Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 10)

Condemnation, attempts at heavy-handed transformation, or a mission-denying withdrawal and separation are not the means by which either Paul or Jesus asked for or expected the culture to be countered.  Remember, Jesus saved his denouncements for the leaders of the people.  Rather, the culture is countered, and the  transformation into a culture that comes closer to living as the true humanity originally intended by the Creator, through the kingdom-modeling, sacrificial, love-motivated and service-oriented activities of the members of the body of Christ, as they demonstrably and tangibly live out, in imitation of Jesus their claim that Jesus is Lord, and that He is Lord even over the Caesar that bears the title of “son of god.” 

What appearance will be taken by these activities?  Naturally, one can find the answer on nearly every page of Scripture.  Believers can look to the Jesus tradition as embodied by the Gospel accounts.  They can look at Acts.  When it comes to Paul, an observer can look at the entire body of work that is attributed to him in order to formulate an answer to this question.  However, this study is focusing in on a letter to Timothy, to whom Paul refers as his genuine child in the faith, seeing there what can be understood to be, regardless of Timothy’s “position” in the church, a personally directed letter that demands a personal response of a single member of the body of Christ, who is presumably attempting to live and to serve as part of a community that is yet one small component of a global kingdom.  Thus, realizing that there is a helpful counter-cultural message in the text of the letter may show the letter to be even more useful than some have previously imagined.   

When one thinks about countering the culture, it is almost inevitable that the first thoughts run to laws and to government.  In many ways and in many places, humans are brought up to think in such ways, believing governments to be either the source of problems or of solutions to problems, and are thereby ingrained with an almost unshakeable desire to effect changes that they would like to see through the coercive power of laws and regulations.  Government is recognized as the locus of power for the enforcement of laws.  By extension then, a government is an entity that has the power to regulate behavioral changes.  Such thinking was probably just as true in the days of Paul and Timothy as it is now. 

As the church presented a counter-imperial and counter-cultural ethic, it would be quite easy for the members of the body of Christ, who saw themselves (and should still see themselves) as representative of a kingdom to which all other kingdoms are subservient, to slip into a mindset that being counter-imperial or counter-cultural also meant that they were to be anti-government, especially if that government was actively oppressive towards Christians.  It is quite understandable why their Roman rulers were suspicious of so many Christians, considering the fact that Christians claimed to serve a Lord that was far superior to the emperor, while at the same time affirming their loyalty to a kingdom that was not Rome. 

It was one thing to maintain loyalty to tribal deities and to long-standing territorial power structures that could be taken advantage of by Rome as a means of preserving order and extending its reach, and which could stand side-by-side with Roman imperial ideology and worship, but it was quite another to take a position that ran contrary to that ideology that also served to discount the worship of Caesar, and even going so far as to place a criminal that was executed by Rome at the center of its worship and allegiance.  This was a direct affront to the power of Rome and to all community and civic sensibilities. 

Triumph Of Jesus (part 2)

When it comes to the “triumph,” the subjected realms of the Roman Empire would be enlightened as to these happenings through the never-ending stream of Roman imperial propaganda (of which the Caesar cult was part and parcel and served to undergird), proclaiming the endless glory and power of Rome, the bringer of peace and security.  Finally, those that were defeated at the hands of Rome would be well aware of this grand event, as they would find themselves as very unwilling and unfortunate participants.

So what was this “triumph”?  The “triumph” was perhaps the greatest honor that could be bestowed upon a citizen of the empire.  The “triumph” would generally be connected to the leading of an army to victory over an enemy of Rome.  Also known as the “triumphus”, it was a both a civil ceremony and a religious ritual.  As just indicated, it was held in order to celebrate the celebrate the military achievement of an army commander who had posted significant military successes.  By origin and by tradition, the triumph would be held at the successful completion of a war on foreign soil---enemy conquered. 

Though there are records indicating the celebration of hundreds of “triumphs,” in line with the elevation of the Caesar to the status of “son of god” in connection with Augustus Caesar (the reason that Augustus began to be referred to in this way, with this epithet falling to the emperors to follow him, is that Julius Caesar, who was essentially deified at his death, was also said to have adopted Augustus as his son via his last will and testament, thus he could be referred to as the “son of god”.  Augustus is not the given name of the emperor, but rather, it means “revered one”), the number of “triumphs” dropped dramatically.  Between 27 B.C. and 166 A.D., there were only five recorded “triumphs.”  Therefore, in the time of John the Revelator, though few such events had taken place, these few events were accorded a place within the civil and religious liturgy of the Roman Empire.  As one would expect when power and prestige and authority moves from the many to the few (or the singular), the number of “triumphs” dropped dramatically upon Rome’s transition from a republic to an empire.   

On the day that the “triumph” would take place, the one being so honored, if not the emperor---in the vast majority of cases, a general, would wear clothing that would readily identify him as semi-divine or kingly.  Essentially, the one that would be referred to as the “man of triumph” was being trumpeted as something close to “king for a day.”  The clothing that he wore would be that which was traditionally associated with the statue of “Jupiter Capitolinus,” the supreme deity of Rome.  This would include a pure white and gold toga, a laurel crown, and red boots.  He might even have his face reddened in honor of the god whose garments he was presumed to be wearing, albeit briefly.  Obviously, if it was the emperor himself, then his divinity, along with his kingly status, would be a given and implied. 

The one being celebrated, the man of triumph, would ride through the streets of Rome in a chariot.  He would do so at the head of a procession with his army and the spoils of his victorious campaign of warfare trailing behind him.  His army would be unarmed.  The only weapon (or weapons, as there would often be more than one) to be found within the procession would be something known as the “fasces,” carried by the bodyguard of the honoree.  Though carried by his guard, it would be understood that this weapon is one that had been truly wielded, and would be well handled, by the celebrant.  The “fasces” is a bundle of sticks, tied together, with the blade of an axe emerging from the center of the bundle.  Traditionally, this symbolized power and jurisdiction, and the power of life over death.  It often served as a symbol of Rome itself. 

Triumph Of Jesus (part 1)

He has a name written on His clothing and on His thigh: ‘King of kings and Lord of lords.’” – Revelation 19:16  (NET)

In the time period in which the Apocalypse of John (also known as the book of Revelation) was composed, there was a well known ritual within the Roman Empire.  This ritual was referred to as a “triumph.”  All were familiar with this ritual, especially the residents of the city of Rome, as this would be the place at which the greatest of “triumphs” would take place.  Along with those who were privileged to witness such things in person, those who participated in the Caesar cult, who worshiped Caesar as a god (or son of god), though residing in far-flung regions of the empire, would most assuredly have been aware of this glorious celebration, as it would serve to reinforce proscriptions concerning the divinity of the Caesar.  This is especially true if the “triumph” was in celebration of the Caesar himself, though the ritual was not limited to the emperor, and could be afforded to a general of Rome. 

Speaking of the worship of Caesar, which must be comprehended in accordance with any thoughts about the “triumph,” one must realize that the cult that was dedicated to the worship of the emperor and his household was believed to be one of the most popular (if not the most popular) cults of the ancient world in which John the revelator would take up his pen.  An excellent example of the honor afforded to the divine emperor an inscription from the Provincial Assembly of Asia that took place in the year 9 B.C. 

It reads: “The most divine… we should consider co-equal to the beginning of all things…; for when everything was falling [into disorder] and tending toward dissolution, he restored it once more and gave to the whole world a new aura; …then common good fortune of all…The beginning of life and vitality. …All the cities unanimously adopt the birthday of the divine as the new beginning of the year…Whereas Providence, which has regulated our whole existence…has brought our life to the climax of perfection in giving to us (this man), whom it [Providence] filled with strength  the welfare of men, and who being to us and our descendants as Savior , has put an end to war and has set all things in Order; and [whereas] having become [god] manifest, has fulfilled all the hopes of earlier times… in surpassing all the benefactors who proceed him…, and whereas, finally, the birthday of the god has been for the whole world the beginning of the good news concerning him [therefore let a new era begin from his birth]”. 

One must presume that John, exiled to the island of Patmos by the empire, would also have been familiar with the grand celebratory event of the “triumph”.  To go along with this point, the seven cities of Asia Minor to which John writes in his apocalypse, are believed to be strong centers of emperor worship, which serves as a bit of a backdrop to John’s message to those churches.  The Revelation, “Apocalypse” in Greek because of its use of almost exclusively apocalyptic language (“apocalyptic” meaning “behind the veil”) to present the Creator God’s perspective on things, as can be seen in regular use in the writings of the Hebrew prophets (while also being scattered throughout the historical and poetical/wisdom writings as well), asks to be read with the Roman empire, its Caesar cult, and its imperial pronouncements, standing in the background and most assuredly coloring the thoughts of its intended audience. 

Evidence of this worship was to be found in virtually every significant city of the empire, with cities even competing with each other to show forth their commitment to the cult through the erection of temples and statues and the offering of substantial sacrifices, so as to receive greater imperial (and therefore divine) benefaction.  Indeed, a portion of the liturgy surrounding the worship of Caesar indicated that Caesar had been faithful to his subjects, so his subjects, in turn, were to be faithful to him.  The Greek phrase that was employed to communicate this message was “ek pistis eis pistin.”  This is generally translated as “from faith to faith,” and is co-opted by the Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Romans (right under Caesar’s nose), and made to more properly apply to the true King and His subjects.   

Seeing God (part 9 of 9)

Now why does this matter?  It matters because of what happens in conjunction with this particular report of the activity of the Son of Man.  Jesus goes on to say that “All the nations will be assembled before Him, and He will separate people from one another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  He will put the sheep on His right and the goats on His left.  Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for  you from the foundation of the world.’” (Matthew 25:32-34) 

Paying close attention now, it is possible to learn why they will inherit the kingdom (mind you, this is not about going to a place called heaven, but rather, living in and possessing and establishing the Creator God’s kingdom brought to earth), as Jesus (the Son of Man, the Son of God, the King) says “For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited Me in, I was naked and you gave Me clothing, I was sick and you took care of Me, I was in prison and you visited Me” (25:35-36).  This sounds an awful lot like the use of treasure.  Might it be the case that one is supposed to think, at this point, about the construct of purity in heart from earlier in Matthew? 

Matthew goes on to report the response from those to whom Jesus has spoken, as he records Jesus saying “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink?  When did we see You a stranger and invite You in, or naked and clothe You?  When did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?’” (25:37-39)  After Jesus has detailed, and after His hearers have repeated the use of treasure, illustrated by food, drink, hospitality and shelter, clothing, and the gift of self and time, which can now be understood as the demonstration of purity of heart (it is not difficult to see in these things the care that the Creator God demands be given to resident foreigners, orphans, widows, and the poor), the righteous respond most interestingly. 

Just in case it passed un-noticed, the response contains three uses of “see You.”  It is asked, “when did we see You.”  Here there is a demonstration of purity of heart directed towards the King (Jesus, God), followed by a seeing.  There it is!  This is the answer for which we this study been searching.  To seal the deal and close out this study, look at what comes next.  “And the King will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of Mine, you did it for Me” (25:40).  Those that give of themselves and their treasure in these ways: providing food, drink, clothing, shelter, and care to fellow travelers in this world that also, however broken and marred, bear the same divine image with which all have been endowed, reveal that they are pure in heart.  Yes, according to Jesus, in doing these things they have seen, and do indeed see God.          

A Table In Philippi (part 2 of 2)

Having said that, it is interesting to see how early Christians put all of this familiar language and imagery to use.  Certainly it would have been said of the Caesar that “the gods exalted him and have given him the name above every name, and that at the name of Caesar every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Caesar is Lord.”  Unlike Caesar, however, it was said of Jesus that His Lordship over all (including Caesar) came about through a process that the rulers of the world would not have supposed. 

Whereas Caesar positioned himself as the son of god (divi filius) and laid claim to his rule according to this proclamation, Jesus is said to have “existed in the form of God” but “did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped.”  Whereas Caesar exalted himself and enslaved others to extend and enrich the empire of the one referred to as the son of god, to bring about the kingdom of the Creator God, Jesus countered the Caesar “by taking on the form of a slave.”  Whereas Caesar and his sycophantic worshipers lauded him as being a man among men and therefore endowed by the gods with the right to rule because of the superiority of his very nature, the true Emperor, that being Jesus, came “looking like other men” and “sharing in human nature.”  The dichotomy that is being drawn is stark indeed. 

Caesar, of course, inflicted his power (the pax Romana) upon the peoples of the world by the looming threat of death at the end of a sword, whereas Jesus became “obedient to the point of death.”  The Roman cross and its accursed death was the emblem of power of Caesar and of his right to unchallenged rule.  All those that presumed to challenge his divinely appointed and sanctioned rule would meet their horrible ends upon that emblem. 

So naturally, as the hymn continues the contrast, Jesus, as the anti-Caesar, went to “death on a cross,” with His Resurrection proving that the great powers of the world (Rome, Caesar, death) had no power over Him or over any member of the kingdom of the Creator God.  Whereas the cross was meant to shame and humiliate, it became Jesus’ path to honor and exaltation (as the Philippian passage clearly demonstrates the kingdom ideal of the first becoming last and the last becoming first).  This, of course, was contrary to all thinking in that day. 

The fact that the early church so freely employed the language of death by crucifixion, within a world that had a robust understanding of the explicit implications of such a death (you’re not a king), and within a Jewish world that saw such a thing as evidence of their God’s highest cursing, gives tremendous weight to the firm belief in the fact of Jesus’ physical Resurrection into a world that was materially changed by that very fact.  The Resurrection stands as the only explanation for the language about Jesus that is here employed.  It remains to be concluded that if there was the smallest doubt that Jesus did not physically raise from the dead, then the church would certainly not give triumphant voice to the fact of His crucifixion at the hands of Rome.    

In This Is Love (part 18 of 18)

It is from that insistence about those that are the sons of the Creator God that Paul goes on to write of the creation that eagerly awaits the revelation of those sons of God (Romans 8:19).  Paul seems to insist that the creation, and indeed the beings that have been charged with the stewardship of that creation, await the revelation of the sons of the Creator God so that they might suffer alongside and on behalf of the creation as did Jesus, and so that they might destroy the works of the devil by which they are enslaved---even if they are part of that group of image bearing stewards that have not yet realized the fact of their own enslavement. 

So it is in this suffering that one finds love.  It is “not that we have loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10b).  It is here that one must not overly personalize this statement and think of sins in the usual way of petty moral failings.  One must think of the larger sin of idolatry---of not worshiping the Creator and of improperly bearing His image.  Jesus addresses this in that He not only reveals the Creator God, but He perfectly bears the image of that God, and therefore, shows forth what the Creator expected and expects of His human creation. 

His ultimate self-sacrifice, trusting with a great hope in His God’s power for resurrection and re-creation, shows the way and the truth, along with that which is productive of eternal life (properly understood).  His reported giving over of the Spirit is taken to be the impartation of the power that brought about His Resurrection, and that imparted Spirit gives the desire and the ability to enter into self-sacrifice, while trusting that all that is done in His name will remain because the recipient also look towards the experience of a resurrection, just like Jesus.  This self-sacrifice is thus rooted in the same love that the Creator God showed for the world in the repeated sending of His sons which culminated in the sending of the Son, so that He could, in turn, send a new son (the church) into the world to prepare for the return of the Son. 

It is with these thoughts ringing in open ears that duty is to be considered, with that duty being the ongoing responsibility of the church (as the son of God) to destroy the works of the devil.  How does the last of the revealed sons of God do this?  The Johannine author writes “Dear friends, if God so loved us, then we also ought to love one another” (4:11).  How is this love shown?  It is shown through the embodiment of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord and this demands a certain response), and living as if there is a living and reigning King who gave His life and His all, and seeking to follow His example and His voice (food, clothing, cups of cold water, visiting prisoners, etc…) while also giving voice to that allegiance so that those that submit to that King might be used in somehow sending His power into the world, so that it is never forgotten that it is not by accomplished through one’s own might or power, but that it is by His Spirit that light overtakes darkness. 

Why embody the Gospel?  Because “No one has seen God at any time” (4:12a), which is the unfortunate by-product of the fall.  This is a distortion of what the Creator God had intended.  His son is to be the representative of His glory that will cause all to honor Him.  Therefore, “If we love one another, God resides in us, and His love is perfected in us” (4:12b), and this will enable the world to see God.  Yes, “He has given us of His Spirit” (4:13b) so that we might “testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world” (4:14b). 

Is the church of the Christ, as the son of God in and for the world today, the Savior of the world?  The immediate response is “of course not,” but to that is added a “well, yes and no.”   The “no” comes because none can be the Son that Jesus was.  The “yes” is uttered because those that comprise the church as the son of God are the ambassadors of the Creator God’s love and purpose, as those that are supposed to turn men to the God as revealed in the Christ, compelling a saving allegiance to that God through the Christ, “because just as Jesus is, so also are we in this world” (4:17b), loving the world by the Spirit “because He loved us first” (4:19b).        

In This Is Love (part 17)

As a recognized son of God, Adam must be understood to have been given a responsibility of covenant that would aid him in identifying a creative power beyond himself.  The mark of his covenant was the commandment to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  To do so would be to eat to his own peril, as death would be the result.  In contrast, adhering to the commandment would be life for him, and he would presumably never feel the usurping encroachment of death. 

Israel, as a son of God, was given a heady responsibility as well.  Their mark of covenant was the law.  Most specifically, their covenant required them to keep a series of Sabbaths, reverence the sanctuary of their God, and to worship the Creator God exclusively.  Their adherence to these requirements would be life to them, causing the accrual of blessings untold to them (Leviticus 26 & Deuteronomy 28), whereas violations would bring the requisite and promised curses, ultimately resulting in exile and death.  The son of God that was Solomon received a warning related to idolatry, but was offered the promise of long life if he were to make proper use of the gifts bestowed upon him by the Creator God in service to that God’s people and as that God’s representative to the world. 

Jesus, the unique Son of God as the physical embodiment of the Lord God of Israel, performed the work to which He had been tasked, and re-oriented the promises and blessings and cursings and life and death around Himself.  He commissioned and purposed a renewed people of the Creator God with a very much old covenant task.  The new mark of that old covenant task---the destruction of the works of the devil---would be the proclamation of the fundamental Gospel message that Jesus was indeed the crucified and resurrected Messiah and Lord of all. 

Adherence to this idea and this task would mean life---eternal life (not a never-ending life in a far-off place called heaven, thought of in such a way as to make this life and world secondary and almost irrelevant, but rather, the life of the age to come intruding upon this present age).  However, it would not just mean eternal life for the one that embraced the belief and what it required, but it meant life would be communicated into this world by the very act of proclaiming this Gospel message. 

Speaking forth the Gospel, along with manifesting the power of the Gospel in deed (which would mean service to the world because of and in response to the call of its King), would actually be activated by the power that raised up Jesus from the dead, while also activating that same power in the place where the Gospel was being preached (in word and deed).  This, in itself, would somehow effect transformation in minds and in lives, along with the destruction of evil and the defeat of death---the ongoing and eventual renewal of the creation along with the renewal of those that had been made in the Creator God’s image to steward God’s creation.  This renewal is always happening in incremental stages but it is never complete, as it is the Holy Spirit’s mysterious working through those that are now called sons of God, to provide them and the world a glimpse of heaven come to earth (the realm of the Creator God overlapping the realm of man), in advance of it finally and fully being so. 

The son of God for this world in which the kingdom of God has been inaugurated and in which Jesus is the resurrected King is the church of the Christ.  Just as the Creator God has placed numerous sons in this world, so too is this particular son placed in the world to shine the light of His glory, and to carry on the long-established mission of the Son, doing so in and with the same Spirit, as was promised.  As Paul communicates to the Roman congregation, again relying on the context of the son of God tradition and writing “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God,” adding “The Spirit Himself bears witness to our spirit that we are God’s children.  And if children, then heirs (namely, heirs of God and also fellow heirs with Christ)---if indeed we suffer with Him so we may also be glorified with Him” (8:14,16-17).  

In This Is Love (part 16)

This realization gives an even greater weight to Paul’s apparent thinking about the church that is presented in the first chapter of Ephesians.  There, Paul undergirds the entirety of the Christian life with the premise of being “in Christ.”  With what might very well be a line of thinking that is shaped by Israel’s son of God tradition, he writes about the Creator God’s adoption of sons through Jesus (1:5), and presents the church as “His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (1:23). 

It is almost as if Paul, along with the author of the works that bear the name of John, believe that the church of Jesus the Christ has been specially and purposefully appointed to take the place of Jesus in the world, and to be His representatives (with a nod to the underlying comprehension of Jesus as the true King of the cosmos).  Of course, that is exactly what they believe, with Paul reinforcing such thinking elsewhere by speaking of those that are in union with the Christ in purpose and mission as ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20), and as the church as the manifestation and extension of the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) in the world (5:21). 

Beyond the constant repetition of the theme that those who believe in Jesus have become the sons of the Creator God (which is to be contemplated in terms of the mission to destroy the works of the devil---as outlined by Jesus words and actions undertaken in the grand son of God tradition), there is the demonstration of the foundations of the church as such, which has been previously referenced in the course of this study.  To that point, after His Resurrection, upon His first appearance to His disciples, Jesus is said to have told them that “Just as the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (John 20:21).  With this, Jesus was sending His disciples into the world, as revealers. 

As Jesus had been the direct revelation of the Creator God, so would His disciples now reveal that God through revealing and proclaiming Jesus and the message that He is Lord of all.  This revelation, among other things, as a continuation of the Creator God’s purpose for His revealed and revealing sons, would have as its purpose the destruction of the works of the devil.  It should be noted that the words of sending that Jesus employed carried an echo of His baptism, when the voice of confirmation and approbation spoke from heaven.  Likewise, when Jesus “breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” (20:22), the repetition of His baptismal scene (not to mention the animating of Adam) was continued, as His delivery of the Holy Spirit to them attunes the reader to the previously reported descent of the dove.  As it was said about Jesus, so too could it be said of those that would go forth to speak and live out the word of His kingdom---this is “the Chosen One of God” (John 1:34b). 

It is quite possibly with all of these things in mind that the same author would pen “By this the love of God is revealed in us: that God has sent His one and only Son into the world so that we may live through Him” (1 John 4:9).  By what is taken to be the act of receiving the Spirit of the Creator God and so effectively becoming living beings for the first time, the church is now understood to be a son not unlike Adam---a new creation charged to steward the Creator God’s creation/kingdom and reflect His glory into the world by rightly bearing His image and reminding the world of its true Lord and King. 

Making this connection is not at all untenable, as Adam was said to have received his life through the very breath of the covenant God, Jesus is referred to by those that undertook to comprehend and share about His life and mission and its meaning as the last Adam, and the church operates as the present and active body of the Christ to be the living and breathing and perpetual witness of the love of the Creator God that was made supremely manifest in the life and death of the Son. 

In This Is Love (part 15)

Though Jesus was not one hundred percent unique to the point that He would not be recognized and understood by anybody, He was obviously and distinctively set apart from anybody that came before or that would come after in a number of ways.  It is not necessary to here go very deeply into this point, but it is almost needless to say that the crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the ascension, combined with the portended effects and meanings of those three things in the messianic context provided them by Jesus and the expectations and hopes of the culture in general, position Jesus as the unique Son of God in a way that greatly distinguishes Him from the entities to be found and readily understood within the long son of God tradition recognized by Israel.  Though the acts were unique, the purpose remained the same, as it can be wholeheartedly agreed upon that Jesus was revealed---put forth as the Son of God in and for the world---to destroy the works of the devil. 

Jesus announced His mission in a synagogue in Nazareth by quoting from a familiar passage in Isaiah.  There, He is said to have informed His hearers that He had been “anointed to proclaim good news to the poor… to proclaim release to the captives…the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18b).  Later on, when John the Baptist would make an inquiry about Jesus and His mission, Jesus instructs John’s disciples to tell him that “The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news proclaimed to them” (Luke 7:22).  To this list can be added the casting out of demons.  Does this not sound very much like the destruction of the works of the devil? 

Jesus is set forth as one who went about engaging in workings that served the purpose of eliminating that which was marring the Creator God’s image bearers.  When He touched and when He spoke, doing so in the authoritative context of the declaration of the kingdom of God, He was revealing the Creator God to men.  He was forcing humanity to center their attention upon Himself, and in so doing, away from all else that could claim its allegiance.  This, in the most basic sense, could be understood to be that which destroyed the works of the devil.  That which was out of joint and out of place was set to rights when the men and women to whom He came were able to set their gaze upon the one that was revealing the Creator God through His person and His work.

That destruction of the devil’s works, which, big picture, had long been the delivery of death to humanity and to the world, would be accomplished in its totality by means of the crucifixion and the Resurrection.  In His crucifixion, Jesus would be visited by that which was the common fate of all of mankind.  With His Resurrection, that fate would be overcome and conquered in His person, as He would be raised to a new physical life, mysteriously and completely animated by the Spirit of the Creator God, as Jesus was present in a world that was now beginning to be altered (as was believed by those that would begin announcing the Gospel message that Jesus, the crucified and resurrected Messiah, is Lord of all) by the presence of the very power that had accomplished that Resurrection.  To this was attached the hopeful promise that as it had been done for Jesus, so too it would it be done for all those that believed in Him and claimed Him as Lord. 

The power of the Resurrection, as confirmed by His ascension, is thought to have inaugurated the kingdom of God on earth, with Jesus as its Lord and King.  Though this kingdom is now present with power, it is also still to come; and its ongoing purpose, which would be accomplished through the verbal and physical witness to Jesus’ Lordship that is made by His church, is to continue that which Jesus and the sons of God before Him had been commissioned to do---the destruction of the works of the devil.  If this is the task that has now been given to the church, then the Christ’s church, as His body---His hands and feet in the world---must now be understood, like Israel before it, as the son of God.  Much follows from this realization.  

In This Is Love (part 14)

Presumably, those that heard did more than hear, but also acted upon what it was that they heard, and one can imagine that Solomon was not shy about sharing the source of the wisdom that caused kings to come before him.  Not only does this fit snugly into the son of God tradition, as Israel’s king becomes a light to the nations through his impressive displays of wisdom and understanding, but it also shares a continuity with the New Testament’s most often referenced portion of Hebrew Scriptures, that being the second Psalm. 

There one hears the Psalmist speaking in regards to the son of God, giving direction in accordance with His role and saying “So now, you kings, do what is wise; you rulers of the earth, submit to correction” (2:10).  Is this not, in a sense, what was occurring at the proverbial feet of Solomon?  More to the point, is this not what is being communicated when the Apostle Paul reports the early church’s comprehension of Jesus and writes that “at the name of Jesus every knee will bow…”? (Philippians 2:10a) 

Yes, Solomon has great wisdom and great discernment and breadth of understanding (1 Kings 4:29), and certainly this can be said about Jesus as well, thereby linking the two in that manner.  Perhaps more importantly though, it is interesting to note what is said about the breadth of Solomon’s understanding, in that it “was as infinite as the sand on the seashore” (4:29b).  This, of course, is an overt reference to the Abrahamic covenant, and serves as an indicator of the need to see the Creator God fulfilling some measure of His promise to Abraham in Solomon, to whom the Creator refers as His son. 

Furthermore, Solomon’s sharing of this wisdom with the people of all nations would have made him an ideal exemplifier of divine blessing, thereby more solidly grounding him within the always important Abrahamic tradition.  The New Testament authors, to a man, see Jesus, together with His church, as the complete fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, which once again forces an observer to reflect on such tremendous love. 

As can be seen, Jesus’ identification as the Son of God has to, of necessity, take place on multiple levels and in multiple contexts.  It cannot be understood apart from Israel’s history.  In fact, apart from Israel’s history, it withstands comprehension.  Indeed, this means that the whole of Christian teaching must be grounded within this same history in order for it to carry any meaning or comprehension whatsoever.  Divorcing the words and thoughts about Jesus from their historical context will inevitably lead to bad theology, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, and more. 

Indeed, if one does not take the history and theology of Israel with all seriousness, then most words and thoughts and attempted deductions concerning Jesus will be little more than exercises in missing the point.  Though it is said that “no one ever spoke like this man,” had His teaching, along with the things said about Him by His disciples after His departure been incredibly unique, it could have gained momentary notoriety but eventually it is quite likely that most if not all of it would have been dismissed in much the same way the church would eventually dismiss the Gnostic texts that sprang up as exhibitions of that very type of historical disconnectedness that leads to bad theology (and so forth).  Unfortunately, much of what is said about Jesus, when it is not rooted in a sober treatment of the multiple points of His context, end up looking and sounding like little more than the obviously heretical Gnosticism that a church with a firm grasp of history and its deeply Jewish roots effectively and appropriately pushed to the side. 

In This Is Love (part 13)

What would Jesus do on the heels of crossing the Jordan and His forty wilderness days?  Mark reports that “Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the Gospel of God.  He said, ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near.  Repent and believe the Gospel!’” (1:14b)  Jesus embarked upon His kingdom establishing mission, doing so as Israel had done, though it would take on a different appearance. 

In the book of Joshua, Rahab informs the reader that the inhabitants of the land---presented as the defiling usurpers in Israel’s promised territory (much like death was a defiling usurper in the Creator’s good creation)---feared Israel greatly, knowing that they had already destroyed great kings and gained decisive victories over other peoples during their post-Egypt wilderness sojourn.  To this reported of Rahab can be equated the fearfulness expressed by the unclean spirits with which Jesus is said to have dealt, who would cry out with words such as “Leave us alone, Jesus the Nazarene!  Have you come to destroy us?” (Mark 1:24a)  Like it had also been said of Israel (son of God), Jesus (Son of God) is even referred to by these demons as “the Holy One of God” (1:24b). 

To accomplish the purpose of His mission, Jesus first went to Galilee?  Why?  Because just like Israel, who was to be a son of God that would shine as a light of the Creator God’s glory to the world, Jesus was a Son that understood that He was tasked with doing the same.  If He was indeed the Messiah, and according to His own messianic interpretation, He had to fulfill the messianic role as understood through the words of the prophets.  Matthew assists in informing the answer as to why Jesus would do this, quoting from Isaiah from a post-Resurrection-and-Jesus-mission-comprehension-position and saying “Galilee of the Gentiles---the people who sit in darkness  have seen a great light, and on those who sit in the region of the shadow of death a light has dawned” (Matthew 4:15b-16, Isaiah 9:1-2). 

Moving along, it can be seen that the analogous relationship between Jesus and Solomon is straightforward, but at the same time requires a bit of thoughtful application.  As son of God, Solomon was a king, and this comes to be understood to be true for Jesus as well.  Certainly, the promises of the Davidic covenant, while applicable to Solomon, can almost all be seen through to Jesus.  Because the son of God was purposed to serve, like Israel, as a light to the nations and as a destroyer of the works of the devil (in its most basic manifestation of idolatry, from which so much evil springs), one of the interesting ways to make a comparison between Solomon and Jesus through the lens of Israel’s and the Scripture’s understanding and presentation of the son of God (which, as always, must be the basis for any and all right understanding), is to be found in the first book of the Kings. 

There it is reported that “People from all nations came to hear Solomon’s display of wisdom; they came from all the kings of the earth who heard about his wisdom” (1 Kings 4:34).  It is said that “Solomon was wiser than all the men of the east and all the sages of Egypt” (4:30), while helpfully going on to list four prominent wise men of his day.  Relating this then to Jesus, one need merely consider the crowds that were said to have routinely flocked to Him and followed Him, presumably because of His displays of wisdom (among other things).  In Solomonic tradition, these crowds were composed of Jesus’ fellow countrymen, and would also include Gentiles from within the borders of Israel and the surrounding nations.  As was said of Jesus, which could also be fittingly said of Solomon, “No one ever spoke like this man!” (John 7:46)    

In This Is Love (part 12)

The second of the two-fold consideration of Jesus’ experience of forty days in the wilderness also causes Him to be connected, quite rightly, with the nation of Israel as a whole.  Forty is an often referenced and significant number in relation to Israel and to the history of the people pre-Jacob (forty days and nights of rain for the flood in the days of Noah).  In connection with the all-important exodus event itself, Moses is on Mount Sinai for forty days and nights, where he is said to have received Israel’s covenant marker directly from the finger of Israel’s God.  This time of Moses’ absence presents itself as a test of Israel’s faithfulness to their covenant God that had just rescued His chosen people from their slavery in Egypt.  It was a test that they are said to have failed, doing so quite miserably. 

Elijah, the one looked upon as Israel’s greatest prophet, fasts for forty days as part of an experience that will take him to the mountain of God (1 Kings 19:8).  Saul, David, and Solomon are each said to have ruled over a united kingdom of Israel for forty years.  Quite naturally then, within the context of His presentation as the Son of God, it is altogether logical to draw an analogy between Jesus’ forty days of wilderness testing and the story of Israel in general.  Forty days in the wilderness for Jesus after baptism in the Jordan---forty years for Israel in the wilderness after what is often referred to as their “baptism” in the waters of the sea. 

Jesus had entered the waters of the Jordan to be baptized at the hands of his cousin, John the Baptist.  For a messiah-like figure, this baptism in the Jordan, at the hands of one who presented himself as the voice of one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord (with heavy tones of expectation concerning the coming of Israel’s God), would have been taken to be emblematic of a new exodus movement in anticipation of the Creator God’s working through His messiah on behalf of His oppressed people.  Israel had entered the waters of the divided sea (though they did not get wet) as part of their God’s working on behalf of His oppressed people, with this resulting in the crushing defeat of those that had oppressed them, in the movement that would forever define “exodus,” Israel as the people of exodus, and their God as a God of exodus. 

Of course, there is a major difference between Jesus and Israel, in that Jesus’ wilderness experience was on the heels of having been declared as being pleasing to the Creator God, whereas Israel’s forty year wilderness experience was for the opposite reason.  Though the covenant God had previously shown forth Israel as His elect people (son) by bringing them out of Egypt, much like this God shows forth Jesus as His elect Son (who had also been brought out of Egypt, though that is for a different time), His displeasure was evident. 

Needless to say, Israel had its share of problems during their forty years, but it did serve to strengthen their trust in their delivering, covenant God, as the faithless generation that doubted at the foot of Sinai and at the edge of Canaan is said to have died off in the desert.  Owing to this, the people were prepared to enter into their land of promise, and therefore prepared to enter into the mission that their God had established for them.  Israel would cross through the waters of the Jordan (inviting a direct comparison between Jesus and Israel) into their promised land and to their mission, to carry out the work of their God, to establish a kingdom that would allow them to experience their God’s blessing, to become a light for the surrounding peoples, and thereby elicit praise for and acknowledgment of their God as the true and only God.  Israel was to leave the wilderness and enter their land for the purpose of their God’s glory.  

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? 

In This Is Love (part 10)

Having examined Adam, Israel, and Solomon, this study now turns to the one more formally recognized as the Son of God, that being Jesus of Nazareth.  Naturally, when one reads in the New Testament about the Son of God, it is Jesus that is being referenced.  He becomes a bit of a summary of the sons of God, and is therefore seen as the last Adam, as something of the embodiment of Israel in His being cursed with the exile of death but then blessed with a restoration to life (the recurring theme of exodus to exile), and as the king of Israel (the Solomonic messiah) that demonstrates discernment and desires the just rule of the Creator God over His people. 

Therefore Jesus is to be known as the Son of God, at least partially, within the context of the vision and concept of son-ship as it is presented throughout what is understood to be the history of Israel.  If one does not understand and take seriously this history, and in so doing realize at each step of the way, in the revelation of His son, that the Creator God is taking steps to assert His just rule over His creation and to destroy the works of the devil, thereby revealing His love, then it will simply not be posible to make proper sense of Jesus’ mission.  Jesus, of course, when He is understood to be Israel’s Messiah, is also understood to somehow be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God, as would seem to be indicated by the prophets (proleptically and in retrospect).  If this is the case, He is thence also the revelation of love of the Creator God. 

In the accounts of His life that are presented by the Gospel writings, ones sees Jesus alternately taking up the various mantles of son-ship that had been worn by the revealed sons of God that had preceded Him.  His time of testing in the wilderness following His baptism is highly demonstrative of this, and it is two-fold.  In this, He actually demonstrates a congruity with Adam.  Utilizing Mark’s account, one finds that Jesus has been set forth before men, presumably by the Creator God with a voice from heaven, as “My one dear Son,” in whom the Father takes “great delight” (Mark 1:11).  In accompaniment, it is said that the Spirit descended on Him like a dove (1:10).  This coming of the Spirit upon Jesus, strangely enough, should put the reader in mind of the record of the Gospel of John, when Jesus, after the Resurrection, appears to His disciples, “breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” (20:22b). 

It seems odd to make this connection here, but it is difficult to avoid doing so.  However, this will be quite instructive a bit later on, when considering the full impact of the statement that “In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10).  In turn, with a nod to the previously mentioned congruity with Adam, Mark’s record prompts a consideration of the account of Adam in Genesis, when the Creator God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (2:7b).  So the experience of the Spirit coming upon Jesus, together with the proclamation (revelation) of Jesus as God’s dear Son, is quite analogous to the story of Adam, as the Creator God breathed into Him the breath of life, thus animating Adam for his appointed service by way of His power. 

The analogy does not stop there however, as Mark goes on to inform his audience that “The Spirit immediately drove Him into the wilderness,” where Jesus spent “forty days, enduring temptations from Satan” (1:13b).  Though Mark does not go into detail concerning the nature of those temptations, fortunately both Matthew and Luke do.  Three temptations are recorded.  In the first, Satan tempts Jesus to turn stone into bread.  Second, Jesus is tempted with rule over the whole of the world if He will but worship Satan.  Thirdly, Satan suggests that Jesus make a grand display by throwing Himself down from the top of the Temple, suggesting that His God would intervene to rescue Him. 

In This Is Love (part 8)

From viewing Israel as son of God, one then moves on to the next explicit revelation of a son of God, which is to be found in Israel’s king, Solomon.  After Solomon’s father David had settled into his role as king of Israel, the Creator God is reported to have spoken to him and given him a promise.  That promise was related to David’s dynasty in general, and more specifically to his immediate successor on the throne.  The God of Israel told David: “When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed  you, and I will establish his kingdom.  He will build a house for My name, and I will make his dynasty permanent” (2 Samuel 7:12-13). 

More importantly, at least for purposes of this study, to this was added “I will become his father and he will become My son” (7:14a).  Now, while one can certainly use this promise as a looking forward to Jesus and the true kingdom and truly permanent dynasty, one can also undoubtedly know that this refers to Solomon.  The Creator goes on to insist that “When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings” (7:14b).  Though the second part of this statement can eventually be applied to Jesus, it would be difficult to make the first part do the same, so it is appropriate to almost assuredly assert divine reference to Solomon, and view him as yet another revelation of the son of God. 

With what has been spoken by the Creator God, it becomes possible to recognize that this title of the son of God, though it is here being applied specifically to Solomon, can also be applied to the kings of Israel.  This can be said in the context of the concept of the king of Israel as representative of the people, which is also of dreadful importance to a proper Christology, if one hopes to rightly understand what was accomplished by the covenant God in and through the Christ.  If Israel is the son of God that is revealed and tasked to destroy the works of the devil, then it is only appropriate that the king, if also called the son, engage in this revealed role as well. 

Additionally, as the Creator God promised to correct Israel if it entered into unrighteousness (failing to live up to its covenant) and provided a rather detailed list of calamities that would be visited upon His people (which are found in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28), so also does the promise come in connection with the king that is directly referenced by the Creator God as being His son.  As has already been seen, the God of Israel speaks of correction to come to Solomon if he is to violate His covenant responsibilities and fall into unrighteousness, as reference is made to the rods of men and the infliction of wounds. 

As the story of the Creator God’s elect people began with such high hopes, so also does much hope adjoin the commencement of the record of Solomon’s rule.  His kingdom was established, and this is said of His kingdom in much the same way that it is said that Israel was able to make an entrance into the land of promise.  Solomon, firmly entrenched in the kingship (1 Kings 2:46), is said to have thrown himself upon the mercy of his God, asking for discernment so as to justly rule that God’s people.  He is reported to have demonstrated wisdom, gained wealth and fame, and achieved peace on all sides.  Along with that, remembering that the Creator Himself is understood to have built Himself a Temple (the Genesis account), Solomon goes on to build the Temple of the Lord (as the Creator God has promised David would happen).  

In This Is Love (part 6)

These three men (Abraham, Isaac & Jacob), and even their nephews and brothers (Lot, Ishmael & Esau), who also benefited greatly and were apparently able to amass fortunes of their own, would only be able to point to the covenant of the Creator God as the source of blessing.  Thus, they would be that blessing to the world, causing men to turn their eyes to that God and away from idols, and in so doing diminish the power of the work of the devil, which seems to have always been (since Adam) to get men to worship and honor that which is not actually God. 

That said, it is now possible to turn attention specifically to Israel, the son of God, and another revelation of the Creator God’s love.  Is Israel rightfully considered to be the son of God?  Not only did Israel largely think of themselves in that way, thus undoubtedly causing the author of the Johannine letters to operate within this cultural and mental framework, but the whole of the Bible is infused with the idea of Israel as the son of God. 

This idea takes shape, unsurprisingly, within the book of Exodus.  It does so “unsurprisingly” because the story of the Egyptian experience and the exodus is the single most defining story of Israel’s history.  It is the exodus and the associated fulfillment of long-held expectations associated with that exodus that gave them their identity as a nation, and it is that to which they were constantly looking back, with regularity, to understand the various situations in which they would find themselves and to properly understand their God and His dealings with them. 

In the fourth chapter of Exodus, the Creator God is said to have personally instructed Moses to go to the Egyptian Pharaoh and tell him, on behalf of his God, that “Israel is My son, My firstborn… Let My son go that he may serve Me” (4:22b,23b).  Of course, there are numerous other examples littered throughout the divine record, but the example of Exodus will suffice because the portrayal of Israel is suffused with this understanding that is rooted in their experience of exodus no matter where one were to look, be it the Hebrew histories, poets, or prophets. 

Consequently, this self-understanding bleeds through to the Gospels, into Acts, and into the letters of the New Testament, which means that the whole of the Bible, with all of it written in the wake of Israel’s understanding of their being chosen out as the covenant people of God, is written within the context of Israel, the covenant people, understood as the son of God.  One must not fail to understand that the concept of covenant people as God’s children, with that as the basis for mission, is a paradigmatic construct of Scripture. 

If all of this is the case (and it would seem to be clear that it is), then Israel had been given the task of destroying the works of the devil.  This will be in response to the love and grace that their God has shown to them in bringing them into covenant with Him, and the associated response will result in showing forth their God’s love for the world (which is thematic for the Johannine writer).  Israel would be initially charged with taking possession of the land that had been promised to them through Abraham, and to do so through the extermination of the peoples that occupied the land (the record of which is loaded with hyperbole, and which they would never accomplish). 

When considered within the covenantal narrative, this would appear to be a strikingly overt call to destroy that which represented the works of the devil, along with that which defiled and defaced the land that their God had given to His son, His firstborn.  Putting aside the call for extermination, this serves as something of a microcosm of what the Creator God intended for the whole of the creation.   

In This Is Love (part 4)

Nevertheless, despite his failure, it remains the case that Adam, according to Scripture, which is written with a conceptual framework dominated by Jewish tradition and custom, is thought of as the son of God.  The Scriptures posit multiple sons of God.  Indeed, to remain consistent with terminology employed by the author, Scripture contains multiple revelations of the sons of God.  This is quite important to consider when returning to the place of embarkation upon the theological, Christological, and missiological voyage of this study, which was the tenth verse of the fourth chapter of this first letter of John.  Even the author’s own choice of words and structure spur the reader on to a remembrance of the multiple revelations of God’s sons, as can be seen in the regular usage of “revealed” throughout the third chapter, and on into the fourth chapter. 

The repeated use of “revealed” in the third chapter seem to hang on and gain their meaning from the most direct and purposeful statement in connection with the word, which was that the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil.  Here, one makes note of the fact that this author is not alone in his appeal to the revelation of the Son of God (or sons of God) as an obvious part of the divine plan of the Creator. 

To that point, in his letter to the Romans, the Apostle Paul engages in similar rhetoric, writing that “the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God… in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:19,20b-21).  Can one not surmise what it is that Paul is implying by the use of such language?  Can one not equate the setting free of creation, in connection with the revelation of the sons of God, with the destruction of the works of the devil?  Doing so does not at all seem like an unrealistic or implausible application of the premise. 

So now there are two New Testament witnesses to the idea of the revelation of the sons of God, which should certainly lead an observer to explore this idea.  The application of the title of son, in relation to God, is not limited to Adam and Jesus.  Adam is merely the first.  It would seem that he is the first to be given a task related to destroying the works of the devil, with this task connected to his righteousness, or his being righteous, and that in the context of faithfulness to a covenant.  The second son, or at least the second explicit reference to a son whose revelation is in connection with a charge to do battle with the works of the devil, with this son-ship presented in a manner consistent with that of Adam (righteousness---covenant faithfulness marked out by obedience to specific commands), is the nation of Israel. 

It is necessary to qualify this statement for a number of reasons.  The first reason is that Adam, in Genesis, is never referred to as the son of God.  This can only be seen for the first time in the Gospel of Luke.  When seen here, one must also come to the realization that the thought therein reflected likely demonstrates a long-held opinion.  The first Scriptural reference to sons of God occurs in the sixth chapter of Genesis, where it is reported that “the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful.  Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose” (6:2).  The Creator God’s reaction to this is indicative that such activity was not pleasing to Him, as the text there quickly progresses to the pointing out of the wickedness of humankind (6:5).  Clearly, these sons were not sons purposefully revealed to destroy the devil’s works, and there is no reference to any type of covenant of obedience. 

In This Is Love (part 2)

To talk of the Father’s love and becoming children of the Creator God is added: “Dear friends, we are God’s children now” (3:2a), which the author of the letter insists is the case even while admitting that there is a mystery to the purpose of being the children of that God, as he writes “what we will be has not yet been revealed” (3:2b).  From here, though confessing that he does not know the precise reason that he and others are have become the children of God or what exactly it will look like when they are functioning as the children of God, he goes on to write that “We know that whenever it (or He) is revealed we will be like Him” (3:2c). 

Furthermore, the author goes on to insist that “Jesus was revealed to take away sins” (3:5a).  Is it not of the utmost interest that the practice of righteousness (faithfulness to the requirements of the covenant---a right standing) is connected to being fathered by the covenant God and to being His children, with this immediately connected to that which is “revealed”?  “Revealed” is used three times in relatively rapid succession before the author makes his grand claim that “the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil.”  This, of course, is the devil who it has been said has been sinning from the beginning.  

So here the term “righteousness” or “covenant faithfulness” is now connected to the children of God.  Righteousness is ascribed to Jesus, as the author wants all to know that He is faithful to the covenant.  The Son of God, who presumably also operates in righteousness (meeting all covenant requirements), is revealed and sent to destroy the works of the devil, and this seems to be roughly equated, by the author, with being an atoning sacrifice for sins as part of the activity of the love of the Creator God.  As has been said, the devil has been operating outside the bounds of the covenant---in covenant unfaithfulness---since the beginning.  This, presumably, is what necessitated the revelation of the Son of God, so that such work could be destroyed.  This then is the mission of the Son of God. 

Inevitably, proper consideration of authorial intent drives one back to the beginning (since the beginning is mentioned), so for the purpose of gaining a more in-depth understanding, one is forced to look to the book of Genesis (the beginning) and to the first revelation of the Son of God.  Demonstrating that such is necessary and proper when considering Jesus, it is worth noting in the Gospel of Luke, as the narrative recounts the genealogy of Jesus, traces that lineage back to Adam.  In that presentation, Adam is referred to as the son of God.  If Adam is the son of God, then he was placed in this world (or revealed) to destroy the works of the devil. 

This forces the reader into the realm of cosmology, to look at the beginning of the beginning as far as one with an Israelite worldview is concerned, where one finds that the God of Israel created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).  Somehow and for some reason, without going to deeply into this and thereby getting dramatically off-topic, the earth became “without shape and empty” (1:2), or traditionally, “without form, and void.”  The Hebrew words used in this passage, “tohu” and “bohu,” are often taken to imply that this is a new situation far afield from what had been intended by the Creator when He brought the cosmos into existence.  

In This Is Love (part 1)

In this is love; not that we have loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. – 1 John 4:10  (NET)

The author of the works that bear the name of “John” has a great deal to say about the love of the Creator God, and about the way in which that love was shown forth into the world.  The most famous of these statements, of course, is to be found in the third chapter of the Gospel of John, where so many have been able to joyfully read “For this is the way God loved the world: He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life” (3:16).  In that same presentation of the words of Jesus, the love of that God is juxtaposed with evil, when Jesus says “the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light” (3:19b-20a). 

In the first letter of John, the author appears to take up the theme that had been set forth in the third chapter of the Gospel of John, pitting the love of the Creator God against darkness and evil, writing that “The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.  For this purpose the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil” (3:8).  This said, it is quite natural to think of the works of the devil as that which is productive of darkness and evil.  The revelation (sending) of the Son of God, of course, was a demonstration of the love of Israel’s God; and as has been indicated in the passage with which this study begins, this sending was for the purpose of being the atoning sacrifice for sins. 

Now, if the author has already stated that the Son of God was sent to destroy the works of the devil, then it would seem to be appropriate to replace “atoning sacrifice for our sins” with “destroy the works of the devil”.  This begs the question as to what exactly should be considered to be the works of the devil?  More importantly, to what does the author refer when he makes mention of such things?  Returning to the third chapter, the author writes that “The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Jesus is righteous (3:7b).  This is what immediately precedes “The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning” (3:8a).  Thus the author would seem to be here defining sin as the opposite of righteousness. 

The question then becomes, “what is righteousness?”  In the author’s day, “righteousness” was properly understood as “covenant faithfulness.”  One who was righteous was one that carried the status of being faithful to the covenant requirements of Israel’s God.  Contrary to that, sin would be defined as the violation of those covenant requirements.  Here, Jesus is spoken of as one who is righteous, as the author proclaims Jesus as one who carries the status of “faithful to the covenant,” demonstrating covenant faithfulness. 

In contradistinction to one that is faithful to the covenant, the author presents the example of “the devil,” along with those who are “of the devil.”  It is said that they practice sin, or unfaithfulness to the covenant, with this occurring “from the beginning.”  It is upon this definition of terms that the author then asserts the mission of the Son of God, which was “to destroy the works of the devil.” 

Before getting to that point, however, the author has made a few other statements that must be taken into consideration.  Backing up to the end of the second chapter, use is made of the terms that have now been more properly defined.  They are even used in the context of “son-ship,” as the author writes “If you know that He is righteous, you also know that everyone who practices righteousness has been fathered by Him” (2:29).  Then, in anticipation of what will be written in the fourth chapter, as the context for understanding the author’s point is provided on a narrative basis rather than through interpretative understanding based on a selective and subjective isolation of verses, one there reads “See what sort of love the Father has given to us; that we should be called God’s children---and indeed we are!” (3:1a)  

Stephen's Trial & Death (part 2)

Sure there was a pernicious and damaging rumor making its rounds that Jesus had been raised from the dead; and though this was of some concern to the council in Jerusalem (which is demonstrated by the fact that Stephen was brought before the council in the first place), the leaders of the people remained quite confident that Jesus had not been the “Righteous One” of whom Stephen spoke.  This position was reinforced by the fact that He had been crucified by the Romans (rather than overthrowing and driving out the Romans), with things in Israel continuing as they had for quite some time. 

Now, one such as Stephen could have certainly argued that Jesus did not have the opportunity to drive out the Romans (though this had clearly not been His goal) because He had been sent to His death by the very men who would now claim that He could not have been the messiah because He was crucified by the Romans, dying at their hands rather than driving them out.  Such an argument, however, would be viewed as somewhat beside the point of the proceedings, and rejected out of hand. 

Had this Jesus truly been the messiah---the long awaited Righteous One and embodiment of Israel’s God---He would not have allowed Himself to be crucified, so the fact that He was, regardless of who instigated the proceedings that resulted in crucifixion, clearly demonstrated that He was not the messiah.  Even if He had been raised from the dead, the thinking would go, His death by crucifixion and the fact that Rome was still in power over the land and people of the Creator God would trump that fact, and thus readily continuing to prove that He was, in fact, not the messiah.  Yes, such thinking could very well have been much self-delusion, as an ongoing attempt to justify themselves and excuse their having brought about the death of the man that might very well have been the messiah, but at this point, there could be no back-tracking. 

Yet with all that under consideration, the anger was there and it was real and it resulted in Stephen’s death.  Indeed, this was not the first time that somebody had spoken to the council in such a way, and it was not the first time that such speaking had resulted in the speaker’s death, as shall be seen.    

Who was that other person to have spoken words to the council that resulted in death?  Well it was Jesus, of course.  In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus is placed before the Sanhedrin and there was an attempt “to find false testimony against Jesus so that they could put Him to death” (26:59b), Jesus was instructed to “under oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (26:63b).  Jesus replied by saying, “You have said it yourself.  But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (26:64).  When pressed by the council, Stephen, echoing the words of Jesus, said “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:56) 

Upon hearing the words from Jesus, it is said that “the high priest tore his clothes and declared, ‘He has blasphemed!... Now you have heard His blasphemy!  What is your verdict?’” (26:65a,c,66a)  The council answered with “He is guilty and deserves death” (26:66b).  Mark and Luke both provide a similar record, though Luke omits the high priest’s tearing of his clothes.  The beastly response that Stephen’s words received has already been noted, so it does not need to be rehearsed here, but it will suffice to say that it was also determined that he had blasphemed and was deserving of death.  Both Jesus and Stephen, according to the record of Scripture, were ultimately driven outside of the city, whereupon the prescribed sentence was set upon them.