Chapter 10 - Understanding the Gospels

Just a quick blurb / comment on this 10th chapter!

I think Drane's most astute comment of the whole chapter came about a third the way through. He says, "So to understand the gospels fully is a rather complex business." (p. 173) Drane's writing focuses primarily on technicalities:

• What type of writing are they? Are they biography, collections of various works, kerygma (or preaching), narratives, or something else?
• The answer is "yes." Perhaps it is "D" if that means "All of the above."

Drane goes on to show how the anonymous evangelists would have sourced each other and a yet unfound, yet much postulated document called "Q," to construct their individual Gospel accounts. Drawing on the Old Testament, a record of Jesus' own teachings and earliest remembrances of His life (Q - Quelle), Matthew and Luke would each have had Mark's record of Peter's memories on which to draw.

Analysis of the historical documents available to scholars leads to contention - and for some in the world of Biblical study, the issues surrounding authenticity and authorship remain unanswerable. Blind acceptance of anything does not necessarily lead to fact, but those who want to find fault with the Gospels and the understanding and traditions of the historical Church always will. For me, I agree with Drane that understanding the Gospels can be complex - I'd just rather focus on their lessons than their composition.

Chapter 13 - Engaging the Wider World

"After the resurrection of Jesus, his followers were faced with some hard choices." (p. 237) Yes they were; yes we are. As I read this chapter, I couldn't help but think that I was actually reading about the Church today. But I guess in a lot of ways, I was. The story of the first Church is our story too.

"[What] was so different about Jesus - and what was to set his followers radically apart from Judasim [/the world] - was the framework in which he set his teaching." (p. 238) Jesus, although He seemingly spoke in ways that may have opposed the Law or Torah, actually was talking about living in a way that pleases God rather than obeys the black and white of the written word. Today, Christians have the same struggle - to break free of codification and live as a people who have the "law in their minds and [written] on their hearts." (Jer. 31:33, NIV) God still judges our character by our inner nature, and not from our adherence to religious rules.

Yet, there are still many in the Church today, just as there were in those first days who judge others (inside the Church and out) on the merits of accomplishment. For many in the first century, the task to be completed was the loss of a little (yet surely painful) flesh. Today, in some circle we contest on the form of baptism, or the volume of water used. Is the "Torah" we have created in some areas today, and our obedience to it, any more pleasing to God than it was in those first days. It should be no wonder to us, that we see new congregations emerge from those who maintain the Law at all costs - this is what happened in Palestine those many years ago.

And yet, perhaps this must happen - perhaps it is a part of God's plan. If the local church (its buildings, programs, and liturgies) is a place of comfort and warmth, a womb if you please, then there must be a period of gestation, and an inevitable time of birth. Just as Peter was propped up and given the necessary strength to stand before the masses and preach by the Holy Spirit, should we surprised when such things happen today? Perhaps the local church is continuously "in the process of being born." (p. 243)

As our congregations grow, and diversify in character, should we expect that everyone found within them will always agree on every issue - sometimes even matters of serious importance. Just as conflicts arose in those early days which caused the Church to spread, perhaps today the same is happening. As painful as congregational separations are, dispersion of Christocentric, Bible preaching, evangelical local church groups may actually provide the world with more opportunities to hear the Gospel than would otherwise be possible.

Now I'm not saying that I'm certain of any of this, but maybe it's worth a little thought. Maybe we each need moments in our lives, like Peter, when God reaches through what we think we know, to teach us what we need to know.

Chapter 12 - Can We Trust the Gospels?

Sorry I'm so late gang - some times there are balances to be made between church and school - and this week has been a tough one to do right!

One of Drane's opening remarks to this chapter is that there are serious students of the Gospels who will say that they "reveal nothing of importance about Jesus, [and] we need to take serious account of their arguments." (p. 218) It's not that I want to be disagreeable with everything that comes my way in life, but I really don't take the author's side on this one.

Sure there are challenges to be found in the messages: at best they are each Greek written translations of Aramaic oral moments in time, and plenty of their stories overlap - yet somehow diverge at times. But, that's all minor stuff isn't it? Drane is right to point out that even today we have news media and legal systems that generate and procure differently sourced, and told stories of same incidents in life.

Maybe Drane is right when he says that "Western thinkers have often imagined that only people like them are capable of making rational assessments of" (pp. 222-3) historical information. Perhaps many of us are intellectually imperial in our ways of thinking, but that doesn't really get the heart of Drane's point that many think the Gospels have nothing significant to offer about Jesus' life. Using the language and context of His day, Jesus claimed to be no one shy of God-with-us. Either the Gospels did shout out the good news, or Jesus was a lying lunatic. Any way you look at it - that's significant.

Chapter 11 - Four Portraits of Jesus

How amazing is it that God has graced us today with the preserved message of His Son - kept through the distinctive writers of the four gospels. Imagine if our churches only had one frame of mind - if no one thought differently than the others. Imagine a Christian community that contained no differing vision. Imagine a body of believers who just saw every issue in life through the exact same lens. As easy on the brains as that might seem at first blush - how useful would it truly be to the world around it? This will seem trite, but it is the many facets of a diamond that make it shine.

It's with that sort of view that I see the four Gospels. We are truly blessed to have such a wonderful and lovingly told set of stories about the moments in Jesus' life the evangelists thought important to our salvation. Now, again, imagine if they all agreed down the line - or if only one had been recorded. Just the thought is somehow saddening. I think it was Lee Strobel who pointed out the significance of the different views - stating that their differences in telling the same stories is the part that is so significant to their credibility. I'm not sure Strobel and Drane would necessarily agree on the "who came first, and who looked at whose Gospel" discussion, but even still there is truth in what Strobel points out.

All the Gospels are written anonymously, sure enough, but that shouldn't stop us from accepting the traditions of the Church Fathers, and our own understanding of human circumstance. Drane points out that Mark from Acts et. al. was remembered to be Peter's interpreter. Drane continues on to point out that "a number of the stories [Marcan] are told with such vivid details that it is natural to regard them as first-hand." (p. 196) I think of my own times of reflection and in telling the stories that have shaped my life to date. Sometimes, when I recount these days of my past, I find myself in a "thousand mile stare." I guess my point is about the weight these moments (and now their stories) have played in my life. The stories found in Mark's Gospel may have been very personal to Peter - I would have loved to watch him tell them.

Luke and Matthew, says Drane (and the rest of the world of Biblical academia - I guess ;-p) borrowed from Mark, a yet revealed Q document, and perhaps Matthew peeked at Luke's work. You know, I don't think that's all that big a deal - it challenges my previous thinking that the Gospels must be independent to be credible (or more to the point, I probably have never really given it any thought, and react that they MUST be independent). But what that thought doesn't do is take down anything I have built on the strong foundation of Jesus Christ - the same One whose story is told in these fantastic ways. On an other note, I don't have any problem accepting Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the authors either.

In his discussion about the Gospel According to St. John, Drane made a rather interesting remark about the different opinions within the church surrounding it. He says that the differences in John's work to that of the synoptic writers "led to heated debates about the relative value of their respective accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus." (p. 210) We just don't get sometimes. The Church is a place of diversity, yet with complete focus on Christ. If we would even just look at the Gospels, we might begin to see how beautifully a diamond can shine.

Chapter 9 - The Kingdom of God in Action

Really - I can add very little to the discussion presented by Drane, and to the words offered by others. Therefore, I present:

"Sometimes, as in a few of the law codes of the ancient Middle East, the rule system of religious beliefs...By the time of Jesus many, if not all, of the specific laws of Hebrew scriptures had been rendered obsolete by cultural changes taking place in Palestinian society...The updating of the Law had been undertaken with some enthusiasm by the Pharisees, who saw the need for change if traditional ways were to continue to be held...The Pharisees were the people with whom Jesus most often found himself [sic] in conflict." (p. 151)

"[That] only left more scope for later rule-makers, who had even developed regulations prescribing exactly which parts of the hands should be washed to preserve ritual purity...A person could appear exceedingly righteous by observing various minor rules and regulations, while side-stepping the central challenge of the Old Testament to 'Love the Lord your God' and 'love your neighbor as you love yourself' (Mark 12:30-31)." (pp. 156-157)

"Jesus did not understand God as an abstract force, requiring the observance of stringent regulations, but as a personal being with whom people could have a loving and empowering relationship." (pp. 158-159)

"Jesus' teaching was not a law, but an ethic of freedom. Consequently, Jesus did not burden his followers with rules and regulations, but gave them principles and guidelines by which to structure their lives...Here, as in most other aspects of his [sic] teaching, Jesus provided his [sic] disciples with a compass from which they could get their bearings, rather than a map, which would provide them with specific directions." (p. 166)

How did the Church that Christ formed take on flavors of the Pharisees?. Here is a very small sampling of various church/denominational rules I found on their websites. I won't tell you what belongs to whom, but you may figure some of them out:

Standing versus sitting: When should you definitely stand? Always during the Gospel reading, the Little and Great Entrances, the Anaphora, the distribution of Holy Communion, whenever the priest gives a blessing, and the Dismissal. In many parishes, the Divine Liturgy books in the pew have suggested times when sitting is acceptable. Follow those instructions (it’s probably safer than to follow what the people are doing in the first couple of rows). When in doubt, stand. It is never wrong to stand in church.

********

Crossing of legs: Should we cross our legs in church? No. Not because it is “wrong” to ever cross legs, but rather because it is too casual — and too relaxed — for being in church.

********

Greeting a Priest or Bishop: The proper way to greet a priest or bishop is to ask his blessing and kiss his right hand? How do you do this? Approach the priest or bishop with your right hand over your left hand and say “Father (or “Master” in the case of the bishop), bless.” [He will make the sign of the cross, and place his right hand over yours.] This is much more appropriate (and traditional) than shaking their hands.

********

Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) 2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.

********

WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35); and
WHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation's highways; and

WHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and WHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; and

WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of "our freedom in Christ"; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.

RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.

********

There is only one condition previously required of those who desire admission into these societies: "a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins." But wherever this is really fixed in the soul it will be shown by its fruits.

It is therefore expected of all who continue therein that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,

First: By doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which is most generally practiced, such as:

The taking of the name of God in vain.

The profaning the day of the Lord, either by doing ordinary work therein or by buying or selling.

Drunkenness: buying or selling spirituous liquors, or drinking them, unless in cases of extreme necessity.

Slaveholding; buying or selling slaves.

Fighting, quarreling, brawling, brother going to law with brother; returning evil for evil, or railing for railing; the using many words in buying or selling.

The buying or selling goods that have not paid the duty.

The giving or taking things on usury—i.e., unlawful interest.

Uncharitable or unprofitable conversation; particularly speaking evil of magistrates or of ministers.

Doing to others as we would not they should do unto us.

Doing what we know is not for the glory of God, as:

The putting on of gold and costly apparel.

The taking such diversions as cannot be used in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The singing those songs, or reading those books, which do not tend to the knowledge or love of God.

Softness and needless self-indulgence.

Laying up treasure upon earth.

Borrowing without a probability of paying; or taking up goods without a probability of paying for them.

It is expected of all who continue in these societies that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,

**********

F 8 Of church bells

1. In every church and chapel there shall be provided at least one bell to ring the people to divine service.

2. No bell in any church or chapel shall be rung contrary to the direction of the minister.

**********

B 10 Of Morning and Evening Prayer in cathedral churches

In every cathedral church the Common Prayer shall be said or sung, distinctly, reverently, and in an audible voice, every morning and evening, and the Litany on the appointed days, the officiating ministers and others of the clergy present in choir being duly habited.

Chapter 8 - Signs of the Kingdom

Oh no! Here we go again - at least, that's what I thought at first.

The issue of Christ's miracles has been one that has been wrestled with in our modern, western Christian context for some time. While reading Drane, I thought (if only for a moment) certainly that he was going to attempt what so man have done before him - rationalize Christ's works. Although the author starts off by challenging the dismissive tendencies of many who have come before him, calling attempts to define the undefinable (given our cultural understandings) "outmoded and defensive [forms] of intellectual and cultural imperialism," (p. 140) Drane uses language that feels as though he will "hedge his bet." He then continues to say that we must "take full account of whatever evidence might be available," (Ibid.) and that "people can look at the same event and depending on their perspective, make rather different assessments of what has taken place," (Ibid.) This where I thought he was going to break out in a form of rationalism.

I'd like to pause for a brief exploration of my own thoughts on this matter. When I look at the biblical stories of the miracles of Christ, I can come to one of three conclusions (that I can think of - perhaps there are more). First, they happened and a supernatural witness has been given. My second choice would be to rationalize the details: I might say Jairus' dau

ghter wasn't really dead - she was just asleep (Jesus even said so). Then the third choice I have is to say that it's all myth - not done to hurt anyone, but unreal stories all the same. As I try to work through these three options, I can deal with two of them, but I have trouble with a third. Please don't consider me a heretic until you get to the end of this little thought of mine. Now, from a simple logic I've built into my head, I might accept that the stories are talking about supernatural occurrences. Just because I haven't experienced something does not mean that I do not believe it to be a part of the human experience. As an example, I have never been to France, yet I have no doubt it is there - I consider the testimony of others to be credible. Then, on the other hand, I could also believe that the stories are myths - tales meant to point to a good lesson, but not documenting real events in any way. I don't think for even more than...well, two minutes anyway...that the fox was really clever enough to relieve the crow of its cheese, but I still get the point relevant to my ego!

But friends, I have trouble with the notion of rationalization. Here's the thing - the proponents of rationalization say that we have to look to the times and see that they didn't have science and understanding. Somehow, our invention of the atom bomb has given us brilliant insight into how simple of mind the people of biblical times must have been - so the miracles happened, but were just unexplained science. Here's the trouble I have with this thought: leaving the wonders of science and sliced bread aside - rationalization says the human experience is so substantially different now than it was then that we are all but different beings. Check it - Jesus is said to have healed the blind, returned the dead to life, and fed many thousands of people with a pack of fun buns and a box of Highliner Fish Sticks. Now blind has always meant blind, and that means (and meant) CANNOT see. I don't think the young man outside the Temple would tell you any differently. Not since Cain, has dead meant anything but NOT ALIVE. Folks in Jesus' time knew dead when they saw it - it had been around for a while and they too had to deal with diagnosing it, and treating it. The trouble for them remains our trouble today - it's not so good to keep the dead lying around the living room (especially in the summer). Finally, my family of six does well to keep everyone happy at the table with a half a haddock and a 10 pound bag of french fried potatoes. There is NO WAY that Jesus, the disciples, and a little boy all made the mistake of seeing only two little fish and five loaves, if there was really enough food there to keep a McDonald's restaurant going for a month.

We can no more today return sight to a man or woman born blind by spitting in the mud and wiping it on their eyes than regular people could 2000 years ago. Doctors are not able to command the dead to live again anymore than they could while Jesus walked the earth. And, I can split my sandwich with you, and we'll be okay, but in a crowd of 5000 (plus wives and kids) at least 4998 are going hungry. The stories of the miracles, along with the rest of the Gospels, leave us with a decision that can't find the middle ground of rationalism. Each of us must confess they happened as supernatural facts, or refute their historicity all together.

I believe in miracles, and in demons, and in the eternal life Jesus promised - I believe in the supernatural. The Gospels document these aspects of the human experience. Now I'm stuck working through what that means for my life on this side of the grass. I want to leave you with two verses that make my heart swell - I read these few words and I am humbled, and joyous, and courageous, and filled in ways I find hard to express. John 21:24-25.

Chapter 7 - Jesus the Teacher

Knowing Me, Knowing You - Ahaaaa! It might be a strange way to start a discussion about our Lord's teaching, but I think it fits. All about Jesus' parables, the seventh chapter of Drane's work does a nice job of showing that the many stories Christ shared with those around Him were focused on relationships - the relationships we have with God's Law, with God's kingdom, God's people, and with God Himself. The author reminds us that in Jesus, our relationship with God shifts, and He "can be addressed and known in the same intimate way that a human father might be addressed by a child."(p. 130) And so it's in relationships, it's Jesus teaching us that we can call God "Dad - Abba" that we can find the deeper meanings of the Lord's teachings.

What beautiful ways to reach out to the world the parables are. Christ, the master story teller, weaving images that the common woman or man could understand. Drawing us in, revealing to us the truth of the "significant aspects of God's own nature," (p. 128) Jesus desires that His children would come to know the character of God. He knows that as we come closer to God, we move further away from the ways of the world. In the parables we can see that God's sovereignty - He has authority over and is in control of everything. And we hear of God's love for us who don't really warrant His attention - and we see its unconditional nature. In God's grace, and in His compassion for a rebellious people, we see a God who is unending on His generosity in His provision for us.

But Jesus also taught us how to approach God in ways that pleasing to Him. He spoke of turning our lives around in repentance, "being prepared for a radical change in lifestyle...in order to become a member of God's kingdom." (p. 131) And maybe even more importantly, Jesus made it plain that God would accept no other way. God wants us all to come to Him...on His terms. Even as Jesus answered when asked about what was the most important law - He taught the same in His parables, showing that a proper relationship with God involves a living relationships with the communities in which we live.

One of the great things is that we can see that Jesus was the best teacher who ever was. Others had come before Him. "[Eager] students had sat at the feet of intellectual giants such as Plato or Socrates, hoping to discover the meaning of life." (p. 121) How amazing is it for us, that instead of sitting at His feet, we walk beside our Lord - having discovered life Himself.

Chapter 6 - What is God's Kingdom?

All but right away, Drane points out something that at times in history, the Church seems to have struggled with. He says that God's kingdom is contrary to the idea of "the establishment of a new state which, in contrast to the countries around [Jesus/Israel], would somehow be ruled by God in person." (p. 112) It is possible that maybe, if not maybe even just secretly, the Church would like God to call "times up?" But that points to the different eschatological views that the author discusses. Drane calls it nonsense, the notion of God's kingdom as a political state (p. 113), and surely he is absolutely right.

Jesus calls on us to live in a new way, because of His light within us. We who have been drawn to Him have witnessed the truth, and we are subjects to the real King, the One who reigns eternally. Rather than pledging allegiance to a flag, or swearing an oath, the reclaimed subjects of Christ's Kingdom are loyal to the throne in their concern for the "quality of human life, and nature of meaningful relationships, rejecting attitudes of power and control in favour of love, acceptance and mutual service." (p. 113) God's hand is on those who are called by His name, and He intends to bring glory to His name through us.

You wanna have a great discussion with something that might go in some directions you might think are really odd - pick eschatology! Now I'm not one to criticize someone else's beliefs (unless they're not mine ;-p) but I don't quite understand how people establish a view common to Schweitzer's futurist point of view. Schweitzer seems to strip Jesus of all divinity, and places on Him the mantel of failed prophet who then attempted to bring about His own unrealized prophecies. And yes, Dodd may have been closer to the mark in seeing the kingdom relaized in Christ, but Drane is right to point out that Jesus Himself, and other Scriptural authors, spoke of a later coming. I find the material surrounding the parousia is difficult to settle on. And I think maybe God intended that way. For now, the coming kingdom or the kingdom come gives God's people a chance to explore His word and keep in dialogue about Him and its meaning. Maybe it's not all that confusing after all.

Chapter 5 - The Resurrection

I think most of us would agree - without a belief in the historical event of Jesus' resurrection, there is NO REASON to be Christian. Our claim to have found (or better yet, been found by) the greatest revelation of God - in Jesus - is confirmed in His dominance over even the forces of death. Other religious movements may point to prophets or other divine men, but not one of them (and I'll jump on a wagon that Danny first showed me) is reliant in the current life of a man who was born of virgin and who rose from the dead, by His own will.

I appreciate Drane's observation about the disciples. Here was a band of "yeller, chicken-hearted fools" who had all jumped ship. Now, I write it like that for two reasons: 1) John Wayne movies are just awesome, and 2) I would have been hiding with them. For this "band on the run" to get it turned around in such a way that they "were prepared to stake their lives on the fact that Jesus was alive," (p. 105) just shouts out how convinced they were of two things: 1) Jesus had been dead, and 2) Jesus was now alive. The basis of their ability to move beyond their fears was the foundation of the church.

The earliest Christians were convinced, and Drane examines this briefly too. Surely he must be right when he says, "[there] can be no question that the earliest Christians were completely convinced that the resurrection event...was a real, historical happening that had taken place in their own world." (p. 98) I believe that we too, some 2000 years later, have an ability to rest as confident in our Savior's power to preserve life and grant it in everlasting fashion - just as the first christians did because of the resurrection.

Chapter 4 - Understanding Jesus' Death

Understanding Jesus' death - HA! Maybe one day, but not while I run the earth and watch the sky!

It's strange that a text book could take one through a set of emotions, but that's what Drane did with me in this chapter. Lately, the thoughts of Christ's betrayal, trial, and crucifixion have been leaving me feeling upset - maybe low, humble, or sad. I find my feelings hard to explain, but I can tell you that I feel bothered by the day Jesus paid a price I should have.

Drane excellently points out that all our knowledge still leaves us shy of the complete understanding of the events of Calvary. But I don't really agree with him that the best rationale we can achieve is that of figure, or allegory. Have you ever heard it said that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed? Well - that's how I try and look at this time at the cross. I appreciate Drane examining New Testament writers as they wrestle with the crucifixion, but to avoid the Old Testament in this discussion, seems to avoid the point of Christ's work.

Now, I'm no OT scholar - so please don't expect a treatise on OT Christology, but I think I can at least begin a discussion about Jesus' sacrificial work on the cross. As I think of where to start, I remember that Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17). I don't know everything He meant in that, but surely He was pointing at what we call the Old Testament. And then I remember that Jesus knew the things that had to come (Mark 8:29-31; Mark 10:32-34; John 7:33-36; others). It just seems like Jesus knew what had been written of Him before, and why He had come.

Drane tries to partially explain away the sacrificial aspects of Jesus' crucifixion by saying that God would have to be a blood-thirsty despot with a "perverted sense of justice and moral responsibily," (p.86) and a "harsh and unbending demand for justice." (ibid.) But he does this by asking us to consider God's perfect Law and justice with our flawed and sinful understanding of those same aspects in human their human forms. That's where things get a little loose for me. I won't get too deep into this, but there are two OT verses/passages that have framed my thoughts on this subject for some time.

First - I don't really have to understand everything about God's version of justice, but I do know that He will not have sin in His presence. The prophet Habakkuk put it this way: "Your eyes are too pure to behold evil, and you cannot look on wrongdoing." (Habakkuk 1:13; NRSV) This tells me that unless there is something done to somehow cover or omit my sin, I cannot possible come into the presence of sin (never mind Leviticus 16).

The other passage from the prophets comes from Isaiah. To me, and I know to many others, it speaks of God's intention to relieve those who will come to Him of their burden. I won't put it all here, but the passage is sometimes referred to as the "Song of the Suffering Servant" (Isa. 52:13-53:12). I know there are other interpretations of what this passage means - but I think it points directly to Jesus and His work on the cross.

Before I hang up on this call - I just want to remind ye, while Isaiah is still fresh in your mind, that Jesus spake onto His disciples and said, "Therefore doth my Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it again. This commandment I received of My Father." (John 10:17-18; KJV)

Chapter 3 - Who was Jesus?

Last week Carolyn got to invoke the band Trooper. My turn - except with Paul McCartney and Wings. Sorry about this, but this is my "Blog on the Run."

All these titles for Christ, and the folks back then still didn't get it. Not even His closest friends really understood whose company they kept. One day He asked them, "Who do all the people out there say that I am?" Well everyone had something different to say. "But who do you say that I am," Jesus then asked them. I can just imagine the long pause that must have happened as the twelve looked around to figure out who was going to say something. Then Peter offered, "You are the Messiah."

You know, I wonder what Peter meant when he spoke those words - I'll bet he got the idea of a King. He probably wanted rescue from Roman rule as much as the next guy. But I have my doubts that he saw the Prophet and the High Priest standing before him as he uttered his words. Today, how deep do we allow the Christ to go with us. Are we prepared to see Him as our King, Prophet, High Priest - our Sacrifice?

Drane spends substantial time on discussing the Old Testament pointers to Christ as the Son of Man. Folks, I have trouble sometimes trouble with Daniel's prophesies sometimes; the voice can lead in many ways. But when Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, I rejoice with great delight. No matter how you take understand what He meant by calling Himself that, it's hard to not take hope in His words: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." One day, I don't know when, Jesus, the Son of Man, is coming back with all the authority that is His.

At times, it still seems hard to imagine that the Son of God came to earth. The very essence of God, the co-eternal presence who carefully and craftily manufactured the entirety of creation, the one whose Spirit rides these days out with me today, came to earth just to save me, you, and everyone who will come to Him from ourselves and our sin. WOWWIE! God is glorious.

Today, there are probably even more names for Jesus than there ever have been. The world in which we live is a confused and wounded place. When I read Drane, and when I think about the time, effort, and energy poured into studying this material, and in preparing to teach it, I praise God that that He has gifted us all with His grace. The Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God walked the earth almost 2000 years ago, He walks the earth today through you and me, and He has promised to set His feet on earth again one day when He comes to claim His kin. Call Him what you like - that's the Lord who gave His life for us - that's my Jesus.

Chapter 2 - Jesus' Birth and Early Years

Ah yes! - the Why? and the How?

Why was Jesus Baptized? If you listen closely, someone always has something to offer the conversation. Drane points a fairly significant challenge with which many of us may wrestle. If Jesus is the God-Man, if He is perfectly holy, and John's baptism was of repentance - well then, "what could [Jesus] possible have to repent of?" (p. 54) I've heard that Jesus' baptism was a witness for John the Baptist and those nearby. I've heard that Jesus did it to set an example for His disciples to follow. Drane examines the idea that Jesus wanted to identify with the regular people He came to save and who would need to make sweeping changes in their lives. It strikes me that later in the Scriptures we find that Jesus not only was cursed for us and took on our sin, but that He was that curse (Gal. 3:13) and that He became sin (2 Cor. 5:21) so that folks like us could be saved. Now, I haven't worked it all out - but I think the weight of the world's sin on Christ's shoulders has something to do with Him identifying with you and me in the Baptismal waters.

Maybe more on that another day...

WARNING: The following images may contain useless rhetoric that may offend some viewers. Viewer discretion is advised.

Okay - I am no master of the theological arts, but I have a fairly basic (it's gotta be grade 2 or 3 anyway) understanding of theology - and it comes with two premises: 1) God is real - He ain't made up or debatable - He just is! 2) You and I and everybody are His inventions - He made us and loves us so much that He has chosen to reveal Himself to us in various ways. Two of these are the Bible and His own personal flesh and blood Son, Jesus - yet other ways remain.

Right then, with that out of the way - on to the "How?" Which how? The "How did Mary end up pregnant with Jesus?"

So, because it's my belief that God has chosen to reveal Himself to us through His Son and His word, I believe Matthew and Luke on the matter of the virgin birth. But then again, I believe Adam was the real, first man who once walked the earth and who got kicked out of the garden. I'm going to start with Matthew - he doesn't just say that Jesus was "born of the Virgin Mary," (you pick your favorite Apostles' Creed) he begins by explaining to us how she became pregnant to start with.

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his Mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18, NRSV)

We aren't left guessing as though this is some mystery. Drane points out that some folks have trouble with the idea that "to be a virgin and pregnant is a contradiction in terms - so how can these stories be understood?" (p. 58) The author reminds us that there are many people who are unable to believe in anything outside their own experience. Even Luke didn't leave the immaculate conception up to the imagination. He tells us of a visit Mary had from the angel Gabriel.

The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High...Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:30-32, 34-35, NRSV)

So Jesus is the direct-line Son of God; He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Drane points out that some people (it seems he may be included) find it surprising that aside from "Matthew and Luke, there is no explicit statement in the whole of the rest of the New Testament regarding the circumstances of Jesus' conception and birth." (p. 59) Well, aside from the one mention in John 13, you'll find no other mention of Jesus washing His disciples' feet - so I guess we should doubt that episode too! And speaking of John - didn't he record Jesus' words to Nicodemus as, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (St. John 3:16, KJV, emphasis added). I'll let you look up the word "beget / begotten" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=6746&dict=CALD

Do I doubt that we've been to the moon? - maybe, just a little.

Do I doubt that anyone will ever figure out how they get the caramel into the Caramilk bar? - yup.

Do I doubt that Elvis has truly left the building? - you'd better believe it!!

But, do I doubt that "Lord Jesus Christ [is] the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men [sic] and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made a man?" - not even for the slightest measure of time.

Chapter 1 - The Beginning of the Story

Who knew? - times change, and people stay the same! Or something like that.

Reading the first chapter of John Drane's Introducing the New Testament (2001), I could help but sense that not much will ever change with humanity. In the millennium that man has been given on this planet, and even with the revelation of God in Jesus, the people of this world are a mixed up bunch of religious appetites, consuming mostly nothing but junk food. And, as Drane points out, it has always been that way.

The author reminds us that at the time leading into Christ's arrival - and for some time following His departure - the Roman empire was filled with followers of mystery religions. Drane says that these Roman advances were probably "developments from the various fertility religions which had been popular for thousands of years through the middle east." (p. 24) Say! Do you remember mention of Baal worship - you know with it's big orgies in honor of fertility and such. Then I think about Molech - you know, that God to whom the ancient middle eastern peoples sacrificed their first child by throwing him or her into a furnace. God's law spoke out against that - "And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech..." (Lev. 18:21) And then I think about the massive proliferation of pornography in all sectors of modern media, and how in 2005 there were 97,254 induced abortions across our country. You can check it out (http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/health40a-eng.htm).

Drane examines the days of the philosophers in ancient Greece - men who searched endlessly, in empty caves, invented in their own mind. These "searchers of the truth" were convinced that it was to be found in the nature they occupied and within themselves. The stoics believed that "the world and its people ultimately depend on just one principle: 'Reason'." (p. 17) Meanwhile the epicureans were in constant hunt for the "good life [consisting] in 'pleasure'." (p. 18) But I can help but remember that in their search for the truth, they killed Socrates for his voice and version of political wisdom. Since then, Descartes has not made himself (or anyone else for that matter) any more or less real simply by thinking about it, and no matter what good I think of John Dewey I can't change the reality I don't like around me anymore than he can from the grave.

It was into a mixed up world that Jesus was coming. Even the religious leaders of His own ancestral people were so self assured that they knew everyone else was wrong - including each other. They saw each other in polar ways - as conservatives and liberals. Some called for war to defend their religious ways, while others went and hid in the wilderness. Now friends, my theology is conservative, and so I know yours must be liberal - but I can promise you that there are others out there who see themselves as more conservative than me and so I too am liberal. I don't want to even start about those in our world who choose to defend their faith with firearms - and I don't even need to look overseas when I remember Waco. I guess every religion has got its take on zealots.

That God would send His Son into a mess like that is incredible. Then again, He was the only One who could do anything to correct the situation. Nearly 2000 years later, the Church He started is still going - even while the world continues to rip itself apart in the same old ways. Times change, and people stay the same. That's why we need Jesus now every bit as much as they needed Him then.

Hi ye all!