All The Saints (part 19)

When Israel would begin to respond appropriately, re-adopting the marks of their covenant, just as Gentiles responded appropriately to the Creator God by adopting the covenant marker of belief in Jesus as Messiah and King, the Creator God would revive Israel and grant them exodus.  This exodus, marked by Israel shaking itself free (always presented as the work of the their faithful, covenant God) from foreign oppression, was regularly looked upon as the evidence of the forgiveness of their transgressions against their God and His covenant.  Here then, Gentiles are enabled to enjoy the same type of relationship with the Creator God as has been enjoyed by Israel lo these many years.  Undoubtedly, it is a privilege that portends a significant responsibility. 

Paul then takes another step.  He, a Jew---a Hebrew of Hebrews, as he describes himself elsewhere---speaks through his letter in such a way that he takes up with the Gentiles.  His inclusive language expands again, as he identifies himself with the Gentiles (a radical step indeed for someone that had been zealously steeped in the Jew-delineating, over and against all other nations, covenant markers that defined Judaism and served to fence off the covenant God’s elect people and His covenant blessings) by insisting that “He has destroyed what was against us” (Colossians 2:14a). 

Elaborating on what has been destroyed, he writes of “a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us” (2:14b).  Surely, the Gentiles that Paul is addressing are heartened by this language that he has adopted.  He has moved beyond the comforting “all,” now standing in solidarity with Gentile believers, and declaring that the decrees that had been opposed to “us,” which are quite possibly the covenant markers that Gentiles had been forced to adopt if they wanted to participate in the blessings of the Creator God’s covenant people, have been removed.  Indeed, Paul says that Jesus “has taken it away by nailing it to the cross” (2:14c), leaving only a loyal, believing trust in Him as all that is necessary to join up with the Israel of God. 

The cross to which God-manifest went has changed everything.  Discarding the shame that was normally attached to a crucifixion (the most shameful and shame-ascribing event of the ancient world), as is Paul’s custom as well as that of the church, Paul exults in what the cross has accomplished in and for “all” the world and “all” creation, writing “Disarming rulers and authorities,” who had thought that Jesus was the one that had been disarmed, “He has made a public disgrace of them,” even though they had thought that it was Jesus and His followers that were suffering disgrace and shame, “triumphing over them by the cross” (2:15).  The place and the instrument that was said to be that of Caesar’s triumph is actually the place of Jesus’ triumph.  As Caesar employed the cross as part of his efforts to create, solidify, and control a worldwide kingdom of his own making, so the cross was employed by Jesus to actually accomplish that end.      

To this word of the removal of the oppositional decrees and the reminder that Jesus, as Lord, is the ruler of all (a frequent assertion by Paul as he communicates the Gospel message), along with his position of solidarity with Gentiles, Paul adds “Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days” (2:16).  This can be nothing less than a direct reference to the covenant markers that had previously served as boundaries that, in combination with circumcision, served to maintain separation between Jews and Gentiles, and which some continued to insist were a requirement for Gentile participation inside the covenant people.  Paul clearly and repeatedly strikes at this notion.  He has referred to it as a certificate of indebtedness that has been taken away because of the cross. 

Love On John's Terms (part 17)

Moving along to the seventh chapter and to the next use of “miraculous signs” in this Gospel narrative, one finds “Whenever the Christ comes, he won’t perform more miraculous signs than this man did, will he?” (John 7:31b)  The immediate context is provided by “Yet many of the crowd believed in Him and said…” (7:31a)  So again, “miraculous signs” is linked with “belief.”   Thus one must again consider the overall movement of this presentation of Jesus, in that the Creator God’s love for the world (John 3:16) is bound up with belief in Jesus.

By this, additional credence is lent to the link between the repetitious appearance of “miraculous signs” here in John (the only Gospel where such are to be found, save one usage in Luke), and the obvious Johannine predilection towards love, clearly rooted in the covenant God’s love for the world, as the operative Christian ethic.  The words of the thirty-first verse also forces a consideration of the wider context of the statement, which are questions about Jesus’ identity as the messiah.  As an observer situates himself within the original and intended audience for the narrative, such is done with the pre-supposition that Jesus is the Messiah (the Christ), and the development of the Gospel presentation will be heard from that position.

Whereas Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand, His walking on water, and His discourse about Himself as the bread of life took place in Galilee, these words from the seventh chapter are lifted from His being situated in Jerusalem.  Presumably then, Jesus has a new audience, differing quite significantly from the audience that He has had in the region of Galilee.  The season of the year is the Feast of Tabernacles, which is one of the fall feasts of Judaism.  The setting is presented in the fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter, where the author writes “When the feast was half over, Jesus went up to the Temple courts and began to teach.” 

A back and forth between the Jewish leaders and Jesus stems from the commencement of the aforementioned teaching.  As should be expected by now, at least according to the structure at play, Jesus brings a reference to Moses into play.  Eventually, the back and forth leads to what is reported to be an open discussion on the part of the residents of Jerusalem as to whether or not Jesus could actually be the Christ (7:25-26), which also results in some words from Jesus that lead to an unsuccessful attempt seize Jesus. 

In all of the back and forth, and in all of the reports within this Gospel about what Jesus has done since venturing back into Judea and Jerusalem, the reader does not stumble upon anything that seems like it would prompt the people of Jerusalem to mention Jesus in the same breath as “miraculous signs.”  Nevertheless, this is the very thing that is reported to have taken place.  In fact, though it can be reasonably presumed that word of the large-scale feeding has made its way around the countryside, the only miraculous signs that Jesus has performed to this point in the Johannine narrative are the turning of water into wine in Cana and the healing of the royal official’s son in Capernaum. 

The latter two of those three, which could be supplemented by the walking on water, would not be prone to massive dissemination.  To this point, the only miraculous sign that Jesus has performed in Jerusalem itself is the healing of the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda.  In this Gospel story, the remainder of Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem so far, is confined to teaching and speaking about Himself.  There is little reason to wonder, then, that the story demonstrates that there is not an outright acceptance of Jesus’ claims about Himself.  At the same time, one is left to wonder at the paucity of miraculous occurrences to be found in the very Gospel that is loaded with references to miraculous signs.  However, one must never forget the over-arching/underlying context of love and the love of the Creator God for the world as it is being expressed through Jesus, that seems to inform every aspect of this presentation of the life of Jesus.

Love On John's Terms (part 14)

Amazingly, the author of this Gospel presents the people as having already forgotten about the bread that was in fact provided, though it has just been referenced by Jesus.  Interestingly enough, if one was to examine Jesus’ statement closely, which was “I tell you the solemn truth, you are looking for me not because you saw miraculous signs, but because you ate all the loaves of bread you wanted” (John 6:26), there might be an inclination to think that Jesus draws a distinction between the performance of miraculous signs and the provision of bread.  However, taking that step might be drawing the distinction a bit too sharply.  Surely the multiplication of the loaves must be taken as a miraculous sign---as much as was the provision of manna in the wilderness. 

So it seems as if Jesus is indicating that it was not the miraculous sign of the bread being multiplied that has caused the people to continue to come to Him, but rather the filling of their bellies.  This appears to function as a reflection upon Israel in the wilderness, in that even though daily bread was miraculously provided to the people of the covenant God, the story of their time in the wilderness is underlined by a startling lack of belief in their God’s ability to fulfill His promises. 

Even though the people were faithful to go out to gather the manna each and every day (excluding the Sabbath), they did not follow through on the deeds that their God required, which was a faithful belief in His ability to perform on behalf of His people, according to His covenant promises, as He worked out His intention to bring them into the promised land and set them on high as a kingdom of people to represent His glory (making Israel a new Adam in a new garden of Eden, as a microcosm of the Creator God’s intentions for the entirety of His created order). 

It might be the case that Jesus is here making the same type of point, while the author also shows Him reflecting back to the people’s desire to acclaim Him as their king, so that He might take on, overthrow, and drive out the Romans.  If Jesus would have acceded to the people’s demands, such would be yet another instance of Israel not following through on the deeds that their God requires, rather than operating on a faithful belief that their God will enter into history on His own terms and timing, to perform on behalf of His people according to what was understood to be His covenant promises to them.  The taking of actions against the Romans could be akin to the instances of Israel’s wilderness experience in which the people took it upon themselves to act to bring themselves into their God’s purposed kingdom, with these instances never turning out well. 

While all of these things are being considered, while also considering the fact that the author is making a presentation to a community that is hearing this in a single sitting, that is ensconced within a controlled oral tradition, and is well-versed in the history of Israel, it would not at all be a mis-step to consider the provision of bread, prima facie, as an act of love to which disciples of Jesus should aspire.  Even though it was not met with a proper response, or at least with the response that Jesus may have desired, Jesus still met a physical need.  He did so, as far as this Gospel is concerned, as an action of the incarnate God of Israel.  As a loving and compassionate God revealed Himself to His people on a continual basis through the provision of manna, and did so for His people in spite of what are reported to be consistent failings, so Jesus acted out of love and compassion to reveal His God in much the same way.      

Love On John's Terms (part 11)

It is then appropriate to take a look at the uses of “miraculous signs.”  In the second chapter of John, this term is used in conjunction with the changing of the water into wine, as the author writes that “Jesus did this as the first of His miraculous signs” (2:11a).  This was said to have been a way in which “He revealed His glory, and His disciples believed in Him” (2:11b).  Consequently then, the presentation of the signs are often linked to the issue of belief. 

In the twenty-third verse of the same chapter, the author reports that “while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many people believed in His name because they saw the miraculous signs He was doing.”  Interestingly, this mention of miraculous signs is not specifically connected to any particular account of the performance of miraculous signs.  It is simply an assertion on the part of the author that seems to rely on the knowledge of the miraculous as part of the Jesus tradition in the community for which this Gospel was composed. 

At this point in the record offered by the author of John, all that Jesus is said to have done in Jerusalem was the driving out of those changing money and selling animals (2:15), along with making a statement about the Temple being His Father’s house (2:16).  These would hardly be defined as “miraculous signs” in any respect.  In response to His activity in the Temple, unsurprisingly, Jesus is questioned by the Jewish leaders, with a demand to know why, and under what authority, He had done what He had done.  In fact, as it relates to the purposes of this study at this point, it is even asked of him “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” (2:18b)  Here, the use of “miraculous” is not offered.  Jesus is said to have responded to the query with the highly subversive and quite obviously proleptic “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again” (2:19), but there is certainly nothing in this story that approaches the level of “miraculous sign”. 

From there, John immediately moves to the story of an encounter between Jesus and a Jewish leader named Nicodemus.  With no chapter breaks in the original composition, and with it most likely designed to be delivered as an oral performance at a single setting, the listener is taken directly from Jesus speaking to a group of Jewish leaders, to Jesus speaking with one Jewish leader.  Presumably then, it is reasonable to understand Nicodemus as coming to Jesus as a direct result of what took place in the Temple.  It is probable then, for the purpose of this Gospel and its author, that the listener is supposed to presume that Nicodemus was himself present at the event in the Temple and heard what Jesus said. 

In his opening statement to Jesus, Nicodemus says “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God.  For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with Him” (3:2b).  Once again, this talk of “miraculous signs” presumes a shared knowledge within the Johannine community, for there is nothing in the Jerusalem-situated narrative, to that point, that could truly be labeled as such. 

Jesus’ response to Nicodemus contains the first reported use, in the Gospel of John, of the all-important phrase “kingdom of God.”  Jesus said to Him, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (3:3).  This will go on to tie in quite well with Jesus’ talk, within the same conversation, of perishing and eternal life (which, as has already been established, is linked to conceptions of exile and exodus, both of which speak to the nature of the rule of the Creator God over His people, and through them, the whole of creation), and of the salvation and redemption of the world that is part of the Creator’s design and purpose for the Christ.  Naturally, Jesus then goes on to speak about the need for belief (3:12,16,18), thus relating Nicodemus’ use of “miraculous signs” with belief. 

Only Son (part 13)

In the twenty-sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis, after God has pronounced everything as good and established an order in this world that He so obviously loved, He takes one final step and says “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth” (Genesis 1:26). 

Yes, the Creator God loved the world, and He showed forth that love by creating a being in and as His own image that would reflect His glory into the creation and be a reminder of His creative power and His rule.  He created Adam.  He sent the one originally understood, as part of the story of the covenant people, to be His one and only son into the world to rule the creation in proxy for Him.  If this is understood, then the one that has that understanding is one step closer to appreciating the full impact of Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. 

Genesis insists that “God created humankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them” (1:27).  Furthermore, in relation to being created in and as the image of the Creator God, so as to bear that image in and for the whole of the creation, the language of covenant is employed when the author confirms that “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply!  Fill the earth and subdue it!” (1:28a)  What follows from that report is rounded off with “God saw all that He had made---and it was very good!” (1:31a) 

So humankind (Adam) is given a charge by their Creator.  It could easily be said that the covenant God of Israel loved His good creation (world).  Owing to that love, He created a son (Adam) in His own image and sent that son into the world with a specific purpose.  What was that purpose?  It was to rule and steward and subdue and represent the Creator to the world.  Ultimately though, there was something underlying all of that.  The foundation on which those purposes rested was belief.  It was trust. 

Trust in what?  “The Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (2:16-17a).  This was an obvious commandment and a test.  The Creator God loved the world and sent His one and only son into the world, and set up a perimeter to see whether or not His Son would follow the commandment as part of the charge to be reflect his Father’s glory into the world.  Would the word of the Creator be believed?  Of course, all live with the sad result of the failure associated with this relatively simple commandment, which was that it was not something to which Adam (the one originally thought of as the son of God) adhered. 

The corollary to the Creator God’s commandment to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is well known, as it was said “for when you eat from it you will surely die” (2:17b).  Genesis reports that Adam, as the divine image-bearer, had been offered up the fruit of every tree of the garden, save one.  One of those trees was the tree of life (2:9).  When Adam and Eve were exiled from the garden after violating their God’s clear commandment (thereby finding themselves outside of their God’s purpose for them), careful attention is paid to this tree of life. 

This demonstrates that the tree of life is of special concern to the Creator God, thus it is said that “When He drove the man out, He placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life” (3:24).  This is explaining in the report of the Creator saying “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever” (3:22).  Clearly then, it is being communicated that the covenant God did not want His now fallen image-bearer to live forever in a state of corruption, so He made a move to limit access to the tree of life.  Apparently, it is to be taken that the fruit of this tree was designed to render possible such an eternal existence. 

Justified By Faithfulness (part 9 of 9)

Later and finally, in summing up his message, Paul would write, “I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing!” (2:21)  In Paul’s estimation, and quite rightly it would seem, the grace of the Creator God was paramount in the justification transaction.  From first to last, when it came to covenant, to blessing and cursing, and to resurrection and newness of life, all would be rooted in the grace of the God of Israel.  This grace was extended because of His faithfulness to His plans for this world and His creation. 

The works of the law, as Paul would apparently come to realize and understand, were just far too man-centered.  When they were considered against the backdrop of the all-powerful Creator God, these covenant markers were terribly insufficient to carry out and communicate the weight of His glory and of His intentions for His image-bearers and the creation.  Beyond that, Paul would seem to conclude, if righteousness (justification and the completion of the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness) could come through human effort to hold to a few meager works of the law, then truly, the Christ did not need to die. 

Paul would find it impossible to brook an agreement with this position.  He would encourage people, when it came to these issues, to hold to that to wish they wished to hold, while also insisting that it was presumptuous, and perhaps even a denial of the grace of the covenant God, upon which the covenant people relied, to impose these standards on others.  In the face of the obvious and overwhelming power of the God that was put on display through the Resurrection, as that event served to show forth Jesus as the Messiah---therefore demonstrating that the God of the covenant had indeed faithfully poured out His promised blessings on all those that wished to enter in to those blessings through a belief in Jesus as Messiah in a way that would bring glory to God---it had come to be the case that the works of the law (covenant markers) were no longer needed or useful in identifying the people of the sovereign God of the cosmos. 

Belief in Jesus, and in His faithfulness to His covenant obligations, was now the order of the day, just as belief in the faithfulness of the Creator God had always been necessary, with that faith-based belief always demonstrated by a covenant marker.  The covenant marker, since the time of Moses, had been the works of the law (though morphed over time).  Now though, the covenant marker, as has been said, was belief in Jesus.  This belief, as one is obliged to never forget, is set forth as being a gift of faith---a faith that somehow comes from a faithful God. 

A faithful, outworking believing in Jesus, and in the covenant God that was at work in and through Jesus to reveal Himself and His nature, is now all that mattered.  This had become the basis for all service.  This was the basis for worship.  This was the basis for giving.  Yes, Paul would say, that belief in the covenant God is what would and did deliver from cursing.  That is what would bring exile to an end.  That is what brought blessing.  In the Christ, the Creator God had entered into history and produced its climactic event.  He had indeed been faithful.  Because of the faithful service of a faithful Man, justification (entrance upon the covenant so as to secure its blessings, escaping exile, and experiencing salvation) for all was now available.  This justification was not to be found in a man’s faithfulness to  a specific set of covenant markers and that which divided man from man, but it was to be found in the Creator God’s faithfulness to His work, and that which united a globally sourced people to Him.            

Justified By Faithfulness (part 8 of 9)

This belief, of course, in a crucified and resurrected messiah, here in the middle of history, was contrary to any and all expectations of the day.  Not only was the crucifixion of the messiah a completely unexpected development, as such would be evidence that said person was in fact not the messiah, but the idea that somebody would be physically raised from the dead was completely ludicrous.  Quite simply, people did not come back from the dead.  This was common knowledge and well understood.  However, the weight of evidence that this is exactly what had occurred (including the language that was used---of a person coming back to life, rather than being a phantom or a ghost, as language was available to describe such things), and that it had happened to an individual that had lived and been looked to as a potential messiah for Israel, stirred a convicting belief that that is exactly what had taken place. 

Because of that conviction concerning the Resurrection, this belief, as Paul would routinely point out, could only be brought about by a faith that was granted by the Creator God---a faith somehow and mysteriously implanted and made operational by the Holy Spirit through the gracious activity of the covenant God, with this conveyed primarily through the medium of the preaching of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord), the hearing of that preaching of the message of Jesus as Lord (the Gospel), and the actively living out of that message in one’s daily life.

Repeating himself, because of the supreme importance of this principle, and because this examination of works and justification and faith, as presented in the letter to the church of Galatia, is made possible by a recounting of Peter’s retreat into the old covenant markers in Antioch, Paul goes on to write, “because by the works of the law no one will be justified” (2:16c).  Again, the old basis for the understood covenant blessings has been replaced. 

The markers that had previously been used to identify a member of the covenant family, and which had largely been used to wall off the covenant blessings from the world (non-Jews and those that did not adopt the covenant markers) had been set aside.  Now, belief in Jesus is what would matter.  Holding to the works of the law (covenant markers), and the exclusivity and isolation that came to be associated with it, now stood contrary to what it was that the Creator God had done and was doing through Jesus.  Unfortunately, as Paul would make clear, the works of the law would now serve as a reminder of Israel’s failure and cursing. 

The faithfulness of the Creator God, as manifested in the person and actions of the Christ, would stand as a witness to the victory over death, through the Resurrection, that the God of Israel had wrought for His people.  Just as Abraham had been justified by believing in the power and promise of that God, prior to anything that could be pointed to or understood as a work of the law, so now would those that would come to be identified as Abraham’s descendants also be justified (made righteous, saved, covenant-ed) by believing in the power and promise of that same God.  The setting aside of the Jewish covenant markers signaled, among other things, the extension of His blessings of justification, as it can now be seen that the Creator God had always intended, with this evidenced by the covenant with Abraham, to and for all peoples. 

Justified By Faithfulness (part 4)

While it is true that Jacob’s descendants (Israel) were given a set of covenant requirements to go along with the covenant mark of circumcision that had been established with Abraham, and that the overall history of those descendants that is presented in the Scriptures is one in which the predominant theme is a violation of those requirements, it can surely be said that their covenant was also based on a trusting belief in the faithfulness of the Creator God.  Regardless of the fact that there were required actions associated with receiving the blessings of the covenant, their performance of those actions, or avoidance of those actions, would still be based on a belief in their God, in His power, and in His faithfulness to carry out the associated promises. 

Ultimately, their justification (righteousness) was going to be based upon a belief in their God’s righteousness (His covenant faithfulness).  What can be seen in the Scriptures is that Israel ultimately did not believe in their God or His promises.  In the end, the historical narrative suggests that, by and large, there was no faith.  Ultimately, this would result in the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms (Israel and Judah), the destruction and captivity and dispersion of the northern kingdom (Israel) by Assyria, the destruction and captivity of the southern kingdom (Judah) by Babylon, and the ongoing subjugation of the land of promise to numerous world powers through the time of Roman domination that would be experienced by Jesus and the church. 

When the people of the southern kingdom, under the rule of Persia and under the leadership of Ezra, returned to the land of Judah (remembering that it was only a portion of the people that were deported, and only a portion of the deported that returned), they would do so with the clear understanding that the destruction, deportation, and subjugation that had come upon them was the fulfillment of their God’s promised curses for disobedience to His law.  Scripture provides an indication that the covenant people no longer needed to be convinced of their God’s power and righteousness.  They no longer lacked understanding of what it would take for them to be justified.  From that point, with direction from both Ezra and Nehemiah, there would be what seems like an enthusiastic effort to uphold the covenantal requirements, so that their God would provide His people with His blessings, and that they might become a blessing to the nations. 

This sense of responsibility to the covenant, with knowledge of their ongoing subjugation to foreign powers and ongoing exile from the full covenant blessings of their God hanging thickly in the air, continued on in to Jesus’ day, with the Pharisees acting as the upholders and enforcers of the terms of the covenant.  By then, the three basic covenant requirements of avoiding idolatry, keeping the Sabbaths, and reverencing the sanctuary, together with circumcision---with idolatry seeming to have been effectively dealt with and now practically non-existent among the Jews---had morphed into the keeping of kosher laws, purity laws, and the keeping of Sabbath.   

These were the things that were then looked to as the marks of their God’s covenant, and these were the things that were held to so as to effectively delineate the Creator God’s covenant people.  It could be insisted upon that, almost without a doubt, these things were being held to because of a belief in the power and promises of their God, as many desperately hoped to achieve their God’s promised blessings, according to the covenant that provided the collective and defining history of their people.  Taken together, these covenantal standards came to be known in popular parlance as the “works of the law.”

Preaching & Believing (part 3 of 3)

Salvation would involve regaining a lost dominion, doing so in union with Jesus (believing in Him as Lord), sharing in His rule over all creation.  Most assuredly, for Paul, though it played a part in a greater hope, salvation had very little to do with an assurance of going to heaven when one died.  Sharing in the Resurrection of Christ and in His defeating of death, through that believing union with Him, meant that salvation and eternal life was at hand, and that the Creator God was at work, through the second Adam and those that claimed allegiance to Him, to undo and reverse that which was wrought by the first Adam.  This did not entail an escape from the world, but rather, an engagement with the world based upon the Creator God’s purposes, in hopes that the world, created as good, would one day be set completely to rights, restored, and renewed. 

Moving along with that, as one focuses on that which Paul preached and which also somehow brought belief---the Gospel, Paul begins to provide a practical definition for the term.  In explaining what he will always mean by “preaching the Gospel,” he writes “For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Corinthians 15:3a).  What is about to be read, Paul says, is “of first importance,” so it  should probably receive careful attention.  He writes, “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (15:3b).  He does not let this stand by itself, but continues on, attaching to this important proclamation of Christ’s death “that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” (15:4-5). 

The whole of this statement is important.  Without an inclusion of all of this information, in verses three, four, and five, the Gospel, as defined by Paul, is not preached.  By definition, the preaching of the Gospel message that Jesus is Lord includes the preaching of death, burial, Resurrection, and appearances.  Most would find this strange, as one would not generally refer to one’s Lord and King as one that was crucified; and certainly, nobody would be inclined to speak of such a thing as a resurrection from the dead, as such simply did not happen. 

Gospel then is effectively summed up by saying that Jesus of Nazareth is the crucified, buried, and resurrected Lord of all.  That is the message of the Gospel.  That message is an announcement about Jesus, which would fit into the well-defined mold of the use of the term “gospel” in that day, which was that of announcements about the Caesar.  With that understood, Paul continues on, writing “Then He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, He appeared to me also.  For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (15:6-9). 

Paul makes this appendage to the primary Gospel proclamation, bolstering the factual basis of the Resurrection, while apparently allowing himself to provide a bit of biography that points to what he believed to be evidence of the immeasurable grace of the Creator God---allowing him to preach the Gospel.  He adds, “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace to me has not been in vain.  In fact, I worked harder than all of them---yet not I, but the grace of God with me” (15:10).  That grace of the covenant God that was at work in Paul was, at the least, the Resurrection power of the Gospel. 

By all means, it is possible to teach the sayings of Jesus, but if it is not presented with the firm foundation of the Gospel proclamation, then it is not really preaching the Gospel.  One can make presentations about Bible stories and characters, but if they are not tied together with the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, then there is not actually preaching the Gospel.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  Not every teaching demands to have a Gospel component, but it is quite helpful to have a definition of terms.  Having pointed to the grace of God as that which even allowed him to come to belief and to preach the Gospel message, Paul comes to the point about the power to produce the faith for belief and transformation that is inherent in what it is that he has preached, saying that, “this is the way we preach and this is the way we believed” (15:11b). 

If one truly desire to have an impact for the Lord God of creation in this world, then it is incumbent upon believers to speak the very message that sends His transforming, renewing, re-shaping, re-creating, restoring, and saving power into the world.  That message is the message of the Gospel.  The proclamation of Jesus as Lord is what carries the power, and it never fails.  If the Gospel is preached, belief will follow.      

Preaching & Believing (part 1)

…this is the way we preach and this is the way you believed. – 1 Corinthians 15:11b  (NET)

In order for a person to be counted amongst the number of the covenant people, and therefore participating in the life of the age to come in the here and now (eternal life) and the new creation to come, belief in the message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) is fundamental.  According to the New Testament reflections on the Christ-event and that which it has wrought in the world, belief in the Gospel is what brings change.  Belief in the Gospel is what brings transformation. 

Belief in the Gospel, and a trust that the Gospel contains power for change and transformation, which will be reflected in word and deed, is what conforms a man or woman into the glory-reflecting image of Himself that the Creator God desires for those that were created as His image.  This is something that is partially accomplished by preaching, as the hearing of the Gospel message is fundamentally associated with the coming of faith, which manifests itself as belief, which unleashes the transformative power of the Resurrection and the life of the age to come in the believer.

So this begs the question as to what it is that should be preached.  What message---whether one is a writer, or a teacher, or a preacher, or simply a person seeking to daily be a light and vessel for the Creator God’s use---should we preach?  This, of course, is a question with which the preacher should wrestle regularly.  A pastor, most especially, should desire to see changed lives amongst those to whom he has been called to serve and to teach.  Because of this desire, a pastor should always want to preach a message that ultimately produces belief in his hearers.  This makes a great deal of sense, since belief, rooted in the operative faith that the Apostle Paul insists somehow comes through hearing, is the vehicle for transformation.  It is wonderful to know that there is a message that has never failed, and which will never fail, to do this.  What is it? 

The Apostle Paul provides a useful guide in this area, doing so here in the fifteenth chapter of the first letter to the church at Corinth.  In it, he writes “this is the way we preach and this is the way you believed,” so what comes before that must be of some particular importance.  The chapter begins with Paul writing, “Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the Gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you---unless you believed in vain” (15:1).  Right away, one learns that Paul is referring to the Gospel. 

Now, some might say that “preaching the Gospel” is an obvious answer to the question as to what message never fails to produce belief and subsequent transformation.  Along with that, it would probably be said that, as long as a pastor is preaching from the Bible, or preaching about God, or preaching about God in Christ, that he is preaching the Gospel.  However, that may not necessarily be the case.  Preaching the “Gospel” is not simply preaching from the Bible, or about God, or even about Jesus. 

“Gospel,” as was well understood in the day in which Jesus lived and Paul wrote, had a specific meaning related to proclamations about the Caesar.  Therefore, the use of “Gospel” by Jesus, Paul, or any of the other New Testament writers or New Testament or era believers, would be construed as having a direct reference to proclamations about a King, that being Jesus the Messiah.  It is with this context, of Jesus as King, with claims on men and the world and power superior to that of Caesar, that Paul goes on to provide a basic definition of what it is that he means when he writes about his preaching of the Gospel.  

Mordecai & Jesus (part 2 of 2)

Though in the grip of certain death, deliverance comes to the covenant people.  Figuratively, because of Esther’s actions, the Creator God’s people were resurrected from the dead.  Fitting quite well with the controlling narrative and presentation of the covenant God’s plan of redemption, as it presents itself throughout Scripture, this figurative resurrection shares echoes with the story of Abraham’s call to sacrifice Isaac. 

In that story, Abraham considered Isaac to be dead, but trusted that his God would raise him because of the promises that had been made to Abraham.  Isaac, figuratively, went through death, and  (again) figuratively, was raised from the dead.  Returning then to Esther one reads that “Contrary to expectations, the Jews gained power over their enemies” (9:1b).  Yes, the Creaor God’s covenant people triumphed, just as they would one day be made to triumph over the final enemy, that being death, through and because of the Resurrection of Jesus and their believing union with Him, with belief in the Lordship and Kingship of Jesus being the mark of the Creator God’s new covenant people and the way in which they are made to share in His Resurrection, prefiguring and pointing to their own (and that of the entire creation).    

Tying in the title of this study, one of those people of the covenant, that being Mordecai, is not only resurrected, but he is exalted, ultimately coming to represent in himself the complete vindication of the people of the covenant God.  As the story goes, Mordecai is exalted to a royal position, adorned “in purple and white and royal attire, with a large golden crown and a purple linen mantle” (8:15b), symbolizing that royalty and its association vindication.  Yes, one man becomes the representative of the Creator God’s chosen people.  With his (and his people’s) passing through persecution and suffering and a figurative death, he comes out on the other side, effectively crowned as a king, as “Mordecai the Jew was second only to King Ahasuerus” (10:3a).  This was what would eventually come to be be experienced by Jesus the Christ as well, who would be exalted as King by His Resurrection, though in submission (second only as He would insist) to the Father. 

Indeed, all that will be said here of Mordecai would, could, and certainly should invoke thoughts of the Lord Jesus, who was persecuted, went into death, experienced a Resurrection, and was shown forth as King.  It is said of Mordecai that “He was the highest-ranking Jew” (10:3a), which is another way in which one could be justified in thinking of Jesus.  It is said of Mordecai that “He was admired by his numerous relatives” (10:3b), which would also eventually become true of Jesus following His Resurrection.  Of Mordecai, it is said that “He worked enthusiastically for the good of his people and was an advocate for the welfare of all his descendants” (10:3c).  This too can most definitely be said of Jesus, the one mediator between God and man. 

Prior to such things being said of Mordecai, the reader (and the hopeful Jew undergoing persecution under the heel of an oppressor) learns that “Mordecai was of high rank in the king’s palace, and word about him was spreading throughout all the provinces.  His influence continued to become greater and greater” (9:4).  As it was for the figuratively resurrected Mordecai, so it was for the physically resurrected Jesus.  Jesus, as it comes to be said of Him, is given the name above all names and set above all rulers and powers.  The Gospel of His Kingdom (He is Lord) spread throughout all lands and His influence grew, with that influence, as planned, spreading and growing to this day.      

Humanity (part 1 of 2)

Paul operates with a fellowship-driven mentality, as Israel’s history, defined by God’s covenant dealings with them, looms large in his thinking.  So as we see him, because of God’s justifying activity, incorporating Gentiles into the stories of Adam and Moses to go along with their being incorporated into the story of Abraham, with each story marking the creation of a covenant people (which is also taking place in the church, through the covenant that is marked by belief in Jesus), a demand is placed upon us to allow these thoughts to resonate as we examine part of the fifth chapter of Romans. 

The boundlessness of the covenant and of the grace of God (with that boundlessness not being undefinable or unobservable, but substantively demonstrated through the inclusion of Gentiles within that covenant) is set forth as Paul writes “But the gracious gift is not like the transgression” (5:15a).  Remember, because Adam and Israel (Moses) are in view, “transgression” can be understood on multiple levels.  Those multiple transgressions are overcome, however, “For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many!” (5:15b).  We can point out that Paul believed Jesus, as Messiah (King/Christ), embodied Israel (it was a common understanding that the King stood in for the people), which allows for the transition from Adam to Jesus, encompassing Moses (who was standing in for Israel in this construct) in the process.  Thus, we can see the movement from Adam, through Jesus, to the many---the Gentile nations. 

Effectively, the covenant had been provided to all people through Adam, who represents all of humanity.  Though this is probably an uncommon way of looking at God’s covenant dealings, and though it seems somewhat counter-intuitive on its surface, we can actually insist that God’s original covenant had been made with the whole of humanity, with Adam representing the whole.  That covenant was eventually localized to Abraham and his descendants.  This includes a number of nations, as we consider the very basic fact that Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, both of which had a number of descendants. 

The covenant with Israel represents a further localizing, as the descendants of Jacob, one of the numerous grandsons of Abraham, are chosen as God’s covenant people.  According to the historical narrative on offer in Scripture, we see an ongoing narrowing of the covenant.  What at first looks like an expansion, from Adam, to Abraham’s household, to Israel, is actually an ongoing process of restriction.  The intentions always remained the same, however, which was to reflect God’s glory into the world and to gather up the praises of God’s creation and return them back to Him. 

With the Assyrian conquest of Israel, and the dispersion of the northern ten tribes of the twelve tribes of Israel and their being scattered to the four winds, Judah remains on the playing field as the carriers of the covenant.  This is yet another restriction.  As we get closer to the time of Jesus, there is an even further narrowing of covenant participants, with groups within the land of Israel creating lines of demarcation that will determine which members of God’s historical covenant people are actually continuing to participate in God’s covenant.  

Kingdom Of Peace (part 1 of 3)

Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. – Romans 5:1  (NET)

Though this is an obvious understatement, Paul has said much.  Having done so, he begins to reach some immediate conclusions and logical deductions that are forced by the things that he has presented in what must be understood to be the building argument of the first four chapters of the letter to the church at Rome.  Those deductions begin with “Therefore.”  He writes “Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:1).  Having been brought into the covenant people (declared righteous) through the instrumentality of faith (belief in God and its concurrent unswerving loyalty to the claims made by that God, per the example of Abraham), a state of peace between humanity and God is engendered.  This peace is attached to the Lord, who is Jesus, who is the Christ (the Anointed One/Messiah/King). 

“Peace” operates on a number of levels.  One of those levels will be overtly addressed by Paul in relatively short order.  A second level of the operation of “peace,” which is more subtle and subversive, is surely also implied, and we can see through it the juxtaposition and choice of particular words used at this particular place in the letter.  What’s subtle and subversive in the use of peace?  Doesn’t everybody desire peace?  Answering that question and addressing that issue requires us to ask another question and to see where that might lead us. 

About what might a citizen of Rome think when they hear the word “peace”?  It would be much more than an inward state of bliss or mellow contentment, or a cessation of against-ness, or of a lack of spiritual conflict.  The fact that Paul will go on to describe peace with God, the need for peace with God, and the way that such peace is generated, might inform us that these particular dimensions of peace (with which Paul deals in verses six through eleven of this chapter) would not necessarily spring to mind when Paul speaks of peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 

It may very well be the case that Paul expects his Roman audience, as they are fully ensconced within the city of Rome and therefore live at the seat of Roman imperial ideology and its associated imperial theology and attendant propaganda, to think of the “pax Romana,” or “Roman peace” when he writes to them concerning peace.  This was an exalted ideal for Rome, as they imagined themselves to be the bringers of peace and justice to the world, with this having begun under the revered and exalted Emperor Caesar Augustus.  This peace, of course, was brought about primarily through military conquest.  Following military conquest when Rome deemed it necessary (some would simply acquiesce to the power of Rome without raising arms against them), the Roman peace would be secured by the ongoing threat of the exercise of military power. 

Together with that, any thoughts of rebellion were quelled and quenched by the reminder of Rome’s power of life over death, with this best (and most horribly) embodied by the Roman cross, as it was the means of execution reserved for recalcitrant slaves and rebels against Rome.  Crucifixion was employed to send a political message.  Even the crucifixion of a recalcitrant slave would convey Rome’s political might, as it reminded those that would witness the event, because of its also being used as a means of execution for those that challenged the power of Caesar, that all were slaves of Rome. 

Covenant Of Belief (part 3 of 3)

A moment of reflection causes us to consider that we would not be reaching in the least to suggest that there are multiple levels of thought upon which Paul is operating, with multiple layers of application being suggested as he continues to work out the implications of the Resurrection of Jesus.  Certainly, if we are to take the Resurrection seriously, recognizing it as the dynamic event that it so obviously is as it causes us to recognize said dynamism, having sent and continuing to send ripples into the world, we see that it meets and greets us at every turn of our daily lives, demanding a Resurrection-shaped response (the Resurrection reminding us of the life of Jesus) to even the most mundane situations we find presented to us. 

If a continual assessment of the implications of the Resurrection (and the whole of the Christ-event) is going on with what Paul is offering, as it incorporates concerns about the God that was manifest in the Christ and His own faithfulness as it relates to Abraham and the people of the covenant that both physically and metaphorically spring from his loins, then it would be foolhardy and a bit shortsighted if we did not also suggest and accept that his hearers were able to hear him at multiple levels and from multiple positions of acculturation, while assessing the multiple layers of implication that are on offer.  This can be taken as an indication, humbly suggested, that there can never, nor should there ever be a final word about what Paul thinks, means, believes, is attempting to accomplish, or desiring to see from this congregation.

Joining the family of God in Christ together, Paul goes on to write “He is our father in the presence of God whom he believed” (4:17b).  There’s that mark of covenant again.  Taking the time to identify an attribute of that God, and doing so as a reminder of the Resurrection, Paul adds “the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do” (4:17c).  Though Paul quickly moves to make this Abraham-specific, adding “Against hope Abraham believed in hope with the result that he became the father of many nations according to the pronouncement, ‘so will your descendants be,’’ along with “Without being weak in faith, he considered his own body as dead (because he was about one hundred years old) and the deadness of Sarah’s womb” (4:18-19), thus providing a historical context to making the dead alive and summoning things that do not yet exist as they do, and in the process highlighting belief and faith, thoughts of Jesus and His Resurrection and the covenant family that will be culled from all nations surely lurk within the attribution that has this God summoning the things that do not yet exist as though they already do.  Indeed, a worldwide covenant family is almost immediately suggested to Abraham upon God’s first speaking to him, and this comes to fruition when that God makes the dead alive.      

Continuing to speak of Abraham in a way that could just as easily be contributed to Jesus and what He perceived as His vocation and His role as the Messiah through whom God would extend Himself and His covenant to all nations (if we want to consider the faithfulness of Jesus as significant in this whole issue of justification), Paul adds “He did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God” (4:20).  If Jesus is also in mind, perhaps a consideration here of the human responsibility to rightly bearing the divine image, Paul’s understanding of the connection with doing so to the glory of God (as demonstrated in chapter three), and Paul’s opinion (voiced in the Colossian letter) that Jesus exactly bore the image of God, is appropriate?  Regardless, Paul goes on to say of Abraham that “He was fully convinced that what God promised He was also able to do” (4:21).  That said, with the words that follow, he breaks away from a dual application to Abraham and Jesus, and once again elevates belief as that which confers right standing in relation to the covenant (justification), completely independent and prior to circumcision, writing “So indeed it was credited to Abraham as righteousness” (4:22).  By faith, Abraham was enfolded into the covenant, in right standing with the Creator God.     

Mark Of Righteousness (part 3 of 3)

Having sufficiently (hopefully) immersed ourselves in the story of Abraham, such that we have now heard and comprehended the crucial components of that story of covenant within its proper order, we can use that for purposes of an interaction with the fourth chapter of Romans.  We can begin that interaction with the ninth verse, in possession of perhaps a new potential for enlightenment, now hearing this portion of Paul’s argument for Gentile justification (covenant standing) as the adjunct to all that has preceded it and as a preface to that which is the weighty subject matter of chapters nine through eleven.  Reading then, we hear Paul asking his mixed congregation of hearers “Is this blessedness then for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision?” (4:9a).  This “blessedness” is of a piece with the Abrahamic covenant (begun in chapter twelve of Genesis, with annexations over time and the course of the text).  We do ourselves a tremendous disservice if we do not maintain our cognizance of this fact, along with the Abraham story, as we hear the answer to Paul’s rhetorical question, which is “For we say, ‘faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.’” (4:9b)  Yes, ‘twas Abraham’s faith---his belief that engendered an unswerving loyalty to the covenant-making-and-keeping Creator God---that brought him into right standing (covenant) with God. 

Keying in on the order of events, as Paul elevates the covenant marker of belief in Jesus over and against the Jewish covenant markers of the day, Paul, as if poking and prodding at his listeners for an answer that should be all too obvious to them, while also conveying just a little bit of shame on those that have insisted on the necessity of circumcision to be identified as a covenant person and so enjoy its benefits, asks “How then was it credited to him?  Was he circumcised at the time, or not?” (4:10a)  Forcing his point, the answer comes forth as “No, he was not circumcised but uncircumcised!” (4:10b)  This, when read to the congregation by a tradent, would undoubtedly be read in such a way as to convey the singular importance of this point when it comes to dealing with this quite pressing and, for Paul, possibly church-and-kingdom-of-God limiting issue. 

The next verse points up what Paul sees as something that presents an insurmountable contradiction for those that insist on circumcision (along with Sabbath-keeping and food laws, neither of which are anywhere near the Abraham story) as the means of entrance upon the covenant.  He writes “And he received the sign of circumcision,” which we remember was to serve as a “reminder” of the fact of his right standing with God and the promises that had been made to him, “as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (4:11a).  Now, even the most ardent defender of circumcision as a covenant marker would not be willing to insist that Abraham was not in covenant with God before being circumcised.  Circumcision, Paul reiterates, was the sign of what God had already determined in regards to Abraham because of his belief.  Thus, confirming his position in regards to Gentiles and what is required of them to become covenant people (to be justified), this order of events was neatly orchestrated by God “so that he would become the father of all those who believe but have never been circumcised” (4:11b).  Why?  “That they too could have righteousness credited to them” (4:11c).  That is, that they too could, because of their faith, showing itself forth as an unswerving loyalty to the covenant and Creator God of Israel as manifested in Jesus the Messiah, attain the justification that was attained by Abraham, in advance and independent of circumcision.  Belief was and is the key, and the prophetic insistence on God’s performance of a circumcision of the heart rings in our increasingly alert and sensitive ears. 

While proposing all of these things, Paul is still sensitive to the position of those that are the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac, who have lived as the covenant people according to the dictates of the covenant as governed by the Mosaic law (and morphed over time into the shape that had been taken in the days of Jesus), Paul, and the early church, and who bear this particular covenant marker because of the ongoing faith of a covenant people.  This sensitivity is well demonstrated in chapter nine, the precursor of which is to be partially found in this statement: “And he is also the father of the circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised” (4:12).  There are no second-class citizens.  Bearing the mark of circumcision does not mean that one does not walk the path of faith.  Paul does not allow his hearers to lose sight of that fact that Abraham was faithful both before and after circumcision.  Circumcision did not diminish faith.  In fact, as we can see in the Abraham story, it was the faith by which Abraham was justified that eventually led to him being gifted with a reminder of that covenant---a unique, identifying mark.      

Abraham's Family (part 2 of 3)

After Abraham’s response of faith, which proved his genuine loyalty, God continues to speak to Abraham, saying “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess” (15:7b).  Having responded in faith, Abraham has accepted that this can be made to happen, even if his situation and circumstances seemed to militate against the possibility; but he does ask “O Sovereign Lord, by what can I know that I am to possess it?” (15:8)  The Lord responded with directions concerning some animals, which would lead to a covenant ritual.  As it relates to what Paul is attempting to prove in Romans four, given the opportunity to here enshrine circumcision as the proof of God’s covenant promise to Abraham, the proof comes in the form of yet one more thing for which Abraham will have to trust is going to come about under the ultimate control of this sovereign God. 

Strangely, Abraham is told “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a foreign country.  They will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years.  But I will execute judgment on the nation that they will serve.  Afterward they will come out with many possessions.  But as for you, you will go to your ancestors in peace a be buried at a good old age.  In the fourth generation your descendants will return here” (15:13b-16b).  The eighteenth verse stresses what it is that God is doing, as we read “That day the Lord made a covenant with Abram: ‘To your descendants I give this land” (15:18a).  So here we have explicit language of covenant, and a specific promise related to Abraham’s descendants, with this following Abraham’s belief, which has induced the continued communication between God and Abraham, and there is still no circumcision (or any other visible or physical covenant marker besides loyalty).  Though he does not offer any outward signs, can it be doubted that Abraham is operating under the auspices of God’s covenant with him?  Of course not.

At least thirteen years later, as we press forward to chapter seventeen to hear God again speaking to Abraham, we hear Him say “I am the sovereign God.  Walk before Me and be blameless.  Then I will confirm My covenant between Me and you, and I will give you a multitude of descendants” (17:1b-2).  We bear usefully in mind that it has been quite some time since Abraham has heard “a son who comes from your own body will be your heir” (15:4b).  In the meantime, and according to his belief in God and his response of faith, Abraham has produced an heir, from his own body, with that heir being his son, Ishmael.  In fact, those hearing the story would also have heard God speaking to Ishmael’s mother and saying to her (using language that is heavy with Abrahamic covenant implications ) “I will greatly multiply your descendants… so that they will be too numerous to count” (16:10). 

This sounds quite similar to the words that have been spoken to Abraham in regards to his descendants.  Assuredly, these words of promise, though offered to Hagar, would not go unheard by Abraham, and would be evidence, to him, of the faithfulness of his God.  We simply cannot imagine Hagar keeping this experience from him.  As one of Abraham’s wives, and as one who, as a servant in his household prior to gaining status as a wife, would have learned about the God that is said to have revealed Himself to Abraham, we can only imagine her excitedly sharing the good news with her husband, as it would have been received as yet another confirmation of the words of promise that had been previously directed only to Abraham himself.  Hagar would not have heard them as an independent promise to her.  She would have heard them in the context of the promise to Abraham, especially since she had been taken as his wife specifically in relation to Abraham’s belief in God that he would have countless descendants.  For Abraham, Hagar and the son to be born through Hagar were integral components of the fulfillment of promise.    

When Abraham hears God speaking again in the words that open the seventeenth chapter, and when those that hear the story of Abraham again here the voice of God, what is heard is renewed talk of a multitude of descendants that follows hard upon nearly identical words spoken to Hagar.  Surely this of interest to someone like Paul, who has as his mission to throw wide the gate of entry into the fold of the covenant people of God, firmly believing that, in Christ, this covenant encompasses all peoples (and hence all creation as the land of promise), not being limited to the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac or to those that take up covenant markers that the Abraham story clearly reveals to be of a secondary concern.  To this point in the Abraham story, it has been well demonstrated that belief in God is the primary concern and the basis for a covenantal relationship.