Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 18)

As Paul would give his instructions concerning deacons, he would be unable to escape the weighty and terrible fact that he had been involved in the death that had come to the martyr Stephen.  How ironic that believers (at least in terms of the order of the books of the New Testament) are introduced to Paul at the death of the first person to be mentioned as a deacon of the church, and then here he is, years later, instructing Timothy in regards to the qualifications and conduct of deacons. 

Re-reading the words concerning deacons that are on offer here in this letter, along with an underlying contemplation of the culture into which this position was introduced and against which it gravitated and stood as a counter-cultural witness in its revelation of the functioning of the kingdom of the Creator God, should be done with Stephen in mind.  To that end, one hears that “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not two-faced, not given to excessive drinking, not greedy for gain, holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Timothy 3:8-9). 

Truly, Stephen went to his death with great dignity, expressing a desire, like Jesus, that those taking His life be forgiven.  Not being given to excessive drinking would serve him well in his service of others.  Not being greedy for gain, which is fundamentally an honor proposition, would enable him to conscientiously take the lowest place.  His holding to the mystery of the faith, part of which was a reversal of the social order, in which the last become first and the first become last as a significant component of Jesus’ kingdom teaching, is demonstrated by willful service to those considered last, treating both first and last as equal in the eyes of the covenant God as they participate in their God’s kingdom come to earth.  In a world defined by honor competition, these can be difficult propositions, which is why, with Timothy and the first set of deacons in mind, one can go on to read “And these also must be tested first and then let them serve as deacons if they are found blameless” (3:10). 

Why must they be tested?  Because in the kingdom of the Christ it is servants that were to be honored, rather than those that are being served.  Therefore, if this is rightly grasped by a congregation, there would be a significant temptation to give undue honor to those that serve, elevating the individual that serves rather than elevating the position of servant and ideal of service.  Accordingly then, a deacon would have to be willing to relegate the position if it became vested with honor, distancing himself from the undue honor that might be heading his way, and allowing another to take up the role.  In a way then, divesting oneself of the position of servant is a way of embracing shame.  This elevation of service as conducive to honor, as opposed to public speech acts such as speaking in tongues or words of wisdom and knowledge, could only take place in a community transformed by the re-shaping message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord---and all honor is due to Him). 

Going further, it is said “Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect.  Deacons must be husbands of one wife and good managers of their children and their own households” (3:11-12).  As was seen with similar words said concerning overseers, this may very well be a way to specifically identify certain men that should not be considered for this position.  Why provide such limitation?  Would not the service serve to bring about what may be much-needed humility and change to such a person and to their family?  Though this may be a position held by an on-looker from outside the congregation, who sees the role of servant in opposition to the accrual of honor, this would not be so inside the church, as the taking of the role of servant at the table becomes that by which honor can be accrued. 

A person that is not “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” may take advantage of this reversed situation, using it for their own advantage.  So in rounding out the treatment concerning deacons, with all of these thoughts in mind, Paul writes “For those who have served well as deacons,” with service being the crux of the matter, “gain a good standing for themselves and a great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (3:13).  Truly then, honor and standing in the church come from service, though it is not an honor or a standing that should cause one believer to be set over another believer in an intra-chuch honor competition.  The boldness comes from taking the role of servant, living out the principles of the kingdom, and even experiencing, to an extent, as the surrounding community viewed a person of honor taking the role of a lowly servant, a portion of the shame that came the way of their Lord.    

No One Knows The Hour (part 32)

In response to the scoffing, the author of the letter appears to remind them of the days of Noah, in which the Creator God is said to have initially warned Noah about the pending judgment (thinking about the judgment that Jesus pronounced in the Temple, the carrying out of that judgment by the Romans in the year seventy, and the judgment rendered in favor of the saints of the Most High God when the Son of Man receives His kingdom, which Jesus linked to the fall of the Temple), but withheld the watery judgment of the earth for what appears to be at least one hundred years (and possibly one hundred twenty years), writing “For they deliberately suppress this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water.  Through these things the world existing at that time was destroyed when it was deluged with water.  But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, by being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” (3:5-7). 

Now if the mind is allowed to wander, there will again exist the temptation to retreat into inappropriate ways of hearing what has been said.  However, if one remains focused, it is possible and appropriate to hear the Daniel seven context and the favorable judgment on behalf of those being persecuted.  Without going into too much detail, one can also think about the fact that Jesus, at His trial, had accused the High Priest---the chief Temple authority---of being the very entity that was warring against the saints of the Most High God in the seventh chapter of Daniel.  According to the book of Acts, Stephen made this same accusation at his trial.  In both instances, the accuser died at the hands of the accused. 

Together with talk of judgment and the destruction of the ungodly, one must also consider the usage of “heavens and earth,” which could not be more important, as this can be rightly understood to be a reference to the Temple---the place where heaven and earth meet.  Yes, the Temple was the place of the coming together of heaven and earth.  Any reference to “heaven and earth,” especially if it is in the context of talk of the Temple, is a reference to the Temple itself.  Though this is offered as conjecture (though not unsupported conjecture) when it comes to second Peter, it is far from being conjecture when such talk is heard in the Gospels. 

This prompts a brief return to Matthew twenty-four (though one could also look to both Mark and Luke), as are minder of of Jesus saying, as He answers the question about when the Temple will be cast down with not one stone left upon another, that “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken” (24:29).  Though the reference to Isaiah ends there, it has already been noted that Isaiah continued on to eventually write “So I will shake the heavens, and the earth will shake loose from its foundation” (13:13a).  Isaiah, as has been established, was referring to Jerusalem and the Temple being overcome by Babylon, using apocalyptic language of heaven and earth that reaches beyond mere symbolism and drama, conveying Jewish opinion concerning the Temple---the place where heaven and earth came together. 

The tradition of such thinking concerning the house of the Creator God reached all the way back to Jacob, as it is when he is in Bethel (the house of God), that he has the dream in which a ladder reached from earth to heaven, with the angels of God ascending and descending.  Yes, the house of God is where and heaven and earth came together.  Little wonder then that the Gospel of John, in its portrayal of Jesus that reflected the development of Christian understanding about Jesus and a better grasp, in the late first century in the time period after the fall of the Temple, of Jesus’ sayings about Himself, has Jesus telling Nathanael and the other men that had been called to be His disciples, that they “will see heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man” (1:51b). 

Calling His Disciples (part 7)

If one considers and accepts that the Genesis narrative does allow for this account by Stephen, then any supposed difficulties or contradictions vanish.  It would be incorrect to assert that Stephen somehow got the account of Abraham and his call wrong or that he was simply mistaken in his telling of the story, or that Luke was mistaken in his report.  This is especially important if when considering that Luke, as the author of Acts, clearly presents Stephen as speaking “under the inspiration” if you will, as Luke intends to make the point that it is Jesus Himself that has given Stephen the words he is to speak. 

Luke knows what he is doing in his writing, and would naturally have in mind what he has previously written, which was “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to synagogues and prisons.  You will be brought before kings and governors because of My name.  This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses (martyrs).  Therefore be resolved ahead of time not to make your defense.  For I will give you the words along with the wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict” (21:12-15).  This plays out in Stephen’s trial.  

Obviously, Jesus, if He is indeed speaking through Stephen (presumably via the Spirit of the Creator God), which appears to be the conclusion that Luke desires his hearers to reach, is going to get the story of Abraham correct.  That said, it is interesting that Stephen, when recounting the history of Israel, omits the portion of the call in which Abraham is directed to leave his father.  This is probably a standard bit of smoothing out of the Abraham narrative, since it is clear that, though the call came at an earlier point in his life, according to the Genesis narrative, Abraham did not leave his father until after his father had died.  The point is, the call came to Abraham while his father was still alive, not after he is dead, as one might presume if simply reading Genesis and contemplating a straight chronological progression from the end of chapter eleven to the beginning of chapter twelve, which, if read in such a way, makes the call to leave his father make little sense. 

So yes, Abraham is given a difficult choice.  Will he stay with his father or will he leave his father, as the Creator God has directed him to do.  Clearly, Abraham chose to stay with his father.  In a sense then, and it is okay to point these things out because Abraham is not to be deified, it can be asserted that Abraham failed in this area.  Of course, Abraham failed in other areas too, so it’s not as if this is groundbreaking news.  Where Abraham failed, in that he did not undertake the journey in response to the Creator’s call until after his father had died, these disciples succeeded in their response to the call, leaving their father when called.  Painting a big picture then, where Adam, Abraham, and Israel had failed, Jesus and those that follow after Him will succeed, with this demonstrated in these disciples (leaving their father when called by Jesus (the second Adam/the one that will complete Abraham’s mission/the new Moses/the embodiment of Israel/the incarnate Creator God).  

Though there is no reason whatsoever to take a dogmatic stance here, thinking about the call of the disciples in conjunction with the call of Abraham, along with the similarities and differences to be found, gives a new twist to one of Jesus’ most provocative statements, as recorded by both Matthew and Luke.  Using Luke’s treatment, one reads that “Jesus said to another, ‘Follow Me.’” (9:59a)  This, according to this particular theory of engagement with this Gospel, is going to have brought Abraham’s call to the minds of Luke’s audience.  What is the response to Jesus’ call?  “He replied, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father.’” (9:59b) 

Might this rather standard excuse for not taking action be an oblique reference to Abraham?  If Abraham, the progenitor of the covenant people, didn’t do something that the covenant God had commanded him to do until after his father died, surely his descendants should not be expected to do so.  To this, Jesus responds, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God” (9:60).  Perhaps Jesus is here insisting that His countrymen go beyond the example provided to them by Abraham?  For Luke’s purposes (and Matthew’s), the audience that is hearing his construction of a Jesus narrative, has already seen two disciples respond to His God-to-Abraham-like call by leaving their father, and here, with the addition of another story from Jesus’ life, he builds on that premise.

Moses & Jesus (part 3 of 3)

Now, because we see this situation around us each day, how are we supposed to see a connection between Moses and Jesus?  The most obvious is that Jesus came to reconcile.  He came to reconcile by showing that He was the Messiah that allowed God’s people to live both within and beyond the yoke of human rulers, through the Kingdom of God that He was establishing.  He reconciled religious factions and showed them that their petty differences were swallowed up by the scope of His Salvation mission. 

He provided reconciliation by becoming the end of the law for those who believe, and that their wrangling over that which brought them under a curse was useless and un-necessary, as the basis for blessing and cursing was now to be found in relation to Him and whether or not one believed upon His Name.  He reconciled by bringing the Kingdom of Heaven in amongst men and setting it up above all rulers and authorities, showing His brethren that they did not have to live separate from the world, but that through Him, and through His working through them, by faith, in the power of the Holy Spirit, that He would bring renewal and restoration and reconciliation to God’s chosen, elected, covenant people throughout the world, and to the world itself.

Beyond that, and in thinking about a specific application of this scene from Moses’ life to that of Jesus, we have to look at the question that came to Moses, which was “Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?”  In chapter twelve of Luke, we find that “Someone in the crowd said to Him,” Him being Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me” (12:13).  How did Jesus reply?  He said, “Man, who made Me a judge or arbitrator over you?” (12:14)   Moses was challenged as to who gave him the right to rule and judge.  Later on, upon God’s authority, he did become that very ruler and judge. 

Jesus, on the other hand, had every right to rule and judge and arbitrate, but did not do so.  Had He done so, this could have been seen as Jesus taking steps to set Himself up as an earthly authority, which would then have given the Roman government just cause to prosecute and probably execute Him for seditious behavior.  Moses had initially been rejected as a ruler and judge, while Jesus rejected the opportunity to take that role.  As was said, Moses would later become that very thing, as would Jesus, after being unlawfully put to death as a revolutionary leader, but then rising from the dead, as “the One appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42b). 

Continuing on, Stephen says, “This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’---this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush” (7:35).  Here, Stephen refers to the incident of Moses and the burning bush, where he heard a voice that said, “I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob” (7:32a).  This would have been a reminder, to Moses, and to Stephen’s hearers, of God’s covenantal promises toward His people.  As Moses was looked to as a ruler and redeemer, so too was the Messiah, Who was to be the embodiment and fulfiller of all of God’s promises of covenant.  Additionally, the reference of “the angel who appeared to him” must surely put us in mind of the fact that Jesus’ birth, the birth of the Ruler and Redeemer, was announced by angels both before and after its occurrence.

Of both Moses and Jesus it can be said, “This man led them out, performing signs and wonders” (7:36a).  Of both Moses and Jesus it can be said, “He received living oracles to give to us” (7:38b).  Unfortunately, of both Moses and Jesus, it can be said, “Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts turned…saying…’Make us gods who will go before us’.” (7:39-40a) 

Moses & Jesus (part 2 of 3)

Stephen said that “He (Moses) supposed that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand, but they did not understand” (7:25).  Though Moses had grown up in Pharaoh’s house, and though “Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (7:22), he was also, quite obviously, aware of his lineage and aware of the prophecy and promises of redemption and deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, that had been made to the people of Israel (thus his desire to visit his people).  Though Moses could be said to have been acting ahead of God’s timing in attempting to take matters into his own hand and stir a revolution through his actions, he did believe that his brothers would comprehend what he was doing and would rally to his side.  However, as was said, it is reported as part of Israel’s understanding of the Moses narrative, they did not understand.    

All too unfortunately, we recognize that, according to the Gospel narratives about Him, Jesus received much the same response.  Everywhere Jesus went, and in all that He did and said, He showed His brethren, God’s people, the salvation of their God.  He showed them renewal and restoration and healing and power, demonstrating God’s return to His people and its Temple by being the place of the forgiveness of sins.  He showed them all of those things that constitute God’s promised salvation.  He consistently showed them, as He worked out His vocation and presented Himself as the Messiah, that He was the One that was fulfilling the promise of God’s covenant faithfulness to His people, which was to give them a Redeemer and to deliver them from the curse of oppression and domination by foreign rulers of all kinds, be they temporal kings, spiritual forces, or the ravages of disease and death---the corruptions of a created world afflicted with the effects of man’s rejection of the charge to bear the divine image. 

As it was said of Moses, so it can too be said of Jesus, that His people did not understand.  Not only did most not recognize Him as the prophet like Moses, but their history was littered with stories of the rejection of prophets.  Jesus laments His own rejection by His brethren, saying “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!” (Luke 13:34a).  Alas, it would seem that Jesus was well aware of the possibility that many, for one reason or another, would have eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear.    

Stephen continues on with his dissertation, staying focused on Moses and his belief that his brethren would understand that he was attempting to bring them their long-hoped-for rescue from foreign subjugation (part of salvation), he says,  “And on the following day he appeared to them as they were quarreling and tried to reconcile them, saying, ‘Men, you are brothers.  Why do you wrong each other?’” (Acts 7:26)  One of the men quickly stands up to Moses and references the act of killing the Egyptian, which Moses thought had gone un-witnessed.  The man said to Moses, “Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?  Do you want to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?” (7:27b-28) 

How does this relate to Jesus?  Where do we find this paralleled?  Well, it could easily be said that at the time of Jesus there was much quarreling taking place in Israel, brother against brother.  This, of course, is no different than the situation in which we find ourselves in our own day.  There were various factions pitted against each other in politics and religion.  There were Roman government appeasers, along with zealots who desired to throw off the Roman yoke by violent means.  There were Sadducees who argued against the Pharisees.  There were different schools for the interpretation of the law.  There were separatist groups such as the Essenes, who had retired into the desert in an isolated community.  There was much quarreling among brothers. 

Moses & Jesus (part 1 of 3)

This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.” – Acts 7:37  (ESV)

The person speaking in this verse is Stephen, who is historically recorded as the first Christian martyr, though the first martyr, in terms of the laying down of a life for the sake of the message of the Gospel, was Jesus Himself.  Stephen was one of the first “deacons” or “servants” of the church, and was said to be “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:5b).  This Stephen, who was also said to be “full of grace and power,” and by this grace and power “was doing great wonders and signs among the people” (5:8), found himself in a dispute with some people of a particular synagogue that disagreed with the message that he was preaching.  That message, naturally, was the root of the message of the Gospel, which was that Jesus was the Messiah.  The author reports that, finding themselves unable to “withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking” (5:10), “they secretly instigated men who said, ‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God” (5:11).  Due to that accusation, Stephen was brought before the council.

The verse above is taken from the speech that Stephen made, in his own defense, before the council.  This man that was accused of uttering blasphemies against Moses and God, interestingly enough, spent a great deal of time talking about Moses, culminating in quoting Moses saying “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.”  So this begs the question: Did this happen?  Was this an accurate statement on the part of Moses (or, at least, on the part of the biographer of Moses)?  Obviously, this is what Stephen is said to have believed, which informs us that this was a belief held by the earliest of believers.  Concordantly, it can also be reasonably believed to be so. 

Thus, believers in Jesus as the Messiah hold that this statement was brought about in the person of Jesus, and that He is ultimately the referent of Moses’ statement.  Thus, in ascertaining the full scope of Stephen’s mindset (and therefore that of the earliest believers and the author of the text, who was Luke), it is quite worthwhile to take a look into what Stephen said as a precursor to the statement of our Scriptural text. 

Stephen says that when Moses “was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brothers, the children of Israel” (7:23).  Moses made this decision from his position as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, having been raised in the house of the ruler of Egypt.  Essentially, Moses divests himself of his position.  Jesus also, at a certain time (and as was said of Him very early in the history of Christianity) “made Himself nothing,” took “the form of a servant” and was “born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7).  The one known as the Son of God left His eternal throne to visit the people of God’s covenant, which was Israel.  In addition to that, we know that Jesus began His ministry at a specific age (around the age of thirty); and in that ministry, as He traveled throughout the length and breadth of Israel, He most certainly visited His brothers, the children of Israel. 

Stephen continues on about Moses and says, “And seeing one of them being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian” (7:24).  Can we not see this, in a manner of speaking, in the life of Jesus as well?  Though Jesus did not strike down any individual, just as Moses struck down an oppressor of His people, seeing his brother being wronged, whenever Jesus encountered sickness, disease, demon possession, and sometimes even death, He sprung into compassionate action on behalf of the one being wronged, and struck down the oppressive affliction.