J. Zinn

We know that the Lord saw Gideon as a "mighty warrior" and whatever Gideon thought of himself, it certainly wasn't "mighty warrior". Perhaps he though of himself as "the little brother" or the "coward" or perhaps even "wise" [for threshing his wheat in the wine press]. The word doesn't say this (nor is it overly relevant), but perhaps Gideon always thought of himself as a failure or perhaps even a great success in his family. We don't know. But we do know that the Lord called him something that he didn't call himself. This is pretty interesting. I wonder how many times we as Christians are called and we just shake it off: "no, that's just not me". We're invited to work in the nursury one day, but no, we're not a "baby-person". Or we're recommended to help out around the church with every day chores [church helps], but no, we're too clerical for that job. Or how about prayer intercessory? But no, I'm not still enough for that - i'm a do-er, not a talker. There are many diverse jobs in the church, and God, being a God of seasons, is pretty set on getting us to fulfill them. One may lead Youth one 'season' and be positioned in the back corners of the kitchen the next. Perhaps it happens the other way around, and we refuse to lead the youth because being 'only' a kitchen help, what do I know about leadership? God knows. He challenges us to see the big picture. He challenges us to think outside of the box. He challenges us to quit being comfortable with our own means, as He did Gideon, and calls us as we really are. It's a little bit scary, perhaps humbling, but never a failure and never degrading. Gideon's name by God reminds us: He's God. Not us. How much do you really trust His call?

How was the comprehensiveness of "sins of the world" so radical a concept? In a time/culture/faith where each sacrifice was for atonement between one man and God, the idea of one sacrifice for ALL men is radical in itself. It's very challenging for the Jewish to accept this since sin and sacrifice worked so much on an "each-man-for-himself" basis. It was to Israel alone that God demonstrated His mercy, first through substitutionary sacrifice , and priestly mediation. Only the Jews had real access and understanding for atonement , but Christ (and the apostles) through the Gospels etc opened it up to include the whole world. This, in the Jew's eyes, went completely against the grains of being "Chosen". John understood, however, that Israel was the means, not the end: through Israel, atonement would be spelled out (how to accomplish it, what kind of horror it was necessary to conceal, etc) and in the end, the world would be saved. Being the pathway for righteousness to flow and not the sole beneficiary is not always an easy concept for Chrsitians (though we have the Bible as a thurough illustration of this concept). Few are content with being a stepping-stone, only . Imagine how much more difficult it was for the Chosen People to accept that "chosen" meant "chosen as the first stepping stone". Hardly complimentary with the "We are chosen" pride that came with being chosen. Please read this thuroughly; I dont' mean to get sticky on words and brackets (), but i think there's a huge lesson in this very good question.