A Tradition Of Wells (part 7)

In the fifteenth chapter of Exodus, following the miracle at the sea, Israel ventures on to Elim, “where there were twelve wells of water and seventy palms trees, and they camped there by the water” (15:27).  Coincidentally, their first stop following their deliverance was at a place called Marah.  It is reported that “they came to Marah, but they were not able to drink the waters of Marah, because they were bitter. (That is why its name is Marah)” (15:23).  Through Moses, the Creator God of Israel is said to have intervened in this situation, making the water safe to drink.  However, it is not until they reach Elim, the place of twelve wells (reminding the reader of the twelve sons/tribes of Jacob/Israel), following the miraculous crossing and defeat of their pursuers, that they are said to have made camp. 

In the book of Numbers one finds an interesting mention of a well.  As it is connected to Moses and to a song, while also occurring during their long exodus experience, it is not difficult to imagine this account having a special place within Israelite memory.  Reading on then: “they traveled to Beer; that is the well where the Lord spoke to Moses, ‘Gather the people and I will give them water.’  Then Israel sang this song: ‘Spring up, O well, sing to it!  The well which the princes dug, which the leaders of the people opened with their scepters and their staffs.’” (21:16-18a) 

Fresh on the heels of the song about the well, “Israel sent messengers to King Sihon of the Amorites, saying, ‘Let us pass through your land; we will not turn aside into the fields or into the vineyards, nor will we drink water from any well, but we will go along the King’s Highway until we pass your borders.’” (21:21-22)  This request was rebuffed.  Not only was there a refusal, but “he gathered all his forces together and went out against Israel in the wilderness” (21:23b).  In consequence, “the Israelites defeated him in battle and took possession of his land” (21:24a).  One could rest assured that Israel then drank from their wells and turned aside into the fields and vineyards. 

Is there any way that this particular well-story could come into play when looking at the well-story of the Gospel of John?  Certainly, otherwise why ask the question?  How does that story in the Gospel of John begin?  John reports that Jesus had “left Judea and set out once more for Galilee.  But He had to pass through Samaria” (4:3-4).  Obviously Jesus could have avoided going through Samaria, taking a different route on His return trip to Galilee, but this was the route that He chose. 

Similarly, Israel could have taken any number of routes towards their promised land, but they did not.  Just as they chose (or their God chose for them through Moses) a route that was going to take them through the land of the Amorites (specifically including the “King’s Highway”), so also Jesus chose a route that would take Him through Samaria.  On another level, it would certainly not be a reach to consider the idea that the author of John believed that any road being traveled by Jesus would be the “King’s Highway.” 

Seeing God (part 4)

Now it can certainly be said that the one that engages in adultery, whether through the actual and physical action or through the desire of which Jesus here speaks, would not be spoken of as being pure in heart.  To that one would add that this does not really take an observer any further down the path towards seeing the Creator God, which is said to be the lot of those that are pure in heart.  Again, Jesus is making some programmatic statements, which would imply that He has a program in mind.  Likewise, Matthew presents Jesus programmatically, so it behooves the reader to allow the sermon to build on its statements internally, while also looking for the way in which the sermon works itself out in application to the entirety of the narrative that is on offer in the whole of Matthew. 

Before moving on to the next “heart” statement, let it be noted that there are many uses of “heart” throughout Matthew’s Gospel, and all of them escape the lips of Jesus.  However, it is reasonable to presume that the explanation of what it means to be “pure in heart” is to be found within the sermon, as Jesus goes on to define His own terms within this bracketed context.  Here, one must also consider the possibility that Matthew has taken teachings of Jesus that were offered up in various times and places, and grouped them all together into this one “sermon,” especially if he was desirous of highlighting Jesus as a Moses-like figure, thus fulfilling the Deuteronomic insistence that another prophet would arise like Moses. 

A reinforcement of such a notion, though one could also consider that Jesus spoke what is heard from Him in Matthew on numerous occasions, including this one, comes from the fact that Luke has Jesus saying much the same thing (though quite a bit less than Matthew) on a plain, rather than from a mountain.  Along with that, if looking to the Gospel of Mark and again considering that Jesus can indeed say these things on more than one occasion (which is quite the reasonable and probable proposition), then one sees a fair number of Jesus’ pronouncements, mountain-related in Matthew, scattered throughout Mark’s narrative.  So if it is the case that Matthew has purposely grouped together these words of instruction from Jesus, remembering that they, regardless of the format in which they are presented, present Jesus’ conception of the life of the citizens of the Creator God’s kingdom, then it is all the more important to allow for an internal consistency, with terms defined by the sermon itself.  This is what is being attempted in regards to the term “pure in heart.” 

Now, having mentioned Deuteronomy in the context of Matthew’s desire to present Jesus as a lawgiver Who is like Moses but, in fact, superior to Moses (“you have heard that it was said… but I say”), it is worth going there to review what it was that was reported to have been spoken by Moses.  Now whether or not Moses actually said these things, and there is little reason to dispute this (though some do), such would not change the fact that Israel understood itself and defined itself according to its historical narrative (which included Deuteronomy), and especially that of the exodus and its attendant events (Sinai, the giving of the law, the wilderness wandering, entrance into the promised land, etc…). 

Upon arrival there one finds “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you---from your fellow Israelites; you must listen to him” (18:15).  This is then confirmed by the voice of the Lord, Who says “I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites.  I will put My words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command” (18:18).  In between the two insistences that such will take place, which Matthew must simply have in mind as he constructs his theologically-tinged biography of Jesus, Moses says “This accords with what happened at Horeb in the day of the assembly” (18:16a).  So when Moses speaks about the prophet like himself, he actually connects it to what took place on a mountain.  It is then unsurprising to hear Jesus speaking from a mountain, which makes the Moses-related point even more forcefully.

Absalom (part 9)

Sometimes there is a tendency to forget that these stories in the Bible are being told about people that were very much flesh and blood individuals.  These were not idealized characters that wore black or white hats.  These were real people with which all who read this study share a common humanity.  They had thoughts that are not recorded by the Biblical authors, insecurities, and doubts about their place and role in the Creator God’s mission in the world, with these occurring right alongside all of the problems and concerns of life lived in what would have to be described as less than comfortable conditions.  So even though conditions change and mindsets change, and even though the Christ-event and its results have had a singularly massive effect on the world for the last two thousand years (as a transformative force unlike the world has ever known), human nature remains unchanged.  This fact is what allows for a sensitivity and attunement to culture and custom by those that approach the Biblical narrative, so as to be able to enter these stories and to read them for all that they are worth. 

Getting back to the light in which Absalom might be hoping that these events are seen, and remaining aware of not only the narrative structure of the Bible that constantly points to themes of exile and exodus, but also that Israel was always especially cognizant of the story of the exodus under the leadership of Moses, a fearful King David can be found saying “Go immediately, or else he will quickly overtake us and bring disaster on us and kill the city’s residents with the sword” (2 Samuel 15:14b). 

If Absalom is indeed painting David as a new Pharaoh, and if the author is mindful of that, then David’s order is quite interesting.  It returns a reader to chapter twelve of Exodus, following the plague which brought the death of the firstborn (remember, all of these events concerning Absalom are ultimately connected with the death of Amnon, David’s firstborn).  There, in fear of what might happen next to his people and his land, “Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron in the night and said, ‘Get up, get out from among my people, both you and the Israelites!  Go, serve the Lord as you have requested!  Also, take your flocks and herds, just as you have requested, and leave.  But bless me also’.” (12:31-32)  In addition, it is there reported that “The Egyptians were urging the people on, in order to send them out of the land quickly, for they were saying, ‘We are all dead!’” (12:33) 

Though they are not identical, the words of David have a strange affinity with the words of Pharaoh and the Egyptians.  Regardless of the non-identical words, they can be said to share a nature and the point would seem to be clear.  What is going to follow is an exile and an exodus.  In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, both of which build upon the foundation of the Exodus narrative, the Creator God will promise His people that the curses that will fall upon them for violating His commandments would be similar to the plagues that He brought upon Egypt.  So Egypt, by retrojection, has already experienced something like exile (though they are not the Creator God’s people). 

Furthermore, owing to what would take place at the sea, the plague of death (exile) would be further visited upon the Egyptians.  The exodus to follow, of course, would be that of Israel.  With David and Absalom, exile and exodus were also coming.  David was going to leave Jerusalem in a self-imposed exile, as it seemed that his power over the Creator God’s people had been broken in a way that was not at all unlike that of Pharaoh.  Absalom, at the head of a loyal populace, was exodus-ing his own long exile and heading for the throne, which he may very well have seen (embodying the Israel story) as his promised land.  

Compassionate Brother (part 11)

It is as soon as Laban departs from him that Jacob’s thoughts turn to his brother.  He knows that he has a serious problem on his hands.  He knows that he has wronged his brother, and that he has dishonored his brother and his entire family.  He devises a plan.  Indeed, “Jacob sent messengers on ahead to his brother Esau in the land of Seir, the region of Edom.  He commanded them, ‘This is what you must say to my lord Esau: “This is what your servant Jacob says: I have been staying with Laban until now.  I have oxen, donkeys, sheep, and male and female servants.  I have sent this message to inform my lord, so that I may find favor in your sight.”’” (Genesis 32:3-5)

Jacob is quite right to be concerned.  This concern, and the reasons for the concern (which are culturally dependent) will be well understood and top of mind by those that would hear this story independently as part of the oral tradition being shared amongst the Israelites, or as those that would hear/read this story as a post-exodus people, doing so after the stories have been codified and taken the shape in which they have been passed through history.  Though all will already know the outcome (much like the initial church communities that were the hearers of the Gospels hear those stories with knowledge of their outcome), they can still share in the building tension by which the story is shaped. 

Having made this initial effort at what Jacob believes to be necessary for the assuaging of Esau, “The messengers returned to Jacob and said, ‘We went to your brother Esau.  He is coming to meet you and has four hundred men with him.’” (32:6)  Understandably, and with full cognizance of what he had done to his brother, “Jacob was very afraid and upset” (32:7a).  Owing to this, he took some precautions.  Knowing that the dishonor to which he has subjected his brother could be satisfied with a certain level of vengeance, and undoubtedly expecting the worst from Esau, Jacob “divided the people who were with him into two camps, as well as the flocks, herds, and camels” (32:7b). 

Jacob’s reasoning process, as it is steeped in an honor and shame culture (as the stories are being circulated within communities that also function in the dialectic of honor and shame), is on display as he thinks “If Esau attacks one camp… then the other camp will be able to escape” (32:8).  In hope, Jacob reasons that the dishonor which he has foisted upon his brother (really to his own shame) will be satisfied by Esau’s slaughter of half of Jacob’s people and possessions. 

After devising this plan, Jacob is said to have prayed to the Lord, saying “Rescue me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, as well as the mothers with their children” (32:11).  He then repeats the promise that has been conveyed to him, reminding his Lord of His words in which He had said “I will certainly make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand on the seashore, too numerous to count” (32:12). 

Having offered up this prayer, and perhaps gaining a bit of confidence in light of this recollection and of all that has happened to him to this point, Jacob makes a change to his plans.  “He sent as a gift to his brother Esau” (32:13b) a sizable number of animals, in the obvious hope that doing so would make up for what Jacob had stolen from him, and as something of a symbolic (and tangible) transfer of honor.  Is this a semblance of humility here on Jacob’s part?  Perhaps. 

It is recorded that “He entrusted them to his servants” (32:16a), telling them to “’Pass over before me, and keep some distance between one herd and the next.’  He instructed the servant leading the first herd, ‘When my brother Esau meets you and asks, “To whom do you belong?  Where are you going?  Whose herds are you driving?” then you must say, “They belong to your servant Jacob.  They have been sent as a gift to my lord Esau.  In fact Jacob himself is behind us.”’” (32:16b-18)  There is an element here, however faint it may seen, of Jacob attempting to shame himself (and so acknowledge his own shameful actions) as he approaches Esau.

Hated (part 4)

For believers that live in a Christianized western world, blessing one’s cursers and praying for one’s mistreaters probably seem like relatively easy things to do, as real hatred is so rarely experienced.  Cursing and mistreatment are fairly tame, and have little impact in a culture that does not operate on the basis of honor and shame.  Because of that, a number of western believers have a tendency to create dummies and bogeymen, and point to those often-theoretical and non-specific enemies (the world, the flesh, the devil) as those that hate them because of the name of Jesus, when such is generally not the case. 

In so doing, believers find convenient excuses to isolate themselves from the world around them, in what is actually a Gospel and Resurrection and kingdom of redemption denying way, clustering together within the four walls of their church buildings as if they are modern-day Qumran communities that are awaiting their God’s judgment to fall from heaven on these pretend enemies in a way that will vindicate their self-decided holiness.  However, in Jesus’ day, with this talk of enemies that hate and curse and mistreat, which may very well have been heard as not-so-subtle references to the Romans, such thinking was radical, especially if Jesus was indeed the Messiah that was supposed to be raised up and ordained to drive the Romans from their land. 

Finally, in the fifteenth chapter of the Gospel of John, an extended discourse on being hated can be found.  This discourse begins with “If the world hates you, be aware that it hated Me first” (15:18).  John positions this discourse within what is generally referred to as Jesus’ “parting words” to His disciples, thereby placing it, in a strictly chronological sequence, after the record of Mark.  That, of course, simply points to the fact that Jesus said the same things multiple times, rather than a faulty memory or a merely fictitious construction on the part of the author. 

Regardless of placement, it serves well to make the point that the disciples of Jesus heard these things as something of a regular topic, and that they did so in an atmosphere that was highly charged with ideas of revolution, with that revolution and its victory (though it would be through their Messiah) presumed to be coming at the hands of the very same God that had once saved His people out of Egypt, and Who had (according to the way that Israel’s prophetic literature was to be understood) promised to do the same thing again.     

It is always key to hold fast to the thought that the people to whom Jesus spoke, be it His disciples or fellow Israelites (though His wider audience also frequently included Gentiles), always thought of themselves as the people delivered from slavery in Egypt.  This was a key component of their self-identification.  Though they had been more recently been delivered from a Babylonian exile, which allowed a rebuilding of the Temple and a rebuilding of Jerusalem, this return from exile was always considered incomplete, so the more sure demonstration of the power and faithfulness of their God, which more readily identified Israel as His chosen and special people through which He desired to carry out His purposes in and for this world, was the deliverance from Egypt under Moses. 

The record of Exodus, and the ideas associated with the event of the exodus, are what influences the soteriological terms that are encountered within the divine record, such as redemption, deliverance, rescue, and salvation.  When such words are put to use in Israel, be it by a judge, a Psalmist, a prophet, a king, or by Jesus, that usage would generate a remembrance of the God that delivered from Egypt. 

In turn, this would stir a remembrance of the Sinai covenant, which should then remind the hearer (or the reader) of the Abrahamic covenant, thereby driving thoughts right back to that which the Abrahamic covenant was designed to correct, which was the condition of the world that was understood to have been brought into about by the fall of man.  In a culture in which these stories were told and heard on a daily basis, and which were highlighted at the times of the festivals, it does not strain credulity in the least to posit such a manner of contemplation. 

Father Of Your Nation (part 2 of 2)

It was in response to that which occurred under the reign of Manasseh that the Creator God is reported to have made His irrevocable, though temporarily stayed decree of destruction, saying “Manasseh misled them so that they sinned more than the nations whom the Lord had destroyed from before the Israelites.  So the Lord announced through his servants the prophets: ‘King Manasseh of Judah has committed horrible sins. He has sinned more than the Amorites before him and has encouraged Judah to sin by worshiping his disgusting idols.’  So this is what the Lord God of Israel says: ‘I am about to bring disaster on Jerusalem and Judah… I will destroy Jerusalem… I will wipe Jerusalem clean… I will abandon this last remaining tribe among My people and hand them over to their enemies’” (2 Kings 21:9b-14a).  Again, it should be noted that the conquering was connected to the performance of the father of the nation---the king.  In the companion to the historical record, Isaiah addresses the conquering by Babylon with His report of Israel’s God saying “So I defiled your holy princes, and handed Jacob over to destruction, and subjected Israel to humiliating abuse” (43:28). 

To broaden the scope of this study and to bring the rest of the world into consideration according to the perspective of the Scriptural narrative, it would not be improper to think of Adam as the father of the human nation (spokesman and king).  In conjunction with that, it can be freely admitted that he sinned (failed to bear the divine image), as he was not faithful to the covenant that the Creator God had established with and through him.  Adam had been made as the Creator God’s image in and for the creation and was given stewardship and rule over that creation, but he is reported to have rebelled against his Creator. 

As this is considered and one looks back to the passage from Isaiah, it is possible to see that the defiling of the holy prince, the handing over of Jacob to destruction, and the subjection of Israel to humiliating abuse, goes far beyond the conquering of the nation of Israel, whether by Assyria or Babylon.  It goes all the way back to Adam, includes Israel, and points to Jesus.  Jesus, the Messiah and the king of Israel, would come to be seen as representative of His people.  He would eventually be understood to be their holy prince.  He was Jacob.  He was Israel, their father and spokesman.  As the second Adam, He also stands for all of humanity in the same role, though He was not unfaithful to His covenant charge, and of course, He did not rebel against His calling. 

Israel had been called out by their God to be His covenant people, and to be His instruments to embody His covenant faithfulness in the world, to deal with evil, and to set the world to rights.  So too was Jesus.  Just as believers are called by their Lord to share in the world’s, and in so doing, be salt and a light and a reflection of God’s glory that would draw all men to Him, so too was Israel.  As Israel embodied, Jesus fulfills that role, doing so by experiencing the defiling, the destruction, and the humiliating abuse of the cross, taking all of death’s power upon Himself, and defeating that power by coming out of the grave, in the power of the Resurrection granted to Him by the Creator God of Israel. 

Having fulfilled that role as and for Israel, Jesus then fulfills it for the wider world---the nations and the creation itself, by taking up the role that had been assigned to Adam, as the father of the world-encompassing nation that is the kingdom of God, to steward the Creator God’s good and renewed creation through that kingdom that is present and active whenever and wherever somebody claims allegiance to Jesus and acts according to His kingdom agenda as presented in the Gospels.  In essence then, Jesus carries out this task of fulfillment of the role given to the divine image-bearers in union with those that live in a trusting, faithful allegiance to Him as their King. 

As believers lay claim to Jesus and preach the Gospel of the crucified and resurrected Lord of all, they may very well find opportunity to share in defiling, destruction, and humiliating abuse.  When this occurs, despair should not their lot, but only trust, as they look to the words that follow hard on this message from the Creator God in Isaiah, in which He informs His people: “Don’t be afraid, my servant Jacob… whom I have chosen!” (44:2b)             

Veil Of The Temple (part 3)

So now that these veils have been mentioned and discussed, the question could be posed as to why all of this matters?  Why is the veil so important?  Those who reported on the tearing of the veil obviously believed that they had an obligation to share it.  It is probably that those who would have been witnesses of the torn veil (whether they saw it take place, or whether they heard the reports and were able to do the work to tie it to the time of the Jesus’ death) were supposed to have drawn a specific conclusion from the event.  Also, because the Gospels continue the long-running narrative of the Scriptures, those who would come to read about the tearing of the veil are supposed to come to some type of enlightened or enlightening position based upon what was represented by that veil and the veils from the story of the covenant people.  Was the tearing simply supposed to illustrate the dramatic and ground-breaking event that had just taken place?  Clearly, it was far more than that.  To understand why it was so much more, we have to examine what could be seen on those curtains.

So what was on the curtains?  It has already been mentioned that they were made with blue and purple and scarlet and fine white linen, but they also bore an image.  What image did they bear?  Returning to Exodus, and to the directions for the veil of the Most Holy Place of the tabernacle, we read that “it is to be made with cherubim” (26:31b).  Images of cherubim were embroidered into these curtains.  Not only that, but cherubim were also worked in to the embroidery of all of the curtains of the tabernacle, as it can be read a few verses earlier that “The tabernacle itself you are to make with ten curtains of fine twisted linen and blue and purple and scarlet; you are to make them with cherubim that are the work of an artistic designer” (26:1). 

Cherubim, one comes to find, are an extraordinarily prominent feature of both the tabernacle and the temples.  It is another one of those topics that seem to receive an inordinate amount of ink in the Bible, though it may be overlooked.  The reader of Scripture is first able to learn about cherubim, in their relation to the tabernacle (temple), in connection with the Ark of the Covenant.  In the twenty-fifth chapter of Exodus is found, “You are to make an atonement lid of pure gold… You are to make two cherubim of gold… Make one cherub on one end and one cherub on the other end; from the atonement lid you are to make the cherubim on the two ends.  The cherubim are to be spreading their wings upward, overshadowing the atonement lid with their wings, and the cherubim are to face each other… I will meet with you there, and from above the atonement lid, from between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will command you for the Israelites” (25:17a,18a,19-20a,22).  The very place where Israel’s God said that He would meet with Moses was to be, effectively, guarded by two cherubim.  This was not only true of the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, but it was also true of the curtains that marked off that place of meeting. 

Later in the book of Exodus, as the items for the tabernacle begin to be made---as the curtains are produced and as the Ark is built, cherubim are specifically mentioned numerous times (chapters 36 & 37), thus bolstering the fact that they should probably be paid some attention.  In the book of Numbers, “when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak to the Lord, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the atonement lid that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim” (7:89).  Again, a point is made to speak of the cherubim in connection with the place where the Creator God is to be met, and where He reveals Himself to His emissaries.  In the first book of Samuel, when the Ark is mentioned, specific reference is made to the cherubim (4:4).  In the second book of Samuel, when King David brings the Ark to Jerusalem, the cherubim are referenced yet again” (6:2).  When the same event is presented in the first book of Chronicles, once again, the cherubim are found (13:6). 

One Shepherd Forever (part 1 of 2)

My servant David will be king over them; there will be one shepherd for all of them. – Ezekiel 37:24a  (NET)                     

Who are the “them” to whom this statement is referring?  Because this statement is found in the book of Ezekiel, it can be easily determined that the “them” is the covenant people of the Creator God, that being Israel.  In fact, their God is here speaking of a unified people of Israel, as it is also written that “They will never again be two nations and never again be divided into two kingdoms” (37:22b).  Their God has said that He “will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel, and one king will rule over them all” (37:22a).  That one king is the one referred to as “My servant David,” who would be the “one shepherd for all of them.” 

That said, one can go on to read that “They will live in the land I gave to My servant Jacob, in which your fathers lived; they will live in it---they and their children and their grandchildren forever, David My servant will be prince over them forever” (37:25).  Now, because this was written in the sixth century before the coming of the Christ and the advent of His kingdom, it is clear that this cannot possibly be an actual reference to King David of Israel, but to the messiah of Israel to come, who is and will also be known as the son of David, the shepherd of Israel. 

Jesus, of course, according to those that come to look upon Him as King, refers to Himself with such terminology.  According to the record of the Gospel, Jesus calls Himself the good shepherd.  The accounts of the life of Jesus that have been provided to the body of believers have Jesus, in a number of different ways, laying claim to the role and title of Messiah.  Therefore, by extension, and by the understanding of the people of Israel which would have been shaped by their own telling of their story, Jesus lays claim to being the expected king in the line of David. 

At the time in which Jesus would step into the world as the Christ, a popular, though not exclusive conception of the messiah was that he would be the ruler of Israel, and that under his Creator God-ordained rule, Israel would rule all nations.  Therefore, Israel’s messiah was to be the ruler of the world in the inaugurated kingdom of God.  Putting aside the nationalistic colorings that are contained in this conception, it can be said that Christians, by and large, hold to this same idea. 

Christians, owing to the Resurrection, believe that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah, and that as Israel’s Messiah, He does indeed rule over all nations and all powers, as King of the kingdom of God that was inaugurated with power at that Resurrection.  Among other things, that kingdom of the Creator God consists of a renewed humanity (renewed Israel---divine image bearers) that is made up of all those that are in union with Christ through their belief in Him as Lord of all (the Gospel). 

It is because of the messianic idea and the union with Christ that is effected by believing the Gospel message (Jesus is Lord), that Jesus-followers are able to think of and see themselves as the renewed Israel (covenant people) for the world.  That is, Jesus-followers, as the people by which the Creator God intends to demonstrate His glory through the Spirit-empowered spreading of the knowledge of Himself, can look to this passage in Ezekiel and revel in the promises that it presents.  In contemplation of that, we read that “This is what the sovereign Lord says: Look, I am about to take the Israelites from among the nations where they have gone.  I will gather them from round about and bring them to their land” (37:21b). 

Let Nature Sing! (part 1 of 2)

Let the sky rejoice, and the earth be happy!  Let the sea and everything in it shout! – Psalm 96:11  (NET)

Let the sky rejoice?  Let the earth be happy?  Let the sea and everything in it shout?  We could probably agree that this is rather odd language.  Can the sky rejoice?  Can the earth be happy?  Can the sea and everything in it actually shout?  In the way we would think of such things, of course not.  So is this hyperbole?  Of course it is.  However, this use of hyperbole, and its use here in the Scriptures, also points to the eternal plan of the Creator God, and is an interesting contrast to what can be read in the eighth chapter of Romans.  There, the reader is given a glimpse into a situation in which the sky is not rejoicing, the earth is not happy, and the sea is not shouting.  We read “For we know that whole creation groans and suffers together until now” (8:22). 

This is more hyperbole, as it is understood that the creation does not literally groan (though natural disasters and plagues could certainly be looked upon in such a way).  Why does the creation groan?  It groans because “it was subjected to futility---not willingly but because of God who subjected it” (8:20).  As this is heard, one should not forget the exodus connotation to the text, with Paul alluding to the groaning of the Israelites under Egyptian bondage. 

Why was the creation subjected?  The Creator God subjected it because He gave dominion over creation to the being that He had created in His image, to tend the creation, to reflect His glory into the creation, to remind the creation of its Lord, and to gather up the praises of the creation (rejoicing, happiness, shouting) and return them to that Creator.  Man, however, by not trusting God and living up to his calling (covenant), brought the curse of death and decay upon his race, while also foisting that curse upon the creation.  So yes, the creation was subjected to futility.  It was cursed with thorns and thistles.  So it groans, as the Apostle says, “in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:20b-21). 

What is the glorious freedom of the children of the Creator God?  The glorious freedom is the eternal life (the life of the age to come) in which believers participate upon their confession of Jesus as King (the Gospel), and which his fully and finally consummated in their being resurrected from the dead in the same way that Christ was resurrected from the dead, as was understood by the earliest of Jesus believers. 

The glorious freedom, among other things, is a glorified body (animated by the life of the age to come) that experiences the Resurrection power of God, just as was experienced by Jesus the Christ, here in the midst of God’s creation (again, just like Jesus the Christ).  This is a state in which the believer is free from death and decay---free from sorrows, pain, and suffering (just like Jesus the Christ)  Paul insists, reflecting widespread and fairly standard Jewish hope concerning the eschaton, that the creation itself hopes for that freedom, in the same way that those “who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies” (8:23). 

Slavery (part 1 of 2)

“Every seven years each of you must free any fellow Hebrews who have sold themselves to you.  After they have served you for six years, you shall set them free.” – Jeremiah 34:14a  (NET)

This seems to be a simple enough directive, and is prefaced with Israel’s God offering a reminder to His covenant people, through Jeremiah, that “I made a covenant with your ancestors when I brought them out of Egypt where they had been slaves” (34:13b).  The text above is what follows.  Because the people of Israel had been in perpetual slavery in Egypt, with seemingly no way out of it, God wanted to be sure that His people did not perpetually enslave any of their fellow countrymen, who would most likely come into the state of slavery as a result of indebtedness.  Generally, there was a path out of debt slavery, but this would not always be the case, depending on the level of debt incurred. 

Just as their God had entered in to their situation in order to free them from their slavery to the Egyptians, having heard the groaning of His people in their condition of oppression, so their God was, in a sense, here entering in to make sure that a state of slavery among His people would not be persistent.  We can certainly imagine that the God of Israel would not want to have to hear the groaning of His own people, as they are oppressed by their fellow covenant-bearers, and therefore need to deliver the cursing of plagues upon His own people for this transgression. 

Not only was the basis for the freeing of slaves rooted in the remembrance of their Egyptian slavery and the subsequent deliverance that they experienced, but the act of freeing the slaves would be a great reminder of God’s saving power.  By freeing their own slaves, and doing so in a way that demonstrated mercy along with a willingness to sacrifice and endure hardship for the sake of their fellow citizen, the people of Israel were able to seize on the opportunity to enact and reenact the deliverance that had come their way in Egypt.  Unfortunately, we go on to hear the Creator God saying “But your ancestors did not obey Me or pay any attention to Me” (34:14b). 

What was the contingent basis for this communication from their God through Jeremiah?  During the reign of King Zedekiah there was an agreement that the people of Jerusalem were “to grant their slaves freedom” (34:8b).  It had been the case that “All the people and their leaders had agreed to this” (34:10a).  We can read that, “They originally complied with the covenant and freed them.  But later they had changed their minds.  They had taken back their male and female slaves that they had freed and forced them to be slaves again” (34:10c-11).  “That was when the Lord spoke to Jeremiah” (34:12), expressing His displeasure at this situation.  An analogy could be here adapted, in which the Israelites who freed their slaves, but then changed their minds and took them back again, are akin to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who eventually freed their slaves and attempted to take them back.  This, of course, did not go well for them. 

For a moment, by freeing their slaves, the people showed their God something quite different than what He had been consistently shown by their ancestors.  Through Jeremiah, this God reportedly says to His people that “Recently…you yourselves showed a change of heart and did what is pleasing to Me” (34:15a).  It could be said that they actually showed some trust in their God, relying upon His just decrees and trusting that things would work out just fine even if they were to suffer what might seem to be financial loss in releasing their slaves.  God says that they pleased Him in that “You granted your fellow countrymen their freedom and you made a covenant to that effect in My presence in the house that I have claimed for My own” (34:15b).  However, they quickly returned to what had come to be their historical form, as God says “But then you turned right around and showed that you did not honor Me.  Each of you took back your male and female slaves whom you had freed as they desired, and you forced them to be your slaves again” (34:16). 

Groaning (part 1 of 2)

During that long period of time the king of Egypt died, and the Israelites groaned because of the slave labor.  They cried out, and their desperate cry because of their slave labor went up to God. – Exodus 2:23  (NET)

This king of Egypt was the king mentioned in the first chapter of Exodus.  It is said that he “did not know about Joseph” (1:8a), and “put foremen over the Israelites to oppress them with hard labor” (1:11a).  This king “made the Israelites serve rigorously…by hard service with mortar and bricks and by all kinds of service in the fields” (1:13, 14b).  This could almost be read as something of an echo of the “fall” of the Genesis narrative, when hard and rigorous labor was introduced to the original covenant-and-divine-image-bearers. 

It was in the midst of this subjection to a foreign power that the Israelites were said to have groaned and cried out, with that cry going up to their God.  It is said that their“God heard their groaning, God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (2:24).  This is part of the story that is told in association with the Passover.  Passover, of course, is the yearly remembrance of the deliverance of the Creator God’s people from their oppression in Egypt.  It is a celebration of the end of exile, and of the beginnings of exodus wrought at the hands of their God.  Though the story culminates in redemption and rescue and the destruction of their enemies, the story begins with the groaning of the people and progresses through God’s miraculous intervention on behalf of His people.

As a reader of Scripture considers the entirety of the Scriptural narrative, recognizing that the thinking of the New Testament writers was shaped not only by the Christ-event, but also by the story of Israel , this use of “groan” and “groaning” is quite interesting.  It is a tremendously evocative word, as it conjures up a depth of emotion that is reserved for describing truly great suffering.  We find “groan” used most descriptively and usefully in the New Testament, in the eighth chapter of the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans, with Paul employing these words in what would appear to be a clear connection to the story of the Exodus. 

If we are paying close enough attention, and if we are reading the text properly and with a mindset shaped by the long-running covenantal narrative, we can find the Apostle Paul using the language and imagery that would be associated with ideas correlated to exodus throughout his writings.  With this, Paul seems to be following quite comfortably in line with the prophets of Israel that came before him, as reference to the exodus from Egypt, along with imagery designed to evoke thoughts of exodus, is regularly used throughout the works that comprise the Hebrew canon.    

So how do we find these words used in Romans?  Paul uses them in relation to the creation---the natural world.  He begins by writing, “For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God” (8:19).  This reminds us that the creation itself is an important concern of the God of Scripture, and that salvation is not limited to people alone.  It is with these words that we can begin tying this to the Exodus account, in that there had been a prophecy that Israel would sojourn in Egypt for a set number of years. 

Much like the people of Israel in the first century knew that the time was drawing near for God to act on behalf of His people through His Messiah (owing to the 490 year term that was associated with the prophecy of Daniel), God’s people in Egypt knew that the time was drawing near for their long sojourn in Egypt to come to an end.  They merely awaited a deliverer to lead them out from their place and state of subjugation, awaiting such with eagerness.  

Faithfully Turned Over & Overwhelmed (part 2 of 2)

How do the implications of Leviticus and Deuteronomy relate to the text with which we began?  Israel is said to have done evil, and is subsequently subjected to Midian.  This is to be understood and being in accordance with the covenant of their Creator God.  So having done evil, it can be said that the Lord faithfully turned Israel over to Midian.  Faithfully?  Yes, for Israel’s God is understood to be faithful to His promises.  If He was not, and if the Scriptural record could not be looked to as the record of that faithfulness, then Israel would not be recognize Him as a God that was worthy of trust. 

The Scriptural narrative informs Israel that through Moses, God had warned His people, saying “if you ignore the Lord your God and are not careful to keep all His commandments and statutes I am giving you today, then all these curses will come upon you in full force” (Deuteronomy 28:15).  Moses begins outlining curses and comes to the point where he says, “The Lord will allow you to be struck down before your enemies” (28:25a), which sounds suspiciously like being turned over to and overwhelmed by Midian. 

With our return here to Judges then, we read that “Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites… would attack them.  They invaded the land and devoured its crops…  They left nothing for the Israelites to eat, and they took away the sheep, oxen, and donkeys.  When they invaded… they were as thick as locusts… They came to devour the land” (6:3-5).  Looking again to the curse tradition as recorded in Deuteronomy, in an effort to make sense of the plight of Israel, what do we find?  “You will plant a vineyard but not even begin to use it.  Your ox will be slaughtered before your very eyes but you will not eat of it.  Your donkey will be stolen from you as you watch and will not be returned to you.  Your flock of sheep will be given to your enemies and there will be no one to save you” (28:30b-31).  In Judges we can read that their invaders were as thick as locusts that devour the land, and in Deuteronomy, we find that “You will take much seed to the field but gather little harvest, because locusts will consume it” (28:38).  Clearly, the author of Judges well understood the terms of God’s covenant, along with His blessings and curses---his worldview shaped by the Levitical and Deuteronomic traditions.   

Yes, and that tradition includes the sense that their God will fulfill His promises.  The faithfulness of Israel’s God is not limited to doing only what His covenant people will view and agree upon as good (blessings), though all things to which God subjects His people (even His curses) are ultimately for the working of His good.  The words of this message are not offered as a warning, but rather, as a reminder of the steadfast, promise giving and promise fulfilling nature of that God.  Though we can read about His people suffering for their failure to perform as God would have had them perform in accordance with His covenant with them, and though we can read about the curses that could and would come upon His people as a result of those failures, and though we can certainly accept them as warnings about the wrath of that God in response to sin (word and deed not in keeping with His covenant, failure to bear the divine image), we are best served by letting these things remind us of the steadfast love and faithfulness of the God that reached out and chose a people for Himself---a renewed Israel---by and through which to bring the blessings of that God into the world. 

Faithfully Turned Over & Overwhelmed (part 1 of 2)

The Israelites did evil in the Lord’s sight, so the Lord turned them over to Midian for several years.  The Midianites overwhelmed Israel. – Judges 6:1-2a  (NET)

Along with many other things, including being something of a story or script that the people of the covenant are expected to understand and use to guide their actions in and for this world, the Bible can certainly be understood as the record of the covenant faithfulness of the Creator God of Israel.  The Hebrew Scriptures reflect the way that Israel understood and came to understand their God.  With the composition and collection of these writings, Israel would possess something that served as a constant reminder and evidence of His faithfulness to His covenant, of His faithfulness to His covenant people, and of His faithfulness to His covenant promises.  The idea of a covenant-making-and-keeping-God would be top of mind for a member of the Israelite people, so that even though a modern reader may miss it at first glance, what is to be found in this verse points back to the covenant and faithfulness of Israel’s God. 

What is to be understood when we read that “The Israelites did evil in the Lord’s sight”?  As we comb through the book of Judges, we find a highly representative example that “The Israelites did evil before the Lord by worshiping the Baals.  They abandoned the Lord God of their ancestors Who brought them out of the land of Egypt.  They followed other gods…  They worshiped them and made the Lord angry.  They abandoned the Lord and worshiped Baal and the Ashtoreths.” (2:11-13).  This made the Lord “furious with Israel” (2:14a).  We also find that “they prostituted themselves to other gods and worshiped them” (2:17b).  We read this while remembering that this narrative will be compiled after the fact, as part of the story by which later generations would define themselves.  

It is said that “When a leader died, the next generation would again act more wickedly than the previous one.  They would follow after other gods, worshiping them and bowing down to them” (2:19a).  To drive the point home further, the writer repeats himself, saying “The Lord was furious with Israel” (2:20a).  What was the basis for the fury?  Naturally, it can be presumed that it was the idolatry, but more specifically, it is said that it was because “This nation has violated the terms of the agreement I made with their ancestors by disobeying Me” (2:20b).  This is covenant language.  We can take these words from the second chapter, safely apply them to the sixth chapter, surmise that Israel’s doing of evil was something along these lines, and rightly understand the coming execution of the Lord’s fury. 

Now, when we read about terms of agreement with ancestors in conjunction with references to being brought out of the land of Egypt, we should be mindful of what it was that their God was said to have demanded of His people following the exodus, which was the ultimate defining event for the nation.  In the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus (26:1-2), which may very well have been composed after the time period of the stories of the book of Judges (the Israelites of that period may not have had a written Leviticus as a guide, but written accounts of both, all understood together and instrumental in the self-definition of the covenant people and their relationship with their God, would certainly have been available to Israel at the time of Jesus, along with the earliest members of renewed Israel that is the people of the covenant through belief in Jesus as Lord,), we find Israel’s God insisting that His people refrain from idolatry, that they keep His Sabbaths, and that they reverence His sanctuary (the place of His presence).  Thus, even if there was not a composed Leviticus at the time of the Judges, the author of the Judges assesses the behavior of the people according to the basic principles of honoring their God that are offered therein, thereby suggesting at least a strong oral tradition. 

If they were to have success in these areas, then they would experience the blessings that are to be found outlined in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, which is another text, possibly composed later than Judges, but which offers thoughts of which the author of Judges seems to be aware.  On the other hand, failure in these areas would bring the curses that are to be found in the same chapter.  Regardless of the time of composition, it seems obvious that Israel’s actions in the Judges time period are to be judged against the ideals of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  Additionally, their experience is explained as the response of their God, with that response understood in accordance with those same ideals. 

Moses & Jesus (part 1 of 3)

This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.” – Acts 7:37  (ESV)

The person speaking in this verse is Stephen, who is historically recorded as the first Christian martyr, though the first martyr, in terms of the laying down of a life for the sake of the message of the Gospel, was Jesus Himself.  Stephen was one of the first “deacons” or “servants” of the church, and was said to be “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:5b).  This Stephen, who was also said to be “full of grace and power,” and by this grace and power “was doing great wonders and signs among the people” (5:8), found himself in a dispute with some people of a particular synagogue that disagreed with the message that he was preaching.  That message, naturally, was the root of the message of the Gospel, which was that Jesus was the Messiah.  The author reports that, finding themselves unable to “withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking” (5:10), “they secretly instigated men who said, ‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God” (5:11).  Due to that accusation, Stephen was brought before the council.

The verse above is taken from the speech that Stephen made, in his own defense, before the council.  This man that was accused of uttering blasphemies against Moses and God, interestingly enough, spent a great deal of time talking about Moses, culminating in quoting Moses saying “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.”  So this begs the question: Did this happen?  Was this an accurate statement on the part of Moses (or, at least, on the part of the biographer of Moses)?  Obviously, this is what Stephen is said to have believed, which informs us that this was a belief held by the earliest of believers.  Concordantly, it can also be reasonably believed to be so. 

Thus, believers in Jesus as the Messiah hold that this statement was brought about in the person of Jesus, and that He is ultimately the referent of Moses’ statement.  Thus, in ascertaining the full scope of Stephen’s mindset (and therefore that of the earliest believers and the author of the text, who was Luke), it is quite worthwhile to take a look into what Stephen said as a precursor to the statement of our Scriptural text. 

Stephen says that when Moses “was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brothers, the children of Israel” (7:23).  Moses made this decision from his position as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, having been raised in the house of the ruler of Egypt.  Essentially, Moses divests himself of his position.  Jesus also, at a certain time (and as was said of Him very early in the history of Christianity) “made Himself nothing,” took “the form of a servant” and was “born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7).  The one known as the Son of God left His eternal throne to visit the people of God’s covenant, which was Israel.  In addition to that, we know that Jesus began His ministry at a specific age (around the age of thirty); and in that ministry, as He traveled throughout the length and breadth of Israel, He most certainly visited His brothers, the children of Israel. 

Stephen continues on about Moses and says, “And seeing one of them being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian” (7:24).  Can we not see this, in a manner of speaking, in the life of Jesus as well?  Though Jesus did not strike down any individual, just as Moses struck down an oppressor of His people, seeing his brother being wronged, whenever Jesus encountered sickness, disease, demon possession, and sometimes even death, He sprung into compassionate action on behalf of the one being wronged, and struck down the oppressive affliction. 

Consider Your Ways (part 1 of 2)

You looked for much, and behold, it came to little.  And when you brought it home, I blew it away.  Why? declares the Lord of hosts.  Because of My house that lies in ruins, while each of you busies himself with his own house. – Haggai 1:9  (ESV)

These words of the prophet Haggai were spoken to the band of Israelites, and their offspring, that had returned from their exile in Babylon, with the charge to build the Temple of God.  They had been allowed to return under the Persian king Cyrus, and here it is, in the second year of Darius, and the people were still saying “the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the Lord”  (1:2b).  God, clearly un-amused and unconvinced by the people’s decision making prowess, responded through His prophet by saying, “Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?” (1:4)  With that, the people were asked to reflect on how things had truly gone for them, in their return to the land, while they failed to attend to what it was that God had stirred up Cyrus to encourage His people to return to do. 

God says, “You have sown much, and harvested little.  You eat, but you never have enough; you drink, but you never have your fill.  You clothe yourselves, but no one is warm.  And he who earns wages does so to put them into a bag with holes” (1:6).  Because His people had failed to be about their God’s business, turned inward and attending to their own needs first and foremost, those needs were never truly met.  The prophetic warning links the fact of their lack with their failure to rebuild the Temple. 

Apart from the obvious encouragement to give so as to be able to participate in God’s covenant purposes as a gracious gift of God, what is it that we can take from the words of the prophet?  Does this force us to consider our own, modern sense of Christianity, in which this life of faith is perpetually directed inwards?  Israel’s concern with only their own, individual needs can be likened to the proliferation of an existential, me-centered Christianity, that has turned the movement of the Spirit of God that was designed for the extension and establishment of the kingdom of God through the Lordship of Christ over all peoples and things, into little more than a private, religious experience in which we find ourselves concerned with my salvation, my faith, my walk, my holiness, my avoidance of what my church and pastor has defined as sin, and my personal relationship with Jesus.  Even our outward service to our fellow man is generally based on the confluence of “my” factors, rather than with an understanding of God’s pressing concern about His kingdom and the responsibilities that He bestows upon those with whom He shares His covenant.  While we can say that all of those “my’s” are fine, because they serve as a component of the life of the Spirit, they are only a small part of a much larger and more important whole. 

This is where we can learn from the example of Israel.  While they would eventually rebuild the Temple (concerning themselves with God’s business for a time), it did not change the fact that the people, individually and corporately, were still turned inward.  Through the years that followed the Temple’s re-construction, leading up to the time of Christ, as they were ruled over by the Persians, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Syrians, and then the Romans, Israel was thoroughly concerned with maintaining their marks of identity as God’s covenant people, above all else.  They determined that this was God’s business and carried it out exactingly.  Their primary concern was their city (Jerusalem), their Temple, their land, and their rituals, while an entire world and an entire creation continued to languish in a lack of light, as those people that were to be the stewards and revelators of God’s covenant blessings to the world busied themselves in building impenetrable walls between themselves and the Gentiles by which they were surrounded. 

This was not God’s intention then, and it is now God’s intention now.  If we find ourselves in isolation, purposely cutting ourselves off from other members of this family of God’s kingdom, pronouncing judgments, ridiculing sincere servants of Christ, creating dualistic scenarios in which we elevate ourselves or our group, fostering an “us versus them” mentality, awaiting God’s action to judge the wicked and reward the righteous, we put ourselves in the position to be recipients of God’s ongoing wrath, along with continued exile from His promised blessings, much like we find to be the case with Israel.    

Kingdom People (part 1 of 3)

For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in Him will not be put to shame.” – Romans 10:11  (NET)

Too often, we allow ourselves to shape the words of Scripture to our own particular needs or notions.  It is likely that when the words of the above referenced Scripture are read, there is a tendency to think of it as a promise to individuals that attends belief in Jesus, with that promise of not being “put to shame” somehow connected to being “saved” and therefore on the route to a post-mortem heaven.  Though it is perfectly legitimate to hear this as a promise associated with belief in Jesus, hearing it from the position of individualism, while prizing a “salvation experience,” and looking to it as one of those verses that can be plucked from the Bible to support a propositional “assurance” of salvation (going to heaven and avoiding hell), profoundly misses the point and misconstrues Paul’s purpose for setting forth these words in his letter to the Romans. 

If we are going to correctly apprehend the import of the words of the eleventh verse, they must, of course, be heard within their context.  Though the context is truly the whole of the letter, the immediate context begins with the first words of chapter nine of Romans, as Paul shifts his theological and eschatological gears, focusing in more squarely on the relationship between Jew and Gentile, as he revisits and expounds upon a subject broached ever so briefly in chapter one, and for which Paul laid a bit more groundwork in chapter two.  Chapters nine, ten, and eleven are introduced with “I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me in the Holy Spirit---I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.  For I could wish that I myself were accursed---cut off from Christ---for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen, who are Israelites.  To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the Temple worship, and the promises.  To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever!  Amen.” (9:1-5)  All that follows, for the remainder of this chapter and the whole of the next two, which obviously includes our base text and all that surrounds it, asks to be heard from within the echo of those words.

As is the case for all of Paul’s letters, there is a momentous, profoundly significant issue for the kingdom of God at hand in the church(es) at Rome.  That issue, among others, which contributes to other issues with which Paul must deal in his letter, is that of the relationship between Jew and Gentile, and the basis for Gentiles being included in the covenant people.  We are not surprised by this, as we find this subject being addressed quite explicitly in Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians.  The fundamental issue is how Gentiles, being Gentiles and remaining Gentiles (not Judaizing---adopting the covenant markers of Judaism, which were circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and food laws), were able to receive their entrance into the covenant.  That is, how were Gentiles justified?  How did they receive their justification, which would be defined as their being identified as a member of the covenant people?  Apart from the fact that being a member of the covenant people is what allowed a person to participate in the rule of the kingdom of God through His Messiah, and to participate in the greatly anticipated resurrection, justification was not necessarily an existential concern.  It was not a concern related to an imputed righteousness, with righteousness thought to be some type of foreign quality laid upon a person.  Rather, righteousness was related to a finding of status---a determination of standing---which, quite naturally, was of far greater concern to a people (the Jews, which included Jesus, His disciples, the Apostle Paul, and the other New Testament authors, though Luke was a Gentile) that were, according to Scriptural evidence, almost completely (completely?) unconcerned with the eternal destination of one’s immortal soul, and who did not carry with them the mental images of heaven and hell that, with the help of pagan mythologies, a mis-reading of apocalyptic works such as Revelation, and creative writers such as Dante, have been popularized (and orthodox-ized) over time. 

One thing that simply cannot escape notice when we look at Paul’s treatment of justification in Romans and Galatians (though it is explicit in those two letters, it can be found in Ephesians and Colossians), is his complete failure to mention going to heaven or escaping hell as part of those discourses (with heaven achieved and hell escaped because of the imputation of God’s righteousness, which is thought to be qualitative and foreign).  This makes perfect sense, especially considering that Paul’s focus is the kingdom of God and the new creation that has been introduced into the old creation by the Resurrection of Jesus.  For Paul, “justification” is “salvation,” yet when he speaks of that condition, which is a participation in the people of God and the kingdom of God now that it has come in Christ, which Paul also refers to as his Gospel, there is no talk of what so many have been trained to think is the end of the Gospel, which is getting people to heaven and rescuing them from hell.  A natural response to that is that “kingdom” is a reference to heaven, but asserting such a thing in response is actually a projection of Greek-inspired thoughts concerning the afterlife on to the New Testament; and doing so even though, apart from Luke, all of the New Testament authors were Jewish, and therefore thought of as the kingdom not as a far-off place to which one aspired, but as God’s kingdom come to earth, bringing restoration, renewal, and re-creation.    

Movement (part 3 of 3)

In the twenty-third chapter of Genesis, we have the record of the death of Sarah, wife of Abraham.  She dies in Hebron, and it is there that Abraham desires to bury her.  So the man that bears the covenant promise of the Creator God---the one that is to exemplify divine blessing---speaks to the men of the area, and in the process of asking for a place in which he can bury his departed wife, says “I am a temporary settler among you” (23:4a).  Though he considered himself to be a temporary settler, the response of the men reveals that they considered him to be so much more---“a mighty prince among us!” (23:6a)  Abraham, the man that God tasked for the purpose of bringing Him glory, did not need anything remotely resembling a permanent dwelling place to gain this reputation and this honor.  Does this tell us anything in relation to David and Solomon and the construction of the Temple of Jerusalem?  Does this shed any light on God’s words to David about building a temple for Him: “Do you really intend to build a house for Me to live in?  I have not lived in a house from the time I brought the Israelites up from Egypt to the present day.  Instead, I was traveling with them and living in a tent.  Wherever I moved among all the Israelites, I did not say to any of the leaders whom I appointed to care for My people Israel, ‘Why have you not built Me a house made from cedar?’” (2 Samuel 7:5b-7)  We go on.   

In the following chapter, Abraham is concerned with finding a wife for his son, Isaac.  To accomplish this, he sends his chief servant to “my country and to my relatives to find a wife for my son” (24:4).  Abraham does not go there himself.  Is this because he is “old, well advanced in years” (24:1a)?  Not likely.  Rather, it is more likely the case that he himself is not going to go there because Abraham is not going to return to the place from where he had been exodus-ed by the Lord.  Because it seems that we are asked to understand and view the Bible (that by which we are led into the knowledge of God) through the prism of Israel’s Egyptian exodus and the events by which the exodus is surrounded (as Israel was constantly asked to understand their God’s dealings with them through the same prism), there is an equation to be made. 

In the wilderness, before they achieved the fulfillment of the blessing of their land of promise, the desire to return to Egypt was a sign of Israel’s distrust in the covenant faithfulness of the God Who had provided their miraculous deliverance.  So a return by Abraham to his homeland could be construed, in that light, as a breach of trust in the Lord.  This is especially so as the story of Abraham is told as part of the story of Israel---a story dominated by the history of their exodus and of a God that consistently defines Himself by that series of events.  When it came to the issue of whether or not Isaac should go to Abraham’s homeland, Abraham is even more adamant, saying “Be careful never to take my son back there… you must not take my son back there!” (24:6a,8b)  This probably takes us a bit off track, and it may be stretching the analogy a bit, but much later in the history of Israel, during the period of time that saw Judah threatened by the Babylonians (as God delivered the curses that He promised in connection with His people’s idolatry---Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28), there was a movement amongst some of the people to take refuge in Egypt.  How did the Lord respond to this?  What was God’s reaction to the idea that His people could somehow save themselves by running to the land in which their God had put His power on display, so as to find protection and refuge there?  The Lord says, “I will see to it that all the Judean remnant that was determined to go and live in the land of Egypt will be destroyed” (Jeremiah 44:12a). 

Why such a strong response?  There were a number of reasons, not the least of which was their engagement in idolatry both before and during their time in Egypt, but because Israel (and Judah) defined themselves by their deliverance from Egypt and the power of their covenant God in connection with that deliverance from Egypt, does not their running to Egypt so as to gain protection from Babylon not make a mockery of that same God?  It was not as if they were going down into Egypt so that they could groan out to God and implore God to re-enact the events of the exodus.  There, they sought the favor of the gods of Egypt, turning their backs on their God of covenant. 

Naturally, when it comes to the Gospel record of Jesus’ flight into Egypt in the arms of His parents, we have an entirely different situation.  For Jesus, it actually does become something of a re-enactment of Israel’s exodus---He goes into Egypt, exits that land to return to Israel, is baptized in the Jordan (equivalent to Israel’s sea crossing), goes into the wilderness for a period of time, and then embarks on His mission of establishing the kingdom of God.  As it relates to Isaac, and according to the Scriptural pattern (remembering that Genesis is presumed to have been at least partially composed by Moses following the exodus) we can understand Abraham’s emphatic insistence that he not be allowed to go to Abraham’s homeland.  Perhaps more importantly, what we see take place is God bringing a wife to Isaac from out of that place to which Isaac was not allowed to go.  Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, experiences her own exodus.  The one that will give birth to Esau and Jacob (Israel) is moved out and moved along (fitting the Scriptural pattern), wooed by the riches that have come to Abraham (and by inheritance to Isaac) according to the covenant promises of the Lord of heaven and earth.              

Raising A Temple (part 2 of 2)

Why go through all of this analysis of Paul’s sermon in Acts?  We did so because we needed to be able to have some perspective on David, and the fact that David is not there held up as a model for emulation, as we examine his desire to build the Temple.  After expressing his desire to the prophet Nathan, David hears it said to him by that same prophet: “You should go and do whatever you have in mind, for the Lord is with you” (2 Samuel 7:3).  However, it so happens that “That night the Lord told Nathan, ‘Go, tell My servant David: “This is what the Lord says: Do you really intend to build a house for me to live in?  I have not lived in a house from the time I brought the Israelites up from Egypt to the present day.  Instead, I was traveling with them and living in a tent.  Wherever I moved among all the Israelites, I did not say to any of the leaders whom I appointed to care for My people Israel, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’”’” (7:4-7) 

This now allows us to return to the issue of motivation, as it is incumbent upon us not to place men like David on a super-spiritual level, but to remember that they were people like us, with fears and insecurities, prone to mistakes, and subject to the corrupting forces that shape any and all interaction with this world.  What’s more is that it is perfectly okay and legitimate to do this, as in the end it gives us an even more amazing picture of a faithful God---which seems to be one of the points of the Bible. 

So what was the motivation to build a Temple?  Through Nathan, God asks David as much, when He says, “Do you really intend to build a house for Me to live in?”  It’s almost as if God was saying, “Is this for Me or for you?”  To answer that, we cannot separate David’s desire to build a Temple from the relief from enemies that the Lord had given to His people and their king, and it is unlikely that the God of Israel separated these things from each other.  What was it that was signified by the temple of a god?  Power.  Prestige.  Authority.  Domination.  This was what Israel now had in their land.  They claimed that their God had given them these things.  However, if other nations and other peoples were to begin to look to Israel and to Israel’s God, which is precisely what the Lord desired, where would they find Him?  In a temple?  No.  They would find Him (in a manner of speaking) in a lowly tent.  This, of course, was not troubling for God.  However, in contact with many nations, Israel knew that such was not the house of a powerful god.  So not only would this invite scorn upon Israel, but with the lack of a glorious display of their God by a beautifully adorned temple, Israel’s position in the land could come to be looked upon as something of a fluke.  This would invite attack.  The tabernacle alone as the place of God’s dwelling could be understood as a source of embarrassment for Israel, as well as an undermining of their security. 

Apart from all of this, one had to consider the items that were to be found in the tabernacle.  There were a number of precious articles that were composed of gold and bronze, and yet, here they were housed in a simple tent.  This position, for a number of reasons, could be understood as untenable, and we can sympathize with David thinking that it needed to be addressed.  Therefore, to rectify the shortcomings of the house of their God, David proposed the construction of a Temple that would more adequately convey, at least in His mind, the power of Israel’s God.  It would seem that the prophet Nathan even succumbed to this idea for a brief period of time before God intervened to dissuade him, and David through him, of what he had encouraged David to do. 

As an aside, we here note that in the ancient world, the temple of a god was understood to be the resting place of that god.  The God of Israel, the Creator of all things, did not need to dwell in an elaborate temple, for the whole of creation was His Temple; and that was the Temple in which He rested on the seventh day, according to the record of Genesis.  Ultimately, God would take up His dwelling in human flesh, and call that His Temple. 

When Solomon would take up the task of building the Temple, it was not strictly because of a stated desire to do so.  He was simply following the instructions given to him by his father, as we find in the first book of the Chronicles (22:7-10).  There, we find David informing Solomon about his desire to build a temple, God’s denial of that desire, the reasons provided for that denial (David was a man of blood and war), and God’s insistence that it would be Solomon himself that would build the Temple to honor God (though this is never explicitly communicated in 2 Samuel---only that David’s son would build a “house” for the name of the Lord).  It is still of great interest to note that, even there in the Chronicles, it is not God that is demanding a temple to be built, but still only David. 

The Scriptural record is clear, in that it is David’s wish to build the Temple in Jerusalem, and this is probably due in large part to David’s desire to consolidate power and increase Israel’s relative security in its land, with an elaborate temple also serving as a witness of the divine sanction of his rule before the people.  So though this was not necessarily God’s doing, God made sure that when His Temple was built---even though David provided much of the supply, the building process would be carried out by a man of peace, wisdom, understanding, and justice (though this last term may be a pit problematic for Solomon in some cases).  These are epithets that are not given to David.  We cannot help but elaborate on this point, and say that the Temple of God that would come to be called the Church of Christ is built by the one known as the Prince of Peace.  It is in such a Temple that God will dwell.