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). 

Compassionate Brother (part 15)

One could go on at great length in discussing the honor and shame connotations so as to be able to gain a more robust reading of Scripture, but it seems as if the point has been made.  Considerations of honor and shame are more than necessary if there is a desire to rightly understand the stories and movement of Scripture, as this cultural component looms large.  Approaching the text from this angle allows a reader to make sense of the stories on their own terms, rather than reading terms and ideas into them (however noble or uplifting those things might be) that simply are not there. 

Additionally, as was previously said, proceeding along these lines allows for the narrative to be heard as it would have been heard by the people for whom it was written, while also allowing for a better comprehension of the movement of Scripture, and therefore an enhanced ability to comprehend and serve the God that is said to be revealed in and through those Scriptures.  This then, of course, allows a divine image-bearer to better understand the words and deeds of the God that was made manifest in human form, that being Jesus of Nazareth.    

So what has been seen in the course of this study?  What is it that prompted travel down the path that has revealed that Esau, perhaps surprisingly, was the compassionate brother?  To answer that question, the story of Jacob must be reviewed in broad terms.  Jacob, as is known, was one of two sons.  He was the younger of fraternal twins.  In a deceptive and dishonorable action, he secured for himself the blessing of his (purportedly dying---a deception in its own right) father---a blessing that rightfully belonged to his brother.  This generated anger on behalf of his brother, and most likely on the part of his father as well (due to the shame that would have been generated by the deception).  It is said that his brother was determined to kill him, so rather than staying, Jacob left, putting distance between himself and those that he had dishonored, ending up in the house of his uncle Laban. 

As was seen, Jacob lived a rather interesting and tumultuous life.  In particular, the report of his wives competing for his attention and his affection, with them offering up their female servants as wives to their husband, is revealed as being rather riotous.  When one considers the lifestyle, the adjective “wild” comes to mind.  By all indications he worked very hard for his uncle.  It appears to be the case that his labor served to increase his uncle’s wealth (and honor), but when it came to his own wealth, possessions, and honor, though he had surreptitiously secured the blessing of his father (which promised the richness of the earth along with plenty of grain and new wine), it was as if his life was gripped by famine.  Seeking to rectify this situation, he struck a deal with his uncle.  Though at first it seems like a legitimate agreement, closer inspection reveals that Laban may very well have intended to cause Jacob to become discouraged and despondent over his situation, possibly hopeful that this would result in Jacob leaving (and leaving behind his wives and children that would have been the property of his uncle). 

Eventually, after realizing that there was nothing more to be gained by staying where he was, and continuing to live in what was going to be a difficult and ultimately unsatisfying situation, Jacob expresses a desire to return to his father’s house.  He shares with his wives the reasons for acting on this desire.  However, there is the problem of his dishonored and angry brother, not to mention the dishonored and angry father, whose son had brought shame on the entire family.  Jacob had no idea how Esau would respond, and he figured that it was likely that he would meet up with Esau somewhere along the journey to his father’s house.  With this in mind, he devises a plan by which he will attempt to soothe his brother, even if it means dishonor for himself. 

Collapse Of The Temple (part 3)

As he “channels” and calls the prophet Jeremiah to the mind of the people of Jerusalem, Jesus had a great deal to say about the Jerusalem Temple.  His activity in Jerusalem, as one would expect, was centered around the Temple, though He did not treat it at all in the way which was expected of the messiah.  The messiah, more than likely, would have been expected to honor the Temple. 

However, when it came to the Temple of Jerusalem, Jesus did and said some rather interesting things.  The things He said and did were not necessarily directed against the Temple itself, as it, though a symbol of something much larger, was merely a building.  Rather, Jesus’ words were directed against the Temple authorities, who seemingly wielded the presence of a building and what it was meant to represent and contain, against the people of Israel, so as to preserve their own power and position. 

With that frame of mind created, one can look at one of the stories recounted in the Gospel of Mark as fairly representative of that which can be seen in both Matthew and Luke.  In the eleventh chapter of Mark it is said that “Jesus entered the Temple area and began to drive out those who were selling and buying in the Temple courts.  He turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves, and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the Temple courts” (11:15-16). 

This disruption in business would have had an obvious impact on the sellers, as they would be losing money by being unable to carry out their trade for a period of time.  In and of itself, such action is not a critique of the activity of buying and selling (though one could question the legitimacy and necessity of the way in which the sacrificial cult was in operation in that day) but of the greed and corruption that would so often be the companion of the commerce. 

Regardless, the disruption would certainly create some enemies for Jesus, as shutting down the buying and selling also shuts down the operations of the Temple, effectively shutting down the Temple itself.  Not only is this having an effect on livelihoods, but this is something of a symbolic pronouncement against the Temple, as Jesus actively calls into question not what was there taking place, but rather the ongoing need for the Temple.

Additionally and as would be expected, the disruption would have had an impact on the finances of the Temple authorities, as they would have had a stake in each transaction made within the Temple in relation to the sacrificial cult.  Thus, more enemies for Jesus.  These are more powerful enemies than the merchants who plied their business at the pleasure of the Temple authorities.  Thirdly, Jesus might very well have been taking a chance at angering the people, and turning the populace in general against Him, as they would have been unable to buy the necessary items to make what they understood to be their necessary offerings, thus jeopardizing their right-standing with their God (their covenant status).  

However, it would seem that the potential for anger amongst the commoners was quickly diffused, which can be seen when one encounters Jesus’ words in which He said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’?  But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” (11:17b)  In this, Jesus apparently reveals to the people that the merchants in the Temple, in collusion with the Temple authorities, had conspired together to cheat the people through false dealings in their money-changing and sale of animals.  Beyond that, it is possible that there is an implication that the Temple authorities were cheating the people through their insistence that the sacrifices were a continuing necessity.   

In My Father's House (part 5)

While the teachers and others present in the Temple were being astonished at Jesus, “When His parents saw Him, they were overwhelmed” (2:48a).  Well of course they were overwhelmed, and upon locating Him, one would have to imaging that there was released a veritable flood of emotions---relief, anger, disappointment, confusion.  If the Scriptural record is correct, they had been searching for Jesus for three days.  The entire time, quite naturally, imagining that the worst possible things have happened to Him. 

Not only were there the natural fears associated with not being able to find one’s child, Mary had the additional knowledge of all that has been said to have been told to her concerning Jesus, beginning with the angel Gabriel (along with Simeon and Anna), ringing in her ears.  One is left only to wonder if Mary, in her distress, enlisted the help of as many people as possible in her search for her missing Son.  Her cries of “have you seen my boy?” might serve to elicit sympathy and assistance from the people in Jerusalem, but the addition of “He’s supposed to be the messiah” could have been quite the effective tool to gain greater attention for her plight. 

With a very human response that can be understood by anybody that has ever “misplaced” a child, whether for three minutes or for three days, “His mother said to Him, ‘Child, why have You treated us like this?  Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously’.” (2:48b)  It seems that relief from fear is not the only thing that Mary is feeling right now.  As indicated above, she also expresses a bit of anger.  It is not difficult to identify with this.  If one was to put oneself in Mary’s place, adding questions and statements like “Why did you do that?   Why did you leave the group?  Don’t ever do that again.  Your father and I were worried sick.  You could have been lying dead in a ditch somewhere.  We called the police and the hospitals.  You have no idea what you have put us through” would be more than understandable. 

It is also unlikely that Jesus was ever allowed to forget this incident.  Every time Jesus would go out of the house to play with His friends, Mary would be sure to ask Him where He was going and how long He would be gone.  Along with that, Mary would probably have given Him detailed instructions about when He needed to return to the house, with whom He could speak, and so forth.  One could even envision the scene at home with Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, as Jesus is given an assignment to fetch supplies for Joseph’s business. 

Inevitably, Jesus could have routinely heard something like, “Go right there, get what we need, and come right back.  Remember what happened that one time we went to Jerusalem.”  Indeed, at the close of the incident, Luke tells us that “He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them.  But His mother kept all these things in her heart” (2:51).  This echoes Luke’s previous statement about Mary treasuring up in her heart and pondering the events surrounding Jesus’ birth (2:19). 

Now, of course this “keeping in the heart” included the answer that Jesus gave to His parents when they found Him.  After His mother’s question to Him that was an understandable mix of relief and anger, Jesus, with what might be understood as a degree of exasperation, replied “Why were you looking for Me?  Didn’t you know that I must be in My Father’s house?” (2:49)  Though Mary is said to have known, based on Gabriel’s announcement to her, that Jesus would be called “the Son of the Most High” (1:32), and “the Son of God” (1:35), both of which were terms for Israel’s king, and though she has in fact located the missing Jesus in the Temple of that Most High God that is referenced in those titles, as would happen so many times throughout His life (especially with His disciples), “His parents did not understand the remark He made to them” (2:50). 

David's Idolatry (part 2 of 3)

As a result of David’s failure in this area, with his idolatry having been revealed to himself, the prophet Gad goes to speak to David.  It is in the content of what it is that is spoken to David that we find the reason why God was angry with Israel.  Gad was instructed, by the Lord, to say to David, “This is what the Lord says: I am offering you three forms of judgment.  Pick one of them and I will carry it out against you” (2 Samuel 24:12).  What follows, in the choice of judgments given, will direct us to the basis for God’s anger.  In this, we will realize that God was not only angry with Israel, but that He was also angry with David as well. 

“Gad went to David and told him, ‘Shall seven years of famine come upon your land?  Or shall you flee for three months from your enemy with him in hot pursuit?  Or shall there be three days of plague in your land?  Now decide what I should tell the One Who sent me.’” (24:13)  Are these judgments random?  Of course not.  These are a portion of the prescribed exilic curses.  These three potential judgments force us to look to the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (though possibly post-David compilations, though the thoughts therein contained, in conjunction with Leviticus, would reflect the general tradition and operational mindset of the covenant people throughout their history), and to the understanding of their covenant and of the nature of their covenant God within which Israel operated.  In the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy we find all of these judgments, both implicitly and explicitly. 

Through Moses, the Lord speaks of His people being “cursed in the field,” with “basket and… mixing bowl cursed… as well as the produce of your soil” (28:16b,17,18b).  In addition, “The sky above your heads will be bronze and the earth beneath you iron.  The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust” (28:23-24a).  Taken together, these things point implicitly to the curse of famine.  We here find that “The Lord will allow you to be struck down before your enemies; you will attack them from one direction but flee from them in seven directions” (28:25a).  This points to the optional judgment of Israel being forced to flee from their enemies.  Explicitly, we find that “The Lord will plague you with deadly diseases… He will afflict you with weakness, fever, inflammation, infection, sword, blight, and mildew; these will attack you until you perish” (28:21-22).  Quite obviously, this correlates with the “three days of plague in your land.”  So no, these are not random selections on God’s behalf, but rather, they are overt and direct reminders of His covenant, of the covenant responsibilities of His people, and of the personal and perpetual covenant that God had made with the king that is now being forced to make a choice.  These are reminders of the curses that will come upon the people, and indeed, have come upon the people in various ways and at various times, for their falling into idolatry. 

Deuteronomy informs the people that curses will fall upon them if they “ignore the Lord your God and are not careful to keep all His commandments and statutes” (28:15).  However, the initial presentation of the curses, to be found in the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus, is far more direct in speaking to that which will bring these curses that are wrapped up together with the ultimate judgment of exile.  There, we find a greater degree of specificity in expectation, as we read “You must not make for yourselves idols, so you must not set up for yourselves a carved image or a pillar, and you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down before it” (26:1).  To that is quickly added, by way of rounding out the primary things that God is requiring from His covenant people, “You must keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary” (26:2).  Clearly, there is a greater weight of judgment attached to idolatry, which makes perfect sense, especially considering that it was essentially the idolatry of the original humans that brought about the fall of man and of creation, for which Israel has been raised up as a part of God’s corrective measures for His divine image bearers and His once-good world. 

If we take in the grand, cosmic picture, then we will see that the judgments that God is offering to David and Israel here in the twenty-fourth chapter of second Samuel, are, in reality, nothing more than localized manifestations of the curses that came upon mankind and the world at the fall.  Indeed, the curses outlined and presented to Israel in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy, are actually rather detailed expansions on the initial curses that were spelled out to Adam and Eve---cursed ground, pain, and death.  As it relates to this story, are these not to be equated with famine, to being afflicted with plague, and to being pursued by an enemy?  This presents itself as grand evidence of a consistent and faithful God, as well as evidence that Israel was very much looked upon by the Lord as a second Adam, charged with bearing His image into the world and of reminding the whole of the created order of their Creator God.  It is this fact that informs us as to why Israel’s God looked upon and reacted so harshly against the idolatry on display, while opening our eyes to the deep-rooted redemptive plan that underlies the goings-on of this particular chapter of the story of Israel and of David.     

David's Idolatry (part 1 of 3)

The twenty-fourth chapter of second Samuel begins by stating that “The Lord’s anger again raged against Israel, and He incited David against them, saying, ‘Go count Israel and Judah.’” (24:1)  So David gives an order to his general, Joab, telling him to “Go through all the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beer Sheba and muster the army, so I may know the size of the army” (24:2b).  Now, this is not precisely what David had been commanded to do, which is somewhat telling when it comes to an overall analysis of David’s character, which was seriously flawed.  Yes, David, as the Apostle Paul would say, “served God’s purpose in his own generation” (Acts 13:36a), but this statement is removed quite a distance from the initial report of David before he was anointed to be king, in which Paul presents David as “a man after My (God’s) heart” (13:22).  With this, Paul borrows from the first book of Samuel, where we read about the Lord having sought out, what is perhaps a better translation, “a man who is loyal to Him” (13:14b). 

God instructed David to number Israel and Judah.  In and of itself, this is not a problem.  God has no problem with a census of His people.  In fact, in His law as given through Moses, the Lord gave instructions as to how it was that the census was to be carried out, and what it was that must occur along with the census.  In fact, the book of Numbers, for the most part, is itself a census.  However, we know that the Lord’s anger was raging against Israel, which is an indication that there was a problem with which God intended to deal.  It seems as if God knew that David would not follow the directive that had been given, which might very well be the implication of the author’s record of inciting David against Israel.  Rather than direct a numbering of the whole of the people, David instead asks for a numbering of the army. 

It seems that Joab better understood the Lord’s command than did David, as he replies to the order that has been given, saying “May the Lord your God make the army a hundred times larger right before the eyes of my lord the king!  But why does my master the king want to do this?” (24:3)  It is worth repeating that the Lord wanted His people numbered, whereas David asked for a numbering of his army.  By all appearances here, Joab is aghast at the king’s command.  However, “the king’s edict stood, despite the objections of Joab and the leaders of the army” (24:4a).  So not only did Joab have a grasp of what it was that the Lord wanted, but so too did the leaders of the army, who were likely influenced by Joab to offer their objections to the king.  Ultimately, the record indicates that “Joab and the leaders of the army left the king’s presence in order to muster the Israelite army” (24:4b), so that David, as he said, could know its size.  After a period of time, “Joab reported the number of warriors to the king” (24:9a).  The given report stated that “In Israel there were 800,000 sword-wielding warriors, and in Judah there were 500,000 soldiers” (24:9b). 

David’s response to the report of more than a million soldiers at his disposal is not what one might expect.  Rather than exulting in the power that such a count represented, “David felt guilty after he had numbered the army” (24:10a).  Why would David feel guilty?  Was it because numbering the people was wrong?  Not at all.  Rather, David felt guilty because he commanded something to be done that was not what the Lord commanded him to do, which also served to give him an insight into his own mindset.  As a result, “David said to the Lord, ‘I have sinned greatly by doing this!  Now, O Lord, please remove the guilt of your servant, for I have acted very foolishly.’” (24:10b)  What was David’s sin?  Naturally, we can easily make the case that it was disobedience.  God asked for one thing, and David did something different.  This is not difficult to ascertain.  However, there was something more substantial than disobedience.  It was the same problem that we saw with Saul and the situation with the Amalekites. 

God, through Samuel, had given specific instruction to Saul as to how he was to deal with the Amalekites.  Saul only partially carried out the Lord’s command.  This resulted in Saul being rejected by God as king over His people.  So in David’s actions, we see hints of the same thing.  Saul was given a specific instruction, as was David.  Saul followed the instruction to an extent, as did David.  Saul is rejected as king, and David, knowing this story of Saul and perhaps coming to his senses a bit, feels guilty, offering his plea to the Lord for the removal of guilt.  He did not want to be rejected as king (which would be the second time if this occurs after the Absalom situation), and he did not want to be overtaken by the same fate as that which was experienced by Saul.  In connection with what brought about his downfall, Saul was said to have been setting up a monument for himself (1 Samuel 15:12).  In our exploration of Saul’s life in the course of this study, we determined that this was the beginning of idolatry for Saul.  This idolatry is what would result in Saul being exiled from the throne of Israel, as Saul began to operate outside of God’s purposes for him, though he would remain king until his death.  His idolatry led to exile. 

So what was David’s sin---his great sin, as he said?  Of what was he guilty?  Into what had he entered which he now regarded as foolishness?  What did the numbering of the army rather than the people represent?  Plainly and simply, it was idolatry.  His army, which represented his power and his kingdom, had become his idol.  It seems as though Joab and the leaders of the army had a sense of this, but that David was blinded to this fact.  The fact of his own idolatry appears to have dawned upon him when he received Joab’s count.  As we understand this about David, we are now better positioned to understand what it was that caused the Lord’s anger to rage against Israel.