Three in One

This is the first post in quite a while.

Recently, I was thinking about the significance of the Trinity, and I wrote a poem on the subject.  I don't know if it's very good, but I tried.  Here it is:

One in Three

"One God above!" Mohammed cried.
The sun blazed down, the sands were wide.
"A God alone, merciful but just,
Far above his creatures in the dust.

"A God of love," the bishop said.
He poured the wine and broke the bread.
"In God himself, one loves another.
"So we should love, each man his brother."

Mohammed said, "How can it be,
"That God is one and also three?
"Who has no wife can have no son.
"Yes, God has love, but God is one."

"This mystery we can't understand."
The bishop gave Christ from his hand.
"That God himself is family,
"In one being, yet persons three."

"If God is love in very nature,
"Before our God made any creature,
"Who then was there for Him to love?
"Only Father, Son, and Spirit dove."

Mohammed's men roared like the sea.
"These pagans worship gods of three!"
The God Alone swept o'er the world.
Through Christendom his armies swirled.

The bishop raised his arms and cried,
"For us our God was crucified.
"For him we now shall lift the sword.
"We will not serve this lonely lord!"

"For Three in One, to the attack!"
"The God of Love!" the knights roared back.
From woods to sands was stained with red.
The smoke of war rose overhead.

And still the battle rages on,
With pen and pulpit, gun and bomb.
"Why should we fight?" the people groan.
"For God in three or God alone?"

"A God of love alone we need;
"We do not want this threesome creed."
"A God of love does not want war.
"Now let us fight for him no more!"

Yet knights and bishop still declare,
"Before you do this, have a care.
"See now their One God, high above.
"Can you call him a God of love?"

"Within the God of Trinity
"The very Being of love we see.
"For this we fight for God above.
"Who would not fight for Greatest Love?"

Getting Home

Most people believe that something is deeply wrong with the world and with us, and that things somehow need to be fixed and made right.  Many philosophers and revolutionaries believe that mankind must gradually advance from backwardness and ignorance to a final Utopia.  They pursue their vision of a golden future which constantly slips out of their grasp.  In Bruce Olson’s book Bruchko, Olson’s friend Lucio believes fervently in socialism and is constantly promoting this plan for mankind at his university:

Lucio’s coalition won the election at the university.  “Now you’ll see something, Olson.  Now you’ll really see,” he said.

He soon found that the worst enemy of a political reformer is winning an election.  Within a few months the coalition began to break apart.  Few of the students were as committed to it as Lucio; there were squabbles and power struggles and constant threats to withdraw from it.  Lucio finally was forced to admit failure.  One night he threw himself on his bed, cursing.

“Olson, what’s the point of all this?  No matter how good my ideas are, someone always ruins them.”

As Lucio discovered, people have a way of always ruining their own plans and ideas, squandering any progress made and falling back on pining for the “old days” again.  Most people eventually become disillusioned with the idea of ever achieving a future state of true happiness and human freedom by human endeavor. 

Yet many people have a vague feeling that such a time did once exist.  I have often heard people say that “things aren’t as good as they used to be,” that the country has “lost what made it great,” that “men aren’t men these days.”  Exactly what time in the past they are referring to, when everything was so much better, is usually unclear.  Even when they are referring to a specific time, closer examination shows that they are viewing that period through rose tinted glasses.  In fact, back in those former idyllic times, people were still nostalgic for the “good old days”. 

What was that old time, when everything was better, when people were happy and contented?  Is it just a nostalgic fantasy or a memory of childhood?  Was there ever such a time?

Many times and cultures seem to share this feeling.  The Jews in exile sang of the Promised Land.  During the decadence of the Roman Empire, citizens pined for the old virtues, the “good old days” of the Republic.  Rousseau looked back to idyllic times without strife, when men shared all things, before they were corrupted by civilization.  Some modern sociologists look at our presumed former state as hunter-gatherers as the ideal society.  But even the Motilones, one of these hunter-gatherer societies, uncorrupted by civilization, had this same longing.  In the book Bruchko by Bruce Olson, Olson converses with the Motilone witch doctor about diseases.

“We call on God to cast the evil spirits out,” [said the witch doctor].

“And why doesn’t He always do it?” I asked.

Her face fell, and she turned aside.  “We have deceived God,” she said in a low, sad voice…

“How did you deceive God?” I asked.

“A man came who claimed to be a prophet,” she said.  “He said that he could take us over the horizon to a land where there was a better hunt.  His name was Sacamaydodji.  We left God and followed him.”

“When did all this happen?” I asked softly.

She said nothing for a moment, then swept her arm out.  “Many, many years ago.  We have only heard the story.  But we know that he has deceived us.  We are far away from God.”

Many cultures share this idea that we have somehow lost our first happy state and/or become separated from God.  If this is so, the solution is not to strive for some unprecedented man-made utopia, but to seek to undo what we did wrong so long ago, to get back to God Who is “beyond the horizon,” as the Motilones put it.

In his book Manalive by G.K. Chesterton, Innocent Smith says to another revolutionary:

“But don’t you see that all these real leaps and destructions and escapes are only attempts to get back to Eden – to something we have had, to something we at least have heard of?  Don’t you see that one only breaks the fence or shoots the moon in order to get HOME?”

Perhaps, then, nostalgia for the “good old days” is actually, but unconsciously, looking back to when men did not die, when love was pure and unashamed, and when God came to walk and talk with Adam in the cool of the day.

Peter the Apostle

One of the most striking statements Jesus ever made to one of His disciples is found in Matthew 16:16-19:

“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’

“Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’”

In Aramaic, Jesus would have used the same word – Cepha – for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’.  He is literally saying, “And I tell you that you are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church…”  Jesus apparently meant for Peter to be the leader of the Early Church. 

In fact, Peter already seemed to be a leader among the twelve disciples.  He was always named first whenever the disciples were listed, and first among the three disciples who were closest to Jesus, the three who alone witnessed many of the most amazing and moving events in Jesus’ ministry.  He often acted as a spokesman for the other disciples (Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, Luke 6:67-69).  He is mentioned in the Bible far more than any other disciple.  After Jesus rose from the dead, He first “appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve” (1 Cor. 15:5), and told Peter to “Feed my lambs.” (John 21:15)

After the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, Peter continued his role as leader and spokesman of the church.  He presided over the choosing of a new apostle to replace Judas (Acts 1:15), preached to the crowd on Pentecost (Acts 2:14), to another crowd at the healing of the beggar in the temple (Acts 3:12), and to the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:8).  He pronounced God’s judgment on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11), rebuked Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:20-24), and was the first to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 10).  He presided over the Council of Jerusalem, along with James, who was the bishop of Jerusalem, according to Eusebius.  Peter also traveled widely in spreading the Gospel, acting as the bishop of Rome, according to Eusebius (which is also implied in 1 Peter 5:15), but also appearing in Antioch (Gal. 2:11) and Jerusalem (Acts 15:7).  In Antioch, Paul sees it as a very serious thing when Peter tries to distance himself from the Gentiles in trying to avoid offending Jews.  Seeing others, including Barnabas, following Peter’s example, Paul takes Peter to task on it.

Given Peter’s behavior as a disciple, this was rather astonishing.  Jesus had to rescue Peter from drowning when he tried to walk on water, stop Peter from attacking the High Priest’s servant, and forgive Peter for denying Him three times after Peter had promised that he would never deny Jesus.  In addition, Peter always seemed to speak before thinking, embarrassing himself on the Mount of Transfiguration and getting a sharp rebuke from Jesus right after the ringing commendation in Matthew 16. 

But perhaps many of these occasions show crucial qualities of leadership in Peter: He had enough faith to attempt walking on water.  He boldly sprang forward to defend Jesus from the mob.  He wasn’t afraid to speak out.  He wept bitterly when he realized that he had denied Jesus.

And perhaps there is another reason that Jesus chose Peter.  As G.K. Chesterton said, “When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, he chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man.  And upon this rock he has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it.  All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men.  But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible.  For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.”

The Lord's Supper

Most of the churches I have attended for any length of time celebrate the Lord's Supper once a month.  Others celebrated it only four or so times a year.  Often, the pastor carefully explained that there is nothing special about the bread and the wine (or grape juice), that this is simply a ceremony to commemorate the death of Jesus and to remind us of His sacrifice.  Some of these churches (especially those that celebrated it only four times a year) seemed to regard it as almost optional, just a little commemorative ritual that we do now and then but that isn't really essential.  Is this the correct way to regard the Lord's Supper?

First, let’s see what Paul had to say about the practice of the Lord’s Supper in the early church:

“When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else.  One remains hungry, another gets drunk….Shall I praise you for this?  Certainly not!

1 Corinthians 11: 20-22

Apparently, at this early date, the Lord’s Supper involved an actual meal, though it was soon reduced to simply the bread and the cup, as Paul advises the Corinthians to do in this passage.  At any rate, the church in Corinth met together specifically to eat the Lord’s supper together.  They obviously thought it was important to perform it frequently, and Paul thought it was very important that they do it properly.  Why did Paul think this important?

“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.  A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

1 Corinthians 11: 27-29

So, to receive the bread and wine irreverently or while in a sinful state is to sin against the actual body and blood of Christ, which will bring divine judgment.  This is a powerful statement, and it certainly gives us reason to reconsider how we view the Lord’s Supper.  Paul doesn’t regard it as a mere symbolic ritual.  But does he really mean that we are eating Jesus’ body and blood?  What did Jesus himself say about this?

According to John's gospel, after Jesus fed several thousand people with five loaves and two fish, the people came looking for him.

"So they asked him, 'What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you?  What will you do?  Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat'"

"Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.  For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.'

" 'Sir', they said, 'from now on give us this bread.'

"Then Jesus declared, 'I am the bread of life.  He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty....'

"...'Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.  But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.  I am the living bread that came down from heaven.  If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I give for the life of the world.'

"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'"

John 6: 30-35, 49-52

Here Jesus compares himself to manna, the bread which God sent from heaven.  He is spiritual bread sent from God to give us spiritual nourishment and eternal life.  The Jews, however, are confused, wondering how he can possibly nourish them, how they can "eat" him.  So Jesus tells them how.  Instead of saying that he is speaking spiritually and symbolically, he says something even more graphic and shocking than before. Hitherto, Jesus has used the Greek word phago, a general term for eating.  In the next part, he switches to trogo which literally means "chew" or "gnaw".

"Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the truth, unless you eat [chew] the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever eats [chews] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  Whoever eats [chews] my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.  Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.'....

"On hearing it, many of his disciples said, 'This is a hard teaching.  Who can accept it?'

"Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?  What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!  The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.  The words I have spoken to you are spirit, and they are life.  Yet there are some of you who do not believe.'....

"From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

John 6: 53-58, 60-64, 66

So Jesus tells them that, yes, he really means for them to chew up and swallow his flesh, and drink his blood.  No wonder they were offended!  Either he was deliberately trying to confuse his disciples, or he meant these things literally.  If he had been speaking figuratively, he would surely have explained what he meant, as he did on other occasions (Matt. 13:18-23, John 11:11-15), rather than allow his disciples to fall away over a simple misunderstanding.  He then speaks of the Flesh, or the carnal nature, vs. the Spirit.  He seems to be saying that only the Spirit, not our flesh, can understand and believe these things.  Perhaps it is significant that this dialogue follows right after the Feeding of the Five Thousand.  Perhaps, just as the loaves and fishes were multiplied, Christ’s body can be multiplied for us, even after he ascends into heaven.

Jesus says that only by eating and drinking his flesh and blood can we have any part any part in him, or hope of eternal life.  But why would he choose to convey his salvation his salvation in such a way?

"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.'

"In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.'"

Luke 22: 19-20

This partaking in the body and blood of Christ is a “new covenant”.  How does this relate to other covenants in the Bible?

“ ‘And I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel’….The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

Genesis 3: 15,21

Here we see God establishing his first covenant with man, promising to supply a redeemer, a descendant of Eve, who will defeat the serpent.  This occasion is also marked by the shedding of blood, killing animals for their skins to cover the sin of Adam and Eve.

“He [God] also said to him [Abram], ‘I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it.’

“But Abram said, ‘O Sovereign Lord, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?’

“So the Lord said to him, ‘Bring me a heifer, a goat, and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.’

“Abram brought all these to hi, cut them in two, and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half….

“When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces.  On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram…”

Genesis 15: 7-10, 17-18

Now God is making a covenant with Abram, promising to give the land to his descendants, who will become the Hebrew nation, bringing us a step closer to the promised redeemer.  Once more, the covenant is sealed in blood.

“On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn – both men and animals – and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt.  I am the Lord.  The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you.  No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.”

Exodus 12: 12-13

This passage can be considered to include not only the Passover covenant, but the whole covenant between God and Israel, when the blood of animals covered their sins.  In all of these cases, real blood and bodies of animals are required to seal the covenant. 

“The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.  How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

“For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

Hebrews 9: 13-15

“For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed.”

1 Corinthians 5: 7b

Jesus came and offered himself as the ransom, the Great Sacrifice that fulfilled and replaced all the former sacrifices of animals.  As the old covenants were sealed in the blood of the animals, so the New Covenant is sealed in the blood of Christ, his present, literal blood and body, taken into us in the Lord’s Supper to cleanse us from sin and bring us into the Covenant.  This act is not minor.  It is not even important.  It is essential, and to belittle or ignore it is to belittle and ignore the body and blood of Christ and to bring judgment on ourselves.  This is why the early church held the Lord’s Supper as the high point of every meeting, the great covenant act between God and His Church.  Let us follow their example and partake in the body and blood of Christ every time we meet together and receive His life-giving presence into our bodies.