Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	
                    THE TWO CROSSES

Hebrews 10:1 attributes the incapacity of animal sacrifice to
unexplained symbolism: "For the law having a shadow of good
things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never
with those sacrifices . . . make the comers thereunto perfect." 
Only the "very image" (that is, the reality) can perfect; the
mere symbol of that reality cannot.  If, then, the cross has
perpetuated the weakness of animal sacrifice, it is because the
cross has hitherto revealed more of symbol than of reality.

This can be demonstrated by a universal distinction between all
spiritual symbols (particularly those pertaining to the
sanctuary and its rituals) and their realities.  Whatever its
particular form the symbol is always a physical substance,
structure, or process.  The reality, on the other hand, is
always nonphysical, pertaining not to matter but to mind.  We
err, therefore, when we suppose that we have moved from type to
antitype, from symbol to reality, simply by the discovery that
earthly rituals signify heavenly rituals.  For even in heaven
ritual comes accross as a physical process using physical
substances, within a physical structure.  Symbols do not become
realities merely by transport to heaven or to imagination.  Nor
are heavenly symbols inherently more efficacious than an earthly
ones, for sin and righteoussness are of mind, not of matter, and
minds are changed not by matter but by mind, not by flesh but by
Spirit.

For the same reason the blood of Christ, of itself, is no more
efficacious than the blood of a lamb (this is confirmed in John
6:63 in the context of a discussion of Christ's flesh and blood,
which, He says, "profit nothing") because both are physical
(fleshly) substances; both are therefore equally symbolic of
realities beyond.  Physically Christ's death occured on the same
plane of reality as did the deaths of bulls and goats.  The
level of symbolism of that death was thus equal to that of the
animal sacrifices.  To see no further than that symbolism is
therefore to be nearly as distant from the "very image" and
nearly as much under the shadow of type as were the Jews prior
to the cross.

Even His death, to the extent that it was a physical process,
was, like the death of a lamb, a symbol of something beyond. 
Consider, for example, the sign of Jonah the prophet.: "For as
Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so
shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart
of the earth" (Matt. 12:40).  The heart of the earth refers to
His entombment and thus to His physical death.  But this is not
the only meaning of the three-day sign of Jonah.  For Jonah the
three days were a period of living death during which he
struggled for reconciliation with God.

Continuing...

	
Seen in the light of Jonah's experience, "heart of the earth" in
Matthew 12:40 refers to two things, hell (the Hebrew Sheol) and
the deep sea.  Both metaphors appear in Jonah 2:2,3 and
elsewhere in the Old Testament to designate living torment and
despair.  Especially is this true of Psalm 69, which, according
to verse 21, is a prophecy of the sufferings of Christ, His
living sufferings.  As with Jonah these sufferings are described
in terms of deep waters (Ps. 69:1,2,14).  All told, the sign of
Jonah pertains decidedly to living torment and living death, a
death symbolized by His later physical death, but experienced
during a living torment that began in Gethsemane.

This torment ended moments before He died.  Before He died 
light dispelled the gloom that had enveloped the cross; before 
He died His face shown with a glory like that of the sun; 
before He died the sense of His Father's disfavor was withdrawn; 
before He died He could truthfully announce, "It is finished."
That death that followed was accordingly the rest of the
Sabbath, a rest that always commemorates a finished work.  His
physical death was therefore as much a symbol of rest and
triumph as of torment and despair.  Only as a symbol distinct
from its reality could His death point simultaneously in such
opposite directions.
        
From beginning to end the entire ordeal of the cross was wrapped
in symbolism: the darkness, the brilliant light, the earthquake,
lightning, rending of the curtain, confinement in the tomb,
blood and water, death itself--all were fitting symbols, but
only symbols.  The reality lay elsewhere.  Even though the full
reality did then occur, it was not then fully revealed.  What
has come down to us from Calvary is more symbol than reality,
more type than antitype, more shadow than very image.  The old
covenant, in a significant sense, has yet to cease, for its
sacrifice still has much in common with the blood of bulls and
goats.

Thus we continue to speak of the benefits of the cross as if it
were a glorified physical rite.  Borrowing the language (but not
the meaning) of Scripture we say that His blood washes away our
sins and that His physical death expiates our transgression.  We
verbally acknowledge the existence of greater reality than
physical manifestation, but still our language, and therefore
our concept, pertains more to matter than to mind, and therefore
more to symbol than to reality.

Continuing...

	
It therefore comes as a shock to us to learn that the real
efficacy of the cross comes not at all from the physical demise
following the announcement "It is finished" (for by then the
sacrifice was already complete), but rather from the mental
warfare preceding that announcement.  Though we may profess to
accord due significance to His living struggle, our whole
concept of the efficacy of the cross is nonetheless controlled
by the idea of physical death, that is, by the symbol rather
than the reality.

Those whose view is thus controlled always view the entire
ordeal, living torment as well as physical death, in terms of
what physical death is, namely, a passive surrender to
life-crushing force.  From this premise the conclusion,
prevalent in Christendom, logically follows: His cross spares us
from punishment simply because Christ suffered an infinitely
painful ordeal ending in the passive surrender of death.

On the other hand, when one's view of the atonement is
controlled by the reality rather than the shadow, by what
occured prior to the announcement of completion rather than
thereafter, one comes to a very different conclusion.  One sees
in His living torment and struggle not passive surrender but
rather active combat against torment and tormentor, and not only
combat against tormentor, but also victory over tormentor to the
point where it tormented Him no more--this prior to the words,
"It is finished."  One sees in this conflict a final battle
against sin itself, a battle that Christ had to win if His
sacrifice was to be of any value to us.  And one sees why He had
to win, namely, to prove,  promise, and predict that mankind can
and will fight the same battle and gain the same victory through
the same faith.  One recognizes that only on the basis of such a
proof, promise, and prediction, could the cross have been of any
atoning benefit from that age to this.  Then it becomes apparent
that His physical death was simply a symbol of an earlier
torment, and His resurrection, a symbol of an earlier victory.

Continuing...

	
Here, then, stand contrasted two crosses, both originating at
Calvary, but one pertaining to the old covenant, and the other
to the new, one the result of physical process, the other, the
result of mental process, one the revelation of symbol, the
other the revelation of reality.  For nearly two thousand years
the cross of the old covenant has been held before us.  But now
that cross is to yield to another.  "He taketh away the first
that He may establish the second" (Heb. 10:9).  The day of the
new covenant is at hand.

The dawn of the new begins when a hitherto concealed promise
speaks from Calvary, the promise that God will have a perfect
people, the promise that God will finish the transgression, make
an end of sins, and bring in everlasting righteoussness.  This
promise, proven and predicted by Calvary, is the new covenant as
recorded in hebrews.  The cross ratifies this covenant because
it proves possible what this covenant predicts.

Through the perfection yet to be wrought by this covenant the
unending sacrifice and oblation will cease, sins once remembered
will be remembered no more, the sanctuary will be cleansed, the
sins commited under the first covenant will be redeemed.  Thus
it is written:



	This is the covenant that I will make with them after those
days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and
in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities
will I remember no more.  Now where a remission of these is,
there is no more offering for sin" (Heb. 10:16-18).



Not only our salvation, but also that of all past generations,
depends upon fulfillment of that prediction.  Abraham, Moses,
David, Samuel, and many like them, Hebrews declares, "received
not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us,
that they without us should not be made perfect" (Heb. 11:39,40).

  Assize Journal, Volume 1 Issue 1, Randall Neall


                                           God Bless,

                                           Tony

    Tony, you use too many Biblical references for that article to be valid
    in here.
    
    hope this helps,
    Mike

      Boy, I wish I had read it!

    spoiler...
    

    He said what I said in 9.1628, but worded a bit differently :^) 

    I applaud Richard for reconsidering and deleting his reply in the
    spirit of restraint and turning the other cheek.

    I read the excerps on the two crosses in length on Friday and did not
    have time to frame my response.  It is a difficult piece to read and
    comprehend but as I struggled through it my feeling was, yes exactly.
    
    that is the point.  The reality of God and Christ and the Cross is not
    the physical reality as identified in the stories but the eternal, 
    ahistorical reality that the stories point to.  The psychic, the
    spiritual, the realm outside all history and all physical reality.  
    
    I seek to read the Bible as literature rather than as History, because
    studying History is a intellectual process where appreciating
    literature is a process that goes way beyond the intellect.  For years
    I tried to read the story of Moses and the burning bush as history and
    could not comprehend.  Right, Moses talking to a burning bush.  Sure.
    But when we leave the rational plane it takes on a whole new meaning.
    When I let the symbolism of fire and feel the light and fire that burns
    within and can feel the image of God as a burning bush proclaiming I am
    who I am.  It is a feeling that I cannot adequately put to words nor
    can anyone else.  The Bible is a suberb attempt to put those feelings
    to Words but still is limited and only points us to the reality beyond
    the words.  ATtempting to find the reality within the Words and not
    beyond the Words is folly.
    
    That is what I read in the article.
    
    Patricia

 Re  966.10

 Hi Patricia,

 A literalist view of the Bible does not exclude the kinds of perceptions 
 that you have when you contemplate the meaning of the burning bush experience
 of Moses. We believe that Moses saw a literal burning bush that was not 
 consumed by the literal fire (and there is a message in that). Literalist
 do not say that a modern reader cannot find or see a greater truth beyond 
 the literal OT stories. Take for example the story of Sarah and Hagar which 
 Paul in the book of Galatians says was an allegory of the new birth. This 
 episode in the lives of Sarah and Hagar actually happened but points to a 
 spiritual truth. If you see a mystical quality in the Burning Bush experience, 
 then that is between you and our Heavenly Father and you should cherish it.
 There is for me also a wordless communication concerning God in this 
 recounting of Moses first encounter with the I AM.

 The literal words act as an anchor (so to speak) for our ground of being.
 After all, we are both flesh and spirit (earthly and heavenly).

 Hank

    Hank,
    
    A anchor I suppose.
    
    An anchor that may causes one to sink in one's own literalism.
    
    I for one am pretty convinced that Moses did not physically talk to a
    burning bush and Jonah did not physically live three days in the belly
    of a whale.  It is preposterous statements like these the keep many
    people from Christianity.  From seeing the spiritual reality beyond the
    stories.
    
    
    Patricia

re Note 966.12 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     It is preposterous statements like these the keep many
>     people from Christianity.  

        Patricia,

        I'm sure that it is true that some persons are turned off to
        Christianity by an insistence on the literalism and
        historicity of such "preposterous statements".

        On the other hand, I suspect that some people are drawn by
        just such statements.

        After all, when we think of the spiritual, in particular when
        we think of a God who creates all, we tend to assume at least
        some possibility of the unexpected, even the otherwise
        physically impossible.

        People are drawn to God in part because of a longing for the
        miraculous in their lives.

        Are you implying that nothing in Scripture which would
        ordinarily be impossible can be literally, historically
        true?  

        Unless you take such an extreme position against the
        historicity of *all* that is miraculous, then you must accept
        at least some of the miraculous in the Bible as literally,
        historically true.  In that case it may be hard to make
        absolute statements (such as yours) that certain events are
        "preposterous".

        (Of course, it is equally hard to make absolute statements
        such as others do that all events are historic.)

        Bob

    I am saying specifically what I said.
    
    It is impossible for bushes to talk and impossible for humans to live
    in the Belly of a whale, and then either burbed out or somehow expunged
    from the digestive track of a whale.
    
    The tendency for many people to associate the name Christianity with
    those who hold such beliefs means many rational people cannot embrace
    Christianity.  I believe that it is time for rational Christians to be
    as articulate as literalist is rescuing Christianity from literalism.
    
    I believe in the miraculous.  I believe in mystery.  But the miraculous
    is a little more subtle than talking trees.
    
    Patricia

re Note 966.14 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     I believe in the miraculous.  I believe in mystery.  But the miraculous
>     is a little more subtle than talking trees.
    
        Patricia,

        You've given no clue as to how you decide what is impossible
        and what is miraculous, between something subtle enough to be
        miraculous and something not so subtle.

        Do you care to offer some insight into making that
        distinction?

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    I believe that the miraculous is in the everyday.  When we open
    ourselves to Love and the Spirit of Love we create magic.  When we open
    ourselves to possibilities, those possibilities occur.  I have the sense
     of God working in my life.  That openess to Divinity produces
    miracles.  Prayer produces miracles.  I cannot adequately explain how
    it happens, but I believe it happens in the ordinary.  Miracles occur
    in relationships, in people coming into and out of our lives.
    
    The supernatural kind of miracles described in the Bible are the
    product of a mytical mindframe.  Every primitative religion believed
    that Medicine men could create desired outcomes supernaturally.
    
    the distinctive characteristic of Christianity is the openess, the
    Love, the message that what humans do matter, that life matters.  We
    live in a world that follows natural laws.  We can count on Science and
    the rational.  We can also count on the spirit of Love and Goodness
    that surrounds us and is available to us.  That is what makes
    Christianity distinct from other supernatural belief systems.
    
    Patricia

  Re 966.12 Patricia

  > preposterous

  100 years ago it was considered preposterous that one suggest that man
  would fly across the Atlantic at a speed greater than sound, but voila!

  > Talking trees 

  How about the talking box we sit in front of that tells us about the world.
  You know the "TV".

  > Humans living in the belly of a whale           

  Several men went to the moon in the belly of a metalic "whale",  travelling 
  at a speed of 17,000+/MPH came back and were "expunged".

  Let me ask you a question Patricia

  Is our heavenly Father any less able to do these things than His Children?

  Preposterous is rooted in one's point of view.

  However I can appreciate (and enjoy in some cases) your mysticism.

  > Rescuing christianity from literalism...

  Thats been going on for 2000 years Patricia.
  

  Hank

    Hank,
    
    And Jesus clearly told his disciples that blessed were those who did
    not need signs to believe.  2000 years ago people believed their
    everyday life was controlled by spirits and magic. Today we discern an
    orderly law to the universe.  If we send somebody to the moon in a
    "mechanical whale" the environment has been constructed, air has been
    circulated, temperature has been controlled, etc.  We have used
    ordinary laws of the universe and principles of science and technology.
    
    We have the technology to make a tree talk.  But most five years olds
    would not believe that the tree was really talking.  Microphones,
    radios, etc would be set up inside.  
    
    We don't need magic to have faith.  God talks to each of us in the
    inspiration of our hearts, and the dreams of our subconscious.  It is a
    beautiful metaphor that the biblical writers choose the symbol of a
    burning bush to express this connectedness with the Divine.  Let us
    have faith in the reality of the connectness and not get hung up on the
    physical symbol choosen to express that reality. 
    
    peace and love
    
    Patricia

 Patricia, I'm not at war with you.

 I agree that the burning bush contains beautiful symbolism for us to
 contemplate and muse in our spirits, but I believe Moses saw with his
 eyes a burning bush, I dont see why thats such a problem to you.

 I am saying that a biblical literalist can appreciate this sybolism as
 well (and maybe better) as those who see the Bible as being or containing 
 "myth". They (mythologists) dont have a monopoly on mysticism either.

 For God to suspend or override His own physical laws, I do not consider
 to be "magic". His own children do it when they override the law of gravity
 with the aerodynamic law of "rotation".  It just isn't important to a 
 literalist as to the "how" of the mechanics of the supernatural in the
 scripture, whether it was suspension or an override of the physical laws.
 Suspension will do just fine and if it turns out it was override thats
 fine also.

 Hank 

I forget if it was Robert Heinlein or Arthur C. Clarke (both science fiction 
writers) who said something like "An advanced enough technology is 
indistinguishable from magic".  One thing I do believe is that people in
Biblical times were very observant of the world around them. 

Peace,

Jim

    Hank,
    
    My point is that one does not have to read the bible literally to find
    meaning.  That is to me what the articles about the two crosses means.
    Spiritual Reality is beyond the physical symbols.
    
    I have no problem with anyone believing anything they believe.  My
    problem is with those who would appropriate the Bible only for those
    who read it with the same understanding as them.  
    
    I too will call a truce!
    
    Patricia 
    
    Patricia

| <<< Note 966.21 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>


| My point is that one does not have to read the bible literally to find
| meaning.  That is to me what the articles about the two crosses means.
| Spiritual Reality is beyond the physical symbols.

	Patricia, GRRRRRREAT NOTE!  You conveyed my thoughts exactly! :-)

| I have no problem with anyone believing anything they believe.  My
| problem is with those who would appropriate the Bible only for those
| who read it with the same understanding as them.

	Again, you echo my thoughts. :-)


Glen