[Transcript represents full sermon's text]

       I want to begin our time today by bringing to mind and remembering my friend Pastor Larry Caldwell, who went into glory at the end of September of this year in 2024. He was a faithful brother who lead his church and food pantry that God had bestowed upon him, and certainly was impactful in a positive way to a lot of people’s lives. Larry knew his Bible from end to end, and it indeed was the core foundation of his life. Over the next couple weeks, I’ll be re-airing the broadcasts Larry and I did back in 2017 where we answered listeners’ questions at the time. Those were memorable episodes, and it will be fun to go back and enjoy those once again.

       Today’s message is going to deal with some appendices and elaborations from what has been discussed in Hebrews chapters 1 through 8. As per the usual, some questions have come up with things that could use further explanation and insight so that we can understand what has already been stated a little bit better.

       Now for the first area of discussion. It was mentioned that some Christians view God as non-violent. How could this be? Doesn’t the Bible present God as acting in violent ways at certain times?

       Someone may wonder, and it’s probably especially true here in the United States versus other countries, why would it be important to view God as non-violent, or why would we want to view God as non-violent. One way we can start this discussion is to consider what Jesus has said, in John chapter 10, where he said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10, ESV). We can note, right off the bat, to the Jewish mind that statement would have been something. Contrary, it would have been, to their normal or traditional way of thinking. They knew of God as the great warrior God, the One who was prone to destroy their enemies. So, for Jesus to basically say, “No, actually it is Satan who is the stealer and the one who destroys, and God is the One who gives live and abundant life at that,” that’s pretty dramatic. Quite a contrast from what they were used to. The foundation behind the whole thing seems to be if God created individuals as his beings on planet earth, why would he then turn around and seek to destroy them? Why would he seek to be blood-thirsty toward those whom John earlier tells us he loves?

       An interesting place we can go to sort of see the interaction between God and angels as pertains to violence, is actually Genesis chapter 19. Genesis chapter 19. This is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Familiarity resides in our minds with this account. Awareness is present, first off, that the men of Sodom were particularly perverse. They practiced homosexuality and probably worse things—and the belief is present that their hearts had gotten so hard as a result of these practices that God had no choice but to destroy them from the face of the earth. It would be same as what happened in Noah’s Flood, not too long before this. Back there, in Genesis 6, it states in verse 5, “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (ESV). That’s a bad place for the world to be in, a bad place. And we know there are some Christians who will want to compare our modern times in the world with that of the situation found here in Genesis 6 at the Great Flood. But we need to remember that back then it says people were “only evil continually.” “[O]nly evil continually.” That doesn’t seem to be the case in our current time, as there is a lot of good in our world.

       Anyway, to get back on track, we see a significant breakdown, if you will, as pertains to God’s dealing with this situation, and what we might say is violent. Back in Genesis chapter 19, let’s go to verse 12. “Then the men [that is, “the two angels” as we learn from verse 1” said to Lot, “Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place. For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it.” So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, “Up! Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city” (12-14, ESV). Thus, it can be understood that the two angels first tell Lot about how they are going to destroy the city. Therefore, they equate their actions with God’s. The point is that God does not appear to be the one who is directly destroying it, but rather God is having the angels do it. And, of course, someone is probably thinking, “Why does it matter who does it, for isn’t it the heart that counts.” Certainly, God is willing to let it be destroyed—there’s no question about that. But at the same time, it might be thought that God doesn’t directly do it himself since he is the Creator, and the people bear his image. And so, this line of thought would be said to be true through the rest of Scripture.

       This whole subject of God and non-violence was brought up in a more recent work in the form of a book which deals with the issue, and of which some might find beneficial. Theologian Greg Boyd has laid out a case for a compelling way of understanding the violence of the Old Testament, and how we can view that violence carried out in view of the cross of Jesus. It’s a very fresh take, and one that can shed new light on a lot of the violent passages found in the first part of our Bible. The book is titled ‘Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence’ (2017). An audiobook version is also available. It seems that for one who struggles with this topic and is willing to have an ‘open’ mind and perhaps think differently than the norm, it could be found to beneficial for you.

       Moving on. It was brought up that we don’t have the ability to prevent thoughts coming into our minds. What are some good ways to deal with unwanted negative thoughts that come to us?

       This is an intriguing topic; indeed, a very intriguing one, and one of the speaker’s favorites. For sure, it is believed that the more one can learn to have reign over the mind, the more one’s life experience can be better and better. As the core foundation, we should know, or come to realize, that all problems stem from the mind. That is, in actuality, they all begin in the mind. “But aren’t some problems external?” someone might ask. What we are talking about here is the ability to try to have such awareness above mind that no matter what happens externally, we are okay. There is never a threat for us to abandon our relationship with God, or to be totally at the mercy of what is going on. A foundational Scripture for us is this: Jesus said, “I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!” (Luke 12:4, 5, ESV). What comes immediately to our minds is likely that of external persecution, and that’s what he was focusing on. Yet, the verses are expandable really to all of life. It might be paraphrased as something like, “Do not fear those things which can happen externally, and after that have nothing more they can do.” That indeed is the key. The ability to have such reign over one’s mind so that regardless of what is going on externally, nothing can shut us down inside.

       One of the core problems with this premise, our core hang-ups if you will, or that which causes us to have weakness, is the fact that we have both likes and dislikes, things we want to happen and things we don’t want to happen. That may sound peculiar or puzzling at first, for one might say, “Aren’t we supposed to have things we like and things we dislike?” Or, “Didn’t Jesus have things he liked and things he disliked?” In answering this, it seems we need to zoom out a little bit and it is helpful to look at things from a ‘big’ picture perspective. It is true on the basic, normal human level we all have likes and dislikes. That’s natural. That’s what society and culture teaches us. It is embedded to our core. We also know that each one of us has the sin-nature dwelling within in our flesh, or what the psychology and self-help world calls the ‘ego.’ That’s our real hangup because that’s what causes us so much trouble. It’s not wrong to want this or that, whatever it is, provided it doesn’t violate anything of which God has prescribed in the New Testament. That being said, there are good things that we want (i.e. a girlfriend, boyfriend, new car, a house, a new position at work—whatever it is). The point is to be at such a place above our minds that we are ‘okay’ even if we don’t get what we want. That’s the hangup originally for all of us. We start out in life by being upset when we don’t get what we want, and we have to learn over time to be at such peace with God that we love him above all other things (regardless of what other individuals have, of what seems fair, etc). This takes a lot of work, and deep surrendered-ness of spirit. Yet, that’s not an excuse to say we ought not reach that state, or that we don’t need to because nobody else is.

       Of course, there are a variety of ‘metal’ techniques people can try out and use in order to not let the mind push oneself around so much. A popular and common one in the psychology world is called CBT, or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. A lot of folks are familiar with that. One of the speaker’s favorite books of all time would be that by psychologist David D. Burns called ‘Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy’ (1980, 1999), wherein he lays out a framework and ‘how to’ for a particular form of Cognitive Therapy. One thing that was learned more recently is that which is discussed in the book titled ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ (2012) by psychologist Daniel Kahneman. This book describes two systems to the mind, which the author calls System 1 and System 2. He speaks specifically of these systems in chapters 1 through 9, where chapters 7 to 9 seem particularly insightful. Nevertheless, understanding how our minds operate in this sense can be beneficial to perhaps improving our behavior in the long term. System 1 is the more intuitive and fast response structure of the brain. The problem with it, even though we often don’t believe it, is that a lot of times it gets things wrong. We are naturally inclined to believe what it says, but often times it doesn’t get things right. System 2 carries out the slower, more deliberate thought processes. It is the deeper, more constructive system, yet it is usually on the lazier side and will yield to whatever System 1 is saying. That’s why, if we learn to use System 2 on a more regular basis, we could potentially improve the quality of our thinking, which could in turn lead to a more thought-through life.

       Continuing on. What are the logistics behind the act of the cross of Jesus? In other words, what did Jesus actually accomplish when he died on the cross for humanity?

       Undoubtedly, this is a good and important question for us to consider as Christians, and understanding what happened in the background will only deepen our faith and give us the ability to better articulate it to others when were are in general conversation. We never know when that’s going to happen, by the way. We don’t know when we may find ourselves in a long conversation with someone as pertains to religious matters. Interestingly, just a couple weeks ago, when going to vote, the speaker found himself in an hour long conversation while standing in line. The speaker had thought it would be a quick in and out to vote, but ended up in an unexpected pro-longed discussion. So, you never know. But anyway, what we getting at is what actually happened when Jesus died on the cross. What we can look at is that there are generally two areas. Two areas we can point to when thinking about the logistics. The first is that, we, as humans where separated from God when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. Our sin created a chasm, a separation, between ourselves and God. And, the human nature was corrupted, and this would affect the whole of Adam’s descendants. We identify this as the ‘sin-nature,’ that corruption that resides in each one of us. It is also recognized that Adam represents the Federal Headship, as we call it theologically, where all stem—have their linage—back to him, and all are affected by sin because Adam and Eve first sinned. Of course, there are some in Christianity who don’t believe that, who instead believe that persons are born with a corrupt nature—or susceptibility to sin—but aren’t born with a direct sin-nature. Examples of this kind of belief would be found in the Eastern Orthodox Church and some Anabaptists churches. But the second thing we can note is that a lot of people believe that not only has our sin created a separation between us and God, but also that it made God angry. It would be said it was a moral infringement upon his Law, and required justice to make us right again. It’s the legal side of things.

       Let us focus on this second area—that of the the moral infringement against God’s Law. Pretty much everyone in Christianity agrees with the first area—that man and God are separated by sin. That’s pretty fundamental. Yet, believe it or not, this second area, or belief system, regarding the moral infringement, wasn’t even a doctrine until the 11th Century. Yes, that’s right. It all started with a fellow by the name of Anselm of Canterbury, who was a Catholic monk and theologian. He came up with the whole legal infringement against God part of things, and this would be later carried along particularly by John Calvin. Red flags may be flying for some at this point. This view, in our current time, has become the predominant Evangelical view, and has found itself interwoven very tightly in the fabric of Evangelical doctrine in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Theologically, it has become known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement, where penal means penalty or punishment in the legal sense. Thus, coming back roundabout, when Jesus died on the cross, two things happened. First, he shed his blood for our atonement for our sins. The perfect One dying in the place of non-perfect ones. His blood is given in place of our blood. It atones for our sins. Second, when Jesus died on the cross, he bore the wrath of God in that God himself executed Jesus, turning against him and taking his life, to satisfy his wrath. Legally speaking, he took our place, in the courtroom sense, when God was going to declare us guilty for all our sins. God was going to punish us, but instead punishes Jesus. Therefore, God’s anger and justice of sin is satisfied by Jesus’ accomplishment on the cross. Thus, it’s these two factors that have, in recent times, summed up in the cross.

       But, you’ve probably picked up on what was just spoken regarding ‘recent times.’ Indeed, if we go all the way back through church history, this was not the predominant view of the church say until the times of John Calvin. That means, for all the time before that, for about 1500 years or so, the church believed something else. Or, we might say they believed in only the first part of what was afore to mentioned, that Jesus simply atoned for our sins which broke the separation between ourselves and God, and there was no need to satisfy God’s anger or wrath with Jesus actually bearing that wrath. Our minds at this point are probably examining the Scriptures to find where it states that Jesus bore God’s wrath on the cross. What becomes troubling, indeed, pretty troubling is that in the New Testament we actually find 0 verses (yes, that’s right, zero), that talk about both the cross and wrath in the same sentence. That is, no where is it found that Jesus bore God’s wrath on the cross. Yikes! So, where is a Scripture that would seem to support this view? Well, that would be found actually in Isiah chapter 53, and verse 4, where it says, “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted” (ESV). Thus, if we were to interpret “smitten by God” to mean that God took his life, that would be the Scriptural support. Nevertheless, the view that doesn’t see things this way, that only takes into account the first part, is known as the Christus Victor view of atonement. It sees Jesus as restoring us into right relationship with God, but not saving us from God ‘getting us’ over our sin.

       Therefore, this Christus Victor view of atonement speaks of two other areas, or accomplishments of the cross, besides the atonement for our sins. What are the other two areas? Well, besides being victorious over sin, Jesus is victorious over death and also Satan. We understand pretty well it seems that first area, that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, that he defeated death in that way. Let’s focus, then, on the last area, of Jesus defeating Satan and his demonic forces. The idea would be that, when Jesus came to the earth, he put himself in subjection of the evil powers of the world. That’s why he could be tempted by Satan. That’s why Satan was actually able to have Jesus put to death on the cross. Remember, Satan entered Judas Iscariot. He brought about the whole thing. So, we would say that Satan thinks that by killing Jesus on the cross that he will prevent God’s promises to the Nation of Israel from being fulfilled, and that Satan is in effect ruining God’s plan. When Christ gives himself as a ransom for many, it’s not that Christ is given as a ransom to Satan, but it’s that Christ’s giving of his blood and dying on the cross is a ransom in that it frees everyone who believes from those two problems—both sin and death. Thus, the accomplishment of the cross is found in Hebrews 2:14, where it says, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” (ESV). Thus, that is how Satan is defeated. Satan had the power of sin and death, and because Jesus was victorious by being sin-free, and being able to give his blood for us, Satan is brought to nothing. Now, there are folks who don’t believe in the Christus Victor view who would believe part of that or all of that, but that’s it in a nutshell.

       Now for the final area of discussion: It was noted that some believe God works behind the scenes to save people who do not have direct knowledge of Jesus. Can you elaborate on that and explain what that might look like?

       What was brought up in the message on Hebrews chapter 5 is that it could in fact be possible that God works to bring individuals to salvation in other backgrounds, even other religions we might say, around the world who don’t even know much concerning Jesus directly. This actually has become an area in the theological world, howbeit probably smaller, where in a few theologians have thought that this might be possible. Before we drive into some of the logistics, why would this discussion be brought up in the first place? In other words, why are we talking about it? Well, obviously, and it seems this becomes experientially true if one stops and thinks about it, there is concern among some people that those of other countries, of other religions, don’t know much about Jesus and may in fact never know much about him. Let’s take India for example. We know that the predominant religion in India is Hinduism. There are a lot of people that believe in Hinduism. What are the odds of most of those people changing from that and becoming Christian? Realistically, probably pretty slim. For one, they don’t have that much opportunity to do that. For two, even with the missionaries who are there, Hinduism is so engrained into the culture that even if presented Jesus the odds of changing one’s whole lifestyle to believe in him are probably pretty small. Of course, we are looking at this whole subject from a ‘free-will’ view. For the Calvinists out there, there is no problem. If God wants persons to come to know them, he will draw them to himself. But for those of us Christians who don’t believe in Calvinism, this is a real issue. We don’t believe God only pre-elects certain individuals to salvation. We believe God wants to include everybody. So, how does God accomplish this?

       Theologian John Sanders speaks of this in his book titled ‘No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized’ (1992) wherein he discusses two camps of people. That is, there are the restrictivists, who only believe that individuals can come into personal relationship with God through direct understanding and acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, and then there are the inclusivists who believe that it is possible that God works to save people without them necessarily knowing that it is through ‘Jesus’ that they are saved. The inclusivists believe that salvation only comes through Jesus, that it’s only through Jesus that it’s made possible for the world, but the idea is that God uses that to save persons even when they themselves don’t know that’s where it’s coming from. For Scriptural references, this would be like Cornelius in Acts chapter 10, wherein the text says Cornelius was “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God” (Acts 10:2, ESV). And importantly, note, this man was a Gentile, not a Jew. Or, to use Hebrews, since that’s our book of discussion currently, we could point to Melchizedek in Genesis chapter 14, wherein he was a Gentile believer whom the text states, “And Abram gave him a tenth of everything” (Genesis 14:20, ESV). Therefore, some see an opening to this type of thinking—to this type of possibility with how God works. Now, for one who takes the Scripture very dogmatically, and his own theology that way, they’re going to have a real difficult time with this, and may even try to accuse individuals who hold this view as false brothers or something like that. Emotions can get flared pretty fast when discussing these types of things. Some Christian circles don’t even want to think that individuals of other Christians groups are saved, like say Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox people, let alone those directly outside the faith altogether.

       And of final note, for this really should be mentioned, the obvious concern is that if God does—if God works with other groups in interesting ways—doesn’t that mean that Christian missionaries are pointless? Why witness to people if God can just work otherwise? No, it doesn’t mean that because even if people are believing in other ways, that doesn’t mean it’s super accurate, or the best and most correct experience they could have. Remember Apollos in Acts 18? He didn’t have it down correctly, and Priscilla and Aquila “took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately” the text says (Acts 18:26, ESV). The idea is that, if it’s all God can get—if it’s the only thing that can realistically happen in certain circumstances, then it’s better for persons to be saved without knowing everything as it should be than spending eternity in Hell, separated from him forever.

- Daniel Litton