Pisteos International Daily

Peter & The Temple (part 1 of 4)

2012-02-13T09:55:00.001-08:00

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; when it comes, the heavens will disappear with a horrific noise, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze, and the earth and every deed done on it will be laid bare. – 2 Peter 3:10 (NET)

It should be obvious, from its central place in the synoptic Gospel narratives (Matthew twenty-four, Mark thirteen, Luke twenty-one), that Jesus’ assertion concerning the fall of the Temple and all that would surround that fall, occupied a prominent place in the message of the early church. Is such an assertion in regards to the thoughts and concerns of the earliest Christ-followers, as they sought to present their Lord to the world, pure conjecture? Is there any scriptural basis, or any evidence from the time period of the early church upon which to base this conjecture and its related assertions? The second letter of Peter presents an interesting case. Now, this will not be an open and shut case by any means. This is conjecture, and we are far from being dogmatic, especially considering the questions that surround the composition of the letter itself.

Second Peter is something of a mystery. There are many that insist that it is a composition of the Apostle Peter himself, while there are just as many that insist that it is a composition by another individual, composed well after the time of his death. If it was composed by Peter, then according to the traditions about the dating of Peter’s death, which is said to have occurred in the mid-to-late sixties, it had to have been written before the fall of the Temple, which took place in the year seventy. If we adopt the mindset that the prediction about the fall of the Temple, which would coincide with the Son of Man receiving His kingdom from the Ancient of Days and which Jesus said was going to be seen by the generation to which He was speaking (the universal assertion of the synoptic Gospels), was a crucial component of the message about Jesus, greatly serving to validate the message about Him, then we are provided with an interesting backdrop by which we are able to view a portion of second Peter. If our conjecture is not too terribly wide of the mark, this may actually perform a role in the ongoing debate about authorship and time frame for the letter.

So, if the letter was composed by Peter before the fall of the Temple, and if we believe that the fall of the Temple (and all that goes along with that) is crucial to the message of Jesus, and if the ongoing presence of the Temple in the decades following the uttering of Jesus’ words, in light of the fact that the traditions about Jesus included His well-understood prediction that the Temple would fall relatively soon, the fact that the Temple remained standing would have been a major thorn in the side of the young church community. The Temple would practically mock their allegiance to Jesus (who would be little more than a false prophet, perhaps rightly executed based on His words and actions in and around the Temple, not to mention His words to the high priest, if the Temple continued to stand).

With that in mind, we make note of much of the third chapter of Peter’s second letter with a renewed interest and focus. Beginning in the third verse we can read: “Above all, understand this: In the last days blatant scoffers will come,” understanding quite well what is meant by the “last days” (for a Jew, this is not the “end of the world,” but rather the days before the kingdom of heaven comes, essentially, the time before the Son of Man receives His kingdom according to a Daniel seven framework), “being propelled by their own evil urges and saying, ‘Where is His promised return?” (3:3-4a – this “return” would not be a return to earth, but the return of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom, now having taken shape around the man that referred to Himself as the Son of Man, as it demands to be heard within what would have been the popular context of Daniel seven).

Continuing the scoffing towards the claims of the Christians, and especially the claims concerning the Temple, with a still-standing Temple serving to counterfeit all other claims being made about Jesus, including His Resurrection, we hear “For ever since our ancestors died,” thinking about Jesus’ assertion (reported identically in the synoptic Gospels as part of Jesus’ answer about the time of the fall of the Temple) that this generation will not pass away until all these things take place, “all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation” (3:4b). While the church claimed that God had acted dramatically within history to resurrect Jesus, to which the church then pointed as the evidence of the beginning of the renewal of God’s creation, even not-so-keen observers could scoff at this remark, offering up the insistence that things are continuing pretty much as they have always been. To wit, the Temple stands and Israel is under foreign domination---Israel’s God has not acted decisively to put down the enemies of Israel, so Israel, and therefore all creation, continues to suffer under evil.

In response to the scoffing, the author appears to remind them of the days of Noah, in which God initially warned Noah about the pending judgment (as we think about the judgment that Jesus pronounced in the Temple, the carrying out of that judgment by the Romans in the year seventy, and the judgment rendered in favor of the saints of the Most High God when the Son of Man receives His kingdom, which Jesus linked to the fall of the Temple), but withheld the watery judgment of the earth for what appears to be at least one hundred years (and possibly one hundred twenty years), writing “For they deliberately suppress this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water. Through these things the world existing at that time was destroyed when it was deluged with water. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, by being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” (3:5-7). In this light, we can consider that Matthew, in the course of his presentation about the fall of the Temple that is linked to the coming (to the Ancient of Days) of the Son of Man, has Jesus speaking about Noah, with “For just like the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be” (24:37). Thus, the link between the Peter letter and Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse and assertions about the fall of the Temple and the coming of the Son of Man (which includes thoughts about the establishment of the kingdom of heaven), gains significant plausibility.

Temples Old & New

2012-02-12T16:51:00.001-08:00

Remember, I have told you ahead of time. – Matthew 24:24 (NET)

It is quite likely that, as the message of Jesus went forth and as the church presented itself, through and in union with their risen Lord, as the new Temple, that Jesus’ words about the fall of the Temple that was to take place relatively soon had an important place in talk of Him. Why would this not be the case? It would be odd if this was not the situation at hand. Why can such a thing be said? Well, we have to consider the question in accordance with the fact that the issue of Jesus, as Messiah, was a primarily a Jewish issue. Salvation for the world was to be through the Jews, and any proper understanding of the role of the Messiah cannot be divorced from the history of Israel and God’s role for His chosen people. Why would the Jews, especially, whose lives were oriented around the Temple, shift their allegiance from the Temple (and therefore the God represented by the Temple) to Jesus? It is a legitimate question. If they had the Temple, then why would they need to seek God in some other place or person?

However, if the Temple fell, as Jesus predicted it would, and if the message about Jesus and about His words included the insistence that Jesus was, in fact, the new Temple, that the Temple continued in those that believed in Him as Messiah (as the place in which God, by His Spirit, truly dwelled), that God had raised Him from the dead, and that He was the Son of Man that had now gone before the Ancient of Days and received the power of the long-awaited kingdom of God, then a shift in allegiance would be a very natural thing to occur. If the Temple fell, and did so in line with Jesus’ predictions, and if it was all tied-up with Jesus’ ministry, His crucifixion, His Resurrection, His ascension, the witness of the church, and the coming of the Son of Man to receive kingdom authority, then it would be more than clear that God had acted just as decisively within history as He had when the Temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians.

If the Temple had come to its end, and if the person that had predicted such a thing, who had been said to have been raised from the dead by God, was also reported to have insisted that He received His kingdom in conjunction with that, which is the strident insistence of Jesus in Matthew (chapter twenty-four), Mark (chapter thirteen), and Luke (chapter twenty-one) as He speaks about the fall of the Temple and then answers His disciples’ questions concerning that fall and then explains how they will be able to know when it will happen along with will be associated with it (the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days in reference to Daniel seven), then it would make all the sense in the world to travel all the way down that path, worshiping Him and honoring Him as so deserved. Of course, historically, we know that the actions of Gentile Christians did much to dissuade the Jews from traveling that path.

It would be one thing to go and preach a risen Lord. That would be a matter of meta-physical speculation and, when you get right down to it, faith. It would be quite another to go and preach a risen Lord, with a desire to accurately share the message that He preached, speaking about God’s kingdom coming through Him, with that tied to the fall of the Temple, while the Temple of Jerusalem still stood. With a clear understanding that Jesus did, in fact, predict the fall of the Temple, then it may very well have been the most important issue at hand in confirming the witness of the early church. The destruction of the Temple, with it occurring within the time frame that Jesus very clearly gave in one of His most straightforward answers, and as it appears that this is actually something that He must have said (otherwise it would not be so stringently reported and insisted upon by the Gospel authors), would be the thing that, rightly and understandably, gave weight to all other claims about Jesus.

Frankly, if He was truly going to be considered as a legitimate prophet, then the Temple had to come crashing down, as He did. It would be one thing to predict such a thing in a time of relative peace and stability under the Romans, and another thing altogether to insist upon such an occurrence when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies and the Jews are in the process of open rebellion against Rome. Here, we think about Jesus’ statement that many would come in His name (Messiah, Son of Man, etc…), claiming to be the messiah (Matthew 24:5), in the midst of wars and rumors of wars. We think about His talk about people saying “Look, here is the Christ!” or “There He is!”, while adding that those that say such things during times of duress are not be believed (as it is only natural to make predictions about the possible destruction of the Temple when the Jews are in open revolt against Rome). So when Jesus says “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (24:24), and then adds, “Remember, I have told you ahead of time” (24:25), we are able to make better sense of this.

Jesus spoke about the fall of the Temple “ahead of time.” Yes, Jesus made His prediction in association with the time of relative peace and stability. This was risky stuff for Jesus. There is great faith on display. If He was to be held up as anything but a failed messianic pretender, then it was necessary for the Temple to be destroyed. The Resurrection only mattered if Jesus received His kingdom as the Son of Man, and He had very clearly said that He would come to His reign when the Temple fell.

This Generation (part 2 of 2)

2012-02-10T09:02:00.001-08:00

So, pausing here for a bit to consider the import and impact of the statement about that generation and their capacity to witness these things, we do so with clear and almost incontrovertible knowledge (if we are taking the Gospel narratives seriously and letting them speak to us rather than imposing our own notions on to them) that Jesus was referencing the fall of the Temple when He spoke in this manner. Would this really have been so clear to those that heard Him? Was this really and truly clear to His disciples? Were these words of Jesus unambiguously clear to the early church? It would seem so. The very fact that identical language is in use at this point in the records of the three evangelists, when such a thing cannot be said up until that point in the parallel passages in Matthew twenty-four, Mark thirteen and Luke twenty-one, goes a long, long way in informing us that Jesus’ disciples and the early church well understood what Jesus meant, taking this speech about the Temple and about the coming of the Son of Man quite seriously. Indeed, it would appear that a great amount of weight was placed on these words.

This, in fact, when we get right down to it, is one of very few places where we see Jesus offering up a prediction, then trumpeted by those that believed in Him, that could be empirically verified and tested by a watching world. Yes, He often speaks about His pending death and Resurrection, but it is with these words about the Temple that He pushes His predictions (prophecies if you will) into a time in the future, with a determinate end-point (i.e. this generation). Now, one could argue that these words, as recorded in the Gospels, did not actually come from Jesus, and that they are interpolations by later authors, placing words in Jesus’ mouth. However, the univocal witness of the Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as Jesus reaches this point in His discourse about the Temple, forces us to consider that there was an expectation, throughout the time following Jesus’ ascension, that the Temple needed to fall in order for Jesus to receive a full and final validation as a prophet.

If we think about it, this makes a great deal of sense. Jesus was painting Himself into a corner, relying on Israel’s prophetic tradition and demanding that He be judged in the same way that all prophets were judged---based on the verifiability of their predictions and assertions. In His actions in the Temple, Jesus presents Himself in the mold of Jeremiah, making reference to His very words. We know that Jeremiah would have been lambasted as a false prophet, held up to scorn rather than honor, if His prophecies did not come to pass. The same would have been true of Jesus. Would anybody listen to Him, or have any use for Him, if the one distant prediction that He made, which was well understood to be a prediction about the demise of the Temple within the lifetimes of many of His hearers, did not occur? One would think that the answer to that question would be in the negative.

Certainly, the Resurrection was and is vital. However, those that witnessed and interacted with the risen Jesus following His Resurrection were limited in number. Accordingly, skepticism towards such a claim would be natural and completely understandable, as people simply did not come back to life, especially after undergoing a Roman crucifixion (nor survive such an ordeal). While Jesus obviously staked a great deal of validation on His Resurrection, He also appears to have staked a great deal on the fall of the Temple as well. If Jesus staked much on this claim, then His church could do no less. Not only did He claim that the Temple would fall, but perhaps more importantly, as it concerns the church that would follow Him, He claimed that when the Temple fell, He, as the Son of Man, would go before the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom, power, and authority. Is this not important?

Now, glimpsing into very early Christianity to see how the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus was being interpreted in accordance with first-hand knowledge and the developing oral Jesus tradition, and mindful of Jesus’ statements concerning the still-standing-but-judged-by-His-words-and-actions Temple and His references to the Son of Man, it could be said that we get a sense of this way of thinking in the first chapter of Romans, as Paul declares that Jesus “was appointed Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the Resurrection from the dead” (1:4a).

The letter to the Romans, of course, was written between the Resurrection of Jesus and the fall of the Temple. If the early Christians knew that Jesus had staked His claim on the fall of the Temple, linking its fall with His receiving of His kingdom, then we can easily hear this as Paul speaking about this appointment as an appointment-in-waiting, expecting the validation to come (while also recognizing the importance of Son of God language in the history of Israel, alongside the knowledge that the Roman emperor was referred to as the son of god). We can also imagine Him being quite confident that the validation would come, especially considering the reported fact that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to Paul, which was the basis for his dramatic transformation from persecutor of the church to its chief proponent, and the complete re-orientation of his life around the claims of Jesus.

This Generation (part 1 of 2)

2012-02-09T13:46:00.001-08:00

I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. – Matthew 24:34

When we look at the apocalyptic passages of Matthew (chapter twenty-four), Mark (chapter thirteen) and Luke (chapter twenty-one), we can note that though Matthew and Mark are nearly identical from their report of words concerning the gathering of the elect, to the mention of the fig tree, and on to the Son of Man being near and at the door, with Luke diverging slightly from that Matthean and Markan renderings, the three synoptic evangelists all go on to agree, word for word, with what Jesus has to say next. Matthew reports: “I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (24:34). This type of congruence, considering the regularity of differences that we encounter in the presentations, especially when comparing Matthew and Mark to Luke, should arrest our attention. Clearly, for the Gospel composers, reflecting the position of the early church community, much rested on these words.

What are we to make of these words? How would they have been heard? How should they be heard? Well, honestly, this is rather uncomplicated. We are called to reach back to what has premised all that Jesus is saying throughout this lengthy discourse which was set in motion by His triumphal entry, subsequent actions in the Temple, and all that took place in the Temple prior to His explicit leaving of the Temple. Doing so, we hear Matthew reporting that “as Jesus was going out of the Temple courts and walking away, His disciples came to show Him the Temple buildings” (24:1). Jesus says “Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!” (24:2) This is what prompted the disciples to say “Tell us, when will these things happen?” (24:3b)

Now, having progressed through His answer and speaking of all manner of calamity that will mark the lead-up to and culminate with the fall of the Temple, Jesus finally informs them that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” This is quite the specific statement. Jesus has said “the Temple will be torn down.” The disciples have asked “when?” Jesus effectively says, “Pretty soon. In fact, this generation will see it.” If we are willing to blind ourselves to pre-conceptions, make ourselves deaf to so many fanciful interpretations that have attempted to hold sway through the years, and inhabit the narrative as first century hearers shaped by the expectations that were the hallmark of Judaism rather than paganism, in order to hear Jesus speak, we find that this is about as straightforward of an answer as Jesus ever gives when a question has been on offer to Him. Frankly, there’s very little mystery here. In addition to that, our eyes and ears are drawn to the “these things” of the first and third verses of the twenty-fourth chapter, and the “these things” of the thirty-fourth verse of the chapter. The author’s presentation of this repetition, considering the fact that this dramatic story of the life of Jesus was most likely designed to be performed orally for a listening audience rather than designed to be consumed by a solitary reader, should clue us to in an explicit connection between the verses as part of this revealing and informative answer.

We can also consider Mark’s account of the disciples’ question, as he reports their asking “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that all these things are about to take place?” (13:4) In Luke, the disciples pose a similar question which differed from Matthew’s report, as there they instead went on to ask “what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age” (24:3c). Whereas Matthew has the disciples asking about the end of the age, neither Mark nor Luke render their question with such an appendage. Regardless, we do not allow ourselves to think of “end of the age” as end of the world, as this had no place in the Jewish mindset. The Jewish worldview expected a restoration of the creation by its Creator. They looked for an end of the present age, marked by the continual disfigurement of the once good creation, to be replaced by the age of God’s just rule, with this effected through His covenant people Israel.

Furthermore, this question was not making reference to Jesus’ return to earth, as He was there with them, had gone nowhere, and if He was truly the Messiah (and He was making Himself out to be), His disciples, as demonstrated by how they are presented in the story, certainly were not expecting Him to die. Rightfully then, we bear in mind that their question was ensconced in a worldview shaped by the presentation of Daniel seven, as the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom, thus ending the present age and ushering in the age in which God exercises dominion through the Son of Man. The “coming” to which they refer is the earth to heaven movement of the Son of Man.

With all these thoughts on the table and shaping our perception, how then should this statement by Jesus be heard? The answer is “as plainly as possible.” When Jesus says that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place,” making reference to the fall of the Temple, as this is the question that He has been asked (putting out of our minds any erroneous thoughts concerning the end of the age as the end of the world, and the coming of the Son of Man as a return to earth, neither of which has any place here), what He means is that this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Jesus is informing His hearers that the Temple will fall during the lifetimes of many of those that were listening to Him speak at that moment. Seeing as how the Temple actually did fall in the year seventy, with not one stone left upon another, and with this taking place roughly forty years beyond the time of His speech, it seems that He was right. As we contemplate that, let us also remember that Jesus was very clear in His insistence that the fall of the Temple would coincide with “the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (24:30b).

Redemption's Arrival

2012-02-08T15:25:00.001-08:00

Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. – Matthew 24:30 (NET)

After speaking about the arrival of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven, which is a heaven to earth movement of the Son of Man that is taken from the imagery on offer in the seventh chapter of Daniel and which is determinative for the mindset of a first century Jew, as the Son of Man goes before the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom (power and glory), Jesus says “And He will send His angels with a loud trumpet blast and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (24:31). Because our attention has been called to Daniel’s seventh chapter, it would not be inappropriate to hear these words about the gathering of the elect amidst the falling echoes of the kingdom-of-God-laced words about the Son of Man found there in Daniel.

Doing so, we reflect on words such as “While I was watching, that horn began to wage war against the holy ones,” who are God’s elect people, “and was defeating them, until the Ancient of Days arrived and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of the Most High. Then the time came for the holy ones to take possession of the kingdom” (Daniel 7:21-22). It is not impossible to hear Jesus’ words about the gathering of the elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other, as an approximation of these words from Daniel, especially if Jesus is using veiled language to say that which He cannot overtly say because of the political ramifications of what would be properly construed as subversive messiah-speak (talk of kingship). Likewise, since this judgment in favor of the holy ones occurs in conjunction with the report of the Son of Man’s actions in Daniel, why would this not be that to which Jesus is making reference here in Matthew (along with Mark and Luke)? Indeed, it would seem incongruous to think that Jesus is referring to anything else or drawing any other connection.

While Matthew uses language identical to Mark, Luke, though presenting the apocalyptic words of Jesus with marked differences, makes things a bit more obvious for his audience. There we find, “And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth nations will be in distress, anxious over the roaring of the sea and the surging waves. People will be fainting from fear and from the expectation of what is coming on the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man arriving in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these things begin to happen, stand up and raise your heads, because you redemption is drawing near” (21:25-28). This use of “redemption” by Luke is crucial. Redemption, for a Jew, was equivalent to exodus. When God delivered His people from the power of Egypt, granting them exodus, that was a redemption. Any use of redemption would be rooted in thoughts of exodus. Redemption is that for which is prayed in the ninth chapter of Daniel.

When God brought the creation forth from its state of chaos, He was thought to have granted it an exodus, redeeming it from its own state of exile. When a large contingent of the tribe of Judah was dragged off to Babylon in exile from their homeland, it was redemption for which they longed. They looked for another exodus. Israel, in Jesus’ day, for the most part, sought redemption from Rome--- hopeful that God would grant them another exodus, even though that exodus would not involve them leaving their land of promise. A need for redemption, for exodus, implied conflict and oppression, and a situation from which God’s people needed to be delivered.

Without going into details of the variety of situations to which Luke may have been referring, it is undeniable that the reference to Daniel, followed by mention of redemption, must be equated to the Danielic insistence that the elect holy ones of the Most High were gathered together (as Matthew and Mark have Jesus saying) to possess the kingdom, and to have a role in that kingdom that was being granted to the Son of Man. We also make note of the fact that this mention of the coming to power of the Son of Man, with the gathering of the elect for redemption, takes place in concert with Jesus words concerning the fall of the Temple, which is the preface to all that Jesus has said to this point in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, the thirteenth chapter of mark, and the twenty-first chapter of Luke.

With this said, Jesus speaks about a fig tree. We do not need to go into any depth of detail here about the symbolism that may be at work here, though certainly the fact that there has previously been a fig tree that has figured in the Temple-related narratives of Matthew and Mark is called to mind. This, however, would not be the case for Luke, as he makes no mention of Jesus’ words toward the fig tree and its withering away. Regardless, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all report this mention of the fig tree as part of Jesus’ discourse about the fall of the Temple. We hear Jesus through Matthew as He says “Learn this parable from the fig tree: Whenever its branch becomes tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near. So also you, when you see all these things, know that He is near, right at the door” (24:32-33).

What things? Obviously, it is all the things that have been mentioned that will signal, for Matthew, the coming of Jesus (as the Son of Man) to the Ancient of Days and the end of the age (the end of the present age and the beginning of the age in which God rules through His Messiah). That is, the “things” are messianic claims, wars, rumors of wars, nation rising against nation, famines, earthquakes, the abomination of desolation, and so on. These things are signals that “He is near, right at the door.” These things, which are connected to the Daniel-contexted coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days are related to the fall of the Temple, for Jesus speaks of all these things while answering His disciples questions about how they could know that the Temple was about to fall, as Jesus has said it is going to do.

He, of course, is the Son of Man, and He is right at the door, ready to go before the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom. When will this appearing before the Ancient of Days and the reception of a kingdom take place? When the Temple falls. That is the context, and we cannot allow ourselves to hear any of these words of Jesus in these three crucial chapters apart from that realization. Even though this will happen, and even though most would consider the fall of the Temple to be a horrific and cataclysmic event equivalent to the sun, moon, and stars falling from the sky and the world being rocked from its foundations, signaling God’s judgment upon Israel, it is actually to be understood as the time in which God renders His judgment against those that do battle against His people, establishing His kingdom reign through the Son of Man. We can see that Jesus here actually delivers a message of hopefulness. Helpfully, Luke again renders Jesus’ words with slight differences, there reporting Him as saying “So also you, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near” (21:31).

Jesus & The Language Of The Prophets (part 2 of 2)

2012-02-08T06:49:00.001-08:00

Jesus, like Isaiah, is employing apocalyptic imagery, vesting His words with the weight that He believes is due them, and doing it by utilizing the familiar words of one of Israel’s great prophets---words that came to pass and, owing to the fact that Israel had been in subjection to a foreign power and therefore under God’s continued judgment from that point on, served to define Israel’s existence to that very day.

If we disabuse ourselves of the notion that Jesus is somehow speaking about the end of the world (as the question from His disciples in Matthew is about “the end of the age,” which is not, for a Jew, an “end of the material world” concern or idea, whereas neither Mark nor Luke use “end of the age” but merely have the disciples posing the questions directly from Jesus’ statement that the Temple will fall---they ask, when will this happen?---thus the weight of the textual evidence falls on the side of the concerns presented by Mark and Luke), and have positioned ourselves as responsible hearers of His words and readers of the text, then we do not fall into that trap.

What we do hear Jesus saying, as He speaks unswervingly about the Temple---which is what He has been doing since His triumphal entry into Jerusalem---and as He builds upon the words and actions of judgment against the Temple and its regime that were delivered in the wake of that triumphal entry, is that the Temple, through its leadership and its power brokers, is corrupt and its purpose is going unfulfilled. For that reason then, God is going to bring judgment against it. God did it with the Babylonians, and now, given the situation then in existence, it is obvious that it is Rome that is going to perform the role of Babylon. Here is where we consider the Jesus tradition’s talk about Himself as a new Temple, along with the early church’s understanding, as reflected in its earliest written documents, that it was the church itself, through its participation in Christ, that was going to be functioning as God’s Temple going forward.

Jesus then goes on to link this judging event to the Son of Man’s coming to the Ancient of Days, adding “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven,” or the sky, “ and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (24:30). This is what follows His talk about the sun, the moon, the stars, and the powers of the heavens. Indeed, it will be an earth-shattering event, especially for the Jewish people, whose lives are oriented around the Temple and whose communal story is told in, around, and by the Temple. Beyond that, the Temple is also the repository of power in Israel, thus that which provides sense and order to life, as well as being the source of continued courage to stand against the Roman influence (partially owing to the fact that the Temple itself, in which there is no image of Caesar or of Rome unlike almost every other temple within the Roman empire, bears witness to Jewish resistance). We again remember that this language is part and parcel of Jesus’ response to His disciples query concerning His words about the fall of the Temple.

With this, Jesus references what would have been the very familiar and popular passage from Daniel seven, linking the time of the fall of the Temple to the time when the Son of Man receives His kingdom. Though we are not talking cause and effect, but rather, confirmation of Israel’s God having rendered His dual judgment concerning the Temple and the Son of Man (the old Temple having passed away), what or when is Jesus insisting will be the confirming sign that the Son of Man has received His kingdom and all power and authority? When the Temple falls. When will the Temple fall? When the Son of Man receives His kingdom and all power and authority. Again, we are not to look at this as a cause and effect, whereby the Son of Man (Jesus) does not gain all power and authority (as king of an eternal kingdom) at the time that the Temple falls, but rather, we look at this as Jesus giving His followers a confirming sign, with this being well and finally understood by those followers when the Temple was eventually cast down.

Finally, and with all of that said, because we are diligently and squarely focused on the Temple, and are also hearing things correctly as first-century Jews that are inhabiting the narrative, we are also able to successfully resist the temptation to see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven as a movement to earth, and instead, rightly understand it as the movement of an event in the heavenly realm, which, owing to the predominant Daniel seven imagery concerning the Son of Man, is the way that it would have been understood by Jesus’ original hearers.

Jesus & The Language Of The Prophets (part 1 of 2)

2012-02-07T15:17:00.001-08:00

Immediately after the suffering of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. – Matthew 24:29 (NET)

Jesus, who is unmistakably speaking about the fall of the Temple and the events that will surround that fall, as He continues to answer the question posed by His disciples of “When will these things happen?” (Matthew 24:3b), which was prompted by His own statement of “Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!” (24:2b), says “Immediately after the suffering,” or persecution, as it can also be translated, “of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken” (24:29).

With this, Jesus is quoting from Isaiah, primarily the thirteenth chapter (with allusions to the thirty-fourth chapter of Isaiah and the second chapter of Joel). Beginning in verse nine of that chapter, we read “Look, the Lord’s day of judgment is coming; it is a day of cruelty and savage, raging anger, destroying the earth and annihilating its sinners. Indeed the stars in the sky and their constellations no longer give out their light; the sun is darkened as soon as it rises, and the moon does not shine. I will punish the world for its evil, and wicked people for their sin. I will put an end to the pride of the insolent, I will bring down the arrogance of tyrants… So I will shake the heavens, and the earth will shake looks from its foundation, because of the fury of the Lord who commands armies, in the day He vents His raging anger” (13:9-11.13).

In this passage, as is the case in much of the work that bears the name, Isaiah is employing apocalyptic imagery. That is, he is not being literal, but rather, he is using language that will serve to inform all who hear that the events to come are going to be world-shaking, earth shattering happenings. We do this on a regular basis without giving it too much thought, when we say things like “that meal was out of this world,” or “that performance blew me away.” With this established, we realize that Jesus is using such language, which, for what it’s worth, is the same type of language in use in the book of Revelation, which is also known as “The Apocalypse.” Without digressing into that discussion, we note that the very name of that work informs us that apocalyptic, non-literal language is being used, though there are real events, real people, real churches, and real concerns being addressed and to which reference is being made.

Remaining focused on Isaiah, and taking in the context for what is on offer in the middle of that chapter, we see that the preface to what has been written is “This is a message about Babylon that God revealed to Isaiah son of Amoz” (13:1). In reference to Babylon, God revealed to Isaiah that “I have given orders to My chosen soldiers; I have summoned the warriors through whom I will vent my anger, my boasting, arrogant ones” (13:3). God’s soldiers and warriors are the Babylonians, and His anger is going to be vented against Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple. Those that experience God’s angry judgment, as far as Isaiah is concerned, are God’s very people. When Judah is overrun, Jerusalem is ravaged, and the Temple is destroyed, it will be as if the stars, the sun, and the moon have ceased to give their light. It will be as if the foundations of the earth have crumbled.

In the thirteenth verse, we note that Isaiah speaks of both the heavens and the earth, which we will hear Jesus doing in just a short while. This judgment from God, of course, came to pass. Babylon did conquer Judah, destroy Jerusalem and its Temple, and carry many off into captivity. We also know, quite obviously, that the stars, sun, and moon did not actually cease to give light and that the earth did not fall from its foundations. When we read this, and as we consider that Jesus’ hearers will understand the reference to Isaiah and to Babylon (and the judgment that God brought upon His people through Babylon) that He is making, we know that these images are not to be taken literally. This reminds us that we are not to take them literally when Jesus says them either. It is the judgment of God and the earthly happenings that such judgment portends that are to be taken literally.

All Will Be Torn Down (part 4 of 4)

2012-02-05T07:28:00.001-08:00

Jesus continues: “For nations will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these things are the beginning of birth pains” (24:7-8). If these things are the beginning of birth pains, what will be the result of those birth pains? Clearly, the answer, unless we allow ourselves to be diverted from the subject at hand, is the throwing down of the Temple. What else will be associated with these birth pains? In conjunction with all that Jesus has said will happen in the lead-up to the fall of the Temple, Jesus says “They will hand you over to be persecuted and will kill you. You will be hated by all nations because of My name. Then many will be led into sin, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will appear and deceive many, and because lawlessness will increase so much, the love of many will grow cold. But the person who endures to the end will be saved” (24:10-13). Yet again, here is another “end.” What is the “end”? The fall of the Temple. It is necessary to keep coming back to that point, for we are far too conditioned to let our minds wander to different ideas.

In conjunction with these Temple-related things that will occur, “this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole inhabited earth as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come” (24:14). The end, naturally, is the fall of the Temple. Lest we think that the Temple is somehow not in view, Jesus then goes on to say “So when you see the abomination of desolation---spoken about by Daniel the prophet---standing in the holy place” (24:15a). To this Matthew (and Mark) appends the editorial insertion of “let the reader understand,” thus indicating that this is an event of which those that are hearing or reading this discourse should be well aware (which also lets us know that these written works come from a time period after that of which Jesus speaks has already occurred).

The conclusion to Jesus’ thoughts about the abomination of desolation and the holy place is “then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. The one on the roof must not come down to take anything out of his house, and the one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing their babies in those days!” (24:16-19) Which days are those? The days in which the Temple is going to be thrown down, with not one stone left on top of another. Jesus, speaking to a Jewish audience that would be concerned with such things, adds “Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath” (24:20). Mark does not make mention of the Sabbath.

Ominously, Jesus continues, saying, “For then there will be great suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen. And if those days (i.e. the days in which the Temple will fall) had not been cut short, no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short” (24:21-22). For a people and a discourse heavily influenced by the seventh chapter of Daniel, this would sound a great deal like “While I was watching, that horn began to wage war against the holy ones and was defeating them, until the Ancient of Days arrived and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of the Most High” (7:21b-22a), which was prefaced by the promise that “The Holy ones of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will take possession of the kingdom forever and ever” (7:18).

Jesus then says “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (24:23-24). When will this occur? At the time that the Temple is going to fall. Jesus helpfully adds “Remember, I have told you ahead of time” (24:25). He then goes on to say “So then, if someone says to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe him. For just like the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so the coming of the Son of Man will be” (24:26-27). With this, Jesus links the coming of the Son of Man, which is not a heaven to earth coming, but a coming before the Ancient of Days, with all of these things that will portend and be associated with the fall of the Temple. If we are being true to the text, this fact is inescapable.

All Will Be Torn Down (part 3 of 4)

2012-02-04T10:54:00.001-08:00

What we have to do when we hear the disciples ask about Jesus’ coming, is hear them asking that question as first-century Jews whose mindsets were thoroughly influenced by the imagery on offer in the extraordinarily popular and influential work of Daniel. In the seventh chapter of Daniel, a vision is reported in which “with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching. He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before Him. To Him was given ruing authority, honor, and sovereignty. All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him. His authority is eternal and will not pass away. His kingdom will not be destroyed” (7:13b-14). In this vision, one like a son of man came to Ancient of Days. This is the coming to which the disciples make reference, and to which Jesus will make reference in His answer as reported by Matthew.

Is this a leap of logic and an unsupported assertion? Well, we have already discussed the issue of common sense, demonstrating that the disciples could not possibly have been asking Jesus about a coming to earth when He was already there, as there is nothing in the Gospel narratives to that point that would suggest that such a question would be appropriate or that such thinking would be warranted. The prevalence and popularity of Daniel in that time and culture compels us to hear talk of coming along the lines that it suggests, which was a coming before the Creator God of that one that represented Israel, that Israel might be delivered from those under which it suffers oppression. That, of course, was a primary concern of the day.

Matthew underscores the fact that Daniel is in mind and that it was an instructive work in that day, as later on, as Jesus answers the disciples’ question, He makes reference to Daniel, saying “So when you see the abomination of desolation---spoken about by Daniel the prophet” (24:15a). It is fascinating to make note that it is Matthew alone that has Jesus specifically naming the book of Daniel as part of His responsive discourse. Though Mark makes reference to it by mention of the abomination of desolation, there is no specific mention of Daniel. In Mark, it is the mention of the abomination of desolation that first calls Daniel to the mind of the hearer or reader, whereas the one hearing Matthew’s tale has already had Daniel called to mind by the mention of the signs of Jesus’ coming. It therefore makes sense that Matthew’s Jesus makes mention of Daniel, whilst Mark’s Jesus merely makes a reference. Both build on the crucial reference. For Matthew’s purposes, Jesus’ coming (not to earth but to the Ancient of Days) is what marks the end of the age (of Israel being oppressed, among other things) and is linked to the destruction of the Temple. He makes that explicit in the foreground, with his framing of the disciples’ question. This linkage is also found in Mark and Luke, but as we know, they do not have the disciples marking their query with a concern for the end of the age, so the connection between the two comes later in Jesus’ response to the question.

When we attempt to move along and listen to Jesus’ response to the disciples’ question, as they react to all that He has said and done in the Temple, we should not attempt to interpret and apply every statement that Jesus makes. Rather, we should listen to Him with the full realization that He is responding to a question, whether it be the question on offer in Matthew, Mark, or Luke, about the fall of the Temple. We are not allowed to take a flight of fancy and hear Jesus talking about anything but that which He has been asked to address. The obvious intent of the authors do not allow for this. So as Jesus answers, we hear every word in connection with His statement, in reference to the Temple, that “not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down,” and the disciples’ inquisitive response to that statement. This is not exactly a far-fetched or groundbreaking idea, especially when we consider how Temple-centric the Gospel narratives have been since Jesus made His triumphal entry.

Drawing from Matthew, we hear Jesus’ answer, as He tells His disciples how they will know that the Temple is about to fall. He begins by saying “Watch out that no one misleads you” (24:4b), which is quite prescient, considering the many strange paths down which many erstwhile interpreters have attempted to lead God’s people, as they present Jesus’ discourse in isolation from all that comes before it. Continuing, Jesus says “For many will come in My name, saying ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars. Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come” (24:5-6). What is “the end”? In context, of course, “the end” is the fall of the Temple, for that is the question that Jesus has been asked. We do not import foreign notions into the text. The end is the fall of the Temple, and for Matthew, we already and also know that this end is connected to the son of man appearing before the Ancient of Days, as detailed in Daniel 7. Both Mark and Luke have Jesus here speaking of the end, and since neither one of those records have the disciples asking about the end of the age (which we know is not the end of the world), this reinforces the fact that the end of which Jesus speaks is the end of the Temple that currently stands in Jerusalem, for that is the object squarely in view.

All Will Be Torn Down (part 2 of 4)

2012-02-03T09:26:00.001-08:00

Interestingly, it is Matthew’s presentation that becomes the guide, in many Bible translations, that provides the summary heading for various sections. For example, in a number of translations, this paragraph of Matthew twenty-four is headed by “Signs of the End of the Age.” This makes sense, as the disciples have asked “what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” However, even though the disciples do not ask the question this way in either Mark or Luke, not making mention of the end of the age, the same paragraph is often headed with “Signs of the End of the Age.” This demonstrates the way in which our very non-Jewish (Greek-influenced) conceptions of the end of the world have somehow become equated to such an expression by a Jew in the first century, though it is has no such connection. Beyond that, we can see that the conflation of end of the age and end of the world are read into Mark and Luke, becoming the controlling paradigm by which those two accounts are heard, even though, according to the words of the disciples that are on offer by those two evangelists, the end of the age is nowhere in sight.

Again, it becomes helpful to let the weight of evidence be our guide. Since the foundational narrative, that being Mark, which is significantly expanded upon by Matthew (due to either written materials in the author’s possession, a more robust oral tradition, or a more vivid imagination) does not resort to such language, and Luke, which also builds on Mark, does not have the disciples posing their question in such a matter, it is best to distance ourselves from the end of the age language. We do this even though we know that, in its usage, it does not point to the end of the world, as it is difficult to shake ourselves free from long-ingrained sensibilities.

Though it is not present in Mark or Luke, the notion of Jesus’ coming, as it frames the discourse on offer by Jesus and influences the way that we read and perceive Matthew’s twenty-fourth chapter, is something with which we also must deal. Much as we tend to hear “end of the age” in the light of our “end of the world” sensibilities, we also tend to hear speech about the coming of Jesus in terms of His coming to earth from heaven. We do this because we are reading post-ascension, and because, being inhabitants of this world whereas Jesus is off in heaven somewhere, any talk of Jesus’ coming must be talk of Him coming from heaven to earth.

Now, before even addressing the issue, as best as is possible, from the mindset of a first century Jew, let us look at this issue as a matter of common sense. When Jesus speaks in terms of not being seen until He comes, He is alive and kicking. Remember, we have to hear these things in their narratival context. Though Jesus has made mention of His death and Resurrection, such as is found in the seventeenth chapter of Matthew when He says “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill Him, and on the third day He will be raised” (17:22b-23a), this isn’t exactly something that is clearly understood by His disciples. In fact, Matthew says “they became greatly distressed” (17:23b). Prior to that, in the sixteenth chapter, when Jesus says something similar, “Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him” (16:22a). So, returning to the realm of common sense, since Jesus is with them when He says these things---He has not been crucified or resurrected, and He has not ascended into heaven (though this written record does come after all of these things have taken place), we cannot have the disciples presuming these things as part of their query. While the hearers heard it and we read it with knowledge of these things, the narrative does not push us to hear the disciples’ question as post-earthly-life-and-ministry of Jesus. Yes, this can become convoluted and confusing, but it is incumbent upon us to make our best attempt to inhabit the story as it is on offer, positioning ourselves to hear Jesus live and in person, as one of His disciples. Doing that, we are then not posing a question to Jesus, about His coming, from a post-ascension perspective that has Jesus coming back to earth. That would merely gets things out of order. At this point, as far as His disciples are concerned, Jesus isn’t going anywhere.

Yes, He’s talked about His coming death and resurrection, but we cannot force the disciples to have already come to terms with what those words truly meant. In fact, this is where Luke provides us a wonderful glimpse into the mindset of the disciples of Jesus, through His Emmaus-road presentation in chapter twenty-four of His gospel. There, downhearted and dejected disciples, who were clearly struggling to cope with Jesus’ death and what it meant, say “we had hoped that He was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (24:21a). Not only was there no expectation of a resurrection, though Jesus has been reported to have spoken, in advance, of His being raised, there was certainly no hope or expectation of an ascension, and there was obviously no prevailing ideology that had Jesus returning to earth from heaven. As far as they knew, He was dead, which also meant that He was a failed messiah. So in terms of rightly dealing with Matthew’s narrative, the movement of the story does not allow us to have either us or the disciples themselves injecting a hoped-for return of Jesus to earth into their question about His coming. It simply does not fit.

All Will Be Torn Down (part 1 of 4)

2012-02-02T11:52:00.001-08:00

And He said to them, “Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!” – Matthew 24:2 (NET)

As tempting as it may be, we cannot allow ourselves to be dragged out of the appropriate mindset and context as we hear Jesus speaking throughout the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew. With what comes in the previous three chapters, the setting is clear. The context is clear. The scene has been in the process of being set since Jesus made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem and went straight to the Temple. The Temple has remained the setting. In the process of interpreting Jesus’ words, moving away from the scene of the Temple at this point would be moving in the direction of extreme unfaithfulness to the text. Pretending that Jesus has somehow changed His entire mode of thought and that He is no longer speaking about the Temple, would indicate that we have a disjointed and confused Jesus. Additionally, doing the same thing to Matthew’s treatment (or that of Mark or Luke), renders the Gospel treatment as incoherent and lacking in any real value or substance for their community of hearers and readers, or for the wider community of Christ-followers in the first century.

It is nearly beyond the pale of comprehension to hear Jesus make a reference to the Temple, saying “I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down” (24:2b), and to then have the disciples make a massive and dramatic shift, away from that very Temple to which Jesus has just referred, when they “come to Him privately” and say “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (24:3b) Clearly, as Matthew puts it, the disciples well-understood that Jesus was speaking about the Temple in which He had acted and in which the events of the previous three chapters of the narrative had all occurred.

Why this talk of the coming of Jesus and of the end of the age? Well, seeing as how Jesus has just been reported to have said, “For I tell you, you will not see Me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (23:39), which is only to be found in Matthew’s account, the question about Jesus’ coming is reasonable. That statement, of course, followed the statement concerning the house of Israel, that being the Temple, being left desolate (23:38). The desolation of the Temple, combined with the insistence that “not one stone will be left on another” and “all will be torn down,” would be an unimaginably catastrophic event for a Jewish hearer of Jesus, and this point must be under continual consideration as we hear the words of Jesus. In addition, there is no need to be hung up on “end of the age” language, because inevitably we will import our non-Jewish “end of the age” thinking, which has been long and unfortunately associated with the end of the world. The idea of the physical world coming to an end---the demise of the created order---is foreign to the Jewish way of thinking, as the constant affirmation of Scripture is that of a good creation gone wrong and God’s activity in the world to set things right and restore that has fallen.

In that light, it would be better to hear the words of Mark at this point, in which the disciples, in reference to Jesus speaking about the tearing down of the Temple, say “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that all these things are about to take place?” (13:4) Similarly, Luke reports the disciples asking, “Teacher, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that these things are about to take place?” (21:7) Neither Mark nor Luke have the disciples asking about Jesus’ coming, which, as we have seen before in regards to the devouring of the property of widows and the story of the widow making her offering to the Temple (found in Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew), is an indication of textual integrity, as they do not, as has just been said, have Jesus talking about His coming. So while the Jewish conception about “the end of the age” is a legitimate point of discussion and concern, it shall be sufficient for our purposes to say that it makes no reference to a supposed end of the world, and confirm that, regardless of the language used in Matthew, the question that is being asked is the same as that being asked in Mark and Luke.

The point that must be underlined is that the disciples are asking the question in relation to what Jesus has been saying about the Temple. This appears to be the authorial intention. Along with that, we need to make ourselves aware of the very strong possibility that the Gospels authors are writing after the Jewish revolt and after the Temple has been destroyed by the Romans, which most certainly colors our approach to the narrative, our attempts to understand what is being said, and our responsibility to make the correct applications as Christ-followers in our own day. Now, this is not to take away from the prophetic activity of Jesus, but allows for a dimension of analysis, in which the authors, and therefore those who are hearing and reading these biographical compilations about the life of Jesus, are reporting these words of Jesus from the perspective of a world in which revolution has been attempted and crushed, and in which Rome and its legions have destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem.

Challenges, A Psalm, A Widow & A Judged Temple (part 3 of 3)

2012-02-02T10:46:00.001-08:00

Venturing on to the twenty-fifth verse, and not allowing for a breach in the continuous stream of thought, we continue to hear Jesus speaking of the Temple and its corrupt rulers (though those who were Pharisees were not necessarily Temple authorities, nor is this necessarily true of the experts in the law, but they would represent that which stood behind the laws and traditions, which was the Temple) when He says “Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgences. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside may become clean too!” (23:25-26) Though a personal application is surely intended here, we should not allow the personal and individual application to completely override the major focus of the woeful discourse that is on offer from Jesus.

With yet another statement that could be dually applicable to individual and Temple, Jesus adds “Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of the bones of the dead and of everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you look righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness (23:27-28). Piling on, and making sure that it is well understood that Jesus still has the Temple not only as the setting, but within view of His judging speech, He adds “For this reason I am sending you prophets and wise men and experts in the law, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that on you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar” (23:34-35). With the close of this statement, we are reminded of the earlier mentions of Temple and altar, giving this portion of the statement even greater weight as it relates to the pronounced judgment. Jesus then adds: “I tell you the truth, this generation will be held responsible for all these things!” (23:36)

Now, what would His hearers and the Gospel hearers/readers have understood by “this generation”? Most likely, they would have understood that in its very plain and literal sense of “this generation,” meaning, those that were hearing him would be held responsible for what has been outlined throughout His discourse---they would experience that which represented God’s judgment. Jesus then goes on to say, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it!” (23:37) Then, while standing in the Temple courts, Jesus makes yet another very clear reference to the Temple, continuing His speech to Jerusalem and saying, “Look, your house is left to you desolate!” (23:38) The house, of course, is the Temple---the house of God. The desolation of the house could be a backwards and present reference to the fact that the glory of God had never rested in this Temple from the time that it was rebuilt in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, or it could be a forward reference, encompassing the generation to be held responsible, pointing to the desolation of the Temple that would result in its destruction. Though both are probably legitimate inferences to be drawn from the statement, Matthew’s narrative seems to clearly point toward the latter, as he moves us on to find out that “as Jesus was going out of the Temple courts and walking away, His disciples came to show Him the Temple buildings” (24:1).

This seems like an odd action on the part of the disciples, especially since Jesus has been in the Temple. Does Jesus really need to be shown the Temple buildings at this point? Our questions are answered when we hear what Jesus says next, as Matthew has drawn our attention specifically to the Temple buildings so that we might hear Jesus quite clearly when He says to His disciples “Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!” (24:2) Matthew reflects a similar maneuver by Mark, but reports a statement from the disciples that shows us that the disciples well understood that Jesus was speaking of the Temple itself when He speaks about Jerusalem’s house being desolate. “One of His disciples said to Him, ‘Teacher, look at these tremendous stones and buildings!’” (13:1b) To complete the picture, we note that Luke’s rift on Mark’s record differs, stating “Now while some were speaking about the Temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and offerings” (21:5)

So why this sudden mention of buildings? Clearly, there is something being communicated here at an even deeper level, and it is perhaps best presented by Matthew. It appears to reflect the post-Resurrection understanding of the nature of the Temple. With this thought, we can think about what is said in the second chapter of John. As Jesus, as part of the Gospel of John’s record of His actions in the Temple, is questioned about His activity, we read that “the Jewish leaders responded, ‘What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?’ Jesus replied, ‘Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up again.’” (2:18-19) An editorial comment is provided, telling us that “Jesus was speaking about the Temple of His body” (2:21). There is also the post-Resurrection, pre-synoptic conception of the nature of the Temple of God, perhaps best reflected in the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, in which He writes, in reference to the church community, that “your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” (6:19a). To this can be added thoughts from the second chapter of the Ephesian letter, where we find the church community (or communities) being told that “you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone. In Him the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you are also being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (2:20-22). This language of Jesus as cornerstone borrows from the one hundred tenth Psalm, which, as we have seen, Jesus references during His time in the Temple. What is being made quite clear by Matthew, and the other Gospels to a slightly lesser extent, is that even though Jerusalem’s Temple will be torn down, all that is actually being torn down is a building. God’s Temple, in Christ, will never be torn down.

Challenges, A Psalm, A Widow & A Judged Temple (part 2 of 3)

2012-02-01T16:19:00.001-08:00

Matthew, almost surprisingly, makes no mention of the widow and the offering box. He does not position Jesus across from the offering box, to view the happenings, as does Mark. Matthew does offer up the warnings about the experts in the law, their desire for greetings and the best seats, but he makes no mention of the devouring of widows’ property, or their long prayers. Of course, Matthew’s lack of the warning about the devouring of widows’ property actually makes sense of the fact that he does not provide a record of the widow’s offering, as he does not have a need to demonstrate that which he has not mentioned.

Where Mark and Luke record the warnings and the widow’s offering, Matthew, and Matthew’s Jesus are more evocative. Some might say that what Matthew puts in place of the warning and the offerings is far more harsh; and it would be difficult to disagree, for this is the point at which Matthew presents the “seven woes.” Because Matthew is using Mark as the basis for his narrative, we can assert, with reasonable confidence, that Matthew, even though he omits part of the warning and the story about the widow, has the whole of these things in mind as he presents Jesus’ pronouncement of woe. Even if he does not have the devouring and the widow precisely in mind, we can certainly assert that he was aware of the story, since he presents half of the warning that we find in Mark and Luke. Of course, the fact that the whole of the story is there in Mark and Luke, combined with the fact that Luke relies heavily on the Markan narrative, means that Matthew must have known the story of the widow. Honestly, as we understand the setting and the narrative flow, it is almost unreasonable to surmise that Matthew is not here thinking about the second half of the warning and the widow’s offering. So even if the widow is not going to be immediately called to the minds of Matthew’s hearers and readers, especially if his story is heard and read in isolation from the Markan and Lukan constructions, we, like the Gospel’s author, have the privilege of knowing the story, and it dances in our thoughts as we hear the words of Jesus through the twenty-third chapter.

While still in the Temple, Jesus says “The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. Therefore pay attention to what they tell you to do and do it. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach” (23:2-3). The Markan warning comes out with what comes next, as Jesus says, “They do all their deeds to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries wide and their tassels long. They love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’… And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (23:5-7,9). When we consider the fact that Jesus is saying all of these things at the Temple, which is thought to be the place where heaven and earth join together---the place where the realm of God’s dwelling and the realm of man’s dwelling meet, intersect, and overlap, Jesus’ contrast between earth and heaven takes on an interesting dimension that will be revisited at a later point in this study. In addition, his talk of the calling of someone “father,” in juxtaposition to His sustained critique of the Temple authorities, while He also goes on to say “The greatest among you will be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (23:11-12), adds fuel to the critical, judging fire of His actions in the Temple and His words that follow that action. Indeed, Jesus goes on to stoke the flames, providing stark contrast to the humble servant mentality, when He says “But woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You keep locking people out of the kingdom of heaven! For you neither enter nor permit those trying to enter to go in” (23:13).

When we place “kingdom of heaven” on terra firma, rather than thinking of it as some place “out there,” while also tying in the conjoining thoughts of land and Temple, we rightly hear Jesus continuing His multi-chapter, sustained critique of the Temple authorities and their mis-use of God’s Temple. Shortly thereafter, Jesus makes explicit mention of the Temple and their mis-use of it, echoing the then-celebrated prophet Jeremiah in style if not in substance, when He says “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the Temple is bound by nothing. But whoever swears by the gold of the Temple is bound by the oath.’ Blind fools! Which is greater, the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred?” (23:16-17) In a mocking report of the words of the Temple authorities, Jesus informs his audience of what they say and then comments on it, saying “’Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing. But if anyone swears by the gift on it he is bound by the oath.’ You are blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the Temple swears by it and the one who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and the one who sits on it” (23:18-22).

There is a fascinating and almost imperceptible movement that takes place from verses thirteen through twenty-two. It is only if we have the Temple firmly in view that we are able to pick up on it. In verse thirteen, Jesus mentions the kingdom of heaven. In sixteen, He mentions the Temple. In eighteen and nineteen, in the same movement of thought, He speaks of the altar. Beginning in the twentieth verse, Jesus draws conclusions. In verse twenty, He again speaks of the altar. In verse twenty-one, He mentions the Temple. In verse twenty-two, He speaks of heaven and the throne of God. Through this entire sequence, Jesus has moved out of and into the Temple. As was said, this movement can only be seen if we keep the Temple in view, and it only comes together after we have heard Him speak all the way to the end of the twenty-second verse. When Jesus mentions the kingdom of heaven, He speaks of the holy of holies and the place in which the Ark of the Covenant is supposed to be resting (though it was not there at that time)---where God would come down to sit, as if on His throne, to dwell with His people. By mentioning the Temple, He moves outside of the holy of holies, to the holy place, for it is the holy place, that housed the holy of holies, that was thought of as the Temple proper. Jesus then mentions the altar, which was positioned outside of the holy place, in the Temple court. He then, in His conclusion, speaks of the altar that sits outside of the holy place, then the Temple (the holy place), and finally heaven and the throne of God, which is an unmistakable reference to the holy of holies and the throne-like lid of the Ark of the Covenant.

Challenges, A Psalm, A Widow & A Judged Temple (part 1 of 3)

2012-02-01T10:45:00.001-08:00

In chapter twelve of Mark, Jesus says, “How is it that the experts in the law say that the Christ is David’s son? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, said, ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ If David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” (12:35b-37a) Luke’s record is essentially identical to Mark’s, whereas prior to Jesus’ longer statement, Matthew reports that “Jesus asked them a question: ‘What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?’ They said, ‘The son of David” (22:42). Following Jesus’ words, Mark reports that “the large crowd was listening to Him with delight” (12:37b), and Matthew says that “No one was able to answer Him a word, and from that day on no one dared to question Him any longer” (22:46), while Luke offers no editorial comment.

As we have seen before and made abundantly clear, though Jesus is obviously offering a question that, according to the Gospel records, goes unanswered (thus, in the mold of rabbinic challenges in an honor and shame culture, asserting His final and unchallenged authority as a teacher), there is more than meets the eye (or ear). This quotation by Jesus, lifted from the one hundred tenth Psalm, is designed to call to mind the entirety of the Psalm (as we should well understand). Jesus, standing on the Temple mount, which is generally and idealistically referred to as Mount Zion (though the Zion mount may not have been the actual site of the Temple), quotes from a Psalm that says, “here is the Lord’s proclamation to my lord: ‘Sit down at My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool!’ The Lord extends your dominion from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies! Your people willingly follow you when you go into battle. On the holy hills at sunrise the dew of your youth belongs to you. The Lord makes this promise on oath and will not revoke it: ‘You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.’ O sovereign Lord, at your right hand he strikes down kings in the day he unleashes His anger. He executes judgment against the nations; He fills the valley with corpses; He shatters their heads over the vast battlefield. From the stream along the road he drinks; then he lifts up his head” (110:1-7).

Though Jesus frames the desired response with His follow-up question, He and the Gospel authors are undoubtedly communicating a great deal of information. In this Psalm, not only is there talk of Zion, which is quickly translated into Temple-talk, especially with Jesus standing in the Temple while speaking, but there is also talk of an eternal priesthood occurring in the place where there were constant priestly functions occurring. With the quotation from the Psalms potentially calling to mind a mention of Melchizedek and an eternal priesthood, it also calls to mind a replacement priesthood---a bold move, considering Jesus’ location.

Is it reasonable to make such a suggestion? It seems to be so, especially when Mark and Luke do not follow-up with a theological and philosophical elaboration on what Jesus meant by His questions, but rather, report Him as saying “Watch out for the experts in the law. They like walking around in long robes and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ property, and as a show make long prayers. These men will receive a more severe punishment” (Mark 12:38b-40). Luke’s record is nearly identical. Are the enemies the experts in the law, as stand-ins for the Temple authorities? When Jesus mentions a more severe punishment, is He speaking in generalities, or does He have something in mind? If it is something in mind, we might ask “A more severe punishment than what?” Well, the striking down of kings, judgment against the nations, valleys filled with corpses, and heads shattered on battlefield seems to be fairly severe punishment, and the synoptic authors will be speaking of these things shortly. Those that defile God’s Temple, and doing so through pretended service to His people (echoes of Jeremiah’s plaintive cry of judgment ringing through) will receive punishments of greater severity.

To make the point about the devouring of widow’s property, Mark and Luke speak nearly identically with what comes next. Using Mark’s record, they report that Jesus “sat down opposite the offering box, and watched the crowd putting coins into it. Many rich people were throwing in large amounts” (12:41-42). By this, they secure the presence of experts in the law at their synagogues and their banquets. Continuing, Mark reports: “And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, worth less than a penny. He called His disciples and said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others. For they all gave out of their wealth. But she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had” (12:41-44). Far from being a praise of this widow, though it is certainly not a criticism, these are words of lament. They portend judgment, for her property had been devoured. Indeed, judgment---a more severe punishment---is what is coming.

Testing, Temple & Israel's Story (part 2 of 2)

2012-01-31T07:37:00.001-08:00

If the quotation from Deuteronomy conjures up a wider context, does Jesus other statement, about loving one’s neighbor as one loves self, which is taken from Leviticus, do the same? Based upon what we know about the way that the narrative functions, we would be surprised if it did not. Just as we were not disappointed when we turned to Deuteronomy, turning to Leviticus again disparages disappointment. When Jesus speaks these words, He is quoting from the eighteenth verse of the nineteenth chapter. As we examine what is to be found in the preceding verses, we are almost stunned at what we find. Beginning in the eleventh verse, and quoting extensively (always remembering that calling to mind a larger section of Scripture, understood within Israel’s history, is the function of an isolated quotation), we read “You must not steal, you must not tell lies, and you must not deal falsely with your fellow citizen. You must not swear falsely in My name, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord. You must not oppress your neighbor or commit robbery against him. You must not withhold the wages of the hired laborer overnight until morning” (19:11-13). This last part, concerning the laborers, is of even greater interest if this entire section is being called to mind, taking on a more interesting dimension and revealing Jesus’ and Matthew’s theological genius, as Matthew, just before Jesus’ triumphal entry, records Jesus’ telling of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, which begins with “For the kingdom of heaven is like...” (Matthew 20:1a). We are reminded that land, Temple, and kingdom are inseparably bound.

Continuing in Leviticus: “You must not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block in front of a blind person. You must fear your God; I am the Lord. You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich. You must judge your fellow citizen fairly. You must not go about as a slanderer among your people. You must not stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake. I am the Lord. You must not hate your brother in your heart. You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him. You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself” (19:14-18). Now, we can all agree that this does in fact delineate the way in which the people of God should strive to live, and it would be wonderful to insist that Jesus was speaking in such a way so as to encourage His people (then and now) to live in such a way. Certainly that is part of what He is doing, but considering the setting, we know it reaches beyond that. Does this not remind us of something that Jesus has already said? Does this not remind us of a narrative that has been called to mind by what Jesus said? It should.

Let’s back up and look at what happened when Jesus entered the Temple. He “drove out all those who were selling and buying in the Temple courts, and turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves. And He said to them, ‘It is written, “My house will be called a house of prayer,” but you are turning it into a den of robbers!’” (21:12b-13) Then, “The blind and the lame came to Him in the Temple courts, and He healed them” (21:14). This forces us to look to Jeremiah, from which Jesus’ words of judgment are lifted, where we can see the Levitical parallels (and stand amazed at all that is going on in Jesus’ words and Matthew’s record) when we read “Change the way you have been living and do what is right. If you do, I will allow you to continue to live in this land” (7:3b). Notice the connection here made between land and Temple. “Stop putting your confidence in the false belief that says, ‘We are safe! The Temple of the Lord is here! The Temple of the Lord is here! The temple of the Lord is here!’ You must change the way you have been living and do what is right. You must treat one another fairly. Stop oppressing foreigners who live in your land, children who have lost their fathers, and women who have lost their husbands. Stop killing innocent people in this land. Stop paying allegiance to other gods. That will only bring about your ruin” (7:4-6). Here, we can make note that the Deuteronomy reference flows into a concern that Israel not fall into idolatry---worshiping the gods of the people of the land to which the Lord is bringing them. Continuing in Jeremiah: “If you stop doing these things, I will allow you to continue to live in this land which I gave to your ancestors as a lasting possession,” as we note the land and Temple dynamic (7:7).

Jeremiah continues: “But just look at you! You are putting your confidence in a false belief that will not deliver you. You steal. Your murder. You commit adultery. You lie when you swear on oath. You sacrifice to the god Baal. You pay allegiance to other gods whom you have not previously known. Then you come and stand in My presence in this Temple I have claimed as My own and say, ‘We are safe!’ You think you are so safe that you go on doing all those hateful sins! Do you think this Temple I have claimed as My own is to be a hideout for robbers?” (7:8-11a) So not only has Jesus made reference, while dramatically acting in the Temple, to the whole of this section of Jeremiah’s seventh chapter, situated as it is within Israel’s history, its collective and active memory, and its understanding of past exiles and current subjugation to a foreign power, but He calls this to mind again, along with the Leviticus passage that Jeremiah seems to also have in mind, when He speaks about the demand to love neighbor as self. To clinch the argument that Jesus’ words are not to be disconnected from His ongoing and primary concern with the Temple, as demonstrated in Matthew, we also point out that this section of Leviticus basically begins with “When you sacrifice a peace offering sacrifice to the Lord, you must sacrifice it so that it is accepted for you” (19:5). The Temple, of course, was the place of sacrifice. It seems reasonable to insist that Jesus, as He acts and speaks at and around the Temple, wants and expects these thoughts and ideas to be swirling in the air and in the minds of His hearers, as does the author of the story.

Testing, Temple & Israel's Story (part 1 of 2)

2012-01-31T07:29:00.001-08:00

And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked Him a question to test Him – Matthew 22:35 (NET)

Immediately after Jesus has silenced the Sadducees, one of the Pharisees, said to be “an expert in religious law” (22:35b), posed a question to Him. The language used by Matthew, which is that the purpose of the question was “to test Him” (22:36c), informs the audience that this encounter was to be understood as a rabbinic debate, which would have an honor and shame dynamic. This is fitting, since the greatest source of honor was a connection to the Temple, and Jesus is in the midst of an extended process of shaming the Temple and those connected to it. If they are able to overcome Jesus in a rabbinic challenge, thus diminishing His honor, then they can also diminish the effectiveness of His words and actions against the Temple.

Jesus’ opinion in regards to the greatest commandment of the law is elicited. Quoting from Deuteronomy and from Leviticus, Jesus responds with “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (22:37), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (22:39). Summing up His response, Jesus adds “All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments” (22:40). Of course, we are quite familiar with these words of Jesus, as were the respective audiences of both Jesus and Matthew. We must here consider that the Temple and His judgment upon it lies in the background of both His words and the narrative that records His words and deeds, and considering that singular quotations of Scripture are designed to call to mind large sections of the Scriptural narrative (and by extension, Israel’s history), we are forced to look at the context for Jesus’ Scriptural quotations. In doing so, we find that they fit within the overall movement of Matthew and of this section of the story he tells.

Prior to His triumphal entry, in multiple parables, Jesus is shown to be speaking about the kingdom of heaven (God). Talk of the kingdom of heaven fits together with thoughts about the restoration of the promised land of Israel, which would manifest itself in independence of people and land from the rule of foreign and pagan nations. Jesus’ triumphal entry aligns with such talk. Jesus’ continued speech about the kingdom of heaven, in chapters twenty-one and twenty-two, following His judgment upon the Temple (which then cannot be disconnected from that which follows) fits neatly with what has been previously heard from Jesus and presented by Matthew. So when we hear Jesus speak about love of God with heart, soul, and mind, and are thus thrust upon the pages of Deuteronomy, we would be disappointed if we did not find concerns within the same vein being voiced. Naturally, we are not disappointed.

The words quoted by Jesus are prefaced and followed by statements such as “Walk just as He has commanded you so that you may live, that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land you are going to possess” (5:33); “Now these are the commandments, statutes, and ordinances that the Lord your God has instructed me to teach you so that you may carry them out in the land where you are headed… as the Lord, God of your ancestors, said to you, you will have a land flowing with milk and honey” (6:1,3b); “Then when the Lord your God brings you the land He promised to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give you” (6:10a); “for the Lord your God, who is present among you,” which is a Temple/tabernacle reference---the place the Lord dwells, “is a jealous God and His anger will erupt against you and remove you from the land” (6:15); “Do whatever is proper and good before the Lord so that it may go well with you and that you may enter and occupy the good land that He promised to your ancestors” (6:18); “He delivered us… so that He could give us the land He had promised our ancestors” (6:23); and “When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy” (7:1a).

His talk of the kingdom, His triumphal entry, and His dramatic and judging words and actions in the Temple, are rooted in hopes concerning God’s promise to His people and the covenant faithfulness of that God. Occupation and possession of that land, in which God would build His temple and in which He would dwell amongst His people, was always the evidence of God’s power and of the fulfillment of His promises to His people. So when Jesus speaks in the way that He does, when challenged by the expert in the law, He is not simply offering up aphorisms on how the people of God are to live. Rather, He is building upon the ideological edifice that is already in place, and we must hear Him speak in the context of promise, land, Temple, and kingdom. So even though it does not appear, on the surface, that this particular exchange is linked to His Temple concerns, we can affirm that it most certainly is, and that it continues in the narrative flow that Matthew offers. It is not an isolated statement or encounter, but one that demands to be understood in connection to the Temple.

Parables Of A Judged Temple (part 2 of 2)

2012-01-30T08:04:00.001-08:00

After telling the parables of the two sons and the tenants, with Matthew having interjected Jesus’ thoughts concerning the kingdom of God, and letting his audience know that “the chief priests and the Pharisees… realized that He was speaking about them” (21:45), we hear Jesus moving on to His next parable, which is that of the wedding banquet. Having suggested that the kingdom of God, with its Temple-related connotations, was going to be taken from those that represented the Temple and its regime, this parable begins with “The kingdom of heaven can be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son” (22:2). This parable, which shares similar features to the parable of the tenants, concludes with the king saying “For many are called, but few are chosen” (22:14).

Though much can be made of this parable, and though there are obviously a great number of avenues of exploration that could be traveled (king and son and messianic understanding to say the least), as we are dealing with the issue of the Temple, with the Temple serving as the backdrop, suffice it to say that the connection between the kingdom of God being taken away from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and the kingdom of heaven being limited to those that have been chosen for it, is rather obvious. Let us be careful to not exhume this statement about many being called and few being chosen from out of the ground in which it has been placed. This is not an isolated statement, nor an isolated parable, from which one can construct a theology of predestination or limited atonement. Rather, this is a statement and a parable dealing with the Temple and those that represent that Temple, as Jesus builds on His previously enacted judgment of that Temple and those that run it. Along with the setting and the audience, Jesus’ subject of concern is unchanged. This is not lost on Jesus’ intended audience, as Matthew moves immediately to tell us that “Then the Pharisees went out and planned together to entrap Him with His own words” (22:15).

The Pharisees proffer a question about the paying of taxes to Caesar. This cannot be disconnected from Jesus’ triumphal entry---an event which would have stirred revolutionary notions. Taxes and revolution go hand in hand, and Jesus’ opinion in this area would have been used to great effect. Also, it seems to function as an attempt to distract Jesus from His main concern, which is the judged Temple and its judged functionaries. However, we hear Jesus’ words with the Temple as a sounding board, and perhaps even hear a critical rebuke of His interrogators when He says to “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (22:21b).

The Pharisees are stunned by Jesus answer, departing from Him only to be replaced by some Sadducees, who have made limited appearances to this point. In fact, until now they have been rather marginal characters in the story. They have been mentioned by John the Baptist in the third chapter and by Jesus in the sixteenth chapter, but only in pairings with the Pharisees (though the two groups had major disagreements). Mark and Luke make no mention of them at all up until this same point, and they are completely absent from the Gospel of John. They do have a presence in Acts, in connection with Peter and John’s arrest at the Temple and in connection with Paul’s arrest, which also took place at the Temple (a fact that should not be lost on us as we are dealing with the issue of the Temple). These may be useful bits of information, as even though Acts was composed after Luke, the stories of Peter, John, and Paul’s arrest at the Temple, along with the “trials” that took place in connection with those arrests (all of which were carried out by the Temple authorities) were probably fairly well known to the early Christian community. If this is the case, it is possible to presume that these stories that included the Sadducees would have been known to the respective audiences of the Gospels, because just as Israel defined itself by its history and the stories that they told about themselves that had the oppression of Egypt and the exodus as foundational, so too would the early Christian community seek to define itself, in strong Jewish fashion, by telling its own stories of oppression and deliverance. It is not a stretch to consider the possibility that this type of thing was already taking place in the community for which Matthew primarily composed his Gospel, especially when we are able to see Herod as a new Pharaoh, ordering the death of children, which is unique to the Matthean narrative.

So even though this is the first time that the Sadducees are going to speak, they are a group that is known to the community. The Gospel authors make it a point to share some basic information about this group, informing (reminding) their audiences that the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection (in reference to the belief in the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the present age). Obviously, this editorial comment carries significant weight for a post-Resurrection audience, and it would be a major point of contention for those that are claiming Jesus as their risen Lord. Clearly, there is no respect whatsoever for the Sadducees, as they are almost comically presented, asking Jesus a ridiculously framed question about marriage in the resurrection (seven brothers, all having married the same woman, and all of which died---though there may be a mild allusion to the seven brothers of the Maccabean histories, who certainly hoped for a resurrection). This is indeed something of a comical presentation, for if they did not believe in the concept of resurrection, then this question would be illogical for them to ask. Jesus’ response indicates His (and the church community’s) opinion of the Sadducees, as He says “You are deceived, because you don’t know the Scriptures or the power of God” (22:29) Mark adds (Matthew subtracting), “You are badly mistaken!” (12:27b) The bottom line, when we consider this interaction with the Sadducees, is that they are connected to the Temple (as demonstrated by Acts), and represented some level of authority. Silencing them, as Jesus is said to do with His answer (22:34), serves to discredit them and weaken their position, thus extending His judgment against the Temple.

Parables Of A Judged Temple (part 1 of 2)

2012-01-30T07:58:00.001-08:00

What do you think? A man had two sons. He went to the first and said, “Son, go and work in the vineyard today.” – Matthew 21:28 (NET)

With the Temple as the backdrop, Jesus embarks on a series of parables. The first one of these is known as the “parable of the two sons.” Not only is the parable offered in the Temple, but it begins with a question, “What do you think?” (Matthew 21:28a), that is directed to “the chief priests and elders of the people” (21:23b). They had posed a question to Jesus in regards to the authority upon which He was acting in His dramatic display in the Temple following His “triumphal entry.” Jesus had not answered the question, but instead posed a question to them. He continued to question them, as was just said, by prefacing a parable with a question.

The parable of the two sons, spoken in the Temple and to the Temple authorities, uses a vineyard as its setting, with a father and two sons as the characters in the story. Israel as the point of reference is unmistakable. The father and two sons theme is quite prevalent in Israel’s history: Abraham with Ishmael and Isaac, Isaac with Esau and Jacob, and Joseph with Manasseh and Ephraim. The fact that it is being directed to whom it is being directed, in the place where it is being spoken, with the conclusion drawn about a failure to believe on the part of those to whom Jesus speaks (Temple authorities), is further judgment upon the Temple and its system. We have to remember that, prior to this, Jesus has pronounced judgment on the Temple by way of His actions and His words in the Temple. A fig tree has withered and He has spoken of the mountain to be thrown into the sea. The setting for all of these things has not changed. The Temple remains in view. So it behooves us to continue hearing Him speak in this train of thought, without any unwarranted deviations from this path.

Following the parable of the two sons is the “parable of the tenants.” Jesus commences with “Listen to another parable” (21:33a), thus reminding us that Jesus is speaking to the same people to whom He was speaking with the previous parable. This parable tells a horrible story, filled with murder and shame, and Jesus uses terms such as “evil” to describe the antagonists in the tale. Of course, Matthew removes all ambiguity when he writes “When the chief priests (Temple authorities---representatives of the Temple) and the Pharisees heard this parable, they realized that He was speaking about them” (21:45). Jesus is calling the chief priests “evil.” Thus, He effectively de-legitimizes them, their positions, and that which they represent. With this, one cannot help but think about the Apostle Paul, standing before the council in Jerusalem and being struck on the mouth. Paul responds to his abuser by saying “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall!” (Acts 23:3a) The reply that comes to this statement is “Do you dare insult God’s high priest?” (23:4b) Now, this is not to say that Jesus was speaking to or of the high priest, and of course, He did not speak these words overtly, as they were implied in the parable and the chief priests made the connection themselves, but as we consider the issues of legitimacy and authority and the words of Jesus, it is interesting to note that Paul says “I did not realize, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You must not speak evil about a ruler of your people.’” (23:5)

Because Jesus refers to the antagonists in the parable of the vineyard as evil, with the knowledge that this epithet was meant for those who were challenging Him there in the Temple, Jesus may very well have been emphasizing that these men (and even the high priest) were not legitimate rulers, and that they were nothing more than the caretakers of an illegitimate and judged Temple. Indeed, Jesus also says “I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you” (21:43b), and it was the Temple---the place of God’s dwelling and the place where heaven and earth met---that represented God’s presence and His kingdom. This carries meaning on multiple levels, especially if we consider that Matthew, using these words that are absent from Mark’s account, most likely writes in a time following the destruction of the Temple at the hands of the Romans.

Prior to the words of the forty-third verse, and just to be sure that all understand that Jesus has the Temple in mind as He is speaking, Jesus rounds out His parable by saying “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (21:42) Here, Jesus quotes from the one hundred eighteenth Psalm. The selection on offer from Jesus, which is to be called to mind by the section that He has quoted, begins with “Open for me the gates of the just king’s temple! I will enter through them and give thanks to the Lord. This is the Lord’s gate---the godly enter through it. I will give you thanks, for you answered me, and have become my deliverer” (118:19-21). What follows that which is quoted by Jesus is “This is the day the Lord has brought about. We will be happy and rejoice in it. Please Lord, deliver! Please Lord, grant us success! May the one who comes in the name of the Lord be blessed! We will pronounce blessings on you in the Lord’s temple” (118:24-26). So not only is Jesus quite obviously speaking about the Temple, by using this Psalm He has actually gone back and effectively answered the question that was previously posed to Him about what He was doing and who it was that had given Him the right to do it. He is the one who comes in the name of the Lord and He is acting in the Temple on behalf of Israel’s God.

Jesus As Jeremiah (part 3 of 3)

2012-01-29T08:07:00.001-08:00

It is incumbent upon us to report the divergence in the Gospel stories surrounding Jesus’ triumphal entry. We do not simply ignore these things and pretend that they are not there, though we do note that differences in detail do not derail from the overall message of the accounts nor do the differences really present us with much cause for concern. We have already detailed Matthew’s account. Owing to the fact that Mark is believed to be foundational for Matthew and Luke’s account, we bear in mind that it is Matthew’s account that is divergent, rather than Mark’s. The divergences are accounted for by each author having slightly different goals that they want to achieve through the delivery of their accounts. Though each has the goal of setting forth the story of Jesus, each comes at it from a slightly different angle, which is perfectly understandable. Honestly, if each told the story in the same way, we would have no need for multiple Gospels, and we would lack the rich and manifold witness to Jesus provided to us by these evangelists, not to mention their diverse perspectives and portrayals of Jesus that serve to give us a more complete sense and picture of the one that is called Lord.

What are those divergences? For Mark, Jesus does head to the Temple upon the occasion of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. However, Mark does not record Him immediately engaging with the buyers, sellers, and money changers, nor making His Jeremiah-esque stand. In Mark’s telling, this takes place on the following day, which is also the day that Jesus speaks to the fig tree, while on His way to Jerusalem. However, in Mark’s presentation of that detail, and though the fig tree may indeed have immediately withered, the disciples do not comment on this withering until the following day, which is when Jesus offers up His commentary concerning the fig tree, the mountain, and the need to offer forgiveness. Here, we also add that rather than the withering of the fig tree being bracketed by Jesus’ actions in the Temple and a return to the Temple the following day in which He is challenged by the Temple authorities, it is Jesus’ dramatic actions in the Temple and pronouncement of judgment against it that is bracketed by the words spoken to the fig tree and the words spoken about and prompted by the withered fig tree. It is then that Mark writes “They came again to Jerusalem” (11:27a), with Jesus being confronted with “By what authority are you doing these things? Or who gave you the authority to do these things?” (11:28)

So in Mark, the order of events is the triumphal entry that is accompanied by a trip to the Temple where Jesus merely looks around at everything (11:11), a departure to Bethany for the night, words to the fig tree the following day, another trip to Jerusalem and the Temple where He dramatically acts and speaks, another departure from Jerusalem (presumably to Bethany again), the disciples noticing the withered fig tree to which Jesus had spoken the following morning on their way back to Jerusalem (thus prompting the previously mentioned commentary), where Jesus makes another trip to the Temple. By way of review and contrast, Matthew has Jesus triumphally entering Jerusalem, acting and speaking in the Temple, departing for Bethany, speaking to the fig tree which produces an immediate withering and subsequent commentary, and an entrance into Jerusalem and the Temple where He is challenged. Luke, by way of further contrast, has Jesus entering Jerusalem (for which He weeps while on His approach), and then speaking and acting in the Temple. He is a bit more ambiguous in His timeline, as following Jesus’ recitation from Jeremiah, he writes that “Jesus was teaching daily in the Temple courts. The chief priests and the experts in the law and the prominent leaders among the people were seeking to assassinate Him, but they could not find a way to do it, for all the people hung on His words. Now one day, as Jesus was teaching in the Temple courts and proclaiming the gospel, the chief priests and experts in the law with the elders came up and said to Him, ‘Tell us: By what authority are you doing these things? Or who is it who gave you this authority?’” (19:47-20:2)

All that follows from the twenty-third verse of the twenty-first chapter of Matthew, when Jesus re-enters the Temple courts, until the first verse of the twenty-fourth chapter, when Jesus goes out of the Temple courts and walks away, occurs without a change of scenery. The same is true of Mark, as the setting does not change from the twenty-seventh verse of the eleventh chapter until the first verse of chapter thirteen. In Luke, the Temple is the scene of the narrative from the first verse of chapter twenty to verse thirty-seven of chapter twenty-one, which does not neatly change the setting, but simply breaks-up the narrative by informing the listener that “every day Jesus was teaching in the Temple courts, but at night He went and stayed on the Mount of Olives” (21:37). For Luke, though Jesus embarks on His triumphal entry from Bethany, He does not return there each evening. This helps to explain his omission of the story of the fig tree and its withering, which takes place in Matthew and Mark on the road from Bethany. Throughout this entire section of the narrative, we must see and hear Jesus in the Temple courts, which provides a dramatic backdrop for all of the words that He speaks.

Jesus As Jeremiah (part 2 of 3)

2012-01-28T12:16:00.001-08:00

Returning to Matthew, we learn that the day after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which took Him to the Temple to pronounce a symbolic judgment against it in the mode of Jeremiah (and for the same reasons), and in which He referred to the Temple authorities as robbers (for engaging in insurrection against the God of the Temple---an insurrection that will cause God to bring upon Jerusalem and its Temple the same type of judgment that God brought upon it by way of Babylon, which are the thoughts that Jesus’ words and actions would have stirred, therefore setting him at odds with the Temple authorities and the people, as happened to Jeremiah), He returns to Jerusalem and to the Temple, having spent the night in the nearby village of Bethany (the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus).

On his way back to Jerusalem, Jesus causes a fig tree to wither for not producing fruit (echoing Jeremiah’s repeated use of fig tree symbolism, and therefore a clear allusion to the nation of Israel, which is failing in its task to be a light to the nations, and which also functions as an allusion to the curses of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, which God---Matthew writes from the post-Resurrection perspective of Jesus as God---promised to bring upon His unfaithful people). This causing of the fig tree to wither, for Matthew, appears to stem from the reaction of “the chief priests and the experts in the law” (Temple authorities) when they “saw the wonderful things he did” (21:15a). Matthew alone (to the exclusion of Mark and Luke) reports that following Jesus’ talk of the Temple as den of robbers, “The blind and the lame came to Him in the Temple courts, and He healed them” (21:14). In addition, there were “children crying out in the Temple courts, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David’” (21:15b), which caused the chief priests and the experts in the law to become “indignant” (21:15c).

Those that represented Israel before God were unable to celebrate Jesus’ entry in the way of Solomon as pronounced by Zechariah, they refused to repent when one who had been attempting to be a Jeremiah (and more than a Jeremiah) to the people for three years called them to account, and they refused to rejoice in what was a rather obvious coming of their Messiah (in the mold of Isaiah 61) and His healing of the blind and the lame in the Temple courts. Little wonder then, that Jesus spoke to and about the fig tree in such a way. Matthew writes that “When the disciples saw it they were amazed” (21:20a), and wondered at what they had seen. To their amazed inquiry, Jesus replied “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, if you believe, you will receive” (21:21-22).

As we hear these words, we cannot forget that Jesus is on His way into Jerusalem. Matthew will move immediately to add “Now after Jesus entered the Temple courts, the chief priests and elders of the people came up to Him as He was teaching and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’” (21:23). So the story of the fig tree and the words about the mountain are bracketed by Jesus being in the Temple, where the legitimacy of His presence is challenged by the Temple authorities. We cannot allow ourselves to casually pass by this fact. This informs us that it is the Temple mount that Jesus has in view when He speaks about the mountain being cast into the sea. We simply must understand that it is the Temple that is central to Matthew’s narrative (along with Mark and Luke).

For the sake of rounding out the Biblical picture, let us note what Mark presents in association with the fig tree and the mountain. Mark reports Jesus as saying “Whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgiven him, so that you Father in heaven will also forgive your sins” (11:25). Luke omits any mention of the fig tree our mountain, moving directly to Jesus return to the Temple courts and the challenge to Jesus’ authority. Though we will not spill a great deal of ink with conjecture on why Matthew and Mark include the story of the withered fig tree whereas Luke does not, we could surmise that the appearances of the fig tree in the Matthean and Markan narratives, with both (Matthew most likely relying on Mark) connecting the withered fig tree with the mountain to be removed, could possibly have some bearing on the conclusions to be drawn.

Jesus As Jeremiah (part 1 of 3)

2012-01-28T12:10:00.001-08:00

“Jesus was going out of the Temple courts and walking away” (Matthew 24:1a). As He did so, “His disciples came to show Him the Temple buildings” (24:1b). A couple of days prior to this, Jesus had made His “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. As He rode, “A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road. Others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds went ahead of Him and those following kept shouting, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!’” (21:8-9) This was a dramatic exhibition, full of provocative imagery, stirring passions within the people of Israel in regards to their King and Messiah and the coming of the kingdom of their Creator. Matthew reports that “As He entered Jerusalem the whole city was thrown into an uproar” (21:10a). Jesus was playing upon and creating certain expectations, not the least of which, was that the time of Roman occupation was coming to an end. However, rather than leading a mob to storm the Roman governor’s residence or the fortress housing the Roman soldiers in an attempt to take up His position of earthly power by overthrowing the local representatives of those that were then ruling over Israel, Jesus directed His steps toward the Temple.

“Jesus entered the Temple area and drove out all those who were selling and buying in the temple courts, and turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves. And He said to them, ‘It is written, “My house will be called a house of prayer,” but you are turning it into a den of robbers!’” (21:12-13) Some misguided (but perhaps well intentioned) souls look at this and see Jesus taking issue with buying and selling and money changing taking place in the Temple courts. Unfortunately, because these things were actually legitimate and sanctioned activities that needed to take place in order to facilitate the sacrifices for the people, this is a shortsighted view and misses the context provided by what He has said, quoting from the prophet Jeremiah. In the seventh chapter of Jeremiah, speaking on behalf of Israel’s God, we hear the prophet say “Do you think this Temple I have claimed as My own is to be a hideout for robbers? You had better take note! I have seen for Myself what you have done! says the Lord” (7:11).

What was it that they had been doing? Was Jeremiah simply conveying God’s disgust at the activities taking place in the Temple? Yes, but on a far larger scale than what we might have in mind. What preceded the question and statement of the eleventh verse? Again, speaking for God, Jeremiah has said “You must change the way you have been living and do what is right. You must treat one another fairly. Stop oppressing foreigners who live in your land, children who have lost their fathers, and women who have lost their husbands. Stop killing innocent people in this land. Stop paying allegiance to other gods. If you stop doing these things, I will allow you to continue to live in the land which I gave to your ancestors as a lasting possession. But just look at you! Your are putting your confidence in a false belief that will not deliver you. You steal. You murder. You commit adultery. You lie when you swear on oath. You sacrifice to the God Baal. You pay allegiance to others gods whom you have not previously known. Then you come and stand in My presence in this Temple I have claimed as My own and say, ‘We are safe!’ You think you are so safe that you go on doing all those hateful sins!” (7:5-10) It is this---far more than the simple acts of buying and selling---to which Jesus makes reference with His words and actions in the Temple. By quoting from Jeremiah, Jesus is accusing the Temple authorities of doing all of these things. Therefore, He actually legitimates the ongoing rule of Rome over Israel, as part of God’s faithful covenant actions towards His people, in the face of those that might be expecting Him to act to overthrow that rule and attempt to drive out the Romans, as it was these things to which Jeremiah points that contributed mightily to God’s bringing of Babylon to destroy the Temple and drag His covenant people into exile.

It might be of interest to note that, in order to call Jeremiah to mind, that He quotes the from the eleventh verse of the seventh chapter. He may have been able to quote from another portion of the section provided above, but He did not. He references the portion of Jeremiah’s polemic that speaks of “robbers.” The Greek word translated as “robber” in Matthew is “leston.” Now, this is not to be found in Matthew’s narrative, but in the Gospel of John, we find the man named Barabbas described as a “robber,” using a derivation of the same Greek word used by Jesus and Jeremiah. Matthew merely mentions the fact that Barabbas was a “notorious prisoner.” The people knew who and what he was. Barabbas, according to Mark, “had committed murder during an insurrection” (15:7), and Luke also mentions the insurrection and murder (23:19). This is interesting, as the Greek term applied to Barabbas by John, and directed to the Temple authorities by Jesus, carries with it the notion of insurrection and revolution---going well beyond simple thievery. We marvel at the genius of the author as ironically, through His triumphal entry, Jesus is stirring thoughts of an insurrection to be carried out against the Romans, whereas those that run the Temple are carrying out an insurrection against the very God that they believe is going to act to deliver them from the power of Rome. Ultimately, as we know, Barabbas, the one that seeks to participate in revolutionary activity that may serve to drive out the Romans through armed conflict, is released rather than Jesus. Eventually, Israel will undertake a violent resurrection against Rome that will result in the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem, so that the very place in which Jesus stands and speaks will be thrown down to the ground.

Paul's Enactment Of His Kingdom Agenda (part 3 of 3)

2012-01-22T20:30:00.000-08:00

Returning to Paul with an awareness that he would have been cognizant of Jesus’ meal practice, with this knowledge combined with his own knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and the picture therein painted of God’s end-time banquet, with all of it shaped by the implications of the crucifixion and the Resurrection, we see that in the letter to the Galatians, the concern with the meal table is overt. He writes “when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led away with them by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, ‘If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (2:11-14)

Peter’s (Cephas) actions, as far as Paul is concerned, stand in contradiction to that which was modeled out by Jesus, and he will not allow it to stand. This was an area in which Paul was not going to compromise, and it eventually forced something of a showdown in Jerusalem. The church’s meal table, clearly, was of paramount concern. In the Colossian letter, Paul writes “do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink” (2:16a). In the first letter to Timothy, Paul again demonstrates concern for the church’s meal table, writing about a desertion of the faith in which people will “prohibit marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creation of God is good and no food is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving” (4:3-4). On top of all of this, Paul would be well aware of and count on the fact that his letters would be read to the assembly of believers as they are gathered around the table of fellowship. Consequently, any references in the letters to their behavior at the meal table would become even more poignant, especially if it involves rebuke or correction, or if it causes the hearers to realize that they are not, to borrow words from Galatians, behaving consistently with the truth of the Gospel.

All of this again begs the question of what has this to do with Paul. Thinking back through our study, we reflect on the kingdom agenda that was set by Jesus and the fact that, when given the chance to follow through on the principles espoused in that agenda, He did not shrink back, but carried it through. We then looked at Paul. The fact that a fair amount of his dealings with the various congregations to which he wrote letters deal with matters of table practice and fellowship, we can allow ourselves to be convinced that part of the kingdom agenda, as understood by Paul and as he understood the table practices of Jesus and what was implied thereby, involved principles of meal table fellowship that were to be acted upon and embodied by the community of Jesus believers.

So with all of these things presented and on the table (so to speak), are we able to find an instance in which Paul demonstrates behavior that would line up with that of Jesus? Do we find Paul, in a time of duress, following through on the principles of his kingdom agenda, as this agenda centers upon the incredibly important issue of meal practice in the world he inhabited? Indeed we do. Turning to the twenty-seventh chapter of the book of Acts, we find Paul aboard a ship. Ultimately, he is not on board this ship by choice. He is there because of the events on record in chapter twenty-one of Acts, which is his arrest in the Temple in Jerusalem. From that point, Paul has been a prisoner of the Roman authorities, and much like Jesus was taken prisoner (basically owing to His words and actions against the Temple), with that imprisonment eventually resulting in an appearance before the Roman governor, Paul is now on board a ship, as a prisoner, on his way to Rome, presumably to stand trial before the Caesar, as he had requested. The ship on which Paul is sailing is populated by himself, other prisoner, members of the Augustan Cohort, a centurion, and presumably others, the total number of people on the ship being two hundred seventy six. The ship was being battered by storms, with this occurring for two weeks (27:33). The attitude shared by those on the boat, apart from Paul, was that they had “finally abandoned all hope of being saved” (27:20b).

In the midst of all of this, storms raging and despair rampant, we find the evidence we seek as Luke writes, “As day was about to dawn, Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, ‘Today is the fourteenth day you have been in suspense and have gone without food; you have eaten nothing.” (27:33) Paul, living out the principles of the kingdom and, like Jesus, opening wide his arms and inviting all and sundry to share a table with him in a recognition of the promise of the God that had told him “Do not be afraid, Paul! You must stand before Caesar, and God has graciously granted you the safety of all who are sailing with you” (27:24), goes on to say “Therefore I urge you to take some food, for this is important for your survival. For not one of you will lose a hair from his head” (27:34).

Prior to that, with words that could inform the church’s ecclesiology, if indeed Paul is enacting the principles of his kingdom agenda as we are insisting, “Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers,” as some men were attempting to escape the ship, “Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved” (27:31). Returning to Paul’s urging the men to join him in table fellowship and his comforting words, we read “After he said this, Paul took bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all, broke it, and began to eat” (27:35). As Paul breaks bread with this varied group of men, the implications are clear. In this action that Paul undertakes, as he breaks the bread (as the author calls to mind, from the first half of his work, which was the Gospel of Luke, Jesus’ feeding of the multitude) begins eating, we read that “all of them were encouraged and took food themselves” (27:36), eating “enough to be satisfied” (27:38a).

Paul draws on his understanding of the Jesus tradition when it comes to living out the kingdom of God, considers the implications of the crucifixion and the Resurrection, molds his embodiment of the agenda of God’s kingdom around the church’s meal table, shares his insights with his fellow believers, and enacts the principles of that agenda even when under significant duress. Surely, as we can safely take our cues from both Jesus and the church which sought to live out their understanding of the implications of His life, death, and Resurrection in the world; and, owing to the prominence of the meal tables in the life of Jesus, as they were encouraged to and indeed lived out that comprehension around the meal table, we can agree that the Lord of all creation demands no less from those who continue to raise His banner and herald His kingdom.

Paul's Enactment Of His Kingdom Agenda (part 2)

2012-01-21T15:25:00.001-08:00

What has this to do with Paul? Paul does not necessarily set forth a principled kingdom agenda in the way that we see Jesus doing via Matthew. However, we do see a recurring theme in Paul, which is that of the his being concerned with the meal gatherings of the believing communities. If we look at Paul’s letters sequentially, we’ll see this play out. Beginning with Romans, we find him concerned with the meal table in chapter fourteen. It takes up the bulk of the chapter. We won’t here recount all of the meal-related words found in the chapter, but will say that within the wider context of Romans, we find that Paul is very much concerned with creating unity in the church body, specifically between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. Due to social custom, this unity, or disunity if unity is not achieved, will be best seen at the meal table of the assembled congregation of believers. Paul insists that none be excluded or made to feel marginalized at the church’s meal, for if they do, then the church’s visible manifestation, which was the meal (as meals were the most important social occasion), would look no different than any other gathering of people around a table. Thus, the church’s witness is damaged and the Gospel proclamation of a new King and kingdom is robbed of its power.

We can carry that theme into the eleventh chapter of Paul’s first Corinthian letter, which also has Paul addressing the church’s meal table. Before he offers up what would become the popular passage which many associate strictly with the act of taking communion, as Paul recounts the “Lord’s Supper” that took place “on the night in which He was betrayed” (11:23b), he is very much concerned with how the believers are treating the meal table. He writes “when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident. Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper. For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper. One is hungry and another becomes drunk. Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink? Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing?” (11:18b-22a) Here again, Paul is concerned with the unity of the church and the picture of the kingdom of God that is presented to the world by the church’s meal table. Paul desires that there be no division or social stratification at the meal table, encouraging the church, based on his understanding of the meal tables of Jesus according to the Jesus traditions that he would have learned, to cast off the standard and divisive meal practices of their world. Later in this letter, Paul, much like we see him doing in the letter to the congregation at Rome, deals even further with activity around the meal table.

Speaking of the traditions of Jesus’ meal table practices, what is it on which Paul might have based his understanding? As we utilized Matthew in recounting Jesus’ kingdom agenda, demonstrating its presentation in chapter five and its fulfillment in the course of chapters twenty-six and twenty-seven, for sake of consistency we will stay with Matthew as we ascertain Jesus’ meal practice. Now Matthew, as it has come down to us, is not something that Paul would have known or to which he would have access, as it is generally accepted that it was composed in the latter third of the first century, after Paul’s period of ministerial activity had been brought to an end. However, even though Matthew has a theological construct that guides his narrative, which causes him to arrange his presentation of Jesus in a certain way and to highlight certain aspects of Jesus’ ministry, some of the traditions and stories about Jesus that Matthew weaves into a purposeful narrative would have been known by Paul.

In the ninth chapter of Matthew, we learn that “Jesus was having a meal in Matthew’s house,” and that this meal was attended by “many tax collectors and sinners” that “came and ate with Jesus and His disciples” (9:10). This type of behavior is puzzling to some observers, especially when it comes from someone who is presenting Himself in a messianic way, so “When the Pharisees saw this they said to His disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’” (9:11) Jesus’ ultimate response to this was “I did not come to call the righteous,” meaning those that are already in right covenant standing with the God of Israel, “but sinners” (9:13b). This points to a pattern of Jesus’ meal practice, which will lead to a standard accusation, recounted by Jesus when challenged, as He says “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at Him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (11:18-19a).

In chapter fourteen, we read about the feeding of the five thousand, in which all ate, all ate the same food, and all were filled with food to spare. This would have run counter to standard public meal gatherings, in which the most honored ate first, ate better, and ate to their fill, while the less honorable guests in attendance (along with the women, children, servants, etc…), received less food, of poorer quality, and would most likely not be able to eat their fill. The same could be said of the feeding of the four thousand, which is recounted in chapter fifteen. In chapter twenty-two, we encounter a parable about a wedding banquet. In the parable, invitations were given to a specific group of people, all of which offered up flimsy excuses for their failure to fulfill their obligation to what would have been a previously accepted invitation. In response, the host of the banquet “said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but the ones who had been invited were not worthy. So go into the main streets and invite everyone who find to the wedding banquet.’ And those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all the found, both bad and good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests” (22:8-10). If we were to rely on Luke’s telling of this parable, along with its placement in his Gospel and the possibility that Paul was also aware of the traditions from which Luke draws, then it would be made quite clear that this is the type of banquet and meal table that Jesus envisions as demonstrative of His kingdom.

Paul's Enactment Of His Kingdom Agenda (part 1)

2012-01-20T19:58:00.001-08:00

After he said this, Paul took bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all, broke it, and began to eat. – Acts 27:35 (NET)

The Apostle Paul, as might be expected, attempted to model his life and ministry based on his understanding of what he had learned about Jesus, His life, His ministry, and the implications of both the crucifixion and the Resurrection. Part of that modeling would take the form of setting forth a ministerial principle, and then when given the opportunity, in a time of great distress, of living according to what you have set forth.

Do we see this in the life and ministry of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels? Indeed we do. In Matthew’s Gospel, in the course of Matthew’s construction of Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount,” we hear Jesus say “You have heard that is was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. And if someone wants to sue you and to take your tunic, give him your coat also. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two” (5:38-42). Without getting in to the sociological, historical, and honor/shame constructs of this statement, nor the significance of the geographical location from which these words are on offer as part of Matthew’s narrative, we can acknowledge that these are principles espoused and encouraged by Jesus. To determine whether or not He lived by these principles, which we could also refer to as Jesus’ “kingdom agenda,” we need merely advance forward in Matthew’s Gospel, to the scene of Jesus’ “trial” and crucifixion.

While Jesus and His disciples are in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Judas, one of the twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent by the chief priests and the elders of the people… they came and took hold of Jesus and arrested Him” (26:47b,50b). Jesus does not resist. However, “one of those with Jesus grabbed his sword, drew it out, and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his ear” (26:51). This is precisely antithetical to the introduction of the principles that formed Jesus’ kingdom agenda. In response, Jesus commands the erring disciple to “Put your sword back in its place,” reminding him that “all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword” (26:52), which is certainly a play on the sensibilities created by “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

There in the twenty-sixth chapter we also find that “they spat in His face and struck Him with their fists. And some slapped Him” (26:67). Though we do not have a record of Jesus’ response, if we allow ourselves to be led according to Matthew’s purposes, what we here find is that Jesus does not resist. Drawing out what the author obviously intends, we have to imagine Jesus responding by offering the left cheek as well. In chapter twenty-seven, as Jesus is in the residence of Pilate, we read that “They stripped Him and put a scarlet robe around Him… When they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the robe and put his own clothes back on Him” (27:28,31a). Here again, Matthew’s intention is clear. Though a one to one comparison is not on offer, and we don’t see Jesus being stripped of His tunic and then His coat (much like we don’t actually read about Him turning the other cheek), there are two instances of stripping, which certainly stand in quite well for tunic and coat.

Jesus’ principle concerning the second mile does require a bit of explanation, as it has to do with fact that a Roman soldier could requisition a subject individual to carry his pack, but for no more than a mile. So as not to engender any additional malice towards Rome, a soldier could not force a person to carry his pack beyond a mile. Again, without getting into the sociological issues that Jesus is addressing in this portion of His kingdom agenda, it is not at all difficult to equate the pack of the Roman soldier with the burden of the Roman cross. Though we do not attempt to insist that Jesus carried the cross for two miles, and while we recognize that Simon of Cyrene, according to the Gospel tradition, was drafted from the crowd to carry Jesus’ cross when Jesus was unable to do so, it stands that Jesus, when faced with the task at hand, did not shirk from the duty that He believed to be required of Him as the God of Israel worked through Him to establish His kingdom. Of course, it can also be said that the fact that Jesus went to the cross could very well be considered to be going the second mile. Either way, Matthew succeeds is his mission of demonstrating that Jesus sets forth his principled agenda, and when pressed, is found to be faithful to His words.

Shame & The Cross (part 4 of 4)

2012-01-19T15:52:00.001-08:00

Crucifixion, of course, was the greatest source of shame. One could not experience a more emphatic shaming than the cross. Rome used it to assert its superiority, deploying the full arsenal of the power of the cross within the honor and shame culture, while the Jews believed that one that was hung on a tree was flatly accursed. We know that the transformation of the cross from the place of shame to the pinnacle of honor was not immediate. Within a couple of decades of Jesus’ death, the Apostle Paul writes “we preach about a crucified Christ,” which was a severe oxymoron, as one could not be Christ (Messiah, King) if one was crucified. It made no sense. Indeed, he states that such is a “stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23). So yes, the reversal of the overt message that was communicated by the cross of Jesus took some time, especially as we consider that crucifixion continued to be routinely employed well beyond the time of Jesus.

With all of these things said, and with the shame of the cross now firmly entrenched alongside our consideration of the matter, we now return to the crucifixion scene as presented by the synoptic Gospels, that we may look at a particular part of the story, analyzing how it sits in relation to what was understood about crucifixion. For our purposes, we’ll utilize Mark’s Gospel, from which we once again hear “Those who passed by defamed Him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘Aha! You who can destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself and come down from the cross!’” (15:29-30) As if it was not enough that Jesus was hanging there naked (shame), having been scourged and mocked by the Roman soldiers (shame), which was standard practice when dealing with the royal pretenders that were shortly to be subject to the terrible cross (shame) as they felt the heavy, crushing boot of Rome’s domination, but He was now subject to the scorn of those witnessing the event (shame).

Continuing again with Mark: “In the same way even the chief priests---together with the experts in the law---were mocking Him among themselves: ‘He saved others, but He cannot save Himself! Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, that we may see and believe!’” (15:31-32a) Here, those who had been subject to shaming at Jesus’ hand, as subjects of His parables and in the verbal honor challenges that arose during the course of His public ministry, along with being the implied subjects of His withering discourse concerning the corrupted and soon to fall Temple, were now exacting their revenge, as they now seized the opportunity to add to His shame, at the same time taking the opportunity to recapture the honor that they had routinely lost to Him.

We can imagine how the story is heard as it is told. These honor and shame components would not have to be drawn out at all. They were a regular and well-understood feature of life in the ancient Near East of Jesus’ day. Though those hearing the story, for the most part, know how it is going to end, these painful details would be felt, as the scorn, contempt, and shame that fell upon the one they looked to as Lord, in some sense, now fell upon them. With that in mind, let us consider those that are being crucified with Jesus. Their experiences are going to be roughly similar. There’s no reason to believe that they were not subject to the same type of scourging and mocking as was Jesus. They too were nailed to the cross. They too hung there naked, exposed to the world. They too were suffering the ultimate shame that could be heaped upon a person in that time. Their families and associates would also be fearful of reprisal and subject to shame, as were the family and associates of Jesus.

What happens? “Those who were crucified with Him also spoke abusively to Him” (15:32b). In the midst of their experience of the greatest possible shame, and in the midst of Jesus’ own suffering of the greatest shame, those that are being shamed right along with Jesus take it upon themselves to speak abusively to Him---extracting what little honor Jesus has left, and attempting to accrue it to themselves to somehow lessen their own shame and increase that of Jesus. What’s more, the Gospels report it. Though Luke offers a different telling that we have no reason to doubt, as we said earlier, the fact remains that the synoptic Gospels, in their recounting of the story of Jesus’ crucifixion, report that in the midst of His suffering and shame, He is reviled by those undergoing the exact same fate. Let it be said, that when Jesus went to the cross, He willingly allowed Himself to be subject to not only the greatest shame, but shame upon shame upon shame. As we hear the story, and just when we think that the shame could not be intensified, we are shown that it certainly can.

Luke’s story, of one of the crucified men rebuking the other and then being honored by Jesus, not only shows Jesus’ response to this final round of shaming, but it is also one final instance of Jesus making the last first, insisting that this fellow recipient of the greatest shame would shortly be joining Him in paradise. There was no lower place in the world than the cross, and there was no more shameful person than one that was experiencing the cross. Yet Jesus somehow manages to make it an even lower place---the lowest of all lows---than we may have ever even imagined, by accepting the shaming of those being crucified with Him. For those with ears attuned to the constructs of honor and shame, this would had to have been yet another stunning development.

Yes, the cross has been transformed, and the transformation is revolutionary---a veritable resurrection of that which is associated only with death. However, the example provided by the one that calls His disciples to take up their crosses, a shocking request indeed that involves disavowing of any pretensions towards the honor on offer in the world that so often stands against the kingdom of God and an embracing of shame and what is shameful in a challenge to the system of the world that attempts to carry on as if its Creator has no claim on it, has not been transformed. It remains the same. The call to follow Him to the place of suffering and shame, and shame upon shame if need be, still stands. If we are true to Him, and if we call Him Lord, we follow.

Shame & The Cross (part 3 of 4)

2012-01-19T13:01:00.000-08:00

In the year 1913, a song was penned by a gentleman named George Bennard. The name of that song is “The Old Rugged Cross.” It’s lyrics are as follows: “On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross, the emblem of suffering and shame; and I love that old cross where the dearest and best for a world of lost sinners was slain. Oh, that old rugged cross, so despised by the world, has a wondrous attraction for me; for the dear Lamb of God left His glory above to bear it to dark Calvary. In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine, a wondrous beauty I see, for it was on that old cross Jesus suffered and died, to pardon and sanctify me. To the old rugged cross I will ever be true; its shame and reproach gladly bear; then He’ll call me some day to my home far away, where His glory forever I’ll share.” The song’s refrain is “So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross, till my trophies at last I lay down; I will cling to the old rugged cross, and exchange it someday for a crown.”

As has been stated, we stand in a world that essentially has no real experience of the cross. Therefore, when our thoughts turn to the cross, though we can acknowledge the suffering, our thoughts are rightly influenced by the majesty of the Resurrection. This should not prevent us from viewing the cross through first-century eyes, nor hearing about the cross with first-century ears. The cross has become a beautiful symbol, as conveyed by the song, of pardon, sanctification, and glory. Though that would certainly have been the case for the believing community as well, who came to understand that the cross had been trumped by the Resurrection, which subsequently transformed their view of the cross, the account of the crucifixion, as presented by the synoptic Gospels, still demands to be heard on its own. An isolated hearing of the story of the cross, though lacking in gruesome details such as that which is offered by the first century Roman historian Seneca, wherein he writes “Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain dying limb by limb, or letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once and for all? Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly weals on shoulders and chest, and drawing out the breath of life amid long drawn out agony?”, presents interesting details that should not be missed. One of those details is what has sparked this study, and we shall examine it shortly.

The song quote above presents the dichotomy of the cross quite well. In Jesus’ world, nobody would have thought anything like “I love that old cross.” There was no “wondrous attraction” to the cross, and it was certainly not heralded as a “wondrous beauty.” No one in their right minds would have thought to proclaim that they “will ever be true” to the cross,” nor happily and “gladly bear” that which it symbolically conferred on its victim. The disciples of Jesus were in hiding following Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion primarily they knew that His fate was shortly to be their fate, as the powers that be rounded up and eliminated the closest associates of the crucified rebel leader. The last thing anybody wanted to do was “cherish” the cross, nor “cling” to it, so horrible was the experience and so terrible was its effect. Again, this is the mark of the transformation effected by the Resurrection. However, the song’s author does capture ideas that we do not take as seriously as they should be taken. He speaks of the “suffering and shame” of the cross, its being “despised by the world,” and its “shame and reproach.” These are important considerations, especially in the context of a world that is defined by the concepts and constricts of honor and shame.

We cannot allow ourselves to consider the stories of the crucifixion of Jesus without also considering the honor and shame culture. Honor was sought after as the greatest of public goods. Shame was to be avoided at all costs. One’s social status was determined, not by possessions or wealth (though these things could certainly accrue to those that were considered honorable), but by the perception of one’s accumulation of either honor or shame, as determined by the court of public opinion. Consequently, public interactions consistently took the shape of honor and shame challenges. In almost every interaction, whether it be the debate of ideas or the purchase of goods, both sides, while naturally attempting to win the argument or to gain the best deal for themselves, would also be attempting to increase their honor and to avoid shame, while simultaneously attempting to shame the opposing party (though this does not necessarily have to imply hostility). It is helpful to look at the various verbal challenges answered by Jesus, or even posed by Jesus, through the lens of the contest of honor and shame. Though the wide angle view of Jesus’ ministry, as presented by the Gospels, is one in which He subjects Himself to criticism and embraces shame, especially the shame of the cross, He does participate in debates in such a way that He in fact gains honor at the expense of His opponents, whom He shames.

When considering honor and shame, it is important to bear in mind that honor was thought to be a limited good, so the accumulation of honor by one person necessarily meant the diminishing of the public perception of the honor of another. Shame, on the other hand, would have been unlimited. There are also existential considerations to be made here. Theoretically, if one accumulated enough honor, one could achieve a type of immortality. On the other end of the spectrum, because honor necessarily implies life, shame was equated with death. If one could have enough shame heaped upon them, or accrued enough shame based on one’s own actions, that person could very well be considered dead while still alive.

Shame & The Cross (part 2)

2012-01-18T06:01:00.001-08:00

As it is understood that Jesus occupied the cross that had been marked out for Barabbas, whom Mark describes as one “who had committed murder during an insurrection” (15:7b), it is not at all difficult to see that Jesus would have also been looked upon as an insurrectionist. In his description of Barabbas, Luke adds “This was a man who had been thrown in prison for an insurrection started in the city, and for murder” (23:19), along with “He released the man they asked for, who had been thrown in prison for insurrection and murder” (23:25a). To this portion of the Jesus tradition, John adds “Now Barabbas was a revolutionary” (18:40b). The word that is translated as “revolutionary” is “lestes,” which has as its root “lestai.” Matthew, for some reason, does not highlight Barabbas’ resume, merely reporting that he was “a notorious prisoner” (27:16). However, we understand that his notoriety is linked to the fact of his attempting to overthrow Roman rule through some type of demonstration in Jerusalem.

Jesus of Nazareth, the upstart from Galilee, now hangs on a cross. Presumably, those witnessing the event, and those who would hear about the event, have been disabused of their notions of His status as Messiah or His messianic pretensions. For above all, the fact that He was undergoing crucifixion flatly indicated that He was not the king and savior of Israel or the liberator of the people, but that He was an abject failure. Though the cross has been romanticized and forever transformed, because of the Resurrection, into a symbol of God’s grace, mercy, and love, such thoughts would have been more than out of place in Jesus’ day. For those watching, Jesus’ execution was like every other Roman crucifixion that had preceded it. It was not particularly unique, as many were scourged, endured a mock coronation, and enjoyed a crown of thorns. These things were familiar components of a crucifixion. It was not until the followers of Jesus became absolutely convinced that the person that had been put to bodily death was the very same person that had risen to new bodily life, which they and those that came after them and joined them could only describe as Resurrection (using the very specific Greek word “anastasis,” or “standing up”), that profound meaning related to God’s purposes in and for His world begins to be ascribed to the cross.

Until that point, it could only be said that crucifixions were grotesque scenes filled with horror and despair both for those undergoing it and for those observing. This is hinted at when the Gospel narratives avoid the specific details of the three hour crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth---a yawning chasm in the stories of the crucifixion that anyone living in the Roman Empire would have been able to quite easily fill in for themselves. The words of Cicero, a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, orator, and political theorist, serve us quite well. He sums up the widespread and general opinion of crucifixion that would have been held by those who were Jesus’ contemporaries: “Even if we are sentenced to death, we may die free men. But the executioner, the veiling of the head, and the very word ‘cross’ should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts his eyes and his ears… indeed the very mention of them, that is unworthy of a Roman citizen and a free man.”

Before moving on, it is worthwhile to briefly revisit Luke’s previously mentioned “divergence” from the records of Mark and Matthew. Though Luke’s record of one of the criminals speaking to Jesus in the way that he records appears, on the surface, to be contradictory to Mark and Matthew, this does not necessarily have to be the case. We are not here attempting to provide a harmonization of the accounts so as to preserve the inerrancy and plenary inspiration of Scripture, but to simply note that the apparently divergent accounts do not necessarily stand in conflict. It is perfectly reasonable to accept the accounts of Mark and Matthew along with Luke, realizing that Luke provides a level of detail not to be found in Mark and Matthew (with the crucifixion scene not being an isolated occurrence of such), while also telling his story for a different purpose. It is possible that both Mark and Matthew knew of the tradition of one of the criminals speaking to Jesus, but chose not to mention it because it did not fit with their theological agenda. That is a perfectly reasonable position to which to ascribe. We do note that, with what he includes, Luke highlights the fact that Jesus was a revolutionary, but not at all in the common mold. This does not run counter to the basic fact that is preserved in Luke’s telling and is crucial to this study, which is that Jesus was mocked and derided by those suffering the same fate as Him. This is a fascinating and telling tidbit, especially as we better understand the common view of the cross.

Shame & The Cross (part 1)

2012-01-17T12:22:00.001-08:00

Those who were crucified with Him also spoke abusively to Him. – Mark 15:32b (NET)

In recounting the story of the crucifixion, Mark’s Gospel tells us “they crucified two outlaws with Him, one on his right hand and one on his left. Those who passed by defamed Him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘Aha! You who can destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself and come down from the cross!’ In the same way even the chief priests---together with the experts in the law---were mocking Him among themselves: ‘He saved others, but He cannot save Himself! Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, that we may see and believe!’ Those who were crucified with Him also spoke abusively to Him” (15:27-32).

Matthew’s description of the horrid event, which is generally understood to rely upon the account of Mark, is quite similar in its details. However, the author, after reporting the mocking statement of “If he comes down now from the cross, we will believe in Him” (27:42b), adds “He trusts in God---let God, if He wants to, deliver Him now because he said, ‘I am God’s Son’” (27:43). Matthew also adds to the description of those crucified with Jesus, elaborating on the fact of their being “outlaws,” by adding “The robbers who were crucified with Him also spoke abusively to Him” (27:44). Though this particular translation uses “outlaws” and “robbers,” it is the same Greek word that is being translated, which is “lestai.” This word does not denote a common thief or criminal, but rather, somebody that is a revolutionary---a rebel. The same can be said of Mark, as “outlaw” is the translation of “lestai.” Consequently, those looking at Jesus on the cross would consider Him to be a “lestai” as well, especially considering the fact that crucifixion was used as the death penalty for rebellious subjects.

Looking to Luke’s record, as he is also widely believed to base his report largely on that of Mark, we read “Two other criminals were also led away to be executed with Him. So when they came to the place that is called ‘The Skull,” they crucified Him there, along with the criminals, one on His right and one on His left… The people also stood there watching, but the rulers ridiculed Him, saying, ‘He saved others. Let Him save Himself if He is the Christ of God, His chosen one!’” (23:32-33,35). Here we add that John does not include a record of the activities of those crucified with Jesus. Staying with Luke then, interestingly, at this point, Luke’s story diverges from that of Mark and Matthew. Whereas Mark and Matthew make mention of Jesus being spoken to in an abusive manner “by “those who were crucified with Him,” Luke informs his audience that “One of the criminals who was hanging there railed at Him, saying, ‘Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!’ But the other rebuked Him, saying, ‘Don’t you fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we rightly so, for we are getting what we deserve for what we did, but this man has done nothing wrong.’” (23:39-41)

Though this is not especially pertinent to this study, when we hear this, we need to keep in mind that for which they are being condemned, which is rebellion. So the revolutionary that speaks to Jesus and the other man in this way is not speaking to the idea of Jesus being without sin. He is acknowledging, in a way that would have been particularly useful for those being instructed, through Luke’s telling of the Jesus story, as a community that looks to Jesus as King and Lord of the world’s true and legitimate kingdom, contra Caesar and Rome, that Jesus was not hanging on the cross for the reason that landed the others on a cross. Pertinently then, we must bear in mind the meaning of the cross in that day, the types of people that landed on crosses, and the message that was being sent. These things would have been well known to a first century observer or to one that heard the story of Jesus’ crucifixion.

It must be said that crucifixion was a highly effective tool in the hands of all that used it. The Romans, as others, employed it to make public examples out of those who resisted or sought to usurp Roman rule. It also had the useful function of warning spectators against making the same type of fatal error as that of their fellow countryman now hanging naked for all the world to see---a testament to the power and glory of Rome. A portion of the public ceremony of crucifixion was the employing of a “titulus,” which was a placard hung above the head of the victim that stated his crime. We see this in the record of Jesus’ crucifixion, and the sign which read “King of the Jews.” This was yet another way of confirming, as if the fact of the crucifixion was not sufficient, that the one being crucified, Jesus in this case, was presumed to be guilty of sedition against Rome. It should be added that crucifixion was also employed as a punishment for slaves that committed crimes against their masters. Either way, the message of the cross was quite clear, whether employed against a revolutionary against Rome or a slave that countered his master’s wishes, that usurpation of order, be it public or private, was not going to be tolerated. When employed against a potential revolutionary, the message was clear---all were slaves of Rome.

Laodicea & The Church's Meal Table (part 5 of 5)

2012-01-16T08:24:00.001-08:00

Jesus tells this church that “All those I love, I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent!” (3:19) With what has already been said about their need to imitate the other churches in their area and the vomit-inducing and obviously displeasing nature of their practice, as well as the mocking words of “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked” (which are only mocking to those that are failing to adhere to Jesus’ insistence to provide food, water, clothing, and support to the least while actually considering themselves to be adequately representing their Lord and His kingdom) what follows, when heard within the contextual narrative (both the isolated narrative of this particular letter and the larger narrative of God’s redemptive plan) is obviously going to be quite severe.

These dreadful words of “Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking,” combined with “If anyone hears My voice I will come into his home and share a meal with him, and he with Me,” would be quite telling. This is where they are failing. Like a number of other churches, their meal table is corrupted. For a variety of reasons, it is not a representation of the kingdom of God; rather, it is a representation of the world, its power, and its order. The church’s meal table is designed to teach its participants how to live as the kingdom of God, while showing a watching world what the kingdom of the sovereign and Creator God looks like in action. It must look different, and it must be part of a process that produces people that look different, as they willingly enter into suffering and shame as need be, in following the ideal of the cross. This is learned by conscientiously seeking and taking the lowest place amongst those that comprise the people of God, so that such behavior becomes the virtuous practice of those same people when they regularly and constantly encounter those that stand outside of that kingdom, in an exile from what God intends for the creation that is made in His image, and in need of being exodus-ed into the world of resurrection and new creation that is being modeled out by the confessors of Jesus’ Lordship and God’s kingdom.

As was the case in Corinth, and probably in the church addressed by James, an unfortunate stratification has taken place in the Laodicean church. In Corinth, the stratification, and its subsequent ordering of the church based on principles of honor and shame, appeared to be connected to “spiritual gifts.” For the situation addressed by James, wealth seems to be a factor. Without going into the rest of the churches addressed in the New Testament, what we can see here in Laodicea, is that wealth is the issue. Clearly, it’s behavior is destructive and damaging to the kingdom and to the church’s witness of its Lord. Consequently and understandably, it is looked upon as being abhorrent, and the most stern and damning words that are delivered to any of the seven churches of Revelation are directed to the church that is corrupting the meal table. While other churches receive their criticisms, Laodicea seems to be in a unique position amongst the churches here addressed, and this appears to be the case because it is the church that, because of their corruption of the meal table, stands in the position that most flatly contradicts the ethos of the Gospel as presented by what is a focal point of Jesus’ ministry---the meal table.

Their contravention of the demands of the Christian meal table (the Lord’s Supper in its fullest, messianic-banquet-themed sense), puts the Laodicean church in the most negative light of any of the other churches to which Jesus speaks in Revelation. The others have their problems, no doubt, but it is Laodicea (lukewarm) that stands the most condemned and most in need of repentance, while also being instructed to consider the ready-at-hand examples of the meal tables of the churches at Hierapolis (hot) and Colossae (cold), who are apparently, owing to the fact that Jesus wishes that the church at Laodicea would be more like them, are getting the meal table right. It is quite right that this particular letter has received so much attention, even though much of that attention has been lavished in ways that made no attempt at understanding the message of the letter in its proper context, as it is the one church that receives its rebuke in relation to that which so heavily defines the church, which is its table practice.

There is social commentary taking place here, and in each case, it is directed first (and only?) to the churches. This makes sense in light of the fact that Jesus is concerned with the advent of the kingdom of God. Because His churches are the emissaries of that kingdom, they are charged to learn from Him the ways that they are to be its representatives. That way, of course, is love; and that love is properly learned at a properly modeled meal table. The weight of the meal table, as a definer of life and relations in the world, simply cannot be over-stressed.

This study concerning an oft-misunderstood letter from an oft-misunderstood and misrepresented book, while dispelling the popular mythology derived from this abused passage within this abused book, has been an effort to situate the meal table, and its indisputable importance, in its rightful place in the New Testament, while offering the requisite social applications that are demanded by our understanding of the social implications and applications (which gain their significance from the heavily Jewish theological, soteriological, Christological, and eschatological aspects of Jesus’ words and deeds) of the record of Jesus’ ministry. Theology, quite simply, must be done, it must be done constantly, and it must be converted to practice. Jesus’ social commentary was thoroughly rooted in His theology, as the practice of that theology, so often seen at the meal table, was rooted in the His understanding of the kingdom of God. That said, it is the cross that takes center-stage, especially in the world-shaping and ethic-forming area of meal practice.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to filter all of our considerations as to what it means to live as denizens and citizens of God’s kingdom through the message of the cross, never forgetting the hope embodied by the Resurrection. As Christians, we must keep the meal table and its importance, especially as we participate in communion, consistently in our minds as we attempt to engage this world that God so loves. By embodying the cross and taking the lowest place, with that happening first and foremost as we gather together as church bodies and learn how to be the people of God for His world, we will avoid the judgment of being vomited out of God’s kingdom, and we will never hear Jesus telling us that He stands outside of our fellowship, as He is looked upon as unworthy as we jostle for positions of honor and trample upon the ones with whom Jesus identified through His ministry and when He went to the accursed cross. He will, in contrast to what was told to the church at Laodicea, never have to stand and the door, begging to be present in our churches, and this will redound to His glory. How will Jesus be present? He will be present when we are serving and suffering with the wretched, the pitiful, the poor, the blind, and the naked, for as we serve these, we serve Him. May God give us ears to hear, always allowing us to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Laodicea & The Church's Meal Table (part 4 of 5)

2012-01-14T04:52:00.001-08:00

As it relates to those who are informed about their wretchedness, poverty, blindness, and lack of clothes, is this not the example of that early Christian hymn employed by Paul in the letter to the Philippians? It is quite probable that the hymn would have been well known to the church at Laodicea, and it’s presentation of an exalted Jesus (in the form of God---the Jewish context providing the background for this, as the expected Messiah, and therefore Jesus, was thought to be the physical manifestation of Israel’s God) willfully emptying Himself to take on the form of a slave and going to the lowest of the world’s low places (the cross) before receiving His exaltation (His Resurrection and His rule). If we rightly understand the use of “first as last” and “last as first” terminology within the world of Jesus and the early church, take into consideration how a banqueting table provided information about the community that participated at the banquet, and rightly apply the Jewish worldview that Jesus presented and by which the church developed, then we can see that mimicking this pattern is Jesus’ expectation.

If Jesus, as the first, becomes last, ultimately becoming first again in relation to the kingdom of God, then so too should all that claim Him as Lord and thereby signal a participation in that kingdom, willfully become last, thereby becoming first (in a sense) because they represent the kingdom of the Creator God. Though this will continue to have the appearance of being last to a watching world, they also become first because of the kingdom that is now at work and because of the resurrection to come. Here, in order to make a bit more sense of these thoughts, we can bring in a statement from the first chapter of Revelation, as the recipients of the writing are reminded that Jesus “has appointed us as a kingdom, as priests serving His God and Father” (1:6a).

It is this issue of becoming last---a servant of all and a slave of all---that makes it so difficult for those who have wealth to enter into the kingdom of God, and it is this component of the Jesus tradition (probably being circulated in a standardized, written format at the time of the writing of the Revelation), that is providing context for Jesus’ chastisement of this church that is located in an extraordinarily wealthy city. Based on what we know about Laodicea, its important position, and its wealth, along with the words herein employed within a wider context of the church’s mission and the Jesus tradition, this is not a stretch in the least little bit. Significantly, we’ve allowed ourselves to stay firmly rooted in the social context, hearing the words of the letter as would the recipients of other New Testament era letters---applying the words to the immediate situation within the church so as to grasp the immediate issues while extracting the wider truths and ethic therein revealed, doing so within the shared and developing Jesus tradition and church doctrine that were fundamentally shaped by Jewish expectations concerning the messianic banquet, the resurrection of the righteous dead, and the kingdom of God on earth.

Taking up the issue of imitating the practice of those that came before them, as did Israel when they entered in upon what was, for all practical purposes, their kingdom of God, and doing so within the context provided by the letter to Laodicea, leads us directly to the meal table. The history of Israel presents a full engagement in the practices and customs of the previous occupants of their land. Exile (vomiting out) was the result. As we consider this, keeping the vomiting in mind along with its Levitical pretense, the context for the letter to Laodicea, together with the context of the honor and shame culture, and the context of the early church’s highly significant development of the Jesus-derived egalitarian meal table as fundamental for faith and practice, leads us by the hand to interpreting the crucial text in the blinding light of the messianic-banquet-infused ideals of the church’s meal table.

Due to the centrality of the meal table as the tangible demonstration of the presence of the kingdom of God because of the importance of messianic banquet considerations along with the example of Jesus’ table fellowship, important communications in relation to the faith and to their witness for that kingdom would have been heard at a table gathering. Based on the record of the Gospels and the table-oriented language employed in the New Testament’s letters, this is not far-fetched in the least. Therefore, this is the setting in which we presume the Laodiceans to have heard the letter addressed to them, and indeed, the setting from which they and the other churches would have heard the whole of the Revelation. So we can only imagine the perking of the ears when Jesus chastises them in a way that has not really been heard in the previous six letters (though there are chastisements to be sure), and then goes on to say to a kingdom community that, like other churches, properly oriented themselves around the meal table as a primary confession of their adherence to the Gospel, “Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking! If anyone hears My voice and opens the door I will come into his home and share a meal with him, and he with Me” (3:20). These words would be dreadful to hear, as the listeners would hear Jesus telling them that He is not presently a component of their table fellowship that is supposed to represent the messianic banquet.

Laodicea & The Church's Meal Table (part 3 of 5)

2012-01-13T09:31:00.001-08:00

So the vomiting takes on a duly important aspect in the letter to Laodicea. It serves to inform this church that they are doing that which has been practiced by others before them. By this, with the connection to hot, cold, and vomiting, they are also informed, looking to the use of “hot” and “cold” in the fifteenth verse of Revelation three, that the church communities in Hierapolis and Colossae are performing in a way that is pleasing to Jesus (Hierapolis was the city known as “hot” because of the hot springs to be found there, Colossae was the city known as “cold” because of its location near freshwater springs, and Laodicea was the city known as “lukewarm” because it was located between the two---aqueducts carried the hot spring water from Hierapolis, which was thought to have healing powers, to Laodicea, and it was lukewarm by the time it got there, while the fresh water from Colossae flowed to Laodicea and was also lukewarm as well). By saying “I wish you were either cold or hot” (3:15b), the Laodicean church is being asked to emulate that which is taking place in the churches at Hierapolis and Colossae. The use of “lukewarm” in the sixteenth verse is simply a roundabout way of identifying Laodicea. Effectively, Jesus is telling them that their doing something the way that they are doing it, contrary to the ready examples that they have in two other nearby church communities, is unacceptable.

It is clear that the church community at Laodicea believes themselves to be quite special. From a reading of the letter, it would also appear that 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. Ideally, the church, 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 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 God, then that church is going to be quite handicapped in its ability to reflect the glory of God into the world.

The world, of course, is the new world that began taking shape at the Resurrection. Just as a people of God was sent into a promised land to live in a certain way that God desired and to redeem that land as the firstfruits of a redeemed humanity and creation, so too are the people of God following the Resurrection, 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. We see this concept at play with what comes next in the text, when Jesus, referencing His desire to vomit them out of His mouth because they are mimicking the inhabitants of the land, when they should be mimicking the churches of Hierapolis and Colossae.

When Jesus says, “Because you say, ‘I am rich and have acquired great wealth, and need nothing’” (3:17a), He lets them 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 lets us know 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, such as we can see in the letter of James, in which the wealthy are treated better simply within the church and afforded greater honor (in the honor and shame culture) simply because of the fact of their wealth.

Lest they become too puffed up with their wealth, which would have been gained through their well-known 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 renowned 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) We must notice the use of “shameful.” Such language, given the cultural context, is quite specific and should not escape our attention.

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 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 (eschaton) 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.

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 God to learn the way that 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.

Laodicea & The Church's Meal Table (part 2 of 5)

2012-01-12T10:07:00.001-08:00

As we assume the appropriate viewing posture for Revelation as a whole and for the letters in particular, what we find is that each church is being asked to respond to a present or looming situation, whether problematic or not. This is obviously the case for each church, and naturally, it is no different for the church at Laodicea. Each church will be well aware of the situation that is being addressed in the letter that is addressed to them, and they can take the steps to respond appropriately.

The Ephesian church is going to know what is meant by their having fallen from their high state and the deeds that they used to do (2:5). The Smyrnans are going to be acutely aware of that which is bringing suffering upon themselves, which may also include imprisonment (2:10). The Pergamum church will know precisely what it means that some are following the teaching of Balaam, while some are following the teaching of the Nicolaitans (2:14-15). The Thyatiran church does not have to guess at what is being communicated in regards to their toleration of Jezebel (2:20). In Sardis, there will be no mystery surrounding their pretending to be alive when they are really dead, in connection with their incomplete works, along with their need to wake up and what it means that there are some who have not stained their clothes (3:1-4). For the Philadelphians, there would have been no difficulty in deciphering talk about their deeds, doors, and an open door that no one can shut (3:7-8). Lastly, the Laodiceans would have known exactly what is being implied by all of the language directed towards them.

The language of cold, hot, lukewarm, vomit, rich, wealthy, in need of nothing, gold, clothing, eye salve, door knocking, and a meal would have been well understood. A purely spiritual interpretation, though clearly an issue of the operation of the Spirit within this church body is being addressed, is unwarranted. The specificity and direct applicability of the language indicates that they would not have been left to wonder what to do or how they were to respond. We may wonder what it means and grasp at all types of straws as part of that wondering, but we do so only if we are too lazy to enter into the text and to hear the letter in the same way that an early church would have heard the letter, which would have been in the same way that other churches were asked to hear the letters of Paul. It must be made as clear as it can possibly be that, in the letters, specific churches with specific issues are addressed. Sometimes they are praised, often they are rebuked, and the meal table is nearly universally a central concern. To go along with that, hearing the letters in the same way that the churches would have heard the letters would not only include a presumption that there are concrete issues being addressed, but it would also include hearing the letter read during the church’s gathering, which would almost certainly include table fellowship.

Together with that, the history of Israel (reaching back to Adam), which would have been a major point of instruction for the Gentile churches, as apart from a knowledge of the story of Israel absolutely no sense can be made of Jesus, His suffering, or His Resurrection. Also, it would be rather difficult for the participants in the church, as they considered themselves the renewed Israel, to correctly live out the responsibilities of being the people of the covenant, if they were not aware of what had befallen the covenant people that had come before them. So that history, and the story of God’s movement through His specially chosen people to accomplish His covenant purposes, would be called to mind by the very powerful phrase used in the sixteenth verse of the third chapter, which was “I am going to vomit you out of My mouth!” This was a highly charged statement that would call to mind a portion of the Levitical narrative.

Considering that and its importance for coming to terms with the church’s need to locate itself within Israel’s narrative, we find in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, as “The Lord spoke to Moses” (18:1a), Israel is instructed that “You must not do as they do in the land of Egypt… and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan into which I am about to bring you; you must not walk in their statutes… So you must keep My statutes and My regulations; anyone who does so will live by keeping them” (18:3,5a). We must observe the correlation between God bringing His people into their promised land (a microcosm of the kingdom of God on earth), and His bringing His people (such as the members of the church body at Laodicea), through their confession of Jesus as Lord, into the kingdom of God on earth (that encompasses the whole of the creation) that was inaugurated with the Resurrection of Jesus.

What would happen if God’s people disregarded these words? Picking up in the twenty-fourth verse of the same chapter, we read “Do not defile yourself with any of these things,” that being the customs of the peoples to whom you are supposed to demonstrate an entirely different way of being human as you represent your Creator, “for the nations which I am about to drive out before you have been defiled with all these things. Therefore the land has become unclean and I have brought the punishment for its iniquity upon it, so that the land has vomited out its inhabitants” (18:24-25). Vomited out? Really? So, doing that which runs against the witness and serves to defeat the purposes of the redeeming, Creator God would result in an occurrence of vomiting. This would seem to connect the vomiting of Revelation with the long-running narrative of the people and purposes of God. With that in our thoughts, as it would have been for an early church that was not so unfortunately disconnected from its Jewish roots, we go on to hear God say, “So do not make the land vomit you out because you defile it just as it has vomited out the nations that were before you” (18:28).

Laodicea & The Church's Meal Table (part 1 of 5)

2012-01-11T15:49:00.000-08:00

If anyone hears My voice an opens the door I will come into his home and share a meal with him, and he with Me. – Revelation 3:20b (NET)

When we consider the Revelation, it should be more than abundantly clear that we can in no way be satisfied with spiritual interpretations that forget that this was a real church full of real people, dealing with real issues that were of grave importance to the church in the decades following the life and ministry of Jesus. Understanding this will also allow us to come to the conclusion that Revelation is not to be taken as a guidebook to events of the future, but as a writing of the apocalyptic genre that was designed to provide a critique to the present, which also provides it with its universal and unquestioned value to the people of God.

It is as we understand the letters to the churches of Revelation as specifically applicable to those churches that we find those same letters, and Revelation as a whole, applicable to the church for all time and highly useful when it comes to matters of faith and practice. For too long, Revelation has been distorted and pulled out of shape through fantastic interpretations that look at it as prophecy of what is to come at some time in the distant future. This has, to our detriment, diminished its value for the people of God. It is as we put Revelation back in its right context, seeing it in a critique of the church and an unmasking of the nature of worldly power and problematic social conformity amongst the citizens of the heavenly kingdom, that we find an eminently useful book that allows us to better serve our God and His kingdom-oriented purposes. That effort might very well begin with a right understanding of the powerful communication to Laodicea.

Our examination will allow us to cast off any notions that the churches of Revelation somehow represent seven “church ages.” However, it is not the case that, simply because we are able to identify the issues at hand for the Laodicean church, that Jesus’ words to this church, as reported by the author, have no bearing on or relevance for the church today. As we have seen, the issues that we see being dealt with in the New Testament letters, and which influenced the construction of the Gospels as they related the facts of the ministry of Jesus, once properly situated, can be seen as more than relevant for the church then, the church now, and indeed, the church for all time. A greater purpose is served, in that the centrality of the meal table, which comes undeniably to the forefront of concern and practice for the Christian community, along with call to a sacrificial love in the midst of a world shaped by matters of honor and shame, serves to sweep away so much of the clutter of thoroughly subjective and anachronistic interpretations of the Gospel that are completely lacking in social, historical, political, geographical, and cultural context.

Once we have taken the step of recognizing the preponderance of what can almost be taken as the controlling meal table motif in the New Testament letters, doing so in conjunction with the observation that the meal table takes up a significant amount of space in the multiple tellings of the story of Jesus that we see in the Gospel accounts, what seems difficult is simplified. Indeed, it is the meal table, that which would eventually be transmitted in Christian tradition as the communion (though its fullness would be better comprehended if it was a banquet rather than simply the two elements), with its heavily and inescapably Jewish underpinnings of the messianic banquet and its being forever linked to the Passover and the exodus, that also shows us so much of the foolish and strained interpretations that have been attached to Jesus’ words to the church at Laodicea.

Never let us forget that the Christian meal table, in following the example of Jesus, was and is designed to be a witness that Jesus rules as Lord of all (the Gospel), that the kingdom of God is in existence (inaugurated with the Resurrection), that it is present in the here and now whenever two or three are gathered and confessing that Jesus is Lord (thus creating a Temple---the place where heaven and earth come together), that it is a kingdom established and marked and extended by willful and loving suffering and sacrifice (thus the natural references to the body and blood of Jesus and His crucifixion), and it is a kingdom to which all are ultimately accountable. This is where the church at Laodicea was falling short.

Believing In Him (part 58)

2012-01-10T14:36:00.000-08:00

As it relates to Israel in Egypt, which is the paradigm on which Paul clearly operates for quite specific purposes, the was a groaning based on a desire to return to the place where God had visited and placed their forefathers. This then is the attitude that is to be adopted by the church, which will include confirming the mindset that sees creation as inherently good, while rejecting the mindset that creation is something that is less than good, which is a way of thinking that is foreign to all of Scripture, foreign to the thought-world in which Jesus lived and conducted His ministry, and foreign to the Apostle Paul. We recognize the advent of the kingdom and its restoration of the physical creation by means of the Resurrection, and so groan to escape the bondage of the old age of sin and death by participating in the new age of the life of the Spirit. This is accomplished whenever Jesus is proclaimed as Lord, be it in word or in deed, as our actions are explained by adherence to the principles and ideals of the kingdom of God as announced by Jesus.

We, who compose the church of Christ and function as glory-to-God-bringing Ambassadors of the kingdom of God, do not groan to escape the world, but to enter into the land originally promised to the original divine image and covenant bearer (Adam), which is the restored creation, as the renewal of that creation is foretold and foreordained by the promise of God and the Resurrection of Jesus. Our heavenly dwelling is two-fold, in that it is (1) the creation that will be overrun by the power of God’s kingdom, which is (2) to be enjoyed by His image-bearers in glorified, resurrected bodies that are suited for the world of God’s kingdom reign.

To that point we append Paul’s subsequent language, wherein he adds “if 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” (5:3-4), thereby linking the promised land of the new creation, which is obviously far more explicit in connection with the groaning in Romans, with the implications of the Resurrection. The old age (flesh/mortal) is swallowed up by the new age (spirit/life). It is for this, and for what should be our desire, if we call Jesus Lord, to participate in God’s kingdom program in the here and now as effective and loyal citizens, that the “Spirit helps us in our weakness,” and “intercedes for us with inexpressible groaning” (8:26a,c), as we groan like Israel in Egypt, in knowledge of promises, a land, the faithfulness of our God, and His purposes for us in and for this world.

As Paul reflects on the heavenly house, which should produce thoughts not far removed from the idea of the household of believers and therefore the family of Abraham that is united under a single head through the confession of Jesus as Lord, along with groaning, a tent (thoughts of the tabernacle of the wilderness is not too far away if exodus is in mind), clothing, and the creation that is under the sway of mortality being overcome by the power that brought Jesus back from the dead (this is how kingdom people could usefully perceive their service of God in the world), he goes on to declare that “the one who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave us the Spirit as a down payment” (5:5).

Having gone to some length to demonstrate the companionship between the two passages that are here on offer, we again consider those popular words from Romans, and within the same echoing chamber hear “And we know that all things word together for good for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose” (8:28). Yes, it is within this rubric of God’s purposes for His covenant family and His creation that we then consider Paul’s words concerning those who are predestined, called, justified, and glorified---conformed into the image of His Son (Adam, Israel, Jesus, the church). This reminds us, yet again, just how incredibly crucial it is to hear these Scriptures not only in their immediate context, but within the context of the story of the redeeming God who is going about the business, through His covenant family, of setting His world right.

Believing In Him (part 57)

2012-01-10T11:08:00.001-08:00

Returning again to what really is an altogether fascinating series of thoughts on offer by the Apostle Paul, we join the Roman congregation in hearing “For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now. Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies” (8:22-23). As has been made clear, the language here employed by Paul, specifically that of groaning and redemption, is the language of Israel’s defining story.

Revisiting an earlier theme that we have raised, which is Paul’s use of “we” in his engagement with Gentiles, which appears to be Paul’s way of self-identifying with Gentiles and to play a role in his desire to see a united family of God, the use of “adoption” in precise connection with these highly charged terms merely amplifies and exacerbates the end that Paul believes to be on offer in the Gospel’s announcement (the Lordship of Jesus that portends the inauguration of the kingdom of God). It is easy to understand Paul’s aims in this regard, as the congregation of Roman believers is generally understood to be a more evenly mixed congregation of Jew and Gentile and therefore in need of the “adoption” of an inclusive family language for what must become an inclusive family story. The fact that Paul spends time in his letters specifically addressing what would be largely Jewish concerns reinforces the picture of that relatively even mixture.

While there are also Jews in Corinth, and undoubtedly Jews as part of the assembly of Jesus believers there, the situation in Corinth is understood to be a bit different. Perhaps there are a very small number of Jewish believers, so their concerns are not particular germane the whole assembly? Accordingly, there is no pervasive crisis. Consequently, the abiding concerns of his Jewish brethren do not warrant the overt attention of Paul. It is possible that the Jews there were more Hellenized, and therefore less stringent in their adherence to the traditions addressed in the Romans letter, such as table fellowship and the marks of covenant inclusion. Speculation could continue. However, what is unmistakable is Paul’s employment of overtly Israel-centric terminology here in this passage that is quite the mirror of part of Romans eight.

Again echoing the above-quoted words of that chapter, with words such as “suffering,” “eternal,” and “glory” ringing in our ears as that which closes the fourth chapter, along with the “creation,” “groans,” “suffers,” “adoption,” and “redemption” of Romans eight (realizing that these terms are all conceptually linked by the narratives of Israel and Jesus), we advance into the fifth chapter of the second letter to the Corinthians and hear “For we know that if our earthly house is dismantled, we have a building from God, a house not built by human hands, that is eternal in the heavens” (5:1). Crucially then, in the next verse, Paul writes “For in this earthly house we groan, because we desire to put on our heavenly dwelling” (5:2).

In yet another unmistakable fusion of the disparate peoples of the world into the family of God whose continuing story of relationship with the Creator God has as its foundation the story of Israel (which, we remember, goes all the way back to Adam, though Adam is also understood to be the progenitor of humanity), Paul calls to mind the exodus. Israel, who had the promise of a return to the land that had been promised to the family of Abraham---and we do not miss the connection to the church of the Christ as the family of Abraham and the whole of creation as the land originally promised to Adam as the divine image-bearer, presumably groaned under their bondage precisely because of the remembrance of that promise (at the very least, this is what is to be taken from the people-of-God-defining narrative as supplied by the Hebrew Scriptures), longing to put on their heavenly dwelling, which was their promised land.

It is important to continue to remember that Israel’s groaning was to escape bondage, but not to escape the world. The idea that the world was something shabby, second-rate, and to be escaped, is nowhere present in Jewish thought. Rather, the world was very much understood to be a good creation sullied by the very ones given a charge to keep. That same creation was to be renewed by God, who would accomplish it by His own intervention and His own power, through the instrumentation of the same beings that had originally failed in the performance of their assignment. This was the way that the story of Abraham, according to the structure of the very foundations of Israel’s story (Genesis one through eleven), was perceived.

Believing In Him (part 56)

2012-01-09T10:58:00.001-08:00

Just as we did not approach Paul’s presentations of “justification” in isolation, looking to Galatians, Philippians, and Ephesians in order to ascertain the all-peoples-inclusive language that is the bedrock of justification, while also looking at the stories in Acts to aid us in coming to terms with the development of Paul’s theological, soteriological, ecclesiastical, and eschatological positions, so we do not consider what we have discovered in the eighth chapter of Romans, as it is a vital interpretation of the work of God in Christ and the ongoing story of Israel, in isolation as if it is an isolated occurrence. In that spirit, we cast a net upon the waters of Paul’s letters that we might be able to see that his recently examined position, on display in the eighth chapter of Romans, with its connection to the broader narrative of Israel’s history and its being foundational for the call and purpose of the church to live as the community of Resurrection, is most assuredly not isolated.

Where might we look to find an echo of the prominent themes of the latter half of chapter eight of Romans (glory, renewal/redemption, groaning, and the affirmation of the goodness of God’s physical creation)? Though these themes can be found littered throughout the Pauline literature, we find them rather tightly packed in the second letter to the Corinthians. Now, while it is quite possible that what we have in the New Testament as the second Corinthian letter is actually a conglomeration of multiple letters, there can be little doubt that the section at which we will be looking, which comes to us as the end of chapter four and the beginning of chapter five (according to the chapter divisions introduced into the text in the thirteenth century) is from the same letter.

We read: “But since we have the same spirit of faith as that shown in what has been written, ‘I believed, therefore I spoke,’” as Paul includes (adopts?) the Gentile Corinthians as recipients of and participants in Israel’s Scripture and its story, “we also believe, therefore we also speak. We do so because we know that the one who raised up Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus and will bring us with you into His presence” (4:13-14). This fits nicely alongside “And if children, then heirs (namely heirs of God and also fellow heirs with Christ)---if indeed we suffer with him so we may also be glorified with Him” (8:17). Of course, this also causes us to back up just a bit so as to incorporate some very Israel’s-exodus-story-like-but-now-transformed-by-Jesus-Gentile-believer-inclusive language of suffering and glorification that is found in “We are experiencing trouble on every side, but are not crushed; we are perplexed but not driven to despair; we are persecuted, but not abandoned; we are knocked down, but not destroyed, always carrying around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our body” (4:8-10), which, for Paul, is the body of believers as a microcosm of the whole of the covenant people of God, just as Israel, both the people and the land, were a microcosm of the redeemed covenant people of all nations and the redeemed creation.

Continuing with that thought: “For we who are alive are constantly being handed over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our mortal body. As a result, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you” (4:11-12). Returning then to Romans in our comparison, we read “For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us” (8:18). Back to Corinthians: “For all these things are for your sake, so that the grace that is including more and more people may cause thanksgiving to increase to the glory of God” (4:15). To Romans: “For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility---not willingly but because of God who subjected it---in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:19-21). To Corinth: “Therefore we do not despair, but even if our physical body is wearing away, or inner person is being renewed day by day. For our momentary light suffering is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison” (4:16-17).

Momentarily skipping down a few verses in Romans, and attempting to hear these words while remembering their connection to the plight of an Israel in bondage in Egypt while contemplating their connection to a covenant people and a creation that acknowledges the promise of resurrection and an inaugurated kingdom within a creation whose restoration/renewal/redemption has begun, we find: “For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope, because who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with endurance” (8:24-25). Picking back up with the verse that finishes the thought begun in the sixteenth and seventeenth verses: “because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal” (4:18). As we can see, there is an obvious sharing of ideas between the passages from the two letters, and that sharing continues in to chapter five.

Believing In Him (part 55)

2012-01-07T09:21:00.000-08:00

Jesus was the place of the overlap of heaven and earth (which is also the ancient understanding of the Temple---the place where God’s existence invaded the place of man’s existence), and this was evidenced by His constant defeat of the forces that stood in opposition to God and God’s purposes (healings, exorcisms, raising the dead, etc…). The responsibility to be the place of that heaven/earth overlap was that which Israel was charged to uphold, but did not. Jesus embodied Israel and succeeded where there had been failure, and this charge has been passed along to those that identify themselves as part of God’s family by Jesus’ name (affirming allegiance to Him, His kingdom, and the tenets of His kingdom program---bearing the covenant marker of belief in Him).

Paul expects nothing less than that the believing community model Jesus in succeeding in being the Israel of God, writing “because those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that His Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (8:29). This is not about some foreordained calling of some percentage of the human population, such that some go to heaven and the rest go to hell. This is simply not in view, especially as we consider that such thinking was foreign to Paul’s worldview. It undoubtedly is the case that not all will embrace Jesus and acknowledge the Creator God through Him, so there is a group of people that will participate in the kingdom of God during their lives while others do not. That said, the passage is not intended to convey information about the final destination of a human soul.

Again, if we trace the context of the passage, its connection to the exodus of Israel, and its placement within the whole of the letter that seems to have to do primarily with the family of God and its representation of the kingdom of God in and for the world, we realize that thoughts about predestination, in the sense of determining “who’s in and who’s out,” are simply not on the field. Once we put that out of the way, what we see---and this seems to be far more appropriate---is that the passage is about the covenant faithfulness of the Creator God, that faithfulness that is recorded in the narrative of Israel that runs back to the story of Adam, and the impetus for the unified covenant family that is composed of all peoples to take up its role. The passage is about what God is going to do for His creation, how He has been doing it, how He is going to do it, and about the people of the covenant getting on board with and participating in that plan.

God had called Israel His son---His firstborn. Israel, the groaning people of Egypt (we can’t forget our groaning context), was foreknown by God as evidenced by the promise to Abraham about His people that would go into captivity and then come out of captivity. The foreknowing of God demands to be understood in accordance with the story of Israel. God’s intention for Israel, whose story and purpose is predicated by God’s interactions with Abraham, was to set the world to rights, reversing the failure of Adam, who was looked upon as the son of God, created in His image, given a covenant responsibility, and failed. Thus, Israel, whom God foreknew (as established by the narrative that includes promises and prophecies to Abraham), was predestined (purposed) to succeed where Adam had failed.

Jesus, who pieced together the messianic mission from His understanding of Israel’s story, along with the wisdom and prophetic literature, thus establishing the idea of foreknowing and predestination for Him as well, succeeded where both Israel and Adam had failed. So the foreknowing of God in regards to Jesus also demands to be understood in accordance with the story of Israel. The same can also be said for the church whose mission is foretold and purposed by the Jesus-centered-and-shaped messianic tale, and which is now tasked with announcing and carrying on the successes and even the seeming failure of Jesus.

Here, we remember that crucifixion was a mark of decided failure. However, the Resurrection reverses the seeming failure, making it possible to understand the cross as the place where Israel’s full cursing (Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) is carried out against Jesus as embodied Israel. Accordingly, the Resurrection tells the covenant community that embracing the cross, which will mean going to the place of willful experience of suffering and shame (mimicking Jesus in His “failure”) if it will advance God’s creation-and-humanity-redeeming kingdom program, and doing so on behalf of others so as to be the place of the coming together of heaven and earth and an announcement of the kingdom of God.

Thus, the church (the covenant people of God culled from all of humanity, not just ethnic or national Israel, who bear the covenant marker of belief in Jesus), whom God ultimately foreknew in Abraham, was predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus, reproducing a family of divine image-bearers. It is with this purpose clearly in mind that we then hear Paul say “And those He predestined, He also called; and those He called, He also justified; and those He justified, He also glorified” (8:30). Paul believes that according to the Scriptures (from Abraham through the prophets), God, as planned, is calling out a people from all nations (called), including them under His covenant banner through belief in Jesus (justified), and tasking them with reflecting His glory into the world (glorified).

Believing In Him (part 54)

2012-01-06T11:46:00.001-08:00

Having made the analogy firm, connecting the experience of those in Christ (and the to-be-redeemed creation) to that of Israel in Egypt, replete with groaning that God hears, we find that we have been well-prepared to comprehend verses twenty-eight through thirty. Just before doing that however, because we are going to cover a quite popular and well-worm verse that is often treated in isolation and therefore lacking all context, we enhance the credibility and legitimacy of our opinion by quickly retracing verses twenty through twenty-three of chapter eight.

So by way of review, Paul has written that “the creation was subjected to futility---not willingly but because of God who subjected it,” which could be tentatively said of Israel in Egypt because of the knowledge of God’s promise to Abraham, “in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children.” Any talk of God’s children is an indication that the story of Israel as the covenant people of God, historically, as summed up in Jesus, and as continued by those that believe in Jesus, looms large in the background. “For we know that the whole creation,” like Israel, “groans and suffers together until now.”

Then, having brought the creation into the scope of God’s redemptive operation and thus indicating that the power of death and corruption has been (is, and will be) nullified, Paul moves on to the people of God that are the people of God because of their covenant inclusion via belief in Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Messiah and Lord of all, stating “Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” The groaning is paramount, and provides the conceptual link going forward, as Paul also proposes that the groaning is the interceding of the Spirit of God (8:26).

So, it is with Israel’s redemption from the bondage of Egypt in mind, as it is situated as evidence of the Creator God’s faithfulness towards His covenant with Abraham, that Paul goes on to say “And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose” (8:28). How do we know this? We know this because a groaning Israel, with a promise of something akin to resurrection, received liberation from Egypt. God heard, God understood, and God acted. If God’s covenant faithfulness towards Israel is any sort of guide, then we know that God will do the same for His new and expanded covenant family that have been brought together in fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, and to fulfill the role that Abraham’s family was to have in and for the world. With this, because of the movement of the letter and of the immediate exodus and covenant associations of what surrounds it (the groaning), we see that the statement of verse twenty-eight is rooted in the historical narrative of God’s dealings with Israel.

Israel was most certainly a people called according God’s purpose. The creation itself was called into existence for a purpose. The worldwide covenant family that has been made so through believing in Jesus has definitely been called out for a purpose. As Israel routinely suffered in the midst of their being called, as the creation continues to suffer, and as those that have confessed their allegiance to the kingdom of God through their confession of the Gospel of Jesus continue to suffer, there is groaning. There is the intercession of the Spirit. This groaning, which we might be able to equate to a recognition and admission of the continued existence of evil and that which binds and continues to attempt a thwarting of God’s purposes and to halt the ongoing manifestation and continual advance of His kingdom (as evil seeks to discourage our holding fast to a realization of the covenant faithfulness of the Creator God), serves as a reminder to those that are part of the people that have been placed within the narrative of God’s restorative plan and who are charged to live in accordance with the activation of that covenant plan, that God hears, God understands, and that God does indeed act.

How does He act? While we do not limit God’s ability to act directly in the world, we, along with Paul, realize that He deigns to act through His covenant family, as they have been charged to be the righteousness of God (the covenant faithfulness of God) in the world. Accordingly, covenant participants are to act in ways that serve to defeat that which seeks to continually deface and mar God’s creation, whether that defacing is directed towards the creation into which we have been placed or the beings created in His image, either of which limits the ability of the creation to offers its praises or the image-bearers to adequately reflect God’s glory into His creation (thereby limiting the creation’s ability to praise its Creator in a vicious, stultifying circle). Kingdom actions are those things that demonstrate and announce the advent of the kingdom of God, with these taking the form of both word and deed (deeds being far more weighty). The model for this, of course, is Jesus, who went around announcing the kingdom of God, and through His actions that served to show forth God and therefore the image that humanity was to put on display, proved that the kingdom had come and that God was becoming King through Him, as He carried out God’s will on earth as in heaven.

Believing In Him (part 53)

2012-01-05T08:24:00.001-08:00

As we move on to verse twenty-six of chapter eight, we see that Paul continues the theme that is at work, which is the enfolding of all peoples within the defining narrative of the covenant people of God. He writes “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not know how we should pray, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with inexpressible groaning” (8:26). The context for this statement is still Israel’s groaning under Egyptian bondage. The context for this is still the crying out of verse fifteen, the bondage of decay of verse twenty-one, the groaning of creation expressed in verse twenty-two, and the inward groaning of verse twenty-three. As we saw in verse twenty-five, and in the hoping for what cannot be seen, Israel hoped for what it could not see when in Egypt. According to the story, known by Paul and by which Israel defined itself, Israel had the hope of a promise that had been made to Abraham. In the fifteenth chapter of Genesis we read “Then the Lord said to Abram, ‘Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a foreign country. They will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years. But I will execute judgment on the nation that they will serve. Afterward they will come out with many possessions” (15:14).

With the point having been repeatedly made during the course of our study that the Gentile peoples have been enfolded into the story of Israel, in a need to embrace that narrative as their own that they may understand the ministry of Jesus and the actions, intentions, and desires of the Creator God as they go about the business of participating in the kingdom of God that had been announced, enacted, and advanced in the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus; and with that enfolding necessarily reaching beyond Israel as a unique people and stretching back to Abraham as Gentiles join the worldwide covenant family that was promised to Abraham (of which the nation of Israel was a foretaste, much like Israel’s promised land, hearkening back to the unsullied world and the garden of Eden, was to be a glimpse of the restored creation to come), it is necessary to include this particular portion of the Abraham story, as it is gives shape to the groaning of Israel in Egypt. Though the labor of their bondage may have seemed futile, there was a hope, based on a promise, and they were able to entrust that God was at work.

Fusing the story of Israel’s groaning with what Paul’s words, and making what seems like appropriate parallel analogies to the end of the effort of seeing the united, worldwide covenant family of God and its shared story as they live in this world with an understanding shaped by God’s kingdom purposes, and asserting without hesitation that Paul has the Exodus account in mind as he pens these words, we can say that Israel did not know how to pray. In the midst of their bondage, which could most certainly be referred to as their “weakness,” they groaned. By way of reminder, “the Israelites groaned because of their slave labor,” their futile subjection, and “They cried out, and their desperate cry went up to God. God heard their groaning, God remembered His covenant” (Exodus 2:23b-24a). They had a promise.

We can look back on that promise as something of a promise of resurrection. When we look back upon the whole of the story, we see that it was most certainly a promise of restoration to the place of God’s intention for them. With that promise, and with the story of Israel, as structured, presuming a knowledge of that promise, Israel groaned. The promise was not articulated. Exodus does not report a calling out to God to remind Him of their promise to Him. It is more than possible that there were many members of the nation that had no specific awareness or knowledge of the God of Abraham, and that did not acknowledge the Creator God of Abraham that was about to act to make them His covenant people (His children, His firstborn) through an act of veritable resurrection. However, in the midst of bondage and futility, there was a groaning, and Scripture tells us that God acted on behalf of His people, in remembrance of His covenant, because of that groaning. The same Spirit that “intercedes for us with inexpressible groaning,” is the same Spirit of the same God that interceded on behalf of Israel with inexpressible groaning.

Reinforcing his point, Paul then writes “He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God’s will” (8:27). What was God’s will for Israel? It was liberation from subjection into the glorious plan and role that God had for His covenant family, as they were to become a light to the nations---blessing all peoples. What is God’s will for the covenant family that has been and is being brought together by belief in Jesus? It is the same as Israel---to be light to the nations. Continuing the analogy, Paul has said that “our present sufferings,” like Israel’s suffering in Egypt, “cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us” (8:18b). In fact, this glorious future of the children of God who cry out to Him, extends to the new promised land (the whole creation), which “eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God” (8:19). Israel’s promised land also awaited the revelation and arrival of the nation that God called His firstborn son.

John's Community Of Love

2012-01-04T17:06:00.001-08:00

Dear friends, if God so loved us, then we also ought to love one another. – 1 John 4:11 (NET)

When we trek through the New Testament letters, one thing that becomes glaringly obvious is the focus on community first and the individual second. Though we understand that a community is comprised of individuals, when it comes to the kingdom of God, the individual first operates in accord with the community. It is this communal involvement, which consists in the subsuming of individual desires and pursuits (primarily in relation to gaining honor and avoiding shame), that then translates into individual service.

This individual service, in an aspiration towards holiness (a concept which cannot be removed from the concept of sacrifice, especially self-sacrifice), is only valid as it relates to God’s end of the establishment of His kingdom on earth, and if it is performed with an eye towards the service of the community. As soon as one’s service becomes something performed with an eye towards a personal salvation that is connected with attaining heaven as the perceived final goal of the Christian, with this service regularly taking the form of abstention from sin (as defined by oneself or a spiritual authority figure), then service quickly converts from self-sacrifice to self-idolatry. Thus, the covenant end of reflecting the glory of God into the world in representation of what it means to be truly human, as God intended when He created a being in His image, is left unaccomplished---usurped by misdirected worship.

This notion of individual concerns being subsumed to the concerns of the community is part and parcel of recognizing that the kingdom of heaven is meant to come to earth. Additionally, it is a component of the resurrection of the body being a point of focus for the people of God. If we are to take seriously the idea that Jesus was physically resurrected into this world, and that we are ultimately to be resurrected as He was---into this world, then concerns for this world as the place in which God will eventually consummate His kingdom will play an increasingly important role in the life that is lived as a continual confession of the Lordship of Jesus and the fact of His reign. Consequently, the cultivation of an isolated, personal holiness with thoughts of the kingdom of heaven as removed and distant from this world, falls off the page.

Ironically though, and as a testament to the transformative power of the Gospel message, the more a person lives and serves with thoughts of the community and the presence and coming of the kingdom of heaven at the forefront of every day concern, the more “holy” and “sanctified” that person will become. Without a personal striving, a personal transformation is undergone, as the person that demonstrates a constant communal concern, in the mode of our Lord, is continuously and steadily transformed into the image and likeness of Christ. All of this, which also reinforces the oft-stated importance of the meal table of the earliest Christians (in imitation of Jesus) as they sought to embody the kingdom through their messianic banquet, allowing themselves to be a transformed and witnessing community before they presented themselves as transformed and witnessing individuals, is said as an introduction to what appears to be an affirmation of this idea in the fourth chapter of first John.

This notion of community taking precedence over individual, as we contemplate the importance of the people of God (emphasis on people---God directed Adam and Noah to multiply, Abraham received the promise that he would be a nation, God made a covenant with Israel), appears to ring true when we read “Dear friends, if God so loved us, then we also ought to love one another” (4:11). Here, we notice the emphasis on the community of believers with the use of “us,” and we cannot help but consider the mutual love that was encouraged at the meal table when we hear about the love for one another, with this said within a culture that meted out love in a highly discriminatory fashion based on honor, shame, patronage, benefaction, and patriarchal constructs. In contrast to this, the Christian is called to love in a radical way, with none of these considerations in play.

The author goes on to write “No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God resides in us, and His love is perfected in us” (4:12). In that time, there would be no better and no more radical and visible way to express the love of God than the egalitarian meal table of the church. Continuing with communal emphasis then, we hear “By this we know that we reside in God and He in us: in that He has given us of His Spirit” (4:13). Having presented this community oriented dissertation about the evidence of the love of God and of the presence of His Spirit, the author then goes on to discuss the individual, writing “If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God. And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has in us. God is love, and the one who resides in love resides in God, and God resides in Him” (4:15-16). Still, the use of love, contexted by the need to “love one another,” informs us that individualistic concerns are connected with the community, as we have made clear.

Going further, we find words regarding judgment that are connected with the proper approach to the meal table of the church communities as they sought to adequately represent the Jesus-inspired ideal of the messianic banquet that signaled that God’s rule had begun in the Resurrection of Jesus, as we read “By this love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, because just as Jesus (doing and teaching, crucified and resurrected---crucially important points), so also are we in this world” (4:17). We notice, as outlined above, the quick shift back to the concern for the community as the author continues on to write “There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment” (4:18a). Indeed, if the community demonstrated the love for one another in their table fellowship that is demanded by the witness and the Gospel message of Jesus, they would have no fear of God’s judgment falling upon them. To that point, “The one who fears punishment has not been perfected in love” (4:18b), in that they have not yet properly approached the meal table in the spirit of humility and service, seeking first the kingdom of God (His rule on earth) as opposed to personal concerns of honor and shame.

Colossians, Community & The Church's Meal Table

2012-01-03T09:54:00.001-08:00

When we consider Paul’s letter to the Colossians, we do not attempt to press the issue farther than the evidence warrants, but simply make note of the fact that Paul, who we must presume intends or expects his letter to be read at a communal gathering (most likely a meal), makes it a point to use meal-related terms in his communications concerning the Gospel of Jesus and the church’s manner of representing the kingdom of God on earth.

In the second chapter, words such as “Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days” (2:16) cannot pass by without mention, or without taking them into consideration in light of ancient meal practice, both inside and outside of the church. Also, this very brief listing of feast, new moon, and Sabbath is language that is evocative of the covenant markers of Judaism (works of the law), which we know was a constant source of tension and division in the churches of the day. Paul’s insistence that these things are “shadows of the things to come” (2:17a), whereas the “reality is Christ!” (2:17b), reminds us, in the same breath, that the new covenant marker that will identify the people of God and which will be in evidence in their meal practice, is the confession that Jesus is Lord. The new covenant marker serves the same purpose as the old covenant marker, which ultimately was to affirm that the Creator God---the God of Israel---is the sovereign ruler of all. Because Jesus, as Messiah, was understood to be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God, the symmetry is quite obvious.

In addition to the language of meals and of the Lordship of Jesus (the Gospel), Paul employs terms that are reminders of that which can be found in both Romans and the first Corinthian letter (as well as Ephesians), with their focus on the unity of the body. Because it is a near impossibility for us to separate “unity language” from the meal table (with confidence that this letter would have been read at a meal table), we are able to discern traces of a reference to the practice of the symposium (the second of the two parts of the Hellenistic banquet, in which songs and poems were shared, ideas were discussed, attendees engaged in sexual relations with slaves and others in attendance, and honor was at stake) when Paul writes “Let no one who delights in humility and the worship of angels pass judgment on you. That person goes on at great lengths about what he has supposedly seen, but he is puffed up with empty notions by his fleshly mind” (2:18). Without getting in to the issues to which Paul makes reference here, the allusion to the boasting that is a common feature of the world’s meal tables, to which Paul makes semi-regular reference (thus bolstering our position that these letters from Paul are designed to be read in the context of a communal meal), is difficult to avoid. Clearly, Paul is taking issue with the person that is trying to vault themselves to a more honored seat at the table and a more prominent place within the church community, as that person is still enamored with or attracted by the honor and shame system of the wider world.

With this underscored, we are unsurprised to read “He has not held fast to the head from whom the whole body,” as we notice the emphasis on unity, “supported and knit together through its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God” (2:19). If we read “the body” appropriately, bearing in mind Paul’s use of “the body” to make reference to the unified church (signaled clearly in 1 Corinthians 11 and the need to eat and drink with careful regard for the body), then much sense is made of what comes next in Paul. He writes that “Even though they have the appearance of wisdom” (2:23a), as the “they” are those that vaunt themselves above their brothers and sisters, we more fully understand the point that Paul is making, and its relation to the church and its ability to function in its role as a shining light to the world, as we go on to hear “with their self-imposed worship and false humility achieved by an unsparing treatment of the body---a wisdom with no true value---they in reality result in fleshly indulgence” (2:23b). The “unsparing treatment of the body” is then rightly applied to the church body, thus escaping any unwarranted and unauthorized personal or individual applications, as Paul inherently warns the person that is engaging in such behavior, while they are reducing the message of the Gospel and the mission of the church to “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (2:21), that they are most certainly missing the mark.

Moving forward with this mindset to the third chapter, Paul’s description of Christ as being “seated at the right hand of God” (3:1b) is related to the meal table, the protoklisian (the host seat), and the seat of honor that would have been to the right of the protoklisian, thus keeping our focus (along with the original hearers) at the meal table. That meal table, which is so incredibly important in the early church that was to carry out the message of Jesus’ Lordship in word and deed, and which is to be representative of the messianic banquet and the rule of God, remains the setting, as Paul once again evokes the practices of the symposium when he writes “So put to death whatever in your nature belongs to the earth: sexual immorality, impurity, shameful passion, evil desire, and greed which is idolatry… You also lived your lives in this way at one time, when you used to live among them. But now, put off all such things as anger, rage, malice, slander, abusive language from your mouth. Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man with his practices and have been clothed with the new man that is being renewed according to the image of the one who created it” (3:5,7-10).

Obviously, all of these things will cause division at the table, damage to the church body, and the diminishment of the church’s witness to the kingdom of God that was inaugurated with Christ’s Resurrection and the church’s hope for the resurrection to come, which was the preface to this portion of his discourse, as Paul wrote, “Therefore, if you have been raised with Christ” (3:1a). It is with this said that Paul reminds this church of its covenant responsibilities in their representation of the rule of God through their meal practice (as so much would flow from proper meal practice), by telling them that “Here there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and in all” (3:11). The mark of the church was the confession of Jesus as Lord of all---all peoples and all nations, and this would be primarily made visible to a watching world by their kingdom-oriented table fellowship.

Shaping The Understanding

2012-01-02T14:54:00.000-08:00

As responsible readers and interpreters of Scripture, we approach the text of the New Testament letters in the manner of first century hearers in a predominantly oral/aural culture, and sensibly hear them as direct and pointed communications that are meant to critique and praise, while at a time and place that would have been entirely appropriate to the early church, which was the table of fellowship, as Christ’s people sought to distinguish themselves from their communities through their faithful enactments of the wonderful vision of the eschatological messianic banquet (heavily influenced by Isaiah). Correct placement of the meal table in the life of the church, and a highlighting of its importance for faith and practice from the time of Jesus until now, is so crucial because it is an overt and subversive confession of the rule of God in Christ that is being portrayed by this relatively simple action. Unfortunately, most of us have given far too little thought to this idea.

This occasions a quick reminder that it is not only the letters that make a request to be heard from such a position, but the Gospels are also designed to be heard as theo-dramas---scripts for performance through recitation---that will instruct their hearers about Jesus in a standard and uniform way. Though in this day we have the privilege of approaching all of Scripture privately and individually, the Scriptures were to be heard in a community---a community that shared a basic story that stretched back to the first words of Genesis. Jews who heard the content of the Gospels and the letters of the New Testament were thoroughly immersed in the story of their people, shaped by what seemed like an endless procession of exile and exodus. Gentiles who heard letters and the stories that would come to be codified in the Gospels were in need of instruction (and incorporation) in the story of Israel (as the family of God, and not simply Israel per se) so that they could make sense of what they were hearing. That is the position in which the vast majority of Christians find themselves. We must bear in mind that all would hear the words that would eventually come to be called the New Testament, as part of a community shaped by Greco-Roman culture and customs, in a world ruled by a Caesar.

If we do not, or if we are unwilling to make the effort to understand the world in which the church was birthed, shaped as it was by Greek culture and Roman power, we will be lost. If we do not, or if we are unwilling to make the effort to understand the world of Israel and Judaism into which Jesus spoke, which demands our utmost attention and concern so as to avoid a lazy and misguided retrojection of our own culturally-shaped worldviews (whatever that culture may be), then we will merely find a Jesus of our own making, constructing power-exerting truth claims that are designed to benefit ourselves, our cultures, our countries, and our bank accounts, and that exist primarily to justify the ability to go about our own merry way, with little to no modification of the ways in which we interact with this world.

If we allow ourselves to form spiritual opinions that do not take into account of, through the hard-won knowledge of broad-ranging and far-reaching study, the social, historical, political, economic, and cultural norms of Jesus’ day (and Abraham’s day, Moses’ day, David’s day, Daniel’s day), and instead, retreat into the weak and indefensible position of being led into all knowledge by the Spirit (Jesus is reported to have spoken of being led into all knowledge by the Spirit, and He spoke such words to a group that was well aware of and ensconced within the story of Israel, past and present), then our opinions will be nearly worthless. They will be nothing more than a personal mythology of God that causes us to hear the words of Scripture from within the echo-chamber of our own mind, reinforcing, without challenge, subjective definitions and notions of spirituality and of that which is pleasing to God and demanded by Him. Too often, this leads to attempts to control the actions, behaviors, social interactions (and probably money) of members of a church community, which is far less complicated then instructing so as to inspire the members of a church community to figure out how they can go into this world as effective ambassadors of the kingdom of God, serving others in the way that Jesus suggested was tantamount to serving Him (providing water, food, and clothing, while visiting the sick and those in prison).

A complacent and ironically dogmatic ignorance of the world into which Jesus spoke, and of that world which also shaped the words that Jesus used and the way that His words would be understood, often leads to an unwarranted separation from society---a retreat, waving the white flag of surrender, when the responsibility is to be bold ambassadors for God’s kingdom through the spoken and lived-out proclamation that Jesus is Lord, and an ungrounded and unfounded insistence on personal holiness (defined by a series of “do’s” and “don’t’s”) constructed at the whims of an authoritarian figure. Rarely, will self-sacrifice be the model of the church community that is asked to prize ignorance. In such a community, it is likely that the only self-sacrifice demanded will be that of the community sacrificing its goods (time and money) for the enrichment of its head, as an “us against the world” mentality is fostered and new covenant boundary markers are raised (in defiance of Jesus) as an impenetrable wall that does little more than impede the advance of God’s kingdom. The banner of such a community becomes their own perceived spiritual superiority, which flies in the face of the ideals of the believing community espoused and encouraged in the New Testament.

Believing In Him (part 52)

2012-01-01T07:44:00.001-08:00

Paul seems to be infatuated with the idea of the new creation. He firmly believes that the family of God---the heirs of the covenant, through their implementation of suffering-embracing-and-alleviating kingdom principles, are new creation-bringers. In fact, he says that “the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God” (8:19). These sons of God are not is not a special class of super-spiritual beings. This is the justified, covenant-enfolded family of God, called into existence by belief in Jesus.

The creation itself, long “subjected to futility” (8:20a), awaits the advance of God’s kingdom, doing so “in hope” (8:20c). When we consider the nature of the hope of creation, it would be foolish for us to disconnect it from the cherished hope of the people of God, that being the general resurrection, so we acknowledge that God also intends to bring resurrection to His once good creation. This is precisely the point at which Paul reaches, writing “that the creation itself will also,” along with humanity, “be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:21). With this, Paul carries forward the words of verse fifteen, where he, speaking to the global family of God, said “you did not receive the spirit of slavery,” or bondage, “leading again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’”

Paul has also done something else with the words that he has here employed. Not only has he joined together the fate of humanity and the fate of creation, with both joyously experiencing the power of the Resurrection and the new age (the creation doing so because of the kingdom principles that have been adopted and are being employed by the family of God, in wise stewardship as tenders of God’s garden, like Adam and like Jesus, who was resurrected into a garden and was even mistaken for a gardener), but he has also called to mind the exodus, which, as we know, is the defining story of Israel (Passover, Israel’s most important holy day, which is the time of the crucifixion and the Resurrection, is forever and inextricably linked to the defining story of the renewed people of God, which is something to always consider). His use of “bondage” and “the freedom of God’s children” serve to bring the experience of the exodus into the frame.

In case we are not quite convinced that this is so, and if, for some reason, we have forgotten Paul’s extended effort to cause the believers to see themselves as an equal family before God, the previously defining barriers of covenant identification now removed, what comes next clinches the argument, as Paul writes “For we know that the whole creation suffers and groans together until now” (8:22). This language is borrowed from the second chapter of Exodus. There, we can read “During that long period of time the king of Egypt died, and the Israelites groaned because of their slave labor” (2:23a). We note the groaning and the bondage. We also find that “They cried out,” much like all can now cry out to God as their Father, and much like the creation itself is able to cry out, “and their desperate cry because of their slave labor went up to God. God heard their groaning” (2:23b-24a).

What did God do for the people on whose behalf He was going to exercise His redemptive power, and with whom He was soon going to enter into covenant? As He has done, is doing, and will do for His new covenant people, the people who confess their trust in Him through their belief in Jesus and the fact of His Lordship, “God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, God saw the Israelites, and God understood” (2:24b-25). He provided freedom, introducing them into a covenant-shaped life.

It is with thoughts of this defining story of a captive, groaning Israel now placed squarely in the midst of Paul’s words here that we now read “Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies” (8:23). God redeemed Israel from their slavery and delivered them into a land of promise, flowing with milk and honey, and so too is He going to do the same for His renewed Israel who call Jesus “King.” We know this to be true because the Spirit has convinced us of the truth of the firstfruits of that redemption, that being Jesus, raised physically and bodily into a world that was now forever changed, His physical body now a spiritual body because it is animated by the power of heaven. God redeemed Jesus’ body from its bondage to death, delivering it, renewed, remade, and re-created from the grave, and that same Spirit is now at work, renewing, remaking, and re-creating anywhere and everywhere a person engages in an activity that declares a belief in the Gospel of Jesus and the kingdom that said belief and Gospel entails. Israel’s small portion of good land was merely a signpost of the good land that would be the restored creation.

Like Israel out of Egypt, “in hope we were saved” (8:24a). It is hope because we can only catch glimpses of it, in the midst of the ongoing bondage that is to be observed all around us. Yes, this family of God is very much like Israel in Egypt, who groaned in hopeful expectation; and to this end, Paul writes “Now hope that is seen is not hope, because who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with endurance” (8:24b-25). Israel hoped and God acted. We hope and God acts. We will continue to hope and we will continue to see God acting, through us, as those actions, which may entail suffering and shame, continually point us towards the consummation of all things and the glorious advent of the kingdom of God on earth.

Believing In Him (part 51)

2011-12-31T13:38:00.001-08:00

Lest we surmise that a revival of talk of justification and its requisite accompaniment of the family of God is not applicable to this portion of Paul’s letter, we need only skip down to verse twelve, where we hear “So then, brothers and sisters, we are under obligation” (8:12a). To whom or to what? “Not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh” (8:12a), for that is the old age of division and a fractured humanity. Emphasizing the seriousness of the new obligation of the new covenant, Paul expands upon and punctuates that statement with “(for if you live according to the flesh, you will die)” (8:13a). Further elaboration has Paul offering the contrasting position: “but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live” (8:13b). This business of God’s kingdom come to earth is a matter of life and death.

Without getting sidetracked into an examination of what Paul may mean with verse thirteen, we find him quickly returning to the familial theme with verse fourteen and “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God” (8:14). What is the evidence of being led by the Spirit? Again, it is belief in Jesus as Lord (the mark of justification/participation in the Creator God’s covenant people), and the resultant participation in His kingdom purposes (with its promises, cross-shaped responsibilities, and blessings). Further extending the family metaphor, and perhaps offering a suggestion as to the nature of the composition of the congregation of believers to which he writes, Paul goes on to adapt the language of, and rely upon familiarity with, the practices surrounding the act of adoption in that day, writing “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery leading again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’” (8:15)

Though there are numerous ways to hear these words, and while it certainly is suggestive of the type of relationship that can be individually enjoyed with the Creator God, it is important to keep this in line with what we have learned to this point in the letter, and to assert that this ability to cry out to God is about Paul’s continued insistence that all peoples can now rightly cry out to the God of Israel as their Father. Before now, in their role as the covenant people, which we realize had degenerated into a defensive, protective, and excluding stance, it was only Israel that could rightly and justly cry out to their Father God and expect to be heard. This is no longer the case. Paul declares that “The Spirit Himself bears witness to our spirit that we are God’s children. And if children, then heirs (namely, heirs of God and also fellow heirs with Christ)---if indeed we suffer with Him so we may also be glorified with Him” (8:16-17).

Talk of heirs reaches back to what was suggested in the fourth chapter, being firmly ensconced within the world of the Abrahamic covenant and the inheritance to be had by all those that are his children, by a faith like that which he exercised. Here again, Paul reaches out to the four corners of the world, suggesting a united, renewed humanity under the new covenant and in the new age that has dawned in the Resurrection, with that humanity joined together with the Christ, and called to a kingdom-oriented life that takes its cues from the suffering and shame of the cross. This suffering, which we can certainly equate with conceptions of honor and shame as the implications of a willful journey to the cross are explored and embraced, is efficacious as the means by which Jesus’ Lordship is proclaimed and by which the kingdom of God is advanced.

Because every act that would, in that day and age, bring shame upon the believer (at least as understood by the world and the court of public opinion), was an embracing of the cross and of the tenets of a Lord and a kingdom that is manifest in such ways, and because every shame-embracing act is performed because of the hope of resurrection and the renewal of creation, Paul cannot help but say “For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us” (8:18). For those that believe in Jesus, behind every kingdom-directed thought and every kingdom-inspired action lies the idea that just as Jesus was raised from the dead into a glorious existence of a glorified body here in a creation that has begun to experience its renewal through the resurrecting power of the Spirit, so too shall all those that believe in Him (with that belief the evidence of the Spirit’s present work and evidence that the power of the new creation is at work) experience the same.

Believing In Him (part 50)

2011-12-30T14:17:00.001-08:00

Continuing in his train of thought, and highlighting the struggle of the old age, Paul writes “For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want---instead, I do what I hate. But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good. But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me” (7:15-20).

We must resist the temptation to reductionism, hearing this as Paul’s personal, spiritual experience. Instead, because Paul operates within a story that shapes his theology, his soteriology, his ecclesiology, his sociology, his politics, his economics, his psychology, his philosophy, and his missiology (though we don’t pretend that these are necessarily separate categories for Paul), we must hear Paul echoing the plaintive cry of all those, prior to the cross and against the powers at work in the old age, that have been called to carry the covenant and to reflect God’s glory into the world.

Understanding the voice by which he cries, we hear him continue on to say “So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (7:21-24) The answer, not just for Paul as an individual, but for all that have been called to bear the divine image and to carry the covenant banner, comes with the Christ and the cross, as Paul (as we are continually mindful of who it was that carried the title of Lord, along with the city to which Paul sends this letter) exclaims: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin” (7:25).

The true self, which is the true human being of a renewed humanity animated by the Spirit of God, has come to life with Christ in the new age of the Spirit, in which the true law of God (as manifested by Jesus) is served. The flesh of the old age died with Christ on the cross. This epic struggle, though it may not always appear to be the case, has now been set right in the new age of life in the Spirit, which, among other things, does away with the law and its covenant boundaries and creates a united humanity as a new family of God, capable of rightly bearing the divine image and of reflecting the glory of God into the world. As we attempt to understand the various components of Paul’s thinking, picking apart various statements so as to gain an appreciation of Paul’s insights into what is accomplished by the work of God in Christ, we do not lose sight of the bigger picture that is being conveyed to the body of believers, which is the wholesale unity of those believers under one Lord as they serve as ambassadors of the kingdom of God.

This brief foray into the seventh chapter, as we have continued to find Paul encouraging a unified family of God, facilitates a more nuanced (and perhaps better appreciated) understanding of what we now read in the eighth chapter. While we consider the over-riding corporate (people of God) application as opposed to the individual (person of God) application of Paul’s communication, along with Paul’s giving voice to the failed covenant bearers from the beginning, the contrasting presentation of the ways of the old age versus that of the new age allows us to make eminently more sense of “For those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit. For the outlook of the flesh is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace, because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (8:5-8).

With this being said and now better understood, we again hear Paul addressing the congregation, saying “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you” (8:9a). What will be the evidence that the Spirit of God is living in them corporately? One such piece of evidence will be the lack of any division between Jew and Gentile. Those who want to continue to maintain these divisions, continuing to insist on adherence to certain traditional provisions as marks of justification (covenant participation), rather than recognizing belief in Jesus as the sole necessity for covenant participation (justification), and thus perpetuate a divided humanity (and ultimately a fractured messianic banqueting table) are those that maintain the outlook of the flesh. Those that rightly embrace the sole covenant provision that brings and indicates justification, are those that have the outlook of the Spirit, and are participants in the kingdom of God (life and peace). Consequently, “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to Him” (8:9b). Those that want to hold to old covenant markers (old age/flesh/death) do not participate in the kingdom whose head is Christ the Lord.

Believing In Him (part 49)

2011-12-30T10:52:00.001-08:00

From here, we jump to the eighth chapter of Romans, though this will entail a necessary regression into chapter seven. There, in the first verse, and in his continuation of the narrative construct of the letter, Paul picks up on that which closed out the fifth chapter, while also folding in the union with Christ theme that we saw in the sixth chapter and writes “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (8:1). With what comes in verses three and four, Paul emphasizes the contrast between the old age (flesh) and the new age (spirit)---the old age prior to the Christ-event in which Jew and Gentile were separated by covenant boundaries (law) and the new age after the Christ-event in which Jew and Gentile are joined together as the family of God and in union with Christ, writing “For God achieved what the law could not do” (8:3a).

What could the law not do? It could not generate a covenant family of divine image-bearers to represent the Creator God throughout the whole of His creation. Why could it not do this? Because it had enemies and adversaries. “Because it was weakened through the flesh” (8:3b). It was weakened by that which marked the old age, which was sin and death.

Indeed, relying on chapter seven of Romans, it was weakened through distinctly non-divine-image-bearing characteristics such as covetousness (7:9). Certainly, if one is consumed by covetousness, one can hardly be in a position to embody the cross of Christ in and for the world through self-sacrifice and preference of others. The law and its commandments, which Paul believes to be “holy, righteous, and good” (7:12b), when placed in human hands, were simply overwhelmed by the powers at work in the world, that had not yet been conquered by the cross and the Resurrection. Their application led to the division of humanity in a way that was far afield of God’s intentions for those created in His image and those that were tasked to carry His covenant. In Jesus, and in God’s covenant faithfulness therein represented, this division is dismissed. As a new Adam, Jesus marks a new beginning for a new type of people---those that are animated by the Spirit, which is the power of the Resurrection in the world in which the kingdom of God is a reality.

This struggle in the old age, even with the law and its commandments as a guide to proper image-bearing, which was perhaps intended to be a sign-post (much like the ministry of Jesus and His church following Him) of the in-breaking of the always-expected age of God’s proper rule over creation, is well-articulated by Paul’s famous and much-debated words in chapter seven of Romans. He writes “For we know that the law is spiritual” (7:14a). That is, at least according to the construct that has been created in this study and recently reiterated, the law is related to the new age and expectation of God’s kingdom and God’s rule, “but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin” (7:14b).

Paul, speaking on behalf of and embodying all those that had failed to rightly bear the covenant (from Adam to Israel), indicates that the law is wholly unsuited to the people of the old age (people of the flesh). This, of course, is a component of Paul’s ongoing insistence that the law has been put aside by the grace of God, especially in light of the use of the law to create boundaries around covenant participation, in a manner that was antithetical to God’s ultimate purposes, which was the redemption of all of humanity and all of His creation, rather than just one particular group of privileged people. Whatever stands in the way of creating a single family of God---a new humanity, must be set aside, with the life of Jesus, as He represents and acts our God’s covenant faithfulness, the new law of life. Those who believe in Jesus are to be like Him as they take up the command to “present yourselves to God as those who are alive from the dead and your members to God as instruments to be used for righteousness” (6:13b). As Jesus was (and is), so is His church called to be and to do.

Love & The Public Good (part 2 of 2)

2011-12-29T08:16:00.001-08:00

If a government, on this side of the cross, has become oppressive, with oppression generally linked to high levels of taxation (while we understand 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 Christ need only look at itself and its failure to remain true to Jesus’ message of the advent of the kingdom of God, and of 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.

It is worthwhile to re-read this section as a whole so that we 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).

Because this is a mixed congregation of both Jews and Gentiles, we 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 us 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, as we consider that this is a letter that will be read to a gathered church at a single sitting, we remind ourselves of a very early statement in the letter, wherein Paul uses the phrase “from faith to faith” (1:17).

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. We 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 God and a participant in His kingdom).

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). We do a great disservice to the apostle if we simply substitute 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 God, in which preferring others above oneself is to be the norm.

We must also take this statement into consideration in the context of the dissertation regarding the Christian’s responsibilities towards governing authorities. A desire of the flesh might be, because one considers himself or herself to be part of the kingdom of God, 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.)

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 God).

Love & The Public Good (part 1 of 2)

2011-12-28T16:42:00.001-08:00

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. – Romans 13:8 (NET)

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. 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 effects on the Christian meal table.

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 God. When we consider the context in which Paul delivers the statement of verse eight, we see that he began 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.

Yes, the confessed member of the body of Christ owes his allegiance to the kingdom of 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 God and the nature of their interaction with governing authorities. There we find God’s people, via the Psalmist, 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 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.

Undoubtedly, this is directed firstly to the kings of Israel, and then by extension, to the kings of the earth as God’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 we read “How blessed are all who take shelter in him!” 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).

As we read about “respect” and “honor,” we 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 (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 God’s provision of those charged with government functions.

Of course, this also bears on the responsibility of the church to communicate the words of one who preached the kingdom of God, as in the Gospel of Luke we find it recorded 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.’” (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 God by effectively preaching the Gospel of the kingdom and living out in their own community the principles of that kingdom.

Communion & The Kingdom Of God (part 2 of 2)

2011-12-27T07:26:00.001-08:00

It is very important for us to grasp that the table fellowship that Jesus put on display was not assembled without due consideration of the plan that 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. Jesus worked out, at practical levels, that which was portended by Scripture.

We can 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. 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.

As we do not leave behind the Abrahamic covenant component of the communion, and its promise, reflecting 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, we see 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. It is at that very moment, in which all stand before 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 we are able to catch a glimpse of the glorious future that God 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 we look to the example that has been provided to us 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.

With that in mind, we are also able to rightly perceive that the all-inclusive table of Jesus---the table that announces the kingdom of heaven while also confirming our 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 us 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.

Knowing this, is it not a shame that the breaking of the strength of that which often unnecessarily divides us does not occur each and every time we 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? If we know this, and if we are 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 we could ever allow divisions at the table that was gifted to His disciples within what was obviously the same mindset? On what basis can we close a table and exclude anyone from participation? Do we dare limit our participation at the table of the Lord (which is not our table but the table of the Lord) to a certain group of people that have met a certain set of subjective requirements that we have established in what might very well be an air of unearned superiority and unheeding forgetfulness of the example of our Lord?

Communion & The Kingdom of God (part 1 and 2)

2011-12-26T13:49:00.001-08:00

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 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 us by Jesus has been founded.

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 God and the expectations of 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 God’s new world.

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 we 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 we see at His meals and in His parables, this is what we see 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. The tables that we see 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, as seen at His meals, while acknowledging that there is to be a future, earthly consummation of the kingdom of heaven to be expected.

The communion table is an ambassadorial function, designed to prepare the world for the arrival of the King. 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, and so too has Jesus. By the power of the Resurrection and through the 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. 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.

In these miniature kingdom banquets in which Jesus either participated or presided, or of which He spoke in His parables, we can see 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 we see with Jesus and can extrapolate from His words and deeds, was not altogether pleasing to God.

So when we consider Jesus’ table fellowship in connection with our modern communion tables, we see 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 our 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. 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 God’s rule, God’s deliverance, and human responsibility to rightly bear the divine image so as to be a light that draws praise and worship to the Creator.

Woe

2011-12-24T08:29:00.001-08:00

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)

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!” (11:46-48)

As we read these words, let us not fall back into the long-placed trap of imagining that Jesus is railing against their “works-based” religion, whereas He was 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. An inescapable and prominent component of this charge 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 included the other. Now that idolatry in the traditional sense had been effectively put away and was no longer a problem, 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 God, leading to the same type of neglect.

The issue was not one of works of the law versus grace and faith, but rather, exclusivism and isolation in an attempt to keep 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 share the grand blessings of the Abrahamic covenant with a Gentile “sinner”? It is with such thoughts reverberating in our minds that we now 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” (11:49-51).

This is not to be taken lightly. Without delving into the “wisdom” traditions of Israel, not only do we see this as a stinging rebuke, but we must imagine the shock that would be felt as Jesus uttered these words. Whereas they 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.

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 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. 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 we 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.

Believing In Him (part 48)

2011-12-23T16:26:00.001-08:00

Keeping in mind Paul’s definition of sin, which is failing to bear the divine image that God has provided to the various covenant bearers whose stories comprise the salvation history within which Paul works and from which he takes his direction, and also keeping in mind the gracious activity of God, as in Christ as the new Adam the covenant fold is reopened to include the entire world, we transition into the sixth chapter, where Paul writes “What shall we say then? Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase? Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life” (6:1-4). Without here attempting an exegesis of this passage, but maintaining a “big picture” outlook, can we see what Paul is doing?

Continuing: “For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, we will certainly also be united in the likeness of His Resurrection. We know that our old man was crucified with Him so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. (For someone who has died has been freed from sin.)” (6:5-7) The “likeness” imagery is intriguing, especially as we are mindful of “image-bearing” in relation to covenant participation. Also, Paul appears to be creating a contrast between the old age of sin and death, and the new age of life and resurrection, as a component of the move that he is here making. On to verse eight and we hear “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. We know that since Christ has been raised from the dead, He is never going to die again; death no longer has mastery over Him. For the death He died, He died to sin once for all, but the life He lives, He lives to God. So you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:8-11).

If we are paying close enough attention, we can ascertain what Paul has here achieved. Prior to this, and if we were to retrace our steps through the first five chapters of Romans, we can see that Paul has successfully united Jews and Gentiles (all peoples) under one Lord, under the covenant, based on belief in Jesus. He has also managed to creatively fold Gentiles into the story of Israel, going all the way back to Adam (though Adam was not a member of Israel, the story of Israel as God’s covenant people, and as known by Jesus and Paul, begins with Adam), particularly highlighting Abraham, and reaching out to include Moses (the calling of Israel as a peculiar covenant people). This provides Jews and Gentiles with a shared history, which goes a long way towards the creation of a covenant family that will share in the responsibilities of Adam (stewardship of creation), in the blessings of Abraham (as reflected in the announcement of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis chapter twelve), and even the experience of the Levitical/Deuteronomic curses of Israel and its exile that was so crucial to Israel’s own identity and sense of place in the world.

Now, here in chapter six, Paul takes that group of people, a unified humanity that comprises the church that is to be the face (and voice, hands, and feet) of the inaugurated kingdom of God, and unites them with the person of Jesus, the embodied God that is also the crucified and resurrected one. Not only are Jews and Gentiles now one people in covenant, indistinct from each other because of a shared faith, but those peoples are now united with the Creator God, in and through the Messiah. This union creates a marked contrast between the old age, in which all could not help but fail to rightly bear the divine image, and the new age, in which a new and different form of life (successful image-bearing) is now a possibility, made available to all and sundry as an act of God’s grace. Thus, as humanity enjoys and indeed exploits this union for the benefit of the world, Paul writes “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its desires” (6:12). That would be a sign of the old age. To that is added “and do not present your members to sin as instruments to be used for unrighteousness” (6:13a). This would be more of the old age. Rather, in union with Jesus (in much the same way as humanity has been united), and like Him, as the harbinger of the new age of the kingdom of God, “present yourselves to God as those who are alive from the dead and your members to God as instruments to be used for righteousness” (6:13b).

Jesus was the demonstration of God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness), announcing, representing, and making present God’s kingdom wherever He went, as should be those who call Him Lord. How and why can this take place? As Paul says, again contrasting the old age of covenant failure (as humanity, including Israel, voiced a resounding “no” to their call to bear the divine image) with the new age of covenant success (humanity, composing a renewed Israel, voicing a collective “yes” to God’s command to bear His image as shown forth through Jesus), as God’s intentions are made manifest through those that believe in Jesus, “For sin will have no mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace” (6:14).

Believing In Him (part 47)

2011-12-22T16:09:00.003-08:00

Paul operates with a fellowship-driven mentality, as Israel’s history, defined by God’s covenant dealings with them, looms large in his thinking. So as we see him, because of God’s justifying activity, incorporating Gentiles into the stories of Adam and Moses to go along with their being incorporated in the story of Abraham, with each story marking the creation of a covenant people (which is also taking place in the church, through the covenant that is marked by belief in Jesus), a demand is placed upon us to continue to allow these thoughts to resonate as we progress through the chapter.

The boundlessness of the covenant and of the grace of God (with that boundlessness not being undefinable or unobservable, but substantively demonstrated through the inclusion of Gentiles within that covenant) is set forth as Paul writes “But the gracious gift is not like the transgression” (5:15a). Remember, because Adam and Israel (Moses) are in view, “transgression” can be understood on multiple levels. Those multiple transgressions are overcome, however, “For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many!” (5:15b). We can point out that Paul believed Jesus, as Messiah (King/Christ), embodied Israel (it was a common understanding that the King stood in for the people), which allows for the transition from Adam to Jesus, encompassing Moses (who was standing in for Israel in this construct) in the process. Thus, we can see the movement from Adam, through Jesus, to the many---the Gentile nations.

Effectively, the covenant had been provided to all people through Adam, who represents all of humanity. Though this is probably an uncommon way of looking at God’s covenant dealings, and though it seems somewhat counter-intuitive on its surface, we can actually insist that God’s original covenant had been made with the whole of humanity, with Adam representing the whole. That covenant was eventually localized to Abraham and his descendants. This includes a number of nations, as we consider the very basic fact that Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, both of which had a number of descendants. The covenant with Israel represents a further localizing, as the descendants of Jacob, one of the numerous grandsons of Abraham, are chosen as God’s covenant people. According to the historical narrative on offer in Scripture, we see an ongoing narrowing of the covenant. What at first looks like an expansion, from Adam, to Abraham’s household, to Israel, is actually an ongoing process of restriction. The intentions always remained the same, however, which was to reflect God’s glory into the world and to gather up the praises of God’s creation and return them back to Him.

With the Assyrian conquest of Israel, and the dispersion of the northern ten tribes of the twelve tribes of Israel and their being scattered to the four winds, Judah remains on the playing field as the carriers of the covenant. This is yet another restriction. As we get closer to the time of Jesus, there is an even further narrowing of covenant participants, with groups within the land of Israel creating lines of demarcation that will determine which members of God’s historical covenant people are actually continuing to participate in God’s covenant. From the record of the Gospels, it is the opinion of Jesus that those who are the primarily self-appointed arbiters of covenant in His day have gone horribly astray, are missing the mark, and are presenting a picture of the covenant and Creator God that was set at quite a distance from the God that revealed Himself through Adam, Abraham, Moses, and the prophets. It is from these people that Jesus seizes the role of arbitrator, taking it upon Himself to demonstrate God’s intentions in regards to His covenant with His creation and His image-bearers, doing much to bear this out with His meal practice.

By doing this, Jesus actually represents the final step in this long-running narrowing process. While this means that the covenant has finally moved from the whole of humanity (Adam) to “one man,” Jesus’ re-shaping of the covenant, and His re-structuring of the covenant around Himself, restarts the process. Jesus is the second Adam (or the last Adam), and God’s covenant is now thrown open “to the many,” to all of humanity, as had been the case with Adam. There is, of course, a major difference, in that “the gift is not like the one who sinned,” Adam, “For judgment, resulting from the one transgression, led to condemnation, but the gracious gift from the many failures,” that line of Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Israel, Judah, and the Pharisees, “led to justification” (5:16).

Summing up this section then, and doing so with the entire scope of covenant and salvation history in mind, Paul writes “For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!” (5:17) Jesus marks the transition of the ages. Whereas death reigned because of the covenant transgression of the first Adam, that age has been brought to an end. Life now reigns through the covenant faithfulness of the second Adam. In Him, a new creation has begun. A new humanity has been brought into existence, and this humanity, through the grace of God, shares in the gift of righteousness (they are justified, experiencing God’s covenant faithfulness by participating in the new covenant for the new age) by believing in Jesus and His Gospel.

Paul’s “all peoples” focus, which has seen him sharing the history of Israel with Gentiles and in which the covenant moves outward from Israel to take in the whole of creation and all of its peoples, which has been resonant from the beginning of his communication and stands in contrast to any notion that Gentiles needed to move towards Israel so as to participate in the covenant (by adopting its covenant markers), rings out as he moves to the close of the fifth chapter. He writes “Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness for all people” (5:18). Covenant participation is for all people, and it comes through belief in Jesus, graciously and faithfully orchestrated by the Creator God. There is not a limited group of covenant participants. God’s redemptive purposes and plans extend to “all,” which he also refers to as the “many,” as opposed to “the few.” Consequently, and we almost find Paul repeating himself as he explores the angles of his thinking and stresses the significance and scope of God’s cosmic plans and the dramatic re-write (according to then-current thinking) that is taking place in Jesus, we read “For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous” (5:19).

Believing In Him (part 46)

2011-12-21T16:05:00.001-08:00

We can hear the language of an internationally inclusive redemption from exile flowing heavily from Paul: “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by His life?” (5:10) Reconciliation and salvation, from out of exile, are components of the language of justification, and Paul continues to apply it liberally to all peoples, as he also continues his self-identification with Gentiles. As always, he re-centers his thoughts on Jesus and the belief in Him that provides said justification, writing “Not only this, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” another thumb in the eye to “lord” Caesar as he writes to this assembly of believing kingdom representatives in Rome, “through whom we have now received the reconciliation” (5:11). Yes, it is through the instrumentality of the cross of Christ, and the belief in Jesus that centers on that event that did so very much to reveal God and His radical kingdom principles to the world, that God grants the exodus from out of exile that seemed to have been specifically and previously reserved to the designated covenant people that had begun with Abraham.

Even “exile” itself was being broadened to encompass the nations. Though it had been a source of shame for Israel, Israel could no longer keep exile to itself, as a paradoxical badge of honor and privilege. All peoples could now understand themselves to have stood in exile from the Creator God, in need of reconciliation, and this recognition is what would allow them to participate in their own exodus, thus finding yet another way to join up with Israel’s self-defining story and to relate to the covenant God. As we have seen, Paul understands that God has kicked down the doors and broken down the walls that had been used to restrict entrance into the household of Abraham, now offering His reconciliation to all peoples and folding them in to His covenant and kingdom purposes.

In a patriarchy and head-of- household oriented society, rooted in honor and shame constructs that incorporated patronage and benefaction, along with a heightened sense of connection to certain people by which one’s status could be elevated, we should not discount this sense of inclusiveness and dynamic of lineage that seems to be one of the apostle’s filters. With these thoughts, expressed so early in chapter five, coming on the heels of a chapter dedicated to an exploration of the faith and covenant standing of Abraham, and with this placed alongside a recognition of the importance that Jews and Jewish believers attached to the ability to lay claim to Abraham as their father, we do ourselves a tremendous service to keep these particular cultural, historical, and sociological underpinnings in mind.

Of course, the Jewish covenant narrative did not include only Abraham. Indeed, the story of Abraham only made sense because of its precursor, which was the story of Adam. The Genesis narrative demonstrates that God’s covenant with Abraham only becomes necessary because of the failure of Adam, the original covenant and image bearer. Conversely, the story of Abraham, to which Gentiles are being attached through belief in Jesus, which is the means by which they are entering into covenant with the Creator God and doing so in the mold of Abraham, moves along to become the story of Israel. Though the story of Abraham moves from Isaac to Jacob, Jacob to Joseph, and Joseph to Egypt, and though these stories are certainly important and wonderfully instructive, they are the means by which we meet up with Israel.

The story of Israel essentially begins with Moses, the exodus, Sinai, and the giving of the instrument by which Israel would define itself and by which God intended them to reflect His glory to the nations, which was the law. Naturally then, Paul, having effectively and persuasively incorporated Gentiles into God’s covenant family by convincingly demonstrating that justification (covenant inclusion) comes to them through belief in Jesus as Lord (believing the Gospel---believing in the decree of the Creator God and acting accordingly, as did Abraham), now does business with the other major components of the story that Israel told about itself, which would be the Adam/Creation narrative, and the birth/election of the people of Israel. We see this as he writes “So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all people because all sinned---for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin where there is no law” (5:12-13). While in these verses we are hearing allusions to Adam and Moses, we are forced to note Paul’s equation of sin with death, doing so in light of his belief that Jesus (and God as and through His Messiah) conquered sin and death by the cross and the Resurrection.

Staying focused on Paul’s incorporation of Israel’s narrative though, we continue to read “Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed” (5:14). Keeping in mind the possibility of Paul’s use of exilic language, we here consider that even though Adam earned for himself a specific exile for specific transgressions of his covenant with God, all humanity, though they do not recognize Adam in their origin narrative and do not ideologically, traditionally, mentally or conceptually share in his specific covenant failures, experiences the reign of death because of their own failures to rightly bear the divine image with which they were created (sin).

Believing In Him (part 45)

2011-12-20T16:14:00.000-08:00

It has become clear that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (5:5) has created a unified family of God that lacks any and all national distinctions. The family of God is a new humanity, empowered to live and worship together by the very Spirit that raised Christ from the dead. They are “spiritual people,” as opposed to being “fleshly” people, as the power of the new age and the new creation (spiritual) has overcome, in their lives and in the sacrificial demonstrations of the fellowshipping community, the power of the old age and the old creation (the flesh). As has been repeatedly indicated, Paul unites all peoples together in Christ, and now, when speaking of the church, speaks of them as a people in which there are no longer any divisions or separations---the “we” becoming ever more prominent. Thus we hear him say “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly… But God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (5:6,8).

The “we” and the “us” of Paul’s way of thinking is the result of justification. We would not be mistaken then, to hear Paul referring to all, whether Jew or Gentile, in order to make his inclusive point, as “ungodly” and “sinners.” As he has said, “Christ died for us”---the ungodly and sinners, with this encompassing the whole of humanity. Though there is much to be gleaned from this profoundly loaded statement, the underlying message is that Jesus the Messiah is the focal point. Indeed, “He was given over because of our transgressions and was raised for the sake of our justification” (4:25). The death of Jesus, the Christ of God, which gains its full meaning by the Resurrection, is of fundamental import for the inclusion of all peoples under the covenant. Therefore, revisiting the thought which began the fifth chapter, Paul reiterates and adds “Much more then, because we have been now declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from God’s wrath” (5:9).

We once again resist any temptation to consider “righteousness” in detached, spiritual terms, keeping the concept within the realm of covenant inclusion (declared righteous=in covenant), and recognize Paul’s employing of historically rooted theological terminology and ideology that is drafted from Israel’s history, further demonstrating that Paul insists that Gentiles now share in the history of Israel just as they share in the history and lineage of Abraham via faith. The historically tinged terminology is that of exile and exodus, and it is here subtly deployed. According to the Scriptures, Israel, as the covenant people of God, was given instructions as to how to represent themselves and their God.

If they represented Him correctly, adhering to a few basic principles, which were avoiding idolatry, keeping God’s Sabbaths, and reverencing God’s sanctuary---His Temple and His cosmic sanctuary, which is the creation, the place where God rested on the seventh day (in the ancient world, a temple was understood to be the resting place of a god), all would go well for them and they would be blessed. If they failed in these areas, God would send His people into exile, the primary manifestation of which would be oppression by foreign rulers. Sometimes this would be inside their promised land, but the ultimate exile would see the people removed from their land (primarily effected by the removal of the rulers, the nobility, and the priests, while the poor, which would make up the majority of the population, would be left in the land).

If the people of God were in exile, it was well understood that they were not in covenant (not in right standing, not righteous). A people in exile, or a people experiencing the Levitical/Deuteronomic curses that accompanied exile, were understood to be experiencing God’s wrath. When a time of exile was brought to an end and the people were restored to their right standing according to God’s covenant with them, they were then thought to have escaped (having endured) God’s wrath. It was also understood that God Himself would intervene to end the exile of His people, and this was very much the hope of Israel in the days of Jesus (though they were in their land, they were under the heel of Rome). However, the oppression went much further than that of Rome.

Owing to the understanding of the world’s oppressive powers/kingdoms that was provided by the visions of the book of Daniel (a popular book in the days of Jesus, and a book on which He relied quite heavily, as evidenced by His employment of the title and imagery of the Son of Man), the people of God were under the impression (quite rightly it seems) that the true oppressor was not the kingdom of man that happened to be the prevailing world power under which they labored and to whom they paid tribute, but was actually the power of death that stood behind and animated those kingdoms. Post-cross, towards the end of the first century, and drawing heavily from the imagery on display in Daniel and the popular prophetic genre of apocalyptic, this understanding of the nature of power in the world is given voice by the book of Revelation.

What has this to do with what Paul writes in Romans? Well, it goes hand in hand with the drawing together of all peoples, as they share in Israel’s covenant and Israel’s history. In this sense then, all peoples, being ungodly and sinners, are in exile, rightly experiencing God’s wrath. It is belief in Jesus, which provides justification and therefore induces right standing with God, that delivers all people from their long-standing exile, and so saves (justifies) from God’s wrath. God’s wrath, of course, is generally reserved for His people that are failing to live up to their covenant responsibilities. By extending this to all peoples, Paul makes the point that it has always been God’s intention to encompass all peoples within His covenant family, doing so on the basis of belief in Him that produces an unswerving loyalty to Him and His ways. Therefore, this saving from God’s wrath informs the reader/hearer that God does indeed view all of humanity as being His covenant people. This goes a long way in informing beleivers that God intends His redemption to be cosmically holistic.

Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 3 of 3)

2011-12-19T12:44:00.001-08:00

It is not until the eleventh chapter of Luke, as we pass over the feeding of the five thousand, that we once again see Jesus at a meal. In the thirty-seventh verse, we read “As He spoke, a Pharisee invited Jesus to have a meal with him” (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). We are 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 us a greater insight into a potential answer.

As is common, Jesus is immediately questioned. It is not presented as an outright question, though we can imagine something being said by the Pharisee that would engender the response that is forthcoming from Jesus. We read that “The Pharisee was astonished when he saw that Jesus did not first wash His hands before the meal” (11:38). We can read this as being 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 we have seen Him be in the past.

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! 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 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 God from the “tax collectors and sinners” that stood outside of the covenant.

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). Beyond that, we cannot 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, we are 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).

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 God and its requirements for costly acts of sacrificial love that show little concern for self, as demonstrated by the Samaritan. We have not traveled very far from that telling within Luke’s Gospel before we hear Jesus again speaking 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, we note 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 we 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.