Love & The Public Good (part 3 of 3)

Because this is a mixed congregation of both Jews and Gentiles, one can surmise that Paul’s use of “the law” would be well understood to be those basic provisions of the law (circumcision, Sabbath keeping, food regulations, refraining from worship of idols) that served as identity markers for Jews, and were constant points of contention and division in the early church.  Knowing this allows one to see how the unity and actions of love that are outlined and encouraged in chapter twelve of Romans come into play.  In addition to that, when considering that this is a letter that will be read to a gathered church at a single sitting, it is worth remembering a very early statement in the letter, wherein Paul uses the phrase “from faith to faith” (Romans 1:17). 

This simple statement sees Paul borrowing from the imperial propaganda of the day, which presents Caesar as the supreme benefactor.  The statement implies that Caesar is faithful to his subjects, providing them with peace and security, and therefore his subjects are faithful and loyal to him and to Rome.  One must hear the words of the thirteenth chapter with such words and thoughts in mind, in the knowledge that Paul is presenting Jesus as the actual supreme benefactor, of which the Caesar is merely a parody.  All civic interactions proceed within this framework, and the self-sacrificial love modeled by Jesus which saw Him go to the cross (unconcerned with the shame because of the honor He trusted would come), becomes the model upon which the life of the Christian community is based (unconcerned with shame because of the honor that comes with what counts as the fulfillment of the law, thereby marking one out as a member of the people of the Creator God and a participant in His kingdom). 

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). 

A great disservice is done to the apostle if one simply substitutes personal and subjective notions of “the flesh” here, rather than considering “the flesh” within the context of the potential for disunity, division, stratification, and unwarranted authoritarianism within the church, as well as its connotations of the old age prior to the Resurrection, the inauguration of the new creation, and of the kingdom of the covenant God, in which preferring others above oneself is to be the norm. 

One must also take this statement into consideration in the context of the dissertation regarding the Christian’s responsibilities towards governing authorities.  Because one considers himself or herself to be part of the kingdom of God, a desire of the flesh might be to cast off all restraint and disregard governing authorities.  This was obviously a real possibility, which would account for Paul’s insistence that such authorities are “God’s servant for your good” (13:4a), and that it is “necessary to be in subjection” (13:5a)  (Note: Though democracies did exist, Paul does not have knowledge of a government that is constituted by “We the people,” such as to be found with the United States of America; so it is incumbent upon all generations of Christians, the world over, to understand Paul’s words in context and then to work out the implications of those words within their own time and place, guided by the dictates of the existing kingdom of heaven.) 

Rather than thinking about putting on the Lord Jesus Christ in the context of the cultivation of private spirituality, the understanding of putting on the Lord Jesus Christ should be shaped, and processed horizontally and outwardly, by embodying the transformational, kingdom-of-God-contexted love that was put on display by Jesus throughout the entirety of His mission, culminating in the cross.  This would certainly serve to quell any fleshly desires that might be manifested (separations based on honor and shame) or discussed (open rebellion against Rome that could result in the taking up of arms and the discrediting of the Jesus movement) at the meal table, thus resulting in a life of true holiness (a life laid on the altar of sacrifice in service to Israel’s God). 

All The Saints (part 22 of 22)

In the close of his letter, Paul makes it a point to mention several individuals.  The first is Tychius, known as “a dear brother, faithful minister, and fellow slave in the Lord” (Colossians 4:7a).  The second is Onesimus, regarded as “the faithful and dear brother” (4:9b).  Third is Aristarchus, whom Paul introduces as “my fellow prisoner” (4:10a).  Fourthly he speaks of Mark, “the cousin of Barnabas” (4:10c).  Fifth is Jesus (Justus).  Having listed these men, Paul takes what may seem at first glance to be the unusual step of saying that “In terms of Jewish converts, these are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me” (4:11b). 

This, of course, is only unusual if one is not blissfully aware of one of the main themes of the entire letter, which is that of the necessary union, within the church, between Jews and Gentiles (groups formerly held apart but now brought together by the common confession of Jesus as Lord).  With this awareness in hand, the mention of Jewish converts and the kingdom of the Creator God should lead the hearer/reader to expect mention of Gentile converts in connection to that kingdom.  In this Paul does not disappoint, though he does not specifically name them as Gentiles (naturally, this can go unsaid, as if they are not Jewish, then they are Gentile). 

So as Paul rounds out his dissertation that is very much concerned with “all the saints” of the church and the elimination of barriers between peoples so that all may participate equally in the inheritance promised by the covenant God and portended by Jesus’ Resurrection, he tells of Epaphras, “a slave of Christ” (4:12b), not unlike Paul himself.  One quickly and rightly reflects on the fact that he also said this of Tychius (a Jew), thus providing a point of contact and mutuality between a Jew and Gentile.  Paul writes that Epaphras “is always struggling in prayer on your behalf, so that you may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God” (4:12c).  This predominantly Gentile church needed assurance that they were, in fact (though they did not bear the covenant markers of Judaism), within the will of the Creator God and fully participating in His kingdom as confessors of Jesus.  Hearing this from Paul could only be a great encouragement. 

Paul then writes of Luke and Demas, two more Gentiles that serve him and serve the church, presumably without discrimination.  To that is added “Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters who are in Laodicea and to Nympha and the church that meets in her house” (4:15).  Though it is not explicitly stated, one can surmise that Nympha is a Gentile woman and that she hosts kingdom witnessing gatherings in honor of Jesus (the Jewish Messiah).  Along with that, Paul’s use of “brothers and sisters” is yet another gentle reminder that the church of the Creator God in Christ is one family, a new human family, unconcerned with those things that were formerly used to delineate or divide one people group from another. 

Paul wants this obvious message of unity and inclusiveness and the extension of his God’s election of all peoples noised abroad to all the churches, and therefore requests that “after you have read this letter, have it read to the church of Laodicea,” adding, “In turn, read the letter from Laodicea as well” (4:16).  The kingdom principles expressed in the letter to one group will equally apply to the other, and so on to the whole of the church, as the promises and blessings of the Creator God of Israel are made available to all, and all peoples have the opportunity to bear the name of saint.      

All The Saints (part 19)

When Israel would begin to respond appropriately, re-adopting the marks of their covenant, just as Gentiles responded appropriately to the Creator God by adopting the covenant marker of belief in Jesus as Messiah and King, the Creator God would revive Israel and grant them exodus.  This exodus, marked by Israel shaking itself free (always presented as the work of the their faithful, covenant God) from foreign oppression, was regularly looked upon as the evidence of the forgiveness of their transgressions against their God and His covenant.  Here then, Gentiles are enabled to enjoy the same type of relationship with the Creator God as has been enjoyed by Israel lo these many years.  Undoubtedly, it is a privilege that portends a significant responsibility. 

Paul then takes another step.  He, a Jew---a Hebrew of Hebrews, as he describes himself elsewhere---speaks through his letter in such a way that he takes up with the Gentiles.  His inclusive language expands again, as he identifies himself with the Gentiles (a radical step indeed for someone that had been zealously steeped in the Jew-delineating, over and against all other nations, covenant markers that defined Judaism and served to fence off the covenant God’s elect people and His covenant blessings) by insisting that “He has destroyed what was against us” (Colossians 2:14a). 

Elaborating on what has been destroyed, he writes of “a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us” (2:14b).  Surely, the Gentiles that Paul is addressing are heartened by this language that he has adopted.  He has moved beyond the comforting “all,” now standing in solidarity with Gentile believers, and declaring that the decrees that had been opposed to “us,” which are quite possibly the covenant markers that Gentiles had been forced to adopt if they wanted to participate in the blessings of the Creator God’s covenant people, have been removed.  Indeed, Paul says that Jesus “has taken it away by nailing it to the cross” (2:14c), leaving only a loyal, believing trust in Him as all that is necessary to join up with the Israel of God. 

The cross to which God-manifest went has changed everything.  Discarding the shame that was normally attached to a crucifixion (the most shameful and shame-ascribing event of the ancient world), as is Paul’s custom as well as that of the church, Paul exults in what the cross has accomplished in and for “all” the world and “all” creation, writing “Disarming rulers and authorities,” who had thought that Jesus was the one that had been disarmed, “He has made a public disgrace of them,” even though they had thought that it was Jesus and His followers that were suffering disgrace and shame, “triumphing over them by the cross” (2:15).  The place and the instrument that was said to be that of Caesar’s triumph is actually the place of Jesus’ triumph.  As Caesar employed the cross as part of his efforts to create, solidify, and control a worldwide kingdom of his own making, so the cross was employed by Jesus to actually accomplish that end.      

To this word of the removal of the oppositional decrees and the reminder that Jesus, as Lord, is the ruler of all (a frequent assertion by Paul as he communicates the Gospel message), along with his position of solidarity with Gentiles, Paul adds “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).  This can be nothing less than a direct reference to the covenant markers that had previously served as boundaries that, in combination with circumcision, served to maintain separation between Jews and Gentiles, and which some continued to insist were a requirement for Gentile participation inside the covenant people.  Paul clearly and repeatedly strikes at this notion.  He has referred to it as a certificate of indebtedness that has been taken away because of the cross. 

All The Saints (part 14)

It is impossible to dismiss the drama that unfolds here in Jerusalem.  The roots of the drama run deep, portending an ideological, theological, and eschatological divide that is, as revealed in Paul’s constant attention to it, more than a little bit difficult to bridge.  For centuries, Jews stood on one side of that divide, with their covenant and their Temple that so epitomized and represented that covenant and its heretofore exclusive limitation to Israel. 

On the other side of that divide stood Gentiles---outside of the covenant unless they were willing to become Jews.  Even then, they would be excluded from full access to the Temple, and by logical extension, from full participation in the covenant.  In the middle stood the Christ, arms out-stretched to bridge that divide.  It would be part of the mission of His church, as understood by men such as Peter and Paul and others, to represent the all-embracing Christ of the Creator God, to bring it to pass that when one spoke of “all the saints,” that this was no longer the exclusive domain of national Israel, but was a phrase that was being spoken of a kingdom of all peoples. 

Clearly, the journey to bring such a thing about was going to be long, as even some that participated in the church, conceivably thinking of themselves as components of a new Temple and as citizens of that new kingdom, found it difficult to allow that bridge to be built in such a way as to allow Gentiles and Jews to meet in the middle, figuratively standing upon Jesus alone, and the Gospel claim about Him, as both the bridge and its underlying support. 

Opposition to Gentile participation within the covenant was not restricted to Jews that rejected the messianic status of Jesus.  Many believers, from national Israel, presumably along with other Gentiles that had previously Judaized and subsequently became believers in Jesus, accepted Jesus as the bridge and the foundation of that bridge, while also believing it to be necessary for Gentiles to cross that bridge to the side of the Jews as they had, taking upon themselves and placing themselves under the marks of the covenant, so as to participate in the long-awaited and greatly anticipated blessings promised to Abraham. 

So yes, the passions ran deep.  In fact, as Luke speaks with all of the fitting hyperbole that the situation required, it is said that “The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together.  They seized Paul and dragged him out of the Temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut” (Acts 21:30).  It doesn’t end there.  “While they were trying to kill him,” theoretically for bringing Gentiles into the Temple and thereby polluting the Temple, “a report was sent up to the commanding officer of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion” (21:31).  

All The Saints (part 13)

Observing a brief (or not so brief) reminder in continuing this examination of this passage from Acts, it should be remembered that this study has returned again to this book (Acts), and to this section of the book, because of its usefulness in demonstrating the attitude taken towards Gentiles and the Temple.  

In co-ordination with Paul’s demonstrably sustained focus on Jew and Gentile relations in the early church, the associated controversies concerning covenant markers and covenant inclusion (justification), the repetitive use of highly inclusive language in the first chapter of Colossians, the incredible significance of the sweeping expansion of the covenant peoples to include Gentiles as Gentiles through confession of Jesus as Lord and Messiah (rather than Gentiles as Gentiles-converted-to-Judaism through the adoption of covenant markers that are generally referred to as “works of the law”), a side-by-side reading of Ephesians two with Colossians one (with expansions and abbreviations noted), this study has contended that the statement of the twenty-second verse of Colossians one, “but now He has reconciled you by His physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before Him,” is Temple language that echoes the Levitical code and its provisions for service in the Temple. 

Furthermore, it is proposed that this short statement stands in for the longer statement of Ephesians two, which speaks explicitly about the Temple and the unquestionable qualification of Gentiles to not only serve the Temple, but to actually be components of the Temple (the place of the Creator God’s dwelling and the ultimate symbol of this God’s covenant with humanity and with His creation).  What will be seen in what comes next in Acts twenty-one serves to demonstrate just how revolutionary this thinking was.

As Paul is conducting his business in the Temple, something goes horribly wrong.  Contrary to what was insisted would be the result of Paul’s activity in the Temple, which was that “everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the law” (Acts 21:24b), Luke writes that “When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from the province of Asia who had seen him,” that being Paul, “in the Temple area stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, shouting ‘Men of Israel, help!  This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this sanctuary!’” (21:27-28a)  So much for expectations.  Instead, a near-riot ensues.  Of course, what is here mentioned is only half of that which is causing people to take issue with Paul. 

Reading further, one finds a revelation of the generalized attitude towards Gentiles, proving just how deep these long-cherished notions ran, when reading “Furthermore he has brought Greeks into the inner court of the Temple and made this holy place ritually unclean!” (21:28b)  This, of course, was patently untrue, as Luke parenthetically inserts “For they had seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him previously, and they assumed Paul had brought him into the inner Temple courts” (21:29).  The inner Temple courts were strictly off-limits to Gentiles. 

The words of the crowd, as reported by Luke, are thoroughly informative, as the insistence in regards to Gentiles in the Temple and subsequent ritual uncleanness dovetails well with Paul’s insistence that Gentiles (at the point in Colossians that stands in for the Temple-specific language in Ephesians) are in fact able to be presented before Israel’s God (the one whose dwelling place was the Temple), based on their trust in Jesus as the Messiah and as the one mediator between the Creator God of Israel and all men, as holy, without blemish, and blameless.  This naturally stands in contrast to their being ritually unclean and their being able to confer ritual uncleanness upon the Temple itself. 

All The Saints (part 12)

Verse twenty-two poses a rhetorical question to which the Jerusalem elders have what takes the appearance of a ready-made response.  That question, following up on the not-entirely-accurate suggestion that Paul teaches “all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to their customs” (Acts 21:21b---note the use of the word “custom” rather than “law”---a subtle reminder that the then-employed covenant markers were more custom than law perhaps?), was “What they should we do?” (21:22a)  Coupled with the lack of accuracy in the statement that leads to the question, one is tempted to hear the prepared response as little more than the feigning of concern, as they say “They will no doubt hear that you have come” (21:22b). 

Now, it does exist as a possibility that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, with whom Paul is here dealing, are simply reporting what they have heard, and that they are simply relaying the general tenor of the grumblings about Paul that they hear around the Temple and in Jerusalem.  However, though again there is no desire to here dwell on it (as it is not the primary issue at hand), this exchange takes on the appearance of an honor competition for position within the church, with the Jerusalem elders seeking to shame Paul.  Knowing Paul through his letters and through Acts, and knowing his demeanor in the lead-up to his return to Jerusalem, which he expected to be fraught with troubles, this potential attempt at shaming would probably not have much of an effect on him.

So a suggestion is offered.  Paul is told that “We have four men who have taken a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved” (21:23-24a).  Is this talk of Paul needing to purify himself a subtle jab that stems from the fact that he spends the vast majority of his time with Gentiles (echoes of Galatians two ringing in one’s ears)?  The rejoinder to the suggestion, which is “Then everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the law” (21:24), indicates that it is a veiled insult. 

What they have in mind when speaking about “conformity with the law” is revealed in what follows, as they make reference to an earlier event, saying “But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we have written a letter, having decided that they should avoid meat that has been sacrificed to idols and blood and what has been strangled and sexual immorality” (21:25).  This serves as something of a modified version of the prevalent covenant markers, setting forth the still-underlying position that Gentiles should be required to, in some way, become Jews in order to have the privilege of participation in the blessings of Israel’s God as members of the covenant people.  Submission to the God of Israel and to the crucified and resurrected Messiah of Israel was simply not going to be enough. 

Paul, who, according to what can be found in the twentieth chapter and the first part of the twenty-first chapter, has an inkling as to where all this might be headed and has already embraced the possibilities, does not argue with the elders.  Because he could look upon this activity as being relatively meaningless in the great cosmic, kingdom picture with which he was concerned, and because he had no desire to create disharmony or dissent in the church, “Paul took the men the next day, and after he had purified himself along with them, he went to the Temple and gave notice of the completion of the days of purification, when the sacrifice would be offered for each of them” (21:26).

All The Saints (part 11)

Notice the focus on the matter of Gentiles and the effectiveness of the Gospel’s message.  This, of course, makes perfect sense, as Paul is primarily known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.  At the same time however, he addresses himself to Jews as well, as his congregations (household meal gatherings in honor of Jesus) are a mixed bag, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles.  This is well demonstrated not only by the content of his letters, but by the fact that he spends a great deal of time addressing Jews in the synagogues in the various Gentile-dominated cities to which he travels. 

However, Luke, as the author of Acts, is free to pick and choose that upon which he focuses his attention and that which he relays to the readers/hearers of his work.  Interestingly, he consistently chooses to impart information concerning Gentiles, with this information provided its contextual setting by the Jew/Gentile issue that consumed the energy of the nascent church and so much of Paul’s attention.  This lends substantial weight to the idea that the means by which Gentiles are included in the covenant people and share in their promises (the means by which they are justified) was a (if not the) fundamental point of contention in the early church. 

Verse twenty provides the response: “When they heard this, they praised God.  Then they said to him, ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all ardent observers of the law” (Acts 21:20).  That is, they are believers in Jesus who continue to adhere to the covenant markers of circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary laws.  Going on, “They have been informed about you---that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs” (21:21).  This, as can be gleaned from Paul’s letters, is highly debatable, and probably something of a distortion or half-truth (at best). 

Paul’s primary concern was the covenant marker of Gentiles, that being confession of Jesus as Lord (their confession of the Gospel) that made them people of the covenant, and not the submission to the ongoing covenant markers of Israel as that which made them people of the covenant.  Paul was not concerned with whether or not the Jews continued to hold to these customs, being far more concerned with not forcing Gentiles to submit to them, as doing so would contribute, in his mind, to erecting barriers to the spread of the kingdom of the Creator God to all peoples.  Paul clearly demonstrates his belief that it would create unnecessary and probably unhelpful divisions among people, with these divisions based solely on identifying practices that had nothing to do with the proclamation of the Lordship of Jesus. 

If anything, Paul’s preaching probably encouraged Judaizing Gentiles (Gentiles who had adopted the covenant markers of Israel so as to come under the auspices and provisions of the covenant, so becoming Jews) to discontinue Sabbath-keeping and adherence to dietary laws (reversing circumcision, though possible, would probably not be encouraged, especially considering that Jews were not the only people to practice circumcision---it was really the combination of covenant related activities, though these changed over the years to reach the form that they had taken by the time of Jesus and Paul, that served to set Israel apart from other peoples).  This could form the basis for the mild accusation heard in the twenty-first verse, as, in order to make a point, they would not make an effort to distinguish between a Jew of national and ethnic Israel, and someone who had become a Jew through the required processes.  Though this study will not dwell on it, this chapter and its recorded exchange provides an indication that there may have been something of a struggle for honor within the church, with what has already come and what follows serving as an attempt to shame Paul.   

All The Saints (part 10)

In addressing this question, it is necessary to revert to the Levitical code.  In the twenty-first chapter of Leviticus, restrictions are placed upon the priesthood, who are those that could serve in the Temple.  Beginning in verse sixteen one reads: “The Lord God spoke to Moses: ‘Tell Aaron, “No man from your descendants throughout their generations who has a physical flaw is to approach to present the food of his God.”’” (Leviticus 21:16-17) 

Notice the use of “present,” which also shows up in the key verse in Colossians that could very well be alluding to the Temple.  Continuing, “Certainly no man who has a physical flaw is to approach: a blind man, or one who is lame, or one with a slit nose, or a limb too long, or a man who has had a broken leg or arm, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or one with a spot in his eye, or a festering eruption, or a feverish rash, or a crushed testicle.  No man from the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a physical flaw may step forward to present the Lord’s gifts; he has a physical flaw, so he must not step forward to present the food of his God.  He may eat both the most holy and the holy food of his God, but he must not go into the veil-canopy or step forward to the altar because he has a physical flaw.  Thus he must not profane My holy places, for I am the Lord who sanctifies them” (21:18-23). 

Certainly, it is with little difficulty that one can compare the language here with Paul’s insistence that Jesus has presented those that were previously looked upon as completely unworthy, as described here in the Leviticus passage, as “holy, without blemish, and blameless.”  Of course, this is also the language of animals offered in sacrifice, which can lead to an equally valid discussion of the sacrificial nature of the Christian life and of unity in purpose with the one sacrificed. 

However, as the context deals with the inclusion of people under the covenant, the application can and should be here restricted to people and their entrance upon the covenant (their justification).  Importantly, in a period of time in which Gentiles (unholy, blemished, blameless) were not allowed to enter into the Temple proper, Paul is insistent (via Ephesians), that they not only enter into the Temple, but that they are a fundamental component of the Temple of the Creator God itself.   

To effectively make the point about the way of thinking then in play about the entrance of Gentiles into the Temple in the time of Paul, one can once again venture to the book of Acts.  As stated before, though Acts would have been composed after the time of the writing of the letter to Colossians or Ephesians, as a historical work with a deep and abiding theological concern, it does provide relevant information concerning the period, especially in terms of the general attitude of Jews towards Gentiles.  This was well demonstrated by the previous look at chapters thirteen and fifteen of Acts.  For purposes of this study at this point, it is necessary turn to Acts twenty-one. 

Here one finds the story of Paul’s return journey to Jerusalem.  To adequately appreciate the service provided by this chapter to the Temple-related assertion from Colossians, it is necessary to quote it at length.  Beginning in verse seventeen Luke writes, “When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly.  The next day Paul went in with us to see James, and all the elders were there.  When Paul had greeted them, he began to explain in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry” (21:17-19).  

All The Saints (part 9)

One might be tempted to question the legitimacy of the assertion that there is Temple language to be found in Colossians.  Admittedly, on the surface it appears to be a bit of an unwarranted leap.  However, if one were to recognize the parallels between the second chapter of Ephesians, acknowledging it as something of an unspoken gloss on what is to be found in the first chapter of Colossians, then it is quite safe to tread this theoretical path. 

What is it in Colossians one that may put one in mind of the Temple?  Specifically, what may put a reader in mind of the Temple in conjunction with Paul’s attempts at opening wide the gates of the covenant to all peoples?  It could be suggested that a leading contender for this role would be the words that close out the twenty-second verse of the first chapter, which are “to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before Him” (Colossians 1:22b).  This study has already reviewed what precedes these words, where Paul wrote “And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your minds as expressed through your evil deeds, but now He has reconciled you by His physical body through death” (1:21-22a). 

Also, the parallel in Ephesians has already been noted, with this parallel becoming increasingly important as a means to penetrate into Paul’s thinking and the issues which he is addressing in nearly all of the churches with which he has contact.  It is worth quoting again at length: “you were at that time without the Messiah, alienated from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.  But now in Christ Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.  For He is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility… and to reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by which the hostility has been killed” (2:12-14,16). 

The similarities between the two citations should be quite obvious.  Given that, it is not at all unreasonable to suspect that the similitude will continue, especially as it appears to be an unbroken stream of thought that results in Paul’s talk of the church as the Temple, with Gentiles obviously included in those that compose the Temple.  The same can be said of Colossians, in that it is an unbroken stream of thought that has Paul moving from strangers, foreigners, reconciliation, and death, to a holy, blemish-less and blameless presentation before Him (Jesus presenting His new covenant people, made up of people from all nations, before Israel’s Creator God). 

Though there is no explicit mention of Temple or church, as can be seen in Ephesians, the talk of those that are holy, without blemish, and blameless in presentation that flows directly from reconciliation, and which occupies the same space reserved for Temple talk in Ephesians, serves as a functional allusion to the Temple.  How so?  More specifically, how does this function in relation to the wider concern of the first chapter, which is the strident, Gentile-inclusive “all”? 

All The Saints (part 8)

The use of “strangers” and “enemies” seems to be directed towards Gentiles, as they were looked upon as being strangers to the covenant.  “Strangers” could easily be heard as “foreigners” or “aliens.”  Here it is quite useful to call upon the letter to the Ephesians, as it can provide a helpful expansion (not a proof-texting), verbalizing what may have been already (likely) understood by the Jesus-as-God-and-Lord-worshiping Colossian congregation that was probably composed of Jews, Judaizing Gentiles, and Gentiles. 

In the second chapter of Ephesians, following a few verses that could easily fit alongside and even substitute for the creedal expression of verses fifteen through twenty of Colossians one, Paul writes “Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh---who are called ‘uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘circumcision’ that is performed on the body by human hands---that you were at that time without the Messiah, alienated from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Colossians 2:11-12).  One would be hard-pressed to hear talk of “strangers and enemies” in Colossians in a way any different from the more explicit presentation here in the Ephesian letter.  The situation of Gentiles and their inclusion is very much at hand. 

Continuing in Ephesians then, which provides a more well-rounded understanding of the movement in Colossians (and if one considers the extreme likelihood that Ephesians was originally a circular letter, designed to be heard by a number of churches, possibly even those of Colossae, then understanding is even more greatly enhanced), Paul writes “But now in Christ Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (2:13).  It is possible to transport the “far away” and “brought near” into a Colossian context, with knowledge of the Gentile association of those words, so as to increase sensitivity to the subject matter at issue. 

Employing the same type of inclusive language in Ephesians, Paul continues, writing “For He is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, when He nullified in His flesh the law of commandments in decrees.  He did this to create in Himself one new man out of two, thus making peace, and to reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, by which the hostility has been killed” (2:14-16).  Paul insists that there is no longer any division between Jew and Gentile.  They are not to be held apart.  There is to be nothing that divides them. 

More than anything, this allows for glimpsing the mindset of Paul, even if such things that are explicitly mentioned in Ephesians go unsaid to the church at Colossae.  It should be impossible to separate this type of thinking from an assessment of Colossians, as the Jew/Gentile, appropriate covenant marker conflict (the law of commandments in decrees), colors in the landscape in which the church of Christ in Colossae and the letter directed to them is set. 

Visiting again the “strangers and enemies” reference in Colossians, and understanding that it is said in Ephesians in the context of bridging the divide between Jews and Gentiles, one could easily find Paul employing words such as “And He came and preached peace to you who were far off,” Gentiles, “and peace to those who were near,” Jews, “so that through Him we both,” that being Jews and Gentiles equally, “have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Ephesians 2:17-18). 

Rounding out his words to those that were considered to be strangers and enemies in need of reconciliation and redemptive inclusion into the assembly of God’s covenant people that sprang into existence with Abraham, Paul writes “So then you are no longer foreigners and noncitizens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, because 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” (2:19-22).  This fits quite nicely with the Temple language that is subtly employed in verse twenty-two of Colossians one.  

All The Saints (part 4)

As a result of Peter’s plea, James, grasping the movement of the Creator God’s Spirit, along with a Scriptural and historical justification for that movement, says “Brothers, listen to me.  Simeon has explained how God first concerned Himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for His name.  The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written, ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord, namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be My own, says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.’” (Acts 15:13b-18)  Remarkably, it is determined that the tent of David is to include the Gentiles (resonances of Isaiah 54:2---make your tent larger???), and that this has always been the plan of the covenant-making-and-keeping Creator God of Israel.   

In Acts thirteen, Paul and Barnabas are in Pisidian Antioch.  Paul speaks to “Men of Israel, and… Gentiles who fear God” (13:16b).  During the course of his speech, as he quickly recounts the story of the Creator God’s covenanting with humanity, he goes on to say “Brothers, descendants of Abraham’s family, and those Gentiles among you who fear God, the message of this salvation has been sent to us” (13:26). 

He goes on to punctuate the remainder of his message with words of family unity, speaking of “the good news about the promise to our ancestors” (13:32b), and “to us, their children” (13:33b), climaxing with “Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through this one forgiveness of sins,” which is the language of exodus experience and covenant inclusion, “is proclaimed to you, and by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you” (13:38-39).  Here, one needs to be cognizant of the possibility that “the law of Moses” stands in for “works of the law,” which were the covenant markers that were to be practiced as the identifying, justifying marks for those who were under covenant. 

Thus, through recollection of these scenes as recorded in the book of Acts (which, though the stories would have been shared, were not available in written and standardized form to the churches of the day),observers are provided with a glimpse into the struggle.  There were doubts.  There were prejudices and ancient biases.  There was a fear that the status gains of one group (Gentile Christians) were coming at the expense of another (Jewish Christians). 

In an honor and shame culture in which honor was a limited good (one only gained honor at the expense of another’s honor), this is more than understandable.  There were church-wide conflicts.  There were intra-church (as congregation) conflicts.  There was a lack of unity on a number of issues, both within bodies and across the body.  There were stances taken by one church that would not be taken by another church.  Indeed, a review of the New Testament letters demonstrates that each congregation dealt with different problems at different times and in different ways.

All of this lays the groundwork for a look at Colossians.  In co-ordination with the title of this study, it can be said that “all” in Colossians, seems to play a strategic role.  This “all” takes on multiple forms, and when one reads the letter with the questions concerning the inclusion and acceptance of Gentiles as part of the covenant people of the Creator God, minus their adoption of the markers of that covenant, this communiqué takes on an interesting character.  Paul is very much interested in the elimination of long established, perhaps cherished barriers (in some corners), in the name of the creation of a unified, new creation, kingdom people.

All The Saints (part 3)

The fifteenth chapter of Acts, which is often headlined as “The Jerusalem Council,” is predicated on the Gentile question.  The chapter opens with “Now some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’” (Acts 15:1)  This took place in Antioch, which was a major center of the church.  “When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement” (15:2). 

Luke goes on to report that “When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the elders, and they reported all the things God had done with them.  But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed,” in Jesus, and therefore were part of the church, “stood up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.’” (15:4-5)  Effectively, this circumcision and observance of the law of Moses, which would be an adherence to the marks of the covenant as evidence of inclusion in the people of the Creator God, would make these Gentiles into Jews. 

Peter would stand and declare that “some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the Gospel and believe” (15:7b).  It is here worth remembering that the use of “gospel” was not to be disconnected from its use by Rome and by Caesar, as announcements about Caesar (particularly in connection with his cult and his worship) were said to be “gospel.”  It was a term with which all the people of the empire would have been familiar, so the announcement of a “gospel” was not a novelty in the least.  The novelty was that it was being used in reference to Jesus and His kingdom---the new, true King of a new, true kingdom. 

With that in mind then, as it would have been in the minds of his hearers and in the minds of those that would later hear Luke’s account of the church (Acts), Peter continues, saying “God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and He made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith” (15:8).  This “faith” was the confession of Jesus’ lordship, as demonstrated by the close of his statement, which was “we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way we are” (15:11). 

This was remarkable, in that Peter, as a Jew, was devaluing the marks of the covenant, elevating faith in Jesus, which could only come about by what was considered to be the gracious act of the Creator God via His Spirit (who would believe that a man that was crucified by the Romans was the resurrected Messiah and Lord of all?), as the means by which a person, be it Jew or Gentile, enters in upon the covenant that this God first made with Abraham. 

The point being made, and it is the point upon which Paul would seize with great tenacity, was that Gentiles were to be accepted into the covenant as Gentiles, and that the covenant was being extended to Gentiles, rather than still being limited to those who were Jews by birth or who had become Jews via Judaizing (by circumcision and adoption of the covenant markers). 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 14)

Observers can be assured that hierarchical structures, which, in that day, were thoroughly wrapped up in the very competition for honor that is rejected by the church of the crucified Messiah, is nowhere in sight in this treatment of the qualifications for those that aspire to the position of overseer.    

Lest it be presumed that an unwarranted step is being here taken by linking “overseer” with the meal assembly that was the regular setting of the gathering of the church in its earliest days, and lest it be deemed that too much weight is being put on actions centered upon the meal as an effective counter-cultural witness, it is possible to bolster this position by acknowledging the letter’s movement directly from “overseer” to “deacon.” 

In verse eight of the third chapter Paul writes “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not two-faced, not given to excessive drinking, not greedy for gain” (1 Timothy 3:8).  This allusion to drinking cannot be looked upon as a general principle, plucked out of mid-air as an ideal.  Rather, it must be understood to be concretely connected to the eating and drinking of the church at its meal table.  That meal table, to be sure, in its arrangement and in the way it was conducted, as it was rooted in the meal culture that was foundational for society in general, and as it held to the witness of the meal tables of Jesus and the way in which He conducted Himself and spoke at those tables, was a powerful image of the kingdom that the Christians proclaimed, and of the God that was being honored and worshiped at the gatherings of their association.

Along with this, it is incumbent to add to an investigation of the letter a perusal of the introduction of the “deacon” to the church.  To do so it is necessary to look to the book of Acts.  Now, it is highly unlikely that Timothy had access to the book of Acts as the church has it today, but it is certainly plausible that Timothy would have been familiar with the story that described the advent of the position.  Since deacons are referenced, it is a given that the recipient of the letter did not need to have the position explained to him, being well aware of the “how” and the “why” of their function within the church.  

So what was that function?  Why was the position in existence?  In the sixth chapter of Acts Luke writes that “in those days,” which were some of the very earliest days of the church, “when the disciples were growing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the native Hebraic Jews” (6:1a).  Here, one encounters the all-too-familiar divide between Jew and Gentile within the church, though it is somewhat masked by the fact that both sides of this divide were said to be Jews. 

What was the source of this particular division?  Division between the Gentiles that were Jews by conversion and those that were ethnic and national Jews came about “because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food” (Acts 6:1b).  This food-related divide is probably best illustrated by the experience that Paul recounts from his time in Antioch.  This record is found in Galatians, where Paul writes “when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he has 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” (Galatians 2:11-12).  What Paul describes in Antioch, which is from a time period after the events recorded here in chapter six of Acts, first played itself out within the church at an intra-Jew level before playing itself out at an intra-church (between Jew and Gentile, and between Gentile and Gentile) level.

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 12)

To this way of thinking, Paul insists that “there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, revealing God’s purpose at His appointed time” (1 Timothy 2:5-6).  Therefore, it is faith in Jesus (fides/pistis/loyalty) that makes He and He alone the intermediary between the Creator God and man, rather than the works of the law (those previously mentioned covenant markers that then served to set God’s covenant people apart from all other peoples). 

Just in case there may be a thought that this ongoing disputation between Jew and Gentile is a component of Paul’s address here when he makes mention of “all people,” one can look to what follows the sixth verse, which is “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle---I am telling the truth; I am not lying---and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.  So I want the men to pray in every place, lifting up holy hands without anger or dispute” (2:7-8).     

Chapter three opens with “This saying is trustworthy: ‘If someone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a good work.’” (3:1)  What is this “office of overseer”?  The Greek word that is translated as “overseer” is “episcopes,” which is transliterated into “episcopate” and therefore “Episcopal,” which is likely to cause a reader to consider the hierarchical church structures and the hierarchically structured church with which we are all quite familiar in our own day. 

Though many that are reading this study may not be a part of a traditional, denominational church, it must be said that even non-traditional and non-denominational churches have authoritarian structures, whether implicit or explicit.  Thus one must be careful to avoid the importation of anachronistic thinking, in which the position of “overseer” in question here in the letter to Timothy becomes equated with the person that oversees a church in the modern sense, whether that be a pastor, a bishop, an area supervisor, or any such similar idea.  This type of relatively rigid church structuring would not be a settled feature or widespread component of the first century church that gathered in private homes as a meal association that saw themselves as the ambassadors and harbingers of the kingdom of the covenant God, and as a renewed humanity defined by their hope of resurrection, with worship of Jesus as the embodiment of the Creator God as the focus of their meal-based assembly. 

A ready awareness that the church assembled around a common meal forces one to understand that this “overseer” was, more than likely, the person that presided over the meal.  This meal presidency, which was a familiar feature of Hellenistic meal practices, would rotate among a number of people.  Ideally, it would rotate amongst the entirety of the assembly, with each member of the body taking their turn to perform the role; but naturally, not everybody would feel comfortable in such a role. 

Understandably then, those that undertook to serve in this capacity would be those that were comfortable presiding over meals, which would generally be those of higher social status and who would be viewed as having more honor.  Understanding this, the last thing that Paul would want is for the socially accepted systems of honor to determine the functioning of the body of the Christ, so certain expectations are set for those that will enter into this role. 

Galatians & Giving (part 4)

When it comes to participation in the Gospel and the kingdom for which it makes its claim, Paul clearly sets Gentiles on equal footing with the Jews.  This section of the letter to the Galatians leads into the recollection of his heated encounter with Peter, in which he decries Peter’s attempt to force Gentiles to adhere to the covenant markers of Judaism in order to be full participants in the covenant. 

Paul abhors this notion, saying that this is a setting aside of grace, making it so that Jesus the Christ died for nothing (2:21).  Paul surmises that if covenant membership was predicated on bearing the covenant markers of Judaism, then the Gospel claim of Jesus’ Lordship had no place nor efficacy.  Therefore, Jesus Himself becomes an unnecessary revelation of Israel’s God, making His ministry, His shameful death, and His Resurrection pointless.  Again, with this Paul is setting Jews and Gentiles on equal footing in regards to participation in the covenant. 

Paul is insistent that Gentiles do not have a lesser position in the covenant, and therefore that they most certainly do not have a lesser position in the church.  Unfortunately, this seems to be what is being communicated, perhaps even unwittingly and unintentionally, to the Gentiles that at least partially compose this particular congregation.  With this, one does well to remember that the recipients of this letter are most likely hearing it read to them at the setting of the community meal.  In this case, it is possible that, as Paul reports to be the case at Antioch (and therefore the reason he brings it to the fore here), the believers in Galatia have taken to having separate meal tables---one for Jews and one for Gentiles (though one would not insist that this must be the case). 

In the third chapter of Galatians, Paul imports the example of Abraham.  It is with Abraham, of course, that circumcision originates as the sign of the covenant.  Having imported Abraham, Paul immediately writes that “God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (3:8b), adding the report of the promise that “All the nations will be blessed in you” (3:8c).  To this Paul attaches “So then those who believe,” with that belief being the belief in the Gospel that Jesus is Lord, which Paul insists is the sole covenant marker for Gentiles, “are blessed along with Abraham the believer” (3:9). 

Just as circumcision was a secondary marker for Abraham with belief being the primary marker, so it would also be for Gentiles.  Gentiles were not to be relegated to second-class status if they did not have or observe the visible covenant markers (the works of the law---these having nothing to do with earning salvation or earning one’s way into heaven) of Judaism.  Gentile Christians were not to be shamed or looked down upon while Jewish or Judaizing Christians had honor accrue to them.  It must be recognized that Gentiles, and the need for them to be viewed as equal sharers in the covenant and its blessings, are primarily in view for Paul as he goes on to add that “in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles” (3:14a). 

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.      

Calling His Disciples (part 9)

In Genesis twelve, following the directive to “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you” (12:1b), from which one could easily infer a being with (I will show you) and a sending out (go out from), Abraham’s God continues His promise, saying “Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing” (12:2).  This could very well serve to round out what Mark intends to convey with his talk of the disciples being with Jesus so as to be sent by Jesus. 

It is not difficult in the least to here create one of those points of contact between the Gospel narrative and the Abrahamic covenant.  The disciples being with Jesus is functionally equivalent to the Creator God’s promise to make Abraham into a great nation, along with blessing him  and making his name great, which clearly allows for the assertion that the sending of the disciples to preach and to have authority to cast out demons is an exemplification of divine blessing. 

Turning again to Matthew with that exemplification of divine blessing, being with, and sending in mind, the same motif can be found to be at work, as the tenth chapter commences with a record that “Jesus called His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits so they could cast them out and heal every kind of disease and sickness” (10:1).  After an interlude in which Matthew takes the time to name the disciples as part of his narrative that will be primarily communicated orally, the reader can pick up at the fifth verse and find that “Jesus sent out these twelve” (10:5a). 

Clearly, conceptions concerning the Abrahamic covenant are strongly at play, with this mindset having been created by speaking about the leaving of a father (in the fourth chapter), along with the general Abrahamic mindset held by the people as part of their self-definition and self-understanding.  After restricting His disciples, at this point, to the land of Israel alone, Jesus further instructs them to preach that “The kingdom of heaven is near!” (10:7b)  This actually makes sense of the temporary limitation of the message to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6b), as this message of the kingdom of heaven being near would not be immediately comprehensible to Gentiles (they would first need to be steeped in the covenant history of Israel).  In a sense then, this is yet another part of the “being with Him” that can be seen in Mark. 

Jesus goes on to describe the activities that would exemplify divine blessings to be carried out in their sending, by saying “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.  Freely you received, freely give” (10:8).  Then, a little bit later, and just in case one may be doubting that the story of Abraham is in mind in these Gospel presentations and in the minds of the audiences, Jesus is reported to have explicitly called attention to the story of Abraham and Lot, doing so in relation to His mention of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

He effectively describes the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, before making the connection explicit at the very end, by adding “Whenever you enter a town or village, find out who is worthy there and stay with them until you leave.  As you enter the house, give it greetings.  And if the house is worthy, let your peace come on it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you.  And if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your message, shake the dust off your feet as you leave that house or town.  I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for the region of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (10:11-14).  

Love On John's Terms (part 24)

As it relates to Jesus, the scattering of the sheep under the false shepherd can be understood as another reference to the words of Zechariah (13:7), while also serving to make the point that Jesus, though with the path that He was traveling, certainly had an inkling as to what was in store for Him in His pending crucifixion, was not going to flee from the wolf (the Romans and their cross) and leave His sheep unguarded.  No, He was going to be the shepherd that cared for His sheep, faithfully seeing His role through to the very end for their salvation and life in His kingdom.  Driving this point home, He reiterates that He is “the good shepherd” (John 10:14a), and says “I lay down My life for the sheep” (10:15b).     

Expanding upon this thought in a way that plays into the sensibilities towards Gentiles that have been created throughout the Johannine narrative, and doing so in a way that would have been readily identifiable by the respective audiences (that of both Jesus and John), Jesus says “I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold.  I must bring them too, and they will listen to My voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd” (10:16).  Without spending too much additional time with this story or attempting to unpack the final words of Jesus, it is abundantly clear that it is the willful laying down of His life, especially in a way that is quite contrary to what would be expected of a presumed Messiah that is ushering in the kingdom of the Creator God, that is to be taken as a supreme manifestation of love.  This, among other things of course, is what sets Jesus apart from previous messianic claimants. 

Now this is not to say that previous messianic claimants did not act out of a love for the covenant God and His people, but it does indicate that there was a limiting factor with which Jesus does away, in that His love and His willingness to lay down His life due to that love was not limited to Israel.  This would speak quite loudly to Jesus’ audience and to John’s community, while also speaking quite loudly (when its context and referents are well understood) to all that would come to encounter this love-rooted narrative.  For the Johannine writings, which reflect the ongoing understanding of Jesus amongst the growing and persecuted Christian community, the fact that Jesus is believed to be the Creator God-manifest, and that He is willing to lay down His life for His sheep (encompassing all nations) in a humble self-sacrifice that would brand Him with unspeakable shame in an honor and shame culture, speaks untold volumes about that which is expected from those that strive to rightly bear the image of the Creator God. 

With that understood, and before offering up a change of scenery within Jerusalem, the Johannine audience finds itself ushered out of this story with “Another sharp division took place among the Jewish people because of these words” (10:19).  “These words” were, presumably, His words about sheep, sheepfolds, laying down His life, and His taking that life back up again (10:17-18), along with His speaking about “the Father” (10:17) being “My Father” (10:18).  Not only had Jesus effectively castigated many of the revolutionaries that had come before Him, who were often looked upon as heroic champions of the Jewish people (which presents its own set of problems for Him), the “Father” language that He was employing could have been quite troubling for His hearers. 

Though those that hear this Gospel tale are not going to be troubled by such usage, they would have more than well-understood the reaction recorded within the story, which had “Many of them saying, ‘He is possessed by a demon and has lost his mind!  Why do you listen to him?’” (10:20)  Naturally, this response was not universal, as “Others said, ‘These are not the words of someone possessed by a demon.  A demon cannot cause the blind to see, can it?’” (10:21)  This last statement stands as a reminder of the larger movement (the healing of the man blind from birth) in which the author presents this discourse in which Jesus casts Himself as the good shepherd.  

Love On John's Terms (part 23)

As Jesus speaks in a way in which He appears to present Himself as the Messiah that came to do the will of His Father, He said “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10b).  When Jesus speaks of this giving of life in abundance, is that gift to be thought of as being directed to Israel?  Naturally, that answer is yes.  However, the giving of life abundant cannot be disconnected from the statements about the stealing, killing, and destroying that had been employed by the thieves and robbers that had come before Him (and after Him, as was likely to have been quite well known to John’s audience). 

It must be understood that Jesus is also offering that gift of life abundant to the Gentiles that were then in possession of the land---the gift of the blessings of the covenant God of Israel---in His establishment of the kingdom of God.  This would have been contrary to a good portion of the then-current ways of thinking by a large percentage of the populace.  Quite a significant number of the people wanted their Messiah to steal from and kill and destroy the oppressors (those would not necessarily have been considered stealing, but liberation), but Jesus intended the opposite, desiring to establish the kingdom through acts that were the extension of the love of the Creator for His world.  Yes, Jesus intended that the hated Romans and all Gentile nations were to have the blessings of abundant life as well.  This was a component of the love of the Creator God that was first referenced in the third chapter (3:16), put into action for the world.      

Making what would then seem to be a point about the nature of His kingdom and His role as Israel’s Messiah, Jesus adds to this and says “I am the good shepherd” (10:11a).  This use of “good shepherd,” owing to its usage in the Hebrew Scriptures (the book of Zechariah most especially), as well as being something of a reference to Moses (the prophet that was to come into the world and Isreal’s great shepherd), was another way of speaking about the Messiah.  In this capacity Jesus says “The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (10:11b).  In its utterance (and quite obviously in retrospect), this was designed to begin preparing the covenant people for the fact that their Messiah was going to be killed at the hands of the very ones that so many of the people thought He would forcefully overthrow, which also answered the criticisms of those that stood opposed to the ongoing Jesus movement post-crucifixion and Resurrection, who would have pointed to the fact that Jesus had been crucified by the Romans and therefore could not possibly have been the Messiah. 

It had always been the case that when a potential messiah arose to do battle against the enemies of the Creator God’s people, the evidence that the person in question was obviously not the messiah was his eventual death at the hands of those same enemies.  Execution or death at arms was the clear signal of another failed messiah, but this was not going be the case for Jesus.  This pattern of potential revolution leading to death and destruction had been repeated numerous times both before and after Jesus, so these words of Jesus not only take on a prophetic role when directed to His hearers, but also an apologetic role when constructed in this way for the community as they learned to tell the story of Jesus.   

Elaborating on this thought, Jesus presents a short analogy in reference to would-be messiahs that had risen before Him (thieves and robbers), saying “He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.  He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep” (10:12-13).  How many men before Him had risen up to lead the people in revolution?  How many, when the pressure came and death threatened, ran away, leaving those whom he had previously led to suffer gruesome deaths?  

Love On John's Terms (part 18)

Something that must be noted as these efforts progress, is that once the scene of this Gospel shifts to Judea, it is a final shift.  There will be no more changes of scene or location until after Jesus’ Resurrection.  From the fourteenth verse of John’s seventh chapter, all the way until the beginning of the twenty-first chapter, Jesus is never to be found at too great a distance from Jerusalem.  This continuity in change of settings may carry with it some mild significance, as it relates to another repetitive message in John. 

Here in the seventh chapter, after a few more words from Jesus that served to prompt what are reported to be additional private exchanges amongst the Jewish leaders, Jesus is said to have “stood up and shouted” (7:37b).  It seems clear that the author wants to emphasize the words that are to follow, and any public performance of the written presentation of this theo-drama would quite naturally follow suit, with the reader also standing and shouting along with Jesus.  Jesus’ hearers, along with the audience of this Gospel story, hear “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink” (7:37c-38a). 

Where was this first heard?  Of course, Jesus was heard saying this to the Samaritan woman at the well.  His words there were “whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life” (4:14).  An approximation of these words are said to have fallen from Jesus’ lips after the feeding of the five thousand and His walking on water, when He said “The one who comes to Me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never go thirsty” (6:35b).  Now Jesus can be heard saying “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink.”  Interestingly, the first instance of such speech is in Samaria, whereas the second instance is in Galilee, and the third instance is in Jerusalem. 

Not to unnecessarily muddy the waters with a non-Johannine reference, but this is somewhat evocative of a statement that is recorded in the first chapter of Acts, in which Jesus says to His disciples “you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth” (1:8b).  In the case of Acts and quite significantly when it comes to understanding the nature of the kingdom of heaven come to earth through Jesus and those that claim allegiance to Him as King of all, Jesus directs His followers to an ever widening geographical circle to which they are to witness to the facts about Jesus and His Gospel.  In John, the order is somewhat reversed, in that Jesus presents what the author considers to be an extremely important aspect of His message first to Gentiles, and then in an area that is a mixture of Jew and Gentile (Galilee of the Gentiles is a Scriptural refrain), and then in the Temple itself, which would presumably be a message directed almost exclusively to Jews. 

So in the case of John’s presentation of Jesus, His ministry begins with a wide geographical circle that is narrowed down as He goes along (though this is not meant to imply any narrowing in the intended reach of His message).  This is yet another piece of information by which one can deduce the nature of the audience to which the Johannine writings are directed, and the way in which Christian love, rooted in the dissemination of the Gospel message, is to be expressed