Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 25)

Continuing what has turned out to be a rather lengthy dissertation on widows (a normally dismissed and marginalized segment of the populace---Paul’s extensive treatment of widows should tell us quite a bit about the way the church should operate), Paul goes on to write “So I want younger women to marry, raise children, and manage a household, in order to give the adversary no opportunity to vilify us” (1 Timothy 5:14). From whence might this vilification arise?  It could arise from younger widows “going around from house to house,” learning to be lazy, while also being “gossips and busybodies, talking about things they should not.”  Again, the directive to marry, raise children, and manage a household fits well with that which has been said about overseers and deacons.  The overseer “must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity” (3:4).  Likewise, “Deacons must be husbands of one wife and good managers of their children and their own households” (3:12).

To the avoidance of vilification, Paul adds “For some have already wandered away to follow Satan” (5:15).  Here, he still writes about widows.  Lest one think that Paul is specifically singling out widows or that he is calling out women in general for being gossips and busybodies, it can be seen, once again, that the same type of language has already been on offer in his talk of overseers.  One must not allow the thinking that Paul is being overly harsh with the women of the body of Christ.  Rather, he must be heard within the context of his efforts at leveling out the church, realizing that Paul believes that all classes of people are to be treated equally. 

Whenever an initial reading of a passage leads one to believe that Paul is placing general restrictions on a class of people in such a way that could lead to the structuring of spiritual hierarchies, to the demeaning or restricting of a group based on ethnicity (Jew/Gentile), gender (male/female---especially the passages about women being silent in the church), or social status (slave/free/widow/children), or the erection of a spiritual authoritarianism inside the church, it serves the reader well to re-read and re-think the text until the conclusion concerning the text accords with the egalitarian nature of the church as it was envisioned by Paul (as he attempted to live out and encourage what he understood to be the mission and vision of the church as enacted by Jesus and informed by the prophets). 

Paul demands to be heard in his historical and cultural context, as the church found itself attempting to countermand, through the manifestation of the Spirit of the Creator God, the spirit of death that animated the world into which the church had been placed and out of which it had been called, that it may serve that world well (a bit of the paradoxical mystery of the faith---called out to be separate so that it may serve and transform, functioning as the kingdom of the covenant God and being the point of overlap between heaven and earth---the Temple---as an ongoing foretaste of the new creation and restoration of the earth).    

So as one considers whether Paul is being heavy-handed with groups of women, upon returning again to the third chapter, one reads “He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall into the punishment that the devil will exact.  And he must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil’s trap” (3:6-7).  This has followed from “But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?” (3:5), which has followed the fourth verse and talk of managing a household, controlling children, and maintaining dignity.  Remember, an observer needs to encounter the text on the lookout for Paul’s efforts at leveling out the body, in contrast to the culture, rather than setting up hierarchies.  

In This Is Love (part 11)

In the first and third of the temptations of Jesus that are recorded in Luke, interestingly enough, Satan’s challenge is prefaced by the words “If you are the Son of God” (Luke 4:3,9).  So Satan’s challenges to Jesus ask to be understood and come within the context of whether or not He is the Son of God. 

These temptations, and the written record of these temptations, reflect upon a time at which a messiah is expected.  In popular comprehension, this messiah would be the son of God in that he would be Israel’s king, but in some circles he would also be the Son of God, in that many believed it to be the case that the Creator God would take human flesh upon Himself in order to personally intervene on behalf of His people, establishing Israel’s rule over the nations.  As Israel’s king therefore, this would mean that the Creator God, through His son, was going to establish His own physically present rule over the whole of the world. 

So when Satan tempts Jesus, it appears that what He is tempting Jesus to do is to take a shortcut to acclimation as king.  He could turn stone into bread (an allusion to Israel receiving manna in the wilderness), and with such a miraculous demonstration He prove Himself to be the messiah and therefore immediately hailed as king.  Such would be a reasonable expectation on the part of Satan, because as would come to be seen, when Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fishes, the people attempted to come and make Him king by force, which caused Jesus to quickly withdraw into isolation. 

It would seem that Jesus knew that there was only one way for Him to ascend to the throne, and ultimately only one way in which He would be recognized as the Messiah (along with all that would entail according to the expectations of a great number of His fellow citizens), and that was going to be the path of suffering on an altogether unlikely cross.  That, presumably, is why Jesus refutes Satan’s insistence to worship him in exchange for earthly rule, and why He also rejects the idea of putting His God to the test by casting Himself from the Temple for the purpose of forcing a miraculous rescue that would have the likely effect of an immediate elevation to the throne of Israel.  Apart from that, Jesus may not have been altogether confident that the covenant God would come to His rescue if he flung Himself from the pinnacle of the Temple, as such would not have been an exilic suffering in the mold of Israel into which their God would enter in to provide deliverance.   

What does this have to do with Adam?  Well, where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded.  When the serpent tempted Adam with being like the Creator God, Adam acceded to the temptation.  When Satan tempted Jesus (the second Adam) with the opportunity to show Himself forth as God ( being “like God” for all practical purposes), Jesus refused.  Subtle to be sure, but here in the wilderness Jesus destroyed a work of the devil.  By holding on to the fate of suffering, love was put on display. 

To further reinforce the congruity between Adam (son) and Jesus (Son) as presented through Jesus’ experience of wilderness temptations, Mark adds that Jesus was “with the wild animals” (1:13c).  Adam, according to the Genesis narrative, was given “rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth” (1:26b).   Additionally, the animals that had been created were brought before Adam “to see what he would name then, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field” (2:19b-20a).  Adam, the son of God before Jesus, was very much with the wild animals.  Perhaps this is why Mark, drawing from the son of God tradition that would have included Adam, makes what seems like a rather out of place insertion about Jesus being with the wild animals during His wilderness trials? 

Subject To Rulers & Authorities (part 1)

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work. – Titus 3:1  (NET)

Why would the Apostle Paul write such things to Titus?  If we give it a moment’s thought, we’ll realize the eminent practicality of this communication.  We can embark upon the process of realization by asking what it was that was the substance of the message that Paul preached?  He preached, above all things, that Jesus Christ is Lord.  Along with that over-arching message, Paul preached the crucifixion and Resurrection of the Christ.  For Paul, the Resurrection of the Christ functioned as the demonstration of His Lordship over all things. 

Paul, along with other early believers, consistently posits that the power that raised Jesus out from the dead was unleashed into the world for and through the preaching of the Gospel message.  This unleashing was for the purpose of sharing eternal life (bringing the life of the age to come into the world) with and through those who would believe that message.  Those who believed the Gospel proclamation, and thereby acknowledged Jesus as the supreme Lord and Master and Savior, were then said to be in union with Christ (believing in Him and joining His kingdom movement), transferred from kingdom of the Satan into the kingdom of the Christ. 

The warning then served two purposes.  With his understanding of human nature, Paul would have been keenly aware of where it was the conception of Jesus’ supreme rule could lead.  As we come to terms with the substance of this message, and what it would mean for ourselves as we operate in the world, we’ll have to confess that it would be rather easy for us to take the position that, since we are under the Lordship of Christ, and seeing as how He is in fact the Lord of all, with all principalities and power and rules and authorities under His feet, then we no longer have any need or compunction to submit to the human rulers to whom we find ourselves subject.  Of course, this can be nuanced to take into consideration the idea that, in a democratic republic such as that which exists in the United States of America, that the citizenry is not properly understood to be subject to the governing powers, but that the elected and appointed officials stand in subjection to the citizenry.

That said, “If we are a part of Christ’s kingdom,” some might think, “then we are in union with Christ and rule with Him, so we do not need to indulge any human authorities with our continued obedience or support.”  Such thoughts that would have naturally arisen are why it was so practical and appropriate for Paul to tell Titus to “Remind them,” that being the believers to which Titus was responsible, “to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work.”

Another purpose served by this warning was eminently practical, in that followers of Jesus were, by definition, not followers of the Caesar.  They did not participate in the Caesar cult, nor the public worship of the Roman gods, and therefore were looked upon as subversive of public order, as the Caesar cult was a unifying force across a wide and diverse Roman empire.  With this perception of Christians coming to be widely held by those in positions of authority, and with various kinds of persecution potentially attached to this perception (if their leader was crucified as a rebel, it would be natural to crucify His followers that are continuing His rebellious mission).  Thus, the reminder to be subject, along with the insistence towards the doing of good works (deeds of public benefaction for their communities), which would show them to be the best citizens---indeed, the embodiment of what it would mean to be truly human.

Rebuking & Rebuked (part 2 of 2)

When we hear Peter call Jesus “the Christ,” we are forced to recognize that he was answering Jesus’ question with an acknowledgment of the possibility that Jesus was indeed Israel’s Messiah.  With that report, we must understand that the narrative represents Peter as saying that he believed Jesus to be the long-awaited King of Israel, in the line of David, on which rested the hope of so many.  It is a statement with both political and religious underpinnings and overtones. 

Having said these words, Jesus’ response was probably thoroughly surprising for Peter, as Jesus “warned them not to tell anyone about Him” (Mark 8:30).  In the highly charged atmosphere of the time, in which a messiah would seek to gain as many followers as possible for the purpose of “storming the castle,” keeping such things secret would seem antithetical, at cross-purposes with messianic expectation, regardless of the type of messiah one envisioned.  Along with that, there is the social component of the accrual of honor, which would also be crucial for any would-be messiah.  Failing to spread the word, though there was a risk of alerting Roman ears to talk of another king and so running the risk of sending Jesus to the cross prematurely, would work against the hopes of the covenant people. 

So in that day and time and in Peter’s mind (along with the rest of the disciples), what Jesus just said would have made very little sense.  Apart from the risk of alerting authorities that would have wanted to keep a movement in check, why keep this quiet?  As if it was not bad enough that Jesus issued them a warning not to tell anyone about Him, contrary to every urge that they would have had to quietly spread the word and gain supporters, “Jesus began to teach them that the Son of Man (a messianic title) must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (8:31). 

What’s that, Jesus?  What is this talk of suffering, rejection, and death?  Quite rightly, the disciples would have been stunned by this.  By saying what He said, Jesus was speaking the language of failure.  Israel’s messiah was not supposed to suffer.  A suffering messiah, with that suffering taking place on a Roman cross, was a failed messiah.  On the contrary, Israel’s messiah was supposed to make Israel’s enemies suffer, and bring Israel to the place of exaltation.  It was at least partially for this reason that “Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him” (8:32b). 

Undoubtedly, this rebuke consisted of Peter informing Jesus that they needed to make Him known, to tell people that He was the Messiah, to remind the masses of the miracles that He had already performed, so that they could gather allies, start an uprising, keep all of these things that He had just mentioned from happening, and usher in the kingdom of God in which Israel was indeed exalted above all nations so as to rule the world.  Indeed, the mindset of the disciples would not have been altogether different from most people of the day.  Though there were different ideas as to what the messiah would do, and the actions he would take, it seems to be an almost universally held notion that the messiah would free Israel from its subjugators.  Yes, messianic expectations were certainly Israel-centric.  Naturally, the course of history, and Israel’s own defining narrative, suggested that the route to be taken from under oppression would involve some type of dramatic calamity befalling an oppressor. 

Even after Jesus’ crucifixion and Resurrection, we get a glimpse of what they believed His Messianic purposes to have been, when they ask, “Lord, is this the time when You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6b).  It is with all of this in mind that we can understand what follows, when “after turning and looking at His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind Me, Satan.  You are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s’.” (8:33)  Jesus’ disciples were focused on what God was going to do for Israel.  Jesus was focused on what was going to be done by God, through Him, for all peoples.   

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.    

Good Shepherd (part 2 of 2)

Returning to the question previously posed, to whom was Jesus referring when He said that “All who came before Me are thieves and robbers” (John 10:8a).  With what has been outlined from this quick trip through the preceding chapters of John, we confidently propose that Jesus was referring to previous Messianic claimants.  Jesus was referring to all of those who had risen up in revolt and efforts to overthrow the nations that ruled over the land of Israel, grasping at that which was not theirs to take, and attempting to set themselves up as kings and rulers of God’s land and people.  Not only could this be directed towards all of those that could be looked back upon as potential and failed Messiah figures, but it could be rightly applied to Israel’s then current ruling, dynastic family, as Jesus adds “the sheep did not listen to them” (10:8b).  There were very few in Israel who looked upon the Hasmonean Herods as legitimate rulers. 

Jesus repeats Himself and says, “I am the door.  If anyone enters by Me, He will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture” (10:9).  The people were in constant expectation of the re-establishment of national sovereignty and subsequent superiority to the surrounding nations, as in the days of David and Solomon.  They were expecting their God to break in upon history and set up His kingdom in and through them.  This was the reason for the repeated Messianic movements and claimants.  They looked to the long-held promise of a land of their own in which they ruled themselves, knowing that as long as the present situation of being ruled by foreign powers continued, that they were still in exile from God’s promises to them.  It is in this context that Jesus informs the people that the way in which they were attempting to regain control of their land, was not the way that God had intended for them.  It was not the door, so to speak.  Jesus told them that He was the door, and that entrance into the kingdom of God was going to be provided through union with Him.  The people would find their pasture, their land, through what it was that He was going to do, and through their believing in Him. 

Turning His thoughts to the thieves and robbers, the pretenders and presumptuous usurpers that had come before Him (not Satan as the thief and robber), Jesus offers commentary on their methods, saying that “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy” (10:10a).  This was not God’s intention for His people.  Then, as it is now, it was not God’s design for His chosen people to establish and extend His kingdom by force of arms and violent revolution.  There was no need to steal and kill and destroy, as this is quite counter-productive to God’s plans.  Rather, Jesus, speaking forth as the Messiah that came to do the will of His Father, said “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (10:10b).  When Jesus speaks of this giving of life in abundance, is that gift to be thought of as being directed to Israel?  Naturally, that answer is yes.  However, we cannot disconnect the giving of life abundant from the statements about stealing, killing, and destroying.  In that, it must be understood that Jesus is also offering that gift to the Gentiles that were then in possession of the land---the gift of the blessings of the covenant God---in His establishment of the kingdom of God, which was contrary to all the then-current ways of thinking.  The people wanted their Messiah to steal from and kill and destroy the oppressors, but Jesus intended the opposite, desiring to establish the kingdom through the extension of His love, mercy, grace, and faith.  Yes, Jesus intended that the hated Romans, and all Gentile nations, to have the blessings of abundant life as well.      

Making the point about the nature of His kingdom and His role as Israel’s Messiah, Jesus adds to this and says “I am the good shepherd” (10:11a).  This use of “good shepherd,” owing to Old Testament prophecy (the book of Zechariah), was another way of speaking about the Messiah.  In this capacity, Jesus says, “The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (10:11b).  This was designed to begin preparing the people for the fact that their Messiah was going to be killed at the hands of the very ones that the people thought He would forcefully overthrow.  Previously, it had been the case that when a potential Messiah and king rose up, the evidence that the person in question was obviously not the Messiah was his death.  Execution or death at arms was the clear signal of another failed Messiah, but this was not going be the case for Jesus. 

Elaborating on this thought, Jesus presents a short analogy in reference to would-be Messiahs that had risen before Him (thieves and robbers), saying “He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.  He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep” (10:12-13).  How many men before Him had risen up to lead the people in revolution?  How many, when the pressure came and death threatened, ran away, leaving those whom he had previously led to suffer gruesome deaths?  As it relates to Jesus, the scattering can be understood as another reference to the prophecy of Zechariah (13:7), while also serving to make the point that Jesus, though He knew what was in store for Him in His pending crucifixion, was not going to flee from the wolf (the Romans and their cross) and leave His sheep unguarded.  No, He was going to be the shepherd that cared for His sheep, faithfully seeing His role through to the very end, for their salvation and life in His kingdom.  Driving this point home, He reiterates that He is “the good shepherd” (10:14a), and says “I lay down My life for the sheep” (10:15b).