The Cup of Wrath

"Jesus drank a cup of wrath without mercy, that we might drink a cup of mercy without wrath."
- J. Oswald Sanders

Imagine that all of your deeds have been laid bare. Every evil thought, every harsh word, every wicked deed, every selfish desire, and any other thing you have ever done that is wrong. They also list every time someone cried out in need and you ignored it, every good deed that you could have done for someone but refused to do.

As the list is read, a cup nearby fills with the wrath deserved for such crimes. A lifetime of unpunished wrongdoing fills it to the brim and it foams with pain and loss and despair. Pain you deserve for all the evil you have done and all the good you refused to do for others.

Now imagine that God takes the cup and drinks it. All of it.

There is no more evil. There is no more pain. There is no more loss or suffering.

Because he drank it all. It is all gone. He has taken the punishment reserved for you into Himself.

And He has paid it in full.

You do not have to imagine it. He already did it.

For all who believe. It. Is. Finished.

"But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God freely and graciously declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law."
- Saul of Tarsus to the Church at Rome, circa 57 A.D.

Curtain Call

 

The picture you see here is of a curtain call. The curtain call is the moment at the end of a play when all the actors come out from behind the curtain to take a final bow. I chose this particular curtain call as an object lesson, because this curtain call is from the play Hamlet. Why is that significant?

Because just a moment ago, nearly all of these people were dead.

For those familiar with William Shakespeare's tragedy Hamlet, the story ends with a climatic duel that ends up causing the deaths of just about every single character. The very last scene see Hamlet's friend bursting on the scene to find a castle hall full of the dead. The story ends, everyone dies.

But lo! The curtain call! Everyone is alive again! It turns out this play was just a work of imagination, just a brief lesson in miniature, and everyone is actually OK. Death was not the end for these people.

But real life does not work that way. Or does it? What does the bard say?

All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII and Macbeth Act V, Scene V

Even the bard agrees, life is a play. The only thing I would disagree with is that last bit. The tale we are a part of is significant.

The Creator God is our Playwright. He gives us all a part to play and a job to do. A man, as the Bard says, might play many parts in his life. Everyone has entrances and exits onto the stage. The entrance is birth. The exit is death.

And yet, death is not the end. There is the Curtain Call. We call it the Resurrection.

It will be a day when all who belong to Christ who have mourned the dead and felt the sting of its loss will awake to find it was all just a play and that the deaths they suffered did not last. Everyone who was dead is alive once again!

The beloved elder cut down in Act I holds hands with the young man who died in the battle of Act V. Abraham, Paul, William Wilberforce, and Billy Graham will all take a bow and toss their crowns at the feet of the Great Playwright upon the glassy sea.

Then there will be the Cast Party called the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, and nothing waiting but endless paradise.

Play your part well. The curtain soon falls.

Do Not Stop Speaking

Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis. And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had a speech impediment, and they begged him to lay his hand on him. And taking him aside from the crowd privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and after spitting touched his tongue. And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephphatha,” that is, “Be opened.” And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. And Jesus charged them to tell no one. But the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, “He has done all things well. He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.” Mark 7:31-37

God does not do everything in a public forum. We offer a public invitation to repent and submit to Jesus Christ in churches every Sunday, but in reality people are not required to walk down the aisle to be saved. Some people have very public salvation experiences, and some are very private ones. Some are saved while the preacher is speaking, while others are saved once home and meditating on the things said. There is no one experience that is better than another. This man was healed privately. Many of Jesus’ miracles, such as His feeding of the 5,000 men, were very public. Others, like this one, were very private. What connects them all is what happened afterwards. Acts 4:1-22 Peter and John were threatened with prison, violence and death. Their response? “We cannot stop speaking about what we’ve seen and heard.” They couldn’t stop. They were compelled. They were driven to speak about Jesus. When Jesus touches someone, they cannot stop speaking about it. Even if Jesus tells them not to speak, they cannot help themselves. What about you? How often do you speak about His love? How often do you proclaim His good news to others? No one is stopping us. There are not yet soldiers in the streets to arrest us, beat us, or kill us. And yet we are stopped by sneers and ridicule, or simply indifference.

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. Galatians 1:10

We hold back because we want to please men. Even in the Church, a dangerous practice of pleasing men in a thin veneer called “seeker churches.” These people try to be “seeker” sensitive, not being overbearing towards those who come to their church seeking God. Except, no Lost soul is seeking Him, for it is written:

“No one understands; no one seeks for God.” Romans 3:11

Men do not seek God. God seeks out men to save them. The world has so blinded itself with sin that it is oblivious to the coming Judgement. We are the watchmen called to sound the trumpet and warn the people. Ezekiel 33:1-9 We are required to sound the trumpet and warn the Lost. God will hold us accountable for every soul we had a chance to tell but did not. Every soul we tell that does not repent and heed our warning we are guiltless of. We cannot convince people of the truth, for it is also written:

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1st Corinthians 2:14

In his natural, sinful state, humans cannot understand, cannot see the beauty of the Gospel. In fact, it’s complete nonsense. Only God can change that heart of stone to a heart of flesh, but He often uses us to do it. Titus 2:1-10 “Adorn” here means to make alluring or attractive. So in a sense we are to make the Gospel more appealing to the Lost, but not by downplaying sin and Judgement, or by working around penal substitution, but by living according to the teachings of Christ in every way, showing the world that God’s way not only works, but is the best way to live.

Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil. 1st Peter 3:13-17

No one is saying go grab a sandwich board and stand on the street screaming at people to “turn or burn.” What the Bible says is to live a godly life and revere Christ as holy. Then, when people inquire as to why you live and love thus, you share the Gospel. We do not do this harshly or in judgement, but as dying men to dying men.

Live wisely among those who are not believers, and make the most of every opportunity. Colossians 4:5

Don’t stay silent. Be wise among unbelievers and look for opportunities. If you see one open up, you go for it!

Demons, Men, or Whatever

 

A few nights ago I fell asleep on the couch in my office. When I awoke, I could not move. A sense of dread came over me. I felt invisible hands tighten around my throat and I could not breathe. A voice in my head whispered, "I hate you. I have always hated you. I've tried to kill you so many times. Tonight's the night. Tonight you die.

"Now a few friends of mine would immediately leap to "It was a demon! You were under attack!" But of course I know better. I've dealt with sleep paralysis most of my life and I can easily recognize it when it happens now.

Despite that, when the invisible hands tightened around my throat and the malign voice whispered deadly threats, I prayed silently but seriously that God my Father intervene and save me.

And He did. No sooner had I finished the prayer than did the hands release me, the voice was silenced, and I drifted back to sleep again. God heard my cry and rescued me from my peril, of that I have no doubt. It's what He does. Rescue people.

Now my certain friends become puzzled. "If you do not believe in ongoing demonic possession or oppression or sign gifts, and were sure it was just sleep paralysis, why then did you pray?"

To answer this, I quote one of my all time favorite hymns, Master the Tempest is Raging:

Whether the wrath of the storm-tossed sea Or demons or men or whatever it be, No waters can swallow the ship where lies The Master of ocean and earth and skies. They all shall sweetly obey thy will.

The stage of the hymn is set when the disciples are out at sea in a storm while Jesus is sleeping. They awaken Him, begging that He calm the storm and save them. Many scholars have debated whether the storm was just a storm or whether it was really sent by "the prince of the air," that is the Devil.

To the hymn writer, though, the source of the storm is irrelevant. What matters is that no matter what it's source, it cannot destroy the Creator and it must obey His will.

So was I attacked by a demon a few nights ago? I seriously doubt it. Was I in danger? Possibly, we really don't know a lot about sleep paralysis. Much of it is in a person's head, but there are physiological responses to the stimuli and it is possible that an episode of sleep paralysis could trigger a secondary health episode of far greater consequence.

But rest assured, demons, men, or whatever it was, my God can handle it.

And that's why I prayed.

The Relationship

[caption id="attachment_902" align="alignright" width="300"] Connect. For the love of God, connect.[/caption]

There is a person I know whom God has put on my heart, an unbeliever so far from Christ it seems impossible she could be saved.

But all things are possible for Him.

This person speaks out often against religion and is committed to atheism. I've been praying and waiting for the right moment to speak, for speaking at the wrong moment can spell disaster.

Recently, this person said something and the Spirit said, "Speak. Speak now."

The person said, "Religion is destroying the world. People are ruined by it and they don't need it or any other silly superstitions."

I said, "So you have no beliefs at all beyond the natural? For you it's just survival of the fittest? Your immediate needs and that's it?"

"No," the person replied, "I do believe in karma, that people end up getting what they deserve."

"So? That's a religion. There's no "god" or whatever, but you believe in something more. Something beyond the natural, because science says that's bunk. There's just what's in front of you."

"Well, I'd call it a belief system. It's not a religion." the person explained.

"Oh, then we may have different definitions of religion then. Sounds like your definition is like rules and rituals and so forth." I said.

"That's right." the person clarified.

"In that case I'm not religious either and I agree with you as well. What I am a part of is about a relationship. I believe there is a Being who transcends everything and Who created everything. I believe the most important thing in a person's life is to have a relationship with this Person."

"Oh," the person said, "Well that's different, that's good then."

For all the miles this person has to go before they are even close to responding to the Gospel, we moved an inch today. But I praise God, because due to our human nature, that person shouldn't have moved at all.

But that's not why I am posting this. I am posting this because as I drove home something hit me.

I am religious. I observe rules and rituals. I have not been pursuing God as a relationship.

A fire that had long lay dormant within me kindled, and I began to weep. I pray every day, but how long had it been since I was so enraptured with His presence that I had to be torn away from it? I read the Bible almost every day, but how long had it been since I opened my Bible with eagerness the way a wife embraces her husband after he has been on a long journey?

Too long.

Takeaways:

1. Engage the Lost. You will learn as much from bouncing what you believe off them as anything else. We Christians are far too good at patting each other on the back.
2. Forget your problems. God actually commands this of us. We should focus on our relationship with Him. All good works will flow from that relationship. We don't do good to know God, we do good because we know Him.
3. Check your affections. How much affection do you have for Christ? This is something we should check on a daily basis as we should with our spouses.
4. Relationships are of highest importance. God first, and others second, but for the love of our Lord, connect. I feel like I've kept everyone, including God, at a distance. Do not do this. God is all about relationships. That is what matters.

Not Safe, but Good

I grow tired of people who believe in a milksop God and a milksop Jesus. God is dynamic and powerful and dangerous and loving and deadly and mysterious and violent and playful and serious and funny (yes, funny).

God reveals Himself to us in His Word. He pulls no punches. The Bible is R-rated. He makes people alive, and He kills people. He raises up nations and leaders and champions, and He tears down civilizations and drives leaders to madness and allows champions to fall into ruin.

Along the way God makes no apologies for His actions and makes few explanations. He demands obedience and unyielding fealty to His name.

For this reason, many doubt His claim to love us and His goodness. Perhaps there would be cause for this if not for this:

"For a good man someone might dare to die. But while we were yet sinners, He died for us."

This immeasurably powerful, all knowing, all consuming God who demands perfection, does not tolerate uncleanness and hates sin with a perfect hatred. This God put aside His rights and came to live among us in the flesh. He provided the perfect life Himself that we failed to provide. He died the death He declared we should die for us.

"So in this way God loved the world. He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

And He defines just what that is.

"This is eternal life. That they know you intimately, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

He wants us. He wants us to be with Him such that He died to bring us close to Him. There can be no greater love, indeed He says:

"Mortal man knows no greater love than this. That he lay down his life for his friends."

He calls me friend. I am God's friend. So when my God does something I do not understand, even when He takes life or chooses to allow life to pass away from someone. Even if He slays me, still will I trust in Him.

“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver; “don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.” - The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe

10 Things You Might Not Know About the First Council of Nicaea

1. It was the first ecumenical council since the Council of Jerusalem in Acts.

This would be the first council concerning the entire Church on earth in almost 300 years. There had been plenty of "synods," smaller councils and meetings of bishops and church leaders that made decisions for their local divisions and church communities, but a council that would make a decision binding to the entire Church on earth had not been held since the meeting in Acts where the Apostles gathered to decide whether the Gentiles had to become Jews in order to become Christians (they decided they didn't).

Which is why Christians can eat bacon, among other things.

2. It was called by the "Christian" Emperor Constantine, but probably not for the reasons you think. 

In 312 AD Constantine won the Battle of Milvian Bridge which secured the Imperial Throne for himself. He declared himself a Christian and supported the previously illegal faith, co-signing the Edict of Milan in 313 AD making Christianity a legal religion among the many accepted in Roman culture. Contrary to popular belief, he did not make Christianity the state religion. That would not happen until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD long after Constantine's death.

Constantine called the council in 325 AD with one goal in mind: unity. The Church at this time was heavily divided along many fronts but none were as divisive as the one over the nature of Christ Himself. Was He God? Was He a god? Was He something in between these things? The debate created a clear divide in the Church and even at times lead to violence. If Constantine, the Emperor, was to be a Christian, then Christianity needed to be united. In other words, the Church was making Constantine look bad. Contrary to popular belief, Constantine honestly didn't care what the council decided. He told them to come to an agreement and he would back up whatever they agreed on, regardless of what it was. He technically presided over the council because he was the head of state but he did not take place in the debates or the decisions.

3. The Council did not discuss the doctrine of the Trinity.

Most people think the Council created the doctrine of the Trinity. It didn't. The only concern of the council of this kind was over the nature of Christ and His relationship to the Father. It did not involve the Holy Spirit at all and the total relationship was not a point of discussion. The debate of the Trinity as a whole would be decided later at the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD. The concept of the Trinity was however already in place. We have records referring to the Godhead and the Trinity as far back as the 2nd Century.

4. The debate over the nature of Christ was almost over before it began.

The main debate and issue facing the council was the nature of Christ. The two major views of the day were between the traditional view of Christ as God incarnate and those promoted by Arius that Christ was merely God's greatest creation.

Arius' argument was that Christ was the first creation of God. He was neither of the same substance as God, nor shared God's eternal nor divine nature. He claimed Jesus was the best and brightest of God's creations, but a creation nonetheless. Much of Arius argument hinged on passages that refer to Jesus being "begotten" or "firstborn of creation" as well as "the Father is greater than I."

The traditional view stemmed from the idea that any Son begotten by the Father must by definition be of the same substance and nature. Therefore, the Father and Son were always Father and Son, eternally. They are co-equal and co-substantial. They argued that Christ was begotten eternally, that is He has no beginning or end. To believe otherwise, they said, destroyed the unity of the Godhead because Christ would be unequal with the Father. Supporting scriptures for this view include "I and the Father are one" and "the Word was God." They declared that the Son was equal to God in all aspects and is eternally derived from the Father, a declaration made earlier by Athanasius.

Arius came with roughly 22 supporters in tow. Considering that approximately 300 bishops were in attendance, this was not a negligible following, but also clearly in the minority. To make matters worse for Arius, almost all of his supporters abandoned him when the implications of his views were made plain to them.

The Council declared that the Son was truly God Himself, that He was of the same substance as the Father and existed with Him eternally. They argued this doctrine best fit the Scripture's presentation of Christ as the Son as well as fitting with the traditional beliefs handed down by the Church fathers and Apostles.

Arius along with just two others refused to agree with the council's decision. The emperor exiled them.

Less like this, more like chilling in a province.

5. But that didn't end the matter... 

As much as Constantine wanted his Christianity wrapped up in a neat bow, it just wasn't to be. The debate continued just as hotly after the council as it did before, and many violent protests would see Christian blood spilled in the streets. After a time, Arius relaxed some of his more heretical claims (but never renounced them) and was permitted to return from exile, when he promptly died while trying to take a poop. (No seriously) The movement declined afterwards but never totally went away, and many sects today (ex. Jehovah's Witnesses) adhere to many of the same claims as Arius did.  

6. The Council also addressed the Meletian Schism and Christian Apostates.

During the reigns of particularly nasty emperors in Rome, Christianity was heavily persecuted. Few could match the persecution under Diocletian, when Roman soldiers went door to door interrogating suspected Christians and throwing any who did not renounce Christ in prison. Many of those arrested were later executed. There were some Christians who "lapsed" under this stress and denounced Christ in order to save their lives. Once the crisis was over, many Christians who had endured prison and torture for their faith did not want to let these "apostates" back into the Church. Of these, none were as unforgiving as Bishop Melitus.

Melitus made it clear in his province that no apostates were to be forgiven or allowed back into the Church. Other bishops in the area were soon following his example. This deeply concerned other bishops across the Empire who felt this refusal to forgive was anti-Christian and should be addressed.

Because forgiveness is important in Christianity kids.

 

The council voted and agreed that these lapsed Christians should be forgiven if they sought it and allowed back into the Church. They also agreed that since Melitus was an unforgiving jerk, being a bishop might not be his thing, so they told him his schism could rejoin the Church if he handed in his vestments and his bishops would have to reapply to keep their positions. Melitus refused which would have created quite serious problems later on had Melitus not died soon after. The schism died with him.

7. One of the big issues on the docket was Easter.

The Easter debate is a complicated one. To be brief, where Easter fell depended on when Passover fell, and since Passover on the Jewish Lunar calendar moved around, this produced a problem for Romans who used the solar Julian calendar. In addition, many Church scholars believed the computations by the Jewish scholars were wrong and that the original Easter was on a different date. Most were moving to fix a date based on the best possible data to the actual original Easter, but some still felt that since it was linked to a Jewish holiday, Easter should follow the Jewish calendar.

Eventually they voted to calculate what day Passover would have been at the time of the Crucifixion, and fixed Easter relative to that date on the solar calendar. What they didn't do was actually do that. They left it for another time, and it didn't actually get done for centuries. 

What can ya do?

 8. They voted on a number of other, weird issues.

The council had a laundry list of sundry items that were bugging the Church leadership. Two of the more interesting ones were problems the Church itself had created. In the wake of the Apostolic Era (where the Apostles we know and love called all the shots), the next generation of Church leaders began to ferment some strange interpretations of their forebears writings. In particular were the puzzling instructions in 1st Corinthians 7 where Paul seems to be both for and against marriage.

A movement thus began starting in the Second Century declaring that marriage was, in fact, not a good thing. Well, it wasn't the best thing certainly. Christian leadership began a cult of celibacy that touted lifelong celibacy as the greatest path and led a man or woman the closest to Christ. Marriage was for the carnal, the weak people who couldn't control themselves. Real Christians stay celibate for life.

Pretty soon though, men who really loved Jesus and didn't want to fail Him found celibacy to be unbearable. Knowing that marriage was a cop out, these men did what they had to keep it real with Jesus.

They castrated themselves.

We'll let that one sink in.

In addition to the rampant castrations (which usually just killed the men rather than rendering them eunuchs) there were spiritual marriages. You see, another insane way to read the end of 1st Corinthians 7 is to twist Paul's words in such a way that he seems to be suggesting that men and women move in together and live celibate lives together as unmarried virgins. These shack-ins were called spiritual marriages and were hailed by the celibacy cult as the ultimate form of Christian perseverance. I mean there you are, living together with temptation right within reach, but never grasping it all for the glory of God!

This won't end well, will it?

Whatever noble intentions they may have begun with, these spiritual marriages often turned into real ones once the pregnancy began to show. This was obviously a bad idea that only encouraged sexual sin, not prevented it. Not surprisingly, the council reached a decision to ban self castration and banned members of the clergy from entering into spiritual marriages. Not long after the council, another ruling banned them altogether.  

9. They laid the foundation for the Papacy.

The council also voted to grant several new and exclusive powers to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, recognizing those bishops as having special authority over the two major centers of the Church at that time. While the bishop of Alexandria would eventually decline in power along with the Empire, the bishop of Rome would only grow in power and authority until he had almost complete autonomy over the entire Church. You might better know the bishop of Rome by his pet title today: the Pope.

So really he's just a bishop, but with a fabulous hat.

10. They did not decide on the canon of the Bible.

In fact, no council ever made that decision. The canon (or books accepted as the inspired word of God in the Bible) was actually already set by the end of the Second Century. During the actual time of the Apostles and just afterwards, it was just a known fact which manuscripts were the work of the Apostles and their disciples and which weren't. A decision set in stone wasn't needed. It would be like a council having to be called today to decide which writings belong to Thomas Jefferson and which belonged to Karl Marx. It's just a no brainer. By the time of the Nicaean council in the Fourth Century, the Bible was long since a done deal. It is true that shortly after the council, Constantine commissioned some fifty complete Bibles (containing the OT and NT) to be scribed and bound for use in the major churches. These Bibles are widely believed to be the first bound books to contain all of Christian scripture.

Sources Survey of European History (Tennessee Technological Univeristy c.2009) Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity History of Rome Podcast by Mike Duncan

A Tent In The Desert

The Promised Land is the Lord Himself.

 

A tent in the desert with my God

Is better than riches or gold.

A tent in the desert with my God

Is better than pleasures untold.

And if to gain a greener land

A place of comfort to lay

I must leave my Lord behind

In the desert with God I'll stay.

- Inspired by Exodus 33

Fear Not, I Will Go With You

Today my son was supposed to sing in front of the whole church with his fellow children's choir buddies. He was scared and did not want to go. He began to cry.

Many options raced through my mind. Do I threaten him with discipline if he doesn't? Do I tell him to suck it up and be a man? Do I give in and let him sit it out?

What would the Father do?

My mind went back to Exodus 3 and the Burning Bush. God appeared to Moses and told him to go to the most powerful man in the world and tell him to let God's people go. Moses was afraid and did not want to go. What did God say?

"That's OK Moses, I'll pick someone else."

No.

"Moses, if you don't go, I'll punish you."

No.

He said, "You have to go, but I will go with you."

So I told my son, "You must go up there, but I will go with you. I won't leave you alone and I will be there the whole time."

My son said, "OK daddy. Thank you." and he stopped crying.

So I went with him and knelt down beside him and held his hand. And he stood brave and resolute. All because daddy was there with him.

I have learned two things from this.

1. We can face anything because God is with us. Just as my presence calmed my son's fears, so remembering that God is with me will calm mine.

2. I need to stop acting like a human parent and start acting like a supernatural one. I need to act more like God the Father to my children. He is the perfect father.

My charge to today is to remember that God the Father goes with you wherever you go. By His spirit we cry, "Abba, Father!" He loves us like little children. We must go and do the hard things, He will not shelter us from them, but He will go with us every step of the way. Likewise, we fathers should be so towards our own children, especially our sons. Do not treat them harshly, but do not shelter them from the hard stuff. Instead, go with them and be with them side by side. You may not think much of yourself (I sure don't) but to your kid you are the strong and mighty father who can defeat any foe and protect them from any harm. In time they must learn we are not as strong as they suppose but there is One who Is. Until then, you must be that man for them. Beside you, they will believe they can do anything. With Him, they really will be.

"Fear not, I will go with you."

Send them into the darkness, but go with them.

The Q&A Series: Part 3

As some of my readers may know, there are public websites out there which allow subscribers to ask questions on various subject to which other subscribers can then post answers to. I joined on a lark, but found there are a lot of people seeking answers to deep spiritual questions out there. I’ve decided that some of these bear repeating to my readers, so this series will show you a question that a real person has asked on the Internet and my response. Enjoy.

 

Question: Is Isaiah 7:14 a failed prophesy of Jesus as the messiah? Now I'm no scholar, but I can clearly see that the prophesy foretells the birth of someone named Emmanuel...not Jesus. 

My Answer:

When it says that he shall be called Emmanuel which means God With Us, it means that people will call Him that, which they did (and do). In Isaiah 9:6 it lists a whole host of other names by which He shall be called later, Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father, Wonderful Counselor, etc.

Just as a man today might be called by many names, titles and nicknames, so was the Christ. After all, He is God Incarnate, so one name isn't going to define Him.

Even in the OT, Yahweh goes by many descriptive names (Yahweh-Raphe, Yahweh-Tsidekenu, etc.)

Messiah just means "Chosen One." A kind of champion or special servant. Cyrus the Great was a messiah, in the fact he was God's chosen one to send His people back to their homeland, and an example of The Messiah to come, that is Jesus Christ.

You see this all over the OT. God taking mortal men and using them as a type or foreshadowing of Christ, to set an example for His people. "This guy is going to save you by sending you back to the promised land, remember this, because I'm sending another One like this who will send you back to me forever." That's obviously a paraphrase, but you do see similar language ALL over the prophets. There's an immediate fulfillment of God's plan (deliverance from a drought, a plague, captivity, etc.) and a future promise of complete fulfillment (the Christ and His atonement for us).

Hebrews 10:1, Colossians 2:17 and Hebrews 8:5 show us that much of what is recorded in the OT were there only as types and shadows of the reality to come, that is Christ.

The temple and its sacrifices, for example, could never make man right with God. Why then these sacrifices? To show man a type or foreshadowing of what was to come in Christ, so that when it came man would recognize it and believe.

In John 5:39 Jesus himself explains that the point of the OT Scriptures was to point mankind to Himself. To prepare us for His coming. In Galatians 3 starting in verse 19, Paul goes into detail explaining that the entire point of the Law (i.e. the OT) was to point us to Christ. The Law was not an end to itself, as many of the Jews believed.

Whew! Sorry for the long response. In short, Emmanuel is not a failed prophecy, Jesus was (and is) called this because He was "God With Us." It's just one of many "titles" or "nicknames" that the true Messiah would be honored with. Also, Cyrus was referred to as God's messiah because he was a man chosen by God to deliver His people from bondage, but there are messiahs and there is The Messiah, that is the Christ, who God chose from before the foundations of the world itself to free us from the bondage of sin and death. All the "messiahs" of old were but types and shadows to foreshadow the coming of the True Messiah. (And coincidentally, this is also why Jesus of Nazareth has many more names and titles besides Messiah, to distinguish him from other "messiahs.")

I hope that helps! Keep searching the Scriptures!

The Q&A Series: Part 2

As some of my readers may know, there are public websites out there which allow subscribers to ask questions on various subject to which other subscribers can then post answers to. I joined on a lark, but found there are a lot of people seeking answers to deep spiritual questions out there. I’ve decided that some of these bear repeating to my readers, so this series will show you a question that a real person has asked on the Internet and my response. Enjoy.

 

Question: How authentic is the Bible?  

My Answer: As an historical document? Very.

First, you've got to realize the Bible is a collection of 66 separate documents, or slightly less if you consider the books that are two-parters.

Most of the documents are written by different people from vastly different walks of life. It's authors include kings, shepherds, poets, fishermen, and others. They are all separated by vast spans of time as well. Some are hundreds and even thousands of years apart.

So, from a historical point of view, it's not really fair to judge "the Bible" as a single document or work, because it's not.

Nevertheless, each of those 66 books has the same or more authenticity than any manuscript of its age. We have thousands and thousands of manuscripts backing it up with only minor variations that are usually nothing more than spelling or grammatical errors.

There is a host of archaeological evidence that also supports the Biblical narrative as well as other contemporary historians and their works, such as Josephus.

If it is held to the same standard as similar documents of its age, each of the books of the Bible holds firm as authentic, or at least as authentic as anything else we consider authentic from that period.

The only reason people dismiss it isn't because of a lack of evidence or authenticity, but because the Bible goes on to make some pretty audacious claims about humanity and God and sin and redemption.

Unlike, for example, Homer's Odyssey or Plato's Republic, the Bible makes claims that demand a response from the reader. Either you believe it and therefore must follow it or you disbelieve it and therefore must somehow discredit it to justify your unbelief.

Since humans don't want to believe in a God who owns them and holds them accountable for their misdeeds, many humans choose to disbelieve the Bible and therefore will do anything at all to discredit it, even if that means abandoning any sense of integrity and holding the Bible to unrealistic standards that no historian would impose upon any other document.

The Q&A Series: Part 1

As some of my readers may know, there are public websites out there which allow subscribers to ask questions on various subject to which other subscribers can then post answers to. I joined on a lark, but found there are a lot of people seeking answers to deep spiritual questions out there. I've decided that some of these bear repeating to my readers, so this series will show you a question that a real person has asked on the Internet and my response. Enjoy.

 

Question: "Even with so many experts and knowledge, why are there so many controversies in the translation of biblical texts (including apocryphal)?"  

My Answer: It really depends on what you mean by "experts" and "controversies."

Among honest scholars of both Hebrew and Greek, there are few real controversies out there, and most of them have nothing to do with translation, but with "was this in the original MS or not?" There are not many texts in dispute, but any decent Bible will have each of them marked and notated somehow (usually in parenthetical or marked with asterisks).

As far as translation, the so-called "controversies" arise mainly from the fact that we are dealing with languages both ancient and dead. Koine Greek is an especially complex (and beautiful) language, ever so much more than English. A Greek word in and of itself has a myriad of layers and meanings that can only be deduced from context clues and cultural cues. Usually, we've got enough of both to know what the author was trying to say, but sometimes the cultural context is all but non-existent and sometimes the context isn't totally clear. Nevertheless, even in these cases,  there is almost always enough information to get a really good approximation. Then there are a few examples where there simply is no English equivalent for a Greek word. Hebrew, by contrast, is a much simpler language and is more easily understood than Koine Greek, but complications arise simply because the style of Hebrew and the MS its contained in are so old. We are talking stuff that was recorded more than 2,000 years ago here. The cultural context for most of it is pure guesswork for some cases. In the end though, it's mostly just academic stuff for the intellectuals to have a friendly debate over coffee. One thing that must be emphasized to people who struggle with the fact that a few select passages are in dispute or that this or that word is unclear is that no Church doctrine is dependent on any disputed text. That means you can take or leave any disputed text or unclear wording we still haven't pinned down yet and it won't change the message of the Bible. Someone who believes that the story of the woman caught in adultery is canon is no more or less a Christian than the one who believes its apocryphal. All the important, key texts that define doctrine are not in dispute at all. As for "experts," you might want to be careful about them. Not all who write books about this subject or do TV interviews are actually trained in Hebrew or Greek or know anything academically about the subject. For the most part, the only people seriously studying the Bible, its cultures, and its languages are the people who believe in it (with some exceptions). Most of the people claiming that there is a controversy in Scripture big enough to crack the Church in half are just blowhards who heard what they wanted to hear from an academic they didn't understand and then spun it out of the stratosphere.

The Master Sword

 

"It's dangerous to go alone. Take this."

Many people of my generation will get chills at these words. They are the words of an old man in a cave in the very first Legend of Zelda game. The cave is on the very first screen, and if you are foolish enough to ignore it, you will never survive.

The old man gives you a sword. Your first sword. There are two others of course, but without this first weapon you will never be able to defeat a single creature, let alone save princess Zelda and recover the Triforce.

The funny thing is, you do start with a shield. The shield is important because it allows you to deflect arrows and other missiles that might smite your character. But the shield cannot strike back. You can deflect attacks, but without the sword you cannot launch any of your own.

And attack you must, because the evil forces of Ganon will not hesitate to cut you down. The monsters of the dungeons will not give up their pieces of the Triforce until you pry them from their cold dead claws.

Along your quest, you'll even come across a variety of useful items. A magic ring. An everburning candle. A ladder. A raft. A boomerang. But none of these things can clear away your true foes, only the sword can do that.

Paul the Apostle understood the importance of an offensive weapon. In Ephesians 6 he says,

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication.

Paul explains that we Christians are also at war. He explains we cannot fight this war with conventional weapons because our enemies are not of this world. Our enemies are spiritual foes, and so with spiritual weapons must we wage war against them. Paul describes the full armor of God, made up of many pieces which are all vital to our survival in the conflict. Paul however only describes one offensive weapon: the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. That is, the Bible.

Like our hero Link, it is the Sword that pierces the darkness. It is the Sword which will vanquish our foes. The rest of the armor of God can protect us from attacks, but it cannot put down the enemy. Unless we take up the Sword, our enemies shall multiply all around us until we tire and let down our shield and our guard. We will be defeated through attrition. To be victorious, we must take up the Sword and smote our enemies with the truth. Only then can we proceed to loot the treasure of the monster, the lost souls of the ungodly.

Christ has bound the strong man by His victory on the Cross and has sworn that the gates of Hell cannot prevail against our assault. But if we come empty handed before the gates of Hell, we cannot sunder them aside nor clear the path of the principalities and powers that dwell therein. Only with the Sword can we do this, and if we have the Sword it shall not fail us.

Therefore take up the Sword. Read the Word of God. Train with it by reading and meditating on it daily. Commit its sacred passages to memory and become as one with the sacred and righteous weapon of God that can demolish strongholds. Then no enemy can stand against you and the prizes that are human souls will be won to our God.

Remember, it's dangerous to go alone. Take this.

 

Hotel Rooms, Contentment, Stewardship

Many years ago I went to a Men's Conference in Georgia. While there, I had the privilege to stay in a very nice hotel room. The hotel we had booked was overbooked and we were bumped up to an Executive Suite, the kind reserved for traveling businessmen. It had a massive bed, a desk, a couch, a plasma TV, the works.

As I entered the room, it occurred to me that this was all laid out for me. I could sit on the couch, sleep on the bed, watch the TV, use the shower, everything was at my disposal. I also at the same time realized that I owned none of it. Not. One. Thing. It all belonged to the hotel, and when my stay was done, I had to give it all back. Not only this, but I'd have to give an account for all I'd used. If the TV was broken, for example, I'd be held responsible for that.

A verse from the Bible suddenly came back to me,

I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. Philippians 4:12

While they didn't have hotel rooms in Paul's day per se, I think I finally uncovered that night what the secret was. The secret to being content with a lot of things or not many things at all. The secret also to being a good steward. Here it is: Nothing belongs to me. I own nothing.

The secret, for me, was to treat everything like the hotel room. God lets me stay in a nice house full of nice things. I get to sit on the couch, watch the TV, use the computer, and sleep in the bed. But I don't own any of it. It all goes back to Him sooner or later, and I'll have to give an account for what I did with His stuff.

It goes beyond mere possessions though. My wife is His creation. I get to spend this time with her, and to live with her as her spouse, but she does not belong to me. Sooner or later I must give her back to Him, and I'll be held accountable for how I treated her. The same goes with my kids. And the toughest of all?

The same goes for myself, too. I don't own this body, it's His creation. I was even bought with a price. I don't have rights over my own body, so I need to treat it with great respect and take care of it. Not for myself, but for its owner, that is God.

Something to think about.

J.D.

 

What difference can one man make?

J.D. is my great great grandfather. He was the father of my great grandmother, the mother of my grandfather, the father of my own father.

If you ask around the family what J.D. (as he was known) did the response would be, "It depends. He tried everything, he did not succeed at anything." He tried his hand at business, at labor, at farming, and probably a bunch of other occupations if what I've heard is to be believed. He never really made it at any of those things, "but" they'll say, "he made enough to feed his family." His family by the way consisted of four girls and four boys. All the girls were born first, then all the boys.

Something else about J.D. that has to be true was that he was fun. All of his kids were crack-ups, some of the most playful and fun people I've ever met (even in their 80s and 90s). That family was close. They loved each other with an unyielding loving-kindness. If you asked them what they lacked living under J.D.'s roller-coaster career of nothing they'd answer, "nothing."

J.D. wasn't a missionary and he never pastored a church. He was, however, deeply in love with Jesus Christ.

When he and the boys went out to plow or plant, J.D. would do a row, then sit them down and read to them from the Word. The Word was read often in that household and was the reference for life itself.

When the youngest son, Joseph, was born, the older daughters resented him. They had taken care of three boys already and knew one more baby boy meant only more work for them. J.D. took them aside and told them, "This boy is a gift from God, and you won't resent him so. Just for this, I'm going to name him Joseph after the son of Jacob whom all his brothers also hated. His name will always remind you of this day." What is amazing is that no one ever told "Uncle Joe" this about his namesake until his 90th birthday.

So J.D. was never successful at a worldly career, and he was never big in the church either. He didn't take his family to Russia as missionaries and he didn't pastor or anything like that. All he did was raise a godly family.

All four of his sons became preachers of the Gospel and preached all their lives (many of which got pretty close to 100). God only knows how many He saved under their preaching.

Many of the daughters (at least my great grandmother, if not all of them) went on to become godly wives and raise godly children, and I too am a product of this faithfulness.

Men, what if your mission was simply to love your wife and raise a godly family? What if you were destined by God to never be a big hit in the world, or even the church? What if the handful of folks at home were your only ministry?

They are your ministry, no matter if you are big in the world, or even big in the church. Whatever you do, they are the most important ministry in your life, even if its the only one you have. Being a good husband and father, a godly husband and father, is the most important thing you will ever do.

The Love of Darth Vader

[caption id="attachment_768" align="alignright" width="255"] Darth Vader. Arch-Villain or loving father?[/caption]

Darth Vader was saved through his son, Luke Skywalker.

Those of us who are Star Wars fans remember that Luke was adamant after fighting (and losing) against Darth Vader in episode 5 that his father turned sith lord still had good within him and that Luke believed he could be turned back to the Light Side. Kenobi and Yoda were unconvinced and urged Luke to kill both Vader and the Emperor as soon as possible or all would be lost.

We all remember that, at the last moment, Vader was saved. When he saw his helpless son being electrocuted by Palpatine's force lightning, he seized the Emperor and threw him into a pit before dying himself.

None of this is news, but I have a theory that has grown within me as I've watched the films since I was a boy.

Darth Vader always loved his son, and he never intended to kill him.

Let's examine the facts.

In Episode 3, Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader. When he awakens in his metal body, Palpatine lies to him and tells Vader he murdered Padme in his anger (and thus any children she was carrying). Vader is now under the assumption he has nothing good to live for and wholeheartedly devotes himself to the Dark Side.

In Episode 4, many things happen concerning the Death Star we will discuss later. What is important to focus on is that he does not know Luke (or Leia for that matter) are his children. He's so filled with hate and they are so weak in the force he can't feel them even though he's very close to Leia for long periods of time. It's only when Luke finally opens himself to the Force to put a proton torpedo right in the pickle barrel that Vader suddenly senses, "the Force is strong with this one..." Still, he's unaware this boy is his son and in fact does try to legitimately kill him.

However in Episode 5 the opening crawl explains that some time has passed and Vader is now obsessively searching the galaxy for....what? The Rebels? No, for Luke Skywalker himself. He's scattered probe droids all across the cosmos looking for Luke, but why?

It can't be revenge. Vader didn't really think the Death Star would work, as indicated in this scene. It seems that Palpatine, dark lord of the Sith that he was, didn't see the Force like Vader did. This was probably due to Vader's extensive Jedi training. Vader understood the Force wasn't just a neat tool in his bag of tricks. The Force was everything. The Death Star was impressive, but it wasn't anything compared to the Force. Palpatine put his trust in giant weapons of terror and pride, much like Hitler did. Vader knew that if the rebels had anyone who could communicate with the Force, this ridiculous plan would be undone. And he was right. One teenage boy with the Force on his side in an X-wing brought the entire thing down. Vader clearly felt this was a waste of time and that attitude can be felt throughout the film. He clearly didn't have a lot of emotional ties to the project, and while he would have been miffed when it got destroyed, I don't think it would have driven him to some kind of manhunt to find the single man responsible. So why Luke? Well it's clear that by this time, Imperial spies have found out the name of the rebel who fired the winning shot, and for all of Kenobi's efforts to hide Luke, he didn't bother changing his name. When Vader heard his name was Skywalker, and knew his rough age, the fact he was a crack-shot pilot and strong with the Force....well lets just say Vader isn't an idiot. This had to be his son, or at least it could be.

When the Imperial army lands on Hoth, Vader ignores the battle and aggressively searches for Luke within. Now, you may say, this doesn't prove Vader loved him. In fact, its more likely he was obsessed with finding this young Force user to put him down so that he has no chance to become a Jedi. That is a valid point, considering how Vader knows how dangerous a single Force user can be if he's trained up. But there's more.

In the asteroid scene, Palpatine contacts Vader directly with an urgent message. In this message Palpatine reveals to Vader that the young rebel who took down the Death Star is none other than Luke Skywalker, son of Annakin. This conversation is crucial for a number of reasons. 1. Palpatine reveals this information slowly to Vader. He clearly believes Vader does not know this information yet and is approaching him carefully with it. After all he'd told Vader his kid had died. 2. Vader acts surprised, letting us know he's keeping the emperor in the dark. Vader has known for some time that it was Luke and that Luke is his son. For all his so-called loyalty, he's kept this fact from Palpatine for as long as he could. 3. Vader's tone. Vader says, "How can that be possible?" in a tone that surely makes me think he's grinding his teeth. The unsaid second phrase is, "You told me my child died." Vader is angry at Palpatine, but he holds back, because he's got a plan. 4. Vader asks that Luke be spared. Palpatine doesn't say it, but he doesn't have to. Luke must die, lest he become a real Jedi Knight. Vader proactively asks that Luke be spared on the condition he be turned to the Dark Side. He masks this with, "He could become a powerful ally." Now they both know the Sith rules: two there are, no more, no less, a master and an apprentice. Palpatine agrees, because Palpatine believes Luke will be a stronger apprentice than Vader, who is growing old and weak. (This is proven in Episode 6). Palpatine probably knows Vader wants to use Luke to assassinate himself, for this is the Sith way also. Nevertheless, Palpatine decides to take the risk. The evidence really starts to mount at Cloud City. First, Vader tests the Carbon Freezing Unit on Solo first because he doesn't want, "the Emperor's prize damaged." Now I believe part of Vader's plan was to turn Luke into a Sith and overthrow Palpatine. At this point Vader is nowhere near what we'd call "good." He's still very much evil, and he is totally plotting to make Luke his apprentice and overthrow Palpatine, but underneath it all there is a dormant love for his son that even he doesn't realize yet. [caption id="attachment_774" align="alignleft" width="300"] Vader pleads with his son.[/caption]

When Luke confronts Vader, Vader doesn't really put his best foot forward. He could have crushed Luke easily, but doesn't. This is not surprising given his goals of overthrowing the Emperor. However at the edge of the bridge overlooking the chasm in that famous scene we all know and love, something happens I find illogical. Luke is defeated and disarmed (literally). Yet he is nowhere near being defeated spiritually. He is not giving in, and its pretty darn clear. Vader, however, doesn't kill Luke. He didn't hesitate 20 years earlier with any other Jedi, even the children adawans. There was no mercy,no parley. Yet he pleads with Luke to surrender. Pleads. You can hear it in his voice, he really, really doesn't want to kill Luke. This whole fight he's risked everything just to get Luke to this point where he'd have no choice, and yet Luke chooses death rather than join him. Still Vader relents. Finally Vader tells Luke that he is his father, at which point Luke understandably loses it. His last words to Luke are not harsh, but almost tender, "Join me. It is the only way." You can almost hear behind it, "Please son." Luke lets go.

Vader wastes no time. He knows Luke doesn't die down there (he can fully sense his presence now at all times) and heads for his ship. As the Falcon makes its dramatic escape, Vader continues to plead with his son via the Force.

Now at this point, we still really don't have anything really conclusive. But it is worth noting that Luke himself is convinced. He will insist to both Yoda and Kenobi when he meets them that he felt good in Vader at Bespin. He felt his father's love.

Alright, on to Episode 6 and the good stuff. In the scene where the Emperor arrives on the Death Star II, he tells Vader he senses that Vader wants to continue searching for Luke. Vader seems almost annoyed at this, and I believe he was trying to keep Palpatine from knowing this. A little later, Palpatine tells Vader to wait on the command ship for further instructions.

Here's the big one. When Luke flies in with the rebels on the Tyderion, he senses Vader on the command ship and Vader senses him. Luke knows they are hosed already. "I shouldn't have come." he says. Vader immediately goes to Palpatine, who is annoyed Vader has disobeyed orders. Vader explains that the rebels have landed on Endor. Palpatine waives this off, "Yes I know." It is all according to plan. "Skywalker is with them." Vader continues. Palpatine looks visibly worried, "Are you sure?" he asks. "I have felt him." Vader replies. "Strange that I have not," Palpatine responds "I trust that your feelings on this matter are clear Lord Vader?" "They are clear." Vader assures him.

OK! So this is really important. Vader can sense Luke whereas Palpatine cannot. We know that Palpatine is by and large the stronger in the Dark Side of the two, so it's not possible Vader was doing something with the Dark Side that Palpatine could not. So how did Vader sense his son? Through the Light Side. Vader, for a moment concerning his son, was channeling the Light Side of the Force again. Palpatine confirms this through his question, "Are your feelings clear?" He knows Vader channeled the Light Side, which could only have been done through some sort of goodness or affection towards Luke. In other words, love. Palpatine is concerned Vader actually loves his son. If that's true it could undo everything (and as we'll see, it does.) When Luke surrenders to Vader, Luke is now the one pleading. He believes there is good left in Annakin yet, but he overestimates this. He believes Vader loves him too much to expose him to Palpatine, but he underestimates Palpatine's hold over Vader, and is taken to the Throne Room. Some important things are revealed, however. One, Vader is impressed with Luke's lightsaber. One can almost sense pride in his voice. In addition, when Vader rejects Luke's pleas to turn away from evil, he says, "It is....too late for me, son." Vader wants to run away with Luke, but he believes that the Dark Side is an inevitable force he cannot escape nor be redeemed from. Palpatine's lies, like the lies of an abusive parent or spouse, have sunk deep within him. Vader can forsee a future with his son, but only one that lies in the Dark Side. Now that he's going to the Emperor, Vader believes this dream lost. "He is your master now." Vader doesn't believe he can best Palpatine. When Vader and Luke finally cross blades, we see Luke is much improved, but Vader is still clearly better. Anyone can see Vader is holding back, taunting Luke in an attempt to arouse his anger so that Luke will channel the Dark Side. At first, Luke does the Jedi proud, and refuses to even meaningfully engage Vader. Then Vader searches Luke and discovers Leia. His taunts about turning Leia are too much for Luke, and he flies into a rage. At this point, Luke is channeling Dark Side. He aggressively attacks Vader with hatred. He feels betrayed. Luke now believes what Yoda and Kenobi said. Vader is irredeemable, and in his foolish quest to save him, Luke has now betrayed everyone. Luke strikes out again and again until at last he throws Vader down in ruin and chops off his hand. Luke is about to land the death blow when he sees the cyborg stump that was his father's hand. He looks down at his own cyborg hand. Suddenly he realizes he is becoming just like Vader. Bit by bit, he's becoming a Sith. He sheathes his weapon and turns to the Emperor. "Never." he throws the saber away, "I'll never turn to the Dark Side. You've failed your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me." That bit about him throwing his saber away always bothered me as a kid. Why throw away your weapon? Because Luke finally realizes what the real battle is. It's not the battle for physical survival, but spiritual survival. If he kept his weapon, perhaps he could have defeated Palpatine. But even if he had, he would have smoothly taken his place as Lord of the Sith. By throwing the weapon down, he threw aside temptation to do more harm and rejected the Dark Side (unlike in the cave in episode 5, where he chose to fight). He was now a Jedi. [caption id="attachment_769" align="alignright" width="300"] "So be it. Jedi."[/caption]

The Emperor now realizes this brat has cost him everything. Vader is useless now and probably not going to survive and his chosen successor is now a stinking Jedi. He raises his hands, and pure hate turns to kinetic energy made for killing. Force Lightning. Luke is quickly overcome and falls to the ground writhing in pain. Vader gets up after a fashion to watch this unfold. I believe he was expecting the torture to provoke Luke to surrender and turn at last. I think Vader knew his time was up, but maybe his son could live on as Palpatine's new apprentice. But Luke holds on, and on, and on. Soon, the pain does get to Luke, but not at all in the way Vader expects. He begins to plead, like a child, "Father, please! Help me!" Vader hears his son's pleas and looks at Palpatine. All he sees there is pure hatred. At some point, Vader snaps. He grabs Palpatine while he's still channeling, and you can see that the lightning is hitting Vader all the way to the pit, causing severe pain and damage, but Vader makes it and throws him in. Heck yeah!

I think in those last moments, Vader came to accept two realizations. One, that Palpatine was never the good guy, despite the lies fed to him in Episodes 2 and 3. His way was not the right way, and all Palpatine had ever done for him was take away everything he loved and enslaved him. The spell Palpatine had put on Annakin had broken. Two, Annakin realized that his pretensions about training Luke to overthrow Palpatine to become the new Sith lords was just a cover for his true love that he held for his only son. Third, that whether he could be redeemed or not, there were things worse than death, and seeing your boy tortured to death by a madman while he pleas for your help is definitely one of them.

So in conclusion, I believe that Vader loved his son Luke from the moment he knew he existed. I think all of his actions and efforts in Episodes 5 and 6 were to save his son from death and to be with him, albeit for most of that time that relationship was to be one of Sith Lord and Apprentice. (The Dark Side twisted his love.)

Why is this on my blog? I am too tired now to make spiritual allegorical connections, so I'll let you do that work yourself. :)