More Than an Imperative

Arthur W. Pink writes, “We cannot have a right conception of God unless we think of Him as all-powerful, as well as all-wise (The Attributes of God).” How true this statement is. If we consider the action attributed to God, who could do it unless power over everything was given to that being? To say that God created the heavens and earth and yet assume we have the freedom to choose to do other than His will (if we are truly seeking Him) is ludicrous. This is the importance of “Come out of him!” in Mark 1:25. This simple imperative is more than a command, more than a sentence with an understood you. It is a statement, a treatise of divine and absolute power. Much in the same way “into” in the previous verses demonstrate Christ’s ability to break bonds, transcend limitation, “Come out of him!” is a demonstration of I am. Without this demonstration of power, “His mercy would be but feeble pity, His promises an empty sound, His threatening a mere scarecrow (Pink The Attributes of God).” Without this demonstration of power, Christ would not be who He is.

So let’s take a look at Mark 1:21-32. After much deliberation and asking God “what?” over and over and over, a couple of things came clear to me. The first is that Jesus “taught them as one who had authority” and, the second, the phrase “in their synagogue.” These two statements work together to emphasize two points to me: Jesus possessed something the priests, Pharisees and Sadducees did not, and the synagogue belonged to someone other than God. So what did Jesus posses? The obvious answer in the context of this dialogue is power. The antithesis of this question is the questions “what did the teachers of the law lack?” Again, the obvious answer is power. But why? I think it is simply because they were detached from the true source of power and emphasized following law. What we need to remember is that the law, much like scripture, only has power because God is behind it. When Christ came on the scene, the law only held sway over the people because the “teachers of the law” were able to manipulate it and mold it so that the common people could never be free of it. In essence, the teachers of the law held a spiritual coup and took control of what belonged to God, the law. This same principle is true today. When we detach scripture from God, the only way to give it influence or power is to manipulate the language so that it grants a perceived benefit. Whether this benefit is true or false doesn’t matter; whether this benefit glorifies God, upholds His reputation, or speaks truth is not pertinent. We, in essence, hold our personal coup and use scripture to condemn, condone, or legitimize. This is why Mark implies that the teachers of the law lacked authority, power. They did not recognize the One who spoke power into the law and gave it its authority in the same way that Mark implies Jesus spoke the true power of the law because His understanding of the law came from God.

Looking at the latter statement reinforces the former. “A man in their synagogue” implies, again, the place which was to represent the presence of God’s authority had been usurped by the teachers of the law. Why do we go to church? We go to hear truth and, on some level, we trust that what our pastors, teachers, transmit to us is truth. We seldom question what we hear for various reasons. We don’t know enough; we are afraid; we question the validity of dissent. I imagine the synagogue served the same purpose for the Jewish people. They were there to learn the truth of God. Yet, they were being taught something contrary to truth. We know this because Jesus calls the teachers of the law hypocrites, vipers, whitewashed tombs. The teachers of the law subverted the symbolism of the synagogue and made the synagogue a place to benefit their personal lusts and greed; a place which poisoned the spirit and birthed spiritual death. There exist today many modern examples of this same subversion of God’s holy places. Teachers suggest and imply principles which are not Biblically supported by manipulating language and meaning and, doing so, corrupt the truth; they become whitewashed tombs. I have a feeling the people were amazed because Jesus spoke truth and spiritual life to them.

A third phrase furthers this concept: “A new teaching.” Those there to hear Jesus speak recognized that He was not espousing the same ideas, ideologies, or philosophies the preceding teachers adhered to. “A new teaching” implies a shift and this shift can either be interpreted as a change in direction or, much like shifting the gears of a car, the move into a new gear allowing for greater speed, maneuverability, and control. I am pretty sure it’s bad theology to imply that God is flippant and changes His mind easily so I won’t say the “shift” is a change in direction. I’ll go with the idea that God is changing gears, revealing something new about Himself in the moment. I don’t know how valid dispensationalist theology is and I am no theologian to hold such a debate, but I understand how the idea came to be (thank you J. N. Darby) when I read sections of scripture such as this. “A new teaching” implies that God is not changing his mind but creating a moment of revelation. In this statement, the hearers of Jesus had revealed to them something new about God, about their lives and about their law. They heard in this teaching the fulfillment of prophesy, the beginning of God’s reconciling work on earth. Yet, they were not granted comprehension. Jesus would not allow the demons to speak the truth of who He was so it's safe to assume that He only revealed certain aspects of His divinity that day. This says to me that God wanted to do things in His time, according to His plan. And what is a greater demonstration of power, even greater than casting out demons, than controlling all circumstances, even spiritual circumstances, to reveal who you are in your own time. If we had that power, we would do everything now. God, on the other hand, takes action when the time is right. Power equals self-control and God must be the author of that to.

And this is the fourth demonstration of God’s omnipotence, potestas; He would not let the demons speak, say who He was. I find it ironic, but yet a simple truth in the spiritual realm, that we are slower than Satan to recognize the hand of God at work. The demons are first to call Jesus “Holy One of God” in this gospel and the people are befuddled at best when they hear Him speak. I know this is true for my life. I don’t know how many times God would speak to me and I would say to myself, “what is that noise?” How disturbing that the people in this moment misidentify a powerful demonstration of Christ’s divinity. They see but are incapable of drawing the line between the prophecies and the Messiah. More disturbing still is that I have missed more than one demonstration of God's power in my life. I don’t think Mark realized until he wrote this gospel and God’s spirit of revelation and inspiration were upon him what had happened that day. I bet it hit like a ton of bricks: “He could say shhh! to demons!” What amazing power! But, like always, I’m just sayin’ is all.

"From the Beginning"

C. S. Lewis writes: "Christian ethics, the system which, whether by exalting Faith above Works, by asserting that love fulfills the law, or by demanding Regeneration, makes duty a self-transcending concept and endeavors to escape from the region of mere morality (Christian Reflections)." To be fair, I must place this quote into the old debate concerning society's need to return to a Christian form of morality to save our culture from its doom. I say this somewhat sarcastically. This debate rages today and I agree with T. S. Eliot and Lewis concerning this matter. A liberal post-modern society will, eventually, decay. Eliot argues that liberalism only seeks to satisfy immediate needs and has no end goal in sight. It is liberalism's short sighted nature which eventually leads the liberal society down a moral cul-de-sac. This means that the lack of truth ultimately results in a lack of any type of observable ethical behavior. Both Eliot and Lewis see a need for absolutes which govern behavior, which produce predictable outcomes and which most of all, are not determined by human thinking. Therefore, I think the Christian ethics which Lewis and Eliot both see as a desperate need is an ethics determined from Biblical standards established in the book of Genesis, or from the beginning.

I think about the issue like this: when God created the heavens and earth, He stood back, took a look, and said that it was "good." At the end of every one of His work days, He stood back and said that it was "good." When He created man, He said "let us him in our image." Then He said we were "good." Good here means more than acceptable to me. I think here "good" means without evil, without the ethical concept of bad. Not only was creation to the standards of God's perfection, able to be in His presence (He walked in the garden in the cool of the morning), but it also means that creation existed, at one time, without sin. Yet, God saw fit to give man the only ethical choice on the planet. Don't eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The only way God could give man the ability to chose between right and wrong is if He had already drawn the metaphorical line in the sand. In essence, ethics and morals are of God's design, His creation.

Now the Romantics have generously villainized one of my favorites, the apple, to represent this knowledge of good and evil. Yet, we find that Adam and Eve were not able to keep to the straight and narrow and as a result bring sin into world. But the infestation of sin does not affect all people. Enoch was taken up by the Lord because of his righteousness and Abraham’s faith was counted to him as righteousness. Some in the midst of the existence of sin were able to maintain a behavior God found acceptable and pleasing. However, I don’t think these individuals found it within themselves. I think they lived by a transcendent morality. A morality they recognized to be governing all they could see. In other words, they realized a God more powerful than they or any other recognized force on the planet existed and was watching, looking for someone to exemplify. I don't think they lived without sin, Moses struck the stone three times and Abraham slept with Hagar. Both are examples of sin or a lack in moral judgment. But they were able to live a life dedicated to living by God's standard. The more vigorously they obeyed the more they transcended human limitations. Thus faith equaled righteousness. More faith, less sin.

In the same way, when we think about our own ideas of right and wrong what do we use as the touchstone, the standard by which we test all things to judge their purity and correctness? For some of us, we turn to scripture and prayer and make few moral or ethical decisions without input from our Creator. For others, they simply think that moral and ethical decisions are a matter of preference and individual choice. This latter form of thinking leads us into dangerous ground. In my study of scripture I have found that many moral and ethical concepts are specifically stated as good or evil; others are encompassed by Biblical principles which translate very directly into all areas of our lives. When we deal with homosexuality the Bible is specifically clear that the behavior is an abomination to God. Yet, we are in no way given the right or privilege to condemn or neglect those who practice homosexuality. Paul established the principle when writing of the Nicolations. They believed something false of Christ yet Paul commanded Christians to speak truth to them in love. The principle translates for us. We are not to condemn those who practice or believe a false teaching, but speak truth into their lives with all the compassion and love of Christ. Thus the ethical choice for us is to love them as Christ loved the church and be willing to give our lives for them. This doesn't mean that we condone, accept or allow sin to carry on. We would hope that through the constant demonstration of love and truth, Christ would affect a change in each life and bring them ever deeper into a life of faith.

Likewise, when I hear statements made those who profess the name of Jesus such as “My body is just a shell; God doesn’t care. It’s what inside that God cares about” I am concerned for the ethical condition of not only our society but our church. We learn from the Romantic aspect of the Bible that God is concerned with every aspect of our lives. When Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, they were punished but God cared for their need, clothing. When God allowed Job to be tested, He restored Job and blessed him beyond his imagination (my conjecture). When Paul was in prison, God was there. When John was boiled in a pot of oil, God was there. All throughout the Bible stories are filled with the presence of God in the midst of suffering. This tells me that God cares for both our spiritual and physical conditions. God cares so greatly for not only our spiritual and emotional conditions but also our physical conditions that He often provides for the betterment of our health through doctors. But I think that he draws the line at the frivolous. Biblically speaking the principle is clear, if we do so that we may be noticed by men, then that is our reward. So the principle states that intent, motive, is at the core of any ethical decision. If we do to honor God, we are right. If we do to impress, we are wrong.

Some are asking at this point, what does any of this have to do with Christian ethics? The answer is simple. Sometimes what we believe to be right and wrong is not always what God has in store for us. Some would think that one who spends time in a smoke shop reading scripture or theological works and talking is engaged in unethical behaviors. Yet, much like Curtis, I have some great opportunities to share the Gospel in those settings. The example has been set. Christ engaged in what would be considered unethical behaviors. He associated with tax collectors and prostitutes and consistently subverted the authority of the priests. Sometimes we may have to go where we are uncomfortable in order to do what God wants of us. Don’t get me wrong, God would never lead us into a place of temptation but He will lead us into some places that we would never expect His presence. Who would think God would be in a smoke shop, or that God would use us while we out to dinner with friends.

The point is that sometimes what we think is right or what we think is wrong we sometimes used to wall off the presence of God. Lewis’s point is that Christian ethics is outside any of our notions of right and wrong. God will use us where He will and do with us as He pleases. I have had conversations about God and witnessed in the most obscure of places and the places I would never expect that God would have me speak. Part of ethics understands that God’s definitions of right and wrong are not ours. He has given us clear examples of what is right and wrong and we know that we must defend the reputation of Christ at all costs. This means to live a life that is above reproach; something that I have never done successfully. But than again, God chose someone like Saul to write the foundations of Christian theology.

R. C. Sproul describes the issue like this: when get into our car, start it up and begin to back down the drive, we don't question if the car coming toward is real. We know it is and would never pull into traffic unless it was absolutely safe. The same is true of truth. Sometimes society tells us truth doesn't exist, truth is what we make it. No right, no wrong. But the simple fact is that truth does exist and the point Lewis is attempting to make is that we don't determine what that truth is. We can no more shape, influence, or create truth than we can change the rotation of the earth. Morality is therefore not a human creation but divine. We can only call something good because God called it good first. We only know right from wrong because God created them. In other words, ethics and morality are transcendent concepts not because they are ethereal in and of themselves but because they come from the mind of God. The one thing I've noticed about this issue is the more my life is governed by God's absolute rights and wrongs the more free I become. My life is not complicated by the "if then" dilemma's of relative truths. And the best part of all is that I always know where I stand with God, my wife, my friends, my family. I can predict how they will respond when I come to them with a problem, a mistake I've made, or some dumb thing I've done and know that I won't be condemned by them or judged. I know they will tease me some, but they will always support, forgive, and encourage not because its situational but because its always the right thing to do. Not because they have had a moral epiphany but because they've encountered a truth that has been from the beginning.

I have no idea if any of this makes sense or if any of this relevant to our faith, but, then again, I'm just sayin' is all.

Which is more? In or into?

St. Augustine poses the question, "Or do you who contain all things have no need to be contained by anything further, since you fill all the things you fill by containing them?" Simply put this is a question of, "is God in all things or are all things in God?" To begin to answer this question we must look at the preposition in. By definition, "in" suggests inclusion, limits, or confined space. If God is "in" all things, then He is confined and limited to those things which contain Him. If all things are in God, then all things fall subject to the sovereignty of God. Augustine's question then supports that idea that Christ is "in" us because we are in Him. Or, rather, He is "in" us not because we have the capacity in our humanness to contain any part of Him, but because He has chosen to move "into" us.

I think the answer to St. Augustine's dilemma is that God's immensity is such as to contain all things, including us. Which brings to mind a couple of things which must be considered: how then can we say Christ lives "in" us? To say that we are "in" Christ is simple based on a few facts. Christ's crucifixion and Resurrection pay the penalty of our sins and we are therefore ransomed to Him. Christ is divine and God and therefore contains all things. To say that we live in Christ is to emphasize the nature of God to encompass all that He created and loves. But the idea of Christ "in" us opens the door, if we are not careful, to our humanity limiting Christ's sovereign power.

But the preposition "in" is all over the Bible and this line of argument is seeping with fault and weakness. I only say that I am thinking out loud, hoping to inspire others to ponder more deeply the nature of our God. I would like us all to read scripture with a more a more critical eye. Not to find fault, but to find the rich deepness of a God who has done so much for each of us. It is not that I disavow and reject the notion of Christ living in me. I readily hope that I am worthy of such privilege. I seek to understand, as Augustine wrote, the "immensity of our God!" If He is too big for me to contain Him, and to powerful to be limited by my finite understanding of Him, and to powerful to be constrained by my lacking faith, then God, my God, must be, nay, is something more than what I know. And I want to know what I do not know. So I ask, which is more: in or into?

I think that the simple statement, Christ living in me, most often used to emphasize the Spirit's indwelling, has led some to think that they, perhaps, possess the power to mold God into what they wish to make Him. This is why Christ has become so many different ideas and is transfigured to meet so many different conceptions. Yet, I know that Christ is one thing, God. I know that I must understand Him in some way that allows me to draw near to Him in an ever deepening way. And this is the challenge for, not only me, but all of us. And this is the trouble with reading scripture. Sometimes, the truth of who God is, Christ is, doesn’t fit “in” with the way we live or with what we want the truth to be. We, perhaps, like Christ better when purged the temple of that which was unpleasing to God. Or, we like Christ better when says, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (Loose paraphrase) So we focus on the parts that we like best about Christ and we make Him what we want. We begin to limit Him to what we think God should be. We like the God who is loving, merciful, compassionate, and forgiving and neglect the fact that God is also just, powerful, jealous, and vengeful. So saying Christ lives in me can be saying I've allowed the Christ of my making to reside in my imagination.

In turn, scripture falls prey to same mode of thinking. If God is not sovereign than neither is His word. If his word does fit "in" to our way of thinking than it is simple to change it so that it will. Perhaps this why Mark changes the little things like prepositions when relating to us the baptism of Christ. The people were baptized "in" the Jordan and Christ "into" the Jordan. The people were limited to the Jordan's space, confined to it and did not possess the capacity to move beyond the river's water to the Promised Land. They become to us, as readers, a metaphorical Moses. Without Christ we have all struck the stone too many times and, thus, we can only go "in" the Jordan. But this is true of humanity. We are limited and confined to what we are. We are incapable of rescuing ourselves. We are incapable of saving our souls. We lack the power to come out of the waters of baptism clean from our sin without Christ. This is why we can only go in the Jordan. In fact, the Jordan’s metaphorical drowning of our spiritual selves is much like the condemnation we experienced under the law. Without Christ nothing can save us. Neither the law nor can we pass across the Jordan from the land of sinful bondage to the fulfillment of God’s promise.

However, Christ is baptized "into" the Jordan. This small change has a large implication. By definition "into" suggests movement, being on the inside of or moving toward. By stating that Christ is baptized "into" the Jordan, Mark suggests to us that Christ is not contained by the river but has the capacity to move beyond it, into the Promised Land. Christ's baptism into the Jordan suggests to us that Christ takes upon Himself all that the river contains and, symbolically speaking, the river contains what is washed away through baptism. Christ baptism is the symbolic moving toward. By His baptism into the river He takes one step closer to us; He accomplishes what we could not. He takes a dip into our sin and comes out clean. Mark states simply by the addition of two letters that Christ’s adoption of our sinful nature had begun. Mark tells us through “into,” as Crutis stated, that Christ is taking on the story.

In some way, I think this is the better way to state it: Christ comes into us. As Christ comes "into" us, He is not limited by us but takes possession of us. Yet, Christ coming "into" us suggests all the right responses of thought. If He comes "into" us, than He is bigger than us, more capable of doing on our behalf. If he is "in" us, than He is limited by the short comings of our faith. If He is "into" us, than He has the ability to be beyond our comprehension and understanding. If He is "in" us, than He is limited to our finite imaginations. If He is "into" us, than He is unbound, limitless.

For me, this is the power of Christ. He has the power to break limitations and be “in”-understood. He spent forty days in the wilderness but He came out again. The wilderness could only contain His humanity but his divinity gives Him the power to break through the boarders of wilderness. He was "in" hell but rose on the third day. The Creed of our faith states that "He descended into hell" as if He were just passing through. He broke free from all those things which bind, restrict, limit, constrain, or contain what we are, what we are condemned to be and did a work we cannot begin to fathom. As Christ moves into us, we then are broken and the pieces of what we were are reassembled into what we are meant to be. We are no longed limited but limitless, bound but unbound. It’s akin to Christ granting the keys of heaven to Peter. Through Christ that which held power over us becomes subject to us. And I don’t think this is Christ “in” but Christ working into us the truth of His immensity, power and grace.

I know that I am simply playing with semantics and that some would say "it all means the same thing." But does it? I guess the question is not how we want to construct our God by suggesting that He is containable by saying that He is in me or in all things, but how deeply do we want to understand Him by exploring His limitlessness by saying we are in Him. To say that I am in Him allows me wonder throughout Him and explore Him and get to know Him. God already knows me and I am too small for Him to be very comfortable. For me, I am the guy who says I have accepted Christ into my life and I found my identity in Christ. I like Him big; bigger than my worst day or worst fear. I like Him bigger than best day and most enjoyable memory. But, than again, I'm just saying is all.