A Tradition Of Wells (part 6)

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

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

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

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

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

Absalom (part 8)

In the case of both Saul and David, the case could be made that both were attractive in appearance, but it was not their physical appearance that drew the people to them, but rather their leadership.  A grave injustice is done to the people of Israel in Absalom’s day when they are treated as creatures of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, who are bombarded with images of beauty on a daily basis and asked to follow the leadership (in various areas of concern) of those that are thought of as “the beautiful people”.  Absalom’s culture was not one of mass media.  Indeed, one can imagine that Absalom would have been unknown, by appearance, to the majority of the people over which he desired to rule. 

With that said, there must have been something far more substantial to Absalom’s position and to his claims that would enable him to win the allegiance of so many within Israel.  An appeal to their history, set against the possibilities of sharing in either the blessing or cursing of their God, and presented within the context of Israel’s great story of redemption from Egyptian bondage---if Absalom could successfully make the desired exile and exodus connections in the hearts and minds of the people---would have a powerful effect within the nation.  An additional benefit is that this would enable a revolution that could consist of very little bloodshed, with their God acting on behalf of them and their new leader, just as He had done against Egypt and Pharaoh.   

Moving forward then to David’s response to Absalom’s proclamation as king at Hebron, it is interesting to look at it in the light which has been created for it by Absalom, while also looking at it from the perspective of the God that had anointed David as king over His people.  Immediately after learning that the people were siding with Absalom, it is said that “a messenger came to David and reported, ‘The men of Israel are loyal to Absalom!” (2 Samuel 15:13)  What is David’s response to this news?  Does he assert that he is king?  Does he attempt to derail the coup that is taking place?  Not at all.  Rather, “David said to all his servants who were with him in Jerusalem, ‘Come on!  Let’s escape!  Otherwise no one will be delivered from Absalom!’” (15:14a)  This would play nicely into the narrative that Absalom is attempting to both build upon and create.  His father, when challenged, flees. 

This would be a clear sign to Absalom’s supporters that the protective and supporting hand of Israel’s God had been removed from David and was being transferred to Absalom, though he, unlike Saul and David (and every other previous leader of Israel since Moses) had not been anointed to the position of king.  Absalom could point to this response and make the point that exile was coming to David.  This would have been poetic justice for Absalom, in that it was he who was previously forced to flee from Jerusalem.  At the same time though, it should not be forgotten that his flight was not altogether unfortunate, as his being able to tell a story which included fleeing must have been quite important in his gaining influence and favor with the people. 

David is clearly fearful.  Perhaps he too feels that rule is being stripped from him, as the Bathsheba incident would certainly have never been far from his mind.  Indeed, if Saul had been rejected as king for not following out the Creator God’s orders and executing all of the Amalekites (along with their animals), then should David be surprised if he ultimately comes to be rejected as king because of his oppressive and high-handed actions against Uriah?  Yes, the prophet Nathan had informed David that God had forgiven him and that he would not die as a result of what he had done, but nothing had been said about his own kingship in that incident.  He had received the promise that the Lord God of Israel would build him a dynastic house (7:11), but that was before he had Uriah murdered.  Besides, Absalom was his very own son, so the Creator God could very well be faithful to His promise in that regard by showing favor to Absalom and removing David as king. 

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.  

Hated (part 5)

This study then returns to what Jesus said in the thirteenth chapter of Mark (and elsewhere): “You will be hated by everyone because of My name.  But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (13:13).  It is appropriate to key in on the second part of that statement, in which Jesus speaks of enduring to the end and being saved.  This use of “saved” links Jesus’ words to Israel’s Egyptian exodus, as again, “salvation” expressions, for Israel, speak of their God’s rescue from enemies or their deliverance from oppressors. 

Though it can be easily missed by the modern reader, such language would be easily picked up on by His hearers.  It would have been readily discerned by the majority of first century readers of the Gospels, as they would also have been steeped in Israel’s history.  When that is understood, and once one picks up on the exodus context for the hatred of which Jesus speaks, while at the same time discarding the idea that Jesus is talking about some ethereal, other-worldly notion of a paradise somewhere off in the sky to be enjoyed after death (a thoroughly un-Jewish notion) when He speaks of being saved, readers will find themselves better positioned to identify the reason for the hate. 

So why in the world is this connected to Israel’s exodus?  What is the reason that the Creator God gives for rescuing Israel (His covenant people through Abraham) from their Egyptian bondage?  Essentially, it is the same reason He gives for rescuing the church (His covenant people through Jesus) from their bondage?  The answer is to be found in Deuteronomy, where one finds Moses’ report that “It is not because you were more numerous than all the other peoples that the Lord favored and chose you---for in fact you were the least numerous of all peoples.  Rather it is because of His love for you and His faithfulness to the promises He solemnly vowed to your ancestors that the Lord brought you out with great power, redeeming you from the place of slavery” (7:7-8)  Just before this, Moses reminds Israel that they “are a people holy to the Lord” (7:6a), and says that “He has chosen you to be His people, prized above all others on the face of the earth” (7:6b). 

One of the Psalmists picks up on this, making it possible to catch yet another glimpse of that historical self-understanding out of and into which Jesus spoke, when the Psalmist writes (in reference to Israel in Egypt): “The Lord made His people very fruitful, and made them more numerous than their enemies.  He caused them to hate His people, and to mistreat His servants” (105:24-25).  This should provide pause to consider a question that is never asked, which is “what was Israel doing for Egypt when their God made them fruitful in that land?”  Were they being a blessing as Abraham had understood to have been?  What was it that caused Egypt to turn against Israel and to hate the covenant people of the Creator God?  Were they serving those people well by sharing their God’s blessings and revealing their God to them, or were they hoarding the blessing? 

That goes to the question of why the Abrahamic covenant existed.  Presumably, it existed so that Abraham could exemplify divine blessing (as indicated in Genesis), so that his God could be recognized and glorified as the Creator God of the cosmos.  This is the covenant under which Israel went into Egypt, and it is also the covenant that comes to be fulfilled by Jesus through His church, with the message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) as the mark of that covenant.  

Only Son (part 22)

If one was to accept that Jesus (at the time that He is speaking) intends Nicodemus to understand His words according to the historical-redemptive plans of the Creator God for His people and His creation, rather than as Jesus somehow obviously referring to Himself as the second person of the trinity (which would be contrary to the author’s intent at that point), then it is also possible to discover how Nicodemus is supposed to make sense of the words that followed. 

With his mental registration of the well-understood, oft-repeated, all-important, and self-defining story of Israel in mind, owing to Jesus’ use of the son of God terminology, Nicodemus can rightly grasp that “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:17).  Quite unfortunately, as has been seen, Nicodemus would be well aware that condemnation for the world, with further and further condemnation for the world, had been the result of the best efforts of those sons (Adam, Israel, Solomon) that had been sent. 

“Saved,” of course, is not to be restricted to a sense of gaining assurances concerning the ethereal, after-death location of one’s immortal soul , nor is it to be restricted to the realm of humanity alone.  The use of “saved” is, above and beyond most every other usage, exodus language.  As exodus language, rooted in the narrative history of Israel that stretches back to the story of Adam, it implies an entrance, along with a maintenance following that entrance, into the Creator God’s purposes for both human beings and the whole of the physical, created world.  Each of the sons of God that have been reviewed heretofore had a particular purpose, with that purpose being to fulfill a set of covenant obligations and to cause the whole of the world (people and the creation itself) to be deluged with the blessings (saved, eternal life) of the covenant God, but the desired result never materialized. 

Rather, as has been noted, condemnation is what had materialized, with that condemnation (perishing) seemingly always rooted in an idolatry which represented a fundamental dis-belief in the promises of the Creator God.  The desired belief, of course, was to start with the being made in and as the Creator God’s image, with the blessings associated with that belief flowing to the remainder of the groaning creation (to quote Paul’s words from Romans, which itself is also a reference to the groaning of the son of God Israel in their Egyptian subjugation).  However, just as Adam had dragged the creation down with Him into death, so too did the failing sons continue to dam up what were supposed to be the readily available blessings of the Creator God, which had the effect of keeping themselves, humanity, and the whole of creation in bondage. 

Following from the words recorded in the seventeenth verse concerning condemnation, Jesus goes on to say “The one who believes in Him is not condemned.  The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the one and only Son of God” (3:18).  Not believing in the Name of the one and only Son of God is, in essence, the same as saying that one did not believe in the Creator God, as the idea of one person coming in the name of another person, as a representative of their power (here, one can consider the delegation of royal emissaries that speak for and represent a ruler), would have been, and still is, well understood.  

But The World Will Rejoice (part 2 of 2)

Believers are called to, at the least (if they have not personally experienced suffering and shame), empathize and sympathize with those that are suffering, making the cares and concerns (troubles and suffering) of the fatherless and the widows (and those in prison or in need of clothing or a cup of water) their own cares and concerns.  Believers are to enter into this suffering and know that it is worthwhile, and know that their work will remain, precisely because they serve the one hailed as the risen King who endured suffering and gross humiliation, overcame it in every respect, has conquered the world, and is ruling it even now, even though this often would not appear to be the case.  Does this view of suffering and conquering not seem to be more in line with the Spirit of the Word? 

With this said, how should one approach this issue of the world rejoicing?  Is it negative or positive?  Does the world rejoice because Jesus has been removed and “the world” (when viewed through the lens of “the church versus the world”) can now go on its merry way in defiance of the Creator, or is it something altogether different?  Perhaps it is worthwhile to see it in the positive light of the Creator God’s intentions for His once-good-though-fallen-creation? 

The Apostle Paul, based on His understanding of the Christ-event and its implications (perhaps relying on the oral version of the Gospel accounts, but certainly offering his thoughts on the subject prior to the written biographies of Jesus) writes in Romans about the creation (the world) itself, having been subjected to futility through no fault of its own, groaning and suffering under the bondage of decay, while awaiting its liberation from the same (8:21-22). 

When Jesus went away into death, His disciples were sad because they did not expect a Resurrection.  As expressed in the narrative, nobody did.  Somehow though, as implied by Paul, the world (the creation) itself knew that with Jesus’ death, a Resurrection was coming, and it rejoiced that its new day was about to dawn.  Yes, Jesus’ Resurrection marked the beginning of the covenant God’s new creation, and the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven on earth.  A new world had begun.  In this world Jesus reigned, having conquered the power of death that had ruled the world since Adam, by making it possible for those that lived with a trusting allegiance to Him as cosmic ruler, to overcome any and all fear of death (or suffering and shame), grounded in the hope of their own resurrection into the world that Jesus now inhabited---the world of the coming together of heaven and earth.  

To convey this, Jesus uses the imagery of a woman giving birth, experiencing pain and distress because the time has come for her to deliver (John 16:21).  Is it not interesting that Jesus, in speaking of His death and hoped-for Resurrection, in the expectation that His Resurrection, if it happened, was going to mark the beginning of a new age, resorts to speaking of the pain of childbirth that was said to have been introduced into the world because of the fall, thus linking the climactic act of world history with the veritable beginning of the story?  The woman giving birth groans and suffers, but when the “new human being has been born into the world” (16:21b), she forgets her suffering and she rejoices. 

Is this not what happened when Jesus came forth from the tomb?  Was not a new human being born into the world?  Indeed, something more than what is thought of as a human being was born into the world.  Affirming that thought, those who served as eyewitnesses of this exalted individual struggled to find the words to adequately convey what they were experiencing in their interactions with this one that came to be understood to be the firstfruits of the new creation---a being now fully and truly human---with a physical, resurrected body fully animated by the Spirit of the Creator God, bearing the divine image as that God had intended for the being that was intended to be the crowning glory of His creation.       

Let Nature Sing! (part 1 of 2)

Let the sky rejoice, and the earth be happy!  Let the sea and everything in it shout! – Psalm 96:11  (NET)

Let the sky rejoice?  Let the earth be happy?  Let the sea and everything in it shout?  We could probably agree that this is rather odd language.  Can the sky rejoice?  Can the earth be happy?  Can the sea and everything in it actually shout?  In the way we would think of such things, of course not.  So is this hyperbole?  Of course it is.  However, this use of hyperbole, and its use here in the Scriptures, also points to the eternal plan of the Creator God, and is an interesting contrast to what can be read in the eighth chapter of Romans.  There, the reader is given a glimpse into a situation in which the sky is not rejoicing, the earth is not happy, and the sea is not shouting.  We read “For we know that whole creation groans and suffers together until now” (8:22). 

This is more hyperbole, as it is understood that the creation does not literally groan (though natural disasters and plagues could certainly be looked upon in such a way).  Why does the creation groan?  It groans because “it was subjected to futility---not willingly but because of God who subjected it” (8:20).  As this is heard, one should not forget the exodus connotation to the text, with Paul alluding to the groaning of the Israelites under Egyptian bondage. 

Why was the creation subjected?  The Creator God subjected it because He gave dominion over creation to the being that He had created in His image, to tend the creation, to reflect His glory into the creation, to remind the creation of its Lord, and to gather up the praises of the creation (rejoicing, happiness, shouting) and return them to that Creator.  Man, however, by not trusting God and living up to his calling (covenant), brought the curse of death and decay upon his race, while also foisting that curse upon the creation.  So yes, the creation was subjected to futility.  It was cursed with thorns and thistles.  So it groans, as the Apostle says, “in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:20b-21). 

What is the glorious freedom of the children of the Creator God?  The glorious freedom is the eternal life (the life of the age to come) in which believers participate upon their confession of Jesus as King (the Gospel), and which his fully and finally consummated in their being resurrected from the dead in the same way that Christ was resurrected from the dead, as was understood by the earliest of Jesus believers. 

The glorious freedom, among other things, is a glorified body (animated by the life of the age to come) that experiences the Resurrection power of God, just as was experienced by Jesus the Christ, here in the midst of God’s creation (again, just like Jesus the Christ).  This is a state in which the believer is free from death and decay---free from sorrows, pain, and suffering (just like Jesus the Christ)  Paul insists, reflecting widespread and fairly standard Jewish hope concerning the eschaton, that the creation itself hopes for that freedom, in the same way that those “who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies” (8:23). 

Rome, Corinth & The Liberation Of Creation (part 3 of 3)

It is important to continue to remember that Israel’s groaning was to escape bondage, but not to escape the world.  The idea that the world was something shabby, second-rate, and to be escaped, is nowhere present in Jewish thought.  Rather, the world was very much understood to be a good creation sullied by the very ones given a charge to keep.  That same creation was to be renewed by God, who would accomplish it by His own intervention and His own power, through the instrumentation of the same beings that had originally failed in the performance of their assignment.  This was the way that the story of Abraham, according to the structure of the very foundations of Israel’s story (Genesis one through eleven), was perceived. 

As it relates to Israel in Egypt, which is the paradigm on which Paul clearly operates for quite specific purposes, the groaning was based on a desire to return to the place where God had visited and placed their forefathers.  This then is the attitude that is to be adopted by the church, which will include confirming the mindset that sees creation as inherently good, while rejecting the mindset that creation is something that is less than good, which is a way of thinking that is foreign to all of Scripture, foreign to the thought-world in which Jesus lived and conducted His ministry, and foreign to the Apostle Paul.  We recognize the advent of the kingdom and its restoration of the physical creation by means of the Resurrection, and so groan to escape the bondage of the old age of sin and death by participating in the new age of the life of the Spirit.  This is accomplished whenever Jesus is proclaimed as Lord, be it in word or deed, as our actions are explained by adherence to the principles and ideals of the kingdom of God as announced by Jesus. 

We, who compose the church of Christ and function as glory-to-God-bringing Ambassadors of the kingdom of God, do not groan to escape the world, but to enter into the land originally promised to the original divine image and covenant bearer (Adam), which is the restored creation, as the renewal of that creation is foretold and foreordained by the promise of God and the Resurrection of Jesus.  Our heavenly dwelling is two-fold, in that it is (1) the creation that will be overrun by the power of God’s kingdom, which is (2) to be enjoyed by His image-bearers in glorified, resurrected bodies that are suited for the world of God’s kingdom reign.

To that point we append Paul’s subsequent language, wherein he adds “if indeed, after we have put on our heavenly house, we will not be found naked.  For we groan while we are in this tent, since we are weighed down, because we do not want to be unclothed, but clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (5:3-4), thereby linking the promised land of the new creation, which is obviously far more explicit in connection with the groaning in Romans, with the implications of the Resurrection.  The old age (flesh/mortal) is swallowed up by the new age (spirit/life).  It is for this, and for what should be our desire, if we call Jesus Lord, to participate in God’s kingdom program in the here and now as effective and loyal citizens, that the “Spirit helps us in our weakness,” and “intercedes for us with inexpressible groaning” (8:26a,c), as we groan like Israel in Egypt, in knowledge of promises, a land, the faithfulness of our God, and His purposes for us in and for this world. 

As Paul reflects on the heavenly house, which should produce thoughts not far removed from the idea of the household of believers and therefore the family of Abraham that is united under a single head through the confession of Jesus as Lord, along with groaning, a tent (thoughts of the tabernacle of the wilderness is not too far away if exodus is in mind), clothing, and the creation that is under the sway of mortality being overcome by the power that brought Jesus back from the dead (this is how kingdom people could usefully perceive their service of God in the world), he goes on to declare that “the one who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave us the Spirit as a down payment” (5:5). 

Having gone to some length to demonstrate the companionship between the two passages that are here on offer, we again consider those popular words from Romans, and within the same echoing chamber hear “And we know that all things word together for good for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose” (8:28).  Yes, it is within this rubric of God’s purposes for His covenant family and His creation that we then consider Paul’s words concerning those who are predestined, called, justified, and glorified---conformed into the image of His Son (Adam, Israel, Jesus, the church). This reminds us, yet again, just how incredibly crucial it is to hear these Scriptures not only in their immediate context, but within the context of the story of the redeeming God who is going about the business, through His covenant family, of setting His world right.   

Remaking Creation (part 1)

Paul seems to be infatuated with the idea of the new creation.  He firmly believes that the family of God---the heirs of the covenant, through their implementation of suffering-embracing-and-alleviating kingdom principles, are new creation-bringers.  In fact, he says that “the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God” (8:19).  These sons of God are not is not a special class of super-spiritual beings.  This is the justified, covenant-enfolded family of God, called into existence by belief in Jesus. 

The creation itself, long “subjected to futility” (8:20a), awaits the advance of God’s kingdom, doing so “in hope” (8:20c).  When we consider the nature of the hope of creation, it would be foolish for us to disconnect it from the cherished hope of the people of God, that being the general resurrection, so we acknowledge that God also intends to bring resurrection to His once good creation.  This is precisely the point at which Paul reaches, writing “that the creation itself will also,” along with humanity, “be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:21).  With this, Paul carries forward the words of verse fifteen, where he, speaking to the global family of God, said “you did not receive the spirit of slavery,” or bondage, “leading again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’” 

Paul has also done something else with the words that he has here employed.  Not only has he joined together the fate of humanity and the fate of creation, with both joyously experiencing the power of the Resurrection and the new age (the creation doing so because of the kingdom principles that have been adopted and are being employed by the family of God, in wise stewardship as tenders of God’s garden, like Adam and like Jesus, who was resurrected into a garden and was even mistaken for a gardener), but he has also called to mind the exodus, which is the defining story of Israel (Passover, Israel’s most important holy day, which is the time of the crucifixion and the Resurrection, is forever and inextricably linked to the defining story of the renewed people of God, which is something to always consider).  His use of “bondage” and “the freedom of God’s children” serve to bring the experience of the exodus into the frame. 

In case we are not quite convinced that this is so, and if, for some reason, we disregard Paul’s extended effort to cause the believers to see themselves as an equal family before God, the previously defining barriers of covenant identification now removed and replaced by confession of Jesus as Lord, what comes next clinches the argument, as Paul writes “For we know that the whole creation suffers and groans together until now” (8:22).  This language is borrowed from the second chapter of Exodus.  There, we can read “During that long period of time the king of Egypt died, and the Israelites groaned because of their slave labor” (2:23a).  We note the groaning and the bondage.  We also find that “They cried out,” much like all can now cry out to God as their Father, and much like the creation itself is able to cry out, “and their desperate cry because of their slave labor went up to God.  God heard their groaning” (2:23b-24a). 

What did God do for the people on whose behalf He was going to exercise His redemptive power, and with whom He was soon going to enter into covenant?  As He has done, is doing, and will do for His new covenant people, the people who confess their trust in Him through their belief in Jesus and the fact of His Lordship, “God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, God saw the Israelites, and God understood” (2:24b-25).  He provided freedom, introducing them into a covenant-shaped life.