In the physical world, we say that for every action, there is a reaction. If a volcano erupts, it is not a random event but, rather, it is the result of the movement of tectonic plates and the rupture of the earth’s mantle. If the mountains disappear, it is not because they are gone but, rather, there is enough humidity in the air that the haze it causes hides the mountains. We usually can discover the cause of things that happen. If there is no obvious cause, we seek to discover one, trusting that it is discoverable.

This works in the physical world, and people have long recognized this. Today, we tend to be rather scientific about things, and we generally attribute strange events to physical phenomena. In ancient times, however, when scientific methods were unknown, strange events were often attributed to the workings of the gods. When the sun was darkened and the moon turned to blood, people saw this as an act of the gods (or God). Today, however, when the sun is darkened and moon turns red, we realize that it is because of massive amounts of pollution in the air caused by either a volcano erupting or a huge forest fire. The Bible describes such events in the heavens as portents warning of impending doom, and while we, as Christians, might attribute them to physical causes, but we also understand that God can and sometimes does use the timing of the eruption of volcanos to darken the sun and so act as a warning to us. While a Christian can understand the science, we do not discount that such events are directed by God to warn us to preparedness. But even in this, we must be careful to determine if is God warning us or simply a natural phenomenon.

For every action, there is a reaction, even if it is directed by God. But we must always be careful that we do not wrongly attribute an event to a cause unless we are sure that it is the cause. In John 9, the disciples and Jesus encounter a man who was born blind, and his disciples ask Jesus, “Why is this man blind” Was it his own sin or the sin of his parents that led to his blindness?” They believed that in the case of an illness or disability there must be an identifiable cause, namely that there was some identifiable sin that resulted in the problem. The disciples were simply relying on the theology of their day which said that we can determine why bad things happen to people. It’s because they have sinned in some way, and they are being punished for that sin.

Jesus tells the disciples that it is neither the man’s sin nor the sin of his parents that caused his blindness but, rather, that his blindness was an opportunity for God to reveal his powerful work of healing. With that, Jesus proceeded to heal the blind man.

In a meeting with some fellow believers (not in the immediate area), we had a conversation about the homeless people in that city. Generally, the people in that meeting were in agreement that God calls us to help the homeless, but the desire to help was dampened by a comment of one person. He said that their homelessness was God’s judgement because of something they had done wrong. He was challenged by others in the meeting who pointed out to him that while sometimes homelessness was a result of bad decisions, for often times those who are homeless struggle from mental illness, abusive childhoods or some other thing that led to their present situation. In other words, their homelessness was a result of things that had affected them deeply and negatively, and while they didn’t respond well to those negative pressures, they could not be held entirely responsible for their situation. By saying that their homelessness was a punishment, this one person was trying to avoid the responsibility of caring for our neighbour because, after all, if someone is being punished by God, we should not really intervene. This is the implication of saying that bad things happen to us because we did something to deserve them, and we are being punished.

It is bad theology to apply the laws of the physical world to our spiritual lives. It is not always true that all the bad things that happen to us are a result of our sin. If it were, I think that most of us would have to admit that our lives should be a lot worse than they are. If it is true for every action (sin) there was a reaction (punishment), we would all be in agony all the time. When someone struggles with illness or poverty or loneliness, we must be very cautious to say that they are getting what they deserve because they have committed some sin. That would be to apply laws of science to spiritual situations, something that we must be careful not to do.

The truth is, of course, that we can identify the cause of our problems, but the cause is broad and general: bad things happen to us simply because we live in a world that is soaked in sin. The sinful nature of the world and of ourselves results in problems of all sorts: illness, disease, poverty, loneliness, and the like. Some are more affected by the sinfulness of this world than others, and there does not seem to be a pattern. We cannot say that the one who suffers more is being punished more because of his/her sin. All we can say is that this is the result of living in this world such as it is.

But we do see that there are moments of hope and healing. When Jesus healed the blind man, he rejoiced in his healing and gave God the glory. His healing was an opportunity for God to show his power. Surprisingly, the religious leaders did not like the fact that he was healed and they abandoned their cause-effect theology. They would not acknowledge that Jesus was from God even though they must have understood that only God can heal a man who was born blind. The result (the restoration of his sight) had to have had a cause, and that cause had to have been God.

In this we do learn that there is an identifiable cause and effect when we see restoration. We say that living in a world of sin causes suffering, but we can also say that when God gets involved, we see the impact of his touch. Restoration is from the hand of God, so when God works, we can see what he has done. So, to summarize, we cannot necessarily say that the cause of someone’s suffering is a result of their sin, but we can say that relief from suffering is directly caused by God’s intervening work.

In the opening line of Psalm 23, we hear the words, “The LORD is my shepherd.” The Hebrew word for LORD (note all capitals in our Bibles) is the name of God, Yahweh. The idea that God can be thought of as a shepherd predates David’s psalm and was a widely known concept in Ancient Near Eastern culture. Not only gods, but also people of authority – leaders, kings, and military commanders – were often thought of as shepherds.

Shepherding, tending to the flocks, is one of the most ancient occupations. Abel, son of Adam and Eve, we understand, was a shepherd, and millennia later, Moses was a shepherd for the middle third of his life. Because shepherds predated the founding of cities, those who had moved to urban areas often viewed them as being somewhat backward with harsh and unyielding personalities. Shepherds themselves did not enjoy an elevated reputation among the people of civilized places. Yet, kings and other powerful leaders, and sometimes even the gods were understood to be shepherds.

Even though the best shepherds were often viewed as being uncompromising, this was also one of the best characteristics of a good leader. A shepherd must never compromise on the care of his sheep, and a leader (king, general, or even a god) must not be comprising in his care of the people. Uncompromising is often viewed as stubbornness, but, at the same time, the positive side of stubbornness is stalwartness. Shepherds were dependable, something that was a necessary attribute of a king.

But more importantly, a shepherd must give all his attention to his sheep. To do that, most shepherds spent twenty four hours a day with the sheep, even sleeping in an area near the sheepfold, the place where the sheep were bedded in safety for the night. Jesus talks about the sheep knowing the shepherd being willing to follow only the one that they knew, but the shepherd must also know his sheep. A good shepherd will immediately spot illness or injury. He will notice if a sheep is missing. A good shepherd can sense if things are well with the flock or if there is something wrong. If there is something wrong, he will do everything to make it right. The only way a shepherd could do that was to be fully attentive to his sheep.

This is why people often thought of their leaders as shepherds. If their leader, be it a king of a general or a god, was not fully attentive to the needs of his people, the people would suffer. To be attentive, the king would have to live among the people and know the people so well that if something was amiss, he would immediately sense it and make corrections. A good king knew his people, and he was willing to sacrifice his own comforts for them.

We live in a democracy, and in a democracy, it should be that our leaders, who are elected from among us, would be attentive to our needs. Democracy should work because those who hold the power live among us and, we would expect, can sense when things are not well. In a democracy, leaders work for the public good, not their own, for they are part of the public, or at least that is our expectation. We expect our leaders to be like shepherds. We want them to be uncompromising in the care of the people in the nation over which they have authority, providing for the people before looking after themselves. We become uncomfortable when a leader amasses wealth for himself by taking advantage of his position. This happens far too often in almost every nation in the world.

Whether the leader of a nation is a king or Prime Minister or president, that person is expected to lead as a shepherd, providing for his sheep before he provides for himself. We would be blessed if our political leaders were more like shepherds.

When Jesus began his ministry, his first words were to announce the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God. He himself would become the king, sitting at the right hand of his Father in heaven. But Jesus does not often identify himself as a king; rather, the image that comes to mind more than not is of Jesus as a shepherd, a good shepherd. He tells us that a good shepherd would lay down his life for his sheep, meaning that they put the wellbeing of the sheep far above their own. We know Jesus to be uncompromising in this, for this was the reason that he came to this earth. With the Father and the Spirit, Jesus had agreed that the only way to save humanity from their self-inflicted mess was that he die in our place. He laid down his life for his sheep, and he did so by becoming one of us. He was truly the good shepherd.

Jesus’ perspective is to ours as well. The only right way for the kingdom of God to become evident on this earth is for the followers of Jesus Christ to be like shepherds. Contrary to the standards that we seem to be willing to accept from political and military leaders and the like, we are called to give up our lives for others. And we must be uncompromising in that. True, we might be viewed by the “civilized” people around us as being backward, but we accept that and conduct ourselves as Jesus taught us rather than giving into the ideals and actions of others. The church is always in danger of becoming worldly in that we would rather look after our own needs first, but that is not the Christian ethic. If we see ourselves as shepherds, following the example of Jesus Christ, against all odds, the kingdom of God will become present in our world.

In the book of Deuteronomy Moses is speaking to the Israelites as they are about to enter the Promised Land, and he is instructing them about how they are to live in the land. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20 we learn that if the Israelites should ever ask for a king, that king would be required to live by a variety of principles. One of the most significant is that he is to write out a copy of the Law (Torah), the Pentateuch, and he is to read it and follow it all the days of his life. It is by living by the Word of God that he will reign long and well. By making a copy of the Torah, he will be aware of everything in it, and he will always have a copy available for himself.

Prior to this instruction there is another important instruction regarding his military assets. If the Israelites should obtain a king for themselves, that king must not acquire for himself a great number of horses. Horses were not pets, such as they often are today; horses were military animals, used specifically by armies to strengthen themselves. Having a calvary gave an army a distinct advantage over the enemy, and having horses also enabled an army to acquire chariots, the most formidable military piece on a battlefield. Horses, in biblical times, were not often used for transportation; rather, it was more common for people to use donkeys or, if they had a lot of things to transport, camels. Horses were military animals.

There are other instructions to the potential king, but let’s consider the prohibition against horses. If an army did not acquire horses, they were at a distinct disadvantage. Because the army would have been limited to an infantry (foot soldiers), they would not be helpless before an army which had horses and chariots. Consider a modern-day equivalent: imagine an army of foot soldiers facing an army equipped with tanks and aircraft. No betting person would put any money on the army consisting of only infantry. It appears, then, that God was deliberately placing his people, the Israelites, at a distinct disadvantage. How could they fight against the much more powerful armies that surrounded them? Would they not be defeated and the nation Israel destroyed?

Humanly speaking, If the Old Testament Israel did not develop a strong military, they would have been destroyed, no question. But there was a reason that God didn’t want the king to go beyond a mere infantry and that was that there would be no question as to who gives the victory. If the king had all the tanks and missiles and drones (modern technology), and Israel won a victory, they would take credit for their own successes and not acknowledge God’s intervention.

Some people, among them Christians, would say that the present state of Israel (Israelis) is the same as the nation of Israel as the Old Testament. If that were true (and this is problematic considering how secular Israel is), then it should follow that although the threats are significant – Iran, along with many Mideastern states want to see the nation of Israel destroyed – it should follow that Israel did not need to develop one of the strongest and most technologically advanced militaries in the world. They could have simply said, “We rely on God to protect us and win our battles, so we don’t need to own even one tank.” But, if the Israelis and the Israelites are the same nation, then they certainly don’t take God’s promises very seriously.

We can have the debate about whether or not the present state of Israel is the same as the ancient state of Israel, which hasn’t existed as an independent nation since 586BC, but we probably won’t come to a satisfactory conclusion to which all would agree. What is clear from Scripture, however, is this: all those who put their trust in Jesus Christ, Jews and Gentiles, are part of God’s covenant community and come under his covenantal care. This does not mean that we may not have horses, if we take Deuteronomy 17 literally, but it does mean that we can trust God so much that we can be assured that he will protect his people against destruction. In other words, the church, who is brought into God’s covenant community through Jesus Christ, can rely completely on God for its existence, even when it might be threatened by powerful forces.

In the last few decades, and in particular in the last few months, I have heard followers of Jesus Christ talk about the Muslim threat, however they define it. They would go so far as to say that if we want to be truly safe, we cannot have them near us, for they pose a danger to the church. But would it also not be true that if God protects his church, there is no threat against the church. Yes, there might be persecution, but we are not threatened. The same can be said for government policies and laws which some seem to believe are a threat to the people of God. But if it is true that God is for us, then no one can stand against us. We simply need to live in trust.

In a world where we seem to be relying more and more on human-developed power for safety and protection, it would seem that the church has a message that has become more and more vital. We have a gracious God who has made promises to his people, and one of those promises is that he will fight our battles for us and give us victory. That doesn’t mean that we won’t be called to engage as well, but we engage as foot soldiers, even though that might seem we are in a weaker position. We trust that it is God who ultimately must bring victory.

Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, riding on a donkey. He didn’t ride on a horse. The gospel writers say that this was in fulfilment of Zechariah’s prophecy (Zech 9:9), and it is clear that Zechariah was basing his prophecy on Deuteronomy 17. Jesus rode on a donkey to show the world that it was God who would win the battle against the forces of evil, and Jesus did, not by amassing tanks and missiles but by dying on the cross. That was true victory, and it was complete. God doesn’t need tanks and armament to win the battle, and, it would seem, neither do we.

In a healthy beehive there are usually about 30,000 to 50,000 bees. There are nurse bees, guard bees, bees that move pollen and nectar around the hive, and bees that turn the nectar into honey. All the bees that stay in the hive are the younger bees while the older bees (3 weeks old and older, normally) are the ones we see flying to and from the flowers. The worker bees, all females, look identical to each other. The only bees that look different are the drones (male bees who do nothing useful in the hive) and the queen bee. In order to keep the hive strong, the queen has only one task and that is to lay eggs, between 1000 and 1500 per day, every day, all through the summer months.

Of all the bees in the hive, the queen bee is the most important. Beekeepers are not concerned if they see a few dead bees in front of the hive, but it becomes a serious matter if there is no queen bee in the hive because she is the one who ensures the survival of the colony. Even the bees know that, and their lives are focused on keeping the queen healthy and strong. In fact, it is not too far from the truth if we say that all the bees in the hive have the welfare of the queen in mind as they do their jobs. Sometimes doing their jobs requires sacrifice. If the hive is threatened, the guard bees will attack with their stingers, often losing their lives in the process. When it becomes cold outside, the bees huddle together with the queen at the centre, and the outer bees sacrifice their comfort to keep the queen alive. Even if the temperature in the hive drops to -40, the centre of the cluster of the bees in the hive remains near 30 degrees centigrade.

Imagine for a moment if the worker bees began to think only of themselves. If, when it became cold out, no worker bee would sacrifice her own comfort to keep the queen warm. The queen would die, and the hive would die with it. If a worker bee did not sacrifice her life for the queen when a skunk attacked the hive, the hive would be destroyed and the queen could no longer carry out her task of laying eggs. The hive would die.

In Ephesians 5:21 Paul says that we are to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. He describes what that looks like using household relationships common in his time: wives and husbands, parents and children, slaves and masters. When applying this mutual submission to the marriage relationship for example, in his instruction to the husband, he says that if the husband is truly submitting himself to his wife, he will die for her, just as Christ died for the church. (Note that he does not state the same expectation for the wife.)

Recall that Paul is writing his letter to a church which was experiencing some division, division that was rooted in 2000 years of history. Jews and Gentiles did not think highly of each other, but when members of both groups put their faith in Jesus Christ, they found themselves worshipping together under one roof. Paul emphasizes that our faith in Jesus Christ is what joins us together so that we have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc. and that we belong to one family. To help us live in that new situation, he calls us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Our calling is to look after the needs of others, often at the expense of fulfilling our own desires and wants.

Although there are some differences between Jesus and the queen bee in the hive, the similarities are helpful and telling. As in a hive, all the worker bees focus their efforts on protecting the queen, so among believers all focus their efforts on honouring Jesus Christ. Because our focus is so entirely on him, we no longer focus on ourselves, and we become willing to give up our comforts and own personal wants and even our lives to ensure that Jesus is always glorified. So strong is our desire to glorify Jesus that we no longer want to glorify ourselves. We glorify him by joining each other in service to the Lord, ensuring that others are able to carry out their callings so that together all believers grow together and flourish. In glorifying Jesus, we submit ourselves to others so that they can glorify him as well.

This is the ideal toward which we strive. Without a doubt the church is not always known to be exemplary in its calling. Unlike in the beehive, if the bees fail to honour their queen with the result that whole hive dies, when we fail to glorify Jesus, God the Father remains gracious and restores us again. Bees don’t get another chance; we do. But that doesn’t mean that we should hold back with our commitment or compromise in our desire to glorify Jesus.

I suspect that most of the problems the church has faced over the centuries and faces today come from the fact that believers fail to live as bees. Far too often the church has focused more on its own survival and welfare while at the same time ignoring Jesus. In one example, a pastor presented himself as the one who could increase the number of people in attendance, but the elder board did not ask him how he intended to do that. It turned out that that certain parts of the biblical message (the death of Jesus on the cross for our sin, for example) were minimized. While the numbers increased for a time and while the community seemed warm and welcoming, over the years, because Jesus was no longer central, the purpose for the church disappeared, and members who longed for the gospel began to move to other churches. As another example, while the pastor and elders focused on the gospel, the people had begun to focus their attention on some of the things that they liked to do. Sunday became fun-day, and the desire to glorify Jesus began to wane. Fun activities began to replace the act of glorifying Jesus in worship, and the church began to decline both in numbers and in witness to the community.

While God is gracious with his people, keeping the church alive, it is also true that sometimes local congregations fail when Jesus is no longer central. Like a beehive which has abandoned its queen and dies, congregations can die when they abandon Jesus. Let us never forget that in glorifying Jesus, we put ourselves aside as we submit to each other out of reverence for Christ. There is no room for selfish individualism among God’s people just as selfish individualism will result in the collapse of a colony of bees.

But let us not fear, for while it may be in our human natures to want to glorify ourselves, the Holy Spirit continually returns us to our calling. As we focus our efforts on glorifying Jesus, we will discover that our Christian community is growing in mutual submission as well. And when that happens, we will be fulfilling our calling of making the gospel (honey) available to the world.

There is a model of Jeep that has become quite popular: the Rubicon. I suspect that the majority of Rubicon owners don’t know where the name comes from, but Rubicon sounds bold and daring. On my desk, I have a book entitled Rubicon. Its subtitle is The Last Years of the Roman Republic. The Rubicon is a small creek in Italy, and, at one time marked a boundary of a faction of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic had been experiencing a great deal of turmoil, with various military factions claiming territory. A truce was made in which it was decided how much territory each faction could rule, and no general could take his armies past the boundaries that had been decided upon.

One general, Julius Caesar, in a very bold act, decided that he didn’t want to be just a general; he wanted to be the Caesar/Ruler/Dictator of Rome, and he led his armies across the Rubicon. Crossing the Rubicon was no major feat, for it is only a few metres wide, but the act of crossing it set into motion a major civil war in the Roman world which led to Julius Caesar’s eventual claim to the title of Pontifex Maximus (Greatest Pontiff, or more literally, Supreme Bridge-Builder). After Julius Caesar was assassinated (on March 15, the Ides of March), Rome remained in turmoil for a couple of decades until Caesar Augustus claimed power, named himself as the emperor, and the Roman Republic (ruled by the people through their representatives) was replaced by the Roman Empire (ruled by one person, a king or emperor). When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he set into motion the events that would remove the authority of the elected representatives and replace them with the authority of one powerful person.

The phrase, “crossing the Rubicon,” has come to mean “passing the point of no return.” Julius Caesar knew what he was doing when he led his army across the Rubicon, and he understood that after he did, there was no turning back. You have to be bold and daring to “cross the Rubicon,” and, hence, the name given to a vehicle. The drivers of Rubicons have chosen that particular vehicle because of the image that they think it creates for them.

This week we celebrate Good Friday. There is a point in the biblical narrative when Jesus “crosses the Rubicon.” When he is on trial before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling body and court, Jesus was asked if he was the Messiah, the Son of God. He didn’t deny or confirm the opinion of the high priest, but he quoted from Daniel 7 when he said, “From now on you will the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64) Jesus had to have known that to say these words meant that there was no turning back. He was applying Messianic Scripture to himself, thus saying that he was equal with God and chosen by God. Once he uttered those words, there was no turning back. His response to the high priest led him to be convicted of blaspheme, a sin punishable by death, and that led to his being convicted of treason in the Roman courts, a crime also punishable by death.

Jesus knew what he was doing, and he knew the consequences of his words. Had he remained silent he could have made it a lot more difficult for his powerful opponents to sentence him to death, for up to that point, they had not been able to make any of the charges against him stick. Jesus crossed the point of no return when he elevated himself to the very throne room of the Father.

Jesus knew what he was doing, and he also knew the consequences, for this was the very purpose for which he had come. He had come to set up a new Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, and this Kingdom would be very different from the ones that were in existence at his time, and, for that matter, which would be in existence in any place or time in history.

How does the Kingdom of God differ from other kingdoms or empires? If we consider two major empires in history, we see a commonality. The Roman Empire made every effort to conquer as much of the world as it possibly could. When it did conquer territory, it began to bring back to Rome the best that that territory had to offer. Wheat, iron, slaves – all of these were brought back to Rome for the benefit of Roman citizens. Similarly, the British Empire, as it conquered vast portions of the world, brought back to Great Britain the best that the lands under its rule had to offer. We might say that this is the prerogative of an empire, and that is why powerful empires take rather than give. While it is true that empires might invest money in conquered lands (think of Herod’s temple), it is often for the ultimate benefit of the empire, not for the people. (Herod rebuilt the temple, in large part, to placate the Jews so that he would not have to deal with their desires for liberation.) Placating the masses through investment was a way to keep the empire strong.

The kingdom of God is very different, for it does not take. God does not need to take anything from this world to benefit himself, and anything taken from this world would not add to his wellbeing in the slightest. In his Kingdom, God gives: he gives security, peace, blessings, and, ultimately eternal life. What he gives costs him, and there is no benefit to him. What makes the Kingdom of God different from all the empires, kingdoms, and realms that are known to us is that under the reign of God, we benefit while the establishment of the Kingdom cost Jesus his life on the cross.

Jesus “crossed the Rubicon” when let it be known that he was sent from God. He did so intentionally and boldly. But he was not daring in his taking the step beyond which there was no return. He did not have to be daring because he knew that his heavenly Father was with him, enabling him to establish a Kingdom that will never end.

This past week, in preparation for a Bible Study, I found myself having to look up the definitions of expiation and propitiation once again. For some reason, I cannot keep the definition of these two words in my head. It’s probably because we never use these words in our daily language, and, in addition, they do not appear in more modern translations of the Bible. I suspect that translators of the Bible today avoid these words because most people have difficulty understanding them.

At the Bible Study we were looking at Romans 3:21-31 with a special emphasis on verse 25. There we read in the NIV that “God provided Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement through the shedding of his blood – to be received by faith.” The King James Version has this: “God hath set forth [Jesus Christ] to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” Reading that older version confuses me because I can never remember the definition of propitiation. I also discovered that the translator’s choice of the word, propitiation, is an interpretation based on a particular theological emphasis.

The best way to resolve the problem, for me, is to look at the Greek. Of course, when I look at the Greek, I also need to have a Greek-English dictionary handy. The dictionaries I have indicated that the Greek word has an interesting history, particularly in how it was used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (originally written in Hebrew). Discovering this also helped me understand the difference between expiation and propitiation and how we can understand Romans 3:25.

If we go back to the book of Exodus, while the Israelites are a Mount Sinai, we read about the building of the tabernacle and among the instructions for how it is to be built are the instructions for the building of the Ark of the Covenant. The ark was a wooden box, important in itself, but on top of the box is a cover which is translated as “atonement cover” in the NIV and “mercy seat” in the KJV (Exodus 25:17). The same word that is used in the Greek translation of the OT is the word that Paul uses in Romans 3:25 which we have in the English as “sacrifice of atonement.” Jesus plays the same role as the cover of the Ark of the Covenant.

That cover was understood to be the place where God made his throne here on this earth. It was hidden from the sight of the people by a thick curtain, and no one entered the room behind the curtain except for once a year on the Day of Atonement. On that day, the high priest would pass through the curtain, and he would sprinkle the blood of a sacrificed goat on the cover of the Ark. It was that act that provided atonement for the sins of the people.

The question that theologians ask is this: was this atonement accomplished through expiation or propitiation? And here is where the definitions of the words becomes important.

Expiation has to do with eliminating sins. We sin against God, and as guilty people, we must bear the punishment for those sins. Expiation means that the blood of the sacrifice eliminates those sins, that they become hidden, are covered over. I think of expiation in this way: expiation x’s out our sins so that we are no longer held accountable for them. Some would say that the blood of the sacrifice is expiation, when our sins are x’d out, and we don’t have to bear the punishment for them any longer. To put it another way, our criminal records are wiped clean.

Propitiation is a little different. God, rightly so, is very angry with our sin. Who wouldn’t be angry with people who ignore him (even though he made us), who do their best to ruin the world through greed and selfishness and who turn against each other instead of caring for each other? God has every right to be angry with us because of our sin. If the cover of the ark is God’s throne, God has the right to direct his anger at us outward from his throne room and so destroy those who dare stand against him. Propitiation is this: the blood of the sacrifice appeases God’s anger so that it is turned away, and we are no longer in danger of his wrath.

As we can see from the KJV’s wording, the translators thought that the emphasis of Jesus’ work on the cross was to turn away God’s wrath that was directed toward us. And they are right, but their choice of one word eliminates the possibility of the other.

The NIV translators, recognizing the problem, decided to use the phrase, “sacrifice of atonement,” recognizing that the word “atonement” refers to making amends so that a relationship is restored. Their translation choice does not say exactly how that happens but leaves us to contemplate what did happen through Jesus when he died on the cross.

It seems that the best understanding of what did happen needs to include both expiation and propitiation. Jesus, when he died on the cross, x’d out our sins, not by eliminating them but by taking them upon himself. The record of our sins is wiped clean, deleted, and eliminated from the trash can icon on the computer screens of our lives. At the same time, even as Jesus does that, he turns away God’s anger/wrath against us by turning it on himself. We no longer need to be fearful of God’s anger, for it is no longer turned against us. All who believe in Jesus receive both benefits: our records are wiped clean and God’s anger is turned away.

The words, expiation and propitiation, describe what happened at the cross. Unfortunately, I will probably forget what they mean the next time I have to use them, so I will have to look them up again. But I don’t think I will forget what Jesus has done: he has cleared my record by taking its contents on himself, and I will never have to fear God’s anger because Jesus has asked his Father to redirect it to himself. Expiation and propitiation. Hard words to remember, but beautiful truths to appreciate and enjoy.

A few weeks ago I began to think about the phrase, “God is on our side.” I have mentioned this a few times in a blog or sermon, but I thought it might be good to flesh it out a bit. Let’s consider two statements: “God is on our side” and “We are on God’s side.” There is a very big difference between these two statements.

Let’s consider a hockey team. The team happens to be made up of all Christian young men who desire to serve the Lord. Their chaplain comes into the dressing room half an hour before the game begins, and he spends a little time in devotions and prayer. As he talks with the players, they begin to talk as if they, an unashamedly Christian team playing against teams which are not overtly Christian, should win because God is on their side. They reason that if God had to pick teams, he should pick theirs, and because he is able, he should also give them the win. How should the chaplain respond?

The chaplain could easily respond by agreeing with the team, and he could pray for a win. A win, after all, would witness to the fact that God is on their side. It would be a testimony to the other teams that faith in God is justified and that others should put their faith in him as well. The chaplain could say that, but he would be treading on dangerous ground. What if his team did not win? What if the team did win but cheated and played unfairly to do so? How would that be a witness to who God is? Right before the game might not be the time, but it would seem that in the next little while the chaplain would have some work in helping the team understand that their belief that God was on their side has some problems.

There is a bigger problem. When we say that God is on our side, who is setting the agenda, the priorities, the values? We are. We define the side, what it looks like, and what its goals are. We set the agenda, and we expect that God conform himself to our agenda. But would God agree? Would he say, “I am fully supportive of this team/nation/organization, and I will enable them to succeed, thus witnessing that I am on their side”? I expect not because God is not in the business of providing support for our agendas. He does not conform himself to what we want to do. To think that is to get it backward.

The chaplain, as he meets with the team, would have to tell them that God is not on their side. God’s plan may not be for them to win the game or the championship. God might have another agenda, one that does not include their being successful in the way they hope to be. The chaplain would then have to explain that we should not expect so much that God is on our side as we should be on his.

When we consider what God’s side might be with respect to a hockey game, we would say that the players, who are his children, should behave in an appropriate way. They should play with all their hearts, using the skills God gave to them. At the same time, they should keep their emotions in check. They should obey the rules and not take cheap shots. Perhaps, if an opposing player made a particularly good play that resulted in a goal, they might commend him for his good work. (That would be hard to do, of course.) The chaplain would explain that God desires that we do things according to his will, and that we live as is appropriate for a follower of Jesus Christ. We are called to be witnesses to God, and not he to us.

When we say that God is on our side, we set the agenda, but when we say that we are on God’s side, we recognize that he is setting the agenda. That means that if we are truly on his side, we will conform ourselves to his priorities, values, and will. We will live and act in a way that pleases him.

To do that, of course, we have to know what God’s will is, and we can find that in Scripture. The Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 5-7 contains a fairly extensive summary of what it means to be on God’s side. Loving our enemies, living pure lives, being witnesses to the world, and so much more are examples of what being on God’s side looks like. Whatever we find ourselves doing, we should do so with the desire to follow Jesus. To be on God’s side means that we witness to who he is. We want to make God known to the world, and we do not expect God to make us known by helping us win the game.

Perhaps one of the most egregious times in the history of Christianity occurred about 1000 years ago when the Christian church in Europe, claiming that God was on its side, sent soldiers (along with a goodly number of rabble-rousing tag-alongs) to “the Holy Land” to liberate Jerusalem from the infidels, those without faith (as they defined them). When they said that God was on their side, they also took the liberty of committing atrocities (pillaging, burning, killing, and raping) because, they said, they were doing the Lord’s work. That century or so during with the crusades took place is remembered as a black mark against the church by Christians and non-Christians alike.

In contrast, we think of the early church which was experiencing persecution going to the poor and needy and sick, providing them with support, help, and healing. Among the pagan Romans it was remarked that Christians were different, for they helped others rather than participating in the Roman way of taking from others. Their witness was truly remarkable as they conformed themselves to the ways of the Lord, offering themselves to serve others. They saw themselves as being on God’s side, helping others, and not he on theirs, fighting against persecution and oppression.

We must be very careful how we speak and what we think. Although we do find the words, “The Lord is on our side,” in Scripture (Psalm 124:1, not the best translation in the NIV), we recognize that this verse does not mean that David, the psalmist thought that God was on his side. Rather, he understood that God was with him to support him, a better translation of the Hebrews. David, never for an instance, believed that God was on his side; rather, he sought to do things God’s way, and was declared to be a man after God’s own heart.

If we declare that God is on our side, we are putting ourselves in God’s place and he in ours. If, however, we seek to be on his side, we are recognizing that he is God, and because of that, we seek to do his will and live as a follower of Jesus Christ should.