No One Knows The Hour (part 23)

In conjunction with these Temple-related things that Jesus says will occur, He also says “this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole inhabited earth as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come” (24:14).  The end, naturally, is the fall of the Temple.  Lest one think that the Temple is somehow not in view, Jesus then goes on to say “So when you see the abomination of desolation---spoken about by Daniel the prophet---standing in the holy place” (24:15a), thus making a distinct reference to the Temple.  To this Matthew (and Mark) appends the editorial insertion of “let the reader understand,” thus indicating that this is an event of which those that are hearing or reading this discourse should be well aware (which could also serve as information that these written works come from a time period after that of which Jesus speaks has already occurred). 

The conclusion to Jesus’ thoughts about the abomination of desolation and the holy place is “then those in Judea must flee to the mountains.  The one on the roof must not come down to take anything out of his house, and the one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.  Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing their babies in those days!” (24:16-19)  Which days are those?  That would be the days in which the Temple is going to be thrown down, with not one stone left on top of another.  Jesus, speaking to a Jewish audience that would be concerned with such things, adds “Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath” (24:20).  Mark does not make mention of the Sabbath. 

Jesus continues ominously, saying “For then there will be great suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen.  And if those days (i.e. the days in which the Temple will fall) had not been cut short, no one would be saved.  But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short” (24:21-22).  For a people and a discourse heavily influenced by the seventh chapter of Daniel, this would sound a great deal like “While I was watching, that horn began to wage war against the holy ones and was defeating them, until the Ancient of Days arrived and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of the Most High” (7:21b-22a), which was prefaced by the promise that “The Holy ones of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will take possession of the kingdom forever and ever” (7:18).     

Jesus then says “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him.  For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (24:23-24).  When will this occur?  It will occur at the time that the Temple is going to fall.  Jesus helpfully adds “Remember, I have told you ahead of time” (24:25).  He then goes on to say “So then, if someone says to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe him.  For just like the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so the coming of the Son of Man will be” (24:26-27).  With this, Jesus links the coming of the Son of Man, which is not a heaven to earth coming, but a coming of the Son of Man before the Ancient of Days (presumably an earth to heaven movement), with all of these things that will portend and be associated with the fall of the Temple.  If one is being true to the text, this fact is inescapable.   

Love On John's Terms (part 20)

Jesus, apparently uninterested in the background of the blind man that He understands Himself as charged to heal, and concerning Himself only with the fact that He must “perform the deeds of the one who sent me as long as it is daytime” (John 9:4a), took steps to deliver sight to this previously blind individual.  The result of Jesus’ action seems to have generated confusion along with a bit of anger, while also demonstrating that this man was well-known to the community and that his condition was common knowledge.  Questions were asked:  “Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?” (9:9a)  Some confidently answered “yes,” while others said “no.” 

Undoubtedly, a natural incredulity was at work here, in that even if a person may have been reasonably certain that this was indeed the beggar with which they were familiar, the fact of his now being able to see was something of a confusing matter, as people simply did not go from being blind for an entire life to seeing---such was entirely unexpected and contrary to human experience (this then is not unlike the Resurrection).  Eventually, the matter and the man was brought to the attention of the Pharisees, who offered up their own line of questioning, while the author take the opportunity to insert the previously unknown fact that Jesus had performed this act of healing on the Sabbath. 

Presumably, for the author, until those concerned with the important matter of covenant markers (Sabbath-keeping, circumcision, and dietary/purity laws) were involved, healing on the Sabbath was not an issue.  This, of course, becomes the primary concern for the Pharisees, as they say “This man, “ meaning Jesus, “is not from God, because He does not observe the Sabbath” (9:16b).  Others disagreed.  The formerly blind man, when queried, offers his own assessment, which was “He is a prophet” (9:17b).  This, just as was the case with mentions of “Samaritan” in the eighth chapter, provides another connection with what has been previously heard.  This use of “prophet” again links Jesus to Moses, which is an ongoing theme of this Gospel.

The man’s parents become involved in the matter, and as it appears that they wanted nothing to do with this controversy because it will risk their standing in the synagogue (9:22), they insist that their son is more than capable of answering for himself.  Accordingly, yet another inquiry is made.  The formerly blind man is told “Promise before God to tell the truth.  We know that this man is a sinner” (9:24b --- a sinner understood as somebody who does not possess right covenant standing, rather than somebody who performs or fails to perform acts according to a subjective standard or morality and perceived righteousness). 

The man who was blind, but who now has sight, responds to this assertion by saying “I do not know whether he is a sinner.  I do know one thing---that although I was blind, now I can see” (9:25).  When asked to again recount the story of what happened, he again proceeds, perhaps unwittingly, to stir a pot of underlying anger directed towards Jesus by saying “I told you already and you didn’t listen.  Why do you want to hear it again?  You people don’t want to become His disciples too, do you?” (9:27). 

This produced an inflamed response of “You are His disciple!  We are disciples of Moses!  We know that God has spoken to Moses!” (9:28b-29a)  Of note, Moses comes into play again, which the audience (reader or hearer) should take as a rather ironic statement, as it has clearly been an ongoing point of the author to explicitly connect Jesus to Moses.  It also serves as an indication that a part of the stories that had been circulating about Jesus in His day, as well as being an indication that part of the ongoing means, in the author’s day, by which Jesus was either being discredited or by which adherents to His cause were being won, was whether or not He fulfilled the role of the prophet to come that would be like Moses.  This fits well within the overall sense that the Gospel of John serves in an apologetic function concerning Jesus’ role as the physical revelation and incarnation of the Creator God, while also doing a form of historical rendering. 

Experts In The Law (part 2)

Shortly thereafter, the experts in the law are again encountered, as Luke reports that “the Pharisees and their experts in the law complained to His disciples, saying ‘Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?’” (5:30)  On the heels of Jesus presenting Himself as a viable alternative, and indeed even a replacement for the Temple as He also presents Himself as a messiah-figure with all of the expectations that come with such a presentation, this criticism of actions in relation to Jesus’ table fellowship is offered. 

The statement that follows Jesus’ response, which was “John’s disciples frequently fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours continue to eat and drink” (5:33), is also critical of Jesus’ meal practice and His influence, and is a part of the preliminary efforts to discredit this man who seems to be gaining a problematic standing amongst the people (in the eyes of their leaders).  This, at least, is what Luke appears to be making an effort to portray. 

Moving on to the sixth chapter, the seventh verse states that “The experts in the law and the Pharisees watched Jesus closely to see if He would heal on the Sabbath, so that they could find a reason to accuse Him.”  In the twenty-first verse of the fifth chapter, Luke reports what the experts in the law, along with the Pharisees, were thinking.  In the thirtieth and thirty-third verses, voice is given to their thoughts, and Luke records what are essentially rabbinic challenges through which the experts in the law and the Pharisees seek to gain the upper hand on Jesus in what is going to be an ongoing activity of thrust and parry throughout the course of Luke’s Gospel, between Jesus and those who challenged Him. 

Now, with these words from early in the sixth chapter, Luke has moved his hearers from an implied understanding of a desire to discredit Jesus through the common and well-understood means of rabbinic challenge (part of the ongoing honor competition), to an open effort to find a basis for accusation against Him.  This is amplified by Luke’s report that, following Jesus’ response challenge to them and His subsequent healing on the Sabbath, and what appears to be Jesus’ victory in the eyes of the people in this particular challenge (based on the response that Luke records), that “they were filled with mindless rage and began debating with one another what they would do to Jesus” (6:11).  

The ninth chapter sees the next use of the phrase.  This time, it is on the lips of Jesus, as He is heard saying “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (9:22).  This comes on the heels of Jesus proffering two questions to His disciples, which were “Who do the crowds say that I am?” (9:18b) and “who do you say that I am?” (9:20a), along with Peter’s response of “The Christ of God” (9:20b). 

Peter’s response is better translated as “the Messiah of God,” which, based upon the myriad of beliefs concerning what it is that the messiah would do, included (based on the way that previous messianic claimants had gone about their business) the throwing off of Rome’s yoke.  Peter’s confession is a highly charged political statement.  Owing to that, widespread and public voicing of the claim could lead to an open and premature conflict with the governing Roman authorities.

Justified By Faithfulness (part 5)

For the Jews in Jesus’ day, and quite obviously on in to Paul’s day since it was something with which he was still dealing as evidenced by the subject matter of his letters, maintaining these marks of covenant status was important.  For a large number, these marks are what made them their God’s covenant people.  It was what demonstrated their righteousness, or their justification, or their right standing before their God, as people of His covenant.  Though justification was a crucial matter, Paul makes it clear, apparently following from what he knew of the words of Jesus in which He made belief in Himself as Messiah (Lord/King) the basis for justification, that even though “we are Jews by birth… we know that no one is justified by the works of the law” (Galatians 2:15a,16a).   

Bearing in mind what was being referenced when Paul writes about the works of the law, “No one,” the Apostle effectively says, “not even the people to whom God gave strict covenant requirements at Sinai through Moses, has a positive covenant standing conferred upon them by being circumcised, keeping kosher laws, purity laws, and keeping Sabbath.”  When it came to the issue of right covenant standing (justification), these were no longer relevant factors.  Paul himself would claim to have kept these things perfectly, but in futility in relation to the obligations of covenant, as he would come to realize that these things did nothing to secure justification. 

Was covenant now irrelevant?  Were covenant markers now of no value?  Absolutely not!  As has already been said, if one is justified, or is going to experience justification, then one must be adhering to the marks and requirements of the covenant that have been put in place by the Creator God Himself.  The issue at hand, for Paul, as he addressed both his countrymen and his Gentile brothers in Christ, was that, just as had been done before, the God of covenant had shifted the terms of His covenant.  The new and final covenant marker had been put in place, though belief in the power of God, through belief in Jesus as His representative, and His faithfulness to fulfill the promises of the covenant were still going to be paramount. 

Now, unlike before, when the Levitical requirements concerning idolatry, sanctuary, and Sabbath did serve as the mark of belief in the Creator God and His covenant, and adherence did secure the promised blessings (with disobedience bringing cursing), “no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” (2:16a).  This faithfulness of Jesus Christ, it would seem, is the power of the Creator God, represented in Jesus the Christ.

It must be understood that the performance of the works of the law are actually set at a great distance from the idea of doing good works as a means of achieving the Creator God’s saving justification and thereby earning a place in heaven upon death.  For the Jews of that era (and any era), as has come to be learned, that simply was not an issue, and is actually foreign to the Jewish way of thinking.  Good works were the manifestation of the Creator God’s blessing.  Good works were what would naturally flow from positive covenant status. 

Keeping the law would not have been considered to be good works.  Good works would have been the response to the realization of being a member of the covenant people of the Creator God, which was achieved by adhering to the works of the law.  In addition to that, heaven, as it is routinely imagined as a place of unending bliss, and achieving heaven, was not the ultimate goal of the Jew.  These realizations are terribly significant, because Jesus, Paul, and all of the disciples and so many of the earliest believers in Jesus as Messiah were first century Jews, living in the midst of second temple Judaism, under Roman domination, and therefore, still under their God’s cursing, according to the law. 

Becoming Blind For Sight

Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” – John 9:39  (ESV)

Leading up to this statement by Jesus, there has been a fascinating string of events, statements, and conversational exchanges, beginning in the first verse of the chapter with “a man blind from birth” (9:1b).  From what we know about Jesus’ mission, what can we say about the statement of our text?  Are we not safe in saying that Jesus, as He speaks these words, also presents the underlying premise that He came into this world to extend and reveal Israel’s God and His covenant faithfulness?  To that we could add that God’s covenant faithfulness was being revealed to those from whom it had been kept.  How had it been kept from some people?  The primary reason that Jesus seems to address is that Israel had kept the knowledge of their God and His covenant blessings from the nations by not being the light to all nations and the source of blessing to all nations that God had intended them to be.  This, of course, resulted in cursing and exile. 

So because there were people that had been kept from seeing, these people could figuratively be referred to as being blind.  Jesus said that He came to make it possible for those blind ones to see.  Not only that, but to make it possible for those who could see, who had the knowledge of the light of God’s covenant but did nothing with it, to become blind.  This may sound strange, in that we would wonder why it is that Jesus would want people to become blind.  This has to be understood in the context of the entire chapter, which appears to be why the author includes the story of the man that was blind from birth that is mentioned earlier in the same chapter.  In the story of that man, we learn that Jesus healed him of his blindness.  This was done on the Sabbath, invoking the ire of the Pharisees.  The Pharisees even went so far as to say, “This man (Jesus) is not from God, for He does not keep the Sabbath” (9:16b).  They questioned the man about his healing.  They questioned his parents about whether or not the man was really his son and if he was really born blind.  Ultimately, when the healed man questioned the stubbornness of the Pharisees, they derided him and said “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” (9:34)

In the verse following our text, we read “Some of the Pharisees near Him heard these things, and said to Him, ‘Are we also blind?’” (9:40)  The answer that was implied in their statement was “we see.”  In the context of Jesus’ words about His mission, along with the clear, underlying communication to His hearers in regards to Israel’s light-sharing, sight-bringing responsibilities under the covenant, the Pharisees were insistent that they were ones that could see.  They were not blind.  They were living up to the responsibility.  They were not under a curse.  Ultimately, they had no need to repent.  Through their diligence and zeal, they truly believed that they were being the light for seeing that they were supposed to be, but their turning inwards in national and congregational isolation, and their prejudicial treatment of the Gentiles, of those people that then stood outside of God’s covenant family, exposed the true facts of the matter. 

How does Jesus respond to their question?  He said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt, but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (9:41).  How are we to understand this?  It is in the light of the man that was born blind, and the judgment that the Pharisees pronounced upon him in the thirty-fourth verse, which was that of being “born in utter sin.”  As we consider all of these things in the light of seeing and blindness, we can hear Jesus telling them that if they would apply the same judgment to themselves that they had applied to the man that had been blind from birth, which was that of being born in utter sin, under a curse, seeing no light and therefore unable to lead others to the light, then they would have had a chance to repent from their sin of failing to live up to the terms of their God’s covenant with them, and thereby receive their sight.  They were quite willing to pronounce others as being under the curse of sin, but were unwilling to acknowledge that they themselves, in their own day, were still living under the curse of their sin, as evidenced by their being oppressed by foreign nations, which demonstrated an ongoing exile from the blessings that had been promised to them through the Abrahamic covenant. 

Because of this, because they believed themselves to have sight, to not being under the cursing of the blindness of covenant malfeasance, Jesus said that their guilt remained.  With all of this, Jesus informed them that those that they believed to be in utter sin, those who were not of God’s covenant people Israel, were the ones who were going to have God’s covenant faithfulness revealed to them and be included in the covenant family of the Creator God that was to envelop all nations.  The Pharisees, and indeed the entire nation of Israel, could enjoy the blessings of the covenant, by admitting that they had been blind guides, rightly cursed because of their failures to uphold their covenant obligations (sin).  Doing this, they would be able to see Jesus in all of His glory, as He revealed Himself and His majesty and His dominion, and through Him and the people that He would come into union with Him through faithful allegiance to Him as King, the blessings of God’s covenant would be extended to the entire world through the Gospel declaration that Jesus was King and Lord of all.    

Immediately (part 2 of 4)

As we move to the second chapter, Jesus addresses a paralyzed man, and declares to him that his sins are forgiven.  Some scribes, upon hearing that, thought to themselves, “He is blaspheming!” (2:7b)  The author informs us that Jesus perceived what was being thought about Him, “And immediately…said to them, ‘Why do you question these things in your hearts?’” (2:8)  Having said that to the doubters, Jesus turned to the already forgiven man and said, “rise, pick up your bed, and go home” (2:11b).  What was the response?  “And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out” (2:12a).  It seems that the one to be called “Lord” had instilled in him a sense of urgency as well. 

As we continue to trek through Mark, we find Jesus healing a man, in the synagogue, on the Sabbath.  With Jesus having done this, “The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against Him, how to destroy Him” (3:6).  As was already said, the forces that were arraying themselves against Jesus had a clear sense of urgency as well.  Jesus would go on to deliver the parable of the sower, speaking about the seed that would be scattered as the “sower went out to sow” (4:3).  Some of that seed, Jesus said, “fell on rocky ground, and immediately it sprang up” (4:5), but because “it had no root, it withered away” (4:6b).  That is an immediacy to be avoided, which we find out as Jesus explains the parable to His disciples. 

In the explanation, Jesus likens the seed to the preaching of the word of the Gospel.  When some hear the word, “Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them” (4:15).  For others, “they immediately receive it with joy” (4:16b), but because the word has no substance, because it is shallow, ambiguous, vague, filled with platitudes, lacking in a variety of necessary contexts, or offered with no sense of narrative flow so that it has no roots to penetrate deep, “immediately they fall away” (4:17) when persecution and trials arise.  The immediateness of the message of the Gospel cuts both ways.  However, when that seed takes root, it “sprouts and grows” (4:27).  This seed produces the fruit that Jesus desires, which first and foremost is the preaching of Him as Lord and its correspondent bent of action towards the establishment of God’s kingdom along the lines preferred by the Jesus of the Gospels, and “at once He puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come” (4:29b).  The proclamation in word and deed of the unadorned Gospel message is what brings forth a harvest.     

Then we find Jesus arriving in the country of the Gerasenes.  “Immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit” (5:2b).  This unclean spirit called himself “Legion” (5:9), indicating that it was a large number.  Jesus responded by casting the “legion” of demons into a herd of pigs, which subsequently ran into the sea and were drowned.  This is full of a great deal of imagery, as the symbol of the Roman legion that was responsible for that territory was the pig.  Having been freed from his captivity, the man begged Jesus to let him become one of His followers.  Jesus said to him, “Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how He has had mercy on you” (5:19b).  The man responded by preaching the Gospel, essentially proclaiming Jesus as Lord (in contradistinction to the Roman legionnaires that represented Caesar who was at that time recognized and hailed as the lord of all), as “he began to proclaim…how much Jesus had done for him” (5:20b).  A harvest was reaped, as “everyone marveled” (5:20b).   

We then come upon the familiar story of the woman with the issue of blood.  We find that as she touched Jesus garments, “immediately the flow of blood dried up” (5:29a), as she was healed of her disease.  Having felt a surge of His healing power, Jesus “immediately turned about in the crowd and said, ‘Who touched My garments?’” (5:30b)  This had occurred while Jesus was on his way to the house of a man named Jairus, whose daughter was “at the point of death” (5:23b).  When He finally reached the young girl, Jesus touched her and spoke to her, “And immediately the girl got up and began walking” (5:42a).  All who witnessed this “were immediately overcome with amazement” (5:42b). 

In the twenty-fifth verse of chapter six, Herodias’ daughter, having pleased King Herod with a dance, “came in immediately with haste to the king” and asked to be given the head of John the Baptist.  Though the king was vexed by this request, “immediately the king sent an executioner with orders to bring John’s head” (6:27a).  With this, it seems possible that Mark points us to the fact that the immediate nature of Satan’s kingdom of darkness stands in stark contrast to the kingdom of our God.  That which we are charged to do and to preach is a serious charge because it is serious business.  The Gospel must be preached, quickly and boldly, because lives are always and immediately at stake.    

Conduct In Step With The Gospel (part 3 of 3)

When we consider these desires of the flesh, and naturally find ourselves thinking of “sins of the flesh,” we should not be deluded into thinking of such things as drinking, smoking, and adultery, which are what we routinely and shortsightedly want to throw into that category.  Though this would be simple, it is far too shallow, and devalues the importance of the weighty issues with which Paul and the earliest Christ-followers were dealing.  As he puts forth these desires or sins of the flesh, Paul wants to remind his readers what it was that God’s people (Israel) had accomplished in their attempts to keep the law as the evidence, directed at God, of their faithfulness to the covenant.  This was designed to bring glory to themselves. 

Rather, keeping the standards of the covenant---the basic provisions of the law in regards to idolatry, sanctuary and Sabbath--- are what God said would lead to their blessing.  This blessing was to demonstrate to all nations God’s faithfulness to His covenant, through the visible blessings of His people, subsequently causing those nations to seek Him, and thereby bringing glory to Him.  Unfortunately for Israel, the works of their flesh, as we see throughout the histories of the Hebrew Scriptures, were all that would generally be evident: “sexual immorality, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these” (Galatians 5:19b-21a).  Yes, all of these things are to be found in the history of Israel, as they turned in on themselves and refused to be a light to the nations.  Paul saw this simple matter of divisions in the realm of eating together, in a keeping of the law (circumcision, Sabbaths, food laws) as symbols of justification inside the new covenant, as leading in this direction again.    

Contrary to our modern attempts at understanding this verse and utilizing it as a measuring stick for righteous behavior, this was not a list of personal, private sins of individual Israelites.  Rather, this pointed to issues that were corporate and relational, and generally connected to idolatry (which would inevitably lead to sanctuary and Sabbath issues).  When Israel would be viewed by the surrounding nations, rather than reflecting God’s intentions for His image-bearers for all the world to see, the Gentiles would instead see all of these things that Paul mentioned in verses nineteen through twenty-one.  We should not be amazed, then, that God brought the judgment of cursing and exile.  What should amaze us His longsuffering and merciful nature.      

On the other hand, the working of the Spirit, in the breaking down of barriers and extension and development of “the kingdom of God” (5:21c), as the Gospel was proclaimed and Jew and Gentile served one another through love, was manifested not in separation but in “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (5:22-23a).  Paul then adds, “against such things there is no law” (5:23b), which we can place alongside the fourteenth verse of this chapter, which says “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (5:14).  Doing this left no time for withdrawal and separation and inspections concerning circumcision.  Concordantly, all of these “fruits of the Spirit” should also not necessarily be seen as personal and individual traits and marks of private holiness, but rather, as the way in which the members of the kingdom of God, the body of Christ, behaved towards one another.    

Not succumbing to the desire to maintain those long-standing national separations, which would merely result in the works of the flesh that we saw above, would indicate that these people truly did “belong to Christ Jesus” (5:24a), and through their confession of Him as Lord, and the actions that followed, demonstrate a unity with Him in which they had, in fact, “crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (5:24b).  The passion and desire to maintain the distinctions pronounced by the law would and should fall to the side.  Through the extension of love towards one another, as evidenced by the working of the Spirit previously presented, there was less chance that these Galatians Christians would “become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another” (5:25). 

God had broken down the barriers that separated Him from man, and which had separated man from being what God intended him to be, so it would be the height of presumption for His chosen people, Israel and Gentile, then and now, to allow for the erection of barriers amongst each other that serve to do little more than thwart God’s intentions for His kingdom.  Equally sharing in the kingdom of God, regardless of race, class, social status or any previously understood standard of separation, especially in the visible and important area of table fellowship and the eating of meals, would be something that would cause those outside to take notice, and eventually serve to make God’s people a light to the nations.  Reaching for this ideal, by the working of the Spirit, was a manifestation of conduct that would be very much in step with the Gospel.                

This Jesus Is The Christ (part 1 of 2)

And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, Whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” – Acts 17:2-3  (ESV)

The setting here is Thessalonica, and the place into which the Apostle Paul went for the reasoning, explaining, and proving was a “synagogue of the Jews” (17:1b).  This was the heart of Paul’s mission.  This is what concerned Paul, himself a Jew, who had been, along with nearly every other Jew in his day, awaiting the Messiah---awaiting God’s entering into history to vindicate and redeem His covenant people.  Having come to terms with the fact that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah, what else could he do, especially considering that, owing to the experience of the Damascus road, he had been specifically appointed to this task by Jesus Himself.      

So Paul is in the synagogue, reasoning with the Jews about Jesus.  Most would have been quite skeptical of his claims.  It was not that Jesus was not liked and appreciated, the problem was that the story that was being told about Jesus did not fit with Jewish expectations concerning the expected Messiah (the Christ).  Among many other things, the Messiah was to be a king in the mold of David and of Solomon.  The Messiah was to have overthrown the oppressors of their nation, returning control of the land to the people of Israel.  Contrary to all Messianic expectations, this Jesus fellow had been crucified, just like so many potential and failed messiahs that had come before Him. 

The fact that Jesus had been crucified, regardless of all that He had said and done, was all the proof that the Jews of the day needed to establish the fact that, no, he was not the Messiah.  He had not overthrown the enemies of Israel.  He had been overthrown and cut down by those enemies in the way that they dealt with all challengers to the power of Rome and Caesar, by death at their hands on the cross.  He had engaged the hope of the people but been cut down.  Big deal.  Nothing to see here.  Time to move on.  Owing to these things, Jesus could not possibly have been the Messiah, so what more did they need to know?

This is the mindset that was faced by Paul.  It was not that the Jews were opposed to the message of Jesus.  Some were, but this would not have been true for the vast majority.  As far as they would have been concerned, this Jesus, while His ministry had been noble, had let them down like all the others, by not being a new Moses, leading a new exodus of sorts, resulting in the re-establishment of Israel as sovereign, autonomous, and independent in their land of promise. 

Based on all that they had been taught, had seen, or was relatively fresh in the collective memory of the Jewish people, Jesus did not meet the requirements of Messiah-ship, especially since He had been killed at the hands of the Romans, which would have been the most important point in the argument against the fact that the disciples of Jesus, Paul himself, and the other followers of “the Way” were proposing.  This is why Paul’s main task was to reason with them, from the Scriptures, and in doing so, show them, explain to them, prove to them, that it must be understood that Jesus’ death on the cross did not preclude Him from being the Messiah, but that His suffering and death (and therefore the Messiah’s death) was necessary according to the Scriptures. 

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.             

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). 

David's Idolatry (part 3 of 3)

David, far from being exempt from these potential judgments, is going to experience them right along with the people.  This gives great weight to the idea that David’s numbering of the army was David’s idolatry, and that the command to number the people was God’s pretext that would enable David to come to terms with the fact of his own idolatrous ways, before God delivered and executed His promised judgments on the whole of His people for their pursuit of idolatrous activities.  David’s response reflected his earlier admission of guilt for his great sin, as he says, “I am very upset!  I prefer that we be attacked by the Lord, for His mercy is great; I do not want to be attacked by men” (2 Samuel 24:14). 

Interestingly, in the midst of being given the responsibility of choosing which curse is going to come upon Israel, due to his and their idolatry, David comments on the Lord’s mercy.  He knows, based on his presumed depth of acquaintance with Israel’s history and their God’s dealings with them, that He will ultimately bring exodus to bear against this temporary form of the experience of exile.   We will also notice, with his statement, that David does not make a choice.  His most recent decision (the numbering of the army rather than the numbering of the people as directed) was quite faulty, so here he leaves the decision in God’s hand, asking to “be attacked by the Lord.”  So the curse of judgment is either going to be the seven years of famine or the three days of plague.  Indeed, the Lord exhibits the previously mentioned mercy, and chooses to deliver the three days of plague, as “the Lord sent a plague through Israel from the morning until the completion of the appointed time.  Seventy thousand men died from Dan to Beer Sheba” (24:15). 

This plague is said to have been carried out by an angel, as we go on to read that “When the angel extended his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord relented from His judgment.  He told the angel who was killing the people, ‘That’s enough!  Stop now!’” (24:16a)  Naturally, this would serve as a reminder of the angel of the Passover and the angel of death, and of the plagues of Egypt, and of God’s merciful, covenant-based sparing of His people.  Such a reminder fits nicely with the plague-inducing remembrances of God’s commandments against idolatry that were offered in association with potential curses of judgment, seeing as how, as we saw in our most recent look at Leviticus, that the warnings against idolatry are immediately followed by a reminder to keep the Lord’s Sabbaths.  There was, of course, no greater Sabbath for Israel than that of Passover, which as was said, would be called to mind by this angel of death that was visiting a plague upon Israel. 

Further on, attention is returned to David.  “When he saw the angel who was destroying the people, David said to the Lord, ‘Look, it is I who have sinned and done this evil thing!  As for these sheep---what have they done?  Attack me and my family.’” (24:17)  This further confession of sin, with reference to it as “evil,” lends even greater weight to the consideration that David was steeped in idolatry, with this in connection to the power represented by his military might and conquests, for it is idolatry (which serves as the root of a rejection of the weight of glory that attends rightly bearing the divine image and leads to inhuman behavior) that is regularly presented in Scripture as man’s great evil.  Along with this, David’s plea calls attention to the fact that, as king, he represents the people of Israel before God, thereby taking responsibility for the judgment that has fallen, and falling further into the merciful arms of the God of the exodus, in his desire for rescue for himself and his people, from this subjugating power that was sweeping the land as God was being “forced” to act in a way that was foreign to His desires and intentions for this people, this land, and this king. 

In response to this, “Gad went to David that day and told him, ‘Go up and build an altar for the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.’” (24:18).  David readily acceded to this directive, proceeding to purchase the threshing floor, so as to build an altar and to make an offering, so that the plague would be removed from the people (24:21).  In addition, from this man David purchased oxen for the sacrifice and items that could be used for burning.  The ground, the animals, and the implements for offering were offered to David free of charge, but David replied that he would “not offer to the Lord my God burnt sacrifices that cost me nothing” (24:24a).  “Then,” we read, “David built an altar for the Lord there and offered burnt sacrifices and peace offerings.  And the Lord accepted prayers for the land, and the plague was removed from Israel” (24:25b). 

The removal of the plague, of course, is equivalent to an exodus, as the exile-oriented punishments are brought to an end.  In addition to this, we know that the piece of land that was purchased by David would eventually become the place where Solomon would construct the Lord’s Temple.  Thus, in all of this, as idolatry has been recognized, and as there has been a reminder of the Lord’s Sabbaths, there is also something akin to the reverencing of the sanctuary, so that the people can once again experience the Lord’s blessing.