Thoughs on women from a Christmas perspective . . .

Over Christmas we read some of Luke 1 as a family and I was struck by the fact that the first person to hear about Jesus's birth into the world was the young Mary. Which got me thinking . . .

God made man, and then said that man needed a counterpart, a help, a friend, a mate . . . and God created woman. Man needed Woman. Gen 1:27 seems to indicate that:

'God created man (mankind/humanity) in his own image, in the image of God he created him (mankind/humanity); male and female he created them.' (Gen 1:27)

The first person to hear from God that the promised Messiah was about to arrive in the world, and how, was the young lady Mary, as we've already mentioned. A young girl, promised to be married to Joseph, received an ordained visit from an angel who was commanded to tell her that she had been chosen to bring God's Son into the world. Now you could say that's only normal, as she was the one to give birth. Fair enough, but in just the previous verses God had sent the same angel to Zechariah, the husband of Elizabeth, to inform him that his wife would give birth to a child who would become the prophet John the Baptist. But God informed the husband, we don't read of him informing the wife in this instance. (Obviously the situation is a bit different as John the Baptist was conceived by natural methods.) But continuing with this though, what about Joseph, the intended husband of Mary? Why did God not inform him first of all of his plans concerning his future wife? Because it seems, according to Matthew 1v18-25, that he only discovered that Mary was pregnant when 'she was found to be with child' . . . and then God speaks to him via a dream, because he's about to mess up God's plans by ending their 'engagement'. Can we assume that God spoke first to Mary because he chose to, and because that was enough. He trusted her with the information and the 'task'. (Maybe Joseph should have had more trust/faith in his young fiancée?)

After Jesus' death, the first person we read of that meets the risen Lord is Mary. She is weeping because she doesn't know where his body has been taken, so still believing him dead, and Jesus appears to comfort her, giving her also the task of communicating his words and news of his resurrection to his 'brothers' (John 20:17). Even in the other Gospels it is a group of women who arrive at the empty tomb who are first to receive the news that Jesus has risen, from the mouth of angels yet again, and who instruct them to relay this information to his disciples. And then on their way to accomplish their task Jesus himself appears to them. (Matt 28:1-10)

Then consider that at various places in the New Testament the church is compared to or called the bride of Christ. And it is via this bride that Christ communicates his love, and demonstrates his care and desire for reconciliation, etc. In various verses the church is likened to the bride of Christ, for example Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 11:2, Revelation 19:7-9, 21:1-2. And this bride is the evidence of the love of Jesus, who remains here on earth to accomplish his will, until he returns for the marriage feast, in a sense. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say Jesus needs his bride to accomplish his plans, but he certainly chooses to act through her, and to trust her to communicate his love and desire for reconciliation.

And after looking at these thoughts, it seems to me that the Bible presents a God who values women as much as men. I'm presented with what seems to me to be a balanced view of men and women together being used by God, serving God, hearing from God. Not according to gender, but according to whom God chose. And I find it hard to believe that this is not still God's will, to use men and women in his service, who are available to him. God speaks to men, God speaks to women. God trusts men and God trusts women: to listen to him, to hear from him, to understand him, to comprehend his will. And God specifically chose women on several occasions to communicate his words, his message, to their brothers. It would seem that the male half of the church needs the female half of the church to hear clearly the voice and will of God. Men on their own are not a true representation of God, neither are women. Men and women together are the 'image of God', according to Genesis, and perhaps maybe the whole of Scripture?

Following the cloud - Transportable tabernacles

I was struck again today by the transportable and temporary nature of the Tabernacle, whilst reading Exodus 40.

The Tabernacle, the place of meeting with God, was designed and made so that it could be taken down and erected somewhere else. And it was designed that way by God.  It was not a permanent fixture, but a temporary fixture. The Temple which eventually replaced the Tabernacle didn't come into being until some 500 years later during the reign of Solomon, (although the idea began with his father David). But even then, the permanent construction of the Temple was not God's idea, in a sense.

In the last verses of chapter 40 it reads:
Now whenever the clound lifted from the Tabernacle and moved, the people of Israel would set out on their journey, following it. But if the cloud stayed, they would stay until it moved again. The cloud of the LORD rested on the Tabernacle during the day, and at night there was fire in the cloud so all the people of Israel could see it. This continued throughout all their journeys. (vv36-38)

It just makes me wonder at the idea of moving on, of following the cloud.  The idea is to be where God is, to set up camp, and then set it down again when God moves on.  The people of Israel were to follow God where he lead.

Massively important for me, do I follow God where he leads, do I want to be where he is?  Or am I content to build a building where I'm going to stay regardless of where God's heading?

Makes me think of what Jesus said as recorded in John 3:8:
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.

An invitation to worship - and the importance of planning

While reading Exodus chapters 35 & 36 today I was struck by the opportunity that God gave to the Israelites to participate in the construction and preaparation of the tabernacle. In verse 4 of chapter 35 we read that 'The Lord has commanded' but then in v5 'Everyone is invited to bring these offerings to the Lord . . .'

Then we read in v20-22 : 'So all the people left Moses and went to their tents to prepare their gifts. If their hearts were stirred and they desired to do so, they brought to the Lord their offerings . . . Both men and women came, all whose hearts were willing.' The passage then goes on to say how people not only brought material but also offered their abilities and skills.

As I'm still preaching on the subject of finances and giving, I'd considered this episode in Israel's history. But reading it today, I was struck by the idea that everyone had the opportunity to contribute to the place where God would meet his people, and where they would meet with him. The meeting place with God . . . the place of worship.

It ties in with the book I'm reading too, 'The Prodigal Project' which suggests different ways of worshipping which encourage people to be participative, and this in a 'whole' way. It's amazing to think that God invited people to contribute to this 'building' and it's interesting to see how important the setting was, the choice of colours, the size of the place, the organisation of the place. 'The Prodigal Project' makes the point that often we think of the place of worship as being neutral. This was certainly not the case for the Tabernacle.

I wonder whether the invitation to contribute can also be seen as a desire on the part of God that each of his people bring something to worship, to the relationship with himself and with others. None of us are passengers, we all have something to bring to the party, we all have a contribution that's important. But it must be given with a willing heart. The text doesn't say that everyone gave, only those with a willing heart, those that desired to do so. Perhaps it was everyone, but the important thing is that they were giving freely, not through a sense of constraint. And chapter 36 verses 6-7 tells us that there giving was so generous that Moses had to tell them to stop! Wow! In a physical sense, that's pretty amazing.

I was also struck by the detail for the Tabernacle, and the fact that it needed relatively minute planing! This reminds me of the work I've been doing with regards to my own life, in terms of setting short and long term goals. It looks like here they were micro-managing their project! The details are amazing. And I wonder if the fact that everything was planned, allowed everyone to know what was needed. And giving for a clearly stated need, is much easier than giving vaguely.

The passage also demonstrates the importance of planning, even down to details. And perhaps also that good planning is a way of enable others to contribute with a willing heart and generously.
Often people wonder what they can bring to a project, questioning their abilities and means. But if a 'project' is well planned and the details are well presented, does that make it easier to see where one can contribute?

The Passover - Baptism - Salvation

Today I read about the first Passover in Exodus 12 and I was struck by a number of things.

Firstly the fact came home to me again how this, one of the first sacrifices, and perhaps one of the most important for the Jews, was actually an invitation to eat a meal together. The lamb to be slaughtered was not just to be killed, that was not God's requirement. It was to be killed, and to be eaten together, on the same night. And if a family was too small to eat a whole lamb, they were to invite friends/neighbours to eat with them. Anything that remaind of the lamb was to be burned before morning.

So this first sacrifice, which was to ensure them safety from "The Destroyer", was an invitation to a feast, in community, as a pre-emptive celebration of God's deliverance.

How often do we mistake the sacrifices as wasteful of animal life, as barbaric and bloody? I think that the majority of sacrifices demanded by God, at least where animals were concerned, were actually eaten by someone. (Need to check that out). If that's so, the sacrifices God required were actually invitations to eat together and remember God and his acts towards and for us. Sacrifice in this case could probably be synonymous with celebration/party!

This seems emphasised even more in verse 14-16 where God tells the Jews to celebrate and remember this event with an annual Festival of Unleavened Bread, which should take place for 7 days, during which time "No work of any kind may be done . . . except the preparation of food." (v16 NLT) Wow! In effect God's telling the Jews to have a week-long holiday where the only requirement should be to prepare food, which also implies eating it. Kind of like God's saying "To celebrate and remember what's taking place this night, take a week off work each year, and spend the time preparing food, eating together and talking about this night. Party! In remembrance of what I'm doing this night." (Worship!!!)

Also, look at the animal God requires: a one-year old lamb without defects. Why a lamb? Well perhaps one reason is that the Jews came to Egypt (in the time of Joseph - check out the last chpaters of Genesis) as shepherds. Lambs would have been the animals to which they would have had easiest access. We don't read of the Hebrews raising cows, or pigs, etc. So God asks from them that which they can easilly provide, or God asks them to use what they have at hand, something which is familiar, something they know to deal with, and which even in terms of it's size is easy to deal with. (Obviously there's a prefiguring of Jesus and his sacrifice in all this too, but Jesus being called the Lamb of God has perhaps more to do with the fact that God chose the lamb at this moment . . .)

Also, it's cool to see that God says to the Jews, take the best lamb you've got, and eat that lamb together as a family, in community, don't use a raggedy lamb that you can do without. Chose the best one. Good meat, good sacrifice, good meal, good night! (There's also the notion that it's along feast, as the Destroyer was to arrive around midnight, which could imply that the Hebrews were to be feasting together into the night.)

And the notion of the blood across the doorposts. God or The Destroyer (not convinced they're the same person reading through chapters 12-15, but maybe I'm wrong) passes over those houses who have blood-stained doorposts. What actually is going on here? Is it the blood that saves the people in the houses? Or is the blood merely a sign?

When reading this passage today I was struck by the idea of baptism in this passage. The blood on the doorposts is an outward sign of what is taking place inside the home, the people have slaughtered a lamb, and are celebrating God's imminent deliverance by sharing a meal together. While it's important that the blood be on the doorposts, because that's what God told them to do as a sign, it's as important that the meal is being shared. And actually in the whole of it, the most important is that those in the house have believed what God said to them, and demonstrated their trust and belief in God by celelbrating this meal and stainging the doorposts. It's almost as if God says to the Destroyer "Take the first-born from every house except where the inhabitants are my people. You'll know who my people are because they will have done what I said and stained their doorposts. Any doorposts not stained are not my people."

Is that so? Or is that pushing it? Seems to me pretty accurate. God informs his people what he's going to do to Egypt for having kept them in slavery for 430 years! And to ensure that no mistakes take place, God's people are to stay in the safety of their homes, and to make it clear where they are, they should have a meal together and use the blood to identify their houses.

It's about believing what God says. It's about trusting and having confidence in God, and then following through on what he says, because of that trust and confidence.

What if someone were to follow what God said whilst having major doubts? Doubts as to whether it was all true, doubts as to whether it was enough? Well, to doubt but still follow through on what God says, is still trusting in what God says. Even if a family had tried to do other things to protect themselves, such as getting under the table, or whatever, so long as they had done what God said, and stayed in the house, they would be saved from the Destroyer.

The only families who would not be saved from the Destroyer are those who did not do what God said, those who didn't slaughter a lamb, or share a meal, or stain their doorposts with blood. And for a Jew to do that, they would have been saying, in effect, "God has not spoken, so I'm not doing it." Or "What a load of rubbish, I'm not doing that." Or "God wouldn't do that, so I don't need to get the lamb ready." Whatever the case, it demonstrates a lack of trust in what God says, a disbelief in God's words and plans. So the houses to be touched by the Destroyer were those who weren't prepared to listen to God and weren't prepared to trust him, weren't prepared to put into effect what he had told them.

Coming back to baptism, it's not just the baptism that saves. It's a sign of what's going on inside. Getting baptised because you believe that's what God wants for you to be saved, isn't it a demonstration that a. you want to be saved and b. you want to do what God asks? In a sense that's trusting in God.

So is baptism enough to be saved, even if there's no faith, or relationship with God behind it? Was it enough to stain the doorposts with blood, just in case? I don't know. Maybe. Mabye not.

It's one thing to believe, it's another to disbelieve. I believe God so I follow through on what he says. I disbelieve what I've heard, and so am not interested in following through, so no meal, no celebration, no stained doorposts.

But maybe there are different shades, as mentioned before. The person who's not sure, who has enough doubt about the truth of it all, but is still willing to paint the doorposts - which is in some measure trusting and obeying what God had said. And the person who's not sure, who has enough doubt that pushes hims to doing nothing about the situation - which is to the same measure not trusting and not obeying what God had said.

Does it come down to whether we're willing to trust God, had confidence in him, and follow through on his words, even though we may be riddled with doubt and fearful of the results? Or do we choose to ignore him?

And of course, it's worth bearing in mind that this was not the end of the road, but the beginning in some senses. This one evening was the beginning of the deliverance from slavery and oppression, but it would be followed by a long road which would eventually take around 40 years or so.

Being saved from the Destroyer was no guarantee of leaving Egypt, just of being saved from the Destroyer. To leave Egypt meant following through on what God said afterwards, it meant following through on what God said in terms of direction, timing, etc.

And even being saved from the Destroyer, it could either be a time of celebration and community, or it could be a time of fear and loneliness. That was the choice of each individual and each family.

Can we experience the salvation of God, the deliverance by God in the same way? We can celebrate being saved from slavery and saved from the Destroyer, or we can be saved whilst cowering in fear because of doubts about God's trustworthinss, faithfulness, strength, power and love.

The invitaion to the Hebrews was to celebrate together God's deliverance from slavery and the Destroyer. Bad news for the Eyptians but good news for the Jews. But let's not forget that everyone in the house was "passed over". So if there had been any friendly Egyptians towards the Jews, would they have had the opportunity to share in the meal too? If they believed what their Jewish slaves told them, would they have the opportunity to join them?

The text doesn't say. But it's a possibility, if the foreigners (the Egyptians) demonstrated faith and trust in God (meaning circumcision and being in the house of a Hebrew - Exodus 12:44-48).

But that's assuming there were even Egyptian sympathisers with the Jews, of which there is only very limited evidence. And you have to take into account that for 430 years the Egyptians had watched and let the Hebrews become oppressed, mistreated, enslaved, etc. Begs the question: even if you're not in agreement, if you do nothing you're just as guilty, whether from fear or apathy. Can't help but think of the Jewish situation in the times of Hitler, and have to wonder what I would have done as a non-Jew?

So, this is certainly an interesting passage with regards to baptism, to the nature of sacrifices and celebration and remembering. Also interesting concerning how we're saved, and how we can experience our own salvation and deliverance.

Salvation and righteousness - by Faith

. . . in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

(Romans 1:17)

Forgiveness through faith, resulting in changed lives

Thd idea that Paul preached a gospel of grace regardless of our actions, is not quite correct.

According to Paul, we can be saved by faith in Jesus, and this is a gift from God, not the result of any work we may have accomplished or be in the process of accomplishing. We place our confidence in the sacrifice of Jesus, because he told us to trust him, to believe in him. We trust that he will vouch for us before God, that he took our place on the cross, that he died instead of us, so we can know God, be reconciled and enter into an eternal relationship with him.

All of this by faith, dependant on God's grace. We can't earn nor affect this salvation, this gift of God.

However, Paul makes it quite clear virtually every time he talks about the fact that God has saved us by his grace, when he place our faith and confidence in him; that following on from this intervention of God in our lives, our behaviour and general living reveals what has taken place.

So he says in Acts 26 while talking to Agrippa :

"I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." (Acts 26:20)

For Paul, the deeds do not save, they don't gain us any merit with God, they don't earn us credit in heaven, they are merely the proof that we have repented of our former lives and turned to God.

Repent: Our deeds reveal that we have recognised that our way of living, our way of choosing for ourselves apart from God, believing that we knew better than God, that we could do without God; in this we were wrong.

Turn to God: Which is why we turned to God. We recognise that we need him, that he knows best how we might live best, for our own good and for his glory, for our peace, for our joy. We are created to be in relationship with him, living apart from this relationship is existing, at best it is living only a part of what we were created for. So we turn to God, we trust in his wisdom, his grace. We seek to listen to his instruction, his teaching, his voice.

Thus our deeds reveal this ; that we recognise that we cannot live to our best when we live apart from God, so we have turned to God in order to truly live, so we are goverened by God, not by ourselves.

But no-where does Paul indicate that our way of living is what gains our salvation, our peace with God. It is upon our faith in Jesus, our trust in God, that God enters into our lives and fills us with his grace and peace and joy and light. Which itself results in changed lives, acts, deeds and behaviour.

What if there is no change in a person? What if there behaviour sees no significant modification? Perhaps the question is better asked of oneself. If I see no change in me, if I continue to behave selfishly, proudly, without compassion, without love I must ask myself the question: am I really trusting in Jesus ? Am I really putting my confidence in him and his teaching? Do I realy recognise that basing my life and choices on my own opinions instead of the opinions of Jesus is a negative way of living?

By the same score, we need to remember too that living our lives according to God's will, is sometimes a struggle. Somewhere, a part of us continues to rebel against God's rule, and that provokes an inner struggle, between that part of us that wants to live according to God's design and that part that wants no part of God's plan. The struggle is real, and sometimes the results that we see in our behaviour are not those which make us most proud. But that does not negate what God has done and is doing in our lives.

Salvation is given by God's grace, when we place our faith in him, and faith hopes and looks forward to the accomplishment of God's work. For now we continue on the road, sometimes stumbling, but with God at our side to help us back up and to continue the way.

Forgiveness through faith in Jesus

. . . nous avons compris que l'on est déclaré juste devant Dieu, non parce que l'on accomplit les oeuvres que commande la Loi, mais uniquement par la foi en Jésus-Christ. C'est pourquoi nous avons, nous aussi, placé notre confiance en Jésus-Christ pour être déclarés justes par la foi et non parce que nous aurions accompli ce qu'ordonne la Loi. Car, comme le dite l'Ecriture : Personne ne sera déclaré juste devant Dieu parce qu'il aura accompli ce qu'ordonne la Loi. . . Ainsi, je ne rejette par la grâce de Dieu en revenant à la Loi. En effet, si c'est l'obéissance à la Loi qui permet d'être déclaré juste, alors le Christ est mort pour rien!

(Galates 2:16,21)

Or, nous le savons, ce que l'Ecriture dit dans la Loi, elle l'adresse à ceux qui vivent sous le régime de la Loi. Il en est ainsi pour que personne n'ait rien à répliquer et que le monde entier soit reconnu coupable devant Dieu. Car personne ne sera déclaré juste devant lui parce qu'il aura accompli les oeuvres demandées par la Loi. En effet, la Loi donne seulement la connaissance du péché. . . Dieu déclare les hommes juste par leur foi en Jésus-Christ . . .

(Romains 3:19-20,22)