All The Saints (part 13)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galatians & Giving (part 4)

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

Love On John's Terms (part 17)

Moving along to the seventh chapter and to the next use of “miraculous signs” in this Gospel narrative, one finds “Whenever the Christ comes, he won’t perform more miraculous signs than this man did, will he?” (John 7:31b)  The immediate context is provided by “Yet many of the crowd believed in Him and said…” (7:31a)  So again, “miraculous signs” is linked with “belief.”   Thus one must again consider the overall movement of this presentation of Jesus, in that the Creator God’s love for the world (John 3:16) is bound up with belief in Jesus.

By this, additional credence is lent to the link between the repetitious appearance of “miraculous signs” here in John (the only Gospel where such are to be found, save one usage in Luke), and the obvious Johannine predilection towards love, clearly rooted in the covenant God’s love for the world, as the operative Christian ethic.  The words of the thirty-first verse also forces a consideration of the wider context of the statement, which are questions about Jesus’ identity as the messiah.  As an observer situates himself within the original and intended audience for the narrative, such is done with the pre-supposition that Jesus is the Messiah (the Christ), and the development of the Gospel presentation will be heard from that position.

Whereas Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand, His walking on water, and His discourse about Himself as the bread of life took place in Galilee, these words from the seventh chapter are lifted from His being situated in Jerusalem.  Presumably then, Jesus has a new audience, differing quite significantly from the audience that He has had in the region of Galilee.  The season of the year is the Feast of Tabernacles, which is one of the fall feasts of Judaism.  The setting is presented in the fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter, where the author writes “When the feast was half over, Jesus went up to the Temple courts and began to teach.” 

A back and forth between the Jewish leaders and Jesus stems from the commencement of the aforementioned teaching.  As should be expected by now, at least according to the structure at play, Jesus brings a reference to Moses into play.  Eventually, the back and forth leads to what is reported to be an open discussion on the part of the residents of Jerusalem as to whether or not Jesus could actually be the Christ (7:25-26), which also results in some words from Jesus that lead to an unsuccessful attempt seize Jesus. 

In all of the back and forth, and in all of the reports within this Gospel about what Jesus has done since venturing back into Judea and Jerusalem, the reader does not stumble upon anything that seems like it would prompt the people of Jerusalem to mention Jesus in the same breath as “miraculous signs.”  Nevertheless, this is the very thing that is reported to have taken place.  In fact, though it can be reasonably presumed that word of the large-scale feeding has made its way around the countryside, the only miraculous signs that Jesus has performed to this point in the Johannine narrative are the turning of water into wine in Cana and the healing of the royal official’s son in Capernaum. 

The latter two of those three, which could be supplemented by the walking on water, would not be prone to massive dissemination.  To this point, the only miraculous sign that Jesus has performed in Jerusalem itself is the healing of the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda.  In this Gospel story, the remainder of Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem so far, is confined to teaching and speaking about Himself.  There is little reason to wonder, then, that the story demonstrates that there is not an outright acceptance of Jesus’ claims about Himself.  At the same time, one is left to wonder at the paucity of miraculous occurrences to be found in the very Gospel that is loaded with references to miraculous signs.  However, one must never forget the over-arching/underlying context of love and the love of the Creator God for the world as it is being expressed through Jesus, that seems to inform every aspect of this presentation of the life of Jesus.

Corinth's Communion (part 10)

It should continue to be borne in mind that the communion table was approached within a culture with a ready understanding of the social significance of meals and meal practice, as well as by a church that looked upon the Passover celebration (that had been transformed by Jesus) through the lens and light of the messianic banquet and all that such implied.  In many ways, though there is a need to avoid painting with too broad of a brush, one can discern that the communion table---that simple ceremony that Jesus delivered “after supper”---had effectively become symbolic of the messianic banquet, and therefore symbolic of the establishment of the kingdom of heaven. 

This symbolism carries a significant amount of weight in the areas of theology and practice.  Theology because the communion table, in carrying the heavy weight of so much meaning, tells its participants a great deal about the God that Jesus intended to reveal and to be revealed through His church that was intended to reveal the appearance that would be taken by the advent of the Creator God’s kingdom.  Practice because in looking back to the example of Jesus (through His own meal practice), the participants at the communion table are able to learn a very basic premise of what it would look like when they were living and acting like those who truly believed that Jesus had been enthroned, and that the Creator God had indeed begun to rule this world through Him. 

Much like the covenant markers of Judaism (primarily circumcision, dietary prescriptions, and the keeping of the Sabbaths) had become the indicators of those that intended to participate in the kingdom of the Creator God, so too did participation in the communion, performed with an ear and an eye towards the inclusive, socially flattening and barrier eliminating model that was said to have been presented by Jesus and which was being shared through oral communication at the point that this letter to the Corinthians was written (as evidenced by the fact that Paul feels compelled to confirm the tradition that had been presented to him), indicate one’s intention to participate in the kingdom of God on earth, doing so through confirming the Lordship of Jesus by both word and deed. 

This would include living out the implications of the model that was to be found in what would have been the well-known practices of table fellowship of the one that was being looked to as King, and acknowledging the ministerial and missional prominence of the readily communicated stories (as evidenced by the fact that they take up a sizable amount of the Gospel accounts) that served to demonstrate the way that Jesus approached and spoke about the meal table, along with His handling of questions and concerns about the same.  

This would also have to be borne in mind alongside the oft-repeated fact that His positioning Himself as Messiah, whether implicitly or explicitly, meant that the meal tables of Jesus and therefore the table that the early church looked upon as the one table of singular importance, had undeniable messianic banquet sensibilities and would have to be considered within that terribly important context.  For these reasons (among other), it would seem to be incumbent upon believers, observers, participants, and expositors to move past a pre-occupation with individualistic concerns, and about whether one is able to approach the communion table in a particular condition of heart or soul that becomes determinative of the way that the Creator God is going to view a sincere actor as they take the elements and participate in the Lord’s Supper. 

Compassionate Brother (part 9)

After Jacob has broached the subject of departing from Laban’s household and service and received the initial response from his wives, those wives continued on to say “He not only sold us, but completely wasted the money paid for us!” (Genesis 31:15b).  Reinforcing the idea of their father’s diminished standing (and honor), they add “Surely all the wealth that God snatched away from our father,” as they echo the words of Jacob (that were an echo of the words of Laban’s sons), “belongs to us and to our children.  So now do everything God has told you” (31:16). 

Here, Jacob, realizes his plight and comes to himself, while his wives have confirmed his thinking.  In response, “Jacob immediately put his children and his wives on the camels.  He took away all the livestock he had acquired in Paddan Aram and all his moveable property that he had accumulated.  Then he set out toward the land of his Canaan to return to his father Isaac” (31:17-18).  One problem still loomed large, which was how he was going to deal with his aggrieved brother.  Undeniably, if he had shamed his uncle Laban, then he had also shamed his brother through his deceptive act.  Indeed, if he had shamed his brother, had he not also shamed his father and his entire family, for was he not guilty of defrauding his father as well?  This appears to be a larger problem than it has traditionally been presumed to be.      

As one begins to examine Jacob’s return trek to Canaan, bearing in mind the dishonoring of both his father and brother that took place many years earlier (he will have to deal with this, and of course it is on his mind), one must also bear in mind that Genesis and Exodus (and the whole of the first five books of the Bible as presented) constitute a continuous narrative.  Just as it is impossible for to understand Jesus apart from some level of comprehension of second Temple Judaism, it is impossible to understand what is going on in Exodus apart from an understanding of Genesis. 

At the same time, the reader of Scripture is in the position, along with those that would have heard or read the Genesis and Exodus narratives together as the story of how Israel came to be a people, of allowing Exodus to inform a more thorough understanding of Genesis.  Learning to take in the entire narrative in a way that will dictate the way that the entirety of the narrative is consumed will allow for a more complete comprehension of the movement of Scripture, and subsequently an improved comprehension (and service of) the Creator God that is therein revealed.

Why make mention of this here?  It is because of what can be found in association with the story of Jacob’s departure from Laban.  In verse nineteen of the thirty-first chapter, it is reported that “While Laban had gone to shear his sheep, Rachel stole the household idols that belonged to her father” (31:19).  The passage then turns immediately back to Jacob, saying “He left with all he owned” (31:21a).  This is an interesting interlude, as it has already been reported Jacob had gathered up all of his property and had “set out toward the land of Canaan to return to his father Isaac” (31:18b).  So, with the inclusion of the story about the stealing of the household idols---a story that will play out in short order, though it does not seem to have much ultimate bearing on the story going forward, one has to wonder why it is mentioned. 

On the surface, together with the fact that “Jacob also deceived Laban by not telling him that he was leaving” (31:20), it provides the pretense for what comes next, when the story records that “Three days later Laban discovered Jacob had left.  So he took his relatives with him and pursued Jacob for seven days” (31:22-23a).  When Laban catches up with Jacob, he protests this treatment by Jacob (remembering the conflict and contest of honor and shame) and concludes his protest with “Yet why did you steal my gods?” (31:30b).  Obviously, all of this serves a greater purpose.  How would this story be heard by a post-exodus Israel?  Naturally, they would hear their own exodus story in the tale of Jacob’s departure from Canaan, his time spent in labor, his departure from Laban to return to his homeland, the taking of the household gods, and Laban’s pursuit. 

Hated (part 3)

If what it was that Jesus had to say was too unique, He could never have found an audience.  Based on the strange-for-the-messiah actions that accompanied His words, offering something unfamiliar to the people of Israel could have resulted in His being dismissed as a heathen, outside of the realm of the covenant people, and probably overly influenced by the pagan religions by which Israel was surrounded and to which they are said to have so often succumbed in their past. 

So while remembering the grounding of Jesus’ teaching within historical Judaism and Israel, an observer also does very well to remember that those that heard and those that would later provide historical records of His life and teaching so as to pass it on in both oral and written form, heard what He had to say within the same historically-rooted context as those that would hear and not provide narratives that would be passed down through history.  They did so while also speaking and writing of Jesus in the light of the Resurrection and what they came to believe that the Resurrection implied for Him, for Israel, for the world, and for the ultimate eschatological purposes of Israel’s God. 

Before moving on to the uncovering of the answer that will makes it possible to get a more firm and far less anachronistic grip on what such words from Jesus implied, it must be said that this pronouncement concerning hatred that is the focus of this study was not isolated.  The Gospels insist that Jesus spoke of being hated on more than one occasion.  While Mark has Jesus speaking of being hated in association with His pronouncements concerning the end of the age, with this occurring in the wake of His kingly entry into Jerusalem and His “cleansing” of the Temple, Matthew has Jesus first speaking of being hated much earlier in His ministry. 

Matthew records a sermon on the mount, whereas Luke records a sermon on the plain.  Some look at this as a conflict, but a more realistic assessment is that is quite likely that Jesus’ message was repetitive in nature, and that these repetitive messages were offered to an oral-history-oriented community in much the same way as a modern politician will give the same speech to different audiences, or a pastor has a particular, popular, go-to sermon. 

So in regards to the hating and being hated, Matthew has Jesus speaking of such things in association with His sending of the twelve “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6).  It is in this context that Jesus says “you will be hated by everyone because of My name” (10:22a), while also adding, as He appears to have done at the speech recorded by Mark, “But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (10:22b).  Progressing on to the Gospel of Luke, on the lookout for hate, lands a reader in the sixth chapter, where Jesus is to be found speaking of such things during the aforementioned sermon on the plain.  Here, He is speaking to a wider audience than just His disciples, but the general theme remains unchanged.  Jesus says, “Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject you as evil on account of the Son of Man!” (6:22) 

Interestingly, Jesus here speaks of being excluded, which should certainly have reminded His hearers (and those that would subsequently be presented with these words) of the exclusive practices referenced earlier in this study, though in a way that informs His hearers (and readers through the centuries) that separating exclusions within the “kingdom of God” (6:20) should themselves be excluded.  Later, Jesus will add the difficult demand to “Love your enemies,” and to “do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (6:27b-28). 

Hated (part 2)

Not only had Jesus been conducted into Jerusalem as its King, and then said and done some interesting things in connection with the Temple, but He had also said and done a great number of things prior to that which had enabled Him to gain a following and a reputation that resulted in what would come to be referred to as His “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem, and His being able to act with seeming impunity in the Temple. 

The record of Mark’s Gospel prior to Jesus’ words that spoke of the destruction of the Temple (on the heels of the widow’s unfortunate offering) have Him enduring Satan’s testing in the wilderness following His baptism, casting out demons, healing Peter’s mother-in-law, cleansing a leper, healing a paralyzed man, restoring a withered hand, offering mysteriously authoritative teaching, calming a storm, restoring a well-known demoniac to sanity, reversing a woman’s twelve year long ailment, raising a twelve year old girl from the dead, feeding multitudes, walking on water, providing hearing to a deaf man, giving sight to a blind man, experiencing a transfiguration accompanied by Moses and Elijah, and cursing a fig tree so that it withers and dies. 

This is the man---that has done these amazing works---that now speaks such things about the Temple.  He goes on to speak of the possibility of being mislead, with many coming in His name, of wars and rumors of wars, of nations and kingdoms rising up in arms against one another, of earthquakes, of famines, and of pain (13:5-8).  It is then that Jesus speaks of His own disciples experiencing persecution, of standing before governors and kings on His behalf, of preaching the Gospel to all nations, of arrest, of the Holy Spirit, of brother rising against brother, and of children rising against parents.  It is to this that Jesus adds those poignant words, saying “You will be hated by everyone because of My name.” 

Hated?  Hate was not an uncommon disposition in those days.  Hate was part of the social fabric and the contest for honor.  Israel was hated by a variety of people.  In turn, Israel offered hate in return---one can think of the attitude and disgust engendered against the Samaritans in this regard.  In many respects, the hate for and from Israel would center on Israel’s claims to be the special and chosen people of the covenant God, and thus stem from the exclusivist positions derived from their understanding of that claim.  Perhaps Jesus’ mention of this hatred because of Him was a way of communicating to His disciples that they must continue on with some of the exclusive practices being carried on by the wider citizenry of Israel? 

Of course, in consideration of Jesus’ wide-open practices in the area of table-fellowship, in which He welcomed all and sundry to break bread with Him in defiance of custom and societal norms, such thinking can be dismissed almost immediately.  Thus the high-mindedness with which Israel looked upon themselves, which was a large part of the reason for which they disassociated from the rest of the world and therefore became the grounds for mutual hatred, was demonstrably precluded by Jesus’ active and oft-repeated example. 

Yet at the same time Jesus spoke of His disciples being hated.  So how would these disciples have responded to this?  How would they have heard this?  To uncover the answer it is necessary to look into Israel’s history, and especially the history by which Israel saw itself supremely defined.  It must always, always, always be remembered that even though Jesus was certainly unique in a number of ways, His teaching and His mission were firmly grounded within Judaism and the history of Israel.  

Only Son (part 21)

Why did the Creator God raise up Solomon and gift him with such wisdom and wealth?  Presumably, it was so that His people Israel, along with all peoples and nations, would come to believe in Him.  Solomon, as a son of God, was yet another example of the Creator God’s love for the world, and it would appear that, as an example, he was said to be gifted in such a profound way so that He would be blessed, so that Israel would be blessed, and so that Israel would, in turn, be a blessing to all peoples of the world by being an example of unparalleled divine blessing. 

The Creator God’s design in this was to cause all peoples, through His people, to forsake their idolatry and turn in worship to the One that was their Creator, as and in Whose image they had been created.  In so doing, the tide of evil would be stemmed and the ongoing and ultimately unnecessary perishing of the peoples of the world and the creation could be restrained. 

The divine blessings (reflective of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) granted to Solomon and Israel were representative of the gifts of eternal life that the covenant God desired to grant to all peoples, restoring them to the place and status from which Adam had fallen.  Unfortunately, though Solomon had experienced his God’s power and presence (on two occasions---1 Kings 11:9), much like Adam and Israel had experienced that power and presence, he did not truly believe his God.  What was the result?  He fell into the aforementioned idolatry.  Because of that, Israel, as a unified body of people adequately representing their God to the world, effectively perished, and the blessings of their God that had been so strong upon them (eternal life) would be lost.            

While one could certainly continue moving forward from the history of Solomon, wading into and through the inter-testamental literature that sets the stage for the second Temple Judaism into which Jesus came and spoke, doing so in order to more fully develop the “son of God” theology and frame of reference, to engage in such would merely belabor the point.  Based on the examination of the clear “son of God” traditions embodied in Adam, Israel, and Solomon, it is now quite possible to understand the full import and impact of Jesus’ words when He speaks of His God’s love of the world and the sending of His one and only Son for the purpose of belief and eternal life.  The historical examples provided heretofore, stand in stark contrast to the Creator God’s expectations and intentions for the role that His son (whoever that son may be) would play in and for the world. 

Though, with reflection, one can see that Jesus is referring to Himself (as the author of the Gospel would seem to desire), it is not necessarily the case that Jesus is demanding that Nicodemus come to this conclusion.  Rather, an observer might be better served by considering that Nicodemus was to remember this conversation with Jesus, and upon His crucifixion realize that Jesus was referring to Himself with His cryptic comments that “the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14b).  This would seem to be a reasonable proposition. 

It is this believing in Jesus as the Son of Man (the Messiah-King and embodiment of Israel’s God) that then becomes equivalent to believing in the Creator God in the way that was expected of Adam and Israel and Solomon.  It is through believing in the lifted-up-Son-of-Man, with the efficaciousness of such belief equivalent to the reversing of the exilic-oriented and death-bringing curse of the serpents in the wilderness, that the blessings that the Creator God intends for His people (renewal, restoration, reconciliation, re-creation, exodus, rescue, deliverance, liberation, resurrection---eternal life) are to be enjoyed. 

Only Son (part 3)

So what was it that Nicodemus was supposed to understand from these famous words of Jesus?  Almost undoubtedly, when Jesus speaks these words about the lifting up of the Son of Man, he is being self-referential.  However, two thousand years of familiarity with the story of Jesus should not be allowed to cause one to imagine that the self-referential nature of the statement was supposed to be immediately clear to Nicodemus.  To think such a thing would be an unreasonable assertion on the part of the reader. 

Additionally, to treat Nicodemus as anything less than a well-learned, well-respected individual, simply because of what seem to be odd responses on his part to the questions and statements that Jesus is reported to be putting to him, would be an unwarranted reading based on theological and doctrinal pre-suppositions (and unfortunately ill-informed prejudices), along with the tangible benefit of the theological treatise of the Gospel of John, back on to the Scriptures. 

One of the bottom lines that must here be recognized is that Nicodemus is no fool, though some want to take the path of portraying him as such.  When he is first introduced into the story, he is identified as a Pharisee.  Not only that, the reader is informed that he a “member of the Jewish ruling council” (John 3:1b).  Too often, a caricature of Nicodemus as something of a less-than-fully-aware fool in the presence of Jesus, produces a similarly unfortunate caricature of the Jewish ruling council, all of which were too dense to recognize what was slapping them in their face in the person and ministry of Jesus.  It is to be remembered, that even Jesus’ disciples are shown to have failed to grasp who and what Jesus was. 

So as a Pharisee, Nicodemus would not only have been well-versed in the history of Israel, but he would have also stood as a guardian of its covenant-related identity markers.  At the very least, he would have seen himself as a guardian.  Accordingly, he would have been very much concerned and very much looking forward to the time at, and the means by which, Israel’s God would intervene on behalf of His chosen and faithful people, delivering them from their long-running exile (foreign subjugation, which was connected to their God’s curses upon His people for their failure to obey His commands and to fulfill His purpose for them). 

As a Pharisee, and therefore as a member of the group of people that was informally charged with the maintenance of the faithfulness of the people when it came to the marks of Jewish identity (covenant markers: circumcision, food and purity laws, Sabbath-keeping), it is likely that he would have found the existing situation, with Israel suffering under the oppressive heel of Rome and its Caesar, to be an untenable and highly undesirable circumstance.  This was likely to have been the case regardless of how many benefits Rome might bring (or claim to provide), and no matter how much “freedom of religion” was offered to them by their Roman overlords.  Ultimately, anything short of total autonomy, with Israel ruling itself and determining its own place in the world, was unacceptable. 

As a member of the Jewish ruling council, Nicodemus would have been in an officially sanctioned position of religious and civil influence among the people, walking in the world of Judaism (religious) that was somewhat desperately attempting to keep the people faithful to their covenant God as they lived in a state of great expectation, while also attempting to keep those same expectant people from running afoul of Rome and its power (civil), while they awaited another exodus (with the foreign powers leaving the land of Israel this time) similar to that which Israel experienced under Moses.  

Believing For Pleasing (part 2 of 2)

So when the author of the first letter of John writes that “this is His commandment” (3:23a), He is speaking to a group of people that should be in a position to well understand what is meant by “commandment” and that which “pleases God.”  This is especially so among Jewish believers, as it is borne in mind that Christianity (to use a general referent) was a Resurrection and creation restoration movement that had its roots in Judaism, that looked to the one now confirmed to have been the Jewish Messiah as its founder and resurrected Leader, was informed and undergirded by the history and prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures, and which was understood to be the movement of the Creator God in fulfillment of His desire and His promise to bless all nations through His covenant people. 

Because of these things, the reader also does well to remember that the Jewish understanding of righteousness, covenant, commandment, and Resurrection would be fundamental in forming the theology of the new movement that was now centered upon Jesus, the son of Joseph, who was said to have hailed from Nazareth.  So even if the author is writing to a mixed group of Jews and Gentiles, or to a group predominantly composed of Gentiles, Jewish understanding of the primary concepts would always have to be front and center in order to make any sense of the message of Jesus, of the Kingdom of heaven, or of the sovereign, creative, providential, and covenant God.

With that covered, one can infer that, with talk of commandments, reference is indeed being made to covenant markers.  Reference is being made to that which denotes a person as being in positive covenant standing, and therefore part of the kingdom of the Creator God that was understood to have been unexpectedly inaugurated in the midst of history with the Resurrection of Jesus, and therefore righteous (justified) and pleasing to God.  This was always an important and controversial issue within the very early church.  There was a group of believers that firmly believed that the works of the law---the established covenant markers---needed to be kept in place to identify believers as people under the covenant.  These individuals should not be painted as enemies, but rather, as those that also sought to live by faith. 

Likewise, and contrary (in this matter) to those that believed that the established covenant markers needed to be maintained so that covenant members could be readily identified, there was a group of believers, of which the Apostle Paul seems to be the loudest voice, that said that the only thing that was necessary was a confessed belief in the Gospel of Jesus (He is Lord of all), and that it was this alone, which sprung from a faith that was somehow gifted by the Holy Spirit as a gracious and sovereign act of the Creator God, signaled a believer’s membership in the kingdom of the Creator God, making them righteous (justified), pleasing to God, and partakers in the covenant God’s promised blessings for His people. 

The author of this letter seems to be very much in agreement with this second position, as even though he takes the liberty of redundantly adding “and love one another” (which would be the natural outworking of a believing union with Christ that would make one a vehicle for God’s blessings), it is quite clear that he is of the opinion that believing in Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Son of God (King of Israel/Messiah), is that which brought one into the covenant, sealing a person into the kingdom of the Creator God.  Belief in Jesus and in His Gospel (messiah-ship, crucifixion, Resurrection, rule as Lord of all) was paramount.  All else was secondary, flowing from the faith and power housed within that message.    

Covenant Of Belief (part 1 of 3)

Any approach to the fourth chapter of Romans begs to be dictated by the communal conception and remembrance of Abraham.  As it is, it is crucial to consider that the doing of good works, which is so often confused with the keeping of the law as a means of attaining salvation, is nowhere in sight.  It is not only not in sight in the sense of being the antithesis of the message of justification by faith, it is also nowhere in sight in terms of it being a recognizable category for Paul.  We cannot foist the dichotomy of faith versus works on to what Paul sees as the crucial issues of justification, which are the inclusion of Gentiles, the basis of their inclusion, the transformation of the recognized covenant markers because of the cross and the Resurrection, and the fulfillment and extension of God’s covenant through what took place in and with Jesus as the Messiah. 

With that said, we look to the thirteenth verse and Paul’s insistence that “the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith” (4:13).  When we hear this, and as we attempt to let the letter speak to us as a first century church gathered around the meal table to hear a letter from the Apostle, mental habits that have been constructed over extended periods of time must be resisted, with this best achieved by constant reminders concerning the terminology with which Paul operates.  We must resist the tendency to allow ourselves to mentally regress to thinking of “law” as “the doing of good works,” rather than properly thinking of “law” as shorthand for the covenant markers of Judaism (circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and dietary laws---with circumcision often also functioning as shorthand for the three) that identified someone as being a covenant member, with the ongoing recognition of the value of these things lying in the fact that they are reminders of belief in the faithfulness of God in general and His faithfulness to His covenants with Israel in particular. 

Though it seems to require significant mental exertion, and though it certainly requires us to hold together different ideas, right understanding dictates a realization that the performance of these covenant markers did not cause one to be in covenant (saved, if you will), just as it was not the confession of Jesus as Lord that caused one to be in covenant.  The performance of the covenant markers (be it the Jewish covenant markers that served to isolate the people of God and wall off the covenant, or the confession of Jesus’ Lordship in the world and over one’s life), as was the case with Abraham and his circumcision, is the reminder of the belief in a faithful God. 

It may be the case that this understanding had become blurred, in that there was a conception, perhaps held by some Gentiles (though it may be the case for Jews as well), that it was the performance of the covenant markers themselves, rather than the belief that stood behind that performance, that actually produced and induced an individual’s justification.  This runs back to what was said in verse twelve, which was “he is also the father of the circumcised… who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised.”  Belief, whether under the old covenant markers or the new covenant marker, was and is the means of entry into the covenant. 

The point that Paul is making, which is that from which he builds while also being that to which he is heads, is that the presence of the Creator God in the Christ, with all that has attended that grand event, has generated a massive change, and that the new reminder of belief that creates covenant (justifies, saves), the declaration of which also appears to possess the power to generate belief on the part of those that hear the declaration, is the confession of the Lordship of Jesus, with this being inseparable from the realization that the kingdom of God has come upon earth (as announced by Jesus), that this kingdom was truly inaugurated at the Resurrection (introducing the renewal of creation into the world), and that it will be fully consummated at some point in the future (a course of events that was completely unexpected). 

Kingdom For All (part 1 of 2)

But when the one who set me apart was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I could preach Him among the Gentiles… - Galatians 1:15-16a  (NET)

This mention of Paul’s call to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles is an excellent precursor to what follows in the second chapter of this letter to Galatia.  Raising the issue of Gentile inclusion under the banner of the covenant, which is the purpose of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, necessarily invokes considerations of adequate covenant marking.  In regards to this, as Paul relates the story of his journey to Jerusalem in the years following his own conversion, and as his ministry and message of Gentile inclusion among God’s covenant people based on confession of Jesus as Lord has been established for quite some time, he writes “not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek” (2:3).  This is key, as it assists Paul in laying the foundation for his arguments concerning justification---what it is, how it occurs, and what it represents---which comes later in the second chapter. 

Why is it significant that Titus, a Gentile, was not compelled to be circumcised?  It’s significant because of who it is that did not do the compelling, namely, the “influential people” (2:2) in the Jerusalem church.  If these “influential people,” located in Jerusalem, which was the obviously the bastion of Judaism and the geographical source of those that went out to other churches in other areas insisting on the need for Gentiles to Judaize in order to properly and legitimately participate in the covenant and to enjoy its promised blessings, did not insist on circumcision for Titus (with circumcision also standing in for the other covenant markers of Sabbath-keeping and food laws), then this spoke volumes for Paul’s message and his understanding of the justification that he had been preaching for fifteen years.  In fact, Paul makes it clear that the only ones that insisted on Gentile circumcision and their performance of the works of the law were “false brothers with false pretenses” (2:4b).  By deduction then, true brothers with true motives were those that recognized the basis for Gentile justification as belief in Jesus as Lord. 

Further elaborating on his time in Jerusalem, and further validating the argument that he is presenting to the Galatian brethren, Paul informs them that “those who were influential… added nothing to my message” (2:6a,c).  Not only was his message about justification and its corresponding covenant markers that allowed Gentiles to enter the covenant people as non-Judaizing Gentiles accurate, but there was no fault to be found with it.  It is also possible that Paul meant this statement as a double entendre, insisting that nothing needed to be added to the acceptance of the Gospel, such as circumcision, Sabbath keeping, or adherence to food laws (this is not about doing “good works”), to validate one’s justified status. 

With what immediately follows, we see that Paul never loses sight, and never allows his audience to lose sight of the all-peoples inclusion and world-encompassing nature of what the God of Israel had accomplished and set forth through the Messiah Jesus, as he adds to the lack of the addition of anything to his message, writing “On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised… they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (2:7,9b). 

Though there is a distinction drawn in terms of ministry focus, there is no distinction drawn between Jews and Gentiles in terms of their position relative to the covenant God or in their participation in His kingdom that has been inaugurated through the Resurrection of Jesus, nor is there a distinction in the message that is to be preached to Jews and Gentiles.  Both groups are to hear and accede to the message that confession of the Gospel’s claim is now the basis for God’s ongoing covenant with His people, and that His people now consist of people drawn from all nations, without distinction. 

This cannot be said enough, as it is the ground in which the concept of justification is rooted.  We cannot allow ourselves to be distracted by an incorrect approach to the issue of justification, especially as it is addressed in Romans three and Galatians two, which would have us considering the subject in terms of attaining an individual salvation that looks to an eternity in heaven as the reward of “faith alone” that stands against an attempt to achieve heaven via performing “works” in accordance with a code of law.  This approach, which would not be recognized or understood by Paul himself, must be removed from the field, as justification has primarily to do with being included in the covenant people of God. 

“Faith alone” versus “works” is only relevant to a discussion of covenant markers, inseparable from the Jew/Gentile divide and the barriers that had heretofore prevented the enlargement of God’s covenant people, with “faith alone” standing for the new covenant marker that coincides with the new age of the kingdom that has dawned and the new creation that manifests itself whenever a person confesses the Lordship of Jesus and so is “in Christ,” while “works” stands for the old covenant markers that Paul now equates with the old age that preceded the coming of the kingdom of God (that must exist and already be ongoing because of the claim that Jesus is Lord and King) and the old creation that is steadily passing away in the face of the victory of God foretold and begun in Christ’s victory over death and the grave.             

Community Of The Justified

In Paul’s letter to the church of Galatia, the issue of justification (covenant standing) receives an overt treatment.  For that reason, it often stands in comparison to Romans, and is explored alongside the letter to the church of Rome in order attain a richer understanding of the subject.  The letter must be approached with the understanding that justification has more to do with covenant standing, that the means by which one is understood to be justified has to do with covenant markers, and that justification is something that had once been limited to Israel (and to Gentiles that made themselves look like Israel through the adoption of law-related practices), but was now thrown wide open to Gentiles through Jesus.  With such a framework in place, it is actually possible to visit Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and even the letter to Titus, to find Paul’s conception of justification at work – the coming together of Jews and Gentiles, once separated, as a unified humanity under the sole identifying marker of the confession of Jesus as Lord. 

Once we factor in the leveling out of the church that is fostered by the equal acceptance of both Jew and Gentile under the same covenant marker, and realize the way that it can be applied in multiple areas of a culture that was defined by exclusion, division, and separation of people into groups (Paul’s insistence on there being neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free), with this application flying in the face of, undermining, and subverting long-standing cultural norms, then we could also realize that justification, with its implications, makes its presence felt in the letters to Corinth, to Thessalonica, to Timothy, and to Philemon.  The creation of a worldwide covenant community that represents the Creator God of Israel in and for the creation, as the harbinger of a new creation portended by the Resurrection of the Christ is a major theme for Paul. 

The implications of the nature of justification prompt a question, which is, if God has removed the barriers that separated and delineated Jew and Gentile in order to make them one covenant people with a single purpose, and doing so through His own intervening activity in Jesus of Nazareth, then what right do we have to continue to allow other barriers to remain standing and effective?  We see Paul essentially asking and answering this question in his addresses to other churches and to other individuals (though the letters to Timothy and Philemon would certainly have been read aloud in a gathering of the church).  Paul’s push towards unity within the church, with that all-important unity, manifested in the exercise of sacrificial and self-subverting love, traversing all of the identifiable and stratifying elements of society, is his answer, as it demonstrates the reach of a full-orbed justification. 

Because we well know that Galatians deals with justification, and because we know the primary issue of justification (Jew and Gentile relations and appropriate covenant boundaries), we are wholly unsurprised to find Paul writing “For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I was savagely persecuting the church of God and trying to destroy it.  I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my nation, and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors” (1:13-14).  Why was Paul persecuting the church and trying to destroy it?  It was because of his zealousness for the traditions of his ancestors.  What were the traditions of his ancestors?  Those were the works of the law, or the covenant markers that served to identify God’s covenant people. 

The church of God, in Paul’s view, by preaching confession of Jesus as Lord as all that was needed to gain entrance into the covenant and therefore access to its blessings, was completely undermining that which identified God’s elect people.  For Paul, this was horrifying, and as far as he was concerned, because this supposed church of God was a Jewish messianic movement centered upon a crucified and therefore accursed man (who couldn’t possibly be the messiah for that very reason), and because it primarily consisted of Jews that were now abandoning the covenant markers (though they would already be circumcised, many were no longer recognizing the Sabbath, and they were violating food laws by eating freely with Gentiles in imitation of the one that they looked to as Messiah, while also insisting that Gentiles could be included in the covenant people without having to adopt the traditional covenant markers), this could only bring the wrath of God upon Israel.  Paul’s position is quite understandable.  Based upon Israel’s history, which he knew quite well, Paul’s position was both logical and reasonable. 

Paul, however, had an experience that changed these things.  Making reference to Jesus’ appearance to him on the road to Damascus, as knowledge of the Resurrection changes everything, and as we find his build-up to the passages concerning justification containing references to both Jew and Gentile, Paul writes of “when the one who set me apart from birth and called me by His grace was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I could preach Him among the Gentiles” (1:15-16a).  Thus, in Galatians, it is his mention of Judaism and Gentiles by which Paul sets the stage for his treatment of the issue of justification.            

God Of The Gentiles

When we gather around the meal table of the Roman church and hear “But they are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24), we are forced to hear Paul within the contextual realm of both Jews and Gentiles being encompassed by the covenant through the same means.  They are justified in connection with Jesus, as God graciously expands the reach of His covenant---stretching out the curtains of the grand, covenant tent, as expressed so beautifully by Isaiah.  Furthermore, Gentiles, without Judaizing (becoming Jews by adopting the covenant markers of Judaism – circumcision, Sabbath keeping, dietary restrictions), also experience the redemption that has long been cherished by Israel, which, when this term is employed by a member of Israel, is a reference to the experience of exodus-ing from out of a state of exile, with this exodus always being a movement that includes a journey towards, a return to, or a restoration of sovereignty in, a land of promise. 

The redemption of exodus, which is tightly connected to the Red Sea and also symbolized by baptism (especially that of John the Baptist, as he was recognized to be leading a new exodus movement, recapitulating the entrance of the people into the promised land through baptism in the Jordan River, which was doubly symbolic, serving also as a reminder of the Red Sea crossing), was a defining portion of Israel’s story.  Part of the story that Israel told about itself was that of the Egyptian exodus, and rightly so.  It was a dramatic story of the intervention of the Creator God on their behalf, and is intimately tied to the story of their election as the special, covenant people of that Creator God.  It is important to also note that Paul locates the story of Jesus in continuity with Israel’s history, and sees it as the climax of their story.  Of course, we know that it is impossible to understand the story of Jesus, or to attach any significance to His ministry, death, or Resurrection, apart from its being set within the story of Israel and its covenant relationship with their God, as the story stretched back to Adam.  That said, because Israel identified itself as an exodus people, who had experienced God’s redeeming activity on their behalf numerous times, the fact that Gentiles are now included in talk of those that experience redemption, with redemption being used by an Israelite and therefore carrying the freight of Israelite sensibilities, becomes yet another mark of their being adopted into the ranks of the people of God’s election.  Gentiles are now free to attach themselves to Israel’s story and tell it as their own.

When we detach verses twenty-three and twenty-four from out of their context, to read and hear Paul’s statements from within our individualistic, historically disconnected concern with a personal salvation experience, they sound nice, but we miss so very much.  Truly, when we read “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  But they are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” we can take some comfort.  Unfortunately, if we tear these words from their historical and cultural context, without allowing the history of Israel and its covenant to define them (instead, we define them based on our own conceptions, which might actually have no connection with Paul’s conceptions or those of his audience), we miss out on the full spectrum of meaning contained by “all,” “sin,” “glory,” “justified,” and “redemption.”  Ultimately, we do ourselves a tremendous disservice when utilizing or proffering constructs such as the “Romans road to salvation,” as this tends to lead people away from the Gospel message of “Jesus is Lord,” with the range of kingdom and covenant concerns therein entailed, and toward a selfish concern with the eternal destiny and situation of one’s personal soul.

Having provided his “thesis” concerning the nature of justification, and having done so within the parameters of Jew and Gentile concern, as we move along to the twenty-eighth verse, we should not be surprised to hear Paul return to explicit mentions of Jew and Gentile.  Paul writes “For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law” (3:28).  That statement, of course, demands to be heard as a component of the narrative that Paul has structured, so, as elsewhere, this verse is not to be lifted and applied in isolation.  Therefore, it is worthwhile to reiterate and expand what is being said.  The statement of verse twenty-eight, more fully unpacked, is “we consider that a person is said to be a part of the covenant people of God through the confession of a trusting loyalty to Jesus as Lord and King, with this loyalty extended to the Creator God via the loyalty to Jesus; and it is no longer necessary for any person to demonstrate this loyalty by circumcision, Sabbath keeping, or food laws, which is currently being utilized as the identifier of the people of the covenant, but no longer.”  To drive home the point that, through his talk of justification, Paul has been concerned with Gentile inclusion and the elimination of the barriers that have been used to keep the covenant exclusive to Jews and to prevent Gentile participation unless they were willing to Judaize, he goes on to write “Or 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” (3:29-30). 

Propaganda & Covenant Inclusion (part 2 of 2)

In considering this, we are reminded that we simply cannot pick and choose statements from Paul, pluck them from their context, and hear them however we desire to hear them.  There is a narrative flow, and one statement builds on the next, with Paul making it more than abundantly clear that covenant, covenant markers, and covenant participation is the primary field of concern for this letter.  We can comfortably blanket that field under the cover of “justification.”  Paul’s concern is that God’s righteousness, which is well-defined by Scripture as His faithfulness to His covenant and to His covenant people (covenant faithfulness), will always be demonstrated and that God will always be vindicated.  As the story of Jesus unfolds within this the structure provided by this narrative, his must be linked to the activity of Jesus, to the cross, and to His Resurrection, as Jesus sums up the story of Israel. 

To expand on that point, Paul sees Israel’s story climaxing in Jesus, with Jesus, as King and therefore as representative of God’s covenant people, fulfilling all that God expected of Israel.  More than that, Jesus perfectly fulfills all that is expected of humanity, bearing the divine image as God intended.  As Israel’s story and responsibility cannot be extricated from the covenant, and as Israel only exists as a people because of God’s covenant with Abraham, we simply cannot think of Jesus, His ministry, or His saving work apart from that covenant.  The Gospel that Jesus is Lord, and therefore the justification (participation in the covenant people of the Creator God) that is linked to that message of the Gospel, cannot be understood or propagated apart from a proper understanding of the covenant and of what God is doing in relation to His covenant. 

When we add in that Judaism did not posit “earning salvation” by works (works of the law, adoption and practice of covenant markers, were the response of those already included in the covenant---justified) which disposes of the long-cherished and often confusing contrast between “works” and “grace” as means to salvation (or justification---being included in the covenant people and therefore carrying a heavy responsibility to represent the Creator God of Israel by bearing His image), we put ourselves in a much better position to understand the letter to Romans, the Gospel, the kingdom of God, and our role in and for that kingdom and the world in which it is to be found (God’s will being done on earth as heaven), which is accomplished according to and through the deed and word proclamation and manifestation of the Gospel.  

At the risk of over-stating the significance of covenant (and repeating this word almost ad nauseum), God’s righteousness will be exercised and will be recognized in graciously extending that covenant and its promises to Gentiles, and He is doing this through that which demonstrates loyalty to Him.  Previously, this had been the bearing of the covenant markers (which had morphed over time) that identified Israel as Israel.  Now, this loyalty to Him is demonstrated through the confession of Jesus as Lord and a subsequent reordering of one’s life around that claim.  It bears repeating that this has nothing to do with God granting people a qualitative righteousness, and everything to do with the dramatic proclamation, by the extension of the covenant and its promises to all peoples, on new terms, that God, in Christ, has taken up His place on the throne of the cosmos and is becoming King.   

Propaganda & Covenant Inclusion (part 1 of 2)

For although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or give Him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. - Romans 1:21-23  (NET)

The above passage goes on to speak of impurity, dishonorable passions, unnatural sexual relations, shameless acts, error, unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility, gossiping, slander, boasting, evil, disobedience, heartlessness, ruthlessness, and approval of all such things.  Paul’s recitation of mankind’s abuses would flow from out of him quite naturally, as for all practical purposes all that is to be found in verses eighteen through thirty-two of Romans one, was very likely nothing more than standard rhetoric directed at Gentiles by members of Israel, as they sought to maintain the purity, integrity, and identity of their people and their special, preferred status in the eyes of the Creator God.  The words that can be found there could form something of a propaganda against Gentiles, playing into the “us versus them” mentality that marked much of second temple Judaism (and unfortunately much of Christianity). 

This is not difficult for us to understand.  We in the church are quite accustomed to adopting such language and using it in such ways.  We sit in our pews and applaud (or perhaps just nod our heads in tacit, comfortable agreement) as preachers and teachers lift accusatory fingers and point them at the pagans and heathen of “the world,” whom our just God will rightly judge.  This is done while perhaps tossing in pithy and condescending statements (in the face of not-well-masked vitriol) such as “but Jesus loves them,” or “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” 

Even worse, we often find the “us versus them” mentality moving from the church versus the world (there is some necessary opposition, though it is often mis-directed) to church versus church, as one church, inevitably holding itself up as the repository of the true Gospel message, offers blanket condemnations to other churches that, by extension, fail to preach the “true Gospel.”  It must be said that this dualistic mentality is quite difficult to escape or to avoid altogether, requiring Christians to be on constant guard against falling into its unhelpful and damaging-to-the-Gospel clutches. 

How can we, after a perusal of the second half of chapter one of Romans, draw a conclusion in which we see Paul employing the propagandizing rhetoric that Israel has reserved for Gentiles?  Is this a legitimate observation?  We are aided in our reaching of that conclusion by that with which Paul opens the second chapter, which is “Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else.  For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things” (2:1). 

Following some intervening material in which Paul highlights God’s judgment, kindness, forbearance, and patience, in which he also tosses in “He will reward each one according to His works” (2:6) while also briefly railing against “selfish ambition” (2:8), we proceed to stumble upon a helpful statement, which is “There will be affliction and distress on everyone who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and also the Greek.  For there is no partiality with God” (2:9-11).  When reading Romans, we have to recognize the fact that the language of covenant extension and inclusiveness is everywhere, that it is woven into the text as a central theme, and that it must effect our reading and comprehension of Paul’s position. 

Kingdom People (part 2 of 3)

In case one is disinclined to believe this assertion, we’ll have to take a look at the two primary “justification” texts in the New Testament, which are found in Romans three and Galatians two.  When we see what precedes this great “justification” passage, and bear in mind the words from Paul that set the tone for chapters nine, ten, and eleven, we are clued in to the connection between chapter three and chapter ten, and we are also provided with another reminder of what justification means for Paul, which is inclusion in the covenant.  It cannot be too often said that, for Paul, justification encompasses the extension of that covenant to Gentiles, along with the lack of any need for Gentiles to adopt the covenant markers of Judaism (they do not need to Judaize---practice circumcision, keep Sabbath, or observe dietary regulations---the works of the law) in order to demonstrate their joining up with the covenant people of God and their being positioned to enjoy the blessings promised in association with that covenant.  So what precedes talk of “justification” in chapter three?

Realizing that Romans is an argument that builds upon itself, and that groundwork is laid and re-laid so as to be drawn upon as the argument progresses, answering this question forces us to backtrack to chapter two, as Paul expands on the statement from chapter one that the Gospel is “God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes,” which ties itself quite comfortably to verse eleven of chapter ten, “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (1:16b).  Remember, “salvation,” for Paul, is just one way of describing participation in the covenant people and experiencing all that is implied by such participation. Picking up on that in the second chapter, consciously holding to the idea that what we hear from Paul in chapter three is provided its color and context by what precedes it, and cannot be correctly understood in isolation from it, Paul writes “There will be affliction and distress on everyone who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and for the Greek.  For there is no partiality with God.  For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law” (2:9-12). 

This talk of Jew and Greek (or Gentile), as it is attended by talk of “all who have sinned,” and “no partiality with God,” equalizes Jew and Gentile in their standing before the covenant God.  To this Paul adds “For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves” (2:14).  Without getting into all that Paul is asserting in this statement or attempting to exegete, we pair it with verse seventeen and “But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relationship to God” (2:17), and continue to recognize the obvious construct of Jew, Gentile, and covenant inclusion that receives Paul’s attention and is the reason for the coming statements concerning justification (covenant inclusion, election) in chapter three. 

Keeping in mind the importance of the then-accepted covenant markers as the distinguishing badges of the covenant people, keeping the concern for covenant inclusion (justification---notice the interchangeability of the terms) front and center, we go on to hear Paul say “For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision” (2:25).  This statement is important insofar as it is another equivocation by Paul, placing Jew (circumcision) and Gentile (uncircumcision) on the same level, as he builds the case for his theological, eschatological, and covenantal position.  More importantly, the end of this posturing by Paul (using posturing in a positive sense), is the creation of humble, self-effacing, self-sacrificial, honor eschewing unity within the church body that is composed of individuals that are said to be “in Christ.” 

To this leveling Paul adds “For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and” building on language from the prophets from whom and which Paul so heavily draws, “circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code” (2:28-29a).  Here, lest he be misunderstood, Paul is not attempting to insist that Gentiles become Jews.  He is perfectly satisfied with Gentiles remaining Gentiles as they join the ranks of the elect, as the tent of God’s covenant people is expanded outward, becoming ever larger.  Consequently, “Jew,” here, combined with talk of circumcision (of the heart and not the flesh), stands in for “the elect/covenant people of the covenant God.”       

The follow-on to that which concludes chapter two then makes perfect sense, as Paul continues to have covenant inclusion and bridging the divide between Jew and Gentile in purview, and says “Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision?” (3:1)  Most certainly, Paul wants to make covenant inclusion attractive.  He wants to encourage Gentiles to adopt the language of election, locating themselves within the stream of history provided by the story of Israel and climaxed in Jesus, and therefore highlights the advantages of national Israel, while also being proud of his heritage, which comes through quite strongly in the opening of chapter nine.