All The Saints (part 10)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galatians & Giving (part 7)

The bottom line for this and every Jesus community was that “through love,” they were to “serve one another” (Galatians 5:13b).  Though this can be heard in the general sense of Christian service, it can also be taken more literally as Paul can be heard insisting that all were and are to take the opportunity to be servants at the meal table.  Just because somebody was responsible for serving at meal tables (women, slaves) outside the church gathering, that did not automatically mean that they were to be the servants at the church gathering.  In fact, the church and the Gospel may very well have insisted upon the opposite.  Regardless of that possibility, Paul insists that the appropriate attitude is “You must love your neighbor as yourself” (5:14b); and just as their service was not some generalized service, so too this “love” was not some general, undefined love. 

To that end, Paul quotes from the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus, making allusion to all that surrounds the specific quotation.  Further insight into the social dynamic that is at work can be gained by looking to that passage in Leviticus and finding “You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich.  You must judge your fellow citizen fairly.  You must not go about as a slanderer among your people.  You must not stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake.  I am the Lord.  You must not hate your brother in your heart.  You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him.  You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself.  I am the Lord.  You must keep My statutes” (19:15-19a).  It would seem clear that Paul has this in mind when he appends his thoughts, adding “However, if you continually bite and devour one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another” (5:15).  Interestingly enough, it would seem that talk of biting, devouring, and consuming can be understood as language that is connected to a meal table. 

Bearing in mind the Levitical allusion, and even though there is some intervening material dealing with the operation of the Spirit and the subsequent contrast between the works of the Spirit and the works of the flesh, does one not hear the Levitical pronouncement heavily informing the introduction to the sixth chapter, when Paul speaks and says “Brothers and sisters, if a person is discovered in some sin, you who are spiritual restore such a person in a spirit of gentleness.  Pay close attention to yourselves, so that you are not tempted too.  Carry one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (6:1-2)? 

Certainly, the words that lead into the opening statement of the sixth chapter could be brought into service here, as Paul writes “Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, being jealous of one another” (5:26).  When these words are heard at a mixed meal table, where all are cognizant of the wide range of potential sources of divisions and classifications and groupings that would be a natural component of every other meal gathering that would be known and even participated in on a regular basis by those that compose the church of Galatia, they should take on an even more profound meaning.    

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 8)

A more minor example, in which nearly all would be able to engage and which would be instrumental in its application in an era and an area in which one’s daily food was a constant concern and in which debt and debt slavery were extraordinarily pressing and very real problems, would be something like the brother-directed insistence that “You must not lend money at interest and you must not sell him food for profit” (Leviticus 25:37). 

The need to borrow is here wrapped up with the need to purchase food, so the directive takes aim at capitalizing on misfortune in the area of life’s basic necessities, and doing so in such a way that increases the likelihood that slavery will result.  This is not a blanket statement, insisting that it is wrong to sell food or anything else for profit or that it is even necessarily wrong to charge interest, as the prohibition against charging interest is definitively linked to a brother’s ability to obtain the necessities of life (he’s not buying a new laptop or a car).  Surely, it is possible to differentiate between charging interest for that which is not wholly necessary, with ideas about that which is wholly necessary complicated by modern day cultures that are bent on acquisition and the portrayal of all things as needs. 

However, one must note that in this section of Leviticus the prohibition is provided context by “If your brother becomes impoverished and is indebted to you, you must support him… Do not take interest or profit from him, but you must fear your God and your brother must live with you” (25:35a,36).  This does not deny that some would be wealthier than others, nor does it offer up a value judgment on the mere fact or presence of wealth (wealth defined as the excess of what is needed), but it does have an underlying message that the Creator God’s people are to be conscientious of the plight of their brothers and to be ready to have their hand out to make ready assistance, though this is a matter for another dissertation. 

It would be far easier, in a manner of speaking, for Christians of the first century (and for Christians of the twenty-first century who live outside of the remarkably affluent western world) to relate to these words from Leviticus, and to engage in such activity as part of their call to be benefactors for their communities.  Imagine what would be stirred by a person, operating in the marketplace during times of scarcity and need, who, seeing all as brothers and potential brothers within the always advancing kingdom of the covenant God, sold his food at no profit to himself. 

What if that person, acting counter to the supply and demand equation in that time of scarcity, which would naturally see prices for scarce items rise, actually began selling sustenance items at below his own cost, so as to bring down the cost (at least temporarily, as that person would quickly exhaust his own supply and be unable to restock, having sold his inventory at a loss)?  What if that person did so as an obvious sacrifice on his or her part, and did so as a conscientious actor for the kingdom of God?  Would that not be a monumental display of costly love?  Would that not be living out the cross?  Would that not be the power of the resurrection and the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) at work?  Again, this is not meant to be applied at all times, as it is unsustainable in practice, but it does inform the body of Christ of its need to engage with the world at multiple levels, as the kingdom of the Creator God invades every aspect of life, never saying “I go here and no further.” 

A Tradition Of Wells (part 11 of 11)

The Jeremiah narrative happens upon a well on two occasions.  In the sixth chapter, as Jeremiah verbally depicts the destruction that is going to come upon Jerusalem due to its idolatry, he shares some of the Lord’s thoughts concerning the city.  The God of Israel can be heard to say “Cut down the trees around Jerusalem and build up a siege ramp against its walls.  This is the city which is to be punished.  Nothing but oppression happens in it.  As a well continually pours out fresh water so it continually pours out wicked deeds.  Sounds of violence and destruction echo throughout it.  All I see are sick and wounded people” (6:6-7). 

This is, of course, a reflection upon Israel’s covenant failures.  For this, the Creator God brings His curse against His covenant people.  Death is coming to them.  It is against this that Jesus can be heard speaking, when He says “whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become a fountain of water springing up to eternal life” (John 4:14).  This eternal life is so much more than a one-way ticket to heaven upon death.  Rather, it is an entrance into the covenant people of the Creator God, in which one shares in the covenant blessings promised by the God of Israel (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28), and presumably the resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age. 

Not long thereafter, the Samaritan woman questions Jesus about whether Jerusalem is the appropriate place to offer worship.  Might this be a reflection on what the Creator God says about Jerusalem in Jeremiah (a well that pours out wicked deeds rather than fresh water)?  Jesus responds by telling her “a time is coming… when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (4:23a).  Further on in Jeremiah, the prophet laments over that which he speaks, saying “I wish that my head were a well full of water and my eyes were a fountain full of tears!  If they were, I could cry day and night for those of my dear people who have been killed” (9:1). 

Hosea is the next prophet to be heard, as he spoke to the situation of the northern kingdom of Israel.  Referring to the judgment of the Creator God that was coming upon that portion of His people, Hosea says “Even though he flourishes like a reed plant, a scorching east wind will come, a wind from the Lord rising up from the desert.  As a result, his spring will dry up; his well will become dry.  That wind will spoil all his delightful foods in the containers in his storehouse” (13:15).  Beyond the natural fact that water is necessary for life for all peoples everywhere, wells had been a source of life for Israel, stretching back to Abraham as a place of marriage and ultimately offspring that continued their God’s covenant purposes.  Here, their God speaks of a well that would become dry.  Specifically, this is directed against Samaria (13:16), which is the setting for Jesus well meeting.  This provides added color to Jesus’ talk of “living water” (4:10) and “a fountain of water springing up to eternal life, as well as Jesus’ directing of the woman’s attention away from either Samaria or Jerusalem as the center of worship. 

In a similar instance, to round out and wrap up this study, is to be found in the prophetic work of Micah.  Here, it is possible to readily identify informative points of contact with the Johannine well story, as Micah speaks of the Creator God’s judgment that comes “because of Jacob’s rebellion and the sins of the nation of Israel” (1:15a).  Not unlike the woman’s question to Jesus about the proper place of worship, and being mindful of Jesus’ response, Micah can be heard to rhetorically inquire “How has Jacob rebelled, you ask?  Samaria epitomizes their rebellion!  Where are Judah’s pagan worship centers, you ask?  They are right in Jerusalem!” (1:15b).  As Micah goes on to describe the tribulation that will come their way, he is heard saying “Therefore you will have to say farewell to Moresheth Gath.  The residents of Achzib will be as disappointing as a dried up well to the kings of Israel” (1:14).  

No One Knows The Hour (part 12)

Looking through the synoptic Gospels and comparing the records that follow Jesus’ actions in the Temple and His being questioned as a result of those actions, one is forced to notice similarities and differences.  As has been seen, Matthew reports the parable of the two sons, the parable of the tenants, the parable of the wedding banquet, the challenge concerning Caesar and taxes, the question from the Sadducees about marriage the resurrection, and the rabbinic challenge concerning the greatest commandment.  From there, Matthew has Jesus proceed to offering up the “seven woes” that comprise the twenty-third chapter of his Gospel.  Matthew built on Mark’s account and traveled a longer path in the story of Jesus that he presented, and it must be said that Matthew’s account is the busiest of the three.   

Mark, which is generally understood to have provided the basis for both Matthew and Luke, does not have a parable of the two sons, narrates the parable of the tenants, lacks a parable of the wedding banquet, recounts the conversation about the paying of taxes, reports the question by the Sadducees, and offers up a memory of the question about the greatest of the commandments.  In something of an anomaly, Mark’s presentation of the exchange concerning commandments is actually longer than that which is reported by Matthew.  Matthew and Mark differ in their account of Jesus’ words, with Matthew’s Jesus saying “All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments” (22:40).  In Mark, Jesus does not say this. 

In addition, “The expert in the law said to Him, ‘That is true, Teacher; you are right to say that He is one, and there is no one else beside Him.’” (Mark 12:32b)  Here, the expert in the law quotes back to Jesus what has been said, which also informs the reader that Mark has another statement that is omitted by Matthew, in that Jesus here says, to begin His response to this man, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’” (12:29)  This is the preface to the specific quotation from Deuteronomy in regards to loving the Lord with heart, soul, mind, and strength.  This is also a reminder that in Matthew, Jesus is not reported to have mentioned “strength.”  The man continued, conflating Jesus’ answers and the quotations together, saying “And to love Him with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices” (12:33). 

Just in case it may be thought that this study was reaching a bit by calling attention to the fact that the section being called to mind with the neighbor quotation from Leviticus begins with mention of the peace offering sacrifice, and that this serves as yet another reminder of the setting---that being the Temple and that which takes place in the Temple, this response confirms that such was not a reach at all.  Beyond that, just to reconfirm the intimate ties between the Temple, the importance of the promised land, and concepts concerning the kingdom of God, Mark reports that “When Jesus saw that he had answered thoughtfully, He said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’” (12:34a) 

This final statement is also part of a fuller account (in this particular pericope) than that which is on offer from Matthew.  Luke omits this exchange concerning the commandments entirely, which is not surprising.  One remembers that Luke made no mention of the withered fig tree in conjunction with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, so it apparently does not fit with Luke’s overall purpose.  Following his report about Jesus’ actions in the Temple and the questioning from the authorities that He underwent there, Luke follows Mark by not presenting a parable of the two sons, and moving right along to the parable of the tenants.  There is no parable of the wedding banquet as part of Luke’s Temple narrative, though Luke does present a great banquet, with similar features, in his fourteenth chapter.  Following the parable of the tenants, Luke moves to the discussion about taxes, and then to the question about marriage and the resurrection.

No One Knows The Hour (part 10)

Jesus’ talk of the kingdom, His triumphal entry, and His dramatic and judging words and actions in the Temple that fit within Israel’s narrative history, are rooted in hopes concerning the Creator God’s promise to His people and the covenant faithfulness of that God.  Occupation and possession of that land, in which their God would build His temple and in which He would dwell amongst His people, was always the evidence of their God’s power and of the fulfillment of His promises to His people.  So when Jesus speaks in the way that He does when challenged by the expert in the law, He is not simply offering up aphorisms on how the people of the covenant God are to live.  Rather, He is building upon the edifice that is already in place, and He must be heard to be speaking in the context of promise, land, Temple, and kingdom. 

So even though it does not appear, on the surface, that this particular exchange is linked to His Temple concerns, one can affirm that it most certainly is linked to Jesus’ opinions concerning the Temple and that it continues in the narrative flow.  It is not an isolated statement or encounter, but one that absolutely demands to be understood in connection to the Temple, as has all that has been examined to this point of this study, and it builds to a conclusion concerning Jesus’ insistence that no man can know the day or the hour.

If the quotation from Deuteronomy conjures up a wider context, does Jesus other statement about loving one’s neighbor as one loves self, which is taken from Leviticus, do the same?  Based upon what has been learned to this point, it would be a surprise if it did not.  Just as there was no disappointment when turning to Deuteronomy, turning to Leviticus again disparages disappointment.  When Jesus speaks these words about the love of God and the law, He is quoting from the eighteenth verse of the nineteenth chapter.  As one examines what is to be found in the preceding verses, it is almost possible to be stunned at what can be found. 

Beginning in the eleventh verse and quoting extensively (always remembering that calling to mind a larger section of Scripture, understood within Israel’s history, is the function of an isolated quotation), the Levitical text insists that “You must not steal, you must not tell lies, and you must not deal falsely with your fellow citizen.  You must not swear falsely in My name, so that you do not profane the name of your God.  I am the Lord.  You must not oppress your neighbor or commit robbery against him.  You must not withhold the wages of the hired laborer overnight until morning” (19:11-13).  This last part, concerning the laborers, is of even greater interest if this entire section is being called to mind, taking on a more interesting dimension and revealing Jesus’ and Matthew’s theological genius, as Matthew, just before Jesus’ triumphal entry, records Jesus’ telling of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, which begins with “For the kingdom of heaven is like...” (Matthew 20:1a).   Once again the reader is reminded that land, Temple, and kingdom are inseparably bound. 

Continuing in Leviticus: “You must not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block in front of a blind person.  You must fear your God; I am the Lord.  You  must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich.  You must judge your fellow citizen fairly.  You must not go about as a slanderer among your people.  You must not stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake.  I am the Lord.  You must not hate your brother in your heart.  You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him.  You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself” (19:14-18). 

Now, it is rather simple to agree that this does in fact delineate the way in which the people of the Creator God should strive to live, and it would be wonderful to insist that Jesus was speaking in such a way so as to encourage His people (then and now) to live in such a way.  Certainly that is part of what He is doing, but considering the setting, it is obvious that it reaches beyond that.  Would this not remind the reader or listener of something that Jesus has already said?  Does this not provide a reminder of a narrative that has been called to mind by what Jesus said?  It should. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 9)

After the silencing of the Sadducees, one of the Pharisees, who was said to be “an expert in religious law” (Matthew 22:35b), posed a question to Jesus.  The language used by Matthew, which is that the purpose of the question was “to test Him” (22:36c), informs the audience that this encounter was to be understood as a rabbinic debate, which would have an honor and shame dynamic at play.  This is fitting, since one of the greatest sources of honor in that day would have been a connection to the Temple, and with His words and actions, Jesus is in the process of shaming the Temple and those connected to it.  If they are able to overcome Jesus in a rabbinic challenge, thus diminishing His honor standing in the court of public reputation and opinion, then they can also diminish the effectiveness of His words and actions against the Temple, thus recovering (on behalf of the Temple and themselves) the honor that Jesus is accruing to Himself at the expense of the Temple and its functionaries.

Thus Jesus’ opinion in regards to the greatest commandment of the law is elicited.  With His answer, Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy and from Leviticus, responding with “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (22:37), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (22:39).  Summing up His response, Jesus adds “All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments” (22:40).  The modern reader should be quite familiar with these words of Jesus, as were the respective audiences of both Jesus and Matthew.  Remembering that the Temple and His judgment upon it lies in the background of both His words and the narrative that records His words and deeds, and considering that singular quotations of Scripture are designed to call to mind large sections of the Scriptural narrative (and by extension, Israel’s history), one is forced to look at the context for Jesus’ Scriptural quotations.  In doing so, one finds that these quotes fit within the overall movement of Matthew and of this section of the story he tells. 

Prior to His triumphal entry, in multiple parables, Jesus is shown to be speaking about the kingdom of heaven (God).  Talk of the kingdom of heaven fits together with thoughts about the restoration of the promised land of Israel, which would manifest itself in the independence of people and land from the rule of foreign and pagan nations.  Jesus’ triumphal entry aligns with such talk.  Jesus’ continued speech about the kingdom of heaven, in chapters twenty-one and twenty-two following His judgment upon the Temple (which then cannot be disconnected from that which follows), fits neatly with what has been previously heard from Jesus and presented by Matthew.  So when Jesus is heard speaking about love of the Creator God with heart, soul, and mind, and His hearers have their thoughts thrust upon the pages of Deuteronomy, disappointment would be at hand if one did not find concerns within the same vein (that being the kingdom of heaven and liberation) being voiced.  Naturally, these expectations are not disappointed. 

The words quoted by Jesus are prefaced and followed by statements such as “Walk just as He has commanded you so that you may live, that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land you are going to possess” (5:33); “Now these are the commandments, statutes, and ordinances that the Lord your God has instructed me to teach you so that you may carry them out in the land where you are headed… as the Lord, God of your ancestors, said to you, you will have a land flowing with milk and honey” (6:1,3b); “Then when the Lord your God brings you the land He promised to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give you” (6:10a); “for the Lord your God, who is present among you,” which is a Temple/tabernacle reference---the place the Lord dwells, “is a jealous God and His anger will erupt against you and remove you from the land” (6:15); “Do whatever is proper and good before the Lord so that it may go well with you and that you may enter and occupy the good land that He promised to your ancestors” (6:18); “He delivered us… so that He could give us the land He had promised our ancestors” (6:23); and “When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy” (7:1a). 

No One Knows The Hour (part 3)

Returning to Matthew and to the day after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which took Him to the Temple to pronounce a symbolic judgment against it in the mode of Jeremiah (and for the same reasons), along with which He referred to the Temple authorities as robbers (for engaging in insurrection against the God of the Temple---an insurrection that will cause Israel’s God to bring upon Jerusalem and its Temple the same type of judgment that their God brought upon it by way of Babylon, which are the thoughts that Jesus’ words and actions would have stirred, therefore setting him at odds with the Temple authorities and the people, as also happened to Jeremiah), Jesus returns to Jerusalem and to the Temple, having spent the night in the nearby village of Bethany (the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus). 

On his way back to Jerusalem, Jesus is reported to have caused a fig tree to wither for not producing fruit.  This echoes Jeremiah’s repeated use of fig tree symbolism, and therefore becomes a clear allusion to the nation of Israel, which was failing in its task to be a light to the nations.  This withering of the fig tree also functions as an allusion to the well-understood curses of the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus and the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, which the Creator God (as Matthew writes from the post-Resurrection perspective of Jesus as the physical embodiment of Israel’s Creator God) promised to bring upon His unfaithful people). 

This causing of the fig tree to wither, for Matthew, appears to stem from the reaction of “the chief priests and the experts in the law” (Temple authorities) when they “saw the wonderful things he did” (21:15a).  Matthew alone, to the exclusion of Mark and Luke, reports that following Jesus’ talk of the Temple as den of robbers, “The blind and the lame came to Him in the Temple courts, and He healed them” (21:14).  In addition, there were “children crying out in the Temple courts, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David’” (21:15b).  This is said to have caused the chief priests and the experts in the law to become “indignant” (21:15c). 

Those that represented Israel before their God were unable to celebrate Jesus’ entry in the way of Solomon as pronounced by Zechariah, they refused to repent when one who had been attempting to be a Jeremiah (and more than a Jeremiah) to the people for three years called them to account, and they refused to rejoice in what was a rather obvious coming of their Messiah (in the mold of Isaiah 61) and His healing of the blind and the lame in the Temple courts.  Little wonder then that Jesus spoke to and about the fig tree in such a way.  Matthew writes that “When the disciples saw it they were amazed” (21:20a), and wondered at what they had seen.  To their amazed inquiry, Jesus replied “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen.  And whatever you ask in prayer, if you believe, you will receive” (21:21-22). 

As these words are heard, one must not lose sight of the fact that Jesus is on His way into Jerusalem.  Matthew will move immediately to add “Now after Jesus entered the Temple courts, the chief priests and elders of the people came up to Him as He was teaching and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’” (21:23).  So the story of the fig tree and the words about the mountain are bracketed by Jesus being in the Temple (Israel’s God returning to Zion and to the Temple), where the legitimacy of His presence there is challenged by the Temple authorities.  This fact shall not be allowed to casually pass.  This makes the point that it is the Temple mount that Jesus has in view when He speaks about the mountain being cast into the sea.  It must be understood that it is the Temple that is central to Matthew’s narrative (along with Mark and Luke), and one must not lose sight of that fact while working towards an appropriate understanding of Jesus’ statement about the day and the hour that no one knows.   

Samson's Hair (part 2 of 2)

Samson’s hair becomes a mark of the Creator God’s covenant with him and with his parents.  Like Israel’s covenant markers, not cutting his hair was to be taken as a signal of their collective faithfulness to the covenant that their God had taken the initiative to enter into with them.  If Samson is a microcosm of Israel, then there should be other points of contact between his story, especially related to his covenant marker, and that of Israel.  What happens when Samson’s hair is cut?  The story reports that the Lord left Him, he had his eyes gouged out, he was bound in chains, and he was deported to the land of the Philistines. 

How does this relate to Israel?  The nation to which the Creator God referred as His firstborn son, that had been so improbably brought to birth through the events of the Egyptian exodus (as improbably as Abraham and Sarah having a child in their old age and as improbably as an infertile woman giving birth), was given instructions as to how to live so that they may appropriately represent their God to and in and for the world.  Though there is a large number of specific instructions to Israel, the primary instructions that will mark them out as the people of the Creator God are recorded in Leviticus.  There they are instructed: “You must not make for yourselves idols, so you must not set up for yourselves a carved image or a pillar, and you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down before it, for I am the Lord your God.  You must keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary.  I am the Lord” (26:1-2).  

As Samson’s hair was the response of his parents and himself to the Creator God’s covenant, so too was following these basic provisions laid out in Leviticus Israel’s response to God’s covenant with them.  It demands to be noted that it is neither a refrain from hair cutting nor the adherence to what is detailed in Leviticus that brings one in to covenant with the Creator God of Israel, but rather, it is the keeping of these things that is the glad response to the covenant activity of that God. 

What would happen to Israel if they failed to keep that which was their required response?  What if they worshiped idols, violated the Sabbaths and did not reverence the sanctuary?  Would their God cut them off and have nothing to do with them?  No, such would not be the response.  Rather, the Creator God promised that He would execute disciplinary judgment according to His covenant requirements and in accordance with the fact that He was recognizing them and establishing them as His covenant people. 

This is detailed in the same chapter in Leviticus, wherein the Creator God promises that horror, consumption, and fever will be visited upon His covenant people if they fail to live up to their obligations.  He promises that seed will be sown in vain and that enemies will eat whatever happens to be produced through that vain sowing.  He promises to set His face against His people and to strike them down before their enemies, as they are ruled over by those who hate them (26:16-17).  The afflictions go on and on and culminate with “You will perish among the nations; the land of your enemies will consume you” (26:38).  Israel is also promised that the horrors that their God will inflict will serve to “diminish eyesight and drain away the vitality of life” (26:16b). 

Is this not, along with the fact that Samson was ruled over by his enemies, almost precisely what is reported to have happened to Samson when he forsakes (though he did not actually cut off his own hair) the mark of his God’s covenant with him?  However, that same God also promises that “I will remember for them the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out from the land of Egypt” (26:45a), doing so “when they confess their iniquity and their ancestors’ iniquity which they committed by trespassing against Me” (26:40a). 

In the end, Israel’s God promises to bring them back to their promised land.  In much the same way, even though Samson has been bound, and even though the Levitical curses have devolved upon him, “His hair began to grow back after it had been shaved off” (16:22). As the Creator God would not forget His people, so He had not forgotten Samson.  With words that hearken back to the Creator’s remembering of His covenant with Israel, Samson, having been placed before the Philistines, having apparently and to some extent realized his failures, and having devised a rather interesting “exit strategy,” cries out “O Master, Lord, remember Me!  Strengthen me just one more time, O God, so I can get swift revenge against the Philistines for my two eyes!” (16:28) 

With that, Samson brought the house down upon himself and the Philistines.  Thus he perished among the nations, and was consumed within the land of his enemies; and thus, though a deliverance from the Philistines is brought about through his actions, the note of personal revenge has been struck, and Samson, though the symbol of his God’s covenant with him had begun to reappear (his hair growing back), dies along with the Philistines.  He does not experience a return to the land, but dies in his bondage.  Maddeningly and enigmatically, so ends the story of Samson.     

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 19)

Calling to mind the story of Abraham, and particularly the covenant and its purpose, not only brings to mind the failure of Adam, but also the story of Israel, along with its covenant and its purpose.  So with the simple use of a phrase such as “sand on the seashore,” Solomon (and his mission as the king over the Creator God’s chosen people) is intimately linked with Adam (son of God) and Israel (son of God), This link fostered by a reference to the Abrahamic covenant, which stands as the bridge between Adam and Israel, thus making sense of the covenant God referring to Solomon as His son.  If the author of the first book of the Kings is doing this, then one can reasonably suppose that Jesus is doing the same type of thing. 

Based on what one can go on to read about during the reign of Solomon, it will become apparent that Israel, during part of this time (and perhaps only during this time), is finally fulfilling its purpose of being a blessing to the nations.  It is during this period that Israel can be understood to be reflecting the glory of their God into the world, and causing all nations to seek the God of Israel because of the immense blessings that are being poured out on the nation in what it is suggested is an obvious way.  Israel under Solomon---presumably because the Creator God has gifted Solomon (upon his request) with “the ability to make wise judicial decisions” (3:11), so as to “distinguish right from wrong” (3:9) on behalf of the Creator God’s people---was approaching that which the Creator had intended for Adam, as well as what He had intended for Israel when they were called out of Egypt. 

Adam’s charge, of course, had been to secure the Creator God’s ongoing blessings for the whole of creation, with this charge also being reflected in the covenant with Abraham.  Israel’s charge had been to be and to do for their promised land what Adam was supposed to have been and done for the whole world.  Faithfulness to this charge would cause their God to enter in, and through Israel, extend His blessings to the whole of the world, as nations would look to Israel and subsequently to its God. 

It would be understood that this was occurring for Israel in the light of their knowledge of that which is reflected in records of the Levitical and Deuteronomic covenants.  So when one reads that “they had plenty to eat and drink and were happy” (1 Kings 4:20b), that “Solomon ruled all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt” (4:21a), that “these kingdoms paid tribute as Solomon’s subjects throughout his lifetime” (4:21b), and that kings and queens would come to Solomon (as representatives of the people that they ruled), these things are to be considered from within a state of reflection on the promised blessings of Leviticus twenty-six and Deuteronomy twenty-eight, with its blessings upon produce and livestock and the promise that “the peoples of the earth will see that you belong to the Lord, and they will respect you” (28:10).       

In addition, something to consider is the respective roles of Adam, of Israel, and of Solomon.  All three are referred to as the son of God, and all three are given a charge in relation to the dwelling place of the Creator God.  Adam was charged with being the Creator God’s representative throughout the whole of the creation.  If he was to properly perform in this role, the glory of his God would fill the whole of the world.  Adam failed.  Israel was then charged with being the representative of the Creator God in the land that had been promised to Abraham.  Their God is reported to have said that He desired to dwell among His people, and would do so as long as they obeyed Him and fulfilled the basic requirements of their covenant obligation.  Israel would fail at this from almost the very beginning.  Solomon was charged with building a Temple in Jerusalem that would be a dwelling place for the God of Israel.  While the Temple was constructed, and while the Lord is indeed said to have filled the Temple with His glory, in the end, though there was a time of great prosperity and blessing for Israel during his reign, Solomon would fail, falling to idolatry. 

Deceit & Judgment (part 1 of 2)

The human mind is more deceitful than anything else.  It is incurably bad.  Who can understand it?  - Jeremiah 17:9  (NET)

With these words, the God of Israel, presumably speaking through His prophet Jeremiah, sends forth a stinging rebuke against His covenant people.  Before attributing an incurably bad and deceitful mind to His own people that had been culled out from humanity so as to be the shining lights of His glory in and to the world, He accuses them of placing “trust in mere human beings” (17:5b).  The Creator God here says that He will curse His people that do such things, “who depend on mere flesh and blood for their strength” (17:5c), because in that, they demonstrate that their “hearts have turned away from the Lord” (17:5d). 

Of course, when the reader of Scripture stumbles across any mentions of curses, that reader’s thoughts should be caused to dwell upon the curses to be found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that are especially pronounced against idolatry, which are set in juxtaposition to the blessings that are to be enjoyed for faithfulness to covenant obligations, the proper worship and recognition of the covenant God, and appropriate bearing of the divine image. 

The statement about the human mind found here in Jeremiah is not necessarily to be taken as a generalization and universal condemnation.  Rather, it is specifically connected to trust in human beings, so it asks to be understood as a reference to idolatry.  Jeremiah is in the midst of communicating judgment and exile to the Creator God’s people, and in doing, lets them know that their idolatry is the key component of that judgment.  The implications of the judgment is that rather than being a light reflecting the glory of their God, and subsequently directing the nations to the worship of the one and only God of Israel, they had instead imitated the nations surrounding them and gone after their idols.  It is because of that then, that “The Lord said, ‘So I will let them know My mighty power in judgment.  Then they will know that My Name is the Lord’.” (16:21) 

Remembering that there is a wider context and a continuous narrative stream in Jeremiah, it is appropriate to back up to the fifteenth chapter so as to learn that the punishment to be rendered by their God for this idolatry will be severe.  The covenant God speaks about His people and says “I will have war kill them.  I will have dogs drag off their dead bodies.  I will have birds and wild beasts devour and destroy their corpses.  I will make all the people in all the kingdoms of the world horrified at what has happened to them” (15:3b-4a).  Naturally, kingdoms being horrified at the woes of Israel stands in stark and glaring contrast to what the God of Israel had intended for His covenant people. 

It is worth inquiring as to when the fate of this people was sealed?  It is suggested that the were going to suffer judgment “because of what Hezekiah’s son Manasseh, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem” (15:4b).  As is to be routinely found in the historical narrative of Israel, the king stands for and represents the people, with the people often subject to cursing because of him and his actions.  Later on in the Scriptural narrative, it will be possible to find another King that stands for and represents the people, and that it is through Him that the people of God become blessed.  

Joshua's Battles (part 6 of 6)

As part of that fulfillment of those ancient promises made to Israel, it is said that “None of their enemies could resist them” (Joshua 21:44c).  They are reminded that this was not taking place because of what they had done, but because their God was faithful to His people, to His promises, and to His creation.  Just in case they or an observer needed one more reminder of that, and of the reason that their enemies fell before them, the author takes yet another opportunity to point to the promises, writing that “Not one of the Lord’s faithful promises to the family of Israel was left unfulfilled; every one was realized” (21:45).  Not only would this have served as a reminder of all that had been accomplished on their behalf, as they would remember and review the events of the past, but it should also have served as a blessed warning of how things could go in the future. 

Israel had received promises from their God in regards to the covenant.  The Scriptural narrative shows that they had been presented with the ways of both blessing and cursing.  The blessings were as glorious as the curses were severe; and the same powerful, faithful Creator God that had made them secure in the land could become the powerful, faithful God that would bring about the curses that were outlined in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy if the covenant people failed to keep the covenant requirements that were designed to make them a light to the nations in reflection of the glory of their God.  The righteousness (covenant faithfulness) of their God could cut both ways, to their benefit or to their detriment, and this was not to be forgotten.  When times of destruction and exile (cursing) would come to Israel, His people could look back upon these words from Joshua and say “Not one of the Lord’s promises to the family of Israel was left unfulfilled; every one was realized.” 

As the events that are recorded in the book of Joshua were said to be occurring, and as the Lord was believed to be causing Israel to be victorious and to prosper, one can imagine Joshua thinking something along the lines of the words that are to be found in the third Psalm.  As the believer lives and walks an unfolding life of faith, empowered to “do battle” with the forces of darkness and evil as an instrument of the Creator’s God’s good in the world, as did Israel in the land, the believer is well able to consider the same words.  Thus, the believers joins with Joshua and says, “I am not afraid of the multitude of people who attack me from all directions” (Psalm 3:6). 

Why?  Because Israel and renewed Israel has a God of promise to whom they call and say, “Rise up, Lord!  Deliver me, my God!” (3:7a).  Deliverance, of course would have been and should be understood as redemption from cursing and the ending of exile.  Of what will that deliverance consist and how would it be brought about?  What did Joshua see?  He trusted and could say, “Yes, You will strike all my enemies on the jaw; You will break the teeth of the wicked” (3:7b).  Israel was delivered from one enemy (Egypt) to another (people of the promised land), and their God continued to deliver, working through them for strikes and breaking.  This is what was said to have been the experience of the Creator God’s covenant people against their enemies. 

The covenant God of Israel effectively did this same thing, in Jesus, for His covenant people for all time.  When the greatest act of covenant faithfulness occurred and Jesus was raised up from the dead, the ancient enemy of the covenant God’s creation was defeated.  Consequently, redemption from exile from that good creation was made possible.  The Apostle Paul wrote that in the Resurrection of Jesus, that death lost its sting (1 Corinthians 15:55).  Figuratively, death was struck on the jaw.  Death had its teeth broken.  It’s bite and it’s sting were lost, and though death still intrudes upon the creation and a lengthy campaign of battles against the forces of death will be waged, such are waged in the sure confidence that the promise to the Creator God’s people of settlement within a promised land---a renewed creation (the kingdom of God made manifest on earth)---will be realized.  Not one promise will go unfulfilled, because Jesus is Lord.     

Token Of Submission (part 1 of 2)

Don’t listen to Hezekiah!  For this is what the king of Assyria says, “Send me a token of your submission and surrender to me.  Then each of you may eat from his own vine and fig tree and drink water from his own cistern.” – 2 Kings 18:31  (NET)

Hezekiah is the king of the nation of Judah (the two tribe southern kingdom after the division of the Israel into north and south following the death of King Solomon).  At this point in the Scriptural narrative, Assyria has already conquered the northern kingdom, and has now set its sights upon furthering its conquest and bringing the southern nation of Judah into submission as well.  In fact, it is reported that “King Sennacherib of Assyria marched up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them”(18:13b).  Quite understandably, this action provoked alarm on behalf of Hezekiah and the people of Judah, causing Hezekiah to respond to the emissary of the King of Assyria by saying “I have violated our treaty.  If you leave, I will do whatever you demand” (18:14b).  Upon this statement, a duty was laid upon Judah.  This duty would be a regular payment of some form, as an indication of subservience 

Subsequently, in customary fashion in these matters and in order to cement Hezekiah’s loyal service, Sennacherib sent a messenger to Hezekiah.  The purpose of the messenger was to inform Hezekiah, through his subordinates, that he was powerless to stand up to the might of Assyria.  Accordingly, continued subjection should be considered to be the best course of action for Hezekiah and his people.  In addition, Sennacherib’s messenger communicates information that could very well have had the effect of conjuring up thoughts of the promised covenant curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and the judgment of God upon His people if they failed to live up to their relatively simple covenant responsibilities, when he says, “The Lord told me, ‘March up against this land and destroy it’.” (18:25b) 

The messenger goes on, resorting to intimidation tactics and invoking the name of Israel’s God as the One Who has not only sent Assyria, but Who will not in any way be able to stem the tide of destruction if the people choose to rebel.  At this point, the messenger of Sennacherib says, “this is what the king of Assyria says, ‘Send me a token of your submission and surrender to me.  Then each of you may eat from his own vine and fig tree and drink water from his own cistern’.” (18:31)  It is the words that follow this that should give one pause, and in so doing, offer a mental transport from this scene of ancient Israel into the very present life of faith as lived by Resurrection power, which is somehow delivered through the agency of the Spirit of the Creator God. 

The Creator God makes a claim upon His divine image-bearers and their lives, trumping the claim of all other kings and principalities and powers as He, through His messengers (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor/teachers, and His Word) speaks to them and says, “Send me a token of your submission and surrender to Me.”  To what are they submitting and surrendering?  They submit and surrender, by the act of faith (manifested as confessing allegiance to Jesus and His ways in both word and deed) to the message that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah---the crucified and resurrected Lord of all (the Gospel).  What is the token of that submission and surrender?  Naturally, the token is love, which is both concrete and abstract.  However, two very real, tangible, and visible tokens of such are baptism and the communion. 

Justified By Faithfulness (part 3)

In turn, the people of the Creator God would point to their covenant-making-and-keeping God as the source of all blessing, bringing Him glory through reflecting His glory into the world, and causing all peoples and all of creation to desire the blessings of His covenant as well.  It would be communicated and understood that these blessings could be had by submitting to the requirements of the covenant and thereby joining with the covenant people.  This submission to and adherence to the requirements of covenant would confer a positive covenant status.  Therefore, a person would be justified.  That person would be looked upon, by the Creator God, as being righteous.  That person would have received his or her justification.  

What were the additional requirements that were put upon the Creator God’s covenant people in association with the law that was delivered to them with a charge to keep?  The requirements are summed up quite nicely and succinctly in the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus.  There the covenant God says, “You must not make for yourselves idols, so you must not set up for yourselves a carved image or a pillar, and you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down before it, for I am the Lord your God.  You must keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary.  I am the Lord” (26:1-2). 

So to break it down to basics, and realizing that the requirements of the law were expected to be kept (and probably could be met), the covenant people of the Creator God (reiterating here) are instructed to avoid idolatry, to keep the Sabbaths (feasts/set times), and to reverence His sanctuary (tabernacle and temple).  Following that, for the remainder of the same chapter, their God outlines curses and blessings to be experienced for either obedience or disobedience to these basic principles.  This can be observed again in the later chapters of Deuteronomy.  This repetition is far more extensive, though it comes without a repetition of the three fundamental issues that prefaced the Levitical presentation.  There, the Creator God simply speaks of following His commandments that He had delivered to those that had been charged to carry out His will in and for the world.             

It must be said that, in each instance, the covenant that is set forth by the Creator God is based upon a belief in that God, in His power to perform, and in His faithfulness to carry out these covenants.  This belief, naturally, is set within a trust in that God.  Adam is presented as one that did not believe.  He is shown to be one that was faithless in regards to the first covenant.  With the Scriptural record as it is, one is left only to wonder at Adam’s response to the second covenant.  However, as Adam would begin to experience the corruption of his physical body as it moved towards the inevitable and promised death, along with the labor and toil with which he had to deal throughout his life because of the curse that was said to be placed upon the ground, it can be imagined that he was moved to a position of trusting belief in the God of covenants. 

Noah, in contrast to Adam, is said to have been righteous, somehow believing in the word of the Creator God before the promised flood would come, so it is reasonable to presume that he believed his God and took Him at His word, with this being especially so after the promise had come to pass.  It is said that Abraham believed God, and that this was counted for him as “righteousness” or “justification.”  As it would ultimately be the case for Israel and renewed Israel post-Christ, it was his belief that brought Abraham into a positive covenant standing, as this was the mark of the Creator God’s covenant with Him (though circumcision would be added).  This can basically be said to be true of Isaac and Jacob as well. 

Preaching & Believing (part 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

David & Goliath: A Battle With Death (part 5 of 7)

Furthermore, the sheer folly of the preaching of a crucified and resurrected man had power to convince people to believe in Jesus, submit to His claims in allegiance, and be willing to go to their own deaths for holding to such a claim, was further evidence of what was believed to somehow be the case that death, though still present, had truly been overcome.  If the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ had the power to loose its claimants and adherents from the grip and hold of death, supplanting all fear and replacing it with the hope of eternal life (more than going to heaven, but participating in the ongoing process of bringing the life of the age to come to bear in the present) through a trusting allegiance to Jesus, then yes, Israel, the Creator God’s people through the covenant, had a God.

David continued and said that “all this assembly will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves!” (17:47a)  Of course, it has come to be quite well known that David was armed with only a slingshot and some stones, whereas Goliath was undoubtedly out-fitted with what passed for that day’s state-of-the-art military equipment.  Those that were in a position to observe David’s going out to meet Goliath would probably have not thought very highly of David’s hopes of victory. 

Since Goliath’s issued challenge had been a man-to-man battle, with two men representing their respective peoples, in which the loser’s people would become slaves to the victor’s people, one can imagine the grumbling that would have been taking place amongst the men of Israel.  One must take the time to envision the attitude of the men of Israel’s army as David marched out with no shield, no armor, no sword, no spear, and presumable no hope.  It would not be far-fetched to see Saul’s generals and advisors pleading with him to not be so foolish as to allow this boy to determine the fate of Israel.  David however, was quite confident of the salvation and vindication that would be his at the hands of the Lord God of Israel.

Jesus, as one could also imagine, would take up similar words to those on offer from David.  He was clear and direct in His message to His people, as He would effectively, through both what He did and didn’t do (and said and didn’t say), tell them that “it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves.”  In Jesus’ day, the enemy that embodied death and that also embodied the Creator God’s continued cursing of Israel, was Rome.  As long as Israel was in continued subjection to a foreign power, which had been the case for more than half a millennium at that point, then they were still in exile from their land, regardless of the geographic location of the people. 

Subjugation to a foreign people was an ongoing implication of their God’s cursing, as outlined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  With this concept extended to all of mankind and all of God’s creation, subjection to death and its corrupting power implied that man, along with all of the creation which he had been charged to steward as the image of the Creator, continued to stand under the curse inflicted upon him and it by Adam’s rebellion in the Garden.  For Israel, because of this understanding of cursing, it was widely believed that a movement must take place to overthrow the Romans and to drive them from their land, so as to re-assert Israel as autonomous and independent.  This would come, many believed, through the leadership of their messiah, who would be a king in the mold of their great warrior-king David.  

Psalm Of The King (part 5 of 5)

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

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

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

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

Psalm Of The King (part 3)

So as Jesus explores these Psalms for the strengthening of His resolve and trust in His God, and as He continually considers what it is possible that He has been called to do and to be for Israel, it is likely that He came to see Himself as being the one that the Creator God will use, and do so in a very specific way, to bring about the blessings that are promised to His God’s covenant people.  Also, as the nature of the covenant, along with the requirements that were put in place to be a part of God’s covenant people (circumcision, reverencing the sanctuary, keeping the Sabbath, and avoiding idolatry) are considered, it must be remembered that Jesus, with His steps informed by His reading of the Scriptures of His people, takes the remarkable step of re-focusing the covenant requirements upon Himself.

Jesus declares, in no uncertain terms (again, with this informed by His reading of Scripture), that it is belief upon and allegiance to Him as the Creator God’s Messiah that will be the basis for being included under that God’s covenant, and therefore the basis for being able to experience the blessings (as spelled out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) to be had therein. 

Because the Psalmist connects God’s blessings with kingship (a golden crown for the head), Jesus, as part of declaring Himself to be Israel’s Messiah, is able to make the connection between His own Kingship, and the blessings available for the people of the covenant.  Jesus would come to believe that through His actions, along with the response of Israel’s faithful covenant God, that He would be able to bring about the blessings that appear in Deuteronomy.  He would be able to do this because, as He believes Himself as Messiah to be the faithful Israelite as well as the King of Israel, He is the representative of the people as He fulfills the conditions of the covenant that the Creator God made with Israel at Mount Sinai following the Exodus. 

Because Israel’s messiah is more-than-clearly presented in the Scriptures as a king for all peoples, Jesus’ re-positioning of the covenant requirements around Himself and belief in His Gospel (Jesus is Lord), allows Him, because of His belief in the supreme faithfulness of God that He relies upon and ultimately experiences in His Resurrection, to extend God’s covenant blessings to all peoples.  By this, the Abrahamic covenant comes to be fulfilled as well---all peoples of the world are blessed.  At the same time, the connection to the Levitical and Deuteronomic blessings points to the ultimate exodus of the people of the renewed covenant, as the Creator God redeems a people for Himself, through their believing union with Jesus, from the exile into which they had been sent, according to the Scriptural narrative, upon Adam’s rebellion and the fall of man.    

Maintaining the theme of kingship, the Psalmist also writes, “He asked You to sustain his life, and You have granted him long life and an enduring dynasty” (21:4).  The fact that one of the titles of the messiah was “Son of David” demonstrates the continuity of God’s promises.  Jesus, of course, is referred to on more than one occasion as the “Son of David,” thereby reinforcing that “enduring dynasty” that was rooted in a reliance on God’s faithfulness. 

The Apostle Paul makes this connection even more explicit, reminding his readers in Rome (and therefore under the nose of the one who sat in the seat of power as the son of god) that Jesus was “a descendant of David with reference to the flesh” (Romans 1:3b).  As the earliest Jesus-believers came to grips with the breadth of the implications of Jesus life, death, and Resurrection, and as their thinking quickly lined-up with what was clearly that of the one they followed and soon came to worship as the embodiment of the Creator God of Israel, the whole of the New Testament would come to resound with declarations of Jesus’ majesty and the eternal nature of His rule. 

Change Your Ways (part 1)

The Lord God of Israel Who rules over all says: Change the way you have been living and do what is right.  If you do, I will allow you to continue to live in this land.– Jeremiah 7:3  (NET)

As the prophet Jeremiah is still in the early stages of his proclamation concerning the destruction and desolation and exile that is to come upon Judah because they have failed to be what their God intended them to be, he passes along the instruction, from God, that His covenant people must “change the way” that they “have been living,” and to that end, must “do what is right.”  The Creator God tells them that, if they do so, then He will allow them to continue to live in the land. 

By speaking of the land, and such an allowance, the covenant God is attempting to bring His people to the point of remembrance of perhaps the most significant component of the curses that had been presented to them in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that would result from their not being faithful to the covenant into which they had been brought by their God.  Because the promise to their progenitor, Abraham, included the promise of a land, and because the defining moment of their history was the exodus event that would allow them to return to that land promised to their forefather, the greatest of all of the curses that were on offer from their God was the curse of being driven from their land and subjected to foreign oppressors, in exile from the land of their heritage.    

Along with those warnings rooted in their historical narrative and their own self-understanding, the people of Judah would have had ready access to the extraordinarily vivid reminder of what had transpired in the not-too-distant history of their northern neighbor, Israel.  More than a century earlier, Israel (the northern kingdom of the divided kingdom) had been conquered by Assyria and removed from their land of covenantal promise. 

The Creator God’s curse had come upon the northern kingdom, and exile had ensued.  It would be none too difficult for Judah to equate the exile with the promised curses, as did the prophets of Israel, and adapt accordingly.    That group of people had been scattered to the winds, never to be re-constituted in the form of the ten tribes that had composed the nation.  As seems to be the case, the warnings had come to Israel through their prophets just as warnings were now coming to Judah.  Repeatedly, Israel had been directed to change their way of living and to do what was right.  Because they did not, the covenant God faithfully executed His solemn, covenant promises by not allowing them to continue living in their land.    

The Creator God can be heard repeating Himself in the fifth verse of this chapter, where the reader finds “You must change the way you have been living and do what is right” (7:5a).  That’s twice in the span of just three verses, so clearly attention is being drawn to the covenant-violating actions of the people.  To that is added “You must treat one another fairly” (7:5b).  Now, because fairness is often taken to be such a personally subjective and eminently fluid concept, a right understanding is probably best served by perceiving this insistence on fairness as something more along the lines of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”