Posted on 12/26/2012 12:21:18 PM PST by HarleyD
At Christmas we celebrate Jesus’ birth because no more important human being has ever been born. Jesus is the first-born of all creation, the one individual for whom everything else exists. Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords, who will rule the coming age as our sovereign ruler. Jesus is more than just a man; he is the translation of the very nature and sovereignty of God Himself into human form—the image of the invisible God, the fullness of God dwelling in human form. Jesus is the supreme prophet, the one whom God sent into the world to reveal to us and explain to us the meaning of our own existence, the purposes and promises of God, and the good news of God’s plan to grant Life to undeserving man. Jesus is our true high priest, who alone can enter into the very presence of God and represent us to God, just as he alone can represent God to us. Jesus is our advocate, who will plead with God to extend mercy to us, asking that God not give us what we deserve but instead that He would give us Life in the final age. In this sense, Jesus is Life for us; without him the destiny of every last one of us would be death and destruction. Finally, Jesus is our propitiatory offering, who willingly and heroically allowed God, his Father, to pour upon him the wrath that you and I deserve because of our moral perversity. As Jesus himself put it, he died for our sins. And in so doing, he was giving himself up as a costly offering to God, appealing to God to be merciful toward us who identify with and embrace Jesus’ appeal to God for mercy.
All of this became a reality and entered into history when the baby Jesus was born in a shelter for livestock over two thousand years ago in Bethlehem. I want to focus here, however, on Jesus’ willingness to suffer wrath on our behalf.
Christians speak of the “scandal” of the cross. On the cross, Jesus died the death that a sinner deserves. On the cross, Jesus was presented as unrighteous. On the cross, Jesus was heaped with shame and reproach. On the cross, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Master over the whole universe, became an ordinary, petty, mean, and disgusting sinner. On the cross, the Son of God became me; he got what I deserve. Herein lies the scandal: on the cross, the King of glory became the epitome of shame and disgrace. And it is in the face of Jesus’ shame and dishonor that I am to confess, acknowledge, and praise him as the King of glory.
How much easier our faith would be if the Son of God had appeared to be what he was. Why didn’t the King of kings come wearing a crown instead of the stitchless, one-piece garment of a peasant? Why didn’t the Son of God come from an aristocratic family in Jerusalem? Why did he come from an obscure family in an obscure village in the least respected region of the Jews? Why did he not come from a rich, famous, and powerful family of influence? And most importantly, why didn’t the Messiah come in victory? Why was his last fully public act a humiliating defeat at the hands of the power of Rome? This is the scandal of the cross: that the most powerful and exalted creature in God’s created reality should appear to end the time of his visit in weakness, shame, and humiliating defeat.
We can only understand such an odd and ironic fact by understanding that our King chose to join us in our shame. The shame of the cross was not Jesus’ shame; it was our shame. But he took it on himself. The humiliation he endured was not his humiliation; it was ours. But he took it on himself. The pain, the sorrow, the punishment, the condemnation—none of it was his; it was ours. But he took it on himself to make an appeal to God for mercy on our behalf. As righteous and pure and perfectly good as Jesus was, he willingly shared the shame and dishonor of our unrighteousness in order that God’s purpose to save us might be fulfilled.
It is interesting, therefore, that the narrative of Jesus’ birth anticipated in a small way Jesus’ act of joining us in our shame. Let me explain.
Probably because of the cultural importance we place on Christmas, seldom do we mention how scandalous the birth of Jesus had to be. Among the many ironies of the incarnation is the irony that the Son of God came into the world in such a way that it could not help but be scandalous. He began his life among us with scandal just as surely as he ended it with scandal. Not only is there the scandal of the cross, but there is also the scandal of the birth.
God did not appear to the whole village of Nazareth—let alone the whole nation of Israel—to announce the miraculous conception of a baby destined to be the Son of God. No, God sent the angel Gabriel with a private message for one young woman’s ears only. Surely God understood the implications of what He was doing and how He was doing it. He was setting Mary up for scandal. What rational person would not justifiably conclude that a young pregnant woman who was betrothed but unmarried had been sexually unrighteous? God could have prevented that. He could have let the whole village in on the secret. He could have vindicated Mary by making it clear to everyone that He, the Creator of the universe, was responsible for her pregnancy. But He did not. He left her in a condition where shame and dishonor in the eyes of her neighbors would be the inevitable result. Why did God do that?
I can only speculate, of course. But I have to wonder whether God was not setting up an act that would anticipate what was to come. To understand this, we have to look at the most neglected figure in the Nativity story: Joseph.
The chronology of the events around Jesus’ birth is incomplete, and so it is difficult to give an exact, detailed account of what happened when. What follows is my best reconciliation of the accounts in Matthew and Luke.
An angel announces to Zacharias that he and his wife Elizabeth will have a son in their old age. Their son will be the forerunner who will prepare the way for the coming Messiah. Six months into Elizabeth’s pregnancy with the baby who would become John the Baptist, the angel comes privately to Elizabeth’s young cousin Mary and informs her that she will supernaturally conceive a child who will be the promised Messiah, the Son of God. Almost immediately, Mary travels to visit Elizabeth for about three months. Probably after the birth of John, Mary, then three months pregnant, returns to her home in Nazareth where her family and Joseph, the man to whom she is betrothed, await her. In all likelihood, none of the people in Nazareth—including Joseph and her own family—are yet aware that Mary is pregnant.
The next thing we know, Joseph and Mary are required by the census of Caesar Augustus to relocate to Bethlehem. Where this move falls in the chronology of events is not clear. The most likely reading of the gospel accounts is that their journey to Bethlehem happens shortly after Mary’s return from Elizabeth’s home. If so, then Mary leaves Nazareth with Joseph before any of her family and neighbors know of her pregnancy. And, indeed, it may very well be that Mary and Joseph arrive in Bethlehem before Joseph knows that Mary is pregnant, four or five months before the baby Jesus will be born. This scenario is different from the one our traditional Christmas cards depict, but it seems to be a likely reading of the two gospel accounts.
If my chronology is right, then Bethlehem is the arena for the scandal surrounding Mary and Joseph. Put yourself in the shoes of Mary and Joseph’s new neighbors. A young couple, betrothed but not yet married, arrives in Bethlehem for the census. Three to four months later—the couple still unmarried—it becomes obvious that the young woman is pregnant. Whatever one might conclude does not look good for Mary. Perhaps both Mary and Joseph have been sexually immoral, but certainly Mary has played the sinner.
At this point, Joseph’s choices and actions become important. We do not know how he learns of Mary’s pregnancy. Perhaps he did not know until Mary could no longer hide it. Perhaps, in anticipation, Mary finally had to tell him. However he found out, now he knew; and he was faced with a choice. I assume that Mary would have tried to tell Joseph the truth, but under the circumstances, believing Mary’s story that she had supernaturally conceived the Son of God was not a rational option for Joseph. It was far more likely that Mary had been sexually immoral than that such a unique miracle had occurred. So, Joseph was left with three rational options. (1) He could publicly accuse Mary of sexual immorality and make a public scene of releasing her from their betrothal contract. This option would have put Mary in great jeopardy because the penalty for adultery was death by stoning. (2) Joseph could join Mary in her shame and dishonor and simply proceed with the marriage. Everyone would assume that the two of them had been sexually inappropriate, even though Joseph knew that he had not been. But he could choose to protect Mary and keep her from harm by joining her in her shame and dishonor. The problem with this second option is that it did not honor righteousness. It would entail Joseph’s winking at sexual immorality, treating it as if it were no big deal, which is something Joseph could not do, for, as Matthew tells us, Joseph was a righteous man. (3) Matthew tells us that Joseph chose the third possible option—namely, he would respect the Law with regard to sexual righteousness while being as kind as possible to Mary. Thus he opted to break his betrothal to a woman who—as far as he knew—had demonstrated herself a Law-breaker; but he opted to do so privately and quietly, in a way that would minimize the negative impact on her.
At least, that is what Joseph had opted to do before God came to him in a dream and verified Mary’s story. Mary had not broken the Law. Mary had not been sexually immoral. God had chosen Mary for a unique and special role: to conceive and give birth to the King of kings while she was still a virgin. The divine instruction to Joseph was to take Mary as his wife. We have to understand, however, what God was asking of Joseph. In effect, God was asking Joseph to join Mary in her shame. She was not to bear the inevitable shame and dishonor alone; he was to join her in bearing it. He was to take Mary as his wife with the inevitable result that their Bethlehem neighbors would believe that the stigma of sexual immorality rested on them both. Joseph had not been sexually immoral; no stigma should justly fall on him. But God asked him to volunteer willingly to bear the perceived sin of Mary on himself, even though it was not his sin. Joseph did just as God instructed. His act was kind, gracious, and heroic. He could have chosen to put his own honor ahead of compassion and separated himself from Mary’s shame. But he did not. He chose to bear willingly and heroically Mary’s shame along with her, even though it did not justly belong to him.
Note how interestingly Joseph’s choice anticipated one of the most heroic choices that Jesus would perform. The father, Joseph, heroically joined Mary in her shame. The son, Jesus, would one day heroically join every one of us in our shame, when he voluntarily chose his death on the cross. God so orchestrated the events surrounding Jesus’ birth that Joseph’s act, in its own small way, anticipated the heroic act that his son would be called upon to perform. In order for God’s saving purposes to be fulfilled, Joseph mercifully had to join a sinner in her shame; he had to bear her shame along with her. Joseph’s act is exactly analogous to the central act of God’s saving purposes in world history: Jesus mercifully joined us sinners in our shame; he bore our shame along with us.
Without Jesus’ heroic act, there would be no salvation. But at the first Christmas, in his own small way, Joseph had to make that same heroic choice first. That is the glory of this season. For at Christmas we celebrate the scandal-shrouded birth of the hero whom God sent into the world to join us in the scandal of our sin so that we might Live and not be destroyed.
Copyright December 2007 by McKenzie Study Center, an institute of Gutenberg College.
What I think is interesting in Crabtree's analysis is the timeline and the predicament of Joseph. While perhaps there is some speculation into exactly when events took place, we know from scripture that
2) Joseph and Mary obviously arrived in Bethlehem when it was obvious that she was with child but they were not yet married.
3) But, more important, Joseph did not choose the best path that would have cleared his name. Instead, he was willing and obedient to God's calling.
Shame is not like judgement. Judgement flows from an individual in an official sense, while shame is a general sense of reproach and can be formed corporately and amongst a group.
You should not blame the Roman and Jewish authorities for the treatment of our Lord. He did not. He forgave them. Do you realize that what they did, they fulfilled scripture, and that without it, mankind would be lost? Also, Jesus died for OUR sins. It was, in effect the entirety of mankind that crucified Jesus. His blood is on all our hands, just as the guilt of Adams’s sin is on us as well.
Is it possible to get some clarification as to what was wrong with my comment #9 on this thread? Pulling the comment may be legitimate, but unless I know what was wrong with it I am likely to make the same mistake again.
No reason was logged and I did not see anything wrong with the post, so I restored it.
Thanks
I’m so tempted to post today’s xkcd.com but I won’t.
Yes, an excellent article. It explains salvation very well.
True. This is why the article preaches a false gospel. The Cross was not about shame, it was all Judgment.
You should not blame the Roman and Jewish authorities for the treatment of our Lord. He did not. He forgave them.
This is a subtle introduction of a false accusation. Blame has not been entered into the discussion in post #19.
Identification of sin is requisite before forgiveness. Our Lord, Christ Jesus, recognized sin when manifest to Him. He then identified that to God the Father, when He requested the Father forgive that sin. Until the work of the Cross was finished, Judgment was performed by God the Father.
The work of the Cross was Judgment, not forgiveness. The judgment allows a righteous God to justly forgive.
This is a fundamental difference between Christianity and other religions and stressed in the Tabernacle rituals of worship. The Perfect Justice of God is also a major stumbling block to Islam.
A common stumbling block to those drawn to Christ is confusing emotion for salvation. The article promotes this confusion by preaching a false gospel of shame as the work of the Cross.
The term "shame" is defined in the Greek as "dishonor". It is used in several places:
Heb 12:2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
From the article:
The entire blasphemous article.
Jesus Christ is not a sinner. Even the Scripture presented defeats the premise of the article.
Heb 12:2
(2) Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
If the article were true, the Scripture would indicate Christ accepted the shame, but to the contrary He never accepted the shame, but patiently persevered through the ordeal, despising the shame. He was anything other than shamed by the ordeal, although many who do not believe think he was shamed in His thinking on the Cross.
His focus was upon His obedience to the Will of the Father and fulfillment of His Plan.
The judgment is forensic. Christ didn’t sin, nor did He become a sinner, but the sins of the world were imputed upon Him and the penalty of death executed as evidenced when Christ cried out, “Why have you forsaken me?”.
This strategic victory in the angelic conflict manifests the genius of God’s Plan. By remaining true to God the Father, God executed the penalty of sin for all mankind in one.
Where on earth does this author state Jesus is a sinner? Paul states that Christ did become sin for us:
2Co_5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
It is this sin that is shame before God. It is our shame that Christ bore.
The third paragraph of the article is a false gospel. It is not the Gospel Paul preached. It is closer to spiritual pornography.
Those who come to Christ through faith in Him, rejoice in the work of the Cross.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
He took OUR sins and nailed it to HIS cross. All our sins, shame, reproach was laid on Christ our Lord. This is the great and merciful sacrifice of God the Son. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. And that includes all the baggage that goes along with it. This is what the early fathers believed and it's the gospel.
“And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour (sic:shame), which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our souls? And so the oracle says in our person: “By his stripes we were healed,” and “The Lord delivered him for our sins,” with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, “I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee.” - Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica, X.1
Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians 3:3 (ACD, vol. 3, p. 108)
The people were liable to punishment since they had not fulfilled the whole Law. Christ satisfied a different curse, the one that says, “Cursed is everyone that is hanged on a tree.” Both the one who is hanged and the one who transgresses the Law are accursed. Christ, who was going to lift that curse, could not properly be made liable to it, yet he had to receive a curse. He received the curse instead of being liable to it, and through this he lifted the curse. Just as, when someone is condemned to death, another innocent person who chooses to die for him releases him from that punishment, so Christ also did.
Augustine
“This, the catholic faith (sic: not to be confused with Catholic faith) has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due. Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was willing to suffer for them an undeserved death.” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 4, chap. 7)
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John 2:1 [ACD vol. 3 p. 12]
For he sends his own Son, who in his nature is changeless and unalterable and wholly unacquainted with sin, in our likeness, in order that, just as through the first disobedience we became liable to divine wrath, so through the second we might both escape the curse and do away with the ills that proceeded from it.
But it's apparent that we have differing views of what pornography is.
I applaud those who recognize He died for our sins.
Our Lord and Savior did not become a sinner, nor did he wallow in shame and guilt when He was on the Cross.
The article confuses the temptation of sinners before an angry God, who have a tendency to view God from the viewpoint of unrighteousness, anticipating fiery indignation, instead of the perspective of Jesus Christ who disregarded shame, for the joy available in remaining obedient to God the Father.
Obviously He bore the sins of all mankind, past, present, and future, when He was judged on the Cross.
He wasn’t shameful in His actions or thinking or in His spirit. Throughout the process, He remained faithful to God the Father.
You have not provided ONE specific reference where the author supposedly makes this claim. Please let me know when you do.
The article confuses the temptation of sinners before an angry God, who have a tendency to view God from the viewpoint of unrighteousness, anticipating fiery indignation
While some may view God as "wrathful" or "vengeful", I do not. God wrath or vengenace is a manifestation of His righteous judgment displayed on an uncaring populace that has gone too far in reprobation.
instead of the perspective of Jesus Christ who disregarded shame, for the joy available in remaining obedient to God the Father.
This is not what Isaiah says:
Isa 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
...
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
BTW-It's odd that you're using the term that Christ was shamed when you made such a point against that with this author. Don't you see the contradiction in your view between your two statements?
instead of the perspective of Jesus Christ who disregarded shame
He wasn’t shameful in His actions or ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.