Absalom (part 21)

Returning to the text of Absalom’s story, Hushai, after gaining Absalom’s ear, passes along to David the news of both his and Ahithophel’s advice, along with Absalom’s response to that advice.  Knowing his own history and reflecting upon his previous time in exile, this must have been somewhat heartening for David.  Obviously, there would be a level of sadness, in that he now learns that his son thinks that it is a good idea to have him dispatched from existence, but there would be a level of encouragement because he could see this as a sign of his God’s favor returning upon him. 

David could reflect upon the fact that he did not raise his hand against Saul, and that he had been ultimately rewarded for his restraint.  He could think about the fact that Saul came out after him, and though Saul’s efforts at striking David down proved unsuccessful, Saul’s efforts also proved to be less than beneficial.  In this unwarranted plan to attack David without provocation, as (according to the narrative on offer), David has not actively said or done anything to defeat what he feels might very well be the work of the Creator God, Absalom has now turned oppressor. 

Absalom is no longer Moses, but rather Saul.  He is no longer rescuing the people from subjugation, but he is instead attempting to subjugate his father who is also now his subject.  Yes, David and the men with him are now Absalom’s subjects, and therefore it is incumbent upon Absalom to secure blessings for them.  This is quite difficult to do if one is plotting to bring death to said subjects.  

With Absalom’s approval of Hushai’s plan, events begin to unfold rather quickly.  David is advised to move quickly, lest he be caught, and he does so along with all his people.  Ahithophel, who appears to be sensing oncoming defeat in addition to having his advice ignored in favor of that of Hushai, kills himself.  David and those with him have crossed the Jordan River, symbolically leaving the land of Israel, and going to Mahanaim (2 Samuel 17:24a).  Following the plan, “Absalom and all the men of Israel had crossed the Jordan River” (17:24b) as well. 

One may be predisposed to read by that quickly, but perhaps such should not be the case.  Crossing the Jordan was of tremendous significance in the history of Israel.  Following the exodus and Israel’s time in the wilderness, the crossing of the Jordan meant that they had crossed over into the land of the Creator God’s promise.  It was, in a sense, the completion of the exodus, though the exodus would never truly complete, as exodus would prove to be an ongoing process of deliverance, rescue, redemption, and salvation, which must be worked out diligently. 

Even after Israel crossed into their promised land, they still had to take the land, drive out its occupants, and crush the rampant idolatry (which they would fail to do).  In the days of John the Baptist, baptism in the Jordan River was a clear signal of a new exodus movement and a submission to the claims of the coming kingdom of their God, just as baptism in this day is a sign of departure from exile into a life of exodus (a constant entering into the Creator God’s mission and purpose) and submission to the covenant God’s King, that being Jesus the Messiah.  David, already in a self-imposed exile from Jerusalem and his throne, crosses the Jordan as he flees Absalom, who is now, unfortunately, intent upon killing his father. 

This does carry some meaning for David, though it carries far greater meaning for Absalom.  After crossing the Jordan River in his pursuit of his father, as he leads the men of Israel in this pursuit and as he goes forth to violently raise his hand against his father, he is going into another exile.  With this exile, and with what it is going to mean for him, his father is now being rescued from subjugation and delivered from his oppressor.  By this, Absalom has reversed the exodus that he has experienced.  He has completely reversed the Moses-oriented narrative that he had created for himself.  

Calling His Disciples (part 2)

Looking at the first chapter of John then for the initial calling of disciples, an observer finds himself in the setting of the event of Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist.  On the day after the baptism, “John was standing there with two of his disciples.  Gazing at Jesus as He walked by, he said, ‘Look, the lamb of God!’  When John’s two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus” (1:35-37).  Momentarily, it is learned that one of these disciples was Andrew, though Jesus is not heard calling him to follow.  Instead, the author reports that “Jesus turned around and saw them following and said to them, ‘What do you want?’  So they said to Him, ‘Rabbi’ (which is translated Teacher), ‘where are you staying?’  Jesus answered, ‘Come and you will see.’  So they came and saw where He was staying, and they stayed with Him that day.  Now it was about four o’clock in the afternoon” (1:38-39).  The use of “they stayed with Him that day” seems to convey a double meaning, indicating that they stayed with Jesus at the place where He was staying, while also indicating the fact that they stayed with Jesus from that point forward. 

Immediately after that, one goes on to learn that “Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two disciples who heard what John said and followed Jesus.  He first found his own brother Simon and told him, ‘We have found the Messiah!’ (which is translated Christ).  Andrew brought Simon to Jesus.  Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon, the son of John.  You will be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter).  On the next day Jesus wanted to set out for Galilee” (1:40-43a).  It should be noted that in contrast to Mark, Matthew, and Luke, there is no mention whatsoever of fishing, Andrew and Simon are not together, Jesus does not explicitly call either to follow Him, and they are not even in the region of Galilee.

In Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus moves directly from calling Andrew and Simon, to calling James and John, who, according to Luke, are all partners in the fishing business.  The fishing motif is strong.  In John, the story moves from the non-call of Andrew and Simon, who are not portrayed as fishermen, to the very first overt call by Jesus, which is to Philip.  The story of this call is completely absent from the other three Gospels.  Having learned that Jesus wanted to set out for Galilee, it is reported that “He found Philip and said to him, ‘Follow me.’  (Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the town of Andrew and Peter.)  Philip found Nathanael and told him, ‘We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote about---Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’  Nathanael replied, ‘can anything good come out of Nazareth?’  Philip replied, ‘Come and see.’” (1:43b-46) 

So rather than moving from calling Andrew and Simon to calling James and John, the story of Jesus’ gaining of disciples moves to Philip and Nathanael.  Expanding on a previous notation and emphasizing that the calls of Philip and Nathanael are to be found only here in John’s Gospel, one could surmise that this probably serves as an indication that they were somehow connected to the community for which this record of Jesus is composed.  It is also worth noting that it is Philip, in fact, who is the one that calls Nathanael, rather than Jesus, which will be reinforced momentarily. 

Moving along to that instance then, “Jesus saw Nathaniel coming toward Him and exclaimed, ‘Look, a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit!’  Nathanael asked Him, ‘How do you know me?’  Jesus replied, ‘Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.’  Nathanael answered him, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel!’  Jesus said to him, ‘Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe?  You will see greater things than these.’  He continued, ‘I tell all of you the solemn truth---you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.’” (1:47-51) 

Thus ends the record, in John, of Jesus’ “calling” of disciples (“calling” is in quotes because only Philip is explicitly commanded to follow).  So not only does John not provide a record of the calling of James and John, there is no forsaking of occupation (fishing) or of family (James and John leaving their father), as is to be found in the rest of the Gospels, which simply serves as a reminder that John’s Gospel is quite unique in many ways.  

Love On John's Terms (part 29)

So when it comes to paying attention to the wider narrative on offer by the Gospel of John, what assistance does the author provide?  He provides assistance with his record of the people saying “everything John said about this man was true!”  This forces the listener and the reader to recall what it was that was said by John the Baptist.  Just as the statements by the Baptizer form the foundation for the introduction of Jesus into the Gospel narrative (and into the long-running story of Israel itself), this recapitulation of statements forms the bedrock for the transition to the second half of this narrative. 

Therefore, it is important to know what Jesus’ cousin said about Jesus, so that these things are in mind while proceeding.  He offered: “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because He existed before me.’” (1:15)  He also said, “Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, who is coming after me.  I am not worthy to untie the strap of His sandal!” (1:26b-27).  He said “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!  This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, because He existed before me.’  I did not recognize Him, but I came baptizing with water so that He could be revealed to Israel” (1:29b-31).  This speaks quite strongly to Jesus’ first identifying Himself with John’s movement, as He underwent the exodus-themed baptism (symbolically crossing the Jordan River into a new land that reflected the Creator’s promise to His people) so that He might fit into a recognizable pattern for the covenant people of Israel. 

John also said of Jesus: “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on Him.  And I did not recognize Him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining---this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’  I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God” (1:32-34).  Finally, John saw Jesus and said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” (1:36b) 

Amazingly, this recollection of statements by John, accompanied by another mention of “miraculous signs,” is immediately followed up by the author’s presentation of that which he presents as the most significant of Jesus’ miraculous signs (outside of the Resurrection), which is the raising of Lazarus from the dead.  The raising of Lazarus, in this Gospel, is presented as the catalyst that causes Jesus’ ultimate fate to come cascading down upon Him.     

This is yet another reflection of the Moses motif that the author has seemingly gone to great lengths to create, though it is not one that is immediately obvious.  Because this study is concerned with defining love, and because Moses and the exodus appears to be a prominent feature of the background construct (as the exodus was always a crucial component of the way Israel understood themselves as a nation and of the way that they understood their relationship with their God), one must make note of the way that the story of the Creator God’s deliverance of Israel from out of Egypt effectively begins. 

In the second chapter of Exodus it is reported that “During that long period of time the king of Egypt died, and the Israelites groaned because of the slave labor.  They cried out, and their desperate cry because of their slave labor went up to God.  God heard their groaning, God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, God saw the Israelites, and God understood…” (2:23-25).  The words immediately following are “Now Moses” (3:1).  This is a very tight grouping of highly important people and concepts.  The author of John, naturally and as would be expected, has a firm grasp on the fact that the Creator God’s covenant underlies all of His activity throughout history, and as has been seen, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses (but not Isaac) are mentioned in the narrative. 

Love On John's Terms (part 28)

The uniqueness of the miraculous signs in John does not simply lie in the fact of the occurrence of the miraculous.  It could also be seen that Jesus gained a following, with people believing in Him, His message, and His movement, through the witnessing and reporting of miraculous signs.  Others before Jesus (and after Him) had and would gain substantial followings as well.  However, in contrast to Jesus, their followings often grew with reports of their rebellious and subversive activities (Jesus was shown to be subversive, but in a more subtle manner), their incitement to violence against their oppressors, or their military exploits against the vaunted Roman military machine.  Jesus’ following achieved no growth along such lines.  He certainly did not go about achieving His popular support in the usual or largely expected way. 

Though John the Baptist is reported to have been caustic in his speech (though not in John’s Gospel), what was said of his cousin (Jesus) could also be said to be true of him, as he did not gain his following along the lines of the usual or expected means.  How could he?  Had he engaged in overtly revolutionary activities, he certainly could not have heralded himself or have been heralded as preparing the path for the type of messiah that Jesus presents Himself to be, nor would Jesus have aligned Himself and identified Himself with John’s movement (the signaling of a new exodus for Israel, and through Israel for the world) by undergoing a baptism at John’s hands.

The regular references to Moses in the Gospel of John, whether those references be explicit or implicit, are both an adjunct to the mentioning of miraculous signs and a reminder of the way in which Moses went about proving that he was charged with representing the covenant God to His people.  It must be said that Moses gained a following, though the following was not gained (as he may have hoped or expected), when he raised his hand to kill an Egyptian that was abusing one of his fellow Israelites.  That action merely sent Moses into his own period of exile, possibly delaying the Creator God’s plan to deliver Israel from their Egyptian bondage. 

Initially, Moses gained his following through performing miraculous signs, which is what he was instructed to do by the Creator God when he returned to Egypt with the demand to “let My people go.”  When Moses had questioned God as to how he was going to convince Pharaoh and Israel that he spoke for the God of Israel and that he was the vessel through which that God was bringing about the deliverance of His people, Moses was provided with a series of miraculous signs to perform.  The book of Exodus records the performance of these various signs.  This point shall be taken up again shortly. 

Returning to the text then, the author seems to take pains to hammer home a point previously and repeatedly made (this would have been second nature for his audience, but not so much for members of a modern Christian culture which has a tendency to separate, divide, and pluck passages and stories from their setting and examine them in isolation), which is that the Gospel narrative must be heard as a unified presentation, rather than presented through selected portions of the narrative. 

While it is certainly possible and appropriate to elaborate on circumstances, situations, and statements, such things demand to be considered within their wider context.  Any statement by Jesus, or the author for that matter, that is pulled out of the text and examined on its own without being placed in its appropriate theological, soteriological, sociological, cultural, political, and eschatological framework (at the very least), will end up as nothing more than an ingredient in a recipe for fallacious and anachronistic exegesis.  

In This Is Love (part 12)

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

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

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

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

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

In This Is Love (part 10)

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

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

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

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

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

Token Of Submission (part 2 of 2)

Baptism, as is well known, was not something introduced to the world by the followers of Jesus.  Jesus Himself was baptized, presumably into his cousin’s exodus movement, as he stood by the Jordan and called his countrymen to a conversion of heart and mind in their considerations of the role of the covenant people of the Creator God.  Beyond that, it must be remembered that baptism has been a part of a number of religious and cultural traditions, pre- and post-Christ.  Baptism has been generally understood to represent a period of transition, and entrance upon a wholly different part of one’s life. 

When the believer participates in baptism subsequent to and as a representation of a trusting allegiance to Jesus and His claims, it is, among other things, with its place in the New Testament defined, structured by, and provided its depth of meaning by its relation to Israel’s historical narrative, a re-enactment of the exodus of the Creator God’s people from slavery and exile, in the trust that there has been and will be an experience of the redemptive power of the covenant God, and in full confession that Jesus is King of all.  This stands opposed too all other claims of absolute power and claims upon one’s allegiance.  

At the communion table, among a host of other things, with the tangible symbols of bread and wine (though it seems that the elements could be pretty much anything, with the action and that which stands behind the actions seemingly more significant), the believer and the believing community proclaims the fact of Jesus’ bodily death and bodily Resurrection, doing so in submission to the truths that are thereby claimed.  Therefore, the Gospel is preached in the very act of participating in the version of the messianic banquet meal that was reported to have been given to His followers by Jesus Himself.  With these tokens of submission and surrender, the believer confirm a place in the kingdom of God that was brought to bear and activated in this world with Jesus’ Resurrection. 

Returning then to the second book of the Kings and to the words of the king of Assyria, one finds that their participation in the kingdom of God, and in the restoration and renewal of this creation that began with Jesus’ conquering of death and the grave, fits very well with the reason given to the people of Judah for their continued submission.  Following the statement concerning eating and drinking from their own fig trees and cisterns, the king gives them a further reason for submission, as we read, “until I come and take you to a land just like your own---a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and honey.  Then you will live and not die” (18:32a). 

Is this not what the Creator God promises to those that are His covenant people that are in union with Christ (believing in Him as King)?   If they are in submission to their God through their believing and trusting allegiance to His Son (by faith),  then the expectation is that He will come and take them to a land just like their own.  This is not a land not precisely like their own at present, but a land as it was intended to be, which is a restored creation, un-corrupted and un-marred by sin and death, which means it will most assuredly be a land of grain and new wine, bread and vineyards, olive trees and honey.  Yes, one day, the Creator God will consummate the redemption of His people and His once good creation. 

Following that, as the believer contemplates the consummated kingdom of God on earth, it is appropriate to seize upon and consider that which were the king’s empty words---as they attempted to communicate something that no man can effectively promise---and say that because death has been finally put down, having been defeated by the Resurrection of Jesus, there in that land like their own, the gift of eternal life that is to be had in union with the Lord Christ Jesus will be completed, so that the covenant people will in fact live and not die.     

Token Of Submission (part 1 of 2)

Don’t listen to Hezekiah!  For this is what the king of Assyria says, “Send me a token of your submission and surrender to me.  Then each of you may eat from his own vine and fig tree and drink water from his own cistern.” – 2 Kings 18:31  (NET)

Hezekiah is the king of the nation of Judah (the two tribe southern kingdom after the division of the Israel into north and south following the death of King Solomon).  At this point in the Scriptural narrative, Assyria has already conquered the northern kingdom, and has now set its sights upon furthering its conquest and bringing the southern nation of Judah into submission as well.  In fact, it is reported that “King Sennacherib of Assyria marched up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them”(18:13b).  Quite understandably, this action provoked alarm on behalf of Hezekiah and the people of Judah, causing Hezekiah to respond to the emissary of the King of Assyria by saying “I have violated our treaty.  If you leave, I will do whatever you demand” (18:14b).  Upon this statement, a duty was laid upon Judah.  This duty would be a regular payment of some form, as an indication of subservience 

Subsequently, in customary fashion in these matters and in order to cement Hezekiah’s loyal service, Sennacherib sent a messenger to Hezekiah.  The purpose of the messenger was to inform Hezekiah, through his subordinates, that he was powerless to stand up to the might of Assyria.  Accordingly, continued subjection should be considered to be the best course of action for Hezekiah and his people.  In addition, Sennacherib’s messenger communicates information that could very well have had the effect of conjuring up thoughts of the promised covenant curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and the judgment of God upon His people if they failed to live up to their relatively simple covenant responsibilities, when he says, “The Lord told me, ‘March up against this land and destroy it’.” (18:25b) 

The messenger goes on, resorting to intimidation tactics and invoking the name of Israel’s God as the One Who has not only sent Assyria, but Who will not in any way be able to stem the tide of destruction if the people choose to rebel.  At this point, the messenger of Sennacherib says, “this is what the king of Assyria says, ‘Send me a token of your submission and surrender to me.  Then each of you may eat from his own vine and fig tree and drink water from his own cistern’.” (18:31)  It is the words that follow this that should give one pause, and in so doing, offer a mental transport from this scene of ancient Israel into the very present life of faith as lived by Resurrection power, which is somehow delivered through the agency of the Spirit of the Creator God. 

The Creator God makes a claim upon His divine image-bearers and their lives, trumping the claim of all other kings and principalities and powers as He, through His messengers (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor/teachers, and His Word) speaks to them and says, “Send me a token of your submission and surrender to Me.”  To what are they submitting and surrendering?  They submit and surrender, by the act of faith (manifested as confessing allegiance to Jesus and His ways in both word and deed) to the message that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah---the crucified and resurrected Lord of all (the Gospel).  What is the token of that submission and surrender?  Naturally, the token is love, which is both concrete and abstract.  However, two very real, tangible, and visible tokens of such are baptism and the communion. 

Subject To Rulers & Authorities (part 3 of 4)

In what is perhaps yet another hearkening back to considerations of the covenant and the responsibility of God’s chosen people within God’s covenant plan (as Paul was a member of Israel who would see himself as defined by the history of his people and its most important and defining events, the previously referenced washings and renewal and new birth could certainly be heard as an allusion to the exodus, as Israel symbolically passes through the waters of the Red Sea, reborn as a renewed people in a single day---baptism, of course, plays on this tradition), Paul notes that “He saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of His mercy” (3:5a). 

Throughout his writings, when Paul uses the term “righteousness,” he is not doing so in a broad-based way or in a nod to performance of what might be considered to be “good works” in the moral sphere.  Almost without fail, when Paul writes “righteousness,” he is making a direct reference to God’s covenant faithfulness.  Because it is almost always valuable to bring in historical reference to provide appropriate grounding for statements made in Paul’s writing, here again it is worth considering that the single greatest example (outside of the Christ-event) of the covenant faithfulness and mercy of the Creator God, as salvation is provided apart from His people’s ability to do anything about their situation, is the example of the exodus.  This event is almost always going to be at play in the mind of the Apostle.   

Here, in light of what comes immediately before it, as he is both encouraging believers to be submissive to authorities while at the same time remembering his own people’s failure to be properly submissive to those authorities, it is reasonable to hear Paul extolling God’s covenant faithfulness yet again, by reminding his readers that neither God’s people Israel, who had been given the knowledge of God’s covenant, nor God’s people of renewed Israel in Christ, had entered into righteousness (faithfulness to the covenant such that right standing in God’s kingdom was evident, as demonstrated by deeds of love, mercy, and sacrifice).  That is, none had been faithful to God’s covenant requirements to be a light to the nations so as to bring Him glory, especially if they are now bringing their God into disrepute in the eyes of the peoples of the world by becoming belligerent citizens. 

In spite of that, the Creator God proffered and continues to proffer His salvation, dragging His people out of their long exile in the realm of death and separation from Him, and gifting them with His eternal life through belief in the Lordship of His Christ.  This was done entirely through His mercy.  Of course, this talk of mercy would also have a cultural grounding in the context of honor and shame and the court of public reputation, with this speaking quite highly of the God of Israel as a/the most generous patron (beyond Caesar himself, though the people of Christ will still submit to Caesar’s rule).    

Looking again to the fifth and sixth verses, and the all-important Resurrection power that is shared with believers through their union with Christ by the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by faith’s confession of Jesus as Lord (here we remember talk of washing and renewing), we are propelled forward to verse seven, and find that “since we have been justified by His grace, we become heirs with the confident expectation of eternal life” (3:7).  Here, with talk of justification (entrance upon the covenant), believers experience the grace of the Creator God, thereby entering into His circle of grace (another component of the honor and shame culture), receiving the benefits (heirs) of their great patron, and now orienting their life in such a way that they participate in that circle of grace by living and acting in such a way, especially towards their fellow man as good citizens, that they become the place where the life of the age to come (eternal life) breaks into this world.

Sin & The New Age

When we consider what is the Apostle Paul’s broad, Scripturally driven definition of sin, which is failing to bear the divine image that God has provided to the various covenant bearers whose stories comprise the salvation history within which Paul works and from which he takes his direction, and also keeping in mind the gracious activity of God, as in Christ as the new Adam the covenant fold is reopened to include the entire world, we can take a look into the sixth chapter of Romans, where Paul writes “What shall we say then?  Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase?  Absolutely not!  How can we who died to sin still live in it?  Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?  Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life” (6:1-4).  Without here attempting an exegesis of this passage, but rather offering a “big picture” outlook, can we see what Paul is doing?

Continuing: “For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, we will certainly also be united in the likeness of His Resurrection.  We know that our old man was crucified with Him so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.  (For someone who has died has been freed from sin.)” (6:5-7)  The “likeness” imagery is intriguing, especially as we are mindful of “image-bearing” in relation to covenant participation, as the story of God’s purposeful creation is always in mind.  Also, Paul appears to be creating a contrast between the old age of sin and death, and the new age of life and resurrection, as a component of the move that he is here making.  On to verse eight and we hear “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him.  We know that since Christ has been raised from the dead, He is never going to die again; death no longer has mastery over Him.  For the death He died, He died to sin once for all, but the life He lives, He lives to God.  So you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:8-11).

If we are paying close enough attention, we can ascertain what Paul has here achieved.  If we were to look through the first five chapters of Romans, we would see that Paul has successfully united Jews and Gentiles (all peoples) under one Lord, under the covenant, based on belief in Jesus.  He has also managed to creatively fold Gentiles into the story of Israel, going all the way back to Adam (though Adam was not a member of Israel, the story of Israel as God’s covenant people, and as known by Jesus and Paul, begins with Adam), particularly highlighting Abraham, and reaching out to include Moses (the calling of Israel as a peculiar covenant people).  This provides Jews and Gentiles with a shared history, which goes a long way towards the creation of a covenant family that will share in the responsibilities of Adam (stewardship of creation), in the blessings of Abraham (as reflected in the announcement of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis chapter twelve), and even the experience of the Levitical/Deuteronomic curses of Israel and its exile that was so crucial to Israel’s own identity and sense of place in the world.

Now, here in chapter six, Paul takes that group of people, a unified humanity that comprises the church that is to be the face (and voice, hands, and feet) of the inaugurated kingdom of God, and unites them with the person of Jesus, the embodied God that is also the crucified and resurrected one.  Not only are Jews and Gentiles now one people in covenant, indistinct from each other because of a shared faith, but those peoples are now united with the Creator God, in and through the Messiah.  This union creates a marked contrast between the old age, in which all could not help but fail to rightly bear the divine image, and the new age, in which a new and different form of life (successful image-bearing) is now a possibility, made available to all and sundry as an act of God’s grace.  Thus, as humanity enjoys and indeed exploits this union for the benefit of the world, Paul writes “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its desires” (6:12).  That would be a sign of the old age.  To that is added “and do not present your members to sin as instruments to be used for unrighteousness” (6:13a).  This would be more of the old age.  Rather, in union with Jesus (in much the same way as humanity has been united), and like Him, as the harbinger of the new age of the kingdom of God, “present yourselves to God as those who are alive from the dead and your members to God as instruments to be used for righteousness” (6:13b). 

Jesus was the demonstration of God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness), announcing, representing, and making present God’s kingdom wherever He went, as should be those who call Him Lord.  How and why can this take place?  As Paul says, again contrasting the old age of covenant failure (as humanity, including Israel, voiced a resounding “no” to their call to bear the divine image) with the new age of covenant success (humanity, composing a renewed Israel, voicing a collective “yes” to God’s command to bear His image as shown forth through Jesus), as God’s intentions are made manifest through those that believe in Jesus, “For sin will have no mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace” (6:14).      

Cornelius & The Mission Of God (part 3 of 4)

With his own witness to the pouring out of the Spirit, the speaking in tongues, and the praising of God, which would be an explicit reminder of Pentecost, Peter says “No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” (10:47)  Peter uses the inclusive language of “we.”  We could here note that Paul uses such language on a regular basis.  We are also reminded of chapter two’s informing us that “those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added” (2:41). 

Along with that, as we hear the telling of this story and the words of Peter in the context of the story of Israel, it is impossible to disconnect the concept of baptism from the crossing of the Red Sea and the crossing of the Jordan River (both on dry land).  These are pivotal events within Israel’s story, and they are told as tales of God’s faithfulness to His people.  Also, the baptism in chapter two would have been exclusively Jews, in Jerusalem, during a great Sabbath, whereas that of chapter ten was a baptism of Gentiles.  Thus, because both Jews and Gentiles experience baptism, both stand before God in a state of equality. 

Baptism, when connected to Jesus as Messiah of Israel, allows those that undergo the experience to participate in that tale of God’s faithfulness, symbolically crossing from a state of exile to a state of exodus.  Because the baptism that stems from a belief in Jesus is also rooted in the understanding that the Resurrection of Jesus brought an end to the old age and ushered in the new age, baptism becomes the picture of the believer’s deliverance from the exile of the old age/creation, into the new age/creation.  We could comfortably presume, based on his writing, that such thoughts found a home in the mind of Paul as well.    

This series of events caused no little consternation amongst the circumcised believers in Jerusalem (11:2).  Those that took issue with what Peter had done, accused him of going to uncircumcised men and sharing a meal with them (11:3).  These are the same issues at work, against which Paul stridently speaks, in Galatians two, though the setting was Antioch rather than Jerusalem.  This is nothing short of a clear disavowal of the covenant markers of Judaism, as Peter has, by confirming the presence of the Holy Spirit in the uncircumcised and by violating food laws (though Sabbath is not in view), has transgressed and effectively repudiates the marks that had previously been the means by which one was identified as a covenant member in good standing.  Though they can certainly be practiced, they are of no particular use or value, when set against the new covenant marker of belief in Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Messiah of Israel and Lord of all (the Gospel).  Again, all this is stressed, though it seems to not necessarily have any bearing on Romans, because Paul will be more than aware of all of these things, and would most likely heavily rely on Peter’s experience and telling of the experience in formulating his positions about Gentile inclusion under the covenant and their participation in the promises of Israel’s God.         

Peter takes up the challenge that is presented to him, which is also a challenge to the legitimacy of the Gospel message and to the commission given to him and the rest of the disciples by Jesus.  As if to emphasize that this subject is quite crucial to the church of the Christ, Luke has Peter retelling the whole of the story of his encounter with Cornelius (so we get to read the story twice, back to back---by contrast, we read the story of Paul’s “conversion” three times in Acts, all of which are offered separately).  Indeed, “Peter began and explained it to them point by point” (11:4).  He talks about the men that came to him, saying “The Spirit told me to accompany them without hesitation” (11:12a).  He also points out that six of the brothers that were with him, presumably all Jewish believers in Jesus, went with him and also entered the house of the Gentile Cornelius (11:12b). 

All Through Love (part 1 of 2)

Paul brings covenant markers into the picture, bridging the gap between Jew and Gentile, with God’s extension of justification to all peoples taking center stage by writing “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith” (Galatians 3:26).  Previously (prior to the cross and Resurrection), if a Jew was making reference to sons of God, this would be limited to ethnic Israel in general, and those who bore the covenant markers (both Jew and Judaized Gentile) more specifically.  Now, as a covenant family is created via loyalty to Jesus the Messiah as Lord of all, and as He is looked to as the Messiah (king) of Israel and of the whole world, it is “all” (both Jews and non-Judaizing Gentiles – Gentiles as Gentiles, without a need to bear the old covenant markers so as to become identified with the Creator God of Israel) that become the sons of God, with this becoming a reality through the confession of covenant loyalty (faith) in Jesus. 

To this Paul adds “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (3:27).  The church of Christ that is formed by this means (faith), and which is further identified by the rite of baptism (though many cultures and religions practiced baptism, this baptism, while also becoming equated with the death and Resurrection of Jesus, because of Paul’s insistence that the story of Jesus is the culmination of Israel’s history and because he sees the inclusion of Gentiles under the covenant as a fulfillment of that which has been promised by God through the prophets and is thus a continuation of Israel’s history, is a symbolic re-enactment of the exodus story and Israel’s passing through the waters of both the Red Sea and the Jordan River, thus allowing Gentiles to symbolically share with and locate themselves within Israel’s story, as the story of Israel, as the covenant people of God, becomes the story of the covenant people of God that is composed of all peoples), is the church in which all peoples, regardless of ethnicity or status, are brought together and share equally in its covenant provisions and its responsibilities. 

By sharing this “clothing with Christ,” which is, in effect, the righteous status that is gained by the confession of faith (not necessarily the imputation of an earned, spiritual, ahistorical, and narrative dismissing righteousness), distinguishing features, which have previously been so cherished by God’s covenant people, and which continue to be cherished by a world then defined by considerations of status and class and honor and shame, fall completely away, leaving only those that are called upon to bear the image (and example) of Jesus in and for the world. 

This leads to the upending realization that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female---for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (3:28).  This is revolutionary on so many levels, but for Paul it is the conclusion that demands to be reached by the Gospel of the Lord Jesus the Messiah.  If the Gospel message brings together and equivocates Jew and Gentile under the justified, covenant tent, with this being, for the Jew, the single most important separation in the world (as some Jews went out of their way, beyond their unique identity markers, to maintain separation from Gentiles so as to avoid contamination and ritual defilement), then the reach of this Gospel is interminable.  It demands equivocation between slave and free, male and female, and by extension, any other source of unique group identity to which people may hold in order to preserve their position, their prestige, their honor, or even their shame (victim status?). 

Furthermore, Paul goes on to say, “if you belong to Christ”---if you are a member of the covenant family that identifies themselves with Him as the One that provides your covenant standing, rather than looking to Abraham alone as your source of status (as did the Jews and Judaizing Gentiles that followed the rite of circumcision)---“then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise” (3:29).  Thus, Gentiles, because of their faith in Jesus (believing in Him), and their faith in the faithfulness of Israel’s covenant God as demonstrated through Jesus, become heirs to the promises that had been made to Abraham, passed along to Jacob, and then bestowed upon Israel as a people.  Effectively, Gentiles become Israel---God’s elect people, participating in Israel’s story without having to bear the old covenant markers of the old age that had passed away and had become of no effect (in terms of righteousness---justification, covenant standing) at the death of Jesus.