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.

Resting in God and His Word

Cats,…. the purry, furry companions of so many….including myself, have a habit of demonstrating their friendship by coming to sit on a piece of paper that is the page of the book or newspaper that we happen to be reading right at that very moment!

My cat is no exception.

However, today she didn't quite sit right on top of the page I was reading (as I was at the time reading on my laptop), but she did choose to sit right on top of my bible, laying open beside me at the page I was regularly referring to.

But as she covered up the very section of Scripture I was periodically looking back at, and then relaxed back even further and began to have a 'bath', I had an object lesson from God right there! (and yes, I took some quick pics!).

As she rested right on top, and then cleaned, and then went to sleep, it was a good metaphorical reminder that we too should be quick to go to the pages of Scripture and rest in the truth of all that God shows us in those pages that he truly is.  

It should be the rock, the resting place, the source and security of all our lives, whether sitting, working (cleaning) or sleeping!

As we look at the mess of our world this is a good reminder…especially considering my time in God's Word is currently in Paul's letters to Timothy. Paul tells Timothy toward the end of his second letter that in the last days sin will abound (chapter 3). We shouldn't be then surprised when we look at the world…

But I am reminded that we should also take note of Paul's other directives to Timothy after this…that he is to remember God's inspired Word and keep on preaching and teaching it (Chapter 4). Though some might not like it or welcome it, as we keep eternity and Jesus' return in mind, the response to the sinful mess of the world is not to be shocked about it, or just ignore it, or try to escape to some quiet corner of this earth where we think it might be less, or spend all our energies fighting it, but to continue to evangelise, to preach the Word, live the Word, teach the Word, and not neglect the gifts that God has given us for his Kingdom work, so that souls might be saved.

It was a short lesson with significant reminders, but those are sometimes the best!

Does God want our obedience, or respect, or both?

Question 1.

Does God want your

a) Obedience

b) Respect

c) Both of the above

(circle the correct answer)

'God doesn't want your respect, he wants your obedience' - so said the preacher.

And...No I don't agree with that statement, but let me give you some background to the statement and maybe what could have been said instead and why I want to bring your attention to it.

The sermon was a great sermon, by a prominent and great preacher. He was speaking about Uzzah in the Old Testament - you remember?…the guy in 2 Samuel 6:6-7 who thought he was helping protect the Lord's 'Ark of the Covenant' when it looked like it was going to fall after the oxen who were carrying it, stumbled. He put out his hand to stop it falling, and in doing so he touched the Ark - which was forbidden.

The preacher, helpfully explained that all Uzzah was doing was wanting to show some respect to the Lord's Ark.

The preacher went on to say but 'God doesn't want your respect, he wants your obedience'. 

Let's think about this for a moment, in a few ways.

1. Lets think about whether honour and obedience should be contrasted as the antithisis of each other or the opponents/threats of each other. 

God definitely does want your obedience, BUT is obedience to God the only thing that God wants, in contrast to not wanting your respect?

Respect is another word for honour, so does God really not want you to give him honour?

Romans 1:21 tells us that God definitely wants us to honour him, and in fact the big problem in our world, says God through the Apostle Paul in this verse, is that God is not honoured. And not just that, but that God is not honoured as God. In other words, not only does God want honour, he wants a unique, highest, supreme honour in our lives. He requires the greatest honour of all.

So what is going on here, in the preacher's comment?

I wonder whether sectors of the Western church are so 'reacting' against those who wish to point out that more attention needs to be put towards the 'honour' aspects of Scripture, when so much is usually put to concepts of guilt, law and obedience, that they are 'over-reacting' and inclined to not only lessen the importance of the place of 'honour', but even without realising it, 'demonize' it. 

Honour is made out to be an inferior quality to obedience, and thus if you settle for honour, you settle for less. Here in the story of Uzzah, the preacher implied that Uzzah in being concerned about 'respect' [honour] was concerned about the wrong thing, and it was so dangerous a concern that God struck him dead immediately! Honour is seen as the thief of the priority, the best, and the proper focus on obedience, as well as a reason for life to be removed from us.

But honour and obedience are not a dichotomy, and furthermore, not opponents. They are not in a battle for validity in God's eyes.  In fact as Romans 1 points out, honour of God is imperative.

2. Let's think about whether a fallen mis-placed concept of honour is clouding our vision as to the place of true properly-placed honour.

Is it wrong to honour God?  Romans tells us not. Not only is it definitely right to honour God, it is an unequivocal and imperative requirement.

But it is wrong to honour God with our own idea of what honouring God should look like, with no regard/respect [honour] of how God defines and demands honour of himself to be.

This is where we go wrong.

We can 'think' we are honouring God, we can tell ourselves we are 'doing right by God', but if the honour is not according to God's definition of 'right', then we will think we do right when in fact in God's eyes we do wrong.

This was Uzzah's problem. He had a noble intention, but it was according to his own understanding and not God's requirements. Proverbs 3:5-6 tells us to not rely on our own understanding but to acknowledge God (put his ideas and definitions above our own) in everything. Uzzah's noble motive was misplaced, not because it is wrong to honour, or wrong to honour God, or because God doesn't require honour, but because Uzzah didn't trust God. He didn't understand that to truly honour God is to obey God. We don't get to define what honouring God looks like, God does. And God tells us what honour looks like by giving us commands to obey. When we obey him, we honour him. When we disobey him, we dishonour him.

This story is not one about Uzzah opting for honour when he should have opted for obedience. This story is about Uzzah who did what was 'right' in his own eyes, in his own understanding, all the while thinking that his definition of honouring God would be automatically acceptable to God as honouring him. But it wasn't.  And still today, our own ideas about what honours God are not the standard God has for the definition of honouring him.

3. Emphasising honour is not the cause of the lack of obedience, rather a wrong and weak emphasis on honour for God, propels disobedience to God.

Our problem is not that we talk too much about honouring God, or that if we talk more about honouring God that people will think they can be less careful to obey God. No, our problem is that we talk too little about what right honour of God looks like and how God defines honour.  

We run into the problems when either as differing groups or differing individuals we define what we think exemplifies respect or honour or dignity, without reference to the One who not only created us but who also defined those concepts in the first place. Any residue of those concepts that we seek or think we attain are but weak, broken, unreliable and twisted images of the original intention of our Creator. When we seek after them, they will disappoint and when we use them as our standard of good and right, we  will find ourselves with empty hope in the present, and being condemned in judgement in the future eternity. 

 When we have a wrong view of what honour for God is, we will inevitably end up practicing a lifestyle of disobedience to God. We will make wrong choices, damaging choices, self-destructive choices, and others-harming choices.  When we don't have a high enough view of honouring God, we will not only be disinclined to obey God where he has laid down specific commands, but we will feel there is no particular application of holiness we are called to outside of those particular commands. Yet if God doesn't give a particular command or direction about something which we are meant to obey, there is always the overarching governing context of honouring God. 

We need to think beyond the Bible as being an instruction book which if it doesn't address something particular in a 'do this' or 'do not do this' manner we are free to do what we like. We need to also see God's word as showing us himself and his character--his honour—and what it therefore (descriptively and prescriptively) looks like to honour him, his way.

Saving the best till last....Honour, Shame and Jesus' miracle at the Cana wedding.

As part of my current post-graduate studies regarding the intertwining of healing and honour, I had been pondering over the context of Jesus' first miracle.   Despite Jesus' ministry being filled with healing miracles of a physical nature - blindness, lameness, leprosy etc, his first miracle was not one of physical healing.

His first miracle was turning water into wine.  

...That seems like nothing to do with healing. 

John the Baptist felt that healing was the 'sign' that Jesus could be the Messiah and Jesus seemed to confirm such signs affirmed his Messiahship (Luke 7), so it is interesting out of the myriad of options he had for his first miracle, that healing doesn't appear to be part of it. Yet, the 'first' event of anyone's ministry or new vocation is significant and sets the tone and focus for what follows and usually exemplifies your mission.

So what is going on here? 

There have been a myriad of interpretations which I have come across over the years in books and sermons, as to the significance of this first miracle: 

Some have postulated that it reflects Jesus' concern for everyday events, 

others that marriage is foundational to life and society and approved by God, 

others that he was not against total abstinence from alcohol, 

others say that Jesus loves parties, 

others that he just loved people and wanted them to enjoy the celebration, 

others have said it shows that unlike the Roman Catholic teaching Mary is not the means to get Jesus to act but that he will only do his Father's will on his Father's timetable and anyhow she would point people to just do whatever Jesus says to do, 

...others that he chose to provide wine in his first miracle because it represented his coming provision of shed blood for sin.

But my recent study raised a further perspective. One author noted that Jesus' first miracle rescued the family from 'embarrassment'….in other words shame…it was a healing, and was greater than a physical healing, in that it was a social healing from shame to honour. 

Dr Joshua Bogunjoko, the SIM International Director in a recent devotional sent to SIMers during this COVID-19 period referenced this same 'shame' element as present in this miracle. He also noted that this miracle teaches us that Jesus cares about our needs and situations even when we don't realise their significance (since it seems the bridegroom possibly didn't even notice he was about to be shamed). He also noted that God can turn what was heading toward shame, into a situation of honour and praise.

Maybe we can learn some more by looking at the honour-shame factors in this miracle and what they tell us about Jesus' ministry….but which, as Westerners, we can so easily miss.  

1. Firstly I want to say I am 100% on board with the significance of shame and honour in this event…in fact honour is the purpose of Jesus' miracles/signs, so says the Apostle John in chapter 2:11 of his gospel. Their purpose was to manifest/reveal Jesus' 'doxa' - his honour and glory.

2. My recent study has been looking at the place of disability in African culture and what biblical honour might have to say in such situations.  

There is too much to write about here, but suffice to say that current global disability theory hovers between what is known as a 'medical model' (focusing on physical needs) and the 'social model' (focusing on acceptance and inclusion needs).  Many say the 'social' side is more important.

However, when I look closely at the 'social' model, what is really being sought is 'honour' - dignity of respect, inclusion, acceptance, value, worth etc. Writers such as Randy Alcorn in his book 'Heaven' feel that when people seek healing, they are, more than anything, seeking social healing.

Yet, the healing Jesus brings is both. Physical healing on earth brought social inclusion in Jesus' Jewish and Mediterranean culture - it brought honour and acceptance where there was shame and isolation. It demonstrated the purpose of Jesus' mission that was shown first in the turning of water into wine at the Cana wedding - to bring honour where there is shame.  

3. But the wedding in Cana, also showed that the honour Jesus brings is not the earthly kind - its part of a countercultural upside-down Kingdom. 

On earth the best wine was put out first and the bad wine left till last. But Jesus brought out the best last. Does this ring any bells about other passages in Scripture where the last will be first? (Matthew 20:16). 

Not only that, but the wine Jesus made was of a far superior kind - it made the 'first best wine' of this wedding look like the cheap stuff in comparison. The best honour that man can produce falls so far short of God's honour that ours looks worthless. Does this ring any bells about our righteousness looking like filthy rags? God's definition of what is good, far surpasses ours!

4. Not only is what Jesus brings beyond the 'normal' earthly ideals, he gives honour that is totally unreliant on the 'quality' of what he is given. 

It's not all on us to produce our best in order to receive God's best. 

In fact at this wedding, they had nothing left except water. 

We might think our lives are so little worth or so inadequate that we don't even qualify as any kind of value, just like water has no value in comparison to even poor wine. 

But Jesus took what didn't meet expectation, was valueless and wouldn't even have been considered worthy to serve at the wedding—water, and turned it into something that far surpassed expectation and became of highest worth.

It would have taken a great deal of 'faith' to fill all those wine jars with water. Serving water may have been even more shameful than running out of wine! It was certainly something the Master of the occasion hadn't even considered as a possible option. Sometimes we have to be willing to lower ourselves and risk our 'pride' even further when Jesus comes along. 

But if we are to partake of what is greater than we could imagine, we might have to humble ourselves to lower than we thought we could go. But when we lose our life for Jesus' sake, it's then we will find it! (Matthew 16:25).

5. So although this miracle doesn't look like a 'healing' miracle, it is a picture of the most profound 'healing miracle' there is. 

It is providing what is at the heart of all desires for healing - restored honour. 

Jesus came as the supreme healer. He came to bring honour like no-one had conceived it could be had. He came to bring it in such a way that it would embrace social healing not just with our fellowman, but more importantly with God our Creator from whom we were eternally separated and before whom we were eternally shamed (Daniel 12:2). 

One day, when we share the resurrection with Jesus, we will know full physical healing and full social healing where sin no more destroys physical function or relational harmony. 

But Jesus' coming taught us that the physical and social healing we long for on earth is but a shadow of the spiritual healing we need. 

We need an honour far above our earthly ideals, and we need to restore honour 'with' Someone far above those on earth. Jesus came to be the one who would be 'The Way' to that restored honour with God, who would bring us a level of honour that provides our greatest need even before we know it! All we have to do is accept it from his hand, and partake of it.

6. Yes, all the metaphors and images I had read about as suggested for this Cana wedding miracle have value and significant importance…

...but ultimately they are part of a whole which is…

... Jesus' coming, dying, rising, ascending, and sending the Spirit to sort out our biggest problem - the need for restored honour to deal with the condemnation of the path of shame we are on. 

This is a level of shame that we don't fully comprehend but eternally separates us from God and God knows needs to be dealt with. And he has done so by inviting us to experience and partake of a level of honour, which the earth does not, and cannot, produce.

7.  So lets think about this a little more

….John tells us that the purpose of Jesus' miracles was to reveal his glory/honour 'doxa'….and to do that poignantly Jesus did something that removed and covered shame. And he did it in such a way as to remove the shame even before those who had it, realised. 

Not only that but he enabled a way for those ones to receive unexpected honour above and beyond what they ever even considered in such a way that not only blessed them, but flowed over in blessing to those around them too. 

Therefore, if Jesus' miracles exemplify his ministry and point to his identity as Messiah….maybe we need to stop to think that the purpose of his coming, the 'definition' of being the Messiah/Christ, is to demonstrate his honour as the one who brings the honour in place of our shame…an honour that exceeds any level of honour that we have on earth, and an honour that has already been prepared for us even before we come to understand we lost it! 

So, since in God's plan, we celebrate Communion/Eucharist/Lord's Supper using wine (or representation of it)….let us use that time as just one reminder of Jesus' first miracle of providing wine and how it represents the purpose of his coming in bringing the opportunity for restored honour for all we shamed ones who come to him - an honour that far surpasses anything we have ever known or the world can offer.

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!

Pentecost and the Honour of His Presence

When the electricity fails, and you light a candle, have you ever lit just one candle and then taken that one flame to light many candles and create multiple light sources around a room?  It is certainly a common occurrence at our house. 

In the Old Testament, the symbol of God's presence with his people Israel as they were led out of Egypt and through the wilderness was the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night.(Ex 13:21-22, Ex 40:38, Num 9:15) Every day, that cloud/fire was a reminder that the Israelites were God's chosen people/family, with whom he chose to dwell.

When God met Moses at the burning bush, he spoke out of the fire that kept burning but didn't consume the bush.

God is described as a 'consuming fire' reflecting his almighty power and supremecy (Ex 24:17, Deut 4:24, Hebrews 12:29)

The Honour of His Presence Individually as well as Collectively

But God's presence as a fire over the tabernacle, was a corporate and collective presence for his people. His individual people only enjoyed his presence because they were part of the greater group of chosen people with whom God decided to dwell in a very special and unique way.  They knew his honour on them as 'chosen' primarily in a collective sense.

Today on this Pentecost Sunday, I am reminded that God brought the fire of his presence from the collective presence to involve an individual presence. 

We are told that God's presence in the form of the Holy Spirit, was symbolised in the coming of a fire that 'divided up' - 'separated' - into multiple flames, one flame for each individual person. No longer was God's presence a collective presence only. Not only was He with them as a group, but he was going to be in each of them individually, to guide, direct and empower (Ezekiel 36:27).

Prior to Pentecost God's people were still individually accountable, but as far as God's presence was experienced it was primarily by being part of the collective group. 

After Pentecost, God's presence was able to be experienced individually by everyone who belonged to God through Christ. 

Prior: God chose to presence Himself with the collective group in which individuals were a part, thus the individual's access to God was via the collective group. God's presence was something they looked to outside of themselves.

After: God chose to dwell directly in the individuals who then together formed the collective presence of God in Christ by the Spirit. Not only does the Christian enjoy the privilege of the honour of God's presence collectively as part of the body of Christ, but individually and directly as His beloved child. The temple where God dwelt was no longer only external to them, but internally within them as an individual.

In explaining Acts 2:3,  Scholar and Theologian Bill Mounce said:

Just as the Spirit of God rested on the nation of Israel corporately, after Pentecost the Spirit divides and rests on every individual of the new covenantal community.

But in this new reality, Christians can be assured that we don't each have 'part' of the Spirit, but like a flame when it lights many candles, we each fully experience the fulness of the power of God in our lives. 

This is also why, Jesus could say 'I am the light of the world', but also tell his disciples that 'you are the light of the world'.  His presence with us and in us collectively and individually as the many members of his body, is not diminished in any way by God moving from 'dwelling' in one huge cloud/fire and the one room of the Holy of Holies to dwelling within every Christian all over the world. He is not like a soup that you water down to make it go further, but a burning flame given from himself to empower each one of us.

The Honour of the Presence of His Power

In Acts 1:8 we are told that when the Holy Spirit came, Jesus' disciples would receive power. Not just a power to perform miracles but the power of his presence with them, that would enable them to be his witnesses, his ambassadors wherever they went. 

Israel looked outward to the cloud/fire and to be assured of God's presence with them and they had to wait day by day to see where and when the cloud/fire would move to know  if they would move here or there or wherever... and they would then follow the cloud/fire.

But when Jesus' ascended, he gave the command to 'go' into all the world and 'lo I am with you always'. He said when the Holy Spirit came he would enable that 'going' into the 'all the world' that they were instructed to go to.

Habakkuk 2:14 says

"For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."

As we go into all the world, we go with the honour of His presence in us.  The wider and more extensively we go in fulfilling our great commission, the more the knowledge and presence of God's glory and honour fills the earth.

In the book of Genesis, the first family of Adam and Eve was meant to 'fill the earth' and cover it with God's image bearers. God's glory and honour in the human beings he created and had breathed his life into, were meant to wrap and fill the earth with His glory and honour.

But as we know, all we as fallen human beings managed to do was fill the earth with failure, sin and shame.

But through the Spirit and in his power, God gives a fresh opportunity for us as the New Family in Christ, spread the good news of restored honour in salvation. 

Right across the globe, the glory and honour of God's presence more and more fills the earth,  to end one day in the new heaven and earth which will be filled with the glory and honour of his presence forever.

Pentecost was both the culmination of God's plan to restore his presence in the life of human beings whom he created to be in his image…and the beginning of the working out of that plan - a plan that he calls us to be a part of, as we bring the good news of reconciliation to those who are alienated from the life of Christ across all nations, so that they too can come to know the reality of God's presence with, in and through them.

We have a great message to share with the world!

"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.