A Tradition Of Wells (part 6)

This study now departs from Genesis and moves on to Exodus, which is the event (so much more than just the title of the book) that gives definitive shape to Israel’s self-consciousness.  Indeed, it can even be said that the understanding of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as revealed in Genesis, is shaped by the self-revelation of that same God as the God of Israel’s exodus.  This means that the God that reveals Himself as One Who works and intervenes on behalf of His people and His creation, doing so from the beginning of the Genesis narrative, is now also to be understood through the lens of the God that liberated Israel from Egypt, provided them with a covenant charge, with guidance as to how to live up to their covenant responsibilities, and guided them to their promised land. 

This holds especially true if Moses is indeed the primary author/compiler/compose of the Torah, thus making it impossible to separate the notion of exodus (rescue, deliverance, redemption, restoration, etc…) from thoughts about the Creator God of Israel.  Indeed, thinking along such lines allows us to view Genesis one and two as a divine rescue, much like Israel was divinely rescued from their Egyptian bondage. 

With such thoughts reverberating in a reader’s mind during a conscientious approach to the broad Scriptural narrative, one should be thoroughly unsurprised to see Moses, after fleeing Egypt in the wake of his murder of an Egyptian that had been mis-treating an Israelite, settling in the land of Midian and doing so by a “certain well” (Exodus 2:15b).  That level of surprise continues in its restraint when reading that “a priest of Midian had seven daughters, and they came and began to draw water and fill the troughs in order to water their father’s flock.  When some shepherds came and drove them away, Moses came up and defended them and then watered their flock” (Exodus 2:16-17). 

In this, Moses becomes very much like Jacob, watering the flock for one who will eventually come to be his wife.  As was seen with Rebekah and Rachel, there was a rush to return home so that these girls might share their story with their father (2:18-19).  In response, Moses is summoned to the home of the priest.  He “agreed to stay with the man, and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses in marriage” (2:21). 

With this third patriarchal (in the broadest sense) instance of a wife being found at a well, it shall be noted with great interest that part of Jesus’ conversation at the well with the Samaritan woman---the portion that convinces her of His status as a prophet, centers upon the subject of marriage.  It is almost as if to say that the woman, who actually lacks a husband though it is said that she has had several, has come to the well, and through this encounter with the one that can truly provide water (as did Jacob and Moses), she found herself a true and lasting husband.    

Marring Of A Servant (part 2)

As the implications of the suffering servant and its relation to both Israel and humanity are considered, one does well to bear in mind that the Creator God referred to Israel as His firstborn son, and that Israel can also be thought of as a replacement for Adam---chosen as a people that would be the specific means by which the Creator God would deal with the problem of evil in the world. 

However, because their narrative suggests that they failed to rightly act in and for the world as the image of their covenant God, it would eventually be the person of suffering servant, the messianic Son of God that would be looked upon as the Creator God’s firstborn son (Son of God and firstborn son being titular rather than literal, which is how these terms would have been understood in the ancient near east and in the world of Jesus’ day), that would come to be understood as the actual representation of the divine image in and for the world, completely fulfilling the role that was rejected by Adam (the one originally looked upon as the son of the Creator God, as indicated quite notably by Luke). 

Tying the firstborn, divine-image-representing suffering servant with Israel’s self-understanding at the time of Isaiah, as dictated by the Torah narrative, it is understood that the suffering servant becomes marred so as to share in the horror-inducing cursing of Israel, as it is realized that this is a seminal part of his being their representative.  It is the marring that allows him to stand in the place of all peoples, as representative of a marred humanity as well. 

Thinking about these things in this way allows an observer to consider that not only was the messiah of Israel to be the servant of the Creator God, but that Israel was to be their God’s servant, and that mankind as a whole was also supposed to be the servant of that same God.  Mankind, in Adam, was the first to be marred, taking the whole of the good creation with him.  Israel followed Adam’s footsteps in that marring. 

That being the case according to the historical narrative by which Isaiah’s worldview makes sense, it then also makes sense that the suffering servant, as representative of both Israel and humanity, had to undergo a marring as well.  By this, the suffering servant (the suffering servant would eventually be recognized as messiah, and therefore Jesus would eventually be read back into the suffering servant) would be able to sympathize with the situation and ultimately redeem both Israel and mankind (and then all of creation by extension) from out of that state of cursed marring.        

Putting these thoughts in play allow for a movement to the second half of the theme text, and to the suggestion that the suffering servant of Israel will “startle many nations” (Isaiah 52:15b).  When this startling of the nations is considered, one cannot help but think about the statement in the book of Acts, in reference to the preaching of the Gospel of a crucified and resurrected Jesus as the Christ (messiah) by Paul and Silas, concerning the “people who have stirred up trouble throughout the world” (17:6a).  That stirring up of trouble is often rendered as “turning the world upside down.”  It could be said that Rome itself was startled by this world-transforming message.  

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 6)

Though it’s difficult to conceive of this, Jesus was perceived as something of a corruptor of the people and a subverter of faith and practice.  Thus, those that followed Him, who believed in Him as the Messiah, and who thus began mimicking His practices---especially in the area of table fellowship with “sinners”, interaction with Gentiles, involvement with those that were ritually unclean, and general acceptance of all who were considered to be outside of the bounds of covenant---would invoke the anger of Israel’s God and delay His long-awaited entrance into history to work on behalf of His covenant people. 

As far as many were concerned, especially the Chief Priest and Pharisees, if more and more people began to disregard the works of the law (covenant markers that identified those holding to the covenant of the Creator God in thankful response) that were then in place and somewhat stridently enforced, then all that would result would be the extension of the curse of their God under which they continued to find themselves, as they were in exile from their God’s promises to them.  That exile was primarily evidenced by the fact that they were ruled by a foreign power (Rome), in accordance with the clear enunciation of curses to be found in the Torah (in both Deuteronomy and Leviticus). 

Generally, this would have been the attitude that would have been adopted by the Pharisee Saul, as before his “conversion,” he was, according to his own testimony, doing everything in his power to stamp out the pestilent heresy (the crucified man from Nazareth was resurrected and was the Messiah) that was serving to drive the people of Israel away from the keeping of the required marks of covenant (remember, these were not good works designed to earn their God’s favor so that they could be saved and go to heaven when they die), and thus delaying their God’s redeeming action (deliverance, exodus).  

Continuing on in chapter twelve of John, subsequent to the raising of Lazarus and the return to Bethany, the reader learns that “The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem” (12:12).  Part of this great crowd, of course, consisted of those that were causing great consternation amongst the chief priests and Pharisees---specifically, those that “were going away and believing in Jesus” (12:11b).  By way of reminder, they were believing in Jesus in these great numbers because of the knowledge that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. 

This belief was foundational in the growing movement towards that which was going to show forth the Creator God’s glory.  This crowd “took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him.  They began to shout, ‘Hosanna!  Blessed is the One Who comes in the Name of the Lord!  Blessed is the King of Israel!’” (12:13)  This was a large-scale messianic confession.  This was a widespread identification with Jesus’ kingdom movement.  Significantly, this was being done openly, before both Jewish leaders and Roman officials. 

As if that was not enough, “Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, ‘Do not be afraid, people of Zion; look, your King is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt!’” (12:14-15)  Why is it significant that this was being done in front of both Jewish leaders and Roman officials?  Well, in chapter eleven, following Lazarus’ raising, in acknowledgement that Jesus was “performing many miraculous signs” (11:47b), the Jewish council had already said, “If we allow Him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation” (11:48).  This reminds the reader that there had been other messianic claimants that had risen up, movements that had gained some small measure of popular support, and had been subsequently put down by the Romans. 

Measure Given, Measure Received (part 4)

Jesus continues and says, “bless those who curse you” (6:28a).  Once again, we have a specific, historical reference.  His Jewish hearers were quite familiar with what was implied when the word “curse” was used.  Jesus was not talking about people that might say bad things about you.  No.  With these words, He is referencing Israel’s historical narrative and the covenant promises of their God.  The people knew that they were still living under the Creator God’s curse.  They knew that they were under the curse because they were dominated by foreign powers.  This is what their God had promised in the book of Deuteronomy if His people failed to live up to Torah, and failed to fulfill their covenant responsibilities to be a light to the nations. 

They had been in subjection to foreign powers since the day of Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, having been subject to Babylon, Persia, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and now Rome.  As long as the Creator God’s people did not rule themselves, then they were still experiencing the curse that their God had promised to bring upon them.  Because of this, not only was Rome their hated enemy that probably hated them in return, but Rome also would be incorrectly viewed as the power that was cursing them.  If Rome was gone, then so too, they might think, would their God’s curse upon them be gone.  This was just one more reason to desire Rome’s overthrow and to begrudge living under their rule.  What Jesus was demanding was truly a revolutionary mindset!  Love Rome?  Ask their God to bless Rome?  Unthinkable! 

It is possible to go deeper into this issue of Jesus’ insistence upon blessing those who curse you.  Not only does the presence of the Romans as the rulers of God’s covenant people and their land serve as a daily reminder that their God’s curse is still upon them (subject to foreign power, in accordance with Leviticus and Deuteronomy), but these words from Jesus would serve as a reminder of what was looked upon as the ultimate curse, which is/was the Roman cross.  Rome used the cross as a tool for execution and as a means of the expression of their power. 

Crucifixion, by and large, was the method of capital punishment reserved for rebel subjects and recalcitrant slaves, and historical records indicate that Rome was not hesitant in employing crucifixion, sometimes crucifying thousands of people at one time.  As if it was not enough that Jesus’ hearers would have seen or heard about fellow citizens in their day and throughout their recent history that had been crucified by Rome, coupled with that was the Deuteronomic insistence that indicated that anyone hanged on a tree was cursed by the covenant God.  This, naturally, propounded the idea of the cross as ultimate cursing. 

The threat of this curse, under Rome’s dominion, was an ever-present reality hanging over the heads of all peoples that were subject to Rome, and owing to the words found in their books of the law, carried an even greater and more ominous weight for the people of the Creator God.  With this two-fold examination of Jesus’ directive to “bless those who curse you” (Luke 6:28a), and the rejoinder to “pray for those who mistreat you” (6:28b), the words that Jesus spoke while suffering through His execution become even more poignant and meaningful.  Essentially, we find Jesus practicing what He preached when He says, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing” (23:34a).  Though this statement by Jesus is omitted by many important manuscripts, what it conveys fits very well with the message that He preached.

Abraham's Justification (part 2 of 2)

Fully cognizant of the scope of the Abraham story, Paul bluntly states “For if Abraham was declared righteous by the works of the law,” or if Abraham was justified (placed under the auspices of God’s covenant) by the act of circumcision (encapsulating covenant markers with “circumcision”), “he has something to boast about” (4:2a).  So yes, if Abraham has been declared to be in right standing with God because of his circumcision, then he could point to that very circumcision as the source of his right standing.  This, however, would be to get the cart before the horse so to speak, so Paul adds “but not before God” (4:2b).  He may be able to convince the people around him that God found him righteous (in right covenant standing), and therefore had Abraham undergo circumcision as a mark of that prior right standing, but he certainly could not put that over on God. 

So Paul, seeking to elevate faith, with faith being belief in Jesus as Messiah, as the means by which one gains righteousness, inquires as to what the Scripture says (4:3a) and answers his own question with “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (4:3b).  It is not a matter of works versus faith, but it is a matter of order.  For Abraham, it was belief in the faithful, covenant God that was primary, and which eventually led to the mark of the covenant that he would come to bear.  This is what Paul believes God is now doing in relation to Jesus and the extension of the covenant to Gentiles. 

The covenant marker of circumcision, that began with Abraham, is not the means of entrance upon the covenant, but is only the mark of trust in the God of the covenant.  For Gentiles, justification comes from belief in the God of the covenant, which entails a belief in Jesus as Lord of all, and the mark of circumcision will be that of the heart rather than of the flesh.  In this way then, Paul has identified Abraham with the Gentiles, placing him on par with the Gentiles, and so elevating the Gentiles to the status of Abraham.  This is a bold, rhetorical move. 

Using this very obvious and undeniable example of Abraham and his “order of salvation” (belief, assumption under covenant, then covenant marker), Paul writes “Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to obligation” (4:4).  We here must resist the tendency to fall back into old habits of thought that equates “works” with “attempting to earn righteousness and therefore a trip to heaven upon death through doing good deeds.”  Though Paul is using the analogy of actual work and actual payment for actual work, the larger analogy, which is that of works of the law as covenant marker and means of justification, versus belief in Jesus as covenant marker and means of justification, holds sway.  Continuing then, Paul adds “But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness” (4:5).  This is precisely the example that both Jew and Gentile have in Abraham.  

Abraham is introduced into the story of God’s covenant people (that begins with Adam) at the close of the eleventh chapter of Genesis.  There, we hear about Abraham’s (Abram’s) father, his brothers, his nephew, his wife, and his sister-in-law, but we do not have any biographical information about Abraham that would allow us to make a determination as to his nature as a person and whether or not he could be considered to be “righteous” in a moral sense, or “saved” in the popular sense, and thus worthy of his coming communication with the Creator God of the universe.  It is immediately after learning about nothing more than Abraham’s immediate family that the story of God’s covenant people proceeds to the record of God bringing Abraham into covenant with him, and the making of promises concerning him and his descendants (that will be reiterated, expanded upon, and eventually passed along to son, grandson, and to succeeding generations). 

God simply comes to Abraham.  There is no evidence of pre-Torah or pre-Torah-based-tradition activity on Abraham’s part that could be construed as justification-indicating covenant markers.  As far as we know, Abraham is as ungodly as the rest of humanity.  If we are hearing or reading Genesis for the first time, and have just come across this information about Abraham’s family that follows the story of the Tower of Babel, the division of the nations, and the genealogy of Shem, we would not have any basis to expect that, following the record of Abraham’s father’s death, that the God of creation is going to speak to this character named Abraham (Abram) for the purpose of creating an eternal covenant by which He is eventually going to re-unite the peoples of the world (that had just been divided into distinct language groups and scattered to the four winds).  In all reality, God’s selection of Abraham, and His speaking to Abraham in the way that is recorded here in Genesis, should be of considerable and paradoxical surprise to a member of Israel, especially considering that the God of Israel speaks and makes promises to one who is not circumcised and who does not adhere to the covenantal practices that indicate that one is in a position of right standing and thus reasonably able to expect to experience such an encounter.  Nevertheless, this is precisely what happened, and it is precisely that by which the Abraham tale, so crucial to the collective consciousness of Israel, is composed.      

All Through Love (part 2 of 2)

Though there has been some intervening material, Paul’s stance against those that are preaching a contrary gospel in Galatia (1:8), which he has referenced in the opening rebuke of chapter three, and which insists upon a reconstructing of dividing walls that have been torn down by the cross, is obviously very much in mind when he goes on to write “They court you eagerly, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you would seek them eagerly” (4:17).  Honor and shame considerations are very much at play here. 

Judaizers and their presumably Jerusalem-backed supporters, that seek to continue divisions between Jew and Gentile and want to elevate the Jew over the Gentile even inside the church of Christ (wanting Gentiles to acknowledge the superiority of the Jew by their adherence to covenant markers), which we know must be present because of Paul’s recollection of his encounter with Peter in Antioch (attempting to force Gentiles to live like Jews – 2:14), want to use a lack of traditional covenant markers so as to exclude Gentiles from the covenant.  In so doing, the Judaizers and Jews will be elevated in the eyes of the congregation, as having primacy in relation to the covenant, thus increasing their honor within the church and most likely their public honor outside of the church.  Gentile openness to such things pains and perplexes Paul (4:19-20). 

Ultimately, after relaying what he hopes is a useful allegory concerning slavery and freedom, contrasting the works of the law and belief in Jesus, he brazenly declares “For freedom Christ has set us free.  Stand firm, then, and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery.  Listen!  I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all” (5:1-2).  Here, Paul echoes verse twenty-one of chapter two, where he wrote “I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness,” or right standing in regards to the covenant (justification, salvation, etc…), “could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing!”  These words are not to be heard apart from the Jew and Gentile divide and the issue of justification, and Paul’s assertion that “every man who lets himself be circumcised… is obligated to obey the whole law” (5:3), gains its import by being heard in correspondence with that issue. 

At the same time, Paul is not going to let anybody get away with any half measures.  If somebody wants to be identified as a covenant participant through the old covenant markers, thus rejecting the new covenant marker of belief in Jesus, then they must go all the way, observing Sabbaths and food laws (and perhaps even all of Torah).  It feels as if Paul is reaching for the most persuasive terms possible, indicating the grave importance of Jesus alone (faith alone) as the covenant marker to be borne by the people of God as they continue their march of responsibility through history, representing a kingdom and a King. 

This attempt at persuasion at all costs has Paul uttering things like “You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace!” (5:4)  The demand is clear: the kingdom of God and its covenant will be realized through God’s gracious demonstration of Himself through Jesus the Christ.  Though it used to be the case that those that did not live in accordance with the covenant markers of Israel were the ones that were aliens to the covenant, now it is the case that those who live according to those covenant markers are, in fact, the ones who are aliens to the promise.  There is no going back.  “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight---the only thing that matters is faith working through love” (5:6).