The
New Testament
Upside-Down
Thinking
My
brothers slept during the so-called "agony"
in the garden. But I could not be angry with them
because I had learned I could not be abandoned.
Peter
swore he would never deny me, but he did so three
times. He did offer to defend me with the sword, which
I naturally refused, not being at all in need of bodily
protection. I am sorry when my brothers do not share
my decision to hear only one voice, because it weakens
them as teachers and as learners. Yet I know that
they cannot really betray themselves or me.
The
crucifixion cannot be shared, because it is the symbol
of projection. Bbut the resurrection is the symbol
of sharing, because the re-awakening of every Son
of God is necessary to enable the Sonship to know
its wholeness. Only this is knowledge.
The
message of the crucifixion is perfectly clear: “Teach
only love, for that is what you are.” If you
interpret the crucifixion in any other way, you are
using it as a weapon for assault rather than as the
call for peace for which it was intended. The Apostles
often misunderstood it, and always for the same reason
that makes anyone misunderstand anything—their
own imperfect love made them vulnerable to projection,
and out of their own fear they spoke of the “wrath
of God” as His retaliatory weapon. Nor could
they speak of the crucifixion entirely without anger,
because their own sense of guilt had made them angry.
There
are two glaring examples of upside-down thinking in
the New Testament, whose whole gospel is only the
message of love.
If
the Apostles had not felt guilty they never could
have quoted me as saying, “I come not to
bring peace but a sword.” Matthew
10:34 This is clearly
the exact opposite of everything I taught.
Nor
could they have described my reactions to Judas as
they did if they had really understood me. They would
have realized I could not have said, “Betrayest
thou the Son of Man with a kiss?” Luke
22:48 unless I believed
in betrayal. The whole message of the crucifixion
was simply that I did not. The
“punishment” which I am said to have called
forth upon Judas was a similar reversal. Judas was
my brother and a Son of God, as much a part of the
Sonship as myself. Was it likely that I would condemn
him when I was ready to demonstrate that condemnation
is impossible?