"Your bra strap is showing"

A satire on modern Bible interpretation methods

Setting:

Two thousand years from now, English has ceased to be a living language, and scholars are discussing with the public the analysis and interpretation of 20th century literature. In the body of work they are discussing, there is a work of fiction containing a conversation where a young woman named Emily says to her friend Hilary, "Your bra strap is showing," and this creates a scandal, Hilary gets offended, their friendship falls apart, and these events affect the outcome of the story.

Scholar: 

"Now, we see here this critical comment that the woman makes to her friend. She says, "Your bra strap is showing," and then everything falls apart. Why would this be? How could this simple comment have had such implications? What did it mean? 

"Up until now, the common interpretation was that Hilary's bra strap was a piece of clothing, a normal woman's undergarment, and that for Emily to point it out was a suggestion of a lapse of modesty, possibly bringing embarrassment to Hilary. 

"However, what did she really mean? In order to understand the significance of this comment, it is of the utmost importance to discover what it would have meant to one of the original readers. Fortunately for us, recent discoveries have brought to light a couple of ancient documents, dictionaries of the language actually published within 50 years of the same time period. We have discovered from the ancient sources of Random House and Merriam Webster that the real meaning is actually something much deeper. 

"You see, the word 'bra' is actually an abbreviation of the word brassiere, which comes from the Old French bracieres, which came from the root word bras, meaning 'arm,' and it meant arm guard, or armor for the arms, or arm protectors. Other words that came from this word were 'brace' (something that holds parts together or in place) and 'bracelet' (an ornament for the arm), which were both common words in use at the time of the writing. Therefore, we can see how the original meaning of this word gives us an additional depth of understanding into the meaning of Emily's comment. All of these shades of meaning would have been clear to Hilary, and so she would have understood that Emily was insinuating that she was arming herself, putting up shields, raising her defenses, and protecting herself. 

"Now, there's more. Consider the strap. The primary definition of "strap" was a long strip of leather or similar material, for binding trunks, baggage, or other objects. According to our research, trousers first went strapless in 1846, and brassieres in 1935. This work was written in 1964, so Hilary could not have been wearing a bra with straps, or if she was, she was wearing a style that was long out of fashion, as in the case of the old-timer still wearing suspenders. However, Hilary was young in the setting we describe, meaning that Emily was definitely insinuating something derogatory by mentioning straps.

"Finally, our research has turned up some startling new light on the word "showing." We are familiar with the common meaning of the word 'show,' which is to cause or allow to be seen. However, there are many other meanings of the word 'show,' giving us the final key to the interpretation of Emily's comment. It can mean many things, but here are just a few prominent examples: 

• to present or perform as a public entertainment or spectacle:
• to give information that proves (something)
• to offer for sale
• to finish third in a horse race

"The etymology of this word is fascinating. Our ancient source, Merriam Webster, tells us that 'show' comes from Middle English shewen, showen, from Old English scēawian to look, look at, see; akin to Old High German scouwōn to look, look at, and probably to Latin cavēre to be on one's guard.

"There we are again--the idea of being on one's guard. This goes back to the armor idea that we first discussed and proves that there is something deeper than mere modesty in Emily's comment. She is using innocent-sounding phraseology as code for an accusation that Hilary is beginning to arm herself against her friends as with a shield, strapping it on and being on her guard, with added layers of implication that this is being done ostentatiously, as a spectacle to the public, that it has been proved, that it sells out her friends, and that it is a third-rate thing to do. Hilary's reaction proves that she understood perfectly what Emily said, because she immediately became defensive, and their future actions of being offended at one another and breaking off the friendship make perfect sense if this was what Hilary was doing." 

The crowd applauded the depth and wisdom of the scholarship, and anyone in the future who doubted this interpretation or referred back to the old, plain meaning was instantly labeled ignorant and untaught.

Why I don't know that song

Scenario:

--------------------

Person mentions a popular song or musician. "You know so-and-so?" "You know that song?"

I shrug. "Never heard of it."

Person gasps, faints, hyperventilates, and exclaims, "YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF ___????"

"Oh," I joke, "I grew up under a rock."

--------------------

That is the flippant answer.

--------------------

Actually, the reason I am absolutely illiterate about contemporary music (from Elvis to Miley Cyrus) is that when I emerged from under that rock, I looked around, noticed that this kind of music existed, observed that it did not fit in with what I want for my life, and made a deliberate and continual choice to exclude it.

I could have, after all, emerged from my sheltered background and made straight for all the music I had missed out on all those years. I am a musician. I have an incredible affinity for tunes. Something I hear once can end up stuck in my head for days. I could easily have compensated for my upbringing and rapidly made up the time if I had wanted to. That would have been easy. In a way, it would have been much more convenient. There would have been so many conversations I could have participated in rather than being left out. I would have avoided so many occasions of being made fun of. I remember being in England and telling someone I had never heard the song "American Pie." I thought I would never hear the end of it. But no amount of not being able to talk about that whole topic of conversation, and no amount of being made fun of for not knowing that popular person or song, can dissuade me from my resolve on this point.

So it's not really fair or honest for me to cast it all on my upbringing and say I don't know about this or that because "I grew up under a rock." In the first place, I didn't grow up under a rock, and in the second place, even if I did, it wouldn't account for my continued resolve not to have anything to do with that music.

Simply put, there is a way I want to live, and a kingdom I belong to, and everything that hinders or fails to promote my growth and advancement in that kingdom must be eliminated.

The way I want to live is to passionately pursue Jesus Christ in absolute surrender for all my days. The kingdom I belong to is the Kingdom of God. I am not of this world, and the things of the world do not fit in with my life in the kingdom of God, nor do they even appeal to me.

Granted, there are some areas that are blurry to me, some areas where I still need instruction and enlightenment in order to put away things that I am unconscious that they are a hindrance to my Christian walk. In these areas, I need grace, I need the Lord's patient teaching, I need conviction, I need my eyes to be opened. For instance, the books I read. Is it detrimental to my faith to read Don Quixote or the Iliad or The Lord of the Rings? That's not clear to me. It may be clear to others, and I may have things to learn from them, but presently that area is blurry and indistinct to me. But of course, if my eyes should be opened in the future through conviction, then all those things will have to go, too.

However, there is one area that is crystal clear to me, unmistakeably bright, and blindingly obvious. Rock music is a detriment to my Christian life. It is not welcome. It has no place. It tears me down, destroys, hurts my inmost being. It invades my peace with something that is totally foreign to the kingdom I dwell in. It is altogether incompatible with my citizenship in heaven.

• The angst and rebellion of the lyrics do not resonate with me. 
• The pounding beat is repulsive to me. 
• The way it tempts the body to pulse and gyrate is wrong to me. 
• The vocal styles (screaming/belting/seductive/breathy/twangy) do not appeal to me. Indeed, they usually mystify me. Do people really like it to sound that way? 
• The noisy, chaotic clamor is oppressive to me. 
• The themes explore all the possible categories of the depravity of man. (Lust, greed, pride, love of money, etc.) 
• The language is often totally outside my vocabulary. 
• The tunes and musical structures are boring to me. Repeated notes, small variety of notes, all the same chords, predictable rhythms. Again, it mystifies me. Do people think this is good? 
• The musicians are not people I can admire, either in their lifestyle or in their appearance. 

I don't believe music is just notes on a page, just sound waves coming from an instrument, or just mere amoral tone, rhythm, melody and harmony. I believe music has the capacity to carry spiritual content. Just as the written word is more than mere letters and ink ("the pen is mightier than the sword"), music is more than mere notes. Music has a spiritual content, and that spiritual content can be very, very dark. This spiritual content can exist even in music that is purely instrumental. A Christian who is in tune with the Spirit of God can sense what music grieves the Holy Spirit, but it takes being very sensitive, not deadened to the influence of different kinds of music (or prejudiced in favor of it).

My response to this music is absolute. I simply deny it access to my life in every possible way. I do not turn it on the radio. I do not own any music tracks that contain it. I do not let it in through my computer, my mp3 player, or any other channel that I have control of. However, living in this world, surrounded with people who love it, it is impossible to not hear it sometimes. If I walk into a store that is playing it, I will immediately start silently quoting Scripture to block it out. Sometimes, if it is bad enough, I walk out of the store. If it comes on a television, I will mute it if I have that option. If I am in the car with someone who is playing it, I will ask them (nicely) to turn it off. If that is not possible, I quote Scripture to myself and/or avoid riding with that person. If people bring up songs, lyrics, artists in conversation, I lose all interest in that conversation.

This is why I don't know the songs most people talk about. I simply haven't heard them. Or if I did hear them, it was in a situation where I was probably actively blocking them out. I haven't heard them because I have chosen not to hear them, I have resolved not to hear them, I have deliberately closed my ears to them, not because I just somehow "missed out" on the latest and greatest hits.

The benefits to my life for this decision have been incalculable.

• I have a certain level of strength and stability that mystifies others, which I am sure they would have, too, if they cut out all the music I cut out. 
• In quiet moments, when a song comes into my head, the only possible kind that can get stuck in my head is a hymn of praise to the Lord or a beautiful, soaring classical melody, since that's the only kind I know. 
• I have no thoughts planted in my head of suggestive themes that I would rather not have thought of. 
• I struggle very, very little with lustful thoughts. 
• I don't "need" music. I can go for days without listening to any music. The mental clarity this brings is something many people have forgotten about. 
• All of the "music storage" space in my brain is given to God-glorifying hymns and songs (and a few classical piano pieces), and none of it is given to songs in praise of anything else. I've never officially counted, but I think I can probably sing a thousand hymns from memory. This is a vast reservoir of material for private worship, which is incredibly strengthening. 
• I am "wise concerning good, and simple concerning evil." (Romans 16:19)

Basically, I have chosen to only include in my life that which is beneficial in my life.

Ultimately, in a manner of speaking, you could say that I grew up under the Rock (Christ), and that protected me from going out and listening to a rock (concert).

So now you know the reason why.

--------------------

(I imagine I will get a bit of flak for this post. This issue tends to stir up intense emotions.)

Perspective when dreams blow up in your face

I have been so confused, so bewildered about what to do, and David Wilkerson just hit the nail on the head on my condition in his World Challenge Pulpit Series newsletter from March 17, 1997.

Let me ask you: How do you react when all your plans and dreams blow up in your face? You were so sure you heard from God. You thought he gave you direction, encouraging you to move forward. Everything you read in his word seemed to confirm your plans. You prayed about every step along the way, always giving glory to God. And the Lord seemed to be leading on. 

You were happy, thinking, "At last - I'm going to see my prayers answered! God's plan is finally beginning to come together in my life."

Then one day, all of a sudden, your dream blew up in your face. Your plan was destroyed, your dream shattered - and it all lay in ashes at your feet. You didn't know how to make any sense of it. That's when Satan came along, bringing his lies:

"See what you get for being so strict about your walk with God? This is how he treats you when you trust him for direction. He lets you become confused about his voice - and he gives you phony guidance! He lets you hear voices and see words from the scriptures. And then, when you're finally ready to move in, he abandons you. He leads you on, and then he drops you!"

Oh my goodness. 

That's exactly what I've been doing. 

In the confusing, upsetting turmoil that I just went through, I've been doubting God's goodness to me, His ability to communicate His will to me, and His intentions for my life. David Wilkerson's message in this article centered on Psalm 73. Asaph had almost slipped because he was focusing on the prosperity of the wicked. I, too, had gotten my eyes off of Christ and onto my circumstances. 

I was mistakenly assuming that if I got God's guidance before taking any given step, I couldn't possibly get hurt and the plan could not possibly fail. It was, I suppose, a variation of the prosperity doctrine (which I would have repudiated instantly if I had seen it as such). 

It is not just inadvisable to doubt God. Wilkerson points out that it is actually sin--a sin that the people of God must be warned about; an insidious, sneaky sin that can drop us into a bottomless pit of unbelief. 

When all my beautiful dreams blew up in my face, I doubted my ability to hear God's voice. If I was that bad at hearing from God when I thought I had gotten his leading and direction, then how could I ever be sure if I was being directed by Him? 

Well, actually, who is that message coming from? 

The enemy, of course. 

How is it that I had not seen this before? 

What does God actually say in His word? Does he ever say that we cannot possibly get hurt and that our plans cannot possibly fail? No. He promises that in the world we will have tribulation. He leads us to expect to be hated, misunderstood, and persecuted. Far from promising a life of ease, he promises us trials and suffering. I am barely getting a taste of difficulty. On a scale of 1-100, with 1 being a life of ease and pleasure and 100 being martyrdom, I have maybe moved along the scale from a 1 to a 2, and I am already fainting and doubting and moaning, "Oh, woe is me." 

Get a grip, Rebekah. 

• • • 

The other thing that helped me to have a perspective shift was running into this video about Louis Zamperini. I knew the story, because I had read Laura Hillenbrand's fabulous book, Unbroken, but just reliving it reminded me of how much more suffering and heartbreak and difficulty others have made it through, and how little I really have to complain about. 

It is almost amusing, really. Other people have gone through stuff like this, and I'm whining and boo-hooing and wringing my hands and saying "what am I going to dooooo?" when the extent of my hardship is that I need to go out and hunt for a job. 

Yeah. 

My strength indeed is small. 

I hear the Savior say, 

Thy strength indeed is small. 

Child of weakness, watch and pray. 

Find in me thine all in all. 

And glory to God, He is fixing my eyes back onto Himself, and when my gaze is lost in Him, all these other things seem so trivial.

How God Filled My Gas Tank

On this date one year ago, I was driving across the country from Colorado to Tennessee to pick up my stuff and move it out to where I would be living. It was right after I got back from Haiti, and God had provided a Chevy Blazer for me, which I wrote about at the time I got it. He had also provided $50 for my gas tank in a lovely story that I also told here on my blog.

I didn't know it at the time, but there was about to be so much more to the story. The details are so God-glorifying, because it was so only and totally HIM that did this and took care of me, and I believe it's worth sharing.

As a bit of background, back in the summer of 2012, I had sold "Matilda," my Mercury Grand Marquis, for $2000, and then I spent that money in order to fund the initial part of my time in Haiti. It was with a bit of regret that I parted with the car, not because I loved the it so much, but just because I knew that I once the money was gone, I wouldn't have a car OR money.

"Cast thy bread upon the waters," Solomon says, "for thou shalt find it after many days." (Ecc. 11:1). That is how I felt. By the time I got back from Haiti, God had provided more, and I had $2000 left in my bank account.

I returned from Haiti to Colorado and bought the Blazer for $1650, leaving me $350. I filled up the gas tank and God provided enough to fill it again, and then I had a couple of airport runs, which emptied me out again, leaving me with just $300.

I had planned to go home to Tennessee, and I calculated that gas (one way) was going to cost me $300 to $350. I really asked the Lord about whether or not I should do it, because it seemed irresponsible and just plain foolish to use up all the rest of my money to get home and then not have anything to get back. But I felt like He was calling me to go home, and that He would provide.

Then, in a move reminiscent of His normal impossible-working pattern, He wiped out my $300. First I got pulled over for a burned-out headlight and had to replace it. Then my spark plugs were bad and needed to be replaced. Then I had an adventure on the highway that ended in the amputation of my driver's side mirror. Finally, my battery died. Fixing all these issues cost $300.

My scheduled departure day was Tuesday, June 18. Monday evening, my roommate and I had a prayer time together, and I prayed about my $300. "Lord," I said, "You know I had $300 for gas money, and now it's all gone. Yet I still believe that you are calling me to go home, and that you are going to take care of me and provide what I need. You know my needs. What are you going to do?"

That same evening, someone handed me fifteen $20 bills. Exactly $300 cash. "This is for your trip."

My roommate and I exchanged shocked glances, jaws dropping. Thank you, God!

I left in the morning and drove 22 hours across Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin, stopping at my sister's house to visit for three days. When I arrived near her house, I filled up my tank, and after that, I had $60 left, which would not be quite enough to take me the 800 more miles to Tennessee. "Ok, God," I thought. "What are you going to do next?" I was kept in perfect peace that He was taking care of all the details.

On Thursday, the day before my departure to Tennessee, I went to have lunch with some old friends, and I was telling them this story, exulting in how God was blessing me with provision (but leaving out the fact that I didn't have enough to get home). When I finished, they told me a fascinating story of their own about how God had provided for them an extra $200. "Now I'm going to pass that along to you," the husband said, and with that, he handed me two $100 bills.

"OH!" I said, "I didn't tell you that story to hint to you that I was asking for money!" I said. "You don't have to give me anything! Really!" But he prevailed and I accepted, making a mental note to self that if you tell these kinds of stories to people, it may come across as manipulative or end up being a subtle way of hinting for money (suggesting compassion for the 'poor penniless missionary'). In this case, it wasn't; my only thought was to exult to them of the grandeur of God. However, after this happened, I determined that it would be better to wait to make it public until long after the fact, so that the details of my immediate pennilessness would not come out (which is why I'm telling this story now, a year later, instead of right when it happened).

I went on down the road, filling up my gas tank as needed along the way. God told me to give away $100 of it, which I did.

I arrived home Friday night with $50 left, and I waited to see how God would provide the next step. I needed to drive back to Colorado with a U-Haul trailer full of my stuff. He sent an encouraging token of His remembrance when the next Thursday, I found a card in my mailbox with a check for $50.

Fast forward to June 30. I found out that the U-haul rental would be about $200. My heart kind of sank thinking about the amount of gas that it would take to get back to Colorado while pulling a U-haul trailer, but I realized, "Why sit here pining away about this when I could just ask for it?" So I asked. "Lord, I need about $500. Can you provide that?" And His answer immediately came: "Done." Taken aback, I said, "Oh. Okay. Thank you!" I didn't know how or when He would do it, but I took him at His word.

That evening, I checked my bank account, which I hadn't done for at least a week. My eyes widened. Five days earlier, on the 25th, someone had anonymously transferred $1000 into my account. "Before they call, I will answer." My prayer of that morning had been answered five days earlier.

Two days later, God told me to give $300 of it away, which I did.

The next day, someone handed me a check for $400.

Do you start to see the marvelous details of how this is working?
•  I gave away $2000; I got $2000 back.
•  I gave away $100; I got $1000 back.
•  I gave away $300; I got $400 back.

I'm not building a "prosperity doctrine" here. I gave up what He asked freely, without expecting anything in return. However, I would like to ask, Is it possible to out-give the Lord? We need not hoard, grasp, clutch, or protest, "Let someone else give." We can live with an open hand.

We clench our little fists around our possessions because we are afraid that if we let go, we will lose everything--but when we open our hands and take the plunge into that fearful territory, we discover that we can live with absolute fearlessness and peace.

My dad loading the 5x8-foot U-haul

Anyway, getting back to the story, by the time I had to go back to Colorado, God provided everything I needed in order to rent the U-Haul trailer and make the long drive. Between the U-Haul rental, gas, food, and tolls, it cost approximately $700 to drive out to Colorado. Round-trip, the total travel expenses were about $1050. In the meantime, I gave away $400 and even started sponsoring a child with Compassion International for $38 per month. Being rich enough to give money away is wealth indeed, especially when just a minute ago, you had nothing. Beyond the travel expenses, I lived on the bounty that God had provided for the next month and a half while I worked on my book. Then, just before I ran out, He provided a job.

So that's the story of how God filled my gas tank all the way from Colorado to Tennessee and back, when I started with zero the night before my trip. How great is our God! Sing with me!

And that was only the beginning of the amazing work He was about to do. There was the story of the job, the guitar, the yard sale, and the house, and so many more little evidences along the way of His incredible work to lead me forward. Truly there is no limit to His ability.

A contemplation of the glories of Christ

Who is this Jesus?

He is the creator of the universe. There He was at the beginning, rejoicing always before the Father, rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and delighting in the sons of men. (Pr. 8:30-31)

He is fairer than the children of men (Psalm 45:2); the Desire of all nations (Hag. 2:7); the High and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity (Is. 57:15)--yet he was made of no reputation (Php. 2:7), despised and rejected of men (Isa. 53:3), and made a little lower than the angels (Heb. 2:9).

He is worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing (Rev. 5:12), yea, and my own life also (Mt. 10:38).

He is the Lamb of God, the spotless sacrifice, who opened not his mouth, but willingly laid down His life.

He is the one who is risen in great power and majesty, who dealt the final blow to sin and the flesh, who ever lives to make intercession for me.

He is the Bridegroom, the fountain of love, the satisfier of every longing soul. His presence is sweet. The delights of His love are rich, so that every earthly joy pales and loses its charm in comparison.

Shall we not fall at His feet and adore Him? Shall we not spend ourselves for His agenda, wake up earlier to be with Him, and let His name and His work drop from our lips in the natural outflow of our conversation?

Shall we not tremble before Him, rejoice to be invited near, and hold nothing back from Him?

Yes, Lord, Jesus. I bow myself anew at your feet, surrender myself afresh to you, and lay my life before you to be used for the purposes that you choose. My love springs forth in response to your love. You are the rejoicing of my heart. Come and take your rightful place in my life.

The flesh's crucifixion

I have been praying, studying, and pursuing a new revelation of God's truth to my soul in the area of being crucified with Christ. A book that has been very helpful in this study has been The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee. I had read it before, but this re-read has been particularly blessed. Watchman Nee was a Chinese man, and his illustrations and explanations are vivid, clear, and simple.

One thing he points out is that there is a four-step process towards living in the reality of what God has done for us in the gospel. These four steps are (1) Knowing, (2) Reckoning, (3) Presenting ourselves to God, and (4) Walking in the Spirit.

I was particularly struck by the first area, Knowing. In Romans 6:6, it says, "Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him." We have to know this before we can reckon it. And Nee presents the case that we must know it, not just with head knowledge, but by divine revelation.

Reckoning is the second step. Romans 6:11 "Reckon yourselves therefore to be dead indeed unto sin." Nee points out that you do not reckon in order to make yourself dead, you reckon because you are dead. Reckoning means doing accounts, book-keeping. Nee gives this illustration:

"Why does God say we are to reckon ourselves dead? Because we are dead. Let us keep to the analogy of accounting. Suppose I have fifteen shillings in my pocket, what do I enter in my account-book? Can I enter fourteen shillings and sixpence or fifteen shillings and sixpence? No, I must enter in my account-book that which is in fact in my pocket. Accounting is the reckoning of facts, not fancies, Even so, it is because I am really dead that God tells me to account it so. God could not ask me to put down in my account-book what was not true. He could not ask me to reckon that I am dead if I am still alive. For such mental gymnastics the word 'reckoning' would be inappropriate; we might rather speak of 'mis-reckoning'! 

Reckoning is not a form of make-believe. It does not mean that, having found that I have only twelve shillings in my pocket, I hope that by entering fifteen shillings incorrectly in my account-book such 'reckoning' will somehow remedy the deficiency. It won't. If I have only twelve shillings, yet try to reckon to myself, "I have fifteen shillings; I have fifteen shillings; I have fifteen shillings," do you think that the mental effort involved will in any way affect the sum that is in my pocket? Not a bit of it! Reckoning will not make twelve shillings into fifteen shillings, nor will it make what is untrue true. But if, on the other hand, it is a fact that I have fifteen shillings in my pocket, then with great ease and assurance I can enter fifteen shillings in my account-book. God tells us to reckon ourselves dead, not that by the process of reckoning we may become dead, but because we are dead. He never told us to reckon what was not a fact."

This has stimulated a chain of thoughts and has revealed to me that I was indeed going about it the wrong way around. I was attempting to make myself dead by reckoning, rather than recognizing that I was already dead and then reckoning on that fact.

Here is the progression of my thoughts.

The Bible says that I am dead, that I have died, that my death with Christ is accomplished, and that it is past tense, not present or future.

• "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him." Romans 6:6
• "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Galatians 5:24
• "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Colossians 3:3
• "I am crucified with Christ." Galatians 2:20
• "Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ." Romans 7:4
• "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin." Romans 8:10

If God says it, and God cannot lie, then I am dead.

God would not say it if it were not the case. He is not playing verbal games. If God says I am dead, that is because His word corresponds to the actual facts of my condition.

But I don't feel dead, and therefore, accepting God's word on the matter feels like mental gymnastics. What do I do with that ?

Contemplate Christ crucified. When did I die? I died when He died, for I was in Him when He died. He was on the cross, and He took all the souls of men and pulled them into Himself, out of Satan's reach, and then He died.

Did Jesus really die? Yes.

And His death is my death. I do not need to feel my own death, for He died it for me.

I enter into His death by faith. The moment I look to Him in faith and come to Him and accept the work He did, His death becomes my death.

But it feels so remote, so distant, so incomprehensible, to think that my death happened 2,000 years ago.

In that case, would it have made any difference if it was today or tomorrow? Think of the people who were alive and walking around at the time of Jesus's crucifixion. The disciples. Paul. Future converts who were already born and perhaps living somewhere else, like in Asia.

At the moment Jesus died, they died. But do you think they felt dead? Did they suddenly feel an excruciating loss of self, as something inside of them was suddenly ripped out and nailed to the cross to perish? No, not a bit of it. The disciples went on mourning, the yet-to-be converted people went about their lives, and nobody felt a thing.

This death is not recognized or detected by feeling dead, no matter what time in history you appeared.

Come to think of it, Adam and Eve didn't feel dead when they died, either. God said they would die when they ate the fruit, and they ate the fruit, and they died--at least, the spiritual part of them died, and they lost their access to God--but it looked to everyone like they went on living for 900 more years.

When we think of death, we think primarily of physical death, but what God defines as death is something far more profound.

Is not God's definition the one we should go by? God, who can see the spiritual realities as well as the natural world, has something in creation called 'death.' Before Adam and Eve sinned, and nothing had ever died, what basis would there have been to know what 'death' even meant? The only way to know would have been to go by God's definition.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they knew they were naked, and they were ashamed, and they hid from God. Why? Because they had died. This is death. Yes, their hearts were still beating, but something real had died. God had said, "If you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die." They ate of the fruit, and just as surely, they died. This was called death long before there was ever a slain lamb or a murdered Abel or a 930-year-old body of Adam that had just breathed its last.

Is not this spiritual, unseen, unfelt death the original, while the physical, biological death is just the copy, the illustration, the picture that allows us to know what 'death' means? For is it not always the case that the spiritual reality in the heavenly realms is the real thing, the original, while the earthly thing (which we often call by the same name) is but a copy that only serves to help us to picture the real thing?

• Marriage between a man a woman is just a picture of Christ and His Bride, the church
• The sacrificial lamb was just a picture of Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world
• Parenthood is merely an illustration to us of God's fatherhood
• And death--death is that grievous, mournful, mysterious thing from which no one comes back. We think we know what 'death' means because physical death is so sobering, so shattering--but what if we realized that the original death in the heavenly realms, the spiritual death that separates us from God, is even worse, just as final, and far more sad? 

We trivialize the spiritual death that Adam and Eve died, because they didn't "feel dead," but they were nonetheless dead. Adam and Eve died spiritually and their flesh sprang to life.

And then all their descendants were born dead, and the life principle that acted in them was the flesh.

Then there entered a different kind of death. The spirit had died in the garden. Now it was the flesh's turn on Calvary. Jesus laid down his life on the cross, and He simultaneously took the flesh and nailed it to His cross. The cross was just as effective upon the flesh as it was on the life of the Savior. Both were extinguished. But the glorious day of resurrection came, and Jesus rose again, leaving the flesh behind, buried in the tomb. Thereby He triumphed forever and completely for those He came to save.

For Adam and Eve, the spirit died and the flesh came to life. For you and I, the flesh gets put to death, and the spirit comes back to life, liberating us to be free to serve God. In both cases, there was a literal death, as defined by God, in the spiritual realms.

So when God gives us an opportunity to enter into Christ by faith, when He provides for the flesh to die and for what He defines as "dead" to rise again, shall we expect it to feel like physical death and resurrection? Not at all! Our brain waves and pulse and respiratory action can go on uninterrupted, but meanwhile God is effecting a change in the spiritual realm, which, after all, is the place that matters, for it is more real and more important than this earthly realm.

My eyes cannot look into the spiritual realm. My hand cannot penetrate into the heavenly realms and touch what is there. My senses are useless to me to access any information this spiritual land. (Though if the veil could be drawn away, I would undoubtedly discover that it's right here and not a million light years away in the universe somewhere). There is, however, one organ provided to me which can "see" into this heavenly land, can detect things that are there, can palpitate these invisible and unfelt heavenly realities. It is called the eyes of faith.

Faith can look there and see things that no other kind of eyes can see. Faith can see Jesus, high and lifted up on his throne. Faith can appreciate the glory and majesty and holiness of the heavenly court. And faith looks to see where I am--I, who am this hopeless ball of sinful flesh, do I appear? Faith looks around in vain to find Rebekah in the flesh. Where is this creature who has made so much trouble to herself and others? Faith hunts high and low through the heavenly realms. There is a cross, but it is empty. Nearby is a tomb. Faith looks inside. Lo and behold, there, wrapped in graveclothes, cold, motionless, and utterly lifeless--I am dead! Faith beholds--and believes. The flesh is dead, buried, destroyed, deactivated. Faith turns, and there is Christ, and there I am, alive in Him. My flesh was left behind in the tomb, but He resurrected me. In the heavenly realms, I am in Christ, and His life is my life, and I live by the working of His mighty power, which raised me up from the dead. Faith beholds this marvel--and believes.

How I can rejoice--because the flesh isn't coming back!

Furthermore, when Satan tempts me to look within and see myself as very much alive, I can simply point to the heavenly realms and show him the dead, cold, buried flesh there, and even he will have no argument against that, for he knows exactly how real and final that is.

Sheep and Goats in Greek

Mountain goats, Roan Mountain, TN

One of the things I am really excited about is learning New Testament Greek. At the end of November, I downloaded an audio Bible of the Textus Receptus read by a Greek guy, and I play it all night in my sleep. That is literally the only time I have to squeeze anything in--but it's actually working!

Then, once every few days, I will put on a chapter (while I am awake) and read along in a Greek New Testament. I also occasionally use the tools in my e-Sword software to look up a word or do further study.

I am up to Luke 15 in my reading along, which contains the parable of the lost sheep. I did a little research, and the layers of symbolism and parallelism simply blew me away.

Hmmm...I wonder what the word for 'sheep' is, I said to myself, and proceeded to look it up.

G4263
probaton
prob'-at-on
Properly the neuter of a presumed derivative of G4260; something that walks forward (a quadruped), that is, (specifically) a sheep (literally or figuratively): - sheep ([-fold]).

How curious is that! "Something that walks forward"; a "quadruped." 

In that case, I wondered, how do they know this word means "sheep" and not "cow" or "goat" or "dog" or "camel"? Doesn't everything on four legs walk forward?

It said it was a presumed derivative of G4260, so I looked it up. Maybe that would shed more light. 

G4260

probainō

prob-ah'ee-no

From G4253 and the base of G939; to walk forward, that is, advance (literally or in years): - + be of a great age, go farther (on), be well stricken.

Wow, how does getting old have anything to do with being a sheep? I mean, if I was a person in ancient Greece, and I wanted to invent a word for "sheep," and I needed my word to be a little more specific than "that four-legged animal," how would I ever think that "that animal that walks forward" would get someone closer to the idea of "sheep"? 

Perhaps, I thought to myself, this "probaton" way of referring to sheep is a rare and symbolic word, and maybe there's another plain word that means sheep. So I looked up other instances of the word, and of the 43 instances of 'sheep' in the New Testament, 40 use this word, 2 are not in the Greek, and 1 is G4262, 'probatikos,' translated "sheep gate" or "sheep market." So this is the common word for sheep. 

One of the verses I ran into in this part of my study was Matthew 25:33. 

"And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left."

Sheep contrasted to goats. It's interesting that Jesus would choose an animal whose name meant "one who walks forward" as representative of those whom God chooses. The sheep please God and are placed on His right hand. Those who walk forward, those who advance, those who go farther on--these are the sheep. 

During the Ellerslie training, Eric Ludy shares the concept of The Endless Frontier. It was something his voice teacher said to him one time after Eric had been taking lessons and practicing for a year. He asked his voice coach, "How good am I?" The teacher replied, "Eric, singing is an endless frontier. Never pitch your tent." In other words, don't be looking for the moment you've arrived as a singer. Always be pressing on and on, forward, because there is always room to be better. Eric relates that to the Christian walk. Don't settle! Don't let yourself become complacent. Press on! Pull up the tent stakes! There is more of God to be had. Go for more! 

Isn't this the same idea that you get from the Greek word for sheep? Whether or not I think sheep demonstrate this forward progression, the fact is, God chose to pick an animal whose name meant "One who walks forward." The true Christians are going to be the ones who are growing. True faith will manifest itself in action. Genuine love for God will seek out more of God. And if a person who claims to be a believer does not demonstrate this forward movement, is there not space to question whether that person is a sheep at all? 

What about the goats? I wondered. What does their name mean? 

G2055

eriphion

er-if'-ee-on

From G2056; a kidling, that is, (generally) goat (symbolically wicked person): - goat.

OK...so goat just means goat. I was hoping for something a little more symbolic after the word for 'sheep' was so abstract. 

What about that word this is derived from? Maybe that would shed more light. 

G2056

eriphos

er'-if-os

Perhaps from the same as G2053 (through the idea of hairiness); a kid or (generally) goat: - goat, kid.

Ohhhh. Now we're getting somewhere. Let's go to G2053. 

G2053

erion

er'-ee-on

Of obscure affinity; wool: - wool.

So the goats are the hairy ones. What does that make you think of? 

Esau. 

Esau was a hairy man. In fact, he was so hairy that it was goat skins that Rebekah put on Jacob's hands and neck when he went before Isaac to get the blessing, posing as Esau (Genesis 27:16). It worked (Genesis 27:21-22). 

What does Esau represent? 

The flesh. 

I could go into detail on what the Bible says about living in the flesh, but that is a whole world in itself. Suffice it to say that it's not a good thing. 

How interesting that when Jesus makes a contrast between sheep and goats, He uses two very similar animals, but he also precisely chooses two words that are strikingly parallel to what the rest of Scripture tells us about the person who pleases or displeases God. 

North Korea and my Tuna Sandwich

Today I watched this video documentary about North Korea.

One quote has stuck with me:

"People might resist the regime with their lives if it was only themselves who might be killed. But it's not only one man being put to death, it's three generations of his family, too." 

The documentary showed people who had been in North Korean prison camps. One woman had entered the camp when she was 13 and had spent 28 years there. Another man got taken when he was 9 and spent 10 years there. In both cases, it was their grandfathers who had upset the regime, and the police took the entire family to prison.

What if we as Christians resisted the regime with our lives so that three generations of North Koreans didn't have to?

I don't mean by invading with military force. I don't mean by sneaking across the border and getting shot.

I mean by spending our lives poured out before the throne of Grace, wrestling in prayer, fasting, pleading with God to put a stop to this evil.

• • •

Another quote that broke me was about the physical hunger in the camps.

"Those who were near death looked like living corpses. This was quite common. If you still have the energy to look for food, then you are fine. But when this energy leaves you, then it becomes a problem. So there were people who lost their mind, who were just waiting for death."

Today for lunch, I opened a 5-oz can of tuna. I dumped it out on a plate and mixed in some mayonnaise, mustard, pickles, honey, olive oil, and salt, just the way I wanted it. I took out two pieces of bread, piled tuna onto the first piece, and ate it. I picked up the second piece of bread. There was still a lot of tuna on my plate. I piled forkful after forkful onto the bread, until the bread was full, and it began to pile up so generously that I knew I was going to have to open my mouth wide to eat it.

I was about to eat a whole can of tuna and two slices of bread, all by myself.

I couldn't help thinking about my brothers and sisters in North Korea, and how a meal like this would be unimaginable riches to them. The video described old men picking corn kernels out of cow's dung. "It was like dogs fighting over small scraps. That's what we'd become."

I was so burdened, I was almost sick to my stomach. Here I was, about to satisfy myself with a delicious lunch, with scarcely a thought of gratitude, when there were people to whom satisfying food is only the stuff of legend, of forgotten memory, and the difference between "fine" and "not fine" is still having the energy to look for food.

How is it that we can know about things like this that are going on, TODAY, in the world that we live in, and not pray?

What if we spent our lives for things that really mattered rather than letting the mundane work of our everyday lives swallow us up?

What if we really allowed ourselves to care about someone like a North Korean prisoner?

What if we cared enough to go to the One who is actually able to do something about it? What if we got on our faces before him? What if we wept? What if we sacrificed our sleep? What if we faithfully, persistently appeared before Him for their cause?

Is anyone doing this?

I haven't been.

I have known in my head that North Korea exists, and that it isn't exactly the best place to be, but I haven't gone any farther than that. Yes, I knew awful things were happening to people there, but I brushed it off. Surely I couldn't be expected to care about every awful thing that was happening in the world, could I? I'm not big enough for that. I have enough to worry about already.

Do I?

Or am I only using an earthly estimation of my capacity to care, to love, to bear the burden of God's heart for the needy, weak, and vulnerable?

If the living God indwells me with His Spirit, is there any limit to how much I can love, how much I can pray, how much I can spend myself?

If God holds out a burden to me, do I accept it gratefully, as if it was a present, a privilege, to carry the burden of His heart? Or do I jerk my shoulder away and reject the burden and say, "No! I'm not carrying that! Give it to someone else!"

Intercession is a mystery. How can I have any part in what the sovereign God is doing in the world? Yet if He invites me to stand in the gap, is there not a cause?

The God who designed intercession has invited me to wrestle. Shall I not accept the opportunity, rather than let doubt influence me into inactivity? All my life, I have longed to get into the fray, be part of what God is doing, be a soldier of the cross. Is the battle any less real for being waged in the heavenly realms? If anything, it is more real.

Let us not be weary.

Let us not live with our first-world tunnel vision that considers our problems of having to eat gluten free and keep up with the laundry and somehow afford to buy new tires as valid reasons to excuse us from worrying about anything else.

Let us let the love of God dwell in us.

May God show us what that looks like.

"No Merimnao" quotes

"God, who has done the greater for us, may be depended upon to do the less. He has, without any care or forecast of our own, given us life and a body, and therefore we may cheerfully leave it to him to provide meat for the support of that life, and raiment for the defence of that body." 

"Your Father knows that you have need of these things, and considers it, and will supply your needs according to his riches in glory; for he is your Father, who made you subject to these necessities, and therefore will suit his compassions to them: your Father, who maintains you, educates you, and designs an inheritance for you, and therefore will take care that you want no good thing."

--Matthew Henry, Commentary on Luke 12:22-40

Deliberately Stepping Out Of Merimnao

Merimnao is a Greek word that means worry, cares, or anxiety.

In the parable of the sower, Jesus says that the thorns choke the word and it becomes unfruitful. In his interpretation of the parable to the disciples, he says that the thorns represent merimnao.

In the story of Mary and Martha, Jesus says, "Martha, Martha, you are careful (merimnao) and troubled about many things, but Mary has chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "Take no thought (merimnao) for your life, what you shall eat, or what you shall drink, or what you shall wear."

Recently I listened to Eric Ludy's message called Hero Training, in which he explores the meaning of the word merimnao and the place it is to have in the believer's life. He gives a ringing cry for establishing one's motto to be "No merimnao!"

Through all this repetition of seeing merimnao everywhere I look, I realized that somewhere along the way, I traded in my pure and simple trust in God's provision for my life and exchanged it for merimnao. Suddenly, I felt I had to be the one to look out for myself, and if I didn't do it, no one would. I withdrew from the willingness to be spent for God's kingdom, and I said to myself, "That was fine when I was in my 20s, but not I have to figure out stuff like my housing and retirement before it's too late."

After successfully evading the rat race for the first 30 years of my life, I decided to sign myself up for it voluntarily. After seeing God provide for me time and time and time again, I suddenly looked at my life from the world's perspective and said to myself, "Wow, my resume looks really bad! I had better get into a decent career and start climbing the ladder!"

The job became so all-consuming that everything else got put on hold as I began to learn how to juggle adding 40 hours of work into the mix. All the things I felt God wanted me to do moved to the back burner. My writing, my friendships, my vision for starting a Bible Study in the local jail, the orderliness of my bedroom--all of this suffered at the expense of the job.

That was fine for the first three months or so, until I got bored. At some point in December, I sort of mentally checked out of my job. I didn't care about it any more. I couldn't bring myself to care. I would pass the time through each day, struggling with unbearable boredom, knowing I was made for more than this, and so tormented by the mind-numbing emptiness of it all that I would go out to my car at the end of the day and literally have to moan out loud three or four times in order to unburden my mind. In August, when I was penniless and didn't have a job, I considered myself to be so happy that I made the statement several times, "If happiness was an Olympic sport, I would get the gold medal." By January or February, the happiness had evaporated little by little, to the point where there have even been days recently where I would ask myself if I was depressed.

It came to a head the other day. I was fed up with being bored and I started asking myself what kind of job I could look for that would be less boring. Retail? Waiting Tables? Nope, I would be bored in three months. Administrative assistant? Nope, I would get bored there, too. Looking back over my life, I see a pattern: Whenever I am doing the world's kind of work (my job at the sporting goods store, for instance), I can stick with it for 3 months to a year, and then I get bored and move on. I have never been challenged enough in a job to keep on growing. Once the training period is over and I know how to do it, I start to shrivel up and die, and I can't stand it. Therefore, my resume looks terrible--a string of one entry-level position after another in a hodge-podge of different fields. My degree doesn't really help, either, because people are not really looking to hire a 30-something for that college grad entry-level communications job. Therefore, I am stuck in a conundrum: All the jobs that I am qualified for would make me bored out of my mind, while all the jobs that would be interesting are out of the picture because I'm not qualified.

"Okay, fine," I said to myself. "I'm just going to go study something interesting like medicine or law or engineering. Fine, I'll just go into debt. Fine--at least I won't be bored and underpaid for the rest of my life!" But as soon as I said it, I realized something: Those fields would ultimately be unfulfilling, too. It might take a little longer before I got there, but sooner or later, I would taste the same emptiness and realize I had wasted my effort for nothing.

Ultimately, the only thing that can satisfy is working for the Lord. I saw it so clearly. I have tasted of being a part of advancing God's kingdom, and it trumps all worldly pursuits. This is the one thing that I want. This is the only thing that can grab my imagination. Yet somehow I had departed from that focus, and when I did, I lost a lot of my joy. I had succumbed to the pull of merimnao, and it was choking me.

This is not to say that my merimnao was necessarily my job's fault, or that I would be opposed to working for my living. I'm not. I am thankful for the income that God has provided for me and the way He has brought this method of provision into my life at this time. However, I cannot allow that to be the source of my trust or the focus of my pursuit. If I am going to spend my life for something, I am going to spend it for what matters. I am not going to shift my focus to a lower sight and start worrying about my down payment or my 401k if it means trading in my singular gaze on the things that are God's priorities.

Therefore, I deliberately and purposely step out of the worry back into trust. God is my provider, and in His sovereign control, He is orchestrating my circumstances in a much more creative and interesting way than I ever could. I trust His leading. In stepping away from merimnao, I am stepping over a line. On one side of the line is worldly wisdom: look out for yourself; make choices that will be in your best interest; make as much money as you can. I cross to the other side of the line, where I serve the weak and vulnerable without regard to myself, and where I am willing to go all the way down to zero if need be, because I know my God is taking care of me and He will provide. I do not make my choices based on whether there will be a pay raise involved. I make my choices based on where God is leading, and I joyfully and obediently say yes.

Goodbye to merimnao. Whew, it feels good not to be choked and pricked with all those thorns.

How God Provided a Corolla

God continues to be good to me--better than I deserve. He proves to me His ability to provide.

I had the Blazer. It was God's provision of a vehicle. It was a tremendous help at just the right time. However, when I bought it last June, even then, I didn't want an SUV. I was so certain that I didn't want it that I almost didn't buy it. God changed my heart and I did buy it, and it ended up being extremely useful for the purpose of moving out to Colorado. Despite having 186,000 miles on it, it safely towed my heavy little U-haul trailer all the way across the country. Then once I got here, I thought to myself, "I'd better wait and see what winter is like." After all, there must be a reason why nearly all the other vehicles I saw on the road were 4-wheel-drive. Winter came and went, and I used the 4-wheel-drive exactly once, to move forward about two feet, so I thought it was time to get a gas efficient vehicle without regard to 4WD.

My dad trained me to keep records, so I had information from the time I bought the vehicle on each gas fill-up: odometer reading, miles driven, gallons, price per gallon, and total cost to fill up. I entered all this data in Excel and made some calculations. Based on my records of average gas mileage, miles I drove, and amount I had spent in gas, I stood to save $1000 per year if I went to a 30MPG vehicle. Therefore, I figured that if I spent $1000 more on a car than what I sold the Blazer for, I stood to come out even by the end of one year.

Armed with this data, I posted the Blazer on craigslist for $1600. This was only $50 less than I had paid for it. By now, my Blazer had 199,500 miles on it, the air conditioning compressor was leaking, and it was just in a general state of breaking down. Immediately, I got two interested buyers who bid each other up until the second person won out at $1800. Now I was selling it for more than I had paid for it, but here was where the logistical puzzle began: I couldn't sell it until I had found another vehicle to buy for myself, since I had no way to get back and forth to work otherwise. The interested buyer graciously gave me two weeks to find another vehicle.

A Honda with 150,000 miles on it for $1600--a mess!

I looked at a number of vehicles and it was rather disheartening to not be able to find anything like what I was looking for. Cars in my price range would seem to be a good deal, and then I would go to look at them, and they would be badly wrecked all over, or they would have higher miles than my Blazer, or the interior would have a dreadful smoke smell, or some other deal-breaker. I began to wonder if it wasn't better just to keep my Blazer after all, since at least it was a running vehicle with an engine that I trusted would start every time. It seemed like a huge gamble to trade for another old junker. I might get in a worse predicament.

I named it "Ivy."

Then I found a 1997 Corolla on craigslist for $3500 with only 110,000 miles on it. I went to look at it and the people said I was the first person who had expressed any interest in it, even though it had been on craigslist for several days. I thought to myself, "Is everyone else blind, or what?" I had a trusted friend who is a mechanic look it over and he declared, "This is the car you want to buy." The owners were a sweet Christian couple, and as we negotiated, they were willing to come down to $2800. Perfect! Exactly $1000 more than what I was selling the Blazer for! Just what I wanted! So I went and sold the Blazer, and then I met with the owners of the Corolla and we signed the paperwork and I paid them $2800.

This was the unexpected part:

They took a $100 bill off the stack and pushed it back to me and said, "Now, we've prayed about this, and we want you to have this to help with your title & registration fees. We want to be a blessing to you, and this is just our contribution to your ministry work."

Can I say WHOA!!?

Who does that?

So now I am the happy owner of a lovely little zippy Corolla, and I am already feeling the difference at the gas pump. Yay!!

Thank you Jesus! You are so good to me!!

He increased the Blazer by $200 and then decreased the Corolla by $800. I went from a 16MPG 199,500-mile vehicle to a 30MPG 110,000-mile vehicle for only $900 more. Is that amazing, or what?

Movie Review: Son of God

One form of blasphemy is to deny outright that Jesus is the Son of God.

Another form of blasphemy is to confidently affirm that Jesus is the Son of God and then make him into an embarrassing idiot. That is what this film does.

If you were an unbeliever, and your only exposure to Christianity was this film, and your only conception of Jesus was what is portrayed in Son of God, you would wonder how anyone could possibly respect him, love him, or believe in him. From beginning to end, this film depicts Christ in a way that is unbiblical, false, and demeaning.

As a believer, watching this film was agonizing. I went with the hope that there could be some redeeming value in it, but that was not to be. I sat in the theater with a sorrow in the pit of my stomach the whole time, shaking my head and feeling like the only thing I ought to do was turn around, kneel on the floor in front of my seat, cry out to God for His mercy and forgiveness for this farce, and implore His protection on the minds of others watching the film, that they would not be inoculated against Christianity and the gospel. And as soon as it was over, it was all I could do not to break into a run on my way out of the theater.

Major problems

Implying that Jesus committed sin 

1. In the scene of the woman caught in adultery, the Biblical account states that Jesus ignored her accusers and wrote on the ground with his finger. Only when they persisted in accusing her did He raise Himself up and deal with the situation. He said to them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Then he stooped down and wrote on the ground with his finger. Those who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, walked away one by one until Jesus was left alone with the woman. He states to her, "Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more."

In the film's depiction of this scene, the Pharisees encounter Jesus outdoors in an area of stony ground. They thrust the woman forward and announce that she was caught in the very act of adultery. Jesus picks up a stone and walks up to where the woman is cowering on the ground. He raises the stone high in the air in a dramatic gesture as she trembles. Then, apparently reconsidering, he turns the Pharisees. "I will give my stone to whichever one of you is without sin," he says. Slowly, one by one, they start dropping their stones on the ground in a symbolic admission of their guilt. Last of all, the camera zooms in on the hand of Jesus as He drops His own stone, and we watch it fall to the ground. Then he embraces the woman and tells her to sin no more. This is a serious implication that Jesus was in the same boat as all the Pharisees, condemned by His own conscience and therefore compelled to drop the stone. 

2. During the trial of Jesus, there is a bizarre scene where the soldiers bring Jesus in before the high priest. They have already begun to bruise up his face a bit, and they are roughly manhandling him along. Jesus falls forward when they let him go, and someone pushes the back of his head down in order to bang his face into the table. Jesus raises his head with a flash of such a fierce glare of anger at the high priest that everyone gasps. "Thou shalt not disrespect the leader of thy people," someone quotes.  The implication clearly was that Jesus had broken the law. It was like a confused mixture of Acts 23:2-5 with John 18:19-23 with extreme artistic license. (During this scene I was left shaking my head with a sense of 'What in the world was that?')

Ignoring the existence of evil

Christ died to save us from our sins, but nowhere is this mentioned in the film. Christ died to crush the enemy, but nowhere is Satan or anything demonic even remotely implied in the film. The crucifixion was the pinnacle moment of history in the epic battle between good and evil--but nowhere is evil even given any recognition. Instead, Jesus invites Peter to "change the world." By missing the existence of evil, the filmmakers redefined the whole ministry of Jesus. Even the chief priests and Pharisees who moved the people to call for Jesus's crucifixion are not depicted as evil, but rather as goodhearted, sincere people who simply want the best for their nation.

(*Edit: Further reading revealed that they had actually filmed a character as Satan who bore a striking resemblance to President Obama, and they cut him.)

A Powerless, Effeminate Christ 

Many films, Easter plays, and even sermons try to infuse the crucifixion scene with emotional impact by overemphasizing the pain of the crucifixion. I believe this is a mistake. Of course crucifixion would be excruciating, but our wonder and awe at what Jesus did for us should not spring from going over the gruesome medical details of what he suffered, but rather from the fact that He bore the penalty of our sin. God the Father crushed him under the full weight of divine wrath. Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who had delighted in the joy of loving and being loved by the Father, was forsaken. This was infinitely worse than the combined effect of lashes from a whip, a crown of thorns, nails in hands and feet, thirst, and exhaustion. 

In Son of God, there was not quite as much gore as, say, The Passion of the Christ, but the character of Jesus was so exaggeratedly wimpy, weak, fainting, trembling, and breathy, it was shameful. A woman would have taken a crucifixion more bravely. I had the sense that the actor was actually enjoying flopping on the ground under the weight of the cross and struggling back to his feet in increasingly dramatic expressions of helplessness. More and more blood appeared mysteriously on Jesus's face and body over the different stages from Gethsemane to Golgotha, as if the makeup artist just couldn't help dabbing on a little bit more, and more, and more in between camera shots. In contrast to this, the two thieves on the cross looked quite fine, accentuating the sense that Jesus was just a pathetic weakling. Crucifixion was crucifixion. It would have been just as miserable for them as for Jesus. Nothing in the Bible indicates that Jesus's crucifixion was exponentially more brutal than anyone else's, and in fact, it was probably less, since he died so much earlier than the other victims. I couldn't help thinking of movies I've seen where filmmakers portray a "manly" character (e.g. Jason Bourne) who accumulates massive injuries (gunshot wounds, car accidents, cuts, bruises, and getting beaten up) and uncannily has the ability to keep on being strong. The contrast was striking between that and the filmmakers' ability in Son of God to portray Jesus as an unbelievably pathetic character. 

While it is true that the crucifixion was a display of apparent weakness instead of the conquering hero the people expected, I found their portrayal of Christ to be repulsive and unnecessary. To our human understanding, getting killed does look weak when one expected a military hero, but the way they handled Christ's reaction to his circumstances was entirely overboard. 

The Bible clearly indicates that Christ was not a victim, but rather laid his life down of his own accord. He had self-possession and control. He deliberately allowed the circumstances in the events leading up to the crucifixion. He was silent before his accusers, not out of defiance or shame; he was purposely silent because He knew He was fulfilling the will of the Father. The things he did say were pointed and irrefutable. He went as a lamb to the slaughter. He showed His power and majesty by single-handedly defeating the enemy, though He was pinned to two pieces of wood. 

Attacking Jesus's Omniscience

Many scenes suggested that Jesus was not all-knowing or re-defined the situation to take away from His omniscience. 

• When Jesus declared to the paralytic that his sins were forgiven, the Pharisees said aloud, "How can he forgive sins? Who can forgive sins but God only?" In the Bible, they didn't say it, they just thought it, and it says He knew their thoughts. 
• When Jesus fed the 5,000, the people who had received the food started chanting "Messiah! Messiah!" pumping their fists in the air. Then it was as if Jesus had an "oops!" moment, like "Oh, great, they want me to be their king because I fed them. Now what do I do?" He suddenly went from smiling and interactive to gloomy and pensive. He acted unhappy that the people reacted this way, and he worked his way through the crowd and walked away alone. In the Bible, He knew this was what they wanted and he had a plan of action for how to handle it. 
• During the last supper, Jesus is eating, smiling and hanging out with his friends when suddenly he has a momentary flash of foresight, revealing a few key scenes of the crucifixion. He suddenly gets quiet and sad, and he says to the disciples, "This is our last meal together before I die." Then they all get sad. It is as if he just realizes that he is going to die. In the Bible, he had been telling them over and over that he would suffer, die, and rise again, and they just weren't getting it. He knew what this day meant from before the foundation of the world. It didn't just "dawn on him" during the Last Supper.
• After the film depicts Judas goes out to betray Jesus, Peter goes out as if to stop him, and Jesus follows Peter and says, "Let him go." While they are still outside the door alone together, Peter says, "I will never betray you. I will die for you." Jesus sighs with a sense of relief and opens his arms for a grateful embrace with Peter. Then Jesus stiffens in the embrace and his eyes widen. He softly says, with a note of sad incredulity, "Peter, before dawn, you will deny me three times." This is so far from the Biblical account it is shocking. In the Bible, Jesus declares to Peter, "Behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." Jesus knew what cosmic forces were in place, and what battles were being waged. He prayed beforehand for Peter, that his faith would not fail. In informing Peter of the fact that he would deny him, it was not in a surprised tone of voice, as if he just realized that Peter, too, would deny him.  

What they did with prayer

While Jesus was praying in the garden, the filmmakers juxtaposed two additional scenes--one of the priests in the temple chanting a sort of ceremonial prayer, and the other of Pilate and his wife facing their idols and praying to their ancestors. Thus, they took Christ's most intense moment of prayer and equated it with the empty, ritualistic, and even idolatrous prayers that people can offer when they do not know God. This was offensive.

Inappropriate Situations with Mary

"Mary," quite a beautiful girl, is in every single scene that portrays private moments with Jesus and the twelve disciples. She walks through the countryside with them. She gets in the boat with them when they cross the sea in a storm. She sits with Jesus and the twelve. She is always, always present. This is not just in crowd settings where there are lots of people around. The many women who attended Jesus in different places in Scripture (Mary, the other Mary, Salome, Joanna, etc) are entirely omitted, except for Jesus's mother Mary, who appears during the crucifixion scenes. There are no women with Jesus and the twelve everywhere they go except this one girl. This looks like a huge nod to the popular (and totally unscriptural) belief that Mary Magdalene was some sort of girlfriend to Jesus. There are never any explicit interactions between her and Jesus, but the number and frequency of times when she is shown to be alone with Jesus and the twelve disciples makes a highly inappropriate suggestion. My memory suggests that she also seems to have had more speaking lines than any of the other disciples. This is entirely inaccurate, and her words are all invented (since they do not come from Scripture).

In Scripture, Mary Magdalene appears in twelve verses: Matthew 27:56, 61, 28:1, Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1, 9, Luke 8:2, 24:10, John 19:25, 20:1, 20:18. Because the four gospels each repeat the same stories, these twelve verses only account for three appearances of Mary Magdalene.

1. Once during Jesus's ministry, as one of many other women (Luke 8:1-3)
2. At Jesus's crucifixion and burial (Matthew 27:56, 61, Mark 15:40, 47, John 19:25)
3. As witness to the resurrection (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, 9, Luke 24:10, John 20:1, 18)

Scripture makes it clear that she was one of many other women present at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40-41, John 19:25). On the day of resurrection, she was with at least two other women (Salome and Mary the mother of James and Joses). The movie depicts her discovering the resurrection alone.

Source of Jesus's strength

The film clearly suggests that Jesus's mother, Mary, was his source of strength and the cause of his ability to keep going through the different stages of his suffering. During the flogging, Mary is looking sorrowfully through the gates. There is a mystical sort of energy that seems to get transmitted to Jesus when he sees her, and it is as if he suddenly has the courage to take the rest of his lashes. Later, when Jesus is carrying the cross, he falls down in what appears to be the final stage of exhaustion, and Mary runs out from the crowds on the side of the road and makes her way to him. They make eye contact and she embraces him. It is as if Mary's touch has a galvanizing effect on Jesus. The Roman soldier drives Mary back, and Jesus is able to struggle back to his feet because of the strength she imparted to him. 

While I have no problem with expressions of tenderness between a mother and her son, I completely disagree with this depiction of the source of Jesus's strength. For one thing, as Jesus was carrying the cross in the procession to Golgotha, he noticed the women weeping for him, and he said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children." (Luke 23:27-31). In the midst of his own suffering, Jesus was still more aware of the needs of those around him, and he was pouring out love and giving of himself to them, even in His greatest hour of agony.

More importantly, Jesus's strength came from God, not from Mary. He lived by the grace of God, and it was grace that empowered his every move, not a loving glance and gentle touch from his mother. Jesus was the embodiment of the way a man ought to live when every detail of how he lives, speaks, and thinks is supplied by God, surrendered to God and dependent on God. The Father was the one who enabled Jesus to go through with the crucifixion, not his mother. 

Mystical depiction of the supernatural

Several of the scenes in the movie are stripped of their majesty and invested with a ghostly, superstitious quality that is entirely different from the Scriptural potrayal.

When Jesus walks on water, he looks semi-transparent. He appears to float forward towards the boat without movement of the feet. The filmmakers heightened the ghostly quality of this scene by having Peter hear as it were a voice in his head where Jesus calls him to come, and he is mysteriously drawn to the end of the boat, where he steps over the edge as if he is in a trance, against the advice of the other disciples. He takes a few tentative steps towards Jesus before he sinks. When he sinks, he plunges instantly underwater. Jesus picks him back up with a misquoted version of what the Bible says He said. Then the scene instantly jumps to Peter popping awake, as if from a dream, which effectively undoes the entire scene as a mere figment of Peter's imagination.

When Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, in the film, he does not stand at the mouth of the tomb and command, "Lazarus, come forth!" Instead, he goes inside, followed by Martha. He lays his hands on Lazarus's head, brings his mouth close to Lazarus's forehead, and slowly exhales air over his face. Lazarus's eyes pop open. This is a mystical version of this account of raising the dead, stripping Jesus of his power to command a reversal of death with a word.

When Mary sees Jesus on resurrection morning, he has a very unrealistic quality. Mary is inside the tomb, and Jesus appears in the doorway, framed not by the ordinary surroundings of trees and shrubs that you would expect to see in the background, but by a white shimmery haze. Jesus says a few words to Mary and then disappears into the haze. You don't get the sense that Jesus has risen from the dead in bodily form; it feels more like Mary could have simply had a vision.

In an age where filmmakers can make Superman really seem to fly, and where they can make us believe that Spiderman can crawl up walls, the filmmakers have done quite a shoddy job at making the miraculous look realistic in Son of God.

The character of Judas

The Biblical account plots a steady course of development regarding Judas's willingness to betray Jesus. We learn that he is a thief, and has the bag. We know that after Mary poured out her spikenard on Jesus, Judas looked for a way to betray him from then on. Judas went of his own accord to the priests. He received the money and led them of his own accord to Jesus in the garden. He kissed Jesus in a blatant act of hypocrisy and pretended friendship. 

The film paints a totally different picture of Judas and the betrayal. In the film, he is merely a conflicted character who is simply trying to do the right thing, and circumstances just happen to get out of control. The movie depicts him going to one of the temple guards and tells him that he is worried about the direction things are heading. The guard tells Caiaphas about this interaction, and Caiaphas sends for Judas. Judas meets Caiaphas, but he is reluctant, conflicted, and not easily persuaded to do anything against Jesus. Finally he says, "What's in it for me," and Caiaphas hands him the bag with the thirty pieces of silver.

Then, during the last supper, right after it "dawns on" Jesus that this is his last meal with the disciples, Jesus says, "One of you will betray me." The shocked disciples exclaim, "Who?" Jesus breaks off a piece of bread and replies, "Whoever eats this." As he speaks, he reaches over and holds the bread right in front of Judas's mouth. Judas looks at Jesus like, "NO, I'm not going to, I would never do that to you," but after hesitation, he eats it, as if against his will. Jesus says in a quiet, kind tone of voice, "Do it quickly." The conclusion one draws is that Jesus mystically coerced Judas into betraying him. 

The Veil of the Temple

While Jesus was hanging on the cross, the film cut to a scene of the priest preparing to enter the veil, having just cut the lamb's throat. I started to think, "Wow, they're going to show how the veil is rent. Maybe they're going to have one decent, accurate scene here." But I was to be disappointed. The earthquake happened, and some large clay pots started to topple over, and all the priests ran for cover. They never showed the veil being ripped from top to bottom. Terribly disappointing.

The Ascension

The film shows the disciples and Mary on a mountainside. Jesus is on a rock slightly higher up than they are. He says a few last words and then, *blink* He is gone. No ascension on a cloud. No angels telling them that he will come back in the same way. Again, this is completely unbiblical.  

Other problems

• It was simply boring. It was bland and passionless. 
• It was not a story well-told, it was more like a collection of scenes thrown together by people who had no understanding of the gospel, in ways that didn't always even make sense. For instance, there was no attempt at explaining how the people went from crying "Hosanna" to "Crucify Him" in the span of one week. 
• Things happened out of order compared to the Biblical account. The timing of the events of the crucifixion was inaccurate. 
• People were incorrectly portrayed (the character of Nicodemus, for example, in his interactions with Jesus)
• Certain scenes were "sanitized" for political correctness (for example, when Jesus cleanses the temple, we couldn't possibly have the Son of God actually driving the moneychangers with a whip of cords, could we?)
• Low-quality acting, cinematography, and special effects (this was originally filmed as a series for the History channel)
• The ridiculous hole in Jesus's hand after the resurrection. *Shudder*

Conclusion

Overall, this film is terrible.

There are MANY MORE problems with this movie than what I have detailed here, and some of them have already been discussed by others (see, for example, this review, which explores, among other things, the movie's re-definition of Jesus's call of Peter at the sea of Galilee and how it undermines his authority).

I would not recommend this film to a believer or to an unbeliever. And I would not show it to a child.

Read the Bible instead.