tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51892953389588338202024-02-20T03:15:37.273-08:00Pisteos International DailyDavid Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.comBlogger1822125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-4200844926170148322015-01-07T09:16:00.000-08:002015-01-07T09:16:14.772-08:00Communion & The Kingdom Of God (part 3 of 3)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let it be said that
it is precisely at the communion table (as a microcosm of the messianic
banquet, an announcement of the advent of the kingdom of heaven, and a reminder
of Jesus’ ministry as it is so well summed up by His own meal practice) that
the past, the present, and the future become a single reality that is full of
mystery and wonder. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Not leaving behind
the Abrahamic covenant component of the communion, and its promise, reflecting the
Creator God’s intentions for the redemption of His creation and of His
image-bearers that would manifest itself in an acknowledging worship of Him,
that all nations would be blessed by Abraham and his progeny, one sees that all
of God’s past promises (with their present kingdom and future kingdom
implications) are being fulfilled whenever and wherever peoples of all sorts
come together to celebrate the table of the Lord. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is at that very
moment, in which all stand before the covenant God, to lift the elements in
recognition of the universal Lordship of Christ, and to do so in a full
equality that is devoid of divisions and barriers to participation, that it is
possible to catch a glimpse of the glorious future that the Creator intends to
bring to pass for His world that He so loves, and for the creatures to whom He
lent His image. More than that, as one looks to the example that has been
provided by Jesus, at the meals at which He participated, the ceremony
(sacrament if you like) that He instituted, and the understanding of both that
were held by the early church, remembering that for both Jesus and the church
that He left in His wake, their vision of the kingdom was informed by Isaiah’s
beautiful vision of the messianic banquet. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With that in mind, one
is also able to rightly perceive that the all-inclusive table of Jesus---the
table that announces the kingdom of heaven while also confirming a desire to
participate in the outworking of that kingdom, while undoubtedly possessing a
Gospel communicating power that is able to move those who participate at the
table without having made a confession of Jesus as Lord, to come under the
conviction of such a confession (thereby informing all that the communion table
should be an open one)---becomes among other things, a unifying force that
breaks the back of racism, class division, and any and all types of social
ostracism, marginalization, or oppression. It does these things, at least
partially, through a reminder that goes out to all, be it individuals, groups,
or governments, that Jesus is king. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Knowing this, is it
not a shame that the breaking of the strength of that which often unnecessarily
divides does not occur each and every time believers gather together, as a signpost to the world
that, in the kingdom of God as represented by the church, the principalities
and the powers that hold an undue and illegitimate sway in the world have been
stripped of their authority at the cross and are now under a demand to submit
to the Lordship of the crucified One? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
If one knows this,
and is cognizant of the charge that Jesus, with the messianic banquet in mind,
while preaching and embodying the power and presence of the kingdom of heaven,
was frequently charged with dining with all of the wrong people (tax collectors
and sinners), then how could the church ever allow divisions at the table that
was gifted to His disciples within what was obviously the same mindset?
On what basis can anyone close a table and exclude anyone from
participation? Do believers dare limit participation at the table of the
Lord (which is not an individual body’s table but the table of the Lord) to a
certain group of people that have met a certain set of subjective requirements
that have been established in what might very well be an air of unearned
superiority and unheeding forgetfulness of the example of the Lord of that
table? <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-77384869266789947322015-01-06T10:46:00.000-08:002015-01-06T10:46:50.002-08:00Communion & The Kingdom Of God (part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
In this way, just as was the case in the days of the
Caesars, the community will be suitably prepared to receive their ruler when the
time for an appearance has been determined. Yes, the communion, like so
many other things associated with the message of Jesus, is subversive of the
present order, and among other things, is designed to inform the world that it
has a true ruler, whose name is Jesus. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In these miniature kingdom
banquets in which Jesus either participated or presided, or of which He spoke
in His parables, it can be observed that those who had been ostracized from
society and marginalized in some way are sought out and compelled to
attend. It is clear that the keepers of the covenant boundaries in His
day (Pharisees, scribes, etc…) were aware that the inclusiveness that was put
on display by Jesus was a critique that was directed towards them, as the long
and contentious history of Israel’s dealings with the nations of the world had
left them weary and wary of open relationships with Gentiles that might
jeopardize either individual or corporate standing within the covenant.
The attitude of “better safe than sorry,” when it came to what it meant to be a
light to the nations, which, according to what is on display with Jesus and can
be extrapolated from His words and deeds, was not altogether pleasing to the
Creator God. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So when one considers Jesus’
table fellowship in connection with the church’s modern communion tables, one sees
that all are invited to attend, with this invitation including the marginalized
alongside those who might be marginalizing them; but Jesus’ repeated emphasis
on the first being last and the last being first, draws attention to the fact
that there is not going to be (or at least there should not be) any discernible
hierarchies or societal constructs on display at the meal that is designed to
tell and to educate the world about the kingdom of heaven. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is, most definitely, not going to be a time or a place
for reprisals or counter-oppression, nor a celebration of exclusivity.
The communion, like the feasts of Israel, is a celebration of the Creator God’s
rule, this God’s deliverance, and the human responsibility to rightly bear the
divine image so as to be a light that draws praise and worship to the
Creator. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is very important to
grasp that the table fellowship that Jesus put on display was not assembled
without due consideration of the plan that His God intended for His
creation. Quite apart from being thrown together on a whim, the tables at
which Jesus participated, at which He endured criticism because of their
openness, and which are summed up in the table of communion that He left with
His disciples, were duly informed by Scripture. At practical levels, Jesus
worked out that which was portended by Scripture. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is possible to go
even further. Though Jesus, through His life and ministry and in and
around His meal practice was certainly making the implication that in one sense
the Kingdom had arrived, from the outset there was the sense that there was to
be a final fulfillment of what was being put on display in those meals and at
the communion, and that one’s present response to the banquet (meals and
communions) invitations at hand was going to have a role in determining, in
advance, if one was going to have a place at the final banquet looked forward
to by the prophets, by Jesus, and by His disciples. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-32565527352967271842015-01-05T16:17:00.000-08:002015-01-05T16:17:47.427-08:00Communion & The Kingdom Of God (part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
The communion table can be and has been looked upon in a
variety of ways, many of which have value, and are practical and helpful as
those who participate at the table seek to live out their faith. The
communion should not be primarily looked upon as a personal experience with the
Creator God or as a place where individual needs are met, but rather, as a
proclamation of His kingdom, recognizing its inauguration through Jesus.
This can be achieved by keeping it within the context of the practice of Jesus,
the messianic feast, and the Passover, along with what is signaled by said
practice, the messianic feast and the Passover---upon which the communion as
given to believers by Jesus has been founded. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The communion table that Jesus
instituted looked back to the grand vision of Isaiah’s all inclusive end-time
feast. This looking back also involved a looking forward, but the fact
that it looked back, and the fact that it had a context within Israel’s history
and its feasts, means that any and all interpretations of the communion that do
not involve historical and eschatological considerations in relation to
conceptions regarding the kingdom of Israel’s God and the expectations of that God’s
people (past, present, and future) are going to be dangerously flawed.
Thoughts concerning the communion must take into consideration the fact that
the God of Israel had made a promise to Abraham, and the final fulfillment of
that promise was intended to be celebrated by all nations within this God’s new
world. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The new world is that which was
brought into existence at the Resurrection of Jesus---the world in which Jesus
is king. At the same time, that new world is something for which believers
still wait and for which the whole of the creation groans. Jesus was and
is the primary agent of that kingdom. Jesus inaugurated and is
inaugurating Isaiah’s vision in the past and in the present through miniature
kingdom banquets. This is what can be seen at His meals and in His
parables, this is what can be seen taking place at the “last supper,” and this
is what is taking place whenever those that claim Him as Lord take up the
elements of bread and wine. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The tables observed in the life of Jesus are enactments of
the kingdom of heaven, in which all are invited to participate, and so too is
the communion. In addition, those who participate in the communion are
promising to embody the kingdom principles as demonstrated by Jesus and as seen
at His meals, while acknowledging that there is to be a future, earthly
consummation of the kingdom of heaven to be expected. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The communion table is an
ambassadorial function, designed to prepare the world for the arrival of the
King. Just as the Caesar would place statues and busts of himself while
also encouraging honorific ceremonies within far-flung communities that were
under his dominion, as a reminder of his lordship, so too has Jesus. By
the power of the Resurrection and through the mysterious operation of the Spirit,
He has placed new creations within this old creation, along with ceremonies
such as communion and baptism, to serve as vessels for the remembrance of His
Lordship. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-21513338066092094502015-01-04T11:53:00.000-08:002015-01-04T11:53:08.429-08:00Woe (part 2 of 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is with such thoughts reverberating one’s mind that now
allows an observer to go on to hear Jesus saying, “For this reason also the
wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they
will kill and persecute,’ so that this generation may be held accountable for
the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the
world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between
the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against
this generation” (Luke 11:49-51). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is not to be taken
lightly. Without delving into the “wisdom” traditions of Israel, not only
should this be seen as a stinging rebuke, but one must imagine the shock that
would be felt as Jesus uttered these words. Whereas the experts in
religious law and Temple leaders believed that they were doing what was
necessary to cause their God to embody the messiah and resoundingly act within
history to defeat their enemies, rescue them from foreign subjugation, and
install blessed Israel as the exalted nation of the world, Jesus informs them
of His opinion that their isolating and excluding actions are productive of a
mindset (revolution and rebellion?) that is going to bring yet another
reckoning of judgment upon the nation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He concludes by saying “Woe
to you experts in religious law! You have taken away the key to
knowledge! You did not go in yourselves, and you hindered those who were
going in” (11:52). Talk of “going in” would have to be related to the
coming kingdom of heaven that was going to be manifest on earth through their
God acting through His messiah. So with all of this, Jesus has
effectively challenged the basis of their power structure amongst the people,
which was the idea that they held the keys for the manifestation of the kingdom
of heaven. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
If the masses were to continue listening to Jesus, and if
they were to take up His way of neighborly and selfless acts done to and for
all without limitation as the means of representing, ushering in, and making
manifest the kingdom of God, then it would seem to be impossible to foster any
type of movement to drive out the Romans so as to reclaim the covenantal land
and enjoy the related promises. So one do not wonder at the fact that
“When He went out from there, the experts in the law and the Pharisees began to
oppose Him bitterly, and to ask Him hostile questions about many things,
plotting against Him, to catch Him in something He might say” (11:53-54).
Their desire to discredit Jesus would have been palpable and understandable. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-1169824708138524212015-01-03T09:35:00.000-08:002015-01-03T09:35:52.722-08:00Woe (part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Woe to you Pharisees! You love the best seats in the
synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces! Woe to you!
You are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without realizing it! -
Luke 11:43-44 (NET)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though one of the “experts in
religious law” (11:45a) spoke up to let Jesus know that He was being remarkably
offensive with His words, Jesus continued on in a way that let these men know,
in no uncertain terms, that He found their kingdom-and-light-withholding ways
offensive. He goes on to say, “Woe to you experts in religious law as
well! You load people down with burdens difficult to bear, yet you
yourselves refuse to touch the burdens with even one of your fingers! Woe
to you! You build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors
killed. So you testify that you approve of the deeds of your ancestors,
because they killed the prophets and you build their tombs!” (Luke 11:46-48) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As these words are read, one
must resist the temptation to fall back into the long-placed trap of imagining
that Jesus is railing against their “works-based” religion, while He was heroically
attempting to bring forth a faith based upon a recognition of grace. This
is not, nor was it ever the issue at hand. By mentioning the prophets,
Jesus calls their attention to the underlying message of the prophets,
primarily directed at the leaders of the people, which called attention to the
failure to properly bear the covenant with which they had been charged, usually
by entering into idolatry, and thereby failing to serve as a light to the
nations that would draw people to the recognition and worship of Israel’s
God---the Creator God. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
An inescapable and prominent component of this charge against
His people was the neglect of orphans and widows, and it would not be a stretch
to say that the elevation of idols went hand in hand with such neglect, as one
almost necessarily and axiomatically included the other. Now that
idolatry in the traditional sense had been effectively put away and was no longer
a problem within Israel, intensification of the demands of the law so as to
bring about the establishment of the kingdom of heaven was a new form of
idolatry that served to create more and more barriers to a widespread awareness
of Israel’s covenant God, leading to the same type of neglect. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The issue was not one of works
of the law versus grace and faith, but rather exclusivism and isolation in an
attempt to keep the Creator God’s covenantal promises for themselves versus
truly functioning as lights for the world and extenders of the Abrahamic
covenant. Truly, if one is so caught up in and astonished by a lack of
ceremonial hand-washing and conformity to certain irrelevant sectarian
prescriptions, how concerned is one going to be to share the grand blessings of
the Abrahamic covenant with a Gentile “sinner”? <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-24575362729603754572015-01-02T14:49:00.000-08:002015-01-02T14:49:44.523-08:00Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 5 of 5)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Understood in this
way, this story of a woman anointing Jesus’ feet with costly perfumed oil lines
up quite well with the other record of the same (in Matthew and Mark), in that
both women, as far as Jesus is concerned, are performing sacrificial acts
towards the true and lasting Temple. With all of this, Jesus provides
further demonstration of His Messianic self-understanding; and it does not
escape notice that this straightforward and dramatic presentation of Himself as
Messiah has yet again taken place at a meal.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is not until the
eleventh chapter of Luke, in passing over the feeding of the five thousand,
that Jesus can once again be seen at a meal. In the thirty-seventh verse
Luke writes “As He spoke, a Pharisee invited Jesus to have a meal with him” (Luke
11:37a). As Jesus is rarely in the habit of turning down these meal
invitations, regardless of who is making the request, “He went in and took His
place at the table” (11:37b). One is left only to wonder which position
at the table has been taken by Jesus. Does He take the position of most
honored guest, sitting immediately to the right or left of His host, who would
be seated in the protoklisian (chief seat), or would Jesus position Himself at
the lowest place, that being the seat known as the “eschaton”? It is not
important to settle this question here, as the fourteenth chapter of Luke will
give provide a greater insight into a potential answer. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As is common, Jesus is
immediately questioned. It is not presented as an outright question,
though one can imagine something being said by the Pharisee that would engender
the response that is forthcoming from Jesus. Luke reports that “The
Pharisee was astonished when he saw that Jesus did not first wash His hands
before the meal” (11:38). This is akin to the hushed murmuring that so
often accompanied Jesus, which was “He eats with tax collectors and
sinners.” This act of “negligence” on Jesus’ part becomes yet another
charge against the possibility of Jesus being the messiah---an ever growing
litany of factors, in the minds of some, weighing against this
possibility. In response, Jesus is somewhat less cordial than He has been
in the past. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When He was subtly
accused of impropriety when it came to the woman that washed His feet with her
tears and hair, Jesus offered up a question of His own to His concerned
host. However, Jesus does not here propose a question, nor does He offer
up a parable. Rather, He lets loose upon this Pharisee, and presumably
upon other Pharisees in attendance at this meal, saying “Now you Pharisees
clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside you are full of greed
and wickedness” (11:39). A stinging rebuke indeed! <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He does not let that
stand on its own, adding “You fools! Didn’t the one who made the outside
make the inside as well?” (11:40) With this, Jesus reminds them of their
Creator---the God of Israel. Jesus, operating inside Jewish custom, indicates
that the purpose of the washing of hands was the remembrance of the Creator God
and His covenant, but this washing had been reduced to a mere formality and
custom. One can imagine that it was used as yet one more barrier,
separating the chosen ones of the covenant God from the “tax collectors and
sinners” that stood outside of the covenant. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How can this be
imagined? Well, it is not difficult to surmise that Jesus, Who is
routinely concerned with the kingdom of heaven and its practical outworking,
has that inclusive kingdom in mind when He says, “Woe to you Pharisees!
You give a tenth of your mint, rue, and every herb, yet you neglect justice and
love for God! But you should have done these things without neglecting
the others” (11:42). This follows His insistence to “give from your heart
to those in need, and then everything will be clean for you” (11:41). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Beyond that, one must
not fail to assess the placement of the record of this meal within the overall
narrative structure of Luke. In this telling of the life of Jesus that
could very well be designed to be read or recited as a performance piece in a
single sitting, one is not far removed from the parable of the “Good
Samaritan.” That parable is prefaced by an expert in religious law
standing to test Jesus, just as He is being tested at this meal with this
Pharisee, and saying “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
(10:25b) Jesus asks for this expert’s opinion, which comes back as “Love
the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength,
and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself” (10:27).
Jesus acknowledges His answer by saying “You have answered correctly; do this,
and you will live” (10:28). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When pressed by the
expert as to who would be his neighbor, Jesus responds with the familiar
parable of the good Samaritan. The parable closes with Jesus asking the
expert to identify the neighbor in the parable. “The expert in the
religious law said, ‘The one who showed mercy on him” (10:37a), that “him”
being the wounded man. To this, Jesus replied “Go and do the same”
(10:37b). With this parable, Jesus presented His expectations concerning
the kingdom of His God and its requirements for costly acts of sacrificial love
that show little concern for self, as demonstrated by the Samaritan. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
One does not travel
very far from that telling within Luke’s Gospel before again hearing Jesus
speak of love and a need for just actions, as in His first pronouncing of “woe”
to the Pharisees that are present. Indeed, there is a nearly direct
parallel with the parable. In addition, it should be noted that the
Samaritan gives, and Jesus, unsurprisingly, speaks of a need to give from the
heart to those in need. This is unlikely to happen as long as His
followers are overly concerned with the desire for conformity to communal norms
that have little or nothing to do with the manifestation and advance of the
kingdom. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-30814879867948401612015-01-01T11:57:00.000-08:002015-01-01T11:57:19.885-08:00Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 4)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Jesus says: “Do you
see this woman? I entered your house. You gave me no water for My
feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
You gave Me no kiss of greeting, but from the time I entered she has not
stopped kissing My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she has
anointed My feet with perfumed oil” (Luke 7:44-46). With this, Jesus makes it
clear that this man had acted improperly towards Him, and that the woman was
making up for the slighting. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a sense, it can be
said that by shaming herself at Jesus’ expense, she was attempting to enter
into the indignities to which Jesus was being subjected. As this is
considered, it is almost impossible to not think of the Apostle Paul’s letter
to the Colossian church, in which he writes, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings
for you, and I fill up in my physical body---for the sake of His body, the
church---what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ” (Colossians 1:24). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Jesus then provides
proof that He knew precisely what type of woman this was that was touching Him,
by going on to say “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which were many, are
forgiven, thus she loved much” (7:47a). This did not call for
supernatural insight. Her expression of love was all He needed to see to
confirm the forgiveness which she felt. Much is spoken in these
words. One must notice that Jesus provides a sense of time and distance
with His words. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Even though Luke immediately
goes on to write “Then Jesus said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven’” (7:48), His
words concerning her response indicate that this was a reiteration of something
that she had already experienced. In regards to what she had done at the
feet of Jesus, He said that “she loved much,” indicating that the acts of love
(as one must not forget the suffering and shame associated with those acts)
were in response to the fact that she had already had a sense of forgiveness,
and had already passed into the kingdom of Israel’s God. Jesus did not
need to inform her that her sins were forgiven, as she already knew. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Clearly then, the
words were spoken for the benefit of those in attendance at the meal and who
were surrounding Him at the table. The reader can apprehend this when we moving
along to find “But those who were at the table with Him began to say among
themselves, ‘Who is this, who even forgives sins?’” (7:49) Why would this
be said? It would be said because forgiveness of sins was provided at the
Temple and was the domain of the Temple. One could certainly be absolved
of sin (failing to rightly bear the divine image, failing to live up to the
obligations of the covenant), but only by presenting a sacrifice at and for the
Temple. With these simple words, Jesus demonstrates that He believes
Himself to be Messiah---the embodiment of Israel’s God, and therefore the true
Temple. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By extension then,
this woman’s costly act of sacrifice was, in fact, performed at and for the
Temple. This allows an observer to understand the full import and impact
of His words when He says to the woman that “Your faith has saved you; go in
peace” (7:50). Were not these words the words that would be spoken to
those who had brought their sacrifices to the Temple, so as to receive
confirmation of their forgiveness and right-standing before the Creator God
there? <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-26528545600836167742014-12-31T14:58:00.000-08:002014-12-31T14:58:25.616-08:00Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 3)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Having dealt with that transition, it’s
now possible to move on to an examination of Jesus at a meal at the house of a
Pharisee. At this particular meal, Luke reports that “a woman of that
town, who was a sinner, learned that Jesus was dining at the Pharisee’s house,”
and that “she brought an alabaster jar of perfumed oil” (Luke 7:37) to this
house. Jesus, of course, was in the customary reclined position on the
dining couch, with His feet away from the table, and this woman “As she stood
behind Him at His feet, weeping… began to wet His feet with her tears.
She wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the perfumed
oil” (7:38). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At first glance, this may seem to be a repetitive
presentation, as this study has already encountered a similar story of perfumed
anointing in an examination of the meals of Matthew and Mark. However,
this is clearly a different function and a different woman, with this event
taking place well ahead of the anointing story chronicled in Mark and
Matthew. As a matter of fact, Luke omits the particular anointing story
found in Matthew and Mark, providing this one instead. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are a lot of
very interesting things that could be said concerning what this woman is
reported to have done. She wet Jesus’ feet with her tears, and wipes His
feet with her hair (7:38). Jesus calls attention to this when He speaks
to the Pharisee, pointing out the fact that she is now doing that which the Pharisee
had failed to do when Jesus entered his house, which was wash Jesus’ feet
(7:45). One need not dwell too long on this one point, but for a woman to
take her hair down and to use it in this way would bring much reproach. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Clearly, this woman
is unconcerned with the reproach and shame that she is bringing on herself, and
is only concerned with honoring Jesus and making up for the dishonor that was
extended to Him when He did not receive the customary foot-washing. She
is more than willing to take shame upon herself so that the one that she
obviously looks to as Lord might be honored, which is a cruciform expression of
love. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In addition, she was
said to have kissed Jesus’ feet and anointed them with oil (7:38), whereas
Jesus did not receive this courtesy from His host (7:46). Though Jesus
saw these acts as expressions of love, the Pharisee looked upon them quite
differently, saying to himself, “If this man were a prophet, He would know who
and what kind of woman this is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner”
(7:39). As Jesus was quite familiar with the responses that He received
in association with His dining with “tax collectors and sinners,” one can
imagine that He was sensitive to the demeanor of His host. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Being obviously aware
of what was being thought of Him, Jesus proffers a short parable to the
Pharisee, posing a question concerning the forgiveness of debts, to which the
Pharisee is said to have responded correctly. It is upon receiving an
appropriate response that Jesus turns the tables on the one that had been subjecting
Him to such critical thoughts. When He calls attention to her acts, not
only does Jesus honor this woman, but in the process, He shames the negligent
Pharisee. The Pharisee had sought to shame Jesus and the woman, but Jesus
reverses the situation. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-51021974840204822132014-12-30T18:17:00.000-08:002014-12-30T18:17:17.941-08:00Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
One may wonder why this is so. However, any wondering
is blunted when one considers the joint-authorship of both Luke and Acts, with Acts
forming the second half of what is effectively a single discourse. As
Acts is a record of the earliest activities of the apostles of Jesus, and
because table fellowship was an important and unfortunately contentious issue
in some of the earliest church communities (witness the confrontation between
Peter and Paul in Antioch over the subject of table fellowship, as recorded in
Paul’s letter to the Galatian church), it is understandable to find Luke more
inclined to share more table stories, and to create a narratival construct that
will make the record of meals and Jesus’ participation and teaching at these
meals, a more prominent feature of his biographical and theological
presentation of Jesus. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If taken within the context of
meals---a context which has been arranged by Jesus’ reference to the eating and
drinking in which both He and John are said to engage, then one can hear Jesus
speaking of Himself within the long-standing wisdom tradition within Israel
that is associated with the Messiah. Though it is the Gospel of John that
makes a more prevalent use of the highly-developed wisdom tradition, there is
no reason to preclude Luke from making use of it as well, as he makes his
report on Jesus’ words and deeds. If the messiah-associated wisdom tradition
is in play here, then it is conceivable that there are messianic banquet
considerations to be taken from the words of Jesus. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Is this a bit of a stretch to
hear Jesus making messiah and messianic banquet references in this short little
statement? Probably not, especially in light of His making mention of
eating and drinking, and then Luke’s transition to Jesus’ presence at the
dinner at the house of a Pharisee. The use of “wisdom” as a clearly
self-referential statement at this point in the narrative, when both Jesus’
hearers and Luke’s readers have been thrust into a meal-related mindset,
clearly ushers us into a messianic context. With thoughts of both messiah
and meal at play, along with talk of vindication (an incredibly important
concept for Israel especially in relation to messiah), it would not be
difficult to find Jesus’ hearers associating words such as “all her children,”
when used in this context, entertaining thoughts of the great messianic
banquet. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
What is provided here is a
glimpse into Jesus’ mindset as it relates to this banquet in Matthew, when He
is heard to say “I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the
banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons
of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness, where there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Luke 8:11-12). Clearly, if one ever finds
himself thinking that any of the Gospel authors are offering up anything less
than complex theological constructs in narrative and biographical form based
upon the fact of a resurrected Christ that demanded their full allegiance, then
a tremendous disservice has been done to them. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-73216659683672440892014-12-29T08:35:00.000-08:002014-12-29T08:35:00.844-08:00Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Gospel of Luke, while it does many things in relation to
Jesus ministry, provides believers with a firmly rooted understanding of the
significance of meals, not only within the communities, but also within Jesus’
ministry. Because of what they demonstrate, and because of what they
allow to be demonstrated, Jesus consistently seizes upon these occasions to
teach and to make points about the nature of the kingdom of heaven. These
meals also become the source of ongoing controversies concerning Jesus. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Engaging with Luke, one finds a
perfect example of that in the seventh chapter, as Jesus is following up on
inquiries made of Him by disciples of John the Baptist, and speaking about him
to the assembled crowds, doing so in the context of the kingdom of His God (Luke
7:28). At the close of this dissertation about John, Jesus references the
controversial nature of His meal practice (and even that of John in a
roundabout way), by saying “For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and
drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man has come
eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at Him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend
of tax collectors and sinners!’” (7:33-34) One cannot take lightly the
importance that Jesus and the Gospel authors attribute to meals. A hermeneutic
must be allowed to be fundamentally influenced by this meal dynamic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Both Luke and Matthew have Jesus
closing out His discourse on John the Baptist by adding, “But wisdom is
vindicated by all her children” (7:35). Though there is an implied break
in the narrative following these words from Jesus, with the words of the
thirty-sixth verse of Luke seeming to present a new situation, it is noteworthy
that Luke immediately moves to inform the reader that “one of the Pharisees
asked Jesus to have dinner with him” (7:36a). With this, the author
appears to be communicating the importance of meals, as even though there is a
break in the action, so to speak, the theological narrative continues, with
Jesus being moved directly from His statement about wisdom and her children
(which follows a statement about eating and drinking with tax collectors and
sinners), to the acceptance of an invitation to dine at the house of a
Pharisee. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If an observer maintains a
mental framework that does not have Jesus or Luke diverging from speaking from
a context of meals and their importance, then it is quite possible to hear
Jesus speaking in that context when He says that “wisdom is vindicated by her
children.” This, then, is not a disconnected aphorism recorded by Luke
and randomly placed within the text, but rather, a transition that maintains
the meal-related motif. Of course, this cannot be asserted without addressing
the fact that Matthew places Jesus’ speech about John within a different
sequence of events, and does not move from the wisdom and children statement to
Jesus’ meal in the house of the Pharisee. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Without attempting to rectify or harmonize the chronological
conflicts, the difference can be explained by noting Luke’s greater emphasis on
Jesus’ meals. Though Matthew certainly holds Jesus’ participation at
various meals in high regard, rightly signifying their importance for
understanding Jesus and their significance for the communication of His
mission, it is Luke that has Jesus spending more time at meals, while also
sharing some of His most impactful parables (the parable of the prodigal chief
among these as one of Jesus’ most important, elaborate, and impactful parables)
while at a banqueting table. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-14189021985445472192014-12-28T08:47:00.000-08:002014-12-28T08:47:36.613-08:00Love & The Public Good (part 3 of 3)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because this is a
mixed congregation of both Jews and Gentiles, one can surmise that Paul’s use
of “the law” would be well understood to be those basic provisions of the law
(circumcision, Sabbath keeping, food regulations, refraining from worship of
idols) that served as identity markers for Jews, and were constant points of
contention and division in the early church. Knowing this allows one to see
how the unity and actions of love that are outlined and encouraged in chapter
twelve of Romans come into play. In addition to that, when considering
that this is a letter that will be read to a gathered church at a single
sitting, it is worth remembering a very early statement in the letter, wherein
Paul uses the phrase “from faith to faith” (Romans 1:17). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This simple statement
sees Paul borrowing from the imperial propaganda of the day, which presents
Caesar as the supreme benefactor. The statement implies that Caesar is
faithful to his subjects, providing them with peace and security, and therefore
his subjects are faithful and loyal to him and to Rome. One must hear the
words of the thirteenth chapter with such words and thoughts in mind, in the
knowledge that Paul is presenting Jesus as the actual supreme benefactor, of
which the Caesar is merely a parody. All civic interactions proceed
within this framework, and the self-sacrificial love modeled by Jesus which saw
Him go to the cross (unconcerned with the shame because of the honor He trusted
would come), becomes the model upon which the life of the Christian community
is based (unconcerned with shame because of the honor that comes with what
counts as the fulfillment of the law, thereby marking one out as a member of
the people of the Creator God and a participant in His kingdom). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
From here, Paul
advances towards the meal table, which it is clear that he has in mind as he
goes on to write “Let us live decently as in the daytime, not in carousing and
drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in discord and
jealousy” (13:13). Though it is not meant to serve as an accusation, this
is language of the portion of the Hellenistic meal referred to as the
“symposium” (period of revelry---singing of songs, debates, speeches,
etc…---following a meal), and as it is possible that this church is hearing
this letter while gathered for fellowship that will include a meal, the
language would not be lost on them either. It is to this then that Paul
adds “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to
arouse its desires” (13:14). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A great disservice is
done to the apostle if one simply substitutes personal and subjective notions
of “the flesh” here, rather than considering “the flesh” within the context of
the potential for disunity, division, stratification, and unwarranted
authoritarianism within the church, as well as its connotations of the old age
prior to the Resurrection, the inauguration of the new creation, and of the
kingdom of the covenant God, in which preferring others above oneself is to be
the norm. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One must also take
this statement into consideration in the context of the dissertation regarding
the Christian’s responsibilities towards governing authorities. Because
one considers himself or herself to be part of the kingdom of God, a desire of
the flesh might be to cast off all restraint and disregard governing
authorities. This was obviously a real possibility, which would account
for Paul’s insistence that such authorities are “God’s servant for your good”
(13:4a), and that it is “necessary to be in subjection” (13:5a) (Note:
Though democracies did exist, Paul does not have knowledge of a government that
is constituted by “We the people,” such as to be found with the United States
of America; so it is incumbent upon all generations of Christians, the world
over, to understand Paul’s words in context and then to work out the
implications of those words within their own time and place, guided by the
dictates of the existing kingdom of heaven.) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rather than thinking
about putting on the Lord Jesus Christ in the context of the cultivation of
private spirituality, the understanding of putting on the Lord Jesus Christ
should be shaped, and processed horizontally and outwardly, by embodying the
transformational, kingdom-of-God-contexted love that was put on display by
Jesus throughout the entirety of His mission, culminating in the cross.
This would certainly serve to quell any fleshly desires that might be
manifested (separations based on honor and shame) or discussed (open rebellion
against Rome that could result in the taking up of arms and the discrediting of
the Jesus movement) at the meal table, thus resulting in a life of true
holiness (a life laid on the altar of sacrifice in service to Israel’s God). <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-81059297719817206772014-12-27T08:27:00.000-08:002014-12-27T08:27:57.027-08:00Love & The Public Good (part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
When reading about “respect” and “honor,” one must remember
the culture of honor and shame, and understand this part of what Paul is saying
accordingly. Naturally, if the Christian has complied with his duty to be
a voice to the rulers, doing good so as to receive their commendation (Romans 13:3b),
with this doing of good the language of public benefaction; and if the church
has been complicit in its responsibilities to care for orphans, widows, lepers
(sick), and the poor, then the governing authorities will be able to restrict
the scope of its activities to being “God’s servant to administer retribution
on the wrongdoer” (13:4b), rather than engaging in all manners of activities
with which the Christian will find disagreeable. This then allows the
Christian to pay taxes with a clear conscience, properly acknowledging their God’s
provision of those charged with government functions. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, this also bears on
the responsibility of the church to communicate the words of one who preached
the kingdom of the Creator God, as the Gospel of Luke records of John the
Baptist that “Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him,
‘Teacher, what should we do?’ He told them, ‘Collect no more than you are
required to.’” (Luke 3:12-13). The idea that tax collectors would collect
only that which they were required to collect would have been quite the radical
notion in that day, as it was well understood that tax collectors, quite
simply, collected more than what was required, lining their pockets and
enriching themselves with the excess. Yes, this issue of government and
taxes, as presented by Paul, must be understood within the context of the
church’s responsibility to embody the love of its God by effectively preaching
the Gospel of the kingdom and living out in their own community the principles
of that kingdom. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If a government, on
this side of the cross, has become oppressive, with oppression generally linked
to high levels of taxation (while understanding that the average person under
the Roman empire paid well over half of their income---in the course of a
subsistence lifestyle---in taxes, with this often leading to debt and
ultimately slavery, which brings in the issue of “owe no one anything”), then
the church of the Christ need only look at itself and its failure to remain
true to Jesus’ message of the advent of the kingdom of the covenant God, and of
that God’s desire to bring the rule of heaven to earth, as it has most likely
retreated into an escapist fixation that limits the acceptance of Jesus’
challenging and world-altering message to going to heaven when one dies. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is worthwhile to
re-read this section as a whole so that one can frame it within a statement
made very early in this letter to the Romans. Paul writes “Pay everyone
what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due,
respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe no one
anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has
fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, do not
murder, do not steal, do not covet,’ (and if there is any other commandment)
are summed up in this, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no
wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law”
(13:7-10). <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-60291037662518314192014-12-26T09:15:00.000-08:002014-12-26T09:15:44.566-08:00Love & The Public Good (part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one
who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. – Romans 13:8 (NET)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the thirteenth chapter of Romans,
Paul extends his discourse from chapter twelve, which delineated the love that
will be exercised within the Christian community, writing “Owe no one anything,
except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled
the law” (13:8). This statement takes into consideration the pervasive
structure of the debtor society of the Greco-Roman world, while it also seems
to address the attendant and entrenched system of patronage and
benefaction. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Those that are instructed to “Owe no one anything” are
encouraged to take the necessary steps to free themselves from the encumbrances
of debt, and therefore free themselves from having to acquire a benefactor, as
slipping into or maintaining such cultural norms will diminish the impact of
the Christian community as a force for societal transformation, while it also,
possibly, has a deleterious effect on the Christian meal table. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Christian, Paul would surely
insist, is to be the patron of only one benefactor, that being Jesus, thus
allowing the Christian to take the position of being a loving and altruistic
benefactor to his community, his country, and to the world, as an enthusiastic
representative of the kingdom of the Creator God. When one considers the
context in which Paul delivers the statement of verse eight, it should be
noticed that he begins with “Let every person be subject to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and
the authorities that exist have been instituted by God” (13:1). This is
the paradoxical situation of the Christian. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yes, the confessed member of the
body of Christ owes his allegiance to the kingdom of the covenant God, and yes,
the Christian message is quite subversive in that it recognizes Jesus as the
King of kings. However, the Christian lives with a tension, recognizing
“God’s appointment” of authorities. That paradoxical tension of
respectful subversiveness is well explicated by the second Psalm, which
provides an example to be followed by the people of the Creator God and the
nature of their interaction with governing authorities. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There the Creator God’s people, via the Psalmist, are heard saying
“So now, you kings, do what is wise; you rulers of the earth, submit to
correction! Serve the Lord in fear! Repent in terror. Give
sincere homage! Otherwise He will be angry, and you will die because of
your behavior, when His anger quickly ignites” (2:10-12a). While this can
also be taken as words of warning to those that this God intends to be His
kings and rulers in this world---His divine image bearers, it is
well-understood to be directed to human authority figures.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Undoubtedly, this is directed
firstly to the kings of Israel, and then by extension, to the kings of the
earth as the Creator’s people take up their role to be a shining light to the
nations that do indeed exemplify divine blessing, with a desire to be
continuous extensions of the positive end of the Abrahamic covenant (a blessing
to all peoples). Such is neatly summed up by the last part of verse
twelve of the second Psalm, in which insists “How blessed are all who take shelter
in him!” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is in this light, the light of love and the opportunity
to be a legitimate and well-received voice to those rulers that are in need of
submission to the imperial claims of Jesus, that Paul writes “For this reason
you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to
governing. Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due,
revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom
honor is due” (13:6-7). <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-59792530537995996882014-12-25T09:46:00.000-08:002014-12-25T09:46:39.816-08:00Laodicea's Wealth (part 6 of 6)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
When Jesus says,
“Because you say, ‘I am rich and have acquired great wealth, and need nothing’”
(Revelation 3:17a), He lets the church at Laodicea know that the grand claim
and accompanying attitude of the city of Laodicea following the earthquake that
leveled their city, that they needed no help or funds from Rome to rebuild, had
infiltrated their church. This is what reveals that there were very
likely some wealthy individuals to be found in the church (and perhaps they
were preaching a very early version of the “prosperity gospel”?). Again,
this is not a problem unless the presence of the wealth leads to ungainly
results, in which the wealthy are simply treated better within the church and
afforded greater honor (in the honor and shame culture) simply because of the
fact of their wealth. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Lest they become too
puffed up with their wealth, which would have been gained through their
business of money exchange for the region (3:18a), their sale of high-end
clothing made from the black wool for which Laodicea was famous (3:18b), or the
sale of their eye salve (3:18c), Jesus lets them know that they are actually
“wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked” (3:17b), and encourages them to
“take My advice and buy gold from Me refined by fire so you can become
rich! Buy from Me white clothing so you can be clothes and your shameful
nakedness will not be exposed, and buy eye salve to put on your eyes so you can
see!” (3:18) One must notice the use of “shameful.” Such language,
given the cultural context, is quite specific and should not escape
attention. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is a bit of a
double entendre, as it serves as both a rebuke against unwarranted puffery as
it relates to what is of true value in the kingdom of the Creator God and
amongst the people that represent that kingdom, while also reminding them that
this is the attitude that those that have acquired wealth (regardless of the
means by which it was acquired, whether that be skill, diligence, luck,
inheritance, oppression, or fraud) should take when it comes to their position
inside the church. The wealthy, who are seated at the places of honor at
the world’s banqueting tables, should be even more fervent in their efforts to
take the lowest place when it comes to the gathering together of the
church. Yes, even making a strenuous and concerted effort to do so, while
not trumpeting the fact that it is occurring. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ultimately, the
practice of serving in the church will spill over into their participation in
the wider community (as should be the case for all, whether rich or poor), thus
the gathering together as a church and exemplifying the power of the Gospel to
turn the world upside down (the accusation leveled against the church community
in Acts 17), allows the people of the kingdom of the covenant God to learn the
way that their God expects them to serve and prefer one another so that they
may effectively represent His kingdom to a watching and waiting world, in an
ongoing development of the virtue of serving and preferring, so that such
things become a matter of habit. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-81567729189602053302014-12-24T09:01:00.000-08:002014-12-24T09:01:57.520-08:00Laodicea's Wealth (part 5)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
It does indeed seem
to be the case that it is the possession of wealth that is causing the problem
that is being worked out in their practice as a church. In introducing these
three things, Jesus, through John, has called attention to Laodicea’s rejection
of imperial assistance for rebuilding efforts following an earthquake.
They were rich, had acquired great wealth, and were in need of nothing.
This was true of Laodicea as a city, and apparently, had also become true of
this church as well. The celebration of wealth had infected the church in
such a way that they were denying the kingdom of their God by their practice
(much like Laodicea denied Rome’s assistance, which also denies the extension
of Roman power), causing Jesus to see them as being wretched, pitiful, poor,
blind, and naked. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Having made His point
concerning what the wealth had accomplished, always with an eye towards
correcting the practice of the church, Jesus takes up a discourse that utilizes
the three main wealth generators (financial/gold transactions, textiles, eye
salve), relating them to Himself and what is available through Him, so as to
make it clear that the blessings that are available to His people as part of
His kingdom are far superior to anything that could bring them wealth in the
world’s present form, especially if it brought about a denial of Him and His
kingdom principles and practices. This denial of kingdom has placed
Jesus, as far as He is concerned, outside the church, where He stands at the
door and knocks, speaking to them (as He is doing in this letter), and desiring
to re-join them. Before expressing what it is that He desires to do,
Jesus says, “All those I love, I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and
repent!” (Revelation 3:19) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With this mention of
rebuke, discipline, and repentance, Jesus offers them a path back to where they
belong. As shall be seen, Jesus’ words are quite specific and quite
telling. Jesus is being very explicit, and this church will have no
problem in identifying what they are getting wrong, and setting it right. Clearly, the church community at Laodicea believes
themselves to be quite special. It would appear that, in this case, there
are some wealthy individuals in the church, which is not problematic in and of
itself. However, allowing cherished non-church-community ideals to infect
the church and its fellowship is highly problematic. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The church, of course, while taking the
full measure of its cultural context, attempts to shift their community’s
culture in the direction of the cross, recognizing above all the sovereign
claim of the covenant God’s kingdom and its consequent demand on those that
confess allegiance to its King. The church, which is identified within
its community by its fellowship, is not to be overrun by a dominating social
ethos in such a way that it begins to reflect society back on itself. If
the church is reflecting the values and ethics of the community in which it is
to be found, then unless that community is one that is predominantly shaped by
an abiding concern for the kingdom of the Creator, then that church is going to
be quite handicapped (wretched, poor, pitiful, blind, naked) in its ability to
reflect the glory of its God into the world. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The world, of course,
is the new world that began taking shape at the Resurrection. Just as a
people of Israel’s God was sent into a promised land to live in a certain way
that their God desired and to redeem that land as the firstfruits of a redeemed
humanity and creation, so too are the people of this same God following the
Resurrection, and in the transformative power of the Spirit and the Gospel
confession, delivered into their promised land (now the entire creation), to
live as their God desires, as the firstfruits of a redeemed humanity and a
redeemed cosmos. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-44539934772368071562014-12-23T08:44:00.000-08:002014-12-23T08:44:04.330-08:00Laodicea's Wealth (part 4)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
With His words of
white clothing, Jesus produces a sharp contrast between His white clothing that
is on offer, and the clothing made from black wool that was productive of wealth
in this city. That wealth is creating an insidious problem in the church,
and that problem need not exist. Again, the crux of the issue is not the
wealth but rather the response to the wealth by those that are calling Jesus
Lord, yet denying Him by their actions. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Having made reference
to Laodicea’s place in the world of finance (buying gold), as well as their
position in the fashion world (white clothing in contrast to the black wool),
mention is then made of one more source of wealth that has a hand in
contributing to that which is happening within this church in Laodicea, and is
displeasing to Jesus. John reports Jesus saying, “buy eye salve to put on
your eyes so you can see!” (Revelation 3:18c) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While this could be
thought of as an allusion to Jesus’ healing of the blind, and specifically to
the instance of record in which Jesus spits on the eyes of the man whose sight
is restored (Mark 8:23), or to the time when Jesus spit on the ground to make
some mud and smeared the mud into the eyes of a man that had been born blind
(John 9:6)---both of which were interesting types of eye salve to be sure, it
is far more likely that the reference hits much closer to home for those that
made up this particular congregation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This reference to eye
salve, or to some type of eye medication, is more than likely yet another
reflection of the historical situation in Laodicea. So once again, these
words have an important contextual setting that, when recognized, will keep an
observer from running off the tracks into strictly spiritual (and possibly
incorrect) interpretations. At the risk of being overly repetitive
(though this is not truly a risk), spiritual applications (for lack of a better
term) can best be accomplished and are most effective when steps are taken to
hear the words as they would have been heard by the original hearers, to be
understood and applied in that context so as to grasp the underlying truths
that are being communicated, and then translated through time for personal
application. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That said, the
historical situation in regards to the eye salve has to do with the fact that
the region in which Laodicea is located is Phrygia. There is some debate
as to whether or not this is actually the case, as Laodicea is sometimes said
to have been a part of other regions, such as Caria. Contributing to the
inability to pin down exact locations is the fact that territorial limitations
were often very poorly defined and always changing. The region of Phrygia
was famous in the ancient world because of the “Phrygian powder” produced
there. This powder was an ingredient in various eye medications. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
To go along with the
fact of the Phrygian powder, an ancient historian by the name of Strabo reports
that there was a medical school in Laodicea, and that this was the location of
the practice of a renowned eye doctor. When coupling the statement about
eye salve in the letter to Laodicea with the fact of the Phrygian powder, it
becomes reasonable to presume that Laodicea was located within this territory,
at the very least at the time of the penning of Revelation. Putting that
aside, this is a clear indication that the Laodicean church had become blind to
something in particular, that it must be corrected, and that the issue that
must be corrected must be identifiable for the church. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-82284170685829705902014-12-22T10:59:00.000-08:002014-12-22T10:59:57.031-08:00Laodicea's Wealth (part 3)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a result, Jesus
implores this church---the very church upon whose door He stands and knocks so
that He might come in and share a meal---to “take My advice and buy gold from
me refined by fire so you can become rich!” (Revelation 3:18a). This is
another reference based on historical context. Laodicea is a place in
which large financial transactions take place, with this making a major
contribution to the wealth of the city in general, and more than likely, to
some of the individuals within the church. Understandably, precious
metals such as gold would have been standard fare in the financial world of the
day, which makes sense of Jesus’ reference to the need to buy gold from
Him. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is no need here
to go to any discourses about the impossibility of buying the things of God, or
to ponder what it is that Jesus insists needs to be obtained. Such would
be inappropriate, and need only be ventured if one fails to consider the
context of Laodicea’s position, its trade, and its source of wealth. An
abundance of gold will generally cause those that possess such abundance to
consider themselves rich. However, Jesus has already informed this church
that their practice, quite to the contrary, has made them truly poor. If
they will but discard the practice and enter into what it is that He desires,
as demonstrated by His life and practice, then they will truly be rich. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If the Biblical
narrative pattern is followed, these riches (blessings?) that are indissolubly
linked to practice will probably have some connection to the Abrahamic
covenant. The true gold that will be purchased from Jesus will be
inextricably connected to the kingdom principles that He demonstrated
throughout His ministry, and according to the Hebrew prophets, there can be no
greater riches than those which are connected to the established kingdom of the
Creator God.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
According to John,
Jesus continues on to say, “Buy from me white clothing so you can be clothed
and your shameful nakedness will not be exposed” (3:18b). Here is yet
another contrast. The issue of putting on clothing appears to be a
regular theme in the earliest church. In his second letter to the
Corinthian church, Paul writes: “For in this earthly house we grown, because we
desire to put on our heavenly dwelling, in indeed, after we have put on our
heavenly house we will not be found naked. For we groan while we are in
this tent, since we are weighed down, because we do not want to be unclothed,
but clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (5:2-4).
Though Paul makes reference to houses, dwellings, tents, and clothes, the
subject at hand is the glorified, resurrection body that the believer will have
when the kingdom of the Creator comes in its fullness. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the letter to
Laodicea, the shameful nakedness would seem to have the same point of
reference, as there will be no glorified body available, and no place in the
kingdom of the covenant God made possible for those that operate contrary to
the principles of that kingdom in the course of their natural term. The
purchasing of “white clothing” is yet another reference to that which has
garnered wealth for Laodicea, which was the textile industry. Laodicea
was a center for the manufacture of clothing, and the sheep that grazed around
Laodicea were quite famous for the soft, black wool that they produced, which
in turn created a high demand for clothes made from this black wool. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-64888233522190072442014-12-22T07:55:00.000-08:002014-12-22T07:55:05.209-08:00Laodicea's Wealth (part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, contrary to what might be expected, not only did
Laodicea not request assistance from Rome or from the emperor, they actually
declined the assistance that was offered, choosing instead to rebuild and
restore the city from their own means. This, of course, would grant
Laodicea some measure of independence from Rome; but only a measure, as they still
relied on the existence of the empire and the relative security and stability
it afforded. In fact, Laodicea received from Rome the title of “free
city,” and was the “conventus” of its territory, meaning that it functioned as
the capital city of a division of the Roman province in which it was
located. This meant that it would be the seat of a district court, as
well as the headquarters for other governmental functions for the region. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Taken together, the
facts of the great wealth of the city, that the wealth enabled them to decline
assistance from Rome after a catastrophe, and that it was a seat of provincial
government (though not relying on the largesse or beneficence of Rome or of the
emperor, in contrast to so many other cities of the region), Jesus’ chiding of
His church for its insistence that they were rich, that they have acquired
great wealth, and that they were in need of nothing becomes quite
understandable. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, this is not
meant to be a condemnation of wealth. Taking a negative view of wealth,
whether civic or individual, based on these words, would be unwarranted and out
of context. What one must keep in mind as progress is made in pulling
back the layers of nearly two thousand years of cultural changes that have
served to obfuscate from view what would have been easily seen and understood
by the Laodiceans in their day (they would have known about declining imperial
assistance in rebuilding, they would have known why, and as citizens of
Laodicea they would have been quite proud of that fact), is that their wealth
is what is causing them to engage in practices that have Jesus wanting to vomit
them out of His mouth. Therefore, these practices are not in line with what can
be observed in His mission, nor are they in accordance with the message of the
Gospel. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The practice or
practices (as the case may be) of this “lukewarm” city (Laodicea) stands in
contrast to what takes place in the “hot” and “cold” cities (the well-known
epithets assigned to Hierapolis and Colossae). The church in Laodicea,
correspondingly, is being asked to observe the difference in practice between
itself and the churches in those other cities and to mimic the practice,
thereby becoming either hot or cold, either of which was perfectly acceptable
to Jesus.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
After commenting on
their wealth and need of nothing, Jesus makes an interjection that serves to
negate any vaunted ideas of self as citizens of Laodicea that might have arisen
from such thoughts, saying that this church did not realize that they were
actually “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked” (3:17b). Not only is
this a challenge to their honor, metaphorical and analogical application seems
to be unavoidable, as Jesus wants them to understand that though they may be
wealthy, their nauseating practice that partially stemmed from the fact of
their wealth actually showed them to be something far different.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-36927623702085088762014-12-21T08:03:00.000-08:002014-12-21T08:03:10.358-08:00Laodicea's Wealth (part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="s"><span style="background: white;">I know</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">your</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">deeds</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">,</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">that</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">you are</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">neither</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">cold</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">nor</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">hot</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">.</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><sup><span style="background: white;"> </span></sup></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;"> I wish</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">you were</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">either cold</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">or</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">hot!</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">So</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">because</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">you are</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">lukewarm</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">,</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">and</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">neither</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">hot</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">nor cold</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">,</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">I am going</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><sup><span style="background: white;"> </span></sup></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">to</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">vomit</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><sup><span style="background: white;"> </span></sup></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">you</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">out of</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">my</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">mouth!</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">Because</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">you say</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">,</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">“I am</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">rich</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">and have acquired great wealth</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">,</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><sup><span style="background: white;"> </span></sup></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">and</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">need</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">nothing</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">,”</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">but</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><sup><span style="background: white;"> </span></sup></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">do</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">not</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">realize</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">that</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">you</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">are wretched</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">,</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">pitiful</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">,</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><sup><span style="background: white;"> </span></sup></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">poor</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">,</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">blind</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">,</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">and</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">naked</span></span><span class="netverse"><span style="background: white;">,</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span></span><span class="s"><span style="background: white;">take my advice… Revelation 3:15-18a (NET)</span></span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
After making mention that their practice
had Him displeased to the point of using the imagery of vomiting, Jesus is
reported to have gone on to say, “Because you say, ‘I am rich and have acquired
great wealth, and need nothing’” (Revelation 3:17a). Since hot, cold, and
lukewarm are being employed for purposes of tangible and easily understandable
geographical reference, so too should this statement be comprehended in the
same manner. Accordingly, whatever it is in which the church is engaged
is somehow tied to wealth. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The usual interpretation has the
Laodiceans over-confident in regard to spiritual wealth, and unable to
recognize their spiritual bankruptcy. Of course, that usual
interpretation follows hard on the treatment of hot, cold, and lukewarm as
spiritual epithets rather than the geographical indicators leading to an
understanding centered on the practice of the church community that would have
been readily grasped by those who would be receiving the letter. There is
no initial need to spiritualize here, and one should resist the ingrained
desire to do so. Spiritual analysis and application can and should come
later, once Jesus’ words are understood in context. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With just a little bit of
digging, one finds that this is not a subtle reference to a supposed
self-righteousness or smug satisfaction with a wealth of spiritual gifts.
Again, the readers of the letter would have to be able to understand what John
is writing (and Jesus is saying) within their context in order for it to make
sense to them, for it to have meaning, and for it to be productive of Jesus’
desired ends. If a hermeneutic (method of interpretation) has been
carefully established, in a way that keeps in mind that there are real church
communities with real people receiving these very real and obviously important
communications, it is possible to engage and understand these words from Jesus,
as well as the words that lead up to Jesus speaking of standing and knocking
(though not in this study), quite easily and altogether profitably. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though Laodicea was located on a
major road, Laodicea was a place of little importance in its early
history. This changed under the first few Roman emperors. During
this time, Laodicea began to benefit from its location on a major road, and
thus a major trade route, in time becoming one of the most important and
flourishing cities of Asia Minor. Among other things, a specialization in
large financial transactions sprung up in Laodicea, and it would also become
important in the textile industry. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The area in which it was located also suffered from
earthquakes. One especially strong earthquake occurred in 60AD,
destroying the city completely. In that time, earthquakes were just as
common as they are today, but of course, buildings were not constructed to be
earthquake proof, so the general result of significantly powerful earthquakes
would be the complete destruction of the cities in the effected regions.
During the time of Roman domination, most cities destroyed by earthquake would
quickly appeal to Rome to provide funds and resources to assist in rebuilding
as quickly as possible. This would be especially true for cities on major
trade routes, and likely even more true of Laodicea, considering the city’s
role in the financial arena. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-18493035437846017862014-12-20T13:45:00.000-08:002014-12-20T13:45:47.141-08:00Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 5 of 5)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Beyond the fact that
the meal is taking place at the house of a leper (though one may be tempted to
imagine that the meal is taking place at Lazarus’ house because it is said
“they prepared a dinner for Jesus there” (Mark 12:2), the “there” must be a
reference to Bethany), when folding in the details from the Gospel of John, one
is now urged to look a second time at the fact that Martha was serving.
Martha is not only serving, but she, a wealthy woman like her sister (who can
afford to “waste” a valuable amount of perfume), is serving in the house of a
leper. This is unthinkable in that day. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Clearly, Simon is
somebody that is further down the social scale from Lazarus, Martha, and Mary,
so the fact that a more noble member of society is serving in the house of
somebody that is “beneath them,” is a radical shake-up in the normal social
order, though such things seem to be quite commonplace with Jesus. It is
the presence of Jesus, and that alone, that is bringing this unthinkable
occurrence to pass. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The social mobility
of modern times (for a large part of the world), along with the casual mixing
of classes that makes it impossible to positively and concretely identify one’s
socioeconomic status was unknown in the ancient world. Various aspects of
the culture, especially the setting of meals and banquets, revealed social
status in no uncertain terms. The fact that this is so foreign to most people
causes results in missing these aspects that would have stood out in the early
years of the church. One tends to read past these things, whereas a time
and a culture that is thoroughly accustomed to these things and ordered around
meals, would have had very strong reactions and opinions associated with what
was being seen in Jesus’ actions and what was being communicated by the church
about Jesus’ actions. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A prominent feature
of this story is that Mark makes it a point to mention that Jesus is dining at
the house of a leper named Simon. For some reason, Lazarus is absent from
Matthew and Mark’s story, and of course, is absent from any Gospel save that of
John. Though Lazarus’ lack of any presence at all in Matthew, Mark, and
Luke is bizarre (to say the least), it is Simon who is conspicuous by his
absence from the telling in John. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though Simon is not
present in John, Lazarus, though he is famous and people are coming to see
Jesus on account of him, is not presented as the honored guest. He does
not take the place of Simon, but is presented merely as “among those present at
the table with Him” (John 12:2b). Lazarus is just another guest, Martha
is serving, and Mary is (according to John’s record, wiping Jesus’ feet with
her hair---which brings its own provocative considerations that are beyond the
pale of this study). There is a dynamic at work here with this particular
meal that should serve to provide structure for any thoughts and considerations
of Jesus’ kingdom message.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-47235054861148724912014-12-20T07:17:00.000-08:002014-12-20T07:17:44.130-08:00Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 4)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
This account of Jesus
dining at the house of Simon the leper provides a bit more detail. Here,
the reader is informed that “six days before Passover,” (thus answering the
question as to whether or not Jesus had adequate time to complete purification
rituals before celebrating Passover---so Jesus (the Messiah) went to the cross
in a state of ritual impurity, and the early church was unconcerned with this aspect
of the story, though it would have certainly attributed to the scandalous,
stumbling-block nature of the message of Jesus) “Jesus came to Bethany, where
Lazarus lived, whom He has raised from the dead. So they prepared a
dinner for Jesus there. Martha was serving, and Lazarus was among those
present at the table with Him” (John 12:1-2). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If one did not have
the stories of Matthew and Mark, when reading this story in John it would be
possible to get the sense that Jesus is dining in the house of Lazarus, Martha,
and Mary. If He was doing so, that would be quite understandable.
Lazarus had, quite naturally, become famous. Many people, as John reports
few verses later, came to this house to see both Jesus and Lazarus
(12:9). Not only that, there are indications that the family may have had
some wealth, and therefore may have been an honored family within the
community, with that indication being the fact that Mary had the costly perfume
with which to anoint Jesus, and the fact that the gathered guests make mention
of “the poor,” with the words themselves ringing out and serving as an
indication of the dichotomy that existed between the poor and those that were
joining Jesus at this meal. However, this meal is not taking place at the
house of the now-famous-and-potentially-wealthy Lazarus, but rather, at the
house of Simon the leper. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the ancient world,
it was customary for a community to receive a famous and honored individual
into their midst with great pomp and ceremony. Often, a delegation from
the community would go outside their town, meet the arriving person of
prominence, and accompany them back to their locale. This is referred to
as a “parousia”. There are several examples of parousia in the life of
Jesus, and even one when He goes to Bethany to raise Lazarus from the
dead. There is no record of Jesus being received in this way upon this
visit to Bethany, but one can imagine that such an event took place, as His
fame could only have grown as Lazarus continued to live amongst the
people. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a part of the
reception, there would be a determination made as to which member or family of
the community was the most worthy and important individual, in the best
position to accept the dignitary into their house, most capable of reflecting
favorably on the larger community so as to give the best possible impression to
the honored guest, and able to bring honor to the whole of the community in the
process. As was said, it would have been a natural choice, owing to
previous events, for Lazarus to host Jesus in Bethany. The fact that
Jesus loved Lazarus and His sisters would have contributed to this more than
natural arrangement. However, it is Simon the leper that receives the
honor of hosting a meal for Jesus. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Whether this is the
choice of the community or Jesus’ choice one is left to wonder, but what is
clear is that one who would normally be marginalized and even ostracized in the
community for a variety of reasons is the one that has this honor. If the
story of Zaccheus (as a prime example of Jesus choosing His own host) is any
indication, it is likely that it is Jesus that has made the choice of meal
location, but it is not something about which one can be dogmatic. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-71529937777904434202014-12-18T14:01:00.000-08:002014-12-18T14:01:07.808-08:00Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 3)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
As Mark is written
within the confines of the early church that found itself immersed within much
knowledge of the historical Jesus, along with resounding and powerful traditions
about Him that would clearly have weighed heavily upon them in the area of
practice, it is right to call attention to the marked contrast between what can
be observed here in Mark and what one finds presented in a situation in the
Gospel of John (which is also written during a time and within a community
steeped in first-hand knowledge of Jesus). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In John, after Jesus’
arrest and initial questioning by Annas and Caiaphas, “they brought Jesus from
Caiaphas to the Roman governor’s residence” (John 18:28a). The author
then reports that “They did not go into the governor’s residence”
(18:28c). Why did they not go in? It was “so they would not be
ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal” (18:28d). A stark
contrast indeed. In Mark, Jesus dines with a leper, sitting on his
furniture and sharing a table with him in complete disregard of established
custom, clearly communicating truths about the kingdom of the Creator God and
about the nature of His own rule of that kingdom through what He was knowingly
and consciously doing. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When these two
accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry include such stories, both are making
points that are not easily dismissed. One account represents separation
and exclusion, whereas the other highlights inclusion --- pointing to a highly
necessary aspect of ecclesiology. John’s account of a concern to not
become ritually impure before the commencement of Passover is useful because it
points up the high level of seriousness with which such things were taken at
the time. For the sake of rabbinic credibility, and especially that of a
rabbi that carried and stoked messianic expectations, issues of impurity would
have been a concern. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With no real record
of time, and no textual sense of time between His certain contracting of
ceremonial impurity while at this house and the celebration of Passover with
His disciples, it would appear to His fellow members of the house of Israel
that Jesus has, in fact, presided over a Passover (His last supper) celebration
while he found Himself in a state of impurity. With what one must presume
is a well-founded grasp of this information, Mark demonstrates a complete lack
of concern in this area, and instead presents this picture of Jesus that is
stocked with a great deal of implications for those, both inside and outside of
ethnic and national Israel, who call or will come to call Him Lord. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are other quite
significant points to be made. One of those points has to do with the
fact that Jesus has chosen to dine in this particular house. Calling upon
the Gospel of John for assistance, one is reminded that Bethany is the place of
Lazarus’ residence. In chapter twelve of John, it appears that the reader
is presented with a story (unless there was another story about Jesus being
anointed with costly oil, the action being criticized as wasteful, and Jesus
criticizing the criticizers and commending the “waste”) that is based upon the
same meal as that which is reported in the fourteenth chapter of Mark. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-29351936212978813372014-12-17T08:03:00.000-08:002014-12-17T08:03:38.605-08:00Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom of God (part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the same chapter, when Jesus stands before the Sanhedrin,
Mark writes that “Some stood up and gave this false testimony against Him: ‘We
heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this Temple made with hands and in three days
build another not made with hands.’” (Mark 14:57-58) The author punctuates
this with “Yet even on this point their testimony did not agree” (14:59), but
He is clearly cognizant of and counting on an awareness of what must have been
the well-known Jesus tradition recounted in the Gospel of John (not relying on
John, as Mark came first, but what would have been the oral and possibly
written Jesus tradition), in which Jesus says, “Destroy this Temple and in
three days I will raise it up again” (2:19). Shortly thereafter, John helpfully
provides the gloss on Jesus’ words by informing the reader that “Jesus was
speaking about the Temple of His body” (2:21). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When all of this is taken together, the reader sees a widow
giving all that she has (which is an almost worthless amount) to a Temple that
is going to fall, which is ultimately a wasteful action, whereas the woman with
the alabaster box gives something of immense value in recognition of the One
that is the eternal Temple, causing the onlookers to refer to this as a
wasteful action. Jesus makes it clear that it is the former (the widow’s
gift) that was wasteful (and tragic), whereas the latter was “a good service”
(14:6b), and therefore not wasteful. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because the stories in the
Gospels demand to be heard within Jesus’ pronouncement that the kingdom of the
Creator God is at hand, one must ascertain what this has to do with Jesus’
kingdom understanding. It is by this that Jesus addresses the prevalent
and apparently incorrect understanding that the kingdom of His God would be
centered in Jerusalem, with all nations coming to its Temple to offer worship
to Israel’s God. Jesus makes it quite clear that even though they were
correct in believing that all nations would in fact come to worship the Creator
God by means of the Temple, that Temple by which this God would be worshiped,
in recognition of His kingdom, would be Himself
(Jesus). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To go along with the
interesting theological Temple dynamic that has been inserted into the
narrative here in chapters twelve and fourteen of Mark’s Gospel, the place of
the meal in which Jesus is engaged and at which He is anointed, as He says,
“for burial” (14:8), is the house of “Simon the leper” (14:3). Yes, Jesus
is dining at the home of a leper, and therefore dining at the home of one whose
entire existence is one of impurity in relation to Jewish law and custom. Simon would definitely have found himself at
the lower end of the honor and shame social spectrum, if not outside of it altogether
as one unable to even compete for honor. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a leper, Simon
would stand almost completely outside the social order, as he would translate
ritual impurity to those who came into contact with him. In the eyes of
those that were in a position to observe this meal, Jesus Himself would have
fallen into ritual impurity, and amazingly, within Mark’s narrative, Jesus can
be seen doing this immediately before Passover. Though He is looked upon
as a respected rabbi within Israel at this point in time, Jesus apparently
finds Himself unconcerned with the perceptions. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-18337831164368664722014-12-16T16:24:00.000-08:002014-12-16T16:24:46.981-08:00Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now while Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the
leper, reclining at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of costly
aromatic oil from pure nard. After breaking open the jar, she poured it
on his head. – Mark 14:3 (NET)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Jesus is at a meal table.
Though there is not an explicit mention of a meal taking place, based on what
is presented in the text it is appropriate to infer that a meal is taking place.
Mark writes that Jesus was “reclining at the table” (14:3b). This is a
clear indication that Jesus is participating in yet another meal, as it informs
the reader that Jesus is utilizing a dining couch rather than an upright chair,
and that He has most likely assumed the traditional posture of laying on the
couch, propped up on one elbow, with His head near the table and His feet at
the end of the couch away from the table. Because this presents a much better
picture of Jesus’ posture, it is then possible to form a more complete picture
of what took place at this table. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is said that there was a
woman “with an alabaster jar of costly aromatic oil from pure nard. After
breaking open the jar, she poured it on His head” (14:3c). The text
indicates that the woman did not stop with Jesus’ head, but might very well
have poured out the perfume over the whole of His body, because Jesus, when
some present scoffed at what was perceived to be a waste of a costly item that
could have been sold, with the money given to the poor, responded by saying,
“She has done a good service for Me… She did what she could. She anointed
My body before burial” (14:6b,8). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is an interesting dynamic
that is at play here, having to do with the context in which Mark sets this
event. Though there is an intervening chapter of prophetic apocalyptic
speech (pulling back the veil) by Jesus (Mark 13), the previous event that is
recorded by Mark is that of Jesus observing the crowds making their offerings
at the Temple. While observing this activity, Jesus sees a poor widow who
“came and put in two small copper coins” (12:42b), saying “I tell you the
truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others…
she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had”
(12:43b,44b). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Following that, Jesus goes on to tell His disciples that the
very Temple to which this widow gave the last of what she had “will be torn
down” (13:2b). It would be difficult for the disciples not to draw the
conclusion that the offering made by this poor widow, sacrificing all that she
had for that which was going to be destroyed, was itself quite a waste.
From there, in terms of the presentation of events, Mark moves directly to the
meal at which Jesus is present, and to the breaking open of the alabaster jar
for the purpose of anointing His body, with the indignant insistence that this
was nothing but a waste. However, Mark is making a point related to the
fact that Jesus saw Himself as the true Temple of God that would stand
eternally, so that nothing offered to it could possibly be considered a waste
(unlike the widow’s tragic offering). <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5189295338958833820.post-49607343870506796752014-12-16T09:59:00.000-08:002014-12-16T09:59:36.164-08:00Hot, Cold & Lukewarm (part 6 of 6)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the United States
of America, mention can be made of the “city that never sleeps,” or “the windy
city.” Those that are accustomed to operating within the social context
of the United States, know that these are references to New York city and
Chicago. This is not limited to the United States, but is a common
practice the world over. One could use phrases such as “city of lights,”
or “the eternal city,” in full knowledge that the user is making reference to
Paris and Rome. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Singapore, in
southeast Asia, is sometimes referred to as “the fine country.” Upon
first glance, this appears to be a positive appellation, expressing a
subjective sentiment not unlike the way that is traditionally applied when
confronted with the “lukewarm” of Laodicea. However, upon further
examination, though Singapore is indeed a fine city-state, this use of “fine”
is connected to the fact that the government of Singapore, in its efforts to
keep the country clean, civil and highly organized, levies fines for littering,
spitting, or chewing gum in public. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
An analogy here is
probably useful. In the United States, the city of Cleveland is roughly
the midway point between Chicago and New York (much like Laodicea is roughly
midway between Hierapolis and Colossae). If somebody wanted to address
the city of Cleveland, encouraging the residents to order their lives or engage
in activities more akin to the goings-on in New York or Chicago for which there
is a high level of notoriety (say in the area of theatre), one might write
something like, “I know your deeds, you are sleeping and lacking wind. I
wish you were either not asleep or windy! So because you are mistaken, I
am going to vomit you out of my mouth!” (“Mistaken” because one of the
not-so-flattering nicknames of Cleveland is “the mistake on the lake”)
Given proper context, the residents of Cleveland would take this as a message
that they needed to improve their offerings in the area of theatre, and would
most definitely not understand it to be an indication that they needed to sleep
less or construct windmills. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This initially
subjective usage that becomes, upon further examination, highly objective, is
quite similar to what has been discovered when it comes to the information
being conveyed in Revelation’s letter to Laodicea. Clearly, the terms in
use are not meant to convey any sense of morality or spiritual state, but are
common identifiers. On the other hand, there are nicknames that do have
negative connotations. One such nickname would be “sin city.” A
socially and culturally aware reader today (like that which would be expected
in first century Asia Minor) would immediately think “Las Vegas.” In the
time of Jesus and His apostles, “sin city” would have been the nickname of
Corinth, in Greece. These examples (Las Vegas and Corinth) have obvious
moral judgments attached to them, but one does not see that with the names
associated with New York, Chicago, Paris, or Rome. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So to put this lack
of moral judgment associated with city identifiers into the context of the
letter to Laodicea, which now seems to be pointing more logically towards
identifiable activities and practices within the churches of the region
(Hierapolis, Laodicea, and Colossae) that would have been well known to the
other churches (as information seemed to be able to flow freely between and
amongst those churches, as indicated by what Paul writes to the Colossians), it
would appear that one is no longer looking at a contrast. Rather, the
three temperature-related terms can now be understood as applying in reference
to what was taking place in those churches, with a certain activity of
Hierapolis and Colossae being approved by the Creator God, whereas the related
activity in Laodicea has Jesus indicating violent illness. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
With this, it is now
possible to rightly discard any idea that “hot or cold” are in anyway related
to “good or bad” in a subjective or ethereal sense of spiritual condition.
It seems much more proper to think along the lines of both hot water and cold
water as useful (with specific and identifiable practices of the Hierapolis and
Colossae churches being useful within Christ’s kingdom and its proclamation),
whereas lukewarm water is useless (with a specifically identifiable practice of
the church at Laodicea failing to serve the purposes of the Christ as opposed
to what was rightly taking place in the “hot” or “cold” churches --- “I wish
you were either hot or cold”). Understanding the message in this way will
be far more useful, as believers will eventually end up not being left to
wonder whether they are hot, cold, or lukewarm based on either a subjective
self-examination or the subjective examination of a self-appointed (on both
ends of the relationship) spiritual authority that will generally be partially
informed and unfortunately biased. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Byrdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02068059289806215733noreply@blogger.com0