just keep hiding in a corner.

However, on this Ascension Day, let me share with you the further thoughts I had, especially looking through the honour-shame lens.

Peter's Denial and Dishonour

What was Peter's denial of Christ?  It wasn't just that he sinned three times as Jesus said he was going to.  It wasn't just a signal to Peter of his own weakness in light of his prior boastings! It was more than that.

Peter's sin was that of denial - public denial. It was one of fear - fear for his own life, fear of exposure and fear of being seen/known as associated with the one who was about to be killed. Peter didn't want to be implicated, suffer and be shamed by association. He didn't want to be 'tagged with the same brush' as Jesus was.  

Peter's denial was a choice to not be known to be 'with Chist', to be 'one of Christ's', to be 'belonging to Christ', or to be 'of the same beliefs and behaviour as Christ'. Christ was hated because he threatened the popularity and honour position of the Jewish religious leaders who were thoroughly jealous and angry. Peter believed he had at least some level of love for Jesus otherwise he wouldn't have even been in the vacinity of the events - he 'was hanging around', but when it 'came to the crunch' Peter didn't want to be known by anyone (not even a lowly servant girl) that he had any part or support of what Jesus had been arrested for.

To protect himself and his own reputation, Peter was willing to lie in order to deny Christ.

When the cock crowed, (if I was to imagine myself in his shoes momentarily), he would have had a wave of guilt hit him, and a huge sense of failure and shame overcome him as it reminded him he didn't and couldn't live up to his own promises never to deny Jesus (Matthew 26:35 ).  

However, by the time Jesus met them on the beach after the resurrection in John 21, Peter had had a few days to think and reflect. For Peter, when the cock crowed, it wouldn't have just been a sin-reminder but a Jesus-revealer. It would have been a recognition that Jesus had predicted this exact situation. It was a reminder of who Jesus is - 'the Christ, the son of the Living God' (Matthew 16:16). He had just traded allegience with the God who knows everything, the all-Powerful, omnipotent, eternal, Creator of the Universe,  for protection of his own temporary earthly reputation in the eyes of people around him, even the eyes of a 'mere' servant girl. He wanted to keep his own community honour at the cost of losing the honour of being a Christ-follower.

Here in Africa, if you have shamed yourself and dishonoured others, the one you dishonoured rejects you and shuts you out and excludes you. But it is also expected and 'proper' for you to exclude yourself from them. You have to wait until the one you dishonoured shows some kind of 'acceptance back', before you go near them again.

We Westerners look at Peter as one who renegged on his promise to follow Jesus, and went back to fishing. But maybe, he also felt that 'his place' no longer deserved to be with Jesus. It was dishonour upon dishonour to expect Jesus to even want him back.

Jesus' Challenge to Peter

But when Jesus came to them on the beach, Peter was the first one out of the boat. He was desperate for reconciliation and thrilled that Jesus would want to even associate with him again.

But reconciliation and forgiveness is not just about forgetting what lay behind, pretending it didn't happen and moving on….as it is so often in contexts of mis-placed honour/shame.

Jesus had a challenge for Peter. 

Would Peter be willing to consider and follow Jesus' challenge to him? 

Would Peter be willing to obey, to honour, to follow Jesus wholeheartedly? 

Would Peter be willing to deny himself instead of deny the Messiah? 

Would Peter be willing to walk a path of full allegience to Jesus, putting into practice and living out the true meaning and ramifications of his declaration that Jesus was the 'Christ the son of the Living God'?

Although I have read many Commentators who lay little significance with the fact that there might be 3 denials and then a thrice repeated challenge, I have more and more come to see it as not insignificant at all. Just as Peter denied Jesus three times, Jesus had three counter-challenges.  His denials were all of the same root issue, and Jesus didn't 'beat around the bush' but just came straight to the point:

'Do you love me?'

The issue for Peter was one of who he loved - truly loved - and loved enough to not deny.  It was the issue of the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:38 ), because the greatest commandment encapsulates the whole matter. 

 - 1. its a commandment - issue of obedience

- 2. its a commandment to love - issue of love

- 3. if you truly love God, you have to quit fearing man and fear God more, trusting that He is truly who He says He is - issue of holy fear and holy faith

Where Peter wanted to previously hide his allegience to Christ, Jesus was challenging him to be willing to have a public full allegience to Christ, and to start with thinking about who was his primary love.

But more than that, Jesus as the perfect counselor, wanted to challenge Peter not just to verbalise who it was he truly loved, but to understand it would mean a tough calling in the realities of life.

Jesus' Call to Peter 

No longer was he just called to be a 'fisher of men' but now he was being called to be a 'shepherd of sheep'.

No longer was he just to walk through the world as someone seeking souls for Jesus, Jesus wanted him to be willing to be fully identified and publically known in the risky position of a leader, protector and encourager of those who followed the despised, rejected, disgraced, shamed, guilty, punished, and murdered enemy of the religious and cultural leaders, - Jesus. 

Jesus' threefold challenge was a clear itemisation in no uncertain terms, that following wasn't a calling to popularity of being seen as part of the honoured and chosen disciples of the 'Teacher and Healer and Miracle worker", but a call to love Him above all else to the point he was willing to do the very thing he earlier refused to do….totally forgo his own repuation, and care more for Jesus honour than his own. Was he willing to deny his own life, even to the point of death for the sake of following Jesus - a concept he understood in far greater personal reality after Jesus' crucifixion?

I see nuances in Jesus' challenge of asking Peter to examine his heart  - 'do you love Me?' - of a challenge to think more deeply about what he meant by his reply of  'you know that I love you'.

Peter Considers the Cost

Jesus' first challenge even incorporates a 'priorities' context to his question of love. This wasn't an abstract 'do you feel loving toward me?'. This wasn't about 'love as a theoretical concept' but love as a personal priority. The first and greatest commandment was about love, and the further commandments (not least the first of the ten in Exodus 20) clarify that 'loving God with all your heart' means not having any other higher or greater priority of love in your life.  To serve another 'god', means you are not loving God with all your heart. So Jesus asks Peter, "do you love me more than these?" 

Right there on the beach alongside the fish from their fishing trip (which they caught through Jesus' miracle, and was an almost exact repeat of the fishing miracle context in which Peter first left his nets to follow Jesus - Luke 5:1-11), Jesus makes Peter stop and think about whether he loves Jesus more than fish and fishing, and even more than the great number of fish he can catch when Jesus is with him, and thus, even more than the miracles Jesus can do… and by implication maybe, even more than a Jesus that gives Peter popularity by being associated with the miracle working Teacher. This was once again Jesus doing what Jesus did best….getting right to the heart of the matter …. the matters of the heart! 

Just how much did Peter want to put Jesus first in His life?  What was Peter's real reason for following Jesus? Did he love the benefit and popularity and honour he gained through the miraculous 'works of Jesus' , or was it because Jesus was truly His Lord and His God, as Thomas was prepared to declare? (John 20:28)

I believe Jesus deliberately used the 'agape' word first.  And Peter deliberately used the 'phileo' word first (or their equivelent concepts in Aramaic). Maybe Peter in the light of a recognition of his own failure and inadequacy didn't feel like he could promise the 'agape' level of things especially with Jesus' delicate young spiritual lambs. Afterall he had learnt now not to overestimate his own ability to be loyal or responsible with what Jesus wanted of him. 

He knew in his heart though, he didn't want to run from Jesus any more.

So he is given an opportunity to answer again, when Jesus repeats the question.  But he again can't bring himself to declare 'agape' love.

But this time Jesus tells him to take care of the 'sheep', not specifally the lambs. What we are exactly meant to understand by this is also a matter of theological debate, but if anything, maybe its that Jesus was acknowledging Peter's recognition of his own inadequacy and asking him if he would be willing to consider 'agape' love if the assignment was to the sheep in general rather than the greater responsibility of the 'new' lambs.

(After all the new lambs are spiritually fragile, needing strong steady example, and clear unwavering faith teaching, and Peter knew Jesus' serious warnings about causing children to stumble (Matthew 18:6) so it was no less serious to be responsible for any stumbling of new-baby-Jesus'-followers) In shepherding all the sheep, he had other more mature and experienced sheep around him (as we see with Paul later in giving correction when Peter got a bit doctrinally off-track - Galatians 2:11-21).

Then the third time Jesus asks his question, after Peter is still not willing to match the 'love' word Jesus uses, its as if Jesus says:

 "well I know you don't want to run the risk of thinking too highly of yourself and overestimating your abilities and you are now full aware of your own frailties, …..but are you willing to even just 'like me enough' to be willing to risk your neck and your reputation for my sake, and quit hiding and running away, and be publically aligned with my sheep and a public target of the religious leaders by being a leader of my sheep?  Are you willing Peter to put your words into action, and not just pledge allegience, but demonstrate it by doing what is going to cost you everything in earthly terms?"

Jesus, knowing Peter's public denials, was willing to send Peter out to publically represent Him and His name, but was Peter willing to accept the challenge to be publically known as a Jesus-follower? 

 The very shame Peter had wanted to avoid in his denials, was he going to be willing to bear for Jesus' sake in following these new directions?

Peter Discovers a New Honour-Code

This time Peter is willing to align himself with Jesus' challenge, matching Jesus terms.

But Jesus doesn't leave it there….in case we have any doubt that this interaction was about Peter coming to terms with an personal honour-code reversal - no longer for his own honour, reputation and safetly, but for Christ alone - Jesus goes on to tell Peter that he is not going to have an easy life, he is going to have to go where he doesn't want to go and there was no escaping painful death for his choice to love Christ. He is going to have to lose his life (both physical pain and relational shame) for Christ's sake. 

Jesus concludes with just two summing up words, now full with much greater meaning for Peter than when he first heard Jesus say them to him, maybe on the same beach 3 years earlier when Jesus called him to be a disciple in Mark 1:17…."Follow Me!"

But we mustn't think that from this point on Peter had it all together, because before the chapter finishes Peter is already asking Jesus about the fate of the other disciple John. Jesus' response reminds Peter, that following Him is not about comparing yourself to others, or how God is dealing with others, its about him following his Lord. Comparing with others only breeds envy and jealosy. It's not about if we are 'less' or 'more' than others according to our own analysis or what others see, our 'following' is about honouring Christ as our No. 1 life's-love and living for what He sees and wants.

Jesus' Call to You and to Me

This real-life story of Peter is like a picture that Jesus paints for us about what it means to follow Him:

- its not about the honour of being popular or being part of a religion that is popular

- its not about the honour of our own ability - which will fail us

- its not about any honour we might think we have through the promises we boastfully make to Jesus

- its not about the shame of the  times we have failed

- its not about the honour of trouble free living

- its not about seeing ourselves as favoured and comparing ourselves with others

- its not about what others see

- its not about protecting our own temporary earthly reputation

…it is about humbly keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, being willing to lose our life for His sake, and seeking our honour in Him alone!

I don't want to seem that I am more theologically or linguistically knowlegable than many who have gone before me through the years and given insights into this passage, but as I learn more about the honour-shame context of Scripture, I see, or should I say 'taste' more and more of a flavour of Scripture that I had not previously learnt to recognise, look for, or seek to learn from.  

It really does feel like I've had a cataract removed from one eye! Seeing more clearly through two eyes (honour-shame as well as innocence-guilt) presents so much more to learn and thus to share with others…especially those from honour-shame emphasis cultures that are just like the cultures of bible times in the Ancient Near East. 

As I disciple those in an HS emphasis culture I am caused to see the inadequacy of my innocence-guilt only lens and how much frustration with lack of spiritual growth around me, is rooted in my own inadequate understanding of biblical contexts and thus an inadequate application in discipleship.  

If we are truly going to obey Jesus' command to 'teach all that I have commanded you' so that people in HS cultures can be truly discipled to follow Jesus, we have to get clearer 'two-eyed' vision. 

I'm sure there is even more to be learnt from this passage, but hopefully this example of 'digging deeper'' will encourage you in your own walk with Christ, and encourage you to dig deeper too!

Easter thoughts on 'loving the sinner and not the sin'

"But God designed to deliver from sin, and to work a great change. While the sinful state continues, God loathes the sinner, and the sinner loathes God, Zec 11:8. And that for such as these Christ should die, is a mystery; no other such an instance of love is known, so that it may well be the employment of eternity to adore and wonder at it."

Matthew Henry Commentary on Romans 5:6-11

"God hates the sin but loves the sinner"

I'm sure you've heard, read, and even said those words…

Our 'go to' verse to support the saying is often John 3:16 - that 'God so LOVED the world'.

But as much as it sounds lovely and helps us try to give non-Chrisitans the idea that God hasn't totally rejected them, is it really a biblical statement...or is it a statement that reflects our 'guilt/innocence' emphasis society?

It may seem abhorrent to us as 21st Century evangelicals that such a common statement should even be questioned, but in honour-shame societies such as here in Africa, such a differentiation between a person and their deed, is not so clear. 

When we talk about honour-shame vs. guilt-innocence we often describe it by saying that guilt is about what I 'do' and shame is about who I 'am'. Guilt is about the act and shame is about the person themselves.

There is plenty of scripture to indicate that our lostness means not only that our sins are a problem, but we are rejected.

Another missionary in Africa wrote on her blog about how on a trip to the USA, she encountered the prevalent Western idea that God accepts me for who I am. She explained that it is a view that comes from culture rather than the Bible. Scripture tells us we are enemies of God and children of our father the Devil. God does not accept us.

She went on to say on her blog that there is still hope because while we were still sinners Christ died for us. "Acceptance, no. But love, yes."

Maybe we should be looking at it from the perspective that God graciously 'honours' us (the world) collectively with his love, because we are his creation. But to be fully honoured by him with his acceptance individually requires being included in Christ, by redemption.

I would suggest that God's rejection of us is not only because of sins we have committed but because we are sinners by status and nature. We sin because we are sinners. Our very selves are repulsive to God. I know I balked at this idea when I first began to contemplate it. I have been well indoctrinated by a 'saying' that came with good intention, but I had to be willing to have that replaced by Scripture's truth.

Our sin is not some external skin tatoo or face painting, but a condition that has altered our spiritual DNA.

Maybe we have been so marinated in 'guilt' perspectives (related to what we 'do') that we find it difficult to see beyond it? Or maybe we have been so marinated in pop-psychology that tells us we are really good people deep down and only do bad things from time to time, and we want people to feel good about themselves? Maybe its a bit of both and each belief feeds the other?

I like how my missionary friend says that "Jesus Christ died on the cross because God does not accept me."

She went on to say:

I cannot understand the cross until I understand that my sin is the reason it cost so much. I cannot understand that cost until I come face-to-face with the truth that I Am Not Acceptable. But He became Acceptable for me. I was not acceptable, and yet I am loved in a way that is far beyond what I can ever understand. And the more I understand my wretchedness, the deeper I understand His love. I am not acceptable to God. Not because of who I am, but because of what He has done.

 ...and I would add, "and because of Who He Is". He as the perfect, pure, sinless, acceptable one died in my place.

We have tried to make categories in order to make sense of our sin, the cross, God's love and forgiveness. But maybe some of our efforts of trying to make sense of these has been influenced more by culture than by Scripture.

Just as Jesus wept over Jerusalem, God's heart is sad over our sin. But because He is holy, He is not only sad, but mad. He is angry. We are under His wrath. But, in His grace and mercy He has chosen to delay His day of full wrath.

But as demonstrated by Jesus' attitude to Jerusalem, God's heart is one of grief, that those who have rejected Him, He must reject in their loathsome state of sin. Yet, He loves His creation.

Though we may not understand it all, as unredeemed sinners, God both loathes and loves us. He loathes who we have become, but loves us because we are still His created ones made in His image who were meant to be for His joy and glory. In the three parables of what is 'lost' which Jesus tells in Luke 15, we see God's love for what is lost. We are not yet fully rejected for eternity - that will happen on judgement day, but it's like we are in the 'rejected' ante-room awaiting punishment, while the judge desperately wants us to repent so he doesn't have to condemn us. He grants us the honour of an opportunity to avail ourselves of a 'rescue option'.

But we must realise that our sin, and not only our 'sins' is what makes us loathsome. Our 'sins' are just a product of our 'sin' state. The shame of Adam is our shame. Those in honour-shame cultures understand very well that shame changes the status of everyone in the sinner's family. They are shamed even if they have done no wrong act themselves. Even if they are born after the act, they are born into shame. Similarly, we are shamed even before we are born. Our state is loathsome before we do any wrong 'act'.

But God's love as our Creator remains as part of 'common grace'. He yearns for us to repent, and gains no pleasure in the death of the wicked. His heart is for reconciliation and restoration though His holiness demands rejection. He wants to give us more than earthly breath. He wants to give us eternal life. So He continues to show us His love by His patience and kindness, but longs to brings us into full reconciled relationship and the abundant fulness of His life and love.

And because of both loathing and love, He sent His only Son to suffer the Father's loathing so that we could receive the fulness of His love.

50th Anniversary of the first 'selfie' and its Christmas Message!

God walking on the earth is more important than man walking on the moon. 

Astronaut James Irwin 

- 8th man on the moon

WATCH THIS GREAT VIDEO 

TO FIND OUT WHAT ‘SELFIE' THAT IS!!!

50 years ago today, humans on board Apollo 8 saw earth ‘rise' for the first time from space!

That mission paved the way for the first landing on the moon a short while later.

It’s also 50 years since the broadcast of the first book read to earth from space by one of the astronauts on that Apollo 8 mission….and it was read from the Bible - Genesis 1!

But greater than man rocketing into space or walking on the moon, is the awesome and humbling fact that God became Man and came to dwell on this earth, in order to save his rebellious, wayward, shameful, sinful people from their sins and offer them reconciliation and eternity with God. 

He came, not with pomp and fanfare, but to a simple poor family, born to the sound of mooing cows, braying donkeys and baaing sheep. Instead of others making space for him as someone of importance, no room could even be found for him in the inn.  The world paid no attention to the immensity of what was happening, and God announced it not to kings but to lowly shepherds.  But lowly shepherds weren’t too proud to go into the animal ‘kraal’ area to visit this new baby, and welcome Immanuel.

Our world pays little attention to the true meaning of Christmas and doesn’t understand the importance of Immanuel.  But maybe you can use this 50 year anniversary of a momentous ’space’ event, to point people to the good news of how and why God entered ‘our space’ so that we could once more, go far beyond moon-space or even outerspace, all the way back into God’s ‘space’ for all eternity!

Extra Info from Wikipedia:

Apollo 8, the second manned spaceflight mission flown in the United States Apollo space program, was launched on December 21, 1968, and became the first manned spacecraft to leave low Earth orbit, reach the Moon, orbit it, and return. The three-astronaut crew—Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders—were the first humans to witness and photograph an Earthrise and to escape the gravity of a celestial body... 

Apollo 8 took 68 hours (almost three days) to travel the distance to the Moon. The crew orbited the Moon ten times over the course of twenty hours, during which they made a Christmas Eve television broadcast in which they read the first ten verses from the Book of Genesis. At the time, the broadcast was the most watched TV program ever. Apollo 8's successful mission paved the way for Apollo 11 to fulfill U.S. president John F. Kennedy's goal of landing a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s. The Apollo 8 astronauts returned to Earth on December 27, 1968, when their spacecraft splashed down in the northern Pacific Ocean. The crew members were named Time magazine's "Men of the Year" for 1968 upon their return.