All The Saints (part 21)

As if Paul has not made himself clear enough to this point, having made this point about the composition of the new humanity that is the church of the Christ, Paul continues to take up and extend language that had been exclusively reserved to national Israel and to those that had Judaized, building on talk of being clothed with the new man and further describing the appearance that should be taken by this new humanity, writing “Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if someone happens to have a complaint against anyone else.  Just as the Lord has forgiven you,” remembering the exodus connotation of “forgiveness,” “so you also forgive others” (Colossians 3:12-13). 

Paul believes that unity is key for the church, and he does not underestimate the difficulties in melding disparate people groups into one body.  Speaking to that, he continues in this stream of thought, writing “And to all these virtues add love, which is the perfect bond.  Let the peace of Christ be in control in your heart (for you were in fact called as one body to this peace), and be thankful” (3:14-15).    

Though this study moves towards a conclusion, there will be no tiptoeing past Paul’s use of peace here in verse fifteen of chapter three, casually applying a possibly inadequate definition to this important term.  This is much more than just a feeling of serenity enjoyed by an individual, as part of a reconciliation with the Creator God.  Though that certainly can be a component of the peace, when approached from within the larger movement of the letter and the heavy emphasis on inclusiveness and unity as the covenant of the Creator God extends outwards to all peoples, it is possible to understand that this peace is specifically part of the reconciliation between Jew and Gentile.  This is rightly evidenced by Paul’s connecting it with the fact the church has been called to peace as part of their calling to be “one body.”

In the twenty-third verse of this chapter, following a digression that deals with the leveling out of the church body in mutual submission and self-sacrifice (remembering that Paul has made it clear that there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free---one can safely add “male or female” to that list, as that would not be a falsification of Paul’s way of thinking), Paul once again plucks language from the lexicon of Israel’s heritage, applying it equally to all, be it Jew or Gentile, when he writes “Whatever you are doing, work at it with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not for people, because you know that you will receive your inheritance from the Lord as the reward” (3:23-24a). 

Though one may have a tendency to think of this “inheritance” as “going to heaven” or eternal life, or some such limited and far too ethereal and ill-defined notion, it is far more likely that this use of “inheritance,” as Paul always, always, always locates the story of Jesus and the church along the path of the story of Israel (for without doing so, the story of Jesus and of Paul’s Gospel lacks substance and meaning), is designed to call to mind the promises first given to Abraham, that had been passed along to Israel, and were now being dispersed abroad and made available to all nations through the spread of the kingdom of the covenant God. 

All The Saints (part 20)

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul references these covenant markers as “those things… once destroyed” (Galatians 2:18), insisting that the taking up of these works of the law, by a Gentile, as the means by which he or she enters into the Creator God’s covenant people, or as the response to entrance upon the covenant, becomes the equivalent of breaking God’s law (2:18).  A profound and potentially startling conclusion!  Indeed (though this is not an attempt to join text to text, but merely a reference to others of Paul’s letters as a means to adequately grasp the thinking of the Apostle), he goes on to insist that if covenant inclusion comes from adherence to covenant markers (if righteousness could come through the law – 2:21), “then Christ died for nothing!” (2:21b) 

Following from the mention of food, drink, feasts and the like, Paul tells his Colossian hearers that “these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!” (2:17)  While the covenant markers pointed to the kingdom of the Creator God, and while they served to delineate those that were participating, those that were supposed to be participating, or those that were thought to be in a position to participate in that kingdom, it is the confession of Jesus as “the Christ,” or as “the Messiah,” that has enabled the reality of that kingdom and demonstrates its world-encompassing (people, creation, and cosmos) scope. 

Moving along to the third chapter, Paul takes up a popular theme from the early church and in his own letters (to Corinth as the most prominent example), which was the idea that the church represented a new humanity---the way of being truly human.  As Paul has championed the fusion of Jew and Gentile into one people, one must hear the words to come with a state of mind shaped by that thought as Paul says “Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man with its practices” (3:9).  This is far more than a simple juxtaposition of the “carnal,” “unsaved,” or unregenerate” man, against the “spiritual,” “saved,” or “regenerate” man.  The ideal that stands behind this statement is the new creation and the new humanity that is shaped by the mysterious activity of the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead. 

The “old man” is the old way of being human, prior to the example provided by the Creator God in Christ, which climaxed with the cross and the Resurrection.  That understood, one must allow Paul to add to that the insistence that those that confess Jesus as Lord, and who allow their lives and their interaction in, with, and for this world to be shaped by His cross and all that it implies, “have been clothed with the new man that is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created it” (3:10).  The new humanity, most importantly, will finally be able to rightly bear the divine image, to steward His creation (now the creation that is being renewed and will be completely renewed), and to reflect His glory into the world (good stewardship as His divine image-bearers), which had been the purpose of the Creator God in His act of creation. 

In this new humanity of divine image-bearers that have been given the physical and historical example of Jesus to imitate in their quest to bear that image, “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free” (3:11a).  Accordingly then, “Christ is all and in all” (3:11b).  The Messiah is a Messiah for all peoples, He is the manifestation of the Creator God, and He dwells within His people (reverting back to thoughts of the Temple as the place where the Creator God dwells and as the place where heaven and earth overlap). 

All The Saints (part 18)

That settled, the sensibility-shocking inclusive language expands, and Paul bursts through all manner of tradition and history as he insists that “In Him you were also circumcised---not, however, with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal of the fleshly body, that is, through the circumcision done by Christ” (Colossians 2:11).  By this, Paul completely dismisses any idea that the covenant marker of circumcision is necessary. 

Of course, the sole covenant marker to which Paul holds as absolutely crucial is the confession of Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Lord of all (the Gospel).  This confession is the means by which a person, be they Jew or Gentile, is justified (becomes a member of the Creator God’s covenant family, with the subsequent responsibility to concern themselves with reflecting that God’s glory into the world by rightly bearing the divine image that has been exampled out by Jesus of Nazareth---paradoxically, God-manifest).    

With verse twelve, realizing that baptism is not unique to the experience of the Christian faith, Paul is again found adapting exodus language on behalf of Gentiles as he writes “Having been buried with Him in baptism, you also have been raised with Him through your faith in the power of God who raised Him from the dead” (2:12).  Just as Paul allows Gentiles to participate in the exodus-related identity of Israel through the use of “redemption” from verse fourteen of chapter one, he here does the same.  Functionally, “being buried with Him in baptism” is the equivalent of exile, while being “raised with Him” is the equivalent of exodus. 

This is not unique to Colossians, as one is able to glimpse this way of thinking here demonstrated by Paul in his first letter to Corinth.  There, in the tenth chapter Paul has written: “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:1-2).  Without delving into an exegesis of what is here being said in the address to the Corinthian church(es), Paul is here skillfully intertwining the Egyptian exile and exodus experience (which was so crucial for Israel’s self-understanding, it’s comprehension of its covenant God, and its understanding of its relationship with that God) with the concept of baptism. 

For Gentiles, as far as Paul is concerned, as he folds all peoples into the story of Israel that he believes has reached its climax in the story of Jesus, this baptism with Christ becomes something akin to Israel’s experience.  In some respects, for those that are bent towards the need for some outward sign of covenant status, baptism, whatever form it takes, stands in place of circumcision. 

This allows Paul to confidently declare “And even though you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He nevertheless made you alive with Him, having forgiven all your transgressions” (Colossians 2:13).  Quickly revisiting the first chapter, with a reminder of the exodus-related redemption and “forgiveness of sins” (1:14b) there mentioned, it should be acknowledged that this is another deployment of exodus language. 

Building from that thought, what one realizes this to be is yet another statement employed to generate an equivocation between Jews and Gentiles.  Effectively, this is what the Creator God would say to Israel if and when they violated their covenant obligations.  The covenant God would speak of Israel’s transgressions that was bringing or had brought them death and judgment, as they behaved like the uncircumcised people by which they were surrounded, adopting their idolatrous ways.  The end of this judgment would be some form of exile (domination by a foreign power, whether inside or outside of their land). 

All The Saints (part 16)

He says “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated with strictness under Gamaliel according to the law of our ancestors, and was zealous for God just as all of you are today” (Acts 22:3).  Talk of being a Jew, raised in Jerusalem, trained under Gamaliel, who honors ancestors, and is zealous (this is a specific term for a way of life and approach to the law and the covenant), would be quite satisfactory. 

Furthermore, Paul says “I persecuted this Way,” that being the belief in a crucified man by the name of Jesus being the Messiah, “even to the point of death, tying up both men and women and putting them in prison, as both the high priest and the council of elders can testify from me.  From them I also received letters to the brothers in Damascus, and I was on my way to make arrests there and bring the prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished” (22:4-5).  As the crowd listens, they can begin to realize that not only are these not the words of a person that would bring a Gentile into the Jerusalem Temple, but that they are not the words of somebody who “teaches everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this sanctuary” (21:28b). 

Paul’s audience remains respectful until such time as he touches what was obviously the rawest of raw nerves.  When he reports the words of the one that he now calls Lord, telling the crowds that the command of the one called Messiah, who was being worshiped as the physical embodiment of the Creator God of Israel by a small and growing group of believers that were composed of both Jew and Gentile, was that “He said to me, ‘Go, because I will send you far away to the Gentiles’” (22:21), the crowd resumes its earlier disposition. 

To that end, Luke reports that “The crowd was listening to him until he said this.  Then they raised their voices and shouted, ‘Away with this man from the earth!  For he should not be allowed to live!” (22:22)  No longer is the issue the content of Paul’s teaching nor the possible defiling of the Temple.  The lone issue is the extension of the covenant to the Gentiles, and the idea that the title of “saints of God” would no longer be reserved for national Israel and those that had adopted the covenant marks of national Israel alone.  This is representative of part of the mindset of the world into which Paul delivers letters such as the letter to the Colossians.    

Returning to Colossians then, having effectively made the point that it is highly probable that Paul had Gentiles and the Temple in mind when he pens words that refer to them as “holy, without blemish, and blameless before Him” (Colossians 1:22b), and doing so against the well-established background of difficult Jew/Gentile relations and a hesitance to grant Gentiles an unlimited and unchecked entrance upon the covenant and the language of the elect people of the Creator God,  an exploration of the inclusive language of the letter can be resumed. 

Now being more carefully attuned to the underlying concerns of the Apostle, this church, the churches of Asia Minor, and the church-at-large, it is possible to grasp the monumental scope of the kingdom project and hear it being referenced when Paul writes “This Gospel has also been preached in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become its servant” (1:23b).  The “all” of “all creation” resounds with theological and eschatological gravity!  It is with such gravitas, as he willingly, in the manner of His Lord, adopts the position of servant to the previously unwashed masses of Gentiles, that Paul writes “I became a servant of the church according to the stewardship from God---given to me for you---in order to complete the word of God, that is, the mystery that has been kept hidden from ages and generations, but has now been revealed to His saints” (1:25-26).  These “saints” now include Gentiles. 

All The Saints (part 2)

So the fact that Jesus’ life was centered on the land and the holy city of the elect people of the Creator God led indirectly to the Jew and Gentile struggles of the early church.  The church, by and large, rightly saw itself as a continuation of Israel (and its mission in and for the world).  The church also knew that their commission had been to take the message of the kingdom of their God, that had been announced by Jesus, which had somehow sprung into existence at His Resurrection and which was empowered in some strange way with the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, into the whole world.  Where Caesar was being proclaimed as lord and savior and son of god, the message of Jesus as the Lord and Savior and Son of God, who had conquered the means by which Caesar maintained his power (the cross), was to be announced. 

The kingdom of God was to extend well beyond the borders of Israel.  It was to be a worldwide kingdom.  The world was not to stream to Israel, to Jerusalem, and to its Temple as the locus of power and worship in this world.  Rather (and consolidating), the new Temple was to stream out into the world, as the Creator God would now take up residence among mankind in the lives of His people and through the actions His people, with the mark of this fact being their worship of Him through Jesus and their adherence to Jesus as Lord of all (which would manifest itself in their interaction with people and the whole of creation). 

This spawned issues of tremendous importance, one of which, and perhaps the most important, was how Gentiles were included in the covenant that the Creator God had made with Israel.  Did the Gentiles need to adopt the Jewish practices of circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary laws (the works of the law) that served to identify a person as being a member of God’s covenant people (justified)? 

Though the inclusion of Gentiles is viewed as natural and sensible, thinking things like “well of course the message of Jesus and His Gospel was for everybody,” this was not exactly a foregone conclusion.  In fact, the free acceptance of Gentiles, along with a seamless integration of the same, as one church and one people for one kingdom was to be developed out of two classes of people that had been kept quite distinct, would require a radical revolution in worldview  In the book of Acts, which details the growth of the church in its earliest days as it moved from Jerusalem, to Judea, to Samaria, and to the ends of the earth, the “Gentile issue” receives a fair amount of attention.  Had it not been an issue of momentous consequence, it would not feature so prominently. 

In demonstration of the importance of that issue, in Acts’ eleventh chapter, after Peter has visited a Gentile named Cornelius, having joined him in his house and eating there, he was sternly questioned.  “When Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers took issue with him, saying, ‘You went to uncircumcised men and shared a meal with them.’” (11:2-3)  As a bit of a side note, this should remind an observer of the centrality of the meal table for the earliest of Christians.  After Peter explains all that happened, “they ceased their objections and praised God, saying, ‘So then, God has granted the repentance that leads to life even to the Gentiles.’” (11:18b) 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 8)

Continuing, Paul grandly celebrates this patronage that he enjoys, writing “our Lord’s grace was abundant, bringing faith and love in Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 1:14).  Creating something of an inscription minus the monument or the building (though it has no real bearing on the point that is being made, one can think about Peter’s insistence, as he operates within the same cultural milieu as Paul, that the members of the body of Christ are “living stones… built up as a spiritual house” on which the Gospel is inscribed in both word and deed) , he goes on to write “This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners’---and I am the worst of them!”  (1:15) 

Overflowing with praises, Paul continues with “But here is why I was treated with mercy: so that in me as the worst, Christ Jesus could demonstrate His utmost patience, as an example for those who are going to believe in Him for eternal life” (1:16).  Concluding the heralding of his patron and utilizing the words that were reserved for the Caesar (and thus standing counter to the culture): “Now to the eternal King, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever!  Amen” (1:17).  

The brief mention of Ephesians previously, and the Jew/Gentile issues that were present in that community, serves as a reminder that Timothy was himself in Ephesus.  Therefore, church-related issues with which Paul specifically deals in his personal letter to Timothy are the same types of church-related issues with which Paul will deal in the letter to the Ephesians.  Strangely enough, the first letter to Timothy and the letter to Ephesus share a stark similarity that sets them apart from Paul’s other writings, as these two letters contain obvious and easily recognizable odes from a client to a patron as part of their introductions.  Combined (and whether or not the two letters are Pauline, deutero-Pauline, or pseudo-Pauline---it matters not in this case), this certainly says something about the culture of Ephesus, and that culture (the knowledge of which is bolstered by the record of Acts) stands as a backdrop to the way one must hear the patron-directed praise. 

Though other church letters contain very short doxologies from Paul in their introductions, Ephesians exceeds them all, and one can Paul’s words with everything that has been said to this point in this study firmly in mind (with the patron-client relationship and counter-cultural/imperial concerns serving to enlighten this reading in a new and significant way, in the midst of heavy doctrinal, covenant-with-Israel-dependent, and Scripturally-derived thematic elements): “Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms in Christ.  For He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in His sight in love.  He did this by predestining us to adoption as his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the pleasure of His will---to the praise of the glory of His grace that He has freely bestowed on us in His dearly loved Son.  In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace that He lavished on us in all wisdom and insight.  He did this when He revealed to us the secret of His will, according to His good pleasure that He set forth in Christ, toward the administration of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in Christ---the things in heaven and the things on earth.” 

Paul continues: “In Christ we too have been claimed as God’s own possession, since we were predestined according to the one purpose of Him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of His will so that we, who were the first to set our hope on Christ, would be to the praise of His glory… I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you spiritual wisdom and revelation in your growing knowledge of Him---since the eyes of your heart have been enlightened---so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what is the wealth of His glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the incomparable greatness of His power toward us who believe, as displayed in the exercise of His immense strength.  This power He exercised in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms far above every rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.  And God put all things under Christ’s feet and He gave Him to the church as head over all things.  Now the church is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (1:3-12,17-23). 

Galatians & Giving (part 8 of 8)

So how does all of this knowledge about Paul’s purposes in relation to intra-church conflicts, cultural dynamics, and societal norms aid in better understanding “Now the one who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with the one who teaches it”? (Galatians 6:6).  Well, since it is possible and probable that slaves and masters were sitting side by side at the church’s meal table (and hopefully learning to love their neighbor as themselves by engaging in conversation in a mutually up-building way), and because it is also most likely the case that a slave would, oftentimes, be chosen to preside over the meal and the symposium, it would also make sense to believe that, on frequent occasions, it would be a slave that was offering up a word of prophecy or sharing some form of instruction (be it a tongue, an interpretation, a song, or what have you) for the building up of the church (the purpose of the use of all gifts). 

Yes, a slave or perhaps even a woman might very well be responsible for imparting instruction to the assembled body, as they participate equally in the symposium, teaching and expounding upon the word of Israel’s God for the purpose of advancing the kingdom, or of advancing the understanding of the way in which the church is to function in and for the kingdom of the Creator God.  Likewise, when viewed from the perspective of the Jew, it may be a Gentile from whom instruction is being received. 

Either way, in a world in which it was not uncommon to pay (and honor) a traveling teacher, there was to be no delineation and no discrimination when it came to the remuneration of those that were instructing and serving to build up and strengthen the body.  In every other meal association, not only would it be unheard of to allow those with no honor (honor being assigned and recognized by the community at large) to teach (as if somebody lacking any honor could impart useful information), but it would also be problematic.  For the church this would not be problematic, but it would be an opportunity to display the only proper delineation, which would be the delineation that demonstrates just how incredibly unique was the body that represented the world’s true King and His kingdom. 

Just as it would have been customary for an orator or one skilled in rhetoric, and therefore held in high esteem, to be compensated for the exercise of their particular gifting, with nobody thinking twice about the appropriateness of compensation, so too should there be no hesitation in providing compensation to anyone, be it a slave or woman, who performed such a role for the Jesus community.  This equal sharing owing to teaching, regardless of social status and standing outside the church gathering, along with the necessary disavowal of any pathetic divisions or classifications within the church body, would be evidence of the operation of the covenant God’s Spirit within the community. 

It is in accordance with this way of thinking that Paul can then be heard saying “Do not be deceived.  God will not be made a fool.  For a person will reap what he sows, because the person who sows to his own flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit” (6:7-8).  Though it remains a component, clearly, the instruction to “share all good things with the one who teaches it” goes well beyond its customary use to provide justification for giving to one’s church, and thereby showing respect for the teaching and the teacher.          

Galatians & Giving (part 5)

Having removed the barriers of separation between Jew and Gentile, Paul continues that process, moving along to other potential sources of division or stratification in the church that could lead to a weakening of the effective presentation of the message of the Gospel to an onlooking world, as he goes on to write “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.  For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female---for all of you are on in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise” (3:26-29).  This, along with the operational “structure” of the earliest of Christian gatherings, will have a bearing on the conclusions to be drawn.    

In addition to Jews and Gentiles as classes of people that were part of the Galatian group that was defined by meal-gatherings at which Jesus was recognized as the embodiment of the Creator God (that being church), slaves undoubtedly formed a portion of their band.  Not only can one draw out this conclusion from the fact of Paul mentioning “Jew… Greek… slave… free… male… female” (3:28), but such is made even more obvious by what can be seen in the fourth and fifth chapters, with Paul’s references to slaves and slavery.  While he is surely employing a metaphor by utilizing the familiar imagery of the slave-market, the metaphor and the imagery would have a more pronounced impact for those that had either been acquired by their master at the slave market, or who had purchased a slave at the slave market. 

Continuing the “heir” language that closes out the third chapter (bearing in mind that Paul wasn’t closing out any chapters or writing with verse divisions as such things would come much much later---always a useful reminder), Paul writes “Now I mean that the heir,” meaning, all that are children of Abraham by faith,” as long as he is a minor, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything” (4:1).  Can one read a bit deeper into this text?  Does this illuminate another problem within this congregation of believers?  Is there a younger member of the church, perhaps a relatively wealthy slaveholder who has had the goods of his parents fall to him at a young age though “he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father” (4:2), who thinks himself better than his slaves or the members of their gathering that were slaves? 

Though there can certainly be a larger analogy at play, specifically the issue of Jews and the covenant markers of the law versus Gentiles and the covenant marker of belief in Jesus, this may not be an unreasonable proposition.  Regardless of the situation at hand, Paul takes yet another step to level out the community by writing “So also we, when we were minors, were enslaved under the basis forces of the world” (4:3).  The point being that all are slaves in one way, shape, or form.  That said and at that point, it may be appropriate to add “For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself” (6:3). 

Galatians & Giving (part 3)

Paul writes “When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation.  Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church” (1 Corinthians 14:26b).  He goes on to offer some helpful guidelines for how the symposium should be conducted, but at no point should there be an insertion of any idea of a single person always presiding over the service or being the primary, regular teacher in the mold of the current conceptions of a pastor. 

All were to be equal participants, and in fact it was most likely the case, in accordance with standard association customs in those days, that the presidency of the meal (the one who presided over the meal) was a shared responsibility that rotated amongst the members of the group.  One can imagine that this would be even more prevalent in the churches, especially as they were to prefer one another and serve one another in a spirit of humility with a consciousness of the cross of the Christ, so that one person could never be in a position to dominate another, dominate the group, or attempt to accrue the honor that was due to Jesus alone (and which was to be conferred upon those that society would have considered to be the least honorable).    

Returning then to the issues at hand in the church of Galatia that are indicated by Paul’s highlighting of the Jew/Gentile divisions, this theme can be traced through the letter.  Doing so should shed helpful light on the words of the sixth verse of the sixth chapter of Galatians, which should allow for hearing the words more appropriately.  In the first chapter Paul writes of “a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you” (1:8b).  This is quite the helpful alert to a problem within the church.  Shortly thereafter Paul begins his talk of Judaism (1:13,14).  He does not condemn, but rather sets his former way of life in contrast with his call to preach Christ “among the Gentiles” (1:16). 

In the second chapter Paul again writes of his preaching “among the Gentiles” (2:2), going on to speak of circumcision and his Greek companion (2:3).  He calls attention to this by writing “Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised,” in a desire to bring him into conformity with the covenant markers of Judaism, “although he was a Greek” (2:3).  The only reason for Paul to make mention of this is if it has some bearing on that with which he intends to deal in this letter.  That makes sense, does it not?   

In the sixth verse of the chapter, Paul offers an aside, saying “God shows no favoritism between people” (2:6b).  Though this is directly related to the “influential leaders” (2:6c) of the church in Jerusalem, it seems as though Paul includes this statement as part of the larger point that he is making, while going on to point out that he was “entrusted with the Gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised (for He who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles)” (2:7-8).  

Galatians & Giving (part 2)

The setting into which Paul wrote, and in which his letter would be read aloud to the assembled congregation, would most likely be that of a meal.  Paul makes clear the primacy of the meal table in his dealings with the Galatian church, utilizing the example of his negative and somewhat definitive experience in Antioch because it would most likely resound with them.  Hearing Paul’s letter read to them while they were at their standard gathering around the meal table would heighten the sensitivity to the issues that he is addressing in this church---with their giving practices being ancillary to the larger issues at hand.  Surely, one cannot imagine Paul employing an example that had no bearing on the issue with which he deals in this letter to the church of Galatia. 

In the second chapter, Paul writes “when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.  Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles.  But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision” (2:11-12).  As was the case at Antioch, this church must have been failing to come together at an undivided meal table, as they continued to recognize the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, and therefore allowed for the upholding of the covenantal markers of Judaism (dietary laws denoting clean and unclean, circumcision, and Sabbath-keeping).  Paul saw this as highly problematic and will use the dichotomy to make his points concerning what is meant by justification.  More on this anon. 

It is necessary to spend a bit more time recognizing the structure of the church’s gathering.  In their adherence to the Jesus tradition, and very much in tune with prevailing custom and culture, the earliest Christian assemblies were centered on the meal table.  In this respect, they would have looked very much like the familiar associations of the day.  The major difference for the Christians would have been (or ideally should have been) the fact that the meal table of Jesus believers would not have been stratified according to the social order of honor and shame. 

There was to be no distinction between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, rich or poor, but all were to share equally in status at the table and in the food and wine that was available for consumption.  Paul called the Corinthian church to account for their failure to live out the model of the meal demonstrated by Jesus, pointing out their failure to have all at the table share in the same food and drink, in both quantity and quality.  It is not unreasonable to insist that such was on his mind in this setting as well. 

This shared meal would consist of two parts, the first of which was the deipnon, the second part of which was the symposium.  The deipnon is where the meal would be shared and where bread would be broken.  At the close of the deipnon, a libation would be presented in honor of the god of the association.  For the Christians, who were those who looked to Jesus as King rather than Caesar (the Caesareans), the libation would be presented, poured out, or consumed in honor of Jesus (think of Jesus and His taking of the cup “after supper”).  With this portion of the meal complete, they would move on to the symposium.  The symposium was the part of the event of the meal in which discussions were to be had, songs would be sung, people would speak in tongues (an ancient religious custom the records of which predates Pentecost by hundreds of year), messages could be delivered, etc…  Noting that this would have been customary and traditional, Paul also spoke to this situation in the first letter to Corinth. 

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 5)

As Peter speaks through his letter to a group of people from all walks of life, consisting of slave and free, Jew and Gentile, male and female, and even those who might be attaching themselves to the Christian community because they have notions of revolution and are drawn to a community that talks about a new kingdom, a new king, and a new way of living, he goes on to say “Live as free people, not using your freedom as a pretext for evil, but as God’s slaves.  Honor all people, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the king”  (2:16-17).  Free people who are slaves?  Again, this represents a new way of living, and it is learned at the meal table of the elected family of the God of Israel. 

It is relatively easy to hear the words “Honor all people” in modern times, especially in the western world in which most people (in theory) embrace the notion that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and in doing so to miss out on the incredibly radical and earth-shattering nature of this concept.  The use of “honor” is crucial.  With these words being spoken in a world that was attuned to the pursuit of honor as the pursuit of status in the world, with this pursuit of honor providing justification for all manner of selfish and self-centered activities, the idea of honoring all people equally, even to the point of living as slaves (the least honorable), was a foreign concept. 

Building on that sensibility, and doing so in a world in which lines were drawn between the civilized people of the Roman empire and the “barbarian” hordes of those that refused to accede to the divinely backed pretensions of Roman hegemony and the eternal nature of its presumably beneficient kingdom, the notion of honoring all people equally would have been dismissed out of hand.  Honor was too valuable to be apportioned out to those that were not truly deserving. 

Additionally, any community that hailed a different king, let alone a King that was superior to all kings of the earth, would have been hard pressed to continue honoring the Roman emperor, especially considering the fact that the Christians were undergoing much persecution owing directly to their counter-imperial claims.  Therefore, the universal directive to honor the king would necessitate a preferring love that would be difficult to manage.  Achieving this lofty ideal would be yet another evidence of the transformative power of the Gospel, so how could the church bring about such an attainment?  The answer brings one back to the table. 

The powerful social institution of the meal table, which maintains some of its power even in this day (though most tend to miss it), can be the basis for societal transformation and the establishment of the kingdom of heaven, just as it was and can also be the basis for maintaining the societal status quo.  If the idea of the messianic banquet is embraced, and if the church attempts to be the place (the overlap of heaven and earth) where “people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and take their places at the banquet table in the kingdom of God” and “some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last” (Luke 12:29-30), then Peter’s directive, which is a component of the overall Scriptural missive, will not be impossible to achieve.     

No One Knows The Hour (part 26)

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

When the Creator God brought the creation forth from its state of chaos, He was thought to have granted it an exodus, redeeming it from its own state of exile.  When a large contingent of the tribe of Judah was dragged off to Babylon in exile from their homeland, it was redemption for which they longed.  They looked for another exodus.  Indeed, John the Baptist built his own movement on the foundation of thoughts of exodus/redemption, as baptism in the Jordan was a re-enactment of Israel’s crossing the Jordan into their Promised Land, thus stirring thoughts of their exodus that defined a people. 

Israel in Jesus’ day, for the most part, sought redemption from Rome--- hopeful that their God would grant them another Egypt-like exodus (the Romans leaving Israel rather than Israel leaving Egypt), even though that exodus would not involve them leaving their land of promise.  A need for redemption, for exodus, implied conflict and oppression, and a situation from which the Creator God’s people needed to be delivered. 

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

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

What things?  Obviously, it is all the things that have been mentioned that will signal, for Matthew, the coming of Jesus (as the Son of Man) to the Ancient of Days and the end of the age (the end of the present age and the beginning of the age in which God rules through His Messiah), that would occur or be confirmed by the fall of Jerusalem’s Temple.  The “things” are messianic claims, wars, rumors of wars, nation rising against nation, famines, earthquakes, the abomination of desolation, and so on.  These things are signals that “He is near, right at the door.” 

Where Your Treasure Is (part 1)

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. – Luke 12:34  (NET)

As is almost always the case, Jesus does not offer up these words as a disconnected aphorism.  Though it can be taken as a truth, it is only taken as such because of the context provided to it by Jesus and the Lukan narrative.  Though the overall movement of Luke’s Gospel will not be here touched upon, it would be entirely inappropriate to make an attempt to rightly comprehend a statement such as this without operating within a mental framework that is consistently cognizant that Luke is telling a story so as to communicate a particular point of view, and that every component of that story is serving a greater end. 

That greater end that would seem to be in Luke’s view is Jesus’ conception of the kingdom of heaven.  In fact, it is a reflection upon the kingdom of heaven that is the immediate precursor to the series of statements that concludes with “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”  To this point, and prior to this telling statement, Jesus has said to “pursue His kingdom” (12:31) and that the “Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom” (12:32b). 

Before moving any further, one must take care to not make the serious mistake of thinking of the kingdom of heaven as something distant, whether that distance be a matter of time or space.  For a Jew such as Jesus, the kingdom of heaven was defined as the Creator God’s rule on earth---the realm of their God and His rule invading and occupying the realm of the beings that He had created as His image.  Heaven was not conceived of as the post-death eternally blessed attainment of a life well-lived, and as such, was not a motivating factor in living according to that which would be expected of a member of the covenant people.  It is incredibly important to establish such things, as it is incumbent upon observers to know what Jesus would have had in mind, along with what His hearers would have had in mind, knowing that they had to share a common verbal and mental vocabulary if Jesus was going to be understood. 

The idea of heaven, and the attached idea of an eternal realm to be occupied by disembodied souls, would have been foreign to the religious thought-world of the Israel of Jesus’ day.  There would almost certainly have been an awareness of such ways of thought, but thinking along those lines would likely have been heavily resisted, as an alien invader.  It was Greek thought, popularized by Plato, that divided the physical from the spiritual, positing that the physical world was only a shabby reflection of the spiritual world.  Essentially, for the Greeks and for those influenced by Greek thought, physical equaled bad, whereas spiritual equaled good.  This was antithetical to contemporary Jewish thought.  Now, this is not to say that because it was Greek, it was wrong, but rather, it would have been foreign to Jesus, and likely rejected by Him and the earliest of those that sought to convey His message to the world. 

So it needs to be reinforced that thinking of heaven or the kingdom of heaven in such a way would not have been the position of one of the covenant people of the Creator God.  They knew that their God had created a world that was very good, that the good world He had created had been corrupted, that His image-bearers had been marred, and that their God was eventually going to act to not only restore this world to its very good condition, but that His restoring, redeeming operation, which would occur within history and be brought to bear in this creation, was going to create a world even better than the one that had suffered a fall. 

Only Son (part 10)

How so?  What thoughts would Nicodemus have had upon Jesus’ use of these words?  Well, reference has already been made to the long-standing Jewish hopes of the kingdom of God, the resurrection of the righteous dead, and their God’s restoration of the fallen creation, but there is more.  It has been made quite clear that eternal life, as Jesus uses it (as a first century Jew) and as Nicodemus understands it (as a first century Jew), has nothing to do with the idea of escaping the physical world so as to enjoy eternity in a state of dis-embodied bliss that could only be enjoyed by soul and spirit.  No, that was Greek thought.  That was pagan thought.  To whichever culture such thinking is assigned, and though Jesus and Nicodemus (and the author of John) could certainly have been aware of that worldview, Jews were highly resistant to such ideas, and in general were fervently opposed allowing such ideas to creep into their particular worldviews.   

The dominant Jewish worldview affirmed the absolute goodness of their God’s perfectly created (though fallen) physical world, whereas the other dominant worldviews of the day (Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Buddhism, etc…) largely held the physical world to be sub-standard and second rate.  Judaism, in large part (though there were groups like the Sadducees that denied this worldview, though their denial may not have been completely legitimate and deeply held, perhaps owing to the fact that they were in collusion with the Roman powers---this is significant because they were partially charged with keeping peace and tranquility in Israel, whereas the hope of resurrection and restoration was very much a motivating factor for Israel in their long-running opposition, both passive and active, to foreign dominance) stood against “other-worldliness,” and embraced a “this-world” view. 

It could be insisted upon with a great degree of certainty then, that when Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God and eternal life, He is decidedly not speaking to Nicodemus about going to heaven.  In that same light then, the author would most certainly not be asking his readers to consider the possibility that Jesus is speaking about going to heaven, and thereby promoting an escape from this world---an idea rooted in so much anti-Jewish, anti-Biblical thought. 

How can this be known?  It can be known because “eternal life” is the language of exodus.  Exodus meant more than simply leaving Egypt.  Exodus, for Nicodemus (and for all who count themselves among the covenant people) meant rescue, deliverance, liberation, redemption, salvation, resurrection, restoration and more.  Eternal life as exodus was a powerful notion.  Exodus meant that Israel’s God was establishing His kingdom, through and for His chosen people, for the purpose of accomplishing His purposes for the world, through and for them.  Exodus meant that Israel’s God was not only rescuing, delivering, liberating, redeeming, saving, resurrecting, and restoring the beings that had been created to bear the image of the Creator and reflect His glory into His world, but it meant that He was doing the same thing for the whole of His world (and by extension the cosmos) as well. 

Therefore, it must be insisted upon that all of these things, for a first century Jew, when spoken and heard inside a long-running narrative by which a people defined and understood themselves and their place in the world, had a decidedly this-worldly reference.  Thus, when Jesus said these words, and when Nicodemus heard these words, the entire scope of the Creator God’s plan of salvation (exodus) was brought into the picture.  This plan did not begin with Jesus, but rather, with Adam.    

Law To Become Void (part 5 of 5)

Based on the model of the kingdom of God that Jesus is shown through the Gospel narratives to be constantly presenting, which was that of inclusion of all peoples---Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free, clean and unclean, sinner and righteous.  This inclusion was demonstrated in His far-reaching and highly impactful practices of table fellowship, as He regularly ate with those that were considered to be outside the covenant and of varying social standing. 

By this, Jesus subverted what were the standard and widely accepted societal norms and customs, and in doing so as a would-be messiah figure that represented the interests and kingdom of the Creator God of Israel, He provided a inherently critical response to what He apparently deemed to be the wrong-headed and presumptuous self-adulation of the “guardians” of the covenant.  Though they lauded their own efforts to provide what they believed was legitimate protection of their God’s promises to His covenant people, Jesus referred to their efforts and the way they went about it as being “utterly detestable in God’s sight.” 

So would it be proper to connect these words of Jesus to His thoughts about the kingdom of God?  Well, what can Jesus be found saying in the next verse?  He says, “The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it” (Luke 16:16).  These words inform the observer that he is on the right track, as it is to be considered that John the Baptist is first introduced with his words of repentance and the kingdom of God being at hand.  In fact, Luke makes a connection between John’s preaching and that of Isaiah, and that in his preaching “all humanity will see the salvation of God” (3:6).  Without getting into what is meant by “salvation,” while pointing out that it is far more than going to heaven when one dies, one can comfortably assert that this fits quite nicely with Jesus’ statement about the proclamation of the Gospel, the kingdom of God, and everyone being urged to enter it. 

Having said all of these things, Jesus, with what might very well need to be heard as indignation and sarcasm in His voice, raises His voice and says to these people that He has been critically accusing of shutting up the kingdom of God: “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a letter in the law to become void” (16:17).  With the context that has been constructed, it can be determined that when Jesus says this, He is not offering up a praise of the law, and neither is He making an existential statement about its eternality. 

In this context, as can be readily apprehended based on all that has been seen and understood to this point, He is mocking and condemning these Pharisees and experts in the law.  In this mocking that is also a plaintive cry, Jesus decries their adherence to their covenant boundaries according to the performance of the well-understood works of the law.  Jesus indicates that it has become readily obvious to Him that these individuals will hold on to these exclusive standards of identity and covenant standing that are being improperly employed to keep the Creator God’s blessings for Israel alone, and that they are so entrenched in this position that they would do so even if heaven and earth were to pass away.

Interestingly, this is actually an existential statement about the Temple in Jerusalem, which was understood to be the place of the Creator God’s presence---the overlap of the heaven and earth.  With Luke’s Gospel likely composed after the fall of that Temple to the Romans in 70AD, as the Romans crushed the Jewish rebellion that was so intimately connected to positions about which Jesus was highly critical, with all of this taking place after the Christ-event had ushered in a new basis of covenant standing.  Thus, this of the passing away of heaven and earth would make the well understood statement about that common phraseology and the impossibility of the law becoming void even more poignant. 

Yes, Jesus derides them because they were so convinced that God’s blessings were for national and ethnic Israel alone, that they would rather the heavens and earth pass away than allow their God’s covenant blessings to be extended to the Gentiles.  Indeed, they would not let go their perceived grip of control on the bestowal of their God’s blessing and act according to the way that Jesus demonstrated, not letting one tiny stroke of a letter of their law become void.

Preaching & Believing (part 2)

Before going further, it is worthwhile to examine what it is that Paul most likely means when he speaks of “being saved.”  As a Jew, raised in the context of a deep-rooted understanding of covenant, the Scriptural narrative, and the context of exodus and exile, when Paul uses this term he has a specific point of reference and definition.  For the covenant people of Israel, the Creator God’s salvation would have been widely construed as being delivered from foreign bondage and exile, which represented their God’s curse upon them for covenant failures. 

Therefore, being “saved” implies a deliverance from cursing and exile, with a concordant rescue from foreign subjugation.  When the covenant God delivered Israel from their bondage in Egypt and brought them into the land of promise, they would have understood themselves as having been saved.  Most decidedly, they experienced the salvation of their God.  When their God repeatedly delivered them from oppression in the days of the Judges and made them to regain control of their promised land, each time, they would think of themselves as being saved.  When Judah was spared from Assyria, maintaining an albeit temporary self-rule under their God’s anointed kings, they would have thought of themselves as being saved.  These were all acts of salvation. 

Whenever the Creator God entered in to defeat Israel’s enemies, ending cursing (as outlined in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) or staving off exile, that deliverance is spoken of as salvation.  When the Creator God would save Israel, it would be related to being saved from the curses that are set forth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which set for the culminating curse of exile from their land and subjection to foreign destruction and domination. 

It must be remembered that Paul’s Jewish readers would have this in mind when considering his words and his overall message.  This would have been the air that they breathed, and the hearing of the message of the Gospel and its salvation would have been inseparable from the mindset fostered by their shared and defining history.  Yes, Jewish hearers would have in mind the entire narrative of their Scriptures, and therefore, when hearing about salvation, would also take into consideration the cursing of all mankind that began with Adam.  Early non-Jewish believers would have been educated into the Jewish narrative, so as to be able to comprehend the Creator God of Israel and make sense of the Christ-event.   

Though Paul would say that Israel’s history was instructive, especially in learning about the faithful God that would become embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, Paul would not necessarily want his Gentile readers to take Israel’s Deuteronomic curses into consideration when they considered their own cursing and exile.  Those curses were specific to Israel, as they were associated with the covenant established with Israel at Sinai.  Paul would want Gentile hearers and believers to understand that a better covenant had been enacted at Calvary, and that the covenant was more in line with the Abrahamic covenant and its directive towards all peoples, not just Israel. 

So Paul, in his message that was geared towards all peoples, would utilize mankind’s curse, along with the curse on all of the creation that was understood to have begun with Adam, as the point of reference for that from which they were being saved.  Under the covenant of Jesus, salvation, for all mankind, Jew and Gentile, would involve being delivered from the curse of death, along with the end of exile from the Creator God’s fellowship, under which man was not truly able to rightly bear the divine image in which he had been created. 

Psalm Of The King (part 5 of 5)

As it is related to the first part of verse five, the deliverance that would bring the king honor can be readily understood as the deliverance from exile that the Creator God would work through His people’s messiah-king, as that which would bring that king great honor.  Indeed, in making it so all nations would submit to Israel’s king, whether it would be in the subservient way envisioned and expected by many in Israel, in which all nations would be subjected to the authority of national Israel, or in the Creator God’s kingdom plans in which Israel’s king would be a king for all peoples with the barriers between Jew and Gentile (as well as all other social barriers) torn down, His God would “give him majestic splendor” (Psalm 21:5b).   

Verse six pulls the reader back into the framework of covenant and blessings, as it reads, “For You grant him lasting blessings; You give him great joy by allowing him into your presence” (21:6).  Once again, the use of “blessings” should put the reader in mind of the Abrahamic and Deuteronomic covenants and blessings.  By being the embodiment of the covenant God’s purposes for Israel---being a light for the world for the purpose of the Creator God’s glory (which is what the New Testament insists that Jesus is through believers when they are in union with Him)---Jesus looks to the promise of being brought into His God’s presence.  This points towards the Resurrection, as when He was brought forth from the grave, Jesus inaugurates the kingdom of heaven that the Creator God had long intended to establish on earth, doing so by means of that very Resurrection, which also serves as the evidence of the overlapping of heaven and earth that now takes place whenever the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) is spoken and believed. 

Because it will then be through acknowledgment of Jesus as King and Lord of all peoples (the Gospel), and of all creation as well, that the Creator God creates a renewed Israel (covenant people), the covenant blessing is extended to all people, through the Lordship of Jesus, as He comes to be recognized as the incarnation and embodiment of the Creator.  Jesus becomes the person and place in which the covenant God brings about one of His promised blessings, having told His covenant people “I will walk among you, and I will be your God and you will be My people” (Leviticus 26:12).  All that are in union with Jesus are said to be kings and priests to God, and in this promise of being with His people, so they are made to be in their God’s presence. 

Finally, it can be seen that the faithfulness of Jesus, which has its rooting in what He understood to be the faithfulness of His God, is the key to His hope.  As Jesus has possibly taken this Psalm to heart, He would have read, “For the king trusts in the Lord, and because of the Sovereign One’s faithfulness he is not upended” (21:7).  As He journeyed through His ministry, towards the encounters and confrontations that would ultimately lead to the death that He knew He must undergo on behalf of His people, Jesus would trust in the faithful covenant God to perform a resurrection.  Relying on His knowledge of Israel’s history, Jesus could trust that He would not be upended, and that He would not be permanently laid down, but that in His Resurrection, and in the proclamation of His Gospel, that the world itself would be upended---turned upside down as can be read in Acts, and that because of His faithfulness, a new age would dawn.  Truly, this is a Psalm of the King.     

Everyone Who Calls (part 4 of 4)

Verse ten of the tenth chapter of Romans chapter reads, “For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation” (10:10).  Oftentimes, these two concepts are allowed to coalesce.  However, it is necessary to make a delineation and see that belief in or on Jesus is somehow a work of the Spirit, owing to the power of the Gospel proclamation, in which the believer is made to experience the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness), which is represented by the resulting fact of belief (in an altogether incredible proposition) and its power to include the believer as part of that God’s covenant people. 

This righteousness is most certainly not a moral quality that is given to the believer.  Though one could and should become a more moral person as a result of the righteousness (covenant inclusion, right standing).  The proclamation of submission to the claims of the Gospel---the open confession of Jesus as Lord (a highly-charged and risky proposition in the day in which Caesar himself is declared to be Lord, with claims contrary to this being punishable by death), and a life live in line with the proclamation, is what breaks the curse of Adam (death) and ends the exile from pure fellowship with one’s Creator.  That is salvation, and it is distinct from righteousness.    

So how does one know that the Apostle Paul is addressing the divisions and claims of Jew and Gentile as he writes of belief, righteousness, and salvation?  Paul appears to go on to make this quite clear in verse twelve, writing that “there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek” (10:12a).  It would be difficult to be more clear than that.  He goes on to write, “for the same Lord is Lord of all, Who richly blesses all who call on Him” (10:12b). 

One cannot lightly dismiss or skim over Paul’s repeated use of “all” throughout the letters that are attributed to him, as it is highly significant for his worldview and opinion concerning the reach and purpose of the Gospel.  Additionally, with his use of “richly blesses,” Paul seems to be making what should be considered to be an unmistakable allusion to the Abrahamic covenant (which would also pass through Isaac and Jacob, on to Israel).  

Before bringing this study to an end, it is worthwhile to pay a quick visit to the words of that covenant, as one turns to Genesis to read, “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.  I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse, and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name” (12:2-3).  The rich blessing of the covenant God is a key component to the worldview of the covenant people.   

Yes, by calling on the name of the Lord---by believing in Jesus as Lord and confessing Him as such, the blessings of Abraham would fall to all, both Jew and Gentiles, with no distinction.  Paul is desperate to make it clear that without boundary or work of the law or division or claim to superiority or inferiority, “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (10:13).         

Everyone Who Calls (part 2)

Not only were there many in Israel that were expecting their messiah to accomplish the overthrow of the subjecting Romans, but many of those that harbored that expectation also expected that the messiah, with the sovereign power of the covenant God of Israel at his back, would subjugate all nations (Gentiles) to them as the covenant people.  For many (though not all), this was a zealously held position.  However, it would turn out that this was not at all in line with the revealed truth (using Paul’s language) that the Creator God intended to bring all nations, both Jew and Gentile, into a single covenant family under the rule of His Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. 

As Jesus would come to demonstrate, the creation and construction of this worldwide family (a global empire) was not going to be accomplished through a zealous taking up of arms, but rather, through a laying down of nationalistic claims and aspirations, and the embracing of an entirely different kingdom ethic. 

The Apostle Paul cuts right across all of these Jew versus Gentile issues, getting directly to the heart of the matter when he writes, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).  That’s it!  This salvation, which must be understood in accordance with and according to Israel’s covenant narrative, was for Jew and Gentile alike.  Salvation, as understood by the covenant people, was not to be the exclusive domain of Israel alone. 

Restricting considerations to this letter to Rome, it can be insisted this was “the word of faith” (10:8) that Paul said was his singular message, and this can be demonstrated to be true, as effectively, verse nine outlines the message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord).  Belief in this Gospel, as ridiculous as the claim may be in light of the crucifixion (which would indicate the failure of a messiah figure) and a supposed resurrection (it was a well known and readily accepted fact that people do not simply come back from the dead), and submission to its strange power that would serve to make it possible to order one’s life according to the Creator God’s purposes, was that which would graft (to use terminology from chapter nine) an individual into the grouping of the Creator God’s covenant people, and allow that person to experience the blessings associated with being a member of the covenant people (as addressed to Abraham, as outlined in Israel’s historical narrative, as expounded upon by Jesus Himself, and as would have been understood at the time by Paul). 

The next verse follows in the same vein, as Paul goes on to write: “For ignoring the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (10:3).  Paul says that they ignored the covenant God’s righteousness.  That is, they ignored their God’s covenant faithfulness to His oft-stated desire to draw all nations to worship Him because of and as a result of the knowledge of Him and the light of His glory that they would be able to see and experience in and through His people Israel.  Rather, Paul insists, they sought to establish themselves as the separate and autonomous people of their own separate God, setting up strict and un-breachable boundaries of covenant markers such as circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and food-laws, that would serve to identify them as the Creator God’s chosen people, and therefore as the exclusive recipients of the benefits to be had from allegiance to Him.

Measure Given, Measure Received (part 2)

The fact that there are both Jews and Gentiles in Jesus’ audience, based on geographic references, is an important point and must be taken into consideration as His words are examined.  Not only are there Gentiles present, but sight of the fact that Jesus is speaking (and his hearers are hearing, and Luke is writing) in Roman-controlled territory must never be lost.  It is Rome that is in power here.  Israel is subject to Rome.  The neighbors of Israel and any roaming Gentiles in Jesus’ audience are subject to Rome.  Luke himself is subject to Rome.  The individual to whom Luke purportedly writes (Theophilus) is quite possibly a high-ranking Roman government official, himself subject to Rome/Caesar. 

If Theophilus is part of a community of Jesus followers (those that confess that it is Jesus that is the true Savior of mankind, rather than the Caesar), then that community is also subject to Rome.  This is an altogether important consideration.  Those that read the Gospels must attempt to situate themselves alongside those that are in this situation of subjection, while also hearing Jesus according to the narrative that Luke has constructed for the hearing of these words, and the story of Israel (the covenant people).   

Consequently, for quite some time and up to that day, there was a strong under-current of revolutionary fervor against the Roman oppressors.  Naturally, this would have been widespread, but owing to Israel’s self-understanding that they were the unique covenant people of the Creator God, and their expectation that their God was going to act on their behalf, Israel’s fervor for revolution of some kind seems to have been almost always near the boiling point.  The Creator God’s people (Israel/Judah) wanted to escape from Rome’s oppression, and Rome was their enemy.  Holding that fact in mind as an attempt to examine the text is undertaken, allows more and more adding of a tremendously important historical realism to the situation, and makes the reader open and aware of the strong probability that there are most likely Roman soldiers present and within ear-shot of Jesus. 

Why would such be the case?  Well, it’s not difficult to image this being the case, as to this point in the narrative as presented by Luke, Jesus has invoked near-riots in Nazareth, has attracted crowds in Capernaum, has begun calling together a close-knit and hand-picked group of chosen followers, has managed to convince a tax collector to leave his work and follow Him, and He was regularly drawing attention from the religious leaders.  All of these things, taken together, could very well be viewed by the Romans as the beginnings of yet another messianic/revolutionary movement that was designed to come against their rule by force of arms.   

Thusly, it is quite reasonable to presume that the Roman authorities, working in conjunction with their client authority figures in Israel who would be dramatically, and from their viewpoint, negatively affected by any type of revolution, would have heard reports about this Jesus fellow.  It is reasonable to suggest that they would have had their collective eye on Him at some level.  By this time in their imperial expansion, the Romans would have had plenty of experience in identifying and dealing with those that opposed them, especially in Palestine, and would certainly be keeping a watchful eye on situations that might quickly escalate (again, in concert with those that they placed in power).  Large gatherings of a diverse group of people around a charismatic and dynamic individual could certainly be one of those situations.  So as not to give Rome a reason to move against Him, one can imagine that Jesus takes all of this into consideration and is going to be measuring His words quite carefully.