We thought previously about the pneumatikos or resurrection spiritual body of Jesus that would allow him to simultaneously indwell all believers as “Christ in You” to power you up in your spiritual fight against the tempter. In this conclusion I’ll flesh this out a little.

Adam and Eve were given God’s word/law regarding the Tree and were banished from Eden for transgressing it. Why the ridiculous overreaction by God? After all, the serpent was truthful. They didn’t die the day they ate the fruit. This drama was replayed in the figure of the last Adam Jesus. In the temptation we read:

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,
‘He will command his angels concerning you,’
and ‘On their hands they will bear you up,
so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’ ”
7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ” (Matt 4:5)

What we see then is the Devil trying to exploit the letter of the law/word by ignoring the spirit of the law/word. In Jesus’s corrupt treatment by the Jewish high council, they try to trick the romans into killing Jesus since as the Gospel of John notes God forbids them to put Jesus to death themselves. Hamilton outlines how time after time, which due to its volume can only be satire, in the synoptics loopholes and manipulations must be found to give surface respectability to the corrupt way Jesus’s trial is handled:

However, the Synoptic chronology is not impossible, for as [Josef] Blinzler says, the prohibition of legal proceedings on feast days was less strictly enforced than that of holding courts on the Sabbath, ‘therefore it is quite thinkable that it did not seem to the Sanhedrists an infringement of an important rule to start a legal trial even on the night of the Pesach’. It is the argument of this article that all the Gospels witness to such a trial which, while viable in its date, contravened accepted practice as subsequently enshrined in the Mishnah at many points, as Blinzler shows. For example, the proceedings took place in the house of Caiaphas, not in the Temple, and though Jesus had not actually pronounced the Name of God, he was condemned as a blasphemer. He was not offered an advocate; the witnesses were not warned before being examined; nor were they called to account for false witness. The members of the Sanhedrin, although witnesses of the alleged blasphemy, took part in the passing of the sentence, though it was not legal for them to do so. As Blinzler says, one is not able ‘to spare the Sanhedrin the reproach of very serious infringement of the law’. The question is, why did they do this?‘ It will not do to suggest that the occasion was a sham—the proceedings were undoubtedly carried through before a competent bench of judges’. Nor can their contraventions of the Mishnaic code be simply dismissed by saying that it was not yet in force. It is true that it was not codified until about 200 AD, and reflects conditions which obtained then, but it certainly enshrines earlier practice to a considerable extent. For example, Segal says that in describing Temple ritual, it may be employed with confidence. May not the same apply to legal practice?… Before the Feast of the Passover Caiaphas is reported to have said in council: ‘It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish’ (Jn. 11:50). Expediency was the factor which determined his conduct. When the opportunity unexpectedly presented itself to secure Jesus’ death, he and the priests avidly took it. Spurred on by their hatred of him; persuaded that as he was a false teacher, his execution on a feast day would be appropriate; and pressurized by shortage of time, they held his trial on the paschal night. In this trial they contravened normal legal practice at many points. The fact that they could do this in the legal sphere makes it likely that they could, because of the exceptional circumstances, also contravene ritual practice. For the exigencies of the case demanded that they work through the night. Early next morning therefore, they still had not eaten their paschal meal [emphasis mine] … Certainly therefore, an execution would have been contrary to the sabbatical nature of the first paschal day. However, Deut. 17: 12-13 prescribes the death penalty for anyone who opposes the decisions of the priests, to be carried out so that ‘all the people shall hear and fear’, and the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:4) gives special instructions for the execution of a rebellious teacher: ‘He was kept in guard until one of the three feasts, and he was put to death on one of the three feasts’. This shows that in certain circumstances executions were permitted on feast days. Moreover, [Paul] Billerbeck says that where an example is required ‘to protect the Torah from wilfully severe transgressions, an execution may, as an exception, supersede a feast day’. (Hamilton, 1992, p. 335-336)

The problem? There is a real sense in which God is not always with you. The serpent tempted eve, and Eve persuaded Adam, when God was not around to counter the logic of the serpent. The lesson is sometimes God will not be there to help you and so you need to guard against those who would deceptively override God’s will. Note Genesis arguing against the omnipresence of God, like with God not knowing where Adam was when he returned to the Garden and didn’t know who told Adam he was naked. Even the oldest book of the bible, Job, has God second-guessing himself and changing his course when incited by Satan (Job 2:3). In Genesis 3 Adam and Eve were not ashamed for eating the fruit, but realizing they were naked, nakedness not being bad in God’s eyes.

Just as Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened to their nakedness, the cross of Christ opened the eyes of the world to their sinful disposition/nature (Truly this man was innocent in Luke). Turning from that, the believer could welcome Christ to indwell with them to focus them on the spirit of God’s law and word rather than just the letter of it. Christ in Gethsemane thought God’s plan could be fulfilled without him having to undergo the worst execution in the ancient world, but ultimately said he would obey no matter what. The same is reiterated in the cry of dereliction from the cross that Jesus couldn’t understand why God didn’t send Elijah to rescue him, but he trusted God’s Will.

The spirit of Christ in You is the angelic possession allowing the believer to discern the spirit of God’s word against the tendency to manipulate it for your own end. So, for instance, you may think that sneaking porn isn’t cheating on your wife because you aren’t literally sleeping with anyone. But, Jesus says adultery includes a lustful eye. Matthew 18:9 says “If your eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away. It is better for you to have only one eye and live forever than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.” Jesus is not advocating self-mutilation but using hyperbole to illustrate the spirit of God’s will. We do the same thing teaching a child what Art is by showing them the works of the great masters.