This is the first time
I’m preaching for two consecutive Sundays. And maybe the last time. I was so
stressed up. I salute Ps. Meng for preaching for 9 consecutive Sundays. Don’t
know how he did it. By the grace of God I’m sure. I was supposed to preach two
weeks from Isaiah 53 but I found that after a week I have exhausted all that I
want to say. Maybe for an experienced preacher, he can preach 5 sermons from
that passage. Last week we saw how that passage can be nicely divided into 5
equal portions with each part taking 3 verses. Unfortunately, in terms of
experience this is only my 10th sermon. So I have been struggling as
to what to do for this week. It has to be something to do with the Lent season.
I decided then to do something different from our usual expository preaching.
It’s still going to be expository I guess. But I won’t be expounding on a given
biblical text. Instead I will be expounding on a biblical doctrine.
This morning I would like
to touch on the work of Christ. More specifically the work of Christ on the
cross. In a sense it is related to our text last week. We saw the
substitutionary suffering of the Servant in Isaiah 53 last week and we saw how
the Suffering Servant is Christ. We saw how Jesus understood himself to be the
Suffering Servant and how the NT writers had the same understanding. The
ultimate suffering of Jesus and his death happened on the cross.
How are we to
understand Jesus’ work on the cross? Why was it so central to Christianity and
to our faith? Why was it necessary for Jesus to die? What did the cross
achieve? How did the death of Jesus save us and what did it save us from? These
are some of the questions that we are going to address this morning.
How many of you have
read this book? The Cross of Christ by John Stott. My sermon will be based
largely on this book. I’ll be quoting him a number of times. Preachers are
allowed to plagiarize as long as they admit to it.
In April 2015, a group
about 50 Muslims staged a protest at a church in Kampung Medan not very far
from here. They demanded that the cross which was displayed on façade of the
shoplot which the church was occupying be taken down. The cross was quite big
and I think because of its size, the protesters deemed that it is a challenge
to Islam. The community in Kampung Medan, majority of them are Muslims.
Actually the demand to remove crosses from buildings is nothing new. Mission
schools in the past have also been told to remove them.
The
church promptly removed the cross in order to avoid further confrontation and
for the safety of their congregation. Perhaps some of us may say, they
shouldn’t have put up such a big cross in a Muslim majority area. But following
the incident there were many Muslims who came out openly to criticize the
actions of those protestors. Basically, they said that those protestors have no
right to make such a demand. After all, the cross should not affect their faith
at all since they don’t believe that Jesus died on the cross. One of them was Dr Mohd Asri, the former Mufti of Perlis.
He rebuked the Taman Medan protesters for their “unruly behaviour” at
the church.
He said, “Islam does not recognise the teachings of other religions, but
it recognises the rights of others who want to follow the teachings of other
religions and their rights to exist.
He adds, “If your faith is swayed only by looking at a cross, then you
are not a good Muslim. You are weak. Your faith is weak.
“And those who say that the cross can influence their faith are an
embarrassment to the religion. They bring shame to Islam.”
What I also find interesting was a
comment made by one unnamed representative of a nearby church as reported in a
news daily.
“It’s not about the symbol that matters, but how one wants to practise or follow their faith... our faith is strong and we are not concerned about our church not bearing a cross on its façade”
“It’s not about the symbol that matters, but how one wants to practise or follow their faith... our faith is strong and we are not concerned about our church not bearing a cross on its façade”
The person also
added that he would remove the cross from his church if residents demanded
this, saying it was only a worldly symbol and its absence would not detract
from his faith. He added that his church’s congregation believe in loving
their neighbours and being respectful as stated in the Bible.
“So let’s not offend them (the Muslims)... we are a religion of love and
peace,” he added.
In one sense, I agree
with this unnamed representative. The cross is a symbol, although I would say a
religious symbol rather than a worldly symbol. And its absence shouldn’t affect
our faith. But one the other hand, the cross is more than a symbol in
Christianity.
A church will still remain a church without
the symbol of the cross but a church will cease to be a church if it ceases to
preach about the cross. Christianity will cease to be Christianity if its
believers do nothing but just love their neighbours and be respectful to them.
I always have problem with the saying which is often but wrongly attributed to
St. Francis of Assisi i.e. “Preach the gospel always, if necessary use words.” What
basically this saying tries to convey is that we should only focus on doing
good. The content of the gospel is not important. The cross can be ignored.
Only if necessary do we bring it in. It’s only secondary.
The gospel is good
news. Imagine watching the news bulletin but switching off the sound. Can you
understand what’s going on? News are meant to be proclaimed. And you cannot
proclaim something without words. You just cannot preach the gospel without
using words.
Calvary, and not Bethlehem is the center of
Christianity. That’s why sometimes I don’t know what’s the big fuss about
Christmas. I think the only thing I would miss if we were to do away with
Christmas would be the Christmas carols.
If you take away the
message that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, then there is no more
Christianity. Of course, this message is symbolized by the cross. Although I
don’t think Muslims can so easily have their faith affected by merely looking
at the cross, the cross does in a one sense challenges their faith because the
cross affirms the death of Jesus which their religion deemed as fake news. So,
which is the good news and which is the fake news? Anyway, like it or not, we
should be sensitive. It is ok to take away our cross but not the message of the
cross.
Actually, the cross as
a visual representation of Christianity didn’t exist from the beginning. It is
understandable given the stigma that was connected to the cross. The cross is associated with crucifixion, a
death sentence that was reserved only for the most terrible criminals at that
material time. Roman citizens were exempted from this form of cruel punishment.
In addition, to the Jews anyone who was crucified was considered to be cursed
by God (Deut 21:23).
Slowly by the second
century onwards, Christians not only drew, painted and engraved the cross as a
pictorial symbol of their faith, but also made the sign of the cross on
themselves and others. On the eve of a crucial battle, Constantine, the first
emperor to profess to be a Christian saw a cross of light in the sky, along
with the words (conquer by this sign). He immediately adopted the cross as his
emblem or coat of arms. Constantine won the battle and established himself as
the emperor of the Roman Empire. Overnight, Christianity went from being a
persecuted religion to an official religion of the Empire. The cross, instead
being a symbol of ridicule was now viewed as an imperial symbol.
It is surprising that
the early Christians before this imperial favour chose the cross as the symbol
of their faith. After all, crucifixion was regarded with horror in the ancient
world. We certainly can understand why Paul’s message of the cross was
considered foolishness to many of his listeners. How can any sane person
worship as god a dead man who had been condemned as a criminal and subjected to
the most humiliating form of execution? Didn’t make sense then, nor does it
make sense now to some people.
Nevertheless, the
centrality of Jesus’ death on the cross was not lost on the early followers of
Jesus. Despite being an object of ridicule, they clung on to it out of loyalty
to their Saviour. For them to do so means that Jesus himself must have also
viewed the cross as central to his whole life and ministry. Is there evidence
for this?
Firstly, it was Jesus
himself who alluded to his death. In fact, in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus
foretold his death on three occasions (Mark, 8,9, 10). What was remarkable on
these three occasions was the determination that Jesus showed and exemplified. In
Mark 8, right immediately after Peter confessed that Jesus is Christ, Jesus
foretold his death to his disciples. But Peter took Jesus aside and began to
rebuke him. Imagine a disciple rebuking his master. What was Jesus’ response?
He told Peter straight to his face “Get behind me Satan.” Jesus knew that the
work of the devil was to stop him from accomplishing his mission. And Peter’s
action towards the same end was nothing but Satanic.
He must suffer and be
rejected and die, Jesus said. Everything written of him in Scripture must be
fulfilled. So, he set his face towards Jerusalem. Besides these three passages,
the gospel records at least eight more occasions on which Jesus alluded to his
death. What was going to await him was a violent, premature and yet purposive
death. How did Jesus know for sure about his fate?
Firstly, he knew that
he would die due to the hostile reaction of the Jewish leaders towards his
teachings. He was a threat to their positions. Secondly, he knew he came to
fulfill the role of the Messiah in Scripture. It is from Isaiah 53, the passage
that we looked at last week that Jesus seems to have derived the clearest
forecast not only of his sufferings, but also his subsequent glory. It was from
this chapter more than any other that he learnt that the vocation or the career
of the Messiah was to suffer and die for human sin, and so be glorified. Lastly
it was his deliberate choice in doing his Father’s will for the salvation of
sinners. So, he set his face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem. Nothing would
deter him.
The cross and Christ’s death was also
emphasized by the apostles in their epistles. We read about them last week.
(Gal. 3:13, 1 Peter 2:24). The author of Hebrews speaks about Jesus making one
sacrifice for sins forever and in the Revelation of John, the most common
designation given to Jesus is the Lamb of God, the sacrificial lamb. Paul told
the Corinthians that he has decided to know nothing among them except Jesus
Christ and him crucified and to the Galatians, he would boast of nothing but in
the cross of Christ. There is no doubt that the NT writers believed in the
centrality of the cross of Christ. This belief and conviction were derived from
their Master, Christ himself.
Since NT times, the
cross has either been accepted as the very heart of the Christian message or
rejected as weakness and barbaric or something unworthy of a great religion. According to Samuel Zwemer, who was a pioneer
missionary the cross is “where all the wealth and glory of the gospel centers
and the pivot as well as the center of NT thought”. Interestingly, Zwemer is
known as the Apostle to Islam having labored in Arab countries and Egypt for
many years. As we know Islam rejects the death of Christ on the cross and is a
stumbling block to Muslims coming to Christ. Yet, Zwemer considers the
preaching of the cross to be crucial for evangelism. I think there is something
we can learn from Zwemer. We must never compromise our message even though it
may be a stumbling block. Even though it may proved to be offensive. The end
does not justify the means. A gospel without the cross is a false gospel. The
Apostle Paul has no hesitation in cursing those who preach another gospel.
If we accept the death
of Jesus on the cross as a historical fact and as being central to our faith,
we now need to ask the question as to why did Christ die? Who was responsible
for his death?
From the human
perspective, Jesus has to die because he was a threat to the Jewish religious
and political leadership. He was heard proclaiming himself to be the King of
the Jews and this was a challenge to the authority of Caesar. He mixed with
sinners, broke the Sabbath law, disregarded traditions and condemned the
religious leaders of the day likening them to white-washed tombs. He was
perceived to be leading the people astray by his teachings. As such, there were
good political, theological and ethical reasons for silencing him permanently.
The Jewish leadership
who perpetrated the conspiracy found a willing co-conspirator in Judas Iscariot
in betraying Jesus. Then, there was Pilate who cowardly passed the sentence
despite being convinced of Jesus’ innocence. The soldiers who whipped him, who
mocked him. The crowd who shouted, “Crucify him!” Crucify him!”. All these people were directly or indirectly
responsible for Jesus’ death, but Stott points out that, “before we can begin
to see the cross as something done for us (leading us to faith and worship), we
have to see it as something done by us (leading us to repentance). In other
words, we are as guilty as those people listed above. We are as guilty as the
Jewish leadership. We are as guilty as Judas Iscariot. We are as guilty as
Pilate and his Roman soldiers. Have you heard of this old negro spiritual that goes
like this “were you there when they crucified the Lord?” Yes, we were all
there. Canon Peter Green says “only the man who is prepared to own his share in
the guilt of the cross may claim his share in its grace.” We all stand
condemned and guilty.
Yes, there were good
reasons to have Jesus killed. But why didn’t God stop it? In fact, as we saw
last week, it was God who planned it. Maybe let us refresh our memory. Turn
with me to Acts 2:23.
But why the cross? The
answer we often get is this. Jesus has to die on the cross so that God can
forgive us of our sins if we believe in Jesus. That is right but then some have
questioned the necessity of the cross. After all, if we can forgive someone who
has wronged us, why can’t God just forgive us? Why must Jesus die on the cross
before God can forgive us? Can’t we just tell God we are sorry and believe in
Jesus?
To ask such questions
shows that we failed to grasp the gravity of our sin on one hand and the
majesty and holiness of God on the other hand. In fact, the correct question is
not why God finds it difficult to forgive, but how he finds it possible to do
so at all. This is in light of how terrible our sin is on one hand. And how
holy and majestic God is on the other hand.
This was precisely how
Anselm who was the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 11th century
answered the question. Why can’t just God just forgive? He wrote in his book,
Cur Deus Homo (Why God became a man), “If anyone imagines that God can simply
forgive us as we forgive others, that person has not seriously consider the
seriousness of sin and the majesty of God”. When our perception of God and man
or of holiness and sin is faulty then our understanding of the atonement will
also be faulty.
Sin. This word is not
very popular in our modern culture. Even in the church we don’t talk about it
anymore except to say Jesus died on the cross for your sins. Sin is no longer
in our vocabulary whether in our society or in the church. When was the last
time you hear a sermon about sin? We hear about grace all the time. In fact,
just across the Causeway, we have a famous preacher of a megachurch whose focus
is on the preaching about grace.
But I think our
appreciation of God’s grace can only be in direct proportion to the awareness
of our utter depravity or sinfulness. Amazing grace how sweet the sound, that
saved a wretch like me. Some modern hymnals have substituted the words “a
wretch” with the word “sinners”. If sin no longer get mentioned in the church,
the word “sinners” will also be meaningless.
What is the essence of
sin? The essence of sin is rebellion against God. The rebellion against the
Sovereign of the Universe. What was so sinful about the sin of Adam and Eve? Doesn’t
eating the forbidden fruit seems to be small matter? After all, how many times
have our children eaten something which we had prohibited them from eating?
No what Adam and Eve
did was not just about eating the forbidden food. It was rebellion. They wanted
autonomy. Moral autonomy. The right to decide what is right and what is wrong
rather than to have God decide what is right and what is wrong. We are no
different.
Emil Brunner has this
to say about sin: “Sin is defiance, arrogance, the desire to be equal with God,
….the assertion of human independence over against God,…. the constitution of
the autonomous reason, morality and culture.
Sin is not sickness as
some people now seems to suggest. Sin is not a momentary lapse of some moral
standards, Sin’s essence is hostility against God issuing in active rebellion
against him. Rom. 8:7 “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God,
for it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot.” Sin is shouting
“Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka” into the face of God.
Our sin is serious.
Recently there was an outrage among the people because a Datin who had
grievously abused her maid were not given a custodial sentence but left off
with just a bond of good behavior. Why was there such an outrage? Because the
punishment just didn’t befit the crime or offence. Just like if God were to
just forgive us of our sins.
Not only we couldn’t
grasp the gravity of our sin, we also fail to see the majesty and holiness of
the one whom we sinned against. Even Moses whom God considered as his friend was
only allowed to see the backside of God. Isaiah proclaimed Woe unto himself
after seeing a vision of God in the temple, high and lifted up. When God
revealed himself personally to Job, Job’s reaction was to “despise” himself and
to repent in dust and ashes. Ezekiel saw only ‘the appearance of the likeness
of the glory of God’ in burning fire and brilliant light, but it was enough to
make him fall prostrate to the ground. Daniel too collapsed and fainted with
his face to the ground after having a similar vision. What was John reaction
when he saw the risen and exalted Christ? It’s recorded in Rev. 1:17 “When I
saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.”
If we lost the sense of
God’s transcendence, His awesomeness, His majesty, glory and holiness, we will
never see the need for the cross. Neither we will be able to see the need for
the cross, if we don’t see our sin as rebellion against His majesty. The cross
will never make sense. The cross will never make sense if we were to compare
God’s forgiveness with man’s forgiveness.
Now can we see why God
just can’t forgive us even if we were to just say sorry or even repent or to
believe in Him?
How then can a holy God
forgive sinners, forgive his rebellious creatures while remaining true to His
nature and character?
How then can God’s
holiness and his love towards us sinners who are condemned be reconciled? The
Old Testament provides us with the answer how can God’s people be made right
with him before the coming of Jesus. It was through the sacrificial system.
Lambs were sacrificed to atone for the sins of the Israelites. In the New
Testament in particular the book of Hebrews shows that Jesus was the perfect
sacrifice and there is no necessity for his sacrifice to be repeated unlike
during the Old Testament times. The sacrifice and the shedding of blood whether
in relation to the lambs or Jesus signified the substitutionary nature of the
acts. They took the punishment for someone else.
On substitution, I
would like to quote John Stott here. I think no one puts it better than him.
“The concept of substitution may be said, then, to lie at the heart of sin and
salvation. For the essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while
the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man. Man asserts
himself against God and puts himself where God deserves to be; God sacrifices
himself for man and put himself where only man deserves to be. Man claims
prerogatives which belong to God alone; God accepts penalties which belong to
man alone.”
To help us understand
further the necessity of Jesus’ death, I would like to deal with one word which
is often misunderstood and rejected in relation to the cross. That is
propitiation. Let us first look at three biblical texts
Rom. 3:24-25 - “and are justified by his grace as a gift,
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a
propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith……
1 John 2:2 – “He is the
propitiation for our sins, not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole
world”
1 John 4:10 – “In this
is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be
the propitiation for our sins.”
I’m quoting from the
ESV. If you are using some other versions of the Bible like the NIV, you may
not see the word propitiation. Much scholarly debate has arisen whether
propitiation is the correct word to use. Well, you just have to trust me and
the ESV – the Extremely Solid Version. Anyway, only this this word can
adequately explain what happened at the cross and answer the question how did
Jesus’ death on the cross save us? What did it save us from? Well, firstly what
exactly does this word mean? It’s certainly not a common English word, at least
in the 21st century. It may be a few generations ago.
To propitiate somebody
means to appease or pacify his anger. Propitiation, then is the act appeasing
or pacifying someone. Who then in those three passages that needed to be
propitiated? God, of course. Why did he need to be propitiated? Because of our
sins. We have sinned against him. Some of us may be shocked to learn for the
first time that God can get angry and that there is such thing as the wrath of
God that needs to be appeased or propitiated. That Jesus’ death of the cross
propitiated God’s anger or wrath against us because of our sins.
Doesn’t the Bible say
God is love? How then can he be angry or wrathful? Isn’t that beneath the
character of God. Our problem is not with propitiation. Our problem is with the
wrath of God. The problem with our problem is we confuse our own anger which is
often sinful with God’s anger. Didn’t Jesus got angry when he chased out the
moneychangers from the temple? “The wrath of God is his steady, unrelenting,
unremitting, uncompromising antagonism to evil in all its forms and
manifestations” as John Stott puts it. In fact, I think a God without wrath far
from being a loving God is a monstrous entity in light of all the evil,
injustice and oppression that we see in the world.
God’s wrath
necessitates God’s Son to propitiate and only which his Son can propitiated. We
are saved from God’s wrath which was propitiated by his Son.
Was God being cruel to
ask His Son to appease His anger? We have already seen last week, the Son was
fully committed to the Father’s plan. Far from being cruel, it would break any
father’s heart to willingly sacrifice his child for the sake of another.
I have come to the end
of my exposition on the cross. I feel I have not done justice to the subject.
There is still so much to be said. After all, I have only spoken about five
thousand words. Whereas this book is over 400 pages. And as I have said last
week what I presented about penal substitutionary atonement is only one model
or way to look at the cross. There are other models. But PSA is I believe the
foundational model which other models need to be anchored on. I wish I can deal
with them but I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to do so here. This morning
I also have to be very selective to be able to condense 400 pages into 5000
words.
Perhaps it’s more
appropriate for a full exposition to be made in a classroom rather than from a
pulpit. Anyway, I would encourage you to read this book. I wouldn’t say it’s an
easy book to read but I think it’s quite readable compared to some other theological
books. I bought it for RM84.95 many years ago. Recently, I’m surprised to find
Canaanland selling at RM79.90. Well, they are now having a Easter sale with 20%
discount. So, grab it if you can.
I would like to end
with a story, a poem and a song. No, I’m not going to sing. Well, let’s start
with the story first. The title given is “The Long Silence” I tried to find out
who was the one that wrote it. I thought Google has all the answers. But I
could only find it stated as Anon. For many years I actually thought Anon is a
famous writer and poet because I seems to find many poems and writings being
attributed to Anon. Btw, just in case you are like me, Anon means anonymous.
Anyway, here’s the story. I have changed certain words so as to make it more
readable and better to be heard.
At the end of time,
billions of people were scattered on a great plain before God’s throne.
Most of them shrank
back from the brilliant light before them. But some groups near the front
talked loudly and with passion – with a sense of hostility and without shame.
‘Can God judge us? How
can he know about suffering?’ Snapped a young woman. She ripped open a sleeve
to reveal a tattooed number from a Nazi concentration camp. ‘We endured
terror….beatings…torture…death!’
In another group a
Negro boy lowered his collar. ‘What about this?’ he demanded, showing an ugly
rope burn. ‘Lynched…for no reason but for being black!’
In another crowd, a
pregnant schoolgirl with bitterness in her eyes said ‘why should I suffer. It
wasn’t my fault’
Far out across the
plain there were hundreds of such groups. Each had a complaint against God for
the evil and suffering he permitted in his world. How lucky God was to live in
heaven where all was sweetness and light, where there was no weeping or fear,
no hunger or hatred. What did God know of all that man had been forced to
endure in this world? For God leads a pretty sheltered life, they said.
So each of these group
sent forth their leader, chosen because he had suffered the most. A Jew, a
negro, a person from Hiroshima, someone horribly deformed from birth. In the
centre of the plain they consulted with each other. At last they were ready to
present their case. It was rather clever.
Before God could be
qualified to be their judge, he must endure what they had endured. Their
decision was that God should be sentenced to live on earth – as a man!
‘Let him be born a Jew.
Let the legitimacy of his birth be doubted. Give him a work so difficult that
even his family will think he is out of his mind when he tries to do it. Let
him be betrayed by his closest friends. Let him face false charges, be tried by
a prejudiced jury and convicted by a cowardly judge. Let him be tortured.’
‘At last, let him see
what it means to be terribly alone. Then let him die. Let him die so that there
can be no doubt that he died. Let there be a great host of witnesses to verify
it.’
As each leader
announced his portion of the sentence, loud murmurs of approval went up from
the crowd that was assembled.
And when the last had
finished pronouncing sentence, there was a long silence. No one uttered another
word. For suddenly all knew that God had already served his sentence.
Now the poem. In
Europe, God was being cast aside during the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason
from about the 18th century onwards. Man was confident in his own
progress. He didn’t need God anymore. This utopian dream came crashing down in
the aftermath of World War 1. Although more people will die in World War 2, the
senseless way in which a generation of young men were to die on the
battlefields of World War 1 became the defining image of the Great War. Tens of
thousands were slaughtered everyday just to gain an inch of the ground. Out of
this carnage, Edward Shillito found comfort in the fact that Jesus was able to
show his disciples the scars of his crucifixion. It inspired him to write the
following poem,
Jesus of the Scars.
If we have never
sought, we seek you now;
Thine eyes burn through
the dark, our only stars,
We must have sight of
thorn marks on thy brow;
We must have thee, O
Jesus of the scars.
The heavens frighten
us; they are too calm;
In all the universe we
have no place,
Our wounds are hurting
us; where is the balm?
Lord Jesus, by thy
scars we know your grace.
If, when the doors are
shut, thou drawest near;
Only reveal those
hands, that side of thine,
We know today what
wounds are, have no fear;
Show us thy scars, we
know the countersign.
The other gods were
strong, but thou wast weak;
They rode, but thou
didst stumble to a throne,
But to our wounds only
God’s wound can speak;
And not a god has
wounds, but thou alone.
Now the song. The song
is actually based on the poem, sung by Garth Hewitt. One of my favourite
Christian singers.
