Andrew: John 1. 29-42

John tells the “Jesus story” a bit differently. He was, I believe, familiar with Mark's Gospel, and decided to write something fresh that tells the same story – the story of the same Jesus – but from a slightly different perspective by selecting different incidents. I don't believe he altered the story or twisted the facts. He simply selected a bunch of different material, and presents it in a different way. Mark takes us on the same journey as the disciples, and lets the reader figure out who Jesus. is as the disciples do. John starts with who Jesus. is, and then tells the story. We can see some of that in the way John tells the story of Andrew....

Preparation

Andrew is well prepared by the one who came to prepare the way, John the Baptist. John's account of John the Baptist is very much in harmony with Luke's. The Baptiser's was 'the voice of one crying in the wilderness, “prepare the way of the Lord!”' He knows he is not worthy even to untie Jesus' shoes (v. 26). He described Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” as the one who baptises in the Holy Spirit, and as the “Son of God.” And Andrew was a follower of John the Baptist; maybe not full-time, but he was one who appreciated John's style and was challenged and inspired by his preaching. So, Andrew was up for the idea of Messiah coming. In many ways, Andrew had good qualities, strengths, that he may have learned from John the Baptist.

When John the Baptist says to these two of his disciples, “Look, there is the Lamb of God” he is deliberately releasing them, inviting them to find out about Jesus. He is in effect handing over some of his best team-members, to the new guy – to Jesus.

And Andrew is up for change: whatever that change might be. John's gospel emphasises the change from following John the Baptist, to following Jesus. Andrew feels the need to leave John's group and attach himself to Jesus' group. Later on, as Mark tells us, Andrew will experience another change – as he leaves his fishing-boat to follow Jesus. He is prepared for costly and painful change. And there is an inner change, a change in his religious experience: He makes a move from anticipation to fulfilment, from expectation to realisation. From preparation to participation in the Kingdom of god. What he has been prepared for, he has now to encounter. The Kingdom of God is here.

Encounter

Andrew is curious. This “Lamb of God” guy, Jesus: what is he like? Where does he live? In a palace or a one-room shack? What does he believe in? There is all that to find out. So he and the other disciple who is with him (possibly John himself) start to follow Jesus, literally tailing him. John is well aware that “following” in Greek as in English has overtones of being a “disciple” as well as a literal meaning: and he – as he often does – intends us to see both meanings at once.

Jesus notices two big young fishermen following him, so he turns around, and asks them what they want. If you sense that two burly guys are following you, what do you do. Speed up and hope to shake them off? Change plans and go to meet a friend for back-up? Jesus turns and looks the fishermen in the eye. Too many of us and in the habit of sidestepping difficult situations. How much easier life would be if we were prepared to look people in the eye. And again, it's a good disciple-making question: “What exactly do you want, not just trailing me but out of life in general?”

“Well, for a start, where do you live, Jesus”. It's a double-sided question again. “Show us where you live. What neighbourhood? A shack or a palace? Where will we find you if we want to talk to you.” But John probably wants us to notice another double-meaning here: he is pointing out that the most important question in life is “Where is Jesus? How can we connect with Messiah?”

“Come and see”, says jesus. And he takes Andrew and the other disciple to his home. Then the three of them spend the rest of the day together – presumably talking about the Kingdom, the ministry of Jesus. From the start, Andrew's encounter with Jesus. is relational. He spends an afternoon, and maybe a meal time, teasing things out; asking questions.... And Jesus' approach with Andrew, is personal as well as direct.

In Mark 3. 13-14, when Jesus formally (after a night of prayer, by the way) appoints the Twelve, he calls them to “be with him” and then to be sent out “to preach and to have authority to drive out demons.” Jesus starts with relationship. The way he wants to work in our lives, is through relationships. He doesn't call us to a theoretical knowledge of his person or his teachings; he does not call us to know only his power in service. He calls us first to be his friends – and friends and brothers of one another.

Witness

And Andrew is an evangelist. Having encountered Jesus, Andrew goes off and finds his loud-mouth brother, Simon. Andrew is convinced enough by this time; so he tells Simon “We have found the Messiah – come and meet him.” That is a great definition of evangelism. To be able to say “I've found someone very special – come and meet him.” Andrew often seemed to notice people around him, and to see the moments of opportunity: John tells us it was Andrew who, scouting around the crowd on the hillside, found one kid among 5000 who had brought his sandwiches – and Andrew brought this kid to Jesus. John 6. 9: “here is a wee boy who has five loaves....” John tells us that jesus was trying to tease out a response fo faith from the disciples – and it looks to me like Andrew brought this child, out of the crowd, to Jesus, in response to that: he's not quite livign in full expectancy of a miracle; but he is beginning to engage with the fact that Jesus has a plan! In John 12. 20-22, Philip found some Greeks who were wanting to meet Jesus. Philip was unsure what to do, so he asked Andrew: Andrew instinctively knew he had to tell Jesus. He has the heart of an evangelist. He tells what he knows. He notices people. He connects – albeit a bit warily – with the supernatural. He has an instinct for the importance of people and occasions.

Humility

When Andrew brought his brother Simon to Jesus, it was Simon who was told “you are Peter, the Rock.” If Andrew wanted to be the most important disciple of jesus, he had mae his first mistake by bringing Simon along! But that wasn't on his mind. Andrew was unafraid to play second fiddle. This is where John's telling of the story of Andrew is different. Mark doesn't tell us about these early days of Andrew's discipleship. He picks up the story a few weeks later. By this time John the Baptist has been imprisoned. People like Andrew who have followed John are now without their teacher. Andrew is back fishing – he may not have given up fishing at this stage anyway – and this time it is Jesus who calls Simon and Andrew. To follow a Rabbi you normally chose the Rabbi , and asked him if he would teach you. Jesus broke the rules: he walked up to those guys, and told them to follow him. They were ready to do so because they had already met Jesus. But, from this point on, it's not so much “Andrew and Simon” as “Simon and Andrew” and then Peter, James and John. Andrew plays second fiddle – and he plays it rather well. He has his gifts; he exercises leadership. But he's not in the inner circle. He's not one of the three. Later on, when Jairus' daughter is raised form the death, it's Peter, James and John; when Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane, it's Peter, James and John who are taken aside to support him. Not Andrew. He was not one to insist on the limelight, to get caught trying to book his place at the top table We need to be prepared to play second fiddle – and to play it well.

Today, Advent Sunday, and St Andrews Day, we move a bit forward in our journey with Jesus, like Andrew did. I want to challenge us

• to make a move from expectancy to experience... to say “yes” to Jesus.
• To develop our walk with Jesus relationally, so it is about life as well as about belief.
• To share the Gospel
• To engage with the supernatural, the power of God
• To walk humbly, taking the attitude of a servant.

And today, Advent Sunday and St Andrews Day, we recognise those who are ready at this stage to be the team serving by being at the “Prayer Place”... that's a commitment to be like Andrew – walking humbly, introducing people to Jesus, and engaging – even if sometimes a bit uncertainly – with the supernatural. 

© Gilmour Lilly November  2014
 

Acts 25. 1-22 Faith and action

By this time in the story, Paul has been in prison for two solid years.  What began quite suddenly when he was accused of bringing a Greek into the temple, and within a couple of weeks had become a major court-case, has led to two years of frustration,  as Paul remains under guard in Caesarea.  Then there was the disturbance in Caesarea, and Felix was removed, and replaced by a man called Porcius Festus.

Festus is a wiser and  more even handed governor than Felix had been. He was also very much aware of the trouble the Jews had caused for Felix and determined to avoid the same mistakes. As soon as he arrived, therefore, he went to Jerusalem, and as soon as he got there, the Jews were keen to get Paul finally dealt with. So they asked, again, for Paul to be brought for trial to Jerusalem. Festus probably thinks they want to try him themselves (And maybe he suspected that they would not give him a fair trial)... but actually Luke tells us they planned to assassinate Paul on his  journey back to Jerusalem.

Festus wisely insists that he should hold court in his headquarters in Caesarea, and suggests that when he returns there a few of the the Sanhedrin go with him to place their charges against Paul.  So that is what happens after a week or so. 

As soon as the Governor gets back to Caesarea, Paul's trial starts: the Jews have a list of vague accusations, none of which they can prove.  All Paul needs to do, really, is to deny these charges. 

It's at this point that Festus realises Paul isn't really a dangerous revolutionary or crowd-stirrer: in fact his only crimes seem to be against the Jewish religion not the Roman state. So he suggests that the case should, after all, be heard in Jerusalem.  Maybe witnesses will come forward on one side or the other; maybe it will all become clearer.   But he says he will try the case himself, so there will be fair play.  It is a compromise.  Festus knows Paul is innocent but he is torn between his desire to uphold the principles of Roman law, and his need to get on with the Sanhedrin – they are the highest non-Roman authority in the province and they had caused Felix to lose his job!  

But Paul is worried. Once Festus begins to compromise with the Sanhedrin, there might be more compromises.  Festus is still feeling his way and might yet be outwitted by the Sanhedrin.  So it is at this point that Paul makes his move: “No, I am a Roman citizen, being tried under Roman law; I appeal to Caesar!”  He doesn't trust the way things are going. He is within his rights. A Roman Citizen had the right to be tried in Rome, before a verdict was given in a lower court. This wasn't the same as appealing against a judgement already given. Paul's concern was not saving his own skin.  It was justice, and the honour of the Gospel.  He had God-given ambition. He may even have hoped to achieve for the Christian Way the same “tolerated religion” status that the Jews enjoyed.  And he had God's promise: “You will testify in Rome as you have done in Jerusalem.  It's time that the forces that were stacked against that promise – in Paul’s case, prejudice power and pomp, traditionalism, jealousy, dishonesty, corruption, and self-interest – were stopped in their tracks.  “I appeal to Caesar”

The point is this:  as it looked increasingly likely that the forces stacked against him would not set him free, as though the whole idea of testifying in Rome could be in jeopardy, Paul determined to pursue what was on his heart and what god had promised to him.  “I appeal to Rome.”  Checkmate.  And just as Paul took decisive action to pursue the call of God on his life, he calls us to do the same. We can be passive, sitting back and waiting for God to do something. It's time that whatever is stacked against that promise and call and purpose, was made to bow the knee to the will of  God.

What has God said to us, today?  What has God called us to?   What has God placed on our hearts?   And what are we going to do about it?

I believe that for some of us, it is time for action.  Not time for rhetoric.  Not time for study or thinking about it.  It is time for action. 

But we have a number of problems with this idea:-  
1. Definition: what is our call?  What if we don't really know what God has called us to?  We have God's Word.  It defines in general terms what God calls us to.  We have God's Spirit in our lives, to lead us directly.  We have God's people around us to encourage and challenge us.  So, really, we have very little excuse for not knowing what God is calling us to.
2. Recognition: where is the opposition?  Prejudice power and pride present themselves to us in different ways.  Sometimes they are in our surroundings. Sometimes they are inside us!   A few days ago I got the news that one of our folks was in high dependency at the Victoria. My instinct – hard wired after thirty-three years in ministry – was to jump in my car, and visit.   Knight in shining armour, coming to bring God's comfort to a soul in need.  But Pam said to me “I think Norma and I should do this visit...”  You know I was put out.  “That's my job!”  And that is part of the problem of drifting – not being proactive but always responding to emergency situations, always doing what comes to hand.  We can be working very hard – but on the wrong stuff. We can be feeling very frustrated because we need to rest more, pray more, and so on – but never find the time.  “Maybe one day!” 
3. Permission:  Sometimes we think it's more spiritual to "just let God do it."   We think of scriptures like 2 Chron 20. 17 ("You will not have to fight this battle. Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the Lord will give you") or Genesis 16, where Abram fathered a child by the servant girl Hagar to try to fulfil God's promise of a son.  We dont' want to make our own Ishmael when God wants to give us an Isaac.  But Abraham had to play his part as Sarah's husband when God did fulfil the promise!  Sometimes we do have to fight the battles.  Sometimes there is something obvious we need to do:  you want to know more about God? Read your Bible!  you want to see more answers to prayer? Pray more!  Sometimes the action will eb  obvious in teh moment. Sometimes it will need to eb thought through.   

 Now, I'm not suggesting for one moment, that “doing”, or being busy is the answer to everything.  Decisive steps are not an alternative to trusting God; prayer is not a substitute for decisive action.  They belong together.  We need to pray; we need to trust in god.  We need to let go and let God. 
 
Now what?  Is anything going to be different from today?    If we feel that our calling has been put on hold, God's promises called into question, his purposes in our lives frustrated,  what are we going to do? If we're stuck, how do we get “unstuck”?   What do we need to do? 

But there are “kairos” moments, moments of decision, when we need to pro-actively, intentionally, step out in faith and pursue our calling and Gods' promise.  But it may involve listening, learning, training others, leading, re-arranging your life so you have space for what God is calling you to, taking a risk; trying something you have never done before ... so step into rest, step into God's call and purpose. 

© Gilmour Lilly November  2014

Acts 24

Acts 24

A Courtroom Drama – Perry Mason – is a good place to study human nature. We watch that kind of stuff not to see whether justice will be done, but how it is done – the characters and interactions involved!

In our world today, Christians are “on trial”. For some, persecution, show trials and imprisonment and torture are still a reality. For all of us, we, and the faith we talk about, are being judged daily at home at work, in the supermarket. So what do we find in this courtroom drama?


The Prosecution have now got a lawyer.... Tertullus is cool, professional. He is probably a Greek-speaking Jew. However, he doesn't seem to be either that well-informed about the case or too passionate about it. He may well have been a fairly?nominal? Jew who hadn't paid much attention to Paul's case, until he was offered a fee for prosecuting him!
He is, however, good at smooth-talking, flattering. A lengthy bit of flattery to the judge, was a convention of the time. It was part of what Tertullus was paid for. He was also paid to make a weak case sound more plausible. But he seems like a man who actually has very little of substance to say. Tertullus uses a lot of padding to try to hide the lack of content. Some authors think that

Luke deliberately quotes Tertullus' disjointed Greek in verse 5 to expose his ignorance: “for having found this man a troublemaker, and stirring up riot among all the Jews through the world -- a ringleader also of the sect of the Nazarenes”. It's the result of someone being pompous, trying to sound important and using big words ? but making a mess of it. 

Tertullus' speech is marked by
(1) Insults. He calls Paul a pest, a plague, a disease.
(2) Generalisations: vague and unverifiable statements. “Stirring up riots all over the world” (the sort of thing that are often used to dismiss Christian faith in the minds of atheists or agnostics. You know the sort of thing: “Religion has caused more wars than anything else. Look at the Crusades” It sounds plausible and neat, until it's placed anywhere near the facts.)
(3) Emotive buzz words. “A ringleader among the Nazarenes.” Now “Nazarene” has become a Jewish word for “Christian” ... but for a Roman its meaning would be vague and almost certainly “dangerous”. Tertullus is deliberately pulling Felix's strings by making Paul sound like a dangerous political operator.
(4) Exaggeration. Tertullus can only really make one concrete accusation: “He even tried to desecrate the temple.” What Tertullus was referring to, of course, was the unfounded rumour that Paul had brought gentiles into the temple. He knew that would cause no concern to Felix, so he takes this false charge, and makes it sound even bigger.

Tertullus then finishes, quite abruptly, by challenging Felix to examine Paul himself: Paul's guilt, he is certain, will then become obvious. This is a bluff, designed to imply that what he has been saying is pretty much self-evident. “Anyone with any intelligence will realise it.” And the Jews who have paid Tertullus, all agree, although they have not been formally called as witnesses.

Tertullus whole speech, then is an attempt to make the case against Paul look and sound plausible – but in reality it is a combination of prejudice and bluff. He is prepared to twist the truth, in order to make a case that suits him and those who are paying him.

The defendant: Paul's defence is respectful and polite; but not gushing: none of Tertullus' flattery .

His defence is
(1) F actual v. 11-13: He begins his defence by stating that he has only been in Jerusalem for twelve days: that is a fact that can be verified. (v. 11) His one reason for coming to Jerusalem was to worship God in the Temple. No-one who wants to accuse him of doing anything else, has any proof. In v. 17-19. Paul lays out the facts in more detail, including a mention of the alms he had brought for the Jerusalem Church. Everyone has conveniently forgotten that evidence of good character.
(2)  Forthright . v. 14-16. Paul admits that he is a follower of “the Way” who believes in the resurrection – that is, a Christian. That doesn't make him a heretic: it makes him “completed Jew.” What he will not allow is to have his faith in Christ associated in the minds of his hearers, with being a trouble-maker.
(3)  Challenging .  He hasn't had enough time to stir up riots, as he's only been in town less than a fortnight. The facts can be verified simply by asking people. (v. 11) As for the original charge against him, that was brought by some Jews for Asia – but Paul isn't going to do their dirty work for them by even repeating what they accused him of. (v. 19f) They  should still be around to give their testimony, if they have any testimony to give. That is a totally logical challenge to the charges made against him.
(4)  Passionate . You can sense the anger in Paul's speech. Why should his original accusers melt away into the crowd? He sounds almost sarcastic when he says in verse 21 “unless I am actually in court for saying I believe in the resurrection!”

His defence is clear, factual, honest. What more could you want? Paul is not only telling the truth; hi is living the truth and loving the truth. Again, it is not just Paul who is on trial: it is the integrity of his faith and the validity of his message. Paul is not so much defending himself as defending his faith. 
The Judge . Felix, the ex slave, now a rising star in the Roman political system. Felix, who has the power of a king and the heart of a slave. He is married to a Jewess – Drusilla, daughter of Herod Agrippa I and ex-wife of a minor Syrian king. Felix had seduced her with help from a local magician! Felix is acquaint with the Way (Luke's way of talking about Christianity) probably thanks to Drusilla.

How Felix behaves is very telling.
(1) “Cool” He cultivates the right image. He wants to look just, so he decides to wait until Lysias (the Jerusalem commander) arrives; he gives Paul reasonably civilised living quarters within the confines of the Palace: Paul is still a prisoner, but he is permitted as many visitors as he wants. It looks OK, and maybe it is. But it is all done for effect. The reality is the Felix is neither interested in justice or mercy.
(2) Curious : There is another side to Felix. He occasionally calls Paul in to have a chat. Paul begins to talk about the right way to live, about being self-controlled, about the possibility of future judgement; that seems to touch a raw nerve with Felix, maybe because of his affair with Drusilla. Felix gets jittery and brings the conversation to an abrupt halt. But there are other little chats.
(3) Corruption .  Alongside the curiosity and the fear, there's another motive: greed. He hopes that Paul will offer him a bribe. (Maybe he thought that, if Paul had brought alms for the Jerusalem Church, he had access to other sums of money!)  This powerful governor remains a small-minded, and self-interested wee man, So Felix keeps Paul in prison, despite the lack of evidence, despite the fact that Lysias must have had reason to visit his superior in Caesarea regularly.

Two years later, there as a local disturbance – between the Jewish and Gentile people of Caesarea; Felix weighed in with Roman troops and a number of leading Jews were killed; as a result the Jewish council put in a complaint and Felix was moved on. He narrowly escaped execution in fact. To mollify the Jews and avoid making any more trouble for himself, he quietly left Paul in prison for his successor to deal with.

Felix was simply avoiding the truth. He can't accept the truth as it is (or even find the courage to check out the facts!) He doesn't feel any need to make up an alternate version of the truth. He just ignores it. Tell a joke, distract yourself by turning on the TV... and maybe the truth will just go away. 

When faith in on trial, the same characteristics show up again and again. Some will twist the truth. Much of the opposition to Christian faith today is based on a caricature of what Christians believe, on unverified claims, emotive accusations, and on insults and exaggeration. Some will avoid the truth; they may be curious for awhile, but in the end why bother really. Who cares whether it is tru or not. Some will live the truth: God calls us to be like Paul – forthright, passionate, committed, and reasonable. Be able to give a reason for our faith. It is not really us who are on trial – it is our faith; it is Jesus.

What are you inclined to do with truth?

If you are a follower of Jesus –

• be able to give a reason for our faith.
• Tell your story honestly
• Respect those who don't agree with you;
• and remember, people aren't usually won for Jesus with arguments but with love.

And if you’re not yet a follower of Jesus – at least be sure of your facts

© Gilmour Lilly November  2014

Matthew 12. 1-29: A different kind of Victory

Remembrance Sunday 2014

In the novel and film “The four feathers” on of the characters, a British officer, says “It ceases to be an idea for which we fight. Or a flag. Rather we fight for the man on our left, and we fight for the man on our right.” But before blood is shed, Governments do not go to war just so people can have jolly good war. There are aims which may include the overthrow of a foreign government, taking over territory, or maybe compelling a government to change an objectionable policy. So there are always two things happening: something political and something personal...

Around Remembrance Sunday, the text John 15:13 is often used: “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” So what were the political and personal things that were happening in the sacrifice of Jesus. Because Jesus for sure wasn't just a victim. The story goes like this.

God made a good world. He intended men and women to have authority over that world, to partner each other in managing and maintaining the planet. It was meant to be a world without domination, disease, disasters, demons and deception.

But things went pear-shaped – people rebelled against God. They tried to do things their own way, and the beautiful world God made was spoiled. So we live in a world where there are wars and conflicts, where there is oppression, exploitation, fear, famine and disease, and where nature itself seems broken. The fall effects every aspect of life in our world:

• there is domination: oppression in the way people are treated by other people and by institutions. (including religion... the "law" Jesus and the disciples were breaking wasn't God's law; it was the Pharisees' interpretation of God's law.)
• There is disease. There are disasters. The created order is broken. Our bodies wear out and die. We poison ourselves with legal and illegal drugs, with sugar and fat, with pesticides and preservatives. There are earthquakes, hurricanes, famines as we poison the planet with greenhouse gases.
• There are demons. There is spiritual oppression. It's kind of unfashionable to say that: after all, we're no longer primitive tribes. But there today is a massive concentration on the occult, a fascination with all things weird and spooky. C S Lewis (author of the Narnia stories and one of the sharpest minds of the twentieth century) 70 years ago predicted “The Materialistic Magician, the man … worshiping what he vaguely calls 'Forces' while denying the existence of 'Spirits.'” People do find themselves under the direct and damaging influence of ugly, unclean spirits, demons.
• There is deception and darkness. So the Pharisees were suggesting that Jesus did his work through devil power. They were calling white black. How many of us feel we can trust politicians – of any party? And it's not just politicians: one of the marks of our culture is the exalting of “image” over reality. We love “reality TV” but all TV is made up of carefully crafted images. And we deceive ourselves, we believe our own publicity, even when ti flies in the face of all the evidence.

That world, the world Jesus entered, is our messed-up world. Where does God fit into that account of the world? Through OT history, God promises a time coming when he shall again rule a peaceful, just world (Isa 2. 2-5)

God's Kingdom: a revolution.

When Jesus entered this world, he declared a revolution. Indeed by “becoming flesh” he entered into enemy territory. It was, after all, through “flesh” through human drives like hunger that the fall had happened in the first place. The devil sees the world of “flesh” as his world; our “flesh” is something that Paul sees is at war against God. And Jesus became flesh. His incarnation was a declaration of war; his baptism was his mobilization to the front line.

The whole point of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, was a war. It all happened – like a war – to alter the balance of power and establish God's right to rule in his world. It all happened to defeat the devil and all the domination, disease, disasters, demons and deception. All the oppression, exploitation, impurity, and brokenness that he has scattered about to spoil the wonderful world God made.

So when Jesus comes, what is he doing? He is healing the sick; he is driving out the demons; he is cleansing the lepers; he is preaching the Good News. All of that is a rebellion, it is warfare against the way things are. We see that in Matt 12.

• Jesus challenges domination. He declares war on the oppressive legalism of Sabbath keeping; God gave us a “sabbath” as a day of “Rest, Reflection and Relationships” - but extra laws turned it into d day of fear and judgment. God hates all forms of exploitation and oppression.
• Jesus challenges disease. In the synagogue, on the Sabbath, Jesus. shows that disease is as much an invader, that doesn't belong in God's world. The little person with a shriveled hand, he heals.
• Jesus challenges the demons. Verse 22f. One of those Jesus. “helped” was blind and mute because of a demon. Jesus recognized that the man's problem was spiritual not physical in its cause, and drove the evil entities out of the man's life. He didn't heal him, he drove the demons because he understood that they were not the same as “illness”
• Jesus challenges deception. Immediately – as soon as he has driven the demon out, some of the religious people begin to explain away what he has done. (as they have done before: Mt 9. 34) Jesus challenges the deception on logical, intelligent, grounds.

Jesus deals with these things: he declares war. He begins to win battles.

The Victor

The Pharisees (for the first time in Matthew) wanted to kill Jesus (v 14). “There is a clear link between chapter 12 and the passion of Jesus” (Green, p 148)

Eventually, Jesus was arrested, tried and put to death. “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”. But in Jesus.' death, his war-aims were achieved. in that death, he “bound the strong man”, Satan himself, so that the strong man's goods could be plundered, so that hell itself could be plundered, and men and women and the created order could be taken back from the Devil; the tools of oppression he uses – domination, disease, disasters, demons and deception – are now the weapons of a defeated enemy. Jesus conquered death and lives and ruels today. Paul put it like this: “When you were stuck in your old sin-dead life, you were incapable of responding to God. God brought you alive—right along with Christ! Think of it! All sins forgiven, the slate wiped clean, that old arrest warrant cancelled and nailed to Christ’s cross. He stripped all the spiritual tyrants in the universe of their sham authority at the Cross and marched them naked through the streets.” Colossians 2. 15f, the Message)

So Jesus fought to achieve the great war-aim of destroying the works of the evil one. He fought fopr revolution; for regime change. And he did that for us. He fought, for the man on his left and the man on his right – for us.

That means you and I can live in the good of God's Kingdom today: the deal is that we quit kidding ourselves, admit that Jesus is who he says he is – and allow regime change in our own lives as we trust him and surrender our lives to him.

© Gilmour Lilly November  2014