Laodicea's Wealth (part 4)

With His words of white clothing, Jesus produces a sharp contrast between His white clothing that is on offer, and the clothing made from black wool that was productive of wealth in this city.  That wealth is creating an insidious problem in the church, and that problem need not exist.  Again, the crux of the issue is not the wealth but rather the response to the wealth by those that are calling Jesus Lord, yet denying Him by their actions.     

Having made reference to Laodicea’s place in the world of finance (buying gold), as well as their position in the fashion world (white clothing in contrast to the black wool), mention is then made of one more source of wealth that has a hand in contributing to that which is happening within this church in Laodicea, and is displeasing to Jesus.  John reports Jesus saying, “buy eye salve to put on your eyes so you can see!” (Revelation 3:18c) 

While this could be thought of as an allusion to Jesus’ healing of the blind, and specifically to the instance of record in which Jesus spits on the eyes of the man whose sight is restored (Mark 8:23), or to the time when Jesus spit on the ground to make some mud and smeared the mud into the eyes of a man that had been born blind (John 9:6)---both of which were interesting types of eye salve to be sure, it is far more likely that the reference hits much closer to home for those that made up this particular congregation. 

This reference to eye salve, or to some type of eye medication, is more than likely yet another reflection of the historical situation in Laodicea.  So once again, these words have an important contextual setting that, when recognized, will keep an observer from running off the tracks into strictly spiritual (and possibly incorrect) interpretations.  At the risk of being overly repetitive (though this is not truly a risk), spiritual applications (for lack of a better term) can best be accomplished and are most effective when steps are taken to hear the words as they would have been heard by the original hearers, to be understood and applied in that context so as to grasp the underlying truths that are being communicated, and then translated through time for personal application. 

That said, the historical situation in regards to the eye salve has to do with the fact that the region in which Laodicea is located is Phrygia.  There is some debate as to whether or not this is actually the case, as Laodicea is sometimes said to have been a part of other regions, such as Caria.  Contributing to the inability to pin down exact locations is the fact that territorial limitations were often very poorly defined and always changing.  The region of Phrygia was famous in the ancient world because of the “Phrygian powder” produced there.  This powder was an ingredient in various eye medications. 

To go along with the fact of the Phrygian powder, an ancient historian by the name of Strabo reports that there was a medical school in Laodicea, and that this was the location of the practice of a renowned eye doctor.  When coupling the statement about eye salve in the letter to Laodicea with the fact of the Phrygian powder, it becomes reasonable to presume that Laodicea was located within this territory, at the very least at the time of the penning of Revelation.  Putting that aside, this is a clear indication that the Laodicean church had become blind to something in particular, that it must be corrected, and that the issue that must be corrected must be identifiable for the church. 

Jesus & The Finger Of God (part 3)

So by his actions, Jesus clearly presents Himself as a new lawgiver, in the mold of Moses.  If one does not want to go that far and speak to Jesus’ private intentions, one could certainly insist that His biographers wished for their audiences to draw that conclusion. 

In Jesus’ case however, His status goes beyond that of Moses.  Unlike Moses, Jesus does not point to the finger of God as having written the commandments in stone at a time in the distant past, thus pointing to an entity separate from himself in the process.  Jesus does not appeal to the ancient working of the finger of God in the way that one may appeal to an established and recognized authority figure.  Rather, Jesus is reported as speaking of Himself using the same finger of God language that was most assuredly meant to communicate something which He believed to be true of Himself.  Undoubtedly, this is what Luke wants His audience to grasp. 

Later on in the same setting, Jesus goes on to say “For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be a sign to this generation” (11:30).  This use of “Son of Man” is part of a building process within Luke.  That process effectively culminates with Jesus’ linking the coming of the Son of Man, referencing Daniel chapter seven and the Son of Man coming on the clouds to the Ancient of Days in order to receive His kingdom, to the destruction of the Temple, with a repetition of “this generation” in connection with the sign, while also speaking of the Son of Man during the course of His passion (an entirely different subject matter altogether). 

Jesus then, in Luke’s highly structured and structural setting, speaks of Himself in connection to the finger of God (with this functioning on multiple levels), and then speaks of the Son of Man, which can be shown to be self-referential.  Making the connection then, the Son of Man is obviously meant to be understood as a divine figure, and it is the Son of Man (the king of the kingdom of God, the Messiah, the Creator God manifest) that is speaking when providing new laws for the people of that God and casting out demons.       

As this study works backwards through the defining and definitive historical narrative that is the Hebrew Scriptures, the final instance of the finger of God is found in the eighth chapter of Exodus.  There, Moses has struck his staff on the ground, with this striking resulting in the dust of the ground becoming like “gnats throughout all the land of Egypt” (8:16b).  As they had done with the previous signs from Israel’s God that had been provided to Moses in order to prove the veracity of the message he delivered, the magicians of Egypt attempted to match the feat.  However, they were unable to do so.  In response, “The magicians said to Pharaoh, ‘It is the finger of God!’” (8:19a)  

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 2)

Shortly after the statements of verses fifteen through seventeen, Jesus makes His famous and popular statement of “For where two or three are assembled in My name, I am there among them” (Matthew 18:20).  So many tend to revel in this statement, while also tending to forget that it is offered in the context of conflict and what appears to be discipline.  This discipline, it shall be seen, is not necessarily the discipline of the individual in question that is being brought before groups of brothers or before the church, but rather the teachings of Jesus that are meant to provide a disciplining effect for the covenant community---guiding their actions and behaviors. 

Along with this, one does well to recognize the fact that these words on offer by Jesus, as reported by Matthew and as placed in the structure of His narrative concerning Jesus, follows immediately from the parable of the lost sheep.  That parable presents a shepherd leaving ninety-nine sheep to go after just one that is lost, and closes with Jesus saying “In the same way, your Father in heaven is not willing that one of these little ones be lost” (18:14).  This statement must be kept in mind when Jesus is heard to say “treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.” 

At the same time, the reader is forced to come to grips with the fact that Jesus, after speaking about His presence in the midst of gathered ones, is reported to have conducted a conversation with Peter, who has asked about the necessity of multiple offerings of forgiveness.  Jesus effectively informs Peter that forgiveness must be limitless.  This demands to be understood within the narrative flow of the entirety of Matthew’s Gospel, as well as the flow of the section in which it is to be found (not to mention that seventy times seven, or 490, would have a strong connection to Daniel and the end of exile), so it can be asserted that it does have bearing on the way Jesus’ insistence in regards to treatment as a Gentile or tax collector is to be understood.   

The questions that must be asked are “What would this mean to Jesus’ audience?” and “What would this mean to Matthew’s audience?”  These are interesting, provocative, and interesting questions.  Jesus’ audience would not be unaware of His activities to that point.  They would have known who it was with which Jesus surrounded himself, and they would have known things that were thought and said about Jesus by both His supporters and His detractors.  In the case of Matthew’s audience, one must never lose sight of the fact that Matthew’s written narrative---apparently drawing from Mark, perhaps some unknown written collections of Jesus’ teaching, and a community-controlled oral tradition---would have been composed for a largely oral community, and would have been designed to be orally performed in a communal setting, presented from start to finish in a single sitting. 

So what would both Jesus’ and Matthew’s audience already know when it comes to their hearing of the words recorded in the eighteenth chapter, that would inform their comprehension of Jesus’ words about Gentiles and tax collectors?  In the fourth chapter, Matthew records Jesus’ re-location from Nazareth to Capernaum (in the region of Zebulun and Naphthali).  This is picked up on as a historical actualization of words from Isaiah, which read “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphthali, the way by the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles---the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, and on those who sit in the region and shadow of death a light has dawned” (4:15-16).  Though it is not possible to come anywhere close to presuming that Jesus’ audiences would have made this connection, Matthew’s audience hears this reference to a light to the Gentiles very early on in the telling of the Jesus story. 

Love On John's Terms (part 20)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corinth's Communion (part 25)

At the same time, one should not hear these words about love first as that which is to be achieved as an individual.  Rather, they are first to be heard within the context of the community that is to be defined by love.  As they are heard and understood communally, especially in relation to the kingdom of the Creator God, they are then put in practice on an individual basis by those who desire to participate in this community.  

When Paul writes about love being patient and kind in this letter, the reader knows that patience and kindness were not being exercised towards all in this church in a uniform way, but based on constructs of honor and shame.  Thus when Paul tells them that love does not brag, is not puffed up, is not rude, self serving, easily angered or resentful, it is possible to confidently assert that there was a great deal of bragging, puffery, rudeness, self-service, anger, and resentment at work in this church.  This was presumably being put on display through direct actions, while the separating and dividing actions that were part and parcel of the meals and therefore the life of the church were probably engendering anger and resentment from those on the receiving end of the hurtful and deleterious behavior that truly had no place amongst those called to represent the kingdom of heaven come to earth. 

In a similar vein, Paul insists that love “is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth” (13:6).  While this phrase, as others, can certainly make an independent stand, and it can be agreed upon that it is inappropriate to be glad about injustice while also concurring that the truth is something in which all should rejoice, this, like everything else in this letter (and in the whole of the collected works of Scripture), demands to be first understood within its editorial context before pulling it out as an isolated aphorism by which to construct dogma and make dogmatic assertions. 

If Paul is instructing this group of people that love is not glad about injustice, then it can be presumed that there was a certain gladness about injustice being exercised by this congregation.  It is probably not the case that Paul is here thinking about injustices being perpetrated outside the church (though that can be a proper extension once one rightly consider this statement in context and learns what it means for the church as a body), but rather that the injustice that is being perpetrated inside the church.  This would occur as the rampant injustices of the world outside the church infiltrates that which is to function as the living, breathing, present body of the Christ. 

Considering the fact that Paul would not mention it if it was not an issue, those injustices were likely being found on display at the church meal that is supposed to be evocative of the Passover and its liberation of the people of the Creator God, of the messianic banquet and the liberating rule of that God in the world, and especially at the Lord’s Supper portion of the meal that was to serve as the very explicit reminder that the rule of the Creator God of Israel is currently taking place through the Lordship of Jesus.  It was to be understood, with that understanding displayed by the way that believers treated each other, that those that come to the Lord’s Supper to take the bread and the cup, are agreeing to submit to that Lordship and to participate in the advance of that kingdom. 

That kingdom has as its mission statement (though these would have been circulating in oral form at the time of the writing of the letter to Corinth) words such as “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19), along with words like “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…  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” (Matthew 25:35-36,40b).