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 17)

In Acts, which contains the records of the first preached sermons proclaiming Jesus as the Christ (Messiah), there is an ongoing appeal to the history of Israel and to their God’s ongoing dealings with humanity and His creation through the vehicle of Israel, with this appeal offered in confirmation of Jesus’ messianic status.  The New Testament letters make almost constant reference to Israel’s history, which is an eminently reasonable thing to do, for if one is proclaiming Jesus as Messiah, one must appeal to history, for it would be absolutely and completely impossible to understand the nature or role of the messiah apart from a thorough grounding in that history. 

If Jesus is detached or removed from His thoroughly Jewish roots and from the thoroughly Jewish hopes within which He was operating and proclaimed Himself to be properly fulfilling, with this done without a concerted effort to come to terms with who He was and what He did for Israel, then He is removed and detached from all meaning, from all legitimacy, and from all relevance to those that believe in Him or to the world at large.  If Jesus does not have that anchor, then He was just another itinerant preacher, who said some nice things and might have done some nice things, but in the end was crucified for challenging the existing power structures of His day. 

If one does not understand the way in which Jesus first fulfilled the hope of Israel through His crucifixion and His Resurrection, and following that, understand what that meant for the wider world, for creation as a whole, and for the ongoing mission of those that believe in Him (as the church of Jesus Christ that proclaims a King and a kingdom) in the world that mirrors the mission of Israel, which mirrored the mission of Adam, then it does not matter one single bit if or why He was raised up from the grave.  He might as well have just laid there in that lifeless condition, and the Creator God could have saved Himself all of the trouble of taking up the tent of human flesh and enduring the pains of humanity and mortality. 

However, it is His attachment first to the providential and covenantal history of Israel, and secondly to the providential and covenantal history of the whole of the world (as it relates to the covenant God’s original intention for man and for His creation), that provides meaning for His life, His death, His life after death, and His presumed living through His church (life after life after death) that provides His chosen people with their hope of life after life after death.  It is for that reason (among others) that every effort must be made to understand His words in the light of what had gone before, and in the way in which His hearers would have understood them.  That is the purpose for this exercise in regards to His statements concerning the Creator God’s “one and only son.” 

So, returning to this important conversation, when Jesus speaks of the one and only Son of God, Nicodemus is not only going to consider Jesus’ statement in the light of Adam, and he is not only going to consider Jesus’ statement in the light of Israel and the exodus, but he is also going to consider Jesus’ statement in the light of Solomon.  Yes, Solomon, the son of David.  Solomon, who is remembered as the great and wise and powerful king of Israel.  Solomon, the type of king (owing to the scope of the territory of his kingdom, his riches, his fame, Israel’s great prosperity, the tribute paid to him by other nations, and the peace Israel enjoyed under his reign) that Israel truly wanted to see rise to power in Jesus’ day, as evidenced by the fact that the messiah is not referred to as a “king like David,” but rather, as the “son of David.”  

Table Of The Justified (part 5 of 6)

Though it is always tempting to allow a stream of thought to reach its conclusion simply because we have reached the end of a chapter, we have to continue on in to chapter fifteen of Romans in order to hear Paul continuing to work out the implications of meal table practices that were quite vital to the communities of Jesus believers (as indicated by Acts 15, Galatians 2, 1 Corinthians 11, and Romans 14, to point to a few New Testament Scriptures).  We do so in full cognition of the fact that the meal table provided a working picture of the justified community, comprised of Jewish and Gentile believers in equal standing before God because of their faith in the Gospel. 

So after Paul insists that whatever is not performed in accordance with the faith (like that of Abraham) that shows itself forth in an unswerving loyalty to the way of being human that bears out the image of the God revealed by Jesus (in imitation of Jesus as He interacts with His world) is sin (failure to bear the divine image, or to fall short of the glory of God, as God’s intent for humanity/Abraham/Israel/Jesus/Church is to reflect His glory into the world), Paul writes “But we who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not just please ourselves” (15:1).  This is the epitome of self-sacrificial love.  Indeed, Paul’s call, in accordance with the Gospel is “Let each of us please his neighbor for his good to build him up” (15:2), which, though it may not be intentional in the least (and thought it may stretch the boundaries of possibility and analogy) to be a faint echo of the Jesus tradition’s parable of the “good Samaritan,” in which the question posed by Jesus, at the conclusion of the story, which comes in answer to the “who is my neighbor” posed to Him prior to His telling of the story, was “who acted as a neighbor” to the one in need.  Indeed, we can line up the parable with this verse and ask: “Who did good?  Who built up his neighbor?” 

We do not want to get pulled too far aside into speculation about the possibilities of allusions to stories from what would have then been the oral Jesus tradition, but it is interesting that verse three has Paul making reference to Jesus as he writes “For even Christ did not please Himself, but just as it is written, ‘The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.’” (15:3)  Clearly, there is something in his thoughts, as he writes what would come to be designated as verses one and two of chapter fifteen, that has put Paul in mind of Jesus, and talk of neighborliness seems as likely as anything else.  With this mention of Christ, Paul quotes from the sixty-ninth Psalm.  With this quotation, he makes Jesus, or more specifically, the Messiah, the referent of the Psalm, and he does so in the course of instructions concerning the way that those that believe in Jesus---those that are the Temple of God, the house of God, by the Holy Spirit---are to function, as neighbors. 

More directly, this quotation comes in the course of talk about food and table fellowship, which is of vital concern to Paul (remember, controversies concerning the dietary practice of Gentile believers prompted a determinative conference in Jerusalem).  This does not surprise us at all, as we consider the words of the Psalm in their context, with Romans fourteen and the first few verse of chapter fifteen firmly in  mind: “Let none who rely on You be disgraced because of me, O sovereign Lord and King!  Let none who seek You be ashamed because of me, O God of Israel!  For I suffer humiliation for your sake and am thoroughly disgraced.  My own brothers treat me like a stranger; they act as if I was a foreigner.  Certainly zeal for your house consumes me; I endure the insults of those who insult you.  I weep and refrain from eating food, which causes others to insult me” (Psalm 69:6-10a). 

Self abnegation, suffering for the sake of others, talk of brothers, foreigners, the house of God, and food causes this Psalm to fit nicely alongside this portion of Romans, well-informing the believing community as to what is expected of its members as they endeavor to take up the cross of Christ in and for the world.  Having quoted from the Psalms, Paul punctuates his quotation with “For everything that was written in former times was written for our instruction, so that through endurance and through encouragement of the Scriptures we may have hope” (15:4).  Clearly, Paul finds confirmation of his vision of the ideals of the kingdom of God painted on page after page of Scripture.

Mark Of Righteousness (part 3 of 3)

Having sufficiently (hopefully) immersed ourselves in the story of Abraham, such that we have now heard and comprehended the crucial components of that story of covenant within its proper order, we can use that for purposes of an interaction with the fourth chapter of Romans.  We can begin that interaction with the ninth verse, in possession of perhaps a new potential for enlightenment, now hearing this portion of Paul’s argument for Gentile justification (covenant standing) as the adjunct to all that has preceded it and as a preface to that which is the weighty subject matter of chapters nine through eleven.  Reading then, we hear Paul asking his mixed congregation of hearers “Is this blessedness then for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision?” (4:9a).  This “blessedness” is of a piece with the Abrahamic covenant (begun in chapter twelve of Genesis, with annexations over time and the course of the text).  We do ourselves a tremendous disservice if we do not maintain our cognizance of this fact, along with the Abraham story, as we hear the answer to Paul’s rhetorical question, which is “For we say, ‘faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.’” (4:9b)  Yes, ‘twas Abraham’s faith---his belief that engendered an unswerving loyalty to the covenant-making-and-keeping Creator God---that brought him into right standing (covenant) with God. 

Keying in on the order of events, as Paul elevates the covenant marker of belief in Jesus over and against the Jewish covenant markers of the day, Paul, as if poking and prodding at his listeners for an answer that should be all too obvious to them, while also conveying just a little bit of shame on those that have insisted on the necessity of circumcision to be identified as a covenant person and so enjoy its benefits, asks “How then was it credited to him?  Was he circumcised at the time, or not?” (4:10a)  Forcing his point, the answer comes forth as “No, he was not circumcised but uncircumcised!” (4:10b)  This, when read to the congregation by a tradent, would undoubtedly be read in such a way as to convey the singular importance of this point when it comes to dealing with this quite pressing and, for Paul, possibly church-and-kingdom-of-God limiting issue. 

The next verse points up what Paul sees as something that presents an insurmountable contradiction for those that insist on circumcision (along with Sabbath-keeping and food laws, neither of which are anywhere near the Abraham story) as the means of entrance upon the covenant.  He writes “And he received the sign of circumcision,” which we remember was to serve as a “reminder” of the fact of his right standing with God and the promises that had been made to him, “as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (4:11a).  Now, even the most ardent defender of circumcision as a covenant marker would not be willing to insist that Abraham was not in covenant with God before being circumcised.  Circumcision, Paul reiterates, was the sign of what God had already determined in regards to Abraham because of his belief.  Thus, confirming his position in regards to Gentiles and what is required of them to become covenant people (to be justified), this order of events was neatly orchestrated by God “so that he would become the father of all those who believe but have never been circumcised” (4:11b).  Why?  “That they too could have righteousness credited to them” (4:11c).  That is, that they too could, because of their faith, showing itself forth as an unswerving loyalty to the covenant and Creator God of Israel as manifested in Jesus the Messiah, attain the justification that was attained by Abraham, in advance and independent of circumcision.  Belief was and is the key, and the prophetic insistence on God’s performance of a circumcision of the heart rings in our increasingly alert and sensitive ears. 

While proposing all of these things, Paul is still sensitive to the position of those that are the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac, who have lived as the covenant people according to the dictates of the covenant as governed by the Mosaic law (and morphed over time into the shape that had been taken in the days of Jesus), Paul, and the early church, and who bear this particular covenant marker because of the ongoing faith of a covenant people.  This sensitivity is well demonstrated in chapter nine, the precursor of which is to be partially found in this statement: “And he is also the father of the circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised” (4:12).  There are no second-class citizens.  Bearing the mark of circumcision does not mean that one does not walk the path of faith.  Paul does not allow his hearers to lose sight of that fact that Abraham was faithful both before and after circumcision.  Circumcision did not diminish faith.  In fact, as we can see in the Abraham story, it was the faith by which Abraham was justified that eventually led to him being gifted with a reminder of that covenant---a unique, identifying mark.      

Abraham's Justification (part 1)

Near the close of the third chapter of the letter to the Romans, we hear Paul say “Since God is one, He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith” (3:30).  If we are hearing Paul from within his appropriate first century context, and hear him as a Jewish Jesus believer that does not have a conception of salvation or justification that pits “works” versus “grace” as the means to obtain righteousness and to go to heaven as the goal of one’s life, it should be impossible for us to disconnect justification from the issues of covenant markers and covenant inclusion.  Paul is more than abundantly clear that righteousness (justification) is realized by all, Gentile and Jew, through adherence to the covenant marker of confession of Jesus as Lord (believing in Him), with the covenant markers that are collectively addressed under the title of “circumcision,” which had been used to separate and divide and limit who could be recognized as the people of God, falling to the wayside. 

This is what Paul is addressing when he deals with the issue of justification.  This is the ground of the discussion about righteousness.  Any thought that Paul has the imputation of an alien righteousness, or an exchange of sinfulness for righteousness, anywhere in sight when he addresses the issue of justification or the attaining of a state of righteousness, is beyond the pale of what is to be found in Romans, Galatians, Philippians (or any other Pauline work).  That is not to say that it is impossible that God grants His righteousness, as a quality, to those that believe in Jesus, and does so because of their faith, because God is certainly not bound against doing such a thing.  The point, however, is that this is not communicated in any way by Paul (or any other New Testament author). 

However, while we will allow that qualifying statement to be on offer, we should also accept, and do so without any equivocation or qualification whatsoever, that Paul (as is also the case for every other New Testament author) does not present the “works of the law” as a means to work one’s way into a state of God’s favor (whatever form or state one believes that favor may take), and that this is to be juxtaposed with faith as a gift of grace that stands in diametric opposition to works, and that this is what Jesus was presenting, was the source of the opposition against Him, and what ultimately got Him killed.  Such a proposition lacks any historical, cultural, or religious grounding and needs to be finally and completely dismissed, with all the prejudice one can muster.  Quite simply, such an idea has no place within a discussion of the message of Jesus and the subsequent ministry of His disciples and apostles, for this idea had no place in the time in which Jesus lived or within the worldview from which Jesus fundamentally operated.  “Works of the law,” or “works,” are the catch-all term for Jewish covenant markers, and Paul is never to be found discussing justification without reference to them, without reference to Jew and Gentile relations, or without reference to Gentile inclusion in the covenant people.  Undeniably then, producing an exegesis on Paul’s thoughts that starts from and includes such a premise, can only lead in unfortunate and ultimately irrelevant directions. 

In Romans, as Paul makes his points concerning Gentile justification as Gentiles that believe in Jesus, rather than Gentile justification (inclusion in the covenant people via adopting Jewish covenant markers) we come face to face with Abraham.  In what is obviously a continuous stream of thought, as he continues what he has been doing from the start of the letter and his first mention of Jew and Gentile in verse sixteen of chapter one, Paul transitions from “is God the God of the Jews only?  Is He not the God of the Gentiles too?  Yes, of the Gentiles too!  Since God is one, He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith” (3:29-20), to “What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh, has discovered regarding this matter?” (4:1) 

What matter is this?  It is the matter of justification---of the determination of who is to be considered as the righteous ones, along with how they reach the point at which they are so considered.  As it is worthy of endless repetition, Paul’s answer to this is “belief in Jesus as Lord/Messiah/King/Christ/God-manifest.”  The story of Abraham, with Paul’s recapitulation of that story following his discourse on justification which is about defining the covenant people of the covenant God, is the clincher for Paul’s argument, as Abraham is well understood to be the father of the faith.  Abraham’s position is unchallenged.  His story is well known and oft-rehearsed.  If Paul can make his case concerning the justification of Gentiles, and do so in a one-to-one correspondence with the story of Abraham, then he will have won the day.

Before diving further into this fourth chapter of Romans, we do well to consider that which, when discussing justification and so bringing thoughts of covenant and its promises and blessings into play, comes to mind when Abraham is mentioned.  Naturally, because Paul is talking about God’s calling and election of a covenant people, the calling and covenant with Abraham is foundational.  This turns us to chapter twelve of Genesis, and the genesis of the Abraham story, which begins with “Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you.  Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing.  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” (12:1-3).  There are additional covenant speeches, made by God to Abraham, which we will recount shortly; but undoubtedly, when we consider what we have heard from Paul to this point in Romans, as he has made his case for Gentiles and their justification (their righteous covenant standing in the eyes of God/their righteousness), the words of “all the families of the earth,” and the collective awareness by the Jews of those words spoken to Abraham, not to mention their connection to “bless,” would be of special significance to Paul.     

Jew, Gentile & Justification (part 1 of 3)

Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision? – Romans 3:1  (NET)

This questions flows from the presentation of the first two chapters of Romans (there wouldn’t be any chapter divisions in the letter).  Paul builds from his question of “what advantage does the Jew have…?” (3:1a), which leads to his declaration that “Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin” (3:9b).  With this, Paul accelerates the process, important to him, of leveling out all people before God, thus contributing to his efforts towards Gentile inclusion under the covenant through the declaration of faith in Jesus rather than the works of the law (current covenant markers), as he pieces together disparate statements from the Psalms and from Isaiah, writing “There is no one righteous, not even one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God” (3:10-11).  This would certainly be more than a bit deflationary to his Jewish listeners. 

He continues with “All have turned away,” as we note the importance of “all” to Paul both in Romans and in the remainder of the Pauline corpus (always remembering, in all that he writes, that he is the Apostle to the Gentiles), “together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one” (3:12).  This is quite the accusation, and it probably deserves to be heard together with the ringing accusations of the first chapter, which can be applied to Jew and Gentile alike. 

Because these verses are prefaced by reference to “Jews and Greeks,” we also hear Paul co-opting words from the Psalms that were originally penned as polemics against the enemies of the king of Israel, so also enemies against Israel and Israel’s God, and re-deploying them as polemics against all peoples, both Jews and Greeks.  All are placed under God’s judgment.  Even in judgment, the equality of all peoples before God is paramount, regardless of the sources of equality.  So, regardless of what Israel may say or think about itself, Paul, by utilizing the language used by members of Israel and reserved for their enemies or the enemies of their covenant God, groups Jews and Greeks together and universally insists that “Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.  Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness” (3:13-14). 

Borrowing from Isaiah, and from words directed to an Israel that was failing to live up to its covenant responsibilities, Paul adds: “Their feet are swift to shed blood, ruin and misery are in their paths, and the way of peace they have not known” (3:16-17).  He rounds out his rhetorical flourish with a return to the Psalms and finishes with “There is no fear of God before they eyes” (3:18).  So yes, even though Israel has their covenant markers, and by those covenant markers can be identified as members of the covenant, they are not truly participating with God under that covenant and are therefore truly indistinguishable, in God’s eyes, from Gentiles that bear no covenant markers.  Consequently, a new covenant mark is needed and it is one that is going to apply to all people. 

Having said what he has said, and having utilized the words from the Psalms and from Isaiah, Paul wastes no words, continuing on to write “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (3:19).  Generally, our focus when we look upon that verse is the law and the silencing of mouths, with this presumably directed to those who, because of the source of their righteousness (the covenant markers that indicates their status as “justified”), believe themselves to have some type of claim on God that is owing to the “good works” by which they believe themselves to have attained unto righteousness.  Of course, we know that this idea of “good works” as a means to attain righteousness, set in juxtaposition to a position of “grace alone,” is a foreign concept that really has no place in consideration of the messages of Jesus and of Paul.