Invitations (part 3 of 3)

Now, while some look at the parable of the great banquet and see Israel as those that have offered up excuses as to why they cannot attend, and then accordingly see the extension of an invitation to the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame, along with a further extension of invitations to those that must be compelled to come in as the invitation to the church, without getting into Jesus’ clash with the Temple and its authorities, it can be said that such an interpretation is incomplete, mis-directed, and quite unfortunate. 

If Jesus is casting Himself in the role of the man that is hosting the banquet, then His mention of the poor, crippled, blind, and lame fits nicely with His programmatic declaration at the synagogue as recorded in Luke’s fourth chapter, which is then worked out in Jesus’ public ministry, as He goes and reaches out to the poor, crippled, blind, and lame throughout Israel. 

Putting the standard and unfortunate interpretation to the side, and plugging in Israel’s defining narrative, it is possible to view the excuse makers as Adam and Eve, with the first round of additional invitations sent out to Israel.  If that is the case, then the second round of invitations are sent out to the Gentiles.  These are the ones that must be urged, compelled, and cajoled to come in (Luke 14:23), especially when considering the fact that (at that time) Israel had been actively restricting the covenantal blessings to themselves, expecting the kingdom of their God to benefit them alone as they are seated at the places of great honor at the expected messianic banquet. 

Though they are most assuredly invited and continue to be invited to participate in their God’s covenantal offering for the world, the Israel of Jesus’ day made it clear to Gentiles that the covenant was for Israel alone.  Accordingly, many were overtly careful to keep the boundaries of covenant identification (circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath-keeping) firmly in place and binding on any that wanted to place themselves in a position to enjoy the covenantal blessings of Israel’s God. 

Is there an over-reach in this analogy?  As is always the case, that does exist as a possibility, but is it necessary to look closely at how Luke presents the second and third rounds of invitations.  First, the slave is directed to go out to (1) the streets and (2) alleys, where he will find the poor, crippled, blind, and the lame---those to whom Jesus’ Israel-focused ministry is primarily directed, and who are the regular recipients of its benefits (think of what Jesus tells John the Baptist’s disciples in reference to His ministry within Israel---“Go tell John what you have seen and heard: The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news proclaimed to them” 7:22) . 

Then, once that is done, the slave is sent to (3) the highways and (4) the country roads, which is where he will find those that must be convinced to come to the banquet, as this would very much be a surprising invitation.  Why does that matter?  Well, in wrapping things up, this study turns to Acts, where Luke continues His story, where he often draws to conclusion things that were begun in the Gospel.  What is to be found in the first chapter?  Specifically, one finds something that could be considered an excellent parallel to the story of the great banquet.  How so? 

The parable of the banquet in Luke fourteen is prompted by an anonymous declaration of “Blessed is everyone who will feast in the kingdom of God!” (14:15b)  So the immediate context of the story is the kingdom of the Creator God, and Jesus proceeds to provide a glimpse into His thoughts concerning the same.  In the course of the telling, Luke presents the directives with the four-fold destination: streets, alleys, highways, country roads.  In the first chapter of Acts, the disciples speak to Jesus and say “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (1:6b), thus providing the immediate context for Jesus’ statement to follow. 

Again, as in Luke fourteen, sharing His understanding of the nature of the kingdom of Israel’s God, Jesus answers by eventually saying “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (1:8a).  To this Jesus adds a directive with a four-fold destination, saying “and you will be My witnesses in (1) Jerusalem, and in all (2) Judea” (1:8b), the streets and alleys, “and (3) Samaria, and to the (4) farthest parts of the earth” (1:8b), which can be thought of as the highways and country roads.  Such is the nature of the Creator God’s gracious invitation.      

Invitations (part 2)

This is where it gets even more interesting, and also where the narrative connections, both that of Jesus in Luke/Acts and Jesus inside the Creator God’s plan, take over and are revealed.  As has already been seen, “…The the master of the household was furious at the report of the excuses for lack of attendance at the banquet and said to his slave “Go out quickly to the streets and alleys of the city, and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.”  Then the slave said, “Sir, what you instructed has been done, and there is still room.”  So the master said to his slave, “Go out to the highways and the country roads and urge people to come in, so that my house will be filled” (14:21b-23).  How does this fit within the over-arching Biblical narrative? 

Taking in the whole scope of Scripture, the offering of excuses should remind an observer of the oft-repeated offering of excuses to be found within the pages of the sacred writ.  While one can think about the excuses on offer from Jeremiah, Saul, Gideon, and Moses, as to why the Creator God could not effectively use them, one can here be sent all the way back to the very first excuses of Scripture, which are to be found in the opening pages of Genesis.  There, effectively, the Creator God had made preparations for something wonderful (a banquet of sorts) and sent out His invitations.  Those invitations, of course, were extended to the first divine image-bearers, that being Adam and Eve. 

“God created humankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them” (1:27).  It is then that a directive (an invitation) is given to this pair.  They are invited to partake in the Creator’s intentions for His world.  “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply!  Fill the earth and subdue it!  Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.’” (1:28) 

Without getting into the order of the creation accounts on offer in chapters one and two, the reader will go on to learn that “The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it.  Then the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die” (2:15-17).  With this, the invitation takes on specificity. 

Shortly thereafter, at least in terms of the narrative, it is reported that “the serpent was more shrewd than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made.  He said to the woman, ‘Is it really true that God said, “You must not eat from any tree of the orchard?”  The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’”’” (3:1-3) 

Without offering up the remainder of this part of the story, as all should be quite familiar with how it turned out, suffice it to say that both Adam and Eve ate from the tree, thereby introducing death into the world.  They rejected the Creator’s invitation.  Then what did they do?  They offered up excuses.  The Creator God asked “Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” (3:11b)  What was Adam’s excuse?  “The woman whom You gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it” (3:12).  What was Eve’s excuse?  “The serpent tricked me, and I ate” (3:13b). 

Understandably, the covenant God is angry with these individuals that have now declined His invitation of participation in His purposes.  However, what the big picture of Scripture reveals is that the same God re-directs His anger.  That re-direction begins, in earnest, in chapter twelve of Genesis, when the covenant God invites Abraham (Abram) to participate in His plan.  Abraham’s (Abram’s) acceptance of the Creator God’s gracious invitation is prelude to, and because of the promise of descendants, looks toward Israel’s invitation to participate with their God in His plans for the redemption of the entire creation. 

Absalom (part 2)

Adam, of course, represents all of humanity.  Though humanity was in exile, one can rest assured that the Creator God longed to have a relationship with the beings that He had created in and as His own image in and for the world, as He was most assuredly bound together with His creation.  The Scriptural narrative insists that the Creator God longed to see humanity and the whole of His once good creation restored to goodness and right relationship with Him.  This is evident because the Creator God would eventually summon Abraham so as to put in motion His project of putting things right in the world. 

Yes, just as David longed to go to Absalom, so too did the God of creation yearn for a restoration.  David was said to have been eventually consoled over the death of Amnon.  However, he did not take action based upon this consolation, nor upon his desire to be with his exiled son.  Likewise, the Creator God, desirous of consolation over the death that entered into His world and which had come upon mankind, and desirous of mending that broken relationship so as to recover what had been lost, entered into history in order to do something about it.  The Creator God wanted to bring exodus to creation’s exile. 

Joab, the general of David’s army, sees the pain of his king, seems to understand the exile that both he and his son are experiencing (albeit in different ways), and makes an attempt at intercession.  He “realized that the king longed to see Absalom” (2 Samuel 14:1b).  Thus he sends a widow with a story of pain and heartache to the king, which evokes the response that Joab desired to hear, as his plan seems to be coming to fruition.  The woman continues speaking to David, and speaking on behalf of Joab (who has knowledge of the king’s grieving over Absalom and his desire to see him because he has been consoled from the death of Amnon), she makes reference to the Absalom situation, inquiring why “the king has not brought back the one he has banished” (14:13b). 

Now, this is the first time the text speaks of banishment.  As far as is known to this point, Absalom has fled.  There is no textual indication he was banished by the king.  Rather, it would appear to be the case that  he has fled willingly.  However, this use of “banished” actually points out David’s ability to take actions to set things right.  His lack of doing so, because of the very fact that David desired to see Absalom but did not make any moves to bring this to pass, was akin to an ongoing act of banishment. 

Again, this should cause an observer to perform a thoughtful consideration of the Genesis narrative, in that the Creator God banished humanity from that for which it had been created, but without prodding on the part of anybody else (like Joab), the same God also moved to end the banishment and restore the relationship that had been broken.  In this, David falls well short of the divine ideal with which he is charged as the representative of the Creator’s covenant people.  With Joab’s influence, exerted through the woman that he has sent to speak to David and after calling Joab to see him, David eventually gets the point and tells his general to “bring back the young man Absalom” (14:21b).  With this, David makes a move to end Absalom’s exile, beginning to grant him an exodus (as the Israel story is seen in Absalom). 

“So Joab got up and went to Geshur and brought Absalom back to Jerusalem.  But the king said, ‘Let him go over to his own house.  He may not see my face.’  So Absalom went over to his own house; he did not see the king’s face” (14:23-24).  As can be seen, this is the beginning of an exodus for Absalom.  However, his exodus is incomplete.  There is still a measure of exile in his return, as he is not allowed to see the face of the king.  The broken relationship is not fully mended.  Indeed, this is similar to the experience of Israel as a whole.  

Absalom (part 1)

Now David’s son Absalom… - 2 Samuel 13:1a  (NET)

In this way, David’s son Absalom is introduced into the Scriptural narrative.  The story of Absalom well embodies the ongoing story of Israel, founded in the exodus by which they were defined (a life and worldview practically centered upon a remembrance of the Passover) and almost always at risk of being exiled from their promised land if they failed to uphold the covenant responsibilities that had been assigned to them. 

Absalom is introduced by way of the story of the rape of his sister, Tamar.  Chapter thirteen of second Samuel begins with “Now David’s son Absalom had a beautiful sister named Tamar” (13:1a).  For some reason, Tamar is not presented as David’s daughter, but rather, as Absalom’s sister.  It is said that Amnon, another of David’s sons “fell madly in love with Tamar” (13:1b).  This “love” eventually resulted in her being raped by Amnon.  Obviously, Tamar is humiliated and disgraced.  A pall of exile (part of Israel’s own story) is cast over her life.

Afterwards, “Tamar, devastated, lived in the house of her brother Absalom” (13:20b), and “Absalom hated Amnon because he had humiliated his sister Tamar” (13:22b).  Absalom understood that Amnon, through his actions, had brought the shame of exile to his sister.  She was suffering.  In due time he planned on bringing her vindication, with this occurring through the killing of Amnon.  Absalom held a grudge against Amnon for a considerable length of time, and the story of Absalom’s revenge picks up “Two years later” (13:23a).  Absalom conceived a plan by which he could secure his revenge, and send Amnon into the exile of death.  After Amnon’s demise has been accomplished, it is reported that “This is what Absalom has talked about from the day that Amnon humiliated his sister Tamar” (13:32b). 

With Amnon’s death, Absalom most likely feels as if he has brought vindication to his sister, somehow relieving her of the shame and disgrace that she has experienced.  However, in the process of doing what he believed would bring his sister’s suffering to an end and thus providing her with something like exodus (Israel’s story constantly superimposed on individual stories), Absalom brings exile upon himself. 

Surely, Absalom calculated this as part of the risk of what he was undertaking, and would have imagined that something like this might be necessary.  It is said that “Absalom fled and went to King Talmai son of Ammihud of Geshur” (13:37a).  Absalom’s exile brought a measure of exile to David himself, as part of him was bound up with his son, so “David grieved over his son every day” (13:37b).  Interestingly, Absalom’s self-imposed exile from his homeland lasted longer than his grudge against Amnon.  While he had plotted against Amnon for two full years, Absalom remained in Geshur for three years (13:38).  Throughout that time, “the king longed to go to Absalom, for he had since been consoled over the death of Amnon” (13:39). 

Clearly then, this correlates rather well with the broad narrative scheme of the Scriptures that begins with the first exile---an exile that was truly self-imposed---which was that of Adam and Eve.  Though obviously their exile began on a different basis from that of Absalom, in that they did not commit a vengeful murder, they did in fact bring death upon themselves and upon the whole of their progeny.  It is not surprising then, to find that vengeful murder is in the heart of one of their sons, as evidenced by Cain’s jealousy-fueled murder of his brother Abel.  Having brought death, Adam and Eve were exiled from the place of the Creator God’s presence, from the Garden of Eden, and from the Creator’s good creation.  Like Absalom, fleeing from possible punishment, their exile began with their attempting to flee from the Creator God by hiding themselves in the garden. 

Calling His Disciples (part 7)

If one considers and accepts that the Genesis narrative does allow for this account by Stephen, then any supposed difficulties or contradictions vanish.  It would be incorrect to assert that Stephen somehow got the account of Abraham and his call wrong or that he was simply mistaken in his telling of the story, or that Luke was mistaken in his report.  This is especially important if when considering that Luke, as the author of Acts, clearly presents Stephen as speaking “under the inspiration” if you will, as Luke intends to make the point that it is Jesus Himself that has given Stephen the words he is to speak. 

Luke knows what he is doing in his writing, and would naturally have in mind what he has previously written, which was “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to synagogues and prisons.  You will be brought before kings and governors because of My name.  This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses (martyrs).  Therefore be resolved ahead of time not to make your defense.  For I will give you the words along with the wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict” (21:12-15).  This plays out in Stephen’s trial.  

Obviously, Jesus, if He is indeed speaking through Stephen (presumably via the Spirit of the Creator God), which appears to be the conclusion that Luke desires his hearers to reach, is going to get the story of Abraham correct.  That said, it is interesting that Stephen, when recounting the history of Israel, omits the portion of the call in which Abraham is directed to leave his father.  This is probably a standard bit of smoothing out of the Abraham narrative, since it is clear that, though the call came at an earlier point in his life, according to the Genesis narrative, Abraham did not leave his father until after his father had died.  The point is, the call came to Abraham while his father was still alive, not after he is dead, as one might presume if simply reading Genesis and contemplating a straight chronological progression from the end of chapter eleven to the beginning of chapter twelve, which, if read in such a way, makes the call to leave his father make little sense. 

So yes, Abraham is given a difficult choice.  Will he stay with his father or will he leave his father, as the Creator God has directed him to do.  Clearly, Abraham chose to stay with his father.  In a sense then, and it is okay to point these things out because Abraham is not to be deified, it can be asserted that Abraham failed in this area.  Of course, Abraham failed in other areas too, so it’s not as if this is groundbreaking news.  Where Abraham failed, in that he did not undertake the journey in response to the Creator’s call until after his father had died, these disciples succeeded in their response to the call, leaving their father when called.  Painting a big picture then, where Adam, Abraham, and Israel had failed, Jesus and those that follow after Him will succeed, with this demonstrated in these disciples (leaving their father when called by Jesus (the second Adam/the one that will complete Abraham’s mission/the new Moses/the embodiment of Israel/the incarnate Creator God).  

Though there is no reason whatsoever to take a dogmatic stance here, thinking about the call of the disciples in conjunction with the call of Abraham, along with the similarities and differences to be found, gives a new twist to one of Jesus’ most provocative statements, as recorded by both Matthew and Luke.  Using Luke’s treatment, one reads that “Jesus said to another, ‘Follow Me.’” (9:59a)  This, according to this particular theory of engagement with this Gospel, is going to have brought Abraham’s call to the minds of Luke’s audience.  What is the response to Jesus’ call?  “He replied, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father.’” (9:59b) 

Might this rather standard excuse for not taking action be an oblique reference to Abraham?  If Abraham, the progenitor of the covenant people, didn’t do something that the covenant God had commanded him to do until after his father died, surely his descendants should not be expected to do so.  To this, Jesus responds, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God” (9:60).  Perhaps Jesus is here insisting that His countrymen go beyond the example provided to them by Abraham?  For Luke’s purposes (and Matthew’s), the audience that is hearing his construction of a Jesus narrative, has already seen two disciples respond to His God-to-Abraham-like call by leaving their father, and here, with the addition of another story from Jesus’ life, he builds on that premise.

Love On John's Terms (part 14)

Amazingly, the author of this Gospel presents the people as having already forgotten about the bread that was in fact provided, though it has just been referenced by Jesus.  Interestingly enough, if one was to examine Jesus’ statement closely, which was “I tell you the solemn truth, you are looking for me not because you saw miraculous signs, but because you ate all the loaves of bread you wanted” (John 6:26), there might be an inclination to think that Jesus draws a distinction between the performance of miraculous signs and the provision of bread.  However, taking that step might be drawing the distinction a bit too sharply.  Surely the multiplication of the loaves must be taken as a miraculous sign---as much as was the provision of manna in the wilderness. 

So it seems as if Jesus is indicating that it was not the miraculous sign of the bread being multiplied that has caused the people to continue to come to Him, but rather the filling of their bellies.  This appears to function as a reflection upon Israel in the wilderness, in that even though daily bread was miraculously provided to the people of the covenant God, the story of their time in the wilderness is underlined by a startling lack of belief in their God’s ability to fulfill His promises. 

Even though the people were faithful to go out to gather the manna each and every day (excluding the Sabbath), they did not follow through on the deeds that their God required, which was a faithful belief in His ability to perform on behalf of His people, according to His covenant promises, as He worked out His intention to bring them into the promised land and set them on high as a kingdom of people to represent His glory (making Israel a new Adam in a new garden of Eden, as a microcosm of the Creator God’s intentions for the entirety of His created order). 

It might be the case that Jesus is here making the same type of point, while the author also shows Him reflecting back to the people’s desire to acclaim Him as their king, so that He might take on, overthrow, and drive out the Romans.  If Jesus would have acceded to the people’s demands, such would be yet another instance of Israel not following through on the deeds that their God requires, rather than operating on a faithful belief that their God will enter into history on His own terms and timing, to perform on behalf of His people according to what was understood to be His covenant promises to them.  The taking of actions against the Romans could be akin to the instances of Israel’s wilderness experience in which the people took it upon themselves to act to bring themselves into their God’s purposed kingdom, with these instances never turning out well. 

While all of these things are being considered, while also considering the fact that the author is making a presentation to a community that is hearing this in a single sitting, that is ensconced within a controlled oral tradition, and is well-versed in the history of Israel, it would not at all be a mis-step to consider the provision of bread, prima facie, as an act of love to which disciples of Jesus should aspire.  Even though it was not met with a proper response, or at least with the response that Jesus may have desired, Jesus still met a physical need.  He did so, as far as this Gospel is concerned, as an action of the incarnate God of Israel.  As a loving and compassionate God revealed Himself to His people on a continual basis through the provision of manna, and did so for His people in spite of what are reported to be consistent failings, so Jesus acted out of love and compassion to reveal His God in much the same way.      

In This Is Love (part 17)

As a recognized son of God, Adam must be understood to have been given a responsibility of covenant that would aid him in identifying a creative power beyond himself.  The mark of his covenant was the commandment to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  To do so would be to eat to his own peril, as death would be the result.  In contrast, adhering to the commandment would be life for him, and he would presumably never feel the usurping encroachment of death. 

Israel, as a son of God, was given a heady responsibility as well.  Their mark of covenant was the law.  Most specifically, their covenant required them to keep a series of Sabbaths, reverence the sanctuary of their God, and to worship the Creator God exclusively.  Their adherence to these requirements would be life to them, causing the accrual of blessings untold to them (Leviticus 26 & Deuteronomy 28), whereas violations would bring the requisite and promised curses, ultimately resulting in exile and death.  The son of God that was Solomon received a warning related to idolatry, but was offered the promise of long life if he were to make proper use of the gifts bestowed upon him by the Creator God in service to that God’s people and as that God’s representative to the world. 

Jesus, the unique Son of God as the physical embodiment of the Lord God of Israel, performed the work to which He had been tasked, and re-oriented the promises and blessings and cursings and life and death around Himself.  He commissioned and purposed a renewed people of the Creator God with a very much old covenant task.  The new mark of that old covenant task---the destruction of the works of the devil---would be the proclamation of the fundamental Gospel message that Jesus was indeed the crucified and resurrected Messiah and Lord of all. 

Adherence to this idea and this task would mean life---eternal life (not a never-ending life in a far-off place called heaven, thought of in such a way as to make this life and world secondary and almost irrelevant, but rather, the life of the age to come intruding upon this present age).  However, it would not just mean eternal life for the one that embraced the belief and what it required, but it meant life would be communicated into this world by the very act of proclaiming this Gospel message. 

Speaking forth the Gospel, along with manifesting the power of the Gospel in deed (which would mean service to the world because of and in response to the call of its King), would actually be activated by the power that raised up Jesus from the dead, while also activating that same power in the place where the Gospel was being preached (in word and deed).  This, in itself, would somehow effect transformation in minds and in lives, along with the destruction of evil and the defeat of death---the ongoing and eventual renewal of the creation along with the renewal of those that had been made in the Creator God’s image to steward God’s creation.  This renewal is always happening in incremental stages but it is never complete, as it is the Holy Spirit’s mysterious working through those that are now called sons of God, to provide them and the world a glimpse of heaven come to earth (the realm of the Creator God overlapping the realm of man), in advance of it finally and fully being so. 

The son of God for this world in which the kingdom of God has been inaugurated and in which Jesus is the resurrected King is the church of the Christ.  Just as the Creator God has placed numerous sons in this world, so too is this particular son placed in the world to shine the light of His glory, and to carry on the long-established mission of the Son, doing so in and with the same Spirit, as was promised.  As Paul communicates to the Roman congregation, again relying on the context of the son of God tradition and writing “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God,” adding “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” (8:14,16-17).  

In This Is Love (part 11)

In the first and third of the temptations of Jesus that are recorded in Luke, interestingly enough, Satan’s challenge is prefaced by the words “If you are the Son of God” (Luke 4:3,9).  So Satan’s challenges to Jesus ask to be understood and come within the context of whether or not He is the Son of God. 

These temptations, and the written record of these temptations, reflect upon a time at which a messiah is expected.  In popular comprehension, this messiah would be the son of God in that he would be Israel’s king, but in some circles he would also be the Son of God, in that many believed it to be the case that the Creator God would take human flesh upon Himself in order to personally intervene on behalf of His people, establishing Israel’s rule over the nations.  As Israel’s king therefore, this would mean that the Creator God, through His son, was going to establish His own physically present rule over the whole of the world. 

So when Satan tempts Jesus, it appears that what He is tempting Jesus to do is to take a shortcut to acclimation as king.  He could turn stone into bread (an allusion to Israel receiving manna in the wilderness), and with such a miraculous demonstration He prove Himself to be the messiah and therefore immediately hailed as king.  Such would be a reasonable expectation on the part of Satan, because as would come to be seen, when Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fishes, the people attempted to come and make Him king by force, which caused Jesus to quickly withdraw into isolation. 

It would seem that Jesus knew that there was only one way for Him to ascend to the throne, and ultimately only one way in which He would be recognized as the Messiah (along with all that would entail according to the expectations of a great number of His fellow citizens), and that was going to be the path of suffering on an altogether unlikely cross.  That, presumably, is why Jesus refutes Satan’s insistence to worship him in exchange for earthly rule, and why He also rejects the idea of putting His God to the test by casting Himself from the Temple for the purpose of forcing a miraculous rescue that would have the likely effect of an immediate elevation to the throne of Israel.  Apart from that, Jesus may not have been altogether confident that the covenant God would come to His rescue if he flung Himself from the pinnacle of the Temple, as such would not have been an exilic suffering in the mold of Israel into which their God would enter in to provide deliverance.   

What does this have to do with Adam?  Well, where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded.  When the serpent tempted Adam with being like the Creator God, Adam acceded to the temptation.  When Satan tempted Jesus (the second Adam) with the opportunity to show Himself forth as God ( being “like God” for all practical purposes), Jesus refused.  Subtle to be sure, but here in the wilderness Jesus destroyed a work of the devil.  By holding on to the fate of suffering, love was put on display. 

To further reinforce the congruity between Adam (son) and Jesus (Son) as presented through Jesus’ experience of wilderness temptations, Mark adds that Jesus was “with the wild animals” (1:13c).  Adam, according to the Genesis narrative, was given “rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth” (1:26b).   Additionally, the animals that had been created were brought before Adam “to see what he would name then, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field” (2:19b-20a).  Adam, the son of God before Jesus, was very much with the wild animals.  Perhaps this is why Mark, drawing from the son of God tradition that would have included Adam, makes what seems like a rather out of place insertion about Jesus being with the wild animals during His wilderness trials? 

In This Is Love (part 10)

Having examined Adam, Israel, and Solomon, this study now turns to the one more formally recognized as the Son of God, that being Jesus of Nazareth.  Naturally, when one reads in the New Testament about the Son of God, it is Jesus that is being referenced.  He becomes a bit of a summary of the sons of God, and is therefore seen as the last Adam, as something of the embodiment of Israel in His being cursed with the exile of death but then blessed with a restoration to life (the recurring theme of exodus to exile), and as the king of Israel (the Solomonic messiah) that demonstrates discernment and desires the just rule of the Creator God over His people. 

Therefore Jesus is to be known as the Son of God, at least partially, within the context of the vision and concept of son-ship as it is presented throughout what is understood to be the history of Israel.  If one does not understand and take seriously this history, and in so doing realize at each step of the way, in the revelation of His son, that the Creator God is taking steps to assert His just rule over His creation and to destroy the works of the devil, thereby revealing His love, then it will simply not be posible to make proper sense of Jesus’ mission.  Jesus, of course, when He is understood to be Israel’s Messiah, is also understood to somehow be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God, as would seem to be indicated by the prophets (proleptically and in retrospect).  If this is the case, He is thence also the revelation of love of the Creator God. 

In the accounts of His life that are presented by the Gospel writings, ones sees Jesus alternately taking up the various mantles of son-ship that had been worn by the revealed sons of God that had preceded Him.  His time of testing in the wilderness following His baptism is highly demonstrative of this, and it is two-fold.  In this, He actually demonstrates a congruity with Adam.  Utilizing Mark’s account, one finds that Jesus has been set forth before men, presumably by the Creator God with a voice from heaven, as “My one dear Son,” in whom the Father takes “great delight” (Mark 1:11).  In accompaniment, it is said that the Spirit descended on Him like a dove (1:10).  This coming of the Spirit upon Jesus, strangely enough, should put the reader in mind of the record of the Gospel of John, when Jesus, after the Resurrection, appears to His disciples, “breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” (20:22b). 

It seems odd to make this connection here, but it is difficult to avoid doing so.  However, this will be quite instructive a bit later on, when considering the full impact of the statement that “In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10).  In turn, with a nod to the previously mentioned congruity with Adam, Mark’s record prompts a consideration of the account of Adam in Genesis, when the Creator God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (2:7b).  So the experience of the Spirit coming upon Jesus, together with the proclamation (revelation) of Jesus as God’s dear Son, is quite analogous to the story of Adam, as the Creator God breathed into Him the breath of life, thus animating Adam for his appointed service by way of His power. 

The analogy does not stop there however, as Mark goes on to inform his audience that “The Spirit immediately drove Him into the wilderness,” where Jesus spent “forty days, enduring temptations from Satan” (1:13b).  Though Mark does not go into detail concerning the nature of those temptations, fortunately both Matthew and Luke do.  Three temptations are recorded.  In the first, Satan tempts Jesus to turn stone into bread.  Second, Jesus is tempted with rule over the whole of the world if He will but worship Satan.  Thirdly, Satan suggests that Jesus make a grand display by throwing Himself down from the top of the Temple, suggesting that His God would intervene to rescue Him. 

In This Is Love (part 9)

Because of his wealth and fame, Solomon is said to have drawn admirers from many lands.  They are said to have come to him to seek his wisdom.  Like Abraham and the patriarchs before him, Solomon would have been in a position to answer the altogether pressing questions in regards to how he came to have what it was that he possessed---that being wealth, power, and fame.  Because of this, Solomon would have had many opportunities to share the knowledge of covenant-making Creator God with the representatives of the nations of the world, and in the tradition of the Abrahamic covenant, bring glory to the Creator God by means of showing forth his God’s blessings. 

Ideally, this would cause previously unknowing men and nations to turn from their various forms of idolatry (one item in a presumed list of the works of the devil) to the one God who was the maker and Lord of all.  It is debatable as to whether or not Israel as a people had been able to do such a thing up to that point, but if the reports of his fame and influence are accurate (and this information would have been part of the worldview of the average member of the covenant people of Israel), it is reasonable to suggest that Solomon was able to do as suggested. 

Much like the Creator God had warned Israel what would happen if they were to fail in righteousness (covenant faithfulness), so too was Solomon warned.  Because both Israel and Solomon were specially elected by the Creator, and looked upon as His chosen sons that were to reveal His glory and love for the world that He had created, much was expected of them.  However, as the first two sons (Adam and Israel) had failed, so too did Solomon.  In a fashion very similar to that which is reported to be the general history of the people delivered from Egypt prior to his day, who disastrously allowed idolatrous practices to be continued by the occupants of their promised land while also joining with them in said practices, so too did Solomon allow for a continued idolatry. 

Indeed, he not only allowed it to continue, but like Israel in general, he would willingly participate in idolatrous practices (with this attributed to his desire to please his many wives), thus effectively denying the revelatory role that the Creator God desired for those that had been declared to be His sons.  As this was the source of Adam’s fall and expulsion from the role and place into which he had been set by God (self-idolatry), as well as being the source of repeated instances of subjugation and various forms of exile for Israel (both before and after Solomon, both inside and outside of the promised land), so too would this result in dire consequences for Solomon. 

Because of this falling short of the glory of the Creator God, via the engagement in the presumed works of the devil against which he and Israel had been warned, the kingdom that Solomon had established was understood to have been torn in two.  Indeed, “The Lord said to Solomon, ‘Because you insist on doing these things and have not kept the covenantal rules I gave you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you” (1 Kings 11:11a).  Solomon experienced the rod and the wounding that would come to a failing son of God, as “The Lord brought against Solomon an enemy, Hadad the Edomite… Rezon son of Eliada… Jeroboam son of Nebat” (11:14,23,26). 

Even though Solomon had failed, another part of the Creator God’s promise still remained, as it had always remained for Israel.  Though the Lord’s anger was aroused against Solomon, as it was aroused numerous times against Israel itself, Solomon had a promise from his God that “My loyal love will not be removed from him” (2 Samuel 7:15a).  As can surely be seen in the record of the Creator’s covenant dealings with humanity and the world, the Lord God of Israel loves His son and desires to reveal Himself and His love through that son despite his failings.

In This Is Love (part 6)

These three men (Abraham, Isaac & Jacob), and even their nephews and brothers (Lot, Ishmael & Esau), who also benefited greatly and were apparently able to amass fortunes of their own, would only be able to point to the covenant of the Creator God as the source of blessing.  Thus, they would be that blessing to the world, causing men to turn their eyes to that God and away from idols, and in so doing diminish the power of the work of the devil, which seems to have always been (since Adam) to get men to worship and honor that which is not actually God. 

That said, it is now possible to turn attention specifically to Israel, the son of God, and another revelation of the Creator God’s love.  Is Israel rightfully considered to be the son of God?  Not only did Israel largely think of themselves in that way, thus undoubtedly causing the author of the Johannine letters to operate within this cultural and mental framework, but the whole of the Bible is infused with the idea of Israel as the son of God. 

This idea takes shape, unsurprisingly, within the book of Exodus.  It does so “unsurprisingly” because the story of the Egyptian experience and the exodus is the single most defining story of Israel’s history.  It is the exodus and the associated fulfillment of long-held expectations associated with that exodus that gave them their identity as a nation, and it is that to which they were constantly looking back, with regularity, to understand the various situations in which they would find themselves and to properly understand their God and His dealings with them. 

In the fourth chapter of Exodus, the Creator God is said to have personally instructed Moses to go to the Egyptian Pharaoh and tell him, on behalf of his God, that “Israel is My son, My firstborn… Let My son go that he may serve Me” (4:22b,23b).  Of course, there are numerous other examples littered throughout the divine record, but the example of Exodus will suffice because the portrayal of Israel is suffused with this understanding that is rooted in their experience of exodus no matter where one were to look, be it the Hebrew histories, poets, or prophets. 

Consequently, this self-understanding bleeds through to the Gospels, into Acts, and into the letters of the New Testament, which means that the whole of the Bible, with all of it written in the wake of Israel’s understanding of their being chosen out as the covenant people of God, is written within the context of Israel, the covenant people, understood as the son of God.  One must not fail to understand that the concept of covenant people as God’s children, with that as the basis for mission, is a paradigmatic construct of Scripture. 

If all of this is the case (and it would seem to be clear that it is), then Israel had been given the task of destroying the works of the devil.  This will be in response to the love and grace that their God has shown to them in bringing them into covenant with Him, and the associated response will result in showing forth their God’s love for the world (which is thematic for the Johannine writer).  Israel would be initially charged with taking possession of the land that had been promised to them through Abraham, and to do so through the extermination of the peoples that occupied the land (the record of which is loaded with hyperbole, and which they would never accomplish). 

When considered within the covenantal narrative, this would appear to be a strikingly overt call to destroy that which represented the works of the devil, along with that which defiled and defaced the land that their God had given to His son, His firstborn.  Putting aside the call for extermination, this serves as something of a microcosm of what the Creator God intended for the whole of the creation.   

In This Is Love (part 5)

Continuing to qualify the insistence that Israel is the second entity in the line of definitively regarded sons of God, note must also be taken of Abraham.  Clearly, Abraham is given a covenant, and that covenant carries with it terms that will allow for the demonstration of his obedience.  In his case, the term was circumcision.  Also, righteousness is a term regularly associated with Abraham.  As one considers the divine promises that are said to be on offer to Abraham, it becomes rather clear that the Creator God reveals Himself to Abraham, and in turn reveals Abraham to the world. 

This revelation, when considered within the grand scheme of the Scriptural narrative, would seem to be for the purpose of destroying the works of the devil.  This becomes poignant in light of the fact that Abraham will come to be identified as the father of the faithful, with all of those that eventually gain status of being a part of the Creator God’s covenant people, both before, during, and after the time of Christ, referred to as children of Abraham. 

Abraham may not have thought of himself as having the role of destroyer of the devil’s works, and this may be true of Adam as well, but this study is concerned with the worldview of the author, and with what that means for the worldview that would have undoubtedly shaped his communication to the church of the Christ.  It must be well-noted that Abraham makes his Scriptural appearance after what is said to be the height of man’s rebellious activity, which was the event generally referred to as the tower of Babel, as mankind is reported to have gathered together in one place for the purpose of making a name for themselves.  In this, it is implied that mankind is thereby rejecting the Creator God’s implied command to inhabit the whole of the created world. 

This rejection of responsibility could quite plausibly be identified as the work of the devil, and it can be nicely equated to what Adam had done.  Consequently, Abraham’s call represented the beginning of the Creator God’s corrective measures, and one is almost always well served by bearing in mind that the church (the covenant people of the Creator God) does not strictly begin with Jesus and His disciples, but rather with Abraham.       

In an continuation of this process of qualifying Israel as the explicitly referenced son of God of Scripture, the study is also forced to make reference to the son and grandson of Abraham.  These two, Isaac and Jacob, are set forth as in-line recipients of the Abrahamic covenant and its blessings.  Therefore, if at the bottom line, Abraham’s covenant-connected call was to destroy the works of the devil, then so too was that the call and charge of these two men as well.  However, it should be recognized that the call to do this destroying of the devil’s works was not nearly as overt as it would be for the descendants of Jacob. 

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s roles appear to be more oriented towards being a blessing to those that surrounded them, primarily (it would seem) through the amassing and distribution of the wealth that is understood to represent the direct blessing of their God, thus providing them with the ability to function in that world-blessing role.  Not only would this be a matter of being able to meet physical needs, but the great wealth which all three came to possess without having to resort to domination and oppression, would inevitably lead to numerous inquiries, from all manner of men, as to the reason and source of such wealth.  

In This Is Love (part 4)

Nevertheless, despite his failure, it remains the case that Adam, according to Scripture, which is written with a conceptual framework dominated by Jewish tradition and custom, is thought of as the son of God.  The Scriptures posit multiple sons of God.  Indeed, to remain consistent with terminology employed by the author, Scripture contains multiple revelations of the sons of God.  This is quite important to consider when returning to the place of embarkation upon the theological, Christological, and missiological voyage of this study, which was the tenth verse of the fourth chapter of this first letter of John.  Even the author’s own choice of words and structure spur the reader on to a remembrance of the multiple revelations of God’s sons, as can be seen in the regular usage of “revealed” throughout the third chapter, and on into the fourth chapter. 

The repeated use of “revealed” in the third chapter seem to hang on and gain their meaning from the most direct and purposeful statement in connection with the word, which was that the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil.  Here, one makes note of the fact that this author is not alone in his appeal to the revelation of the Son of God (or sons of God) as an obvious part of the divine plan of the Creator. 

To that point, in his letter to the Romans, the Apostle Paul engages in similar rhetoric, writing that “the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God… in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:19,20b-21).  Can one not surmise what it is that Paul is implying by the use of such language?  Can one not equate the setting free of creation, in connection with the revelation of the sons of God, with the destruction of the works of the devil?  Doing so does not at all seem like an unrealistic or implausible application of the premise. 

So now there are two New Testament witnesses to the idea of the revelation of the sons of God, which should certainly lead an observer to explore this idea.  The application of the title of son, in relation to God, is not limited to Adam and Jesus.  Adam is merely the first.  It would seem that he is the first to be given a task related to destroying the works of the devil, with this task connected to his righteousness, or his being righteous, and that in the context of faithfulness to a covenant.  The second son, or at least the second explicit reference to a son whose revelation is in connection with a charge to do battle with the works of the devil, with this son-ship presented in a manner consistent with that of Adam (righteousness---covenant faithfulness marked out by obedience to specific commands), is the nation of Israel. 

It is necessary to qualify this statement for a number of reasons.  The first reason is that Adam, in Genesis, is never referred to as the son of God.  This can only be seen for the first time in the Gospel of Luke.  When seen here, one must also come to the realization that the thought therein reflected likely demonstrates a long-held opinion.  The first Scriptural reference to sons of God occurs in the sixth chapter of Genesis, where it is reported that “the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful.  Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose” (6:2).  The Creator God’s reaction to this is indicative that such activity was not pleasing to Him, as the text there quickly progresses to the pointing out of the wickedness of humankind (6:5).  Clearly, these sons were not sons purposefully revealed to destroy the devil’s works, and there is no reference to any type of covenant of obedience. 

In This Is Love (part 3)

Though it is never appropriate to hunt and peck through the Scriptures for isolated proof texts to support positions, “tohu” and “bohu” stand in stark contrast to that which is insisted upon in Isaiah, which is that the Creator God “formed the earth and made it; He established it, He did not create it without order, He formed it to be inhabited” (45:18b).  Though this can have the appearance of proof-texting as part of an effort at Scriptural exegesis, it actually falls well in line with a grasp of the overall narrative-based structure of Scripture that reveals the Creator God, pointing readers to that God’s long-held plan to redeem a fallen creation into which disorder was disastrously introduced.  This seems to be well within the line of thought suggested by the covenant God’s creation becoming “without shape and empty,” which also suggests some type of catastrophic activity that produced such a state. 

Is it proper to here insert an idea of the devil sinning from the beginning?  Is it appropriate to here posit the reported fall of Lucifer and his cohorts, as they seem to have entered into a violation of their covenants with the Creator God (sin), with the result of that violation being a world subjected to tohu and bohu?  Is it possible that the author of John views the world through this type of cosmology?  One should dare not become dogmatic in this area, but this could very well account for the insistence that the devil had been sinning from the beginning. 

If this is so, then the creation account of Genesis, which reflects the ordering of the world into a cosmic temple in which the Creator God would rest (which would have fit well within ancient near east mythology and the idea that a temple was the resting place of a god), is the restoration of the world to the state which had been previously established by its Creator, as it had been marred by the first act of covenant unfaithfulness, with this marring carried out by the one now referred to as the devil. 

If this is so, then it becomes possible to gain an even better understanding of the role that is given to Adam.  Why is Adam created?  Why is the one that is called the son of God revealed?  First and foremost, it is to bear the image of the Creator God in and to and for His creation, in proper and loving stewardship of the world.  That was part and parcel of the covenant that the Creator God is said to have made with Adam, with the mark of that covenant being Adam’s obedience in regards to the trees from which he could and could not partake.  Secondly, it is to be in a position to come against and destroy the works of the devil, who, as is revealed in the Genesis account of the activities in the garden, is present in the world.

If this is a reasonable position, then one can see that the author of the letter goes on to write about an ideal situation in which “Everyone who has been fathered by God does not practice sin” (John 3:9a).  Sin, as one must remember in an effort to constantly steer away from thinking about sin as “the bad stuff that I do,” is “being unfaithful to the covenant that is designed to bring glory to the Creator God via man’s participation in his role of stewardship of the creation, and thereby falling short of the Creator God’s intention for man as His image-bearer in and to and for this world.” 

The author goes on to write that the reason those fathered by the Creator God do not practice sin is “because God’s seed resides in him, and thus he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God” (3:9b).  This hardly describes Adam, so it should be reiterated that this is an ideal representation, which would then appear to be hyperbolic usage that is designed to point his audience to the uniqueness of the one that is most properly looked to as the Son of God, and to His unbroken faithfulness to God’s covenant.   

In This Is Love (part 2)

To talk of the Father’s love and becoming children of the Creator God is added: “Dear friends, we are God’s children now” (3:2a), which the author of the letter insists is the case even while admitting that there is a mystery to the purpose of being the children of that God, as he writes “what we will be has not yet been revealed” (3:2b).  From here, though confessing that he does not know the precise reason that he and others are have become the children of God or what exactly it will look like when they are functioning as the children of God, he goes on to write that “We know that whenever it (or He) is revealed we will be like Him” (3:2c). 

Furthermore, the author goes on to insist that “Jesus was revealed to take away sins” (3:5a).  Is it not of the utmost interest that the practice of righteousness (faithfulness to the requirements of the covenant---a right standing) is connected to being fathered by the covenant God and to being His children, with this immediately connected to that which is “revealed”?  “Revealed” is used three times in relatively rapid succession before the author makes his grand claim that “the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil.”  This, of course, is the devil who it has been said has been sinning from the beginning.  

So here the term “righteousness” or “covenant faithfulness” is now connected to the children of God.  Righteousness is ascribed to Jesus, as the author wants all to know that He is faithful to the covenant.  The Son of God, who presumably also operates in righteousness (meeting all covenant requirements), is revealed and sent to destroy the works of the devil, and this seems to be roughly equated, by the author, with being an atoning sacrifice for sins as part of the activity of the love of the Creator God.  As has been said, the devil has been operating outside the bounds of the covenant---in covenant unfaithfulness---since the beginning.  This, presumably, is what necessitated the revelation of the Son of God, so that such work could be destroyed.  This then is the mission of the Son of God. 

Inevitably, proper consideration of authorial intent drives one back to the beginning (since the beginning is mentioned), so for the purpose of gaining a more in-depth understanding, one is forced to look to the book of Genesis (the beginning) and to the first revelation of the Son of God.  Demonstrating that such is necessary and proper when considering Jesus, it is worth noting in the Gospel of Luke, as the narrative recounts the genealogy of Jesus, traces that lineage back to Adam.  In that presentation, Adam is referred to as the son of God.  If Adam is the son of God, then he was placed in this world (or revealed) to destroy the works of the devil. 

This forces the reader into the realm of cosmology, to look at the beginning of the beginning as far as one with an Israelite worldview is concerned, where one finds that the God of Israel created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).  Somehow and for some reason, without going to deeply into this and thereby getting dramatically off-topic, the earth became “without shape and empty” (1:2), or traditionally, “without form, and void.”  The Hebrew words used in this passage, “tohu” and “bohu,” are often taken to imply that this is a new situation far afield from what had been intended by the Creator when He brought the cosmos into existence.  

Hated (part 6 of 7)

Even before the Mosaic covenant that came to Israel at Sinai, what had been Israel’s responsibility?  According to the Abrahamic covenant, it was to be a light to all peoples that they might reveal the glory of their covenant God, which would be done through the demonstration of divine blessings that would come from their living as their God’s covenant people---exemplifying divine blessing.  After the exodus, they would show forth this covenant by keeping their God’s Sabbaths, reverencing His sanctuary, and by not worshiping idols.  Through this, their God would show Himself, through Israel, as the Lord of all creation. 

This could engender hate in two ways, and this entails a shift from history to philosophy, attempting to make an appropriate application of these words.  The first way that could engender hate would be based on the fact that humanity, beginning with Adam, has been rebellious, not wanting to submit to its Creator God, and certainly not wanting to have their self-erected gods dismissed.  Therefore hate is directed towards those that reveal a God that rules over all and demands (deserves?) unswerving allegiance. 

The second potential reason for being hated is their presentation of themselves as the Creator God’s chosen people, through covenant, and then not living in a way that reflected that idea and which did not honor the blessing---by engaging in idolatry or by turning inward so as to keep their God’s blessing only for themselves and excluding those that they felt were unworthy of the covenant.  The second reason is quite compelling.  Can this be applied to the words that Jesus directed towards His disciples, which His disciples would in turn purposefully direct towards His church?  Perhaps. 

What is a fundamental obligation of the person that claims to be in Christ?  Is it to judge people, to regulate their lives, and tell them how to live?  No.  A thousand times no!  Unfortunately, this is what usually generates hatred.  However, is hatred that stems from doing that which Jesus has not obligated His followers to do, really the hatred of which Jesus speaks?  Probably not.  Beyond that, are people going to hate believers, or would they have so fiercely hated and persecuted the early followers of Jesus if all they spoke about was escaping off to a heavenly island of peace and bliss following death?  Again, probably not. 

So why would there be hate?  Well, as it was for Israel, so it would be for the new covenant people of the Christ’s church, as such people went and go about the business of their primary obligation to proclaim that Jesus is the Lord of all, and that all are subject to Him and to His rule, without exception.  Quite naturally, this can produce hatred, as it attacks the root of what seems to be mankind’s primary problem, which is the misuse of the divine image, as that divine image bearing is turned into self-worship and a thirst for power rather than being exercised in the reflection of the Creator God’s glory into His world. 

Den Of Lions (part 1)

It seemed like a good idea to Darius to appoint over the kingdom one hundred twenty satraps who would be in charge of the entire kingdom.  Over them would be three supervisors, one of whom was Daniel. – Daniel 6:1-2a  (NET)

With this, Daniel appears to have been provided with a tremendous responsibility for a member of the covenant people of the Creator God.  It is written that “These satraps were accountable to them,” meaning the three supervisors, “so that the king’s interests might not incur damage” (6:2b).  These words, as the Hebrew Scriptures, post-Resurrection, ask believers to view them through the lens of the Christ event, allow an observer to make a consideration of the role of Jesus.  That role was to see that His (God’s) interests, that being the salvation of a people and the restoration of His creation, might not incur damage.  Others had been sent into the world for this very purpose.  In fact, if one was inclined to press the analogy, it could be said that Jesus was essentially the third of three “supervisors” that had been appointed to this purpose, with the first being Adam, and the second being Israel. 

As one makes this analogous comparison between Daniel, doing so in association with the story of Daniel and the lion’s den, while taking the extremely wide, cosmic view entailed by connecting the two men together, it is possible to go on to think of the aforementioned one hundred twenty satraps (which is a technical term for an official in charge of a region of the empire) as the steady stream of patriarchs, judges, kings, and prophets that had been either chosen or raised up by the Creator God to be partially responsible for protecting that King’s interests from incurring damage. 

With regard to Daniel, one can go on to read that he “was distinguishing himself above the other supervisors and satraps, for he had an extraordinary spirit” (6:3).  Again, it is not difficult to transfer and make the application of these words to Jesus, recalling the event of His baptism, when “a voice came from heaven” saying “You are My one dear Son; in you I take great delight” (Mark 1:11).  To this utterance, Matthew would add that the Spirit of the Creator God descended upon Jesus and came upon Him (Matthew 3:16).  It could certainly be said that, owing to this descent of the Holy Spirit, Jesus possessed an extraordinary spirit that would enable Him to distinguish Himself above Adam and Israel and all of the prophets and holy men of the Creator that had come before Him---thus preserving the King’s interests. 

Of Daniel, it is said that “in fact, the king intended to appoint him over the entire kingdom” (6:3b).  This would be no less true of Jesus, as His God’s apparent intention was to appoint His Messiah, that being Jesus, over the entirety of the kingdom that He Himself was establishing on the earth, as He (Israel’s God) personally embodied the Messiah so as to act in history to inaugurate this kingdom. 

It seems clear that Daniel had great favor with the king, as did Jesus.  As a result, “the supervisors and satraps were trying to find some pretext against Daniel in connection with administrative matters” (6:4a).  On the local (not cosmic) level, because Daniel’s position of authority along with the will of the king is being challenged, it becomes possible to view these supervisors and satraps as the chief priests, elders, scribes, and rulers with whom Jesus, according to the Gospel accounts, almost incessantly finds himself in conflict.  Just as there was a movement against Daniel in the area of “administrative matters,” so too was there a movement against Jesus.  Here, without taking the time and space to go into specifics, one can call to mind the numerous attempts that were made to challenge Jesus and His teaching (in the common battle for honor), along with the questioning of His authority to do and say the things that He was doing and saying. 

Only Son (part 26 of 26)

Christians, as the latest and ongoing iterations of the sons of God (understood according to the ongoing narrative of the covenant people), are to live with hands outstretched to the world, in sympathy and compassion, desiring to share the pains and burdens they encounter, and doing so through the life-animating and life-giving Gospel (Jesus is Lord) that mysteriously turns hearers into believers and believers into doers.  It is through this group of kingdom people, who through their manifestation of the power of the Gospel as they live the lives of sons of the Creator God of Israel, that the kingdom of heaven (the power of the age to come which had been remarkably demonstrated by the Resurrection of Jesus) breaks into the present age, and the Creator God works to reverse the condemnation and cursing that had been brought into this creation and unfortunately extended by His sons that had come before.  Yes, the covenant God works in and through believers to bring restoration to His Temple by being His Temple.

If this is understood rightly, and believers comprehend that they are now the sons of God (as was Israel) in union with the Christ when they confess the Gospel (which is said to occur by the power of the Holy Spirit), then they can further understand that it this open-handed, self-sacrificial, and compassionate church of the Christ (operating with a living, breathing hope of resurrection and restoration and renewal---far more than the hope of “going to heaven when they die”) that “is the way God loved the world.”  Yes, it is the covenant people that is the church, who are those that take part in the kingdom of the Creator God that was inaugurated with the Resurrection of Israel’s Messiah, because they/it is recognized as the body of Christ and is the very present Temple of the Creator God, that is tasked to be “His one and only Son” in this world.  Why is this?  “So that everyone who believes in Him”---which includes a believing acknowledgment of the Creator and of His glory and of short-fallings in the light of that glory---“will not perish but have eternal life.” 

This eternal life, of course, is not an escape from this world, but rather an exodus from a life and condition of exile, understood within the hope of a resurrection to come in a renewed and regenerated world that has been set right by its Creator.  To that point, history (according to Israel’s defining story which provides context for Jesus and those that claim allegiance to Him) had seen the Creator God send His sons into the world, with each one seemingly wreaking more havoc than the one before.  However, “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:17).  This is not about announcing condemnation or pointing out its/their flaws and failures in the “us versus them” dichotomy of “the church versus the world”.  Rather than saving the world, Adam, Israel, and Solomon (those recognized as the sons of God) had brought more condemnation into the world, when the Creator had intended His sons to be the salvation of the world.   

As the sons of God, believes are called to be the embodiment of the Creator God’s love for the good world that He had created and in which He desired (and still desires) to dwell.  As sons, He sends His covenant people out on a daily basis (as was true of Adam, Israel, Solomon prior to the coming of the Christ), under the call of the Lordship of Jesus, to show forth His glory through a compassionate and sensitive love that is aware of the world’s ongoing condemnation, to cause heaven to come to earth whenever and wherever the Gospel is preached and lived, so as to bring an always increasing group of sons (and daughters) into His kingdom through means of a complicit trust in Him and His promises.  Those that call Jesus Lord are to be ambassadors for the hope of resurrection and restoration, which is the promise of eternal life to be enjoyed and experienced at every moment, as they look forward, with great expectation, to that blessed hope.                   

Only Son (part 25 of 26)

If the revelation of Jesus as the Son of God was yet another demonstration of the Creator God’s love for His world, and if the manifestation of His glory, in and through the Christ, was for the purpose of causing people to believe in Him (to acknowledge and worship Him as Creator) so that eternal life (an entrance into the purpose that the covenant God had always intended for those that He had created to bear His image) could be experienced (rather than the continual perishing under the reign of death that had been brought into the world and exacerbated by the other sons---Adam, Israel, Solomon), then the idea of being “in Christ” takes on an extreme importance. 

Those that are in union with the Christ (in Christ) are said to be brought into that union, with such being demonstrated through the confession of Jesus as Lord of all (in both word and deed), by the power that is somehow inherent in the preached Gospel (Jesus is Lord).  This power of the Gospel is understood to be somehow transmitted by the activity of the Spirit of the Creator God, as one of the manifestations of the very power that is said to have raised Jesus up from the dead, and which is still at work in this world according to the plan and purpose of the Creator God. 

Additionally, those that are in union with the Christ are said to have been crucified and resurrected with Him, for the purpose of being kings and priests to the Most High God, along with the responsibilities implied by those titles.  Indeed, to go beyond that, those that are in union with the Christ are identified as sons of God. 

Those in union with the Christ are those that make up His church and are citizens of the kingdom of the Creator God (kingdom of heaven, rule of God)---a renewed people of the Creator (a new creation), charged with, among other things, reflecting the glory of their God into the world through kingdom-oriented and Spirit-inspired actions.  Effectively, it could be said that those that are in union with the Christ are called to be Solomon’s, Israel’s, and Adam’s for the world, doing so with the mysterious power of the resurrection at their backs, as they speak and live the message of the Gospel, orienting their thoughts and their lives around the fact that Jesus is Lord. 

This means that Christians are called to live a life that is set apart and demonstrably different in their engagement with the world.  This does not mean that Christians hide away, buried underneath the weight of what could very well be a fruitless asceticism, withdrawn and distant from the world in a vain and conceited striving for a pseudo-holiness that is nothing more than a self-serving and selfish attempt to shrink back from the awesome responsibilities that attend this glorious union and its weighty demands.  

Only Son (part 24)

As has been previously stated, Scripture insists that Adam was charged to steward the creation and to be the out-raying of the Creator God’s glory in and to the creation in which the Creator is said to have walked with man.  The whole of the creation was this God’s temple.  By Adam’s sin (not being the out-raying of his God’s glory through dis-trust and self-idolatry) this was lost, and the world fell into a terrible state of disrepair, becoming something quite far from the “very good” condition in which it had been ordered by God. 

As the outworking of the covenantal promises to Abraham, Israel was then charged with stewardship over a small portion of that now-fallen creation, with their God promising to dwell with them in the land (their God’s temple) that had been promised to them through Abraham.  From that land, they were to show forth the glory of the covenant God so that all nations would stream to the land of Israel in search of the reasons for their blessings, which would ultimately mean that all men were searching for Israel’s God.  Their record in this, as suggested by their defining historical narrative, is mostly one of failure. 

Solomon was then specifically charged with building a temple within the land.  This Temple, located within the promised land, would then be recognized to be the specific place of the Creator God’s dwelling with His people.  It would then be to the Temple itself to which nations would be drawn, as the Temple itself was filled with the Creator God’s glory, as well as being a magnificent structure that visually testified to the glory of the God for Whom it was made to represent.  Solomon, however, did not show forth his wholehearted trust in his God, falling prey to idolatry as had Adam and Israel before him.  As a result, the Temple of Jerusalem itself would come to be defiled and destroyed, just as the land of promise had been defiled by idolatry, as had the whole of the creation.  All of the Creator God’s temples had been brought to the place of desolation. 

When Jesus came upon the stage of history, the temple in Jerusalem was not the temple that the Creator God had ordered to be built (at least according to Israel’s story).  Rather, it was the temple that had been built under the direction of Cyrus, the king of the Persian empire (who was recognized as the ruler of the world at that point in time).  It was not the place where the glory of the Creator God was reflected into the world, and indeed, Jesus would deride the temple authorities as having turned this temple into a den of robbers, where theft and oppression and injustice took place on a regular basis. 

 In contradistinction to the temple that then stood in Jerusalem, Jesus would speak of Himself as the true Temple.  In doing so, He would speak of Himself as the place in which the glory of the Creator God now resided (according to the widely held belief that the Messiah would somehow be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God), thereby making a physical temple irrelevant and redundant. 

If He was the Son of God, and if He did understand the role and understanding of the son of God within the historical tradition that has here been explored, then it seems likely that Jesus would have understood at least a portion of His role to be the rebuilding and restoration of the very first Temple which the Creator God had originally desired to be the place of His dwelling, that being His once very good creation.  Yes, He would be for Israel what Solomon had been intended to be.  He would be for the nations what Israel had been intended to be.  He would be for the whole of creation what Adam had been intended to be.