These last words of Christ from across will be celebrated in song, ceremony and pageants throughout the world this Easter as we’ve done for over 2000 years. Yet, as his follower, I found it incredibly hard to believe – I only believed what made sense to me. I’m sure I am not alone; it seems that many of us have never really heard it clearly. We filtered it and Jesus through our pre-shaped image of God rather than allowing Jesus to reshape our image of God. Yes, I had read “He is the image of the invisible God” and “For in him all the fullness of deity lives20 in bodily form” (Col 1:15; 2:9) and even “The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence” (Heb 1:3). But, I did not really see the depth of meaning in them or what was really finished until just a few years past.

I began to notice how often grace and love, although being relational words, slipped in my language into being “things” to have, receive more or risk losing.  In my theological world it was common to talk about grace as if God has more for some and less for others. It became more a product rather than the essence of the relationship God has with humanity. Even the discussion around “Grace is the unmerited favor of God” left the impression that it is a “thing” He dispenses or withholds.

My image of God was shaped by listening to many, many sermons, the way I read the Old Testament that shaped how I viewed Jesus and most of my theological training. While I affirmed John’s declaration “God is love” (1 John) I did not realize how incongruent it was with my image of God. Honestly, I experienced it as if John was saying “Jesus is love and because he was sacrificed God’s default anger changed enough so He can be more loving.” That was my Good News about God but it was far less than John’s or Jesus’ Good News. It allowed me rational justification for a schizophrenic view of the Trinity with the Father having a temporarily appeased angry attitude and the Son protecting humanity from it. Without realizing it (and impossible to acknowledge it) my view of Jesus was that he died to save us from his Father. In reality my grasp was that Jesus was said “It is finished and now you have work to do.”

Now, I see that John’s “God is love” affirmation protects both the Good News about God and allows no room for any split between the essential character of the Father, Son or Spirit. It does not allow God’s agape love to be something he “has” to distribute or to withhold. Rather, it clarifies that love is the essence of God’s character and it is the defining nature of the relationship within the Trinity and between the relationship of the Trinity with all  humanity and creation.

What does that have to do with Jesus’ exclamation “It is finished”? What is the “it” that is finished? If “it” is finished, what would that mean about God’s relationship to humanity in general and me in particular?

The Apostle Paul answers these questions in many ways. His does not give an abstract theological discussion but an enthusiastic exclamation and encouragement to his friends.  Ephesians 5 begins with with a summation of his admonitions to people he loves saying, “Therefore, be imitators of God as dearly loved children and live in love, just as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God” (NET). In other words, the very characteristics he’s inviting them to develop are also at the core of God’s character. He’s not identifying behaviors to make God more loving or to keep Him from loving them less but to reflect the very heart and nature of God Himself: “Instead, be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you.” (Ephesians 4:32 NET).

Paul also describes the character of God in a way that I have not understood until recently. 1 Corinthians 13 (the “Love Chapter”) is the basis of millions of sermons each year and it is used in many Christian weddings. It’s usually presented as a description of how we are to relate to one another. And there is truth to that but it’s not the whole truth. Then I saw how illogical it was to think that Paul would encourage real people to aspire to a majestic level of human agape that would exceed the level of the Trinity’s agape.

How would could reading 1 Corinthians 13 as a description of God’s love challenge our image of God? It was fine until verse 5 where Paul shakes up our image of God by saying “…it (agape love) is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs” (NIV). Paul is not blind to the destructiveness of evil and goes on to say, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” As in Ephesians, wrongdoing and unloving choices matter but the core characteristic of agape love in God is forgiveness. Could “it” that Jesus declared “finished” really be the end of guilt for sin? Now that would be a radical shift in my theology.

Reading with “new eyes” it seems that Paul clearly declares that is the “mystery” revealed: “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s trespasses against them, and he has given us the message of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18 – 19 NET). Now that is Good News! It eliminates a schizophrenic view of the Father and among the Trinity.

But is it consistent with what Jesus says about forgiveness? Peter asked Jesus about what degree of forgiveness was sufficient “Lord, how many times must I forgive my brother who sins against me? As many as seven times?” In responding “Not seven times, I tell you, but seventy-seven times!” Jesus was not saying “keep a longer list” but to make forgiving a natural life-style. Not only did Jesus teach it, he lived it and spoke it and in doing so revealed the very nature of his Father’s character.

As if to reinforce the audacious image of God as forgiver he reminds the disciples (and us) that he’s only done and said what his Father directed him to. And to Phillip’s request to see the Father: “The person who has seen me has seen the Father!” (John 14:9 NET)

In becoming aware of my blindness to what was “finished” I take great comfort from another of his words from the cross, “Father, forgive them, they don’t know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). I am part of the “them” who didn’t know what I was doing. The Good News is that all of us are included in that loving, forgiving embrace from the cross.

Obviously, no single post can fully answer this question about what happened on the cross, however John 12:32 has an interesting suggestion, which, if read with eyes that see the full scope of the atonement offer a transforming insight.

The typical translation of that verse is: “…And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (NET)

There are many widely different interpretations of what the “all people” in this verse could mean. Most of the literalists, who take the “If Jesus said then I believe it” approach with other verses, will not do that with this one. For them “all people” must mean “some of every kind of the various classifications of humanity” and not literally “all people.” Those of a liberal-Universalist bent want to be more literalist with this verse but not with others. (I’m making a distinction between a liberal-Universalist position and that of an Evangelical-Universalist understanding.)

In Biblical Greek, it is not uncommon for words to be omitted from the text and simply implied from the context – it seemed so obvious to the writer/speaker that it seemed unnecessary to put it in the text. In John 12:32 the Greek does include the word “all” but does not have the word “people” (or “men” in other versions) and would literally be more like “will draw all _____ to myself.” Most English translators supply the word “people” (or “men”) to clarify the verse (some translations have the word in italics to show that it’s not in the Greek).

So, if it’s not there, is the term “people” really the best translation implied from the context?

First a word about the Greek verb translated “draw.” In English, it has many shades of meanings from “pull” to “attract” and those who interpret the verse from a conservative theology will certainly interpret it as more attraction than forcing or dragging. However the term helkuo typically means “to drag or pull by physical force, often implying resistance” (Louw & Nida). So, Acts 16:9 has the translation “they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the authorities.” (NET) And, in John 21:16 “So they threw the net, and were not able to pull it in because of the large number of fish.” (NET) So, whatever the “all ______” means in John 12:32, it seems to be that Jesus is doing something that will be hard, heavy, laborious and not simply attracting men to come toward it if they are giving the grace to do so and choose to respond.

With this in mind, why don’t you take a shot at finding the word modified by “all” in the Greek text from the context? What is being dragged by Jesus in being lifted up on the cross? Here is Jesus’ full quote where this verse appears (John 12:30-32″)

“Jesus said, ‘This voice has not come for my benefit but for yours. Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.’” (NET)

What if, from the context, Jesus was saying “will drag all judgment to myself”? That certainly seems like the most likely antecedent to which “all” is referring. What could that mean? What if it meant what Paul seems to mean in 2 Cor 5:18-19 “And all these things are from God who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation. In other words, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s trespasses against them, and he has given us the message of reconciliation.” (NET)

Wouldn’t that be Good News about what Christ was doing not only on the Cross but with the whole of the Incarnation?

He Is Risen, Indeed!

For example, asked about why someone did something deemed negative (or avoided doing something positive) a response of  “I guess I’m just too proud” could be about pride that is motivated to avoid the shame of the action or more accurately mean “I guess I’m too ashamed.” The same word “pride” can mean a sense of worth or mean a negative sense of pride; what would more accurately be called hubris – an excessive pride that is arrogant.

There is an implied attribution about the choice in the response “I guess I’m just too proud” that can make it about pride or hubris. That is, we can evaluate actions as either as having positive or negative results. A second factor involved in whether we experience the result as either a source of guilt, shame, pride or hubris is whether we attribute it in a specific or a global way.

Below is a chart that attempts to demonstrate how these factors combine. For example, if I do something, have a negative self-evaluation and view it as a specific attribution about that event, then I’m likely to experience guilt: “I did it and it was wrong.” A healthy response could be: “I can acknowledge what I did was wrong, make amends and learn from it.” On the other hand, if I make a global attribution to my sense-of-self, I’m likely to experience shame: “I did it and I am wrong/defective for doing it.” A healthy response could be to shift from global attribution to specific attribution and realize that while I did it, it does not define who I am. The toxic response is likely to be: “I am not enough. I can’t let anyone know or I’ll die. I can’t take the risk of letting that happen again.”

No single two-dimensional chart is adequate to demonstrate the paradoxical nature of shame but this a start for further discussion.

The term they coined was “Perichoresis” and at it’s core is the Greek word from which we get “choreographer.” It describes the dynamic (not static), always in sync, creative interaction among the Trinity and into which we have been adopted. It has been translated as referring to the “dance of the Trinity!” What an audacious image of Father, Son and Spirit dancing, playing in a circle of loving energy. And our “adoption” and dance with them began before we even knew it and likely spent a long time blind to it.

But once we grasp it, how does image of the Trinity Dance relate to prayer to the Father, through the Son by the Holy Spirit?

Clement of Alexandria put it this way: “Prayer is keeping company with God.”

In Worshiping with the Church Fathers Chris Hall examines prayer as an natural movement of perichoresis – keeping company with God.

God is love in communion, God has always been love in communion, and God created out of that love. Prayer is communion in that communion and God wants us to talk to him because those who love one another want to hear from one another, even when they know what the other one asks.

Father, Son and Spirit, I like that. I’ll have more of that communion dance please.

Andre lives in Amanzimtoti, KwaZulu-Natal and has a wide-ranging ministry that is built on a “new paradigm” understanding about grace. The paradox is that this “new paradigm” is really the “old paradigm” of many Early Church Fathers that is now being recovered as the really “good news” about grace for guilt and shame.

Just thought I’d post my comments back to Andre for those interested in the larger “conversations” that are happening outside the BT Community.

Thank you Andre. Happy to share whatever I may offer to the conversation.

At about the same time you were pondering a “new paradigm” I was exploring a shift from seeing theology through a legal-guilt paradigm to a shame-grace point of view…. I discovered that shame is more of a dominant theme in Scripture than guilt.

In fact, I came to understand that guilt is really a learned response of shame about violating some standard. That is, the capacity to experience shame is an innate affect and does not have to be learned but guilt has to have a learned standard to violate. We can have real guilt with shame and are more likely to want to do some remediation. We can have real guilt without shame and there’s little motivation to seek remedy.

My experience is that many “believers” continue to have significant unhealed “shame-wounds” long after they have experienced forgiveness for their guilt. Like Lazarus, they are as alive as they will ever be but are still wrapped in grave clothes that limit them from living loved and loving life.

They are led to misidentify their shame-barrier that inhibits them “accepting their acceptance” as “guilt” and are encouraged to “repent more” or look for something for which they have not “fully repented.” Seeking more forgiveness does not work we are set up to use performance-religion to work on getting “closer to God.” Since whatever pattern performance-religion offers, and there are many variations, does not work to heal shame, it increases shame and sets up guilt about “not doing enough” or not doing the practices “right enough.”

So many believers deal with “false guilt” that is really unhealed internalized-shame that condemns us through our shame-based conscience. Many of us assume is that our “conscience” is somehow neutral and unaffected by how we were raised and our heart-wounding life experiences. As children, the Disney character Jiminy Cricket, taught many of us to trust our conscience. However, our conscience is significantly shaped by the way shame was used by parents, teachers, and churches to influence our moral outlook on life.

Our shame-based conscience may sound like the voice of God and condemn us when there is no condemnation. Which of us raised in very conservative families know that many the prohibitions they taught are not wrong at all, yet we still feel a “pang of conscience” when we do them? Which of us who were raised in a very permissive family have not been frustrated when spiritual communities imply that belonging requires developing “convictions” about things that we’re quite sure don’t matter?

Well, I diverge from sharing a simple thank you.

T. F. Torrance in Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ, suggests that vision is not rooted in a future-state dualistic heaven with the destruction of creation, as typically imagined in Evangelicalism, but a here-and-now reality that is yet to be revealed. The confidence in it is rooted in both the character of the Trinity’s love and that the redemption of creation was intended before its existence. [He uses the term "church" here way beyond any institutional expression]:

“The church of the risen Lord has no right to be a prophet of gloom or despair, for this world has been redeemed and sanctified by Christ and he will not let it go. The corruptible clay of our poor earth has been taken up in Jesus, is consecrated through his sacrifice and resurrection, and he will not allow it to sink back into corruption. Hence the whole creation groans and travails waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, looking forward with eager expectation to the hour of final liberation and renewal in the advent of its risen savior.”

Take a look at the church sign in the picture and see if you are shocked. Yes? No? I am not referring to Brad and Steve’s acting but the message, “Have you made God smile today?” I find that absolutely shocking for a church to infer that God’s default view of humanity is at best neutral, sad or probably angry. It’s as if God starts each day grumpy and needs humanity to do something to put a smile on His face. Of course then we have to start each day figuring out what we can do to make Him smile. What kind of loving relationship is that? What kind of self-centered Trinity would that represent?

Imagine a child who wakes up every morning worried about what they will do today move their parents from being grumpy and angry or distracted? Yesterday’s smile is gone and its got to be earned all over again today, tomorrow and everyday the rest of life. I think that child would be destined to want to get our that house as soon as possible. Wonder if that’s a clue for churches to explore about their declining attendance?

And we drive by signs like that or hear similar messages in sermons and it seems to not register how contradictory that is to the image that Jesus gave of his Father’s love. We listen to Christian radio and TV speakers contradict both themselves and each other’s messages and don’t even recognize it. A message begins “God will never leave you or forsake you” and then it switches to ” but if you don’t ______ then God might choose to lift his hand of protection from you.” Or, “God loves you unconditionally” and then they add “IF you will just _______. If not, then you will suffer retribution like you can’t imagine.” Or like the message of a nationally recognized pastor last week suggesting that it was a loving God who directed a tornado to damage the church-building to warn a denomination about the liberal direction they are about to take. Does that not suggest we accept a lot of unhealthy BS about God?

Yes, I know the old fall back positions people use to avoid seeing the contradictions, “God’s ways are above our ways” and “God works in mysterious ways.” I get that but it is usually a signal that says “end of conversation.”

On the other hand Jesus had a lot to say about the Father. One of the most profound statements attributed to Jesus is “…no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” (Matt 11:27b) So neither Abraham, Moses or the OT prophets understood the Father like the Son. If Jesus is the full, complete and clear revelation of the character of the Triune God then, to a large degree, God’s ways have been communicated more accurately than the OT witnesses left for us. The “Truth” that Jesus models is not logical, objective theology but the extravagant compassionate love and acceptance that is the core characteristic of the Trinity. His stories reflect the Father’s passion for us to know His heart for us.

Yet, it does not shock us to hear disasters called an “act of God.” Someone is ill and not getting better and family members wonder, “Has someone sinned secretly and God is withholding healing to reveal it?” or “Yep, I guess God had to use that to get my attention.” Well known Christian leaders get up without embarrassment after disasters like 9/11 or Katrina or AIDS saying that it is God’s punishment for tolerating “sinners” among us. We hear and read these kinds of BT about God all the time and don’t seem shocked by them.

“Dr. Paul, but does it really make any difference?” ABSOLUTELY IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE because it impacts the relationship we experience with the Father and that is what The Trinity is most passionate about. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so we could worry about whether we had made God smile?” NOT. His passion is for our heart to be thrilled with His heart for us.

Let me be so bold as to suggest that the focus of the Trinity’s heart is “What can We do today to make them smile?”