Speaking In Tongues (part 5)

As a denizen of the first century Greco-Roman world and as a popular teacher that would have been increasingly viewed through messianic lenses, Jesus would have been quite conscientious of the way that He was perceived by the public.  That said, He appears to be almost completely unconcerned with the honor and shame system.  It almost seems as if He viewed it as being quite backwards, with actions seen as most honorable by the wider public, perceived by Jesus as being shameful, and vice versa. 

At times, Jesus accepts the honors being afforded to Him, but generally He only accepts honoring or honorific statements when they come from those that do not possess any public honor (tax collectors, lepers, those that have been possessed by demons, unclean women, etc…).  When the rich or the rulers attempt to honor Him (and thus flatter themselves and attempt to accrue honor by their own association with Him), perhaps by calling Him “good,” He disavows the approbation.  He routinely speaks of the first being last and the last being first.  He interacts with tax collectors, who may have money and a measure of power, but who are not looked upon as being honorable in the least.  He touches lepers.  He allows dishonorable women to touch Him.

He is more than happy to take the lowest place at a meal, eschewing the places of honor and instructing His followers to do the same.  He washes the feet of His disciples, which is the role of a slave and a reminder of the slave’s shameful place.  He allows children who, being children, do not have a place in the honor and shame pursuit (they do not have honor or shame accorded to them), to come to Him.  When they do, He tells those who are listening to Him that they must enter the kingdom of Israel’s God as little children---unconcerned with the pursuit of honor or the avoidance of shame (which has nothing to do with a “childlike faith”).  He ultimately ended up on a cross, which was the lowest and most shameful place of all, and He went there willingly as He embraced the role of Israel for the world. 

These things (the honor and shame culture along with Jesus’ treatment of this broad social construct) would have been well understood by Jesus’ followers and those that made up the believing communities that attempted to live out what it meant to be the renewed Israel that represented the rule of the Creator God through the remembrance of and reflection upon the orally transmitted Jesus tradition.  When Paul wrote his letters, especially what are considered to be the early letters, there were at that point no known and codified written record of the life of Jesus.  There were no Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as they exist in their present form.  Paul doesn’t have his own body of work or the letters from other apostles from which to draw, nor do the early believers.  What they had were the words of the apostles. 

Those apostles shared their stories of Jesus (a relatively unified story to be sure, though with different emphases, as is obvious from the variety of presentations of the life of Jesus that can be seen in the Gospels) so that those who threw in their lot with the crucified and resurrected King (the church) might do their best to model out the example that He provided, as the movement of the kingdom of the Creator God began to spread through the world via the instrument of the church, with this spread understood to have been motivated by the Spirit of God.  They too were to be motivated to eschew honor and embrace shame, especially if such brought glory to their King and to their God and extended the reach and rule of that Kingdom as they conscientiously strived to bring heaven to earth by mimicking the counter-cultural behavior of Jesus. 

Historical Continuity (part 1)

Then He began to teach them and said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’?  But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” – Mark 11:17  (NET)

Mark reports that when Jesus spoke these words that “The chief priests and the experts in the law heard it and they considered how they could assassinate Him, for they feared Him, because the whole crowd was amazed by His teaching” (11:18).  Why did they want to assassinate Him?  Primarily because the words that Jesus was employing were those previously used by the prophet Jeremiah.  All who heard Jesus, including the chief priests, the experts in the law, and the crowds, knew that Jesus, who had gained quite the reputation as a prophet, teacher and healer, was leveling words of judgment and accusation against those who were responsible for the operations of the Temple.  The Temple was the place from whence they derived their livelihood and their power. 

At the same time, one should not forget that Jesus also speaks in the hearing of crowds which, though amazed at His teaching, also stand in purview of His judging words, as they effectively hear Jeremiah speaking and saying “Listen, all you people of Judah who have passed through these gates to worship the Lord.  Hear what the Lord has to say.  The Lord God of Israel who rules over all says: Change the way you have been living and do what is right.  If you do, I will allow you to continue to live in this land” (7:2b-3). 

So Jesus is not merely quoting Scripture.  By taking up the words of Jeremiah, He not only calls to mind that which Jeremiah accused the people and the priestly establishment of doing in his own time, but He also reminds the Temple authorities that the Babylonians destroyed that very Temple to which Jeremiah made reference---thus breaking the authority of the priests associated with that Temple.  If Jeremiah’s words came true, how much more should they concern themselves with what is being implied by the words of Jesus, who has proven Himself to be greater than Jeremiah. 

When it comes to the words of Jeremiah, it is known to be the case that a fair amount of the people, especially the leaders and the wealthy, were carried off into exile in Babylon.  As it relates to Jesus, it is known that within the lifetime of many of those who heard His words, the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, slaughtering many in leadership and driving a large number of people from their ancient land of promise. 

Though this is necessary background, this study is not designed to focus on what is to be gleaned from the accusations and the comparison.  Rather, it is designed to highlight a degree of historical continuity and congruence within Scripture.  Jesus cannot be limited to bringing new teaching and new ways of thinking.  His words and ministry had to be rooted within the history and covenant by which Israel was defined in order for it to have any conceivable impact and permanence. 

Jesus, as said, quotes from Jeremiah.  When He does He not only calls attention to the specific phrases, but also to the words of Jeremiah that led up to, surround, and follow that which was quoted.  In conjunction with that which was mentioned by Jesus, Jeremiah also says “Stop putting your confidence in the false belief that says, ‘We are safe!  The Temple of the Lord is here!  The Temple of the Lord is here!  The Temple of the Lord is here!’  You must change the way you have been living and do what is right.  You must treat one another fairly.  Stop oppressing foreigners who live in your land, children who have lost their fathers, and women who have lost their husbands.  Stop killing innocent people in this land.  Stop paying allegiance to other gods.  That will only bring about your ruin” (7:4-6).  Presumably, Jesus was desirous of communicating such things as well. 

Son Of Abraham (part 2 of 2)

Following the telling of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, Luke recounts a scene in which there is an issue with people bringing their babies for Jesus to touch them.  Some did not appreciate this, “and began to scold those who brought them” (18:15b).  However, “Jesus called for the children, saying, ‘Let the little children come to Me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.  I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.’” (18:16-17) 

Now how could this possibly relate to Zacchaeus?  Because Zacchaeus was said to be short (19:3) should one equate that with being a child?  Of course not.  Rather, one must look at the fact that he wanted to “get a look at Jesus” (19:3a), but because he was short “he could not see over the crowd, So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him” (19:4a).  Quite simply, men did not climb trees.  In an honor and shame culture, climbing trees was not dignified---it was considered to be a shameful activity for a man.  Such things were left to children.  So in climbing the tree, Zacchaeus attempts to come to come close to Jesus by acting like a child.  In addition to that, it is possible to tie in the story of the healing of the blind beggar, who most certainly, like Zacchaeus, wanted nothing more than to get a look at Jesus.  Luke indeed is a skilled constructor of narrative.

Returning again to the eighteenth chapter of Luke, Luke reports that “a certain ruler” came to Jesus and “asked Him, ‘Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’” (18:18)  Rather than get sidetracked into a dissertation about the point of the question and Jesus’ initial response to it, it is best to skip down a few lines and hear Jesus tell this man to “Sell all that you have and give the money to the poor” (18:22b).  What is it that is heard from Zacchaeus?  “Lord, half of my possessions I now give to the poor” (19:8b).  Now, that doesn’t sound like he is selling all that he has and giving the money to the poor---it sounds like he is committing to giving half his possessions to the poor.  However, the follow-on statement, which was “and if I have cheated anyone of anything, I am paying back four times as much” (19:8c), is likely going to require him to dispose of the remaining half of his possessions. 

In chapter eighteen Luke records that “when the man heard this he became very sad, for he was extremely wealthy.  When Jesus noticed this, he said, ‘How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!’” (18:23-24)  Hard?  Yes.  Impossible?  No.  Jesus says “What is impossible for mere humans is possible for God” (18:27).  To prove that this is the case, Luke offers the story of Zacchaeus giving away all that he had, entering the kingdom of the Creator God as a “son of Abraham.”  By the way, the man that came to Jesus in chapter eighteen was said to be a “ruler.”  Zacchaeus was also something of a “ruler,” being a chief tax collector. 

Lastly, it is with interest to note that rather than simply indicating that Zacchaeus has entered into the kingdom of Israel’s God (acceded to Jesus’ kingdom principles) by his actions, Jesus refers to him as a son of Abraham.  Why make this type of statement?  Well, any mention of Abraham is bound to call to mind the Creator God’s first words to Abraham, in which the man that was then named Abram was told that he was going to exemplify divine blessing.  It would certainly not be a stretch to say that Zacchaeus, by giving in the manner that he proposed, was going to exemplify divine blessing.  In so doing then, he would truly become a son of Abraham. 

That exemplification of divine blessing has been spelled out, to some extent, by Jesus, a bit earlier in Luke’s Gospel, where Jesus can be heard to say “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you.  Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.  Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh” (6:20b-21).  Certainly Zacchaeus’ actions blessed the poor and brought a measure of satisfaction to the hungry, whereas those whom he had cheated, who had no doubt wept as they slipped further and further into mounting and perhaps insurmountable debt, who perhaps came to find themselves in a position in which they were unable to feed themselves and their families and forced to consider lives of slavery because of that debt, were comforted with a joy that resulted in laughter at the four-fold reparation.    

Calling His Disciples (part 12 of 12)

It is not at all surprising to find that Abrahamic insistence included almost directly and immediately following the call of Simon, Andrew, James, and John, with the additional information that James and John left their work and their father and followed Jesus.  Once again, mentioning a call by Jesus, who was being recognized and worshiped as the Creator God by the author of Matthew (who is constructing his historical narrative not necessarily as a chronological biography, but constructing his narrative in a certain way and for a certain purpose to communicate certain facts about the activity and nature of the God that is being more thoroughly revealed by Jesus) and adding the leaving of a father as a response to a summons, is sure to call Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant to mind. 

After a very brief interlude to round out his fourth chapter, in which Matthew describes Jesus’ ministry throughout Galilee, and concludes by insisting that “large crowds followed Him” (4:25a), the beginning of the fifth chapter reads: “When He saw the crowds, He went up the mountain.  After He sat down His disciples came to Him” (5:1).  While there is a temptation to notice the Moses motif that is also being obviously laid into the narrative (teaching from a mountain, mentioning the law and recounting some of the “ten commandments”), that is merely kept in mind while remembering the more foundational Abrahamic context.  Though there are large crowds following Him, the author, very specifically, says that “His disciples came to Him.”  Though there were most likely more than just the four called and named disciples at this point, making mention here of the group of disciples, having just presented the calling of the first four, must be completely purposeful. 

What does Jesus do?  “He began to teach them” (5:2).  What does He say?  He says “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.  Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.  Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.  Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied” (5:3-6).  With a call from Jesus, the leaving of a father, words that are presented as being directed to those called---which are the disciples (though obviously there is a much larger audience present), and now this talk of “Blessed are…”, it is nigh impossible to not hear echoes of the Creator God speaking to Abraham (after he had heard “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you”) and saying “Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you.”  Verses three through six clearly spell out the covenant God’s directing of blessing to the called ones of Jesus, with them being given a nation (kingdom of heaven), comfort, and an inheritance (here, one thinks about the promise of an heir to Abraham and that which would be possessed by his descendants). 

Of course, Jesus did not stop there.  He continued on to say, “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.  Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.  Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God” (5:7-9).  Here, the indication is that the blessings are now bi-directional.  This sends the audience back to the Creator God’s words to Abraham, with which Abraham was told “I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing.”  Certainly, we can see that these three uses of “Blessed are…” are outwardly directed, in that Jesus’ called ones are to demonstrate mercy and purity of heart, while being peacemakers.  By this they will exemplify divine blessing and be sources of divine blessing for the world, while also continuing to be blessed by their God (also an exemplification of divine blessing, which obviously works on two levels), in that they will receive mercy, see their God, and be called children of the Creator God. 

Jesus continues, saying “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.  Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things about you falsely on account of Me.  Rejoice and be glad because of your reward is great in heaven, for they persecuted the prophets before you in the same way” (5:10-12).  Does not this strike a chord in similar fashion to what Abraham was also told, which was “I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse”? 

Beyond that which can be seen in chapter twelve of Genesis, this talk of a great reward in heaven is a reminder of the fifteenth chapter of Genesis and where the Creator God speaks again to Abraham and says, “Fear not, Abram!  I am your shield and the one who will reward you in great abundance” (15:1b).  For sake of context, this follows the account of Lot being captured and Abraham defeating his captors to rescue Lot, after which he received the blessing from Melchizedek (persecution, blessing, and reward). 

Finally (for purposes of this study), Jesus says “You are the salt of the earth…  You are the light of the world… let your light shine before people, so that they can see your good deeds and give honor to your Father in heaven” (5:13a,14a,16).  What rounded out the Creator God’s first words to Abraham?  “All the families of the earth will bless one another by your name.”  Abraham was called to be salt and light in a way that would reveal his God’s glory and gather to Him the praises that He deserves---the abounding of blessing at the hand of that God being quite obvious as it flows out in all directions.  The disciples of Jesus were called to do and effect the same.  

Compassionate Brother (part 17 of 18)

Jacob did not squander his wealth, though as has been seen, life was a bit wild for him.  Like the prodigal in his exile from his father’s house, fortune had eluded Jacob though others had gotten rich at his expense.  The son of the famed parable is said to have experienced the effects of destitution, as a terrible famine grips the land.  Seeking whatever income he could find, he attaches himself to a citizen of that country, much like Jacob was attached to Laban because of the need to pay him for all of the wives (and children until the wife debt obligation is met), and is sent to feed the citizen’s pigs. 

Naturally, as the hearers of Jesus’ parable were predominantly Jewish, and because they would naturally assume that the family in the story is Jewish, they would see this as an attempt by the man to get rid of an unwanted hanger-on, expecting that the young Jewish man would resolutely refuse to lower and defile himself in such a way.  This was viewed as a possibility in Laban’s business deal with Jacob, which, based on Laban’s actions after striking the deal, might be taken to have indicated a desire to rid himself of Jacob. 

Eventually, while feeding the pigs but while still hungry, the young man in the parable is said to have come “to his senses,” saying “How many of my father’s hired workers have food enough and to spare, but here I am dying from hunger!” (Luke 15:17), and so hatches a plan to return to the home that he had left in shame and dishonor.  Similarly, Jacob comes to his senses.  With the documented hostility that he is experiencing, he wonders why it is that he remains where he is, when he could return to his father’s house, rather than continuing to serve under a man who clearly did not want him around any longer. 

The younger son however, knows that he has shamed himself and his family, and knows that harsh consequence up to and including the possibility of death, await him if he returns to his father’s house.  Owing to that, and considering the fact that his father’s hired workers earn enough to feed themselves with money to spare, he devises a plan that will allow him to gain one of those positions, so as to be able to pay back his father over time, and in the process allow him to regain the honor that he had lost.  So he says “I will get up and go to my father and say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.  I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired workers.’” (15:18-19) 

This is the same thing that can be seen with Jacob.  He cannot simply return to the house that he left, covered in shame, having dishonored his father and his brother.  He has a brother that has previously declared his desire to kill him, and a father that he greatly dishonored.  Therefore he must devise a plan.  Clearly, because his father (though it was done unwittingly) passed the covenantal blessing on to him, his primary concern is with the wrath of his brother, thus the planning taking place with the division of the families, and then the gifts of animals, with the message passed along by the servants. 

Effectively, with the language that is heard on the lips of Jacob, bowing to the ground as he refers to himself as Esau’s servant while also referring to Esau as “my lord” and telling him that seeing his face is like seeing the face of God, it is almost as if Jacob can be heard saying something like “I have sinned against heaven and against you; treat me like one of your hired workers.” 

Compassionate Brother (part 7)

While the deal that he has struck with Jacob, together with his actions, take on the appearance of a desire on Laban’s behalf to keep Jacob working for him indefinitely, it could also be understood as an effort by Laban to cause Jacob to rebel and leave.  Understood from this angle, one could consider the possibility that Laban is striking a deal with Jacob that will theoretically enable him to fund the acquisition of his wives and children, while Laban takes steps to ensure that Jacob, while attempting to do so under the terms that he himself has proposed, will be unable to accomplish this goal.  It is conceivable that in Laban’s mind, this will cause Jacob to take an extreme action.  Jacob will either come to realize that his efforts will be encumbered in futility, and will take it upon himself to leave---leaving his wives and children behind.  Alternately, Jacob will attempt to leave, taking with him wives and children that still, financially, belong to Laban. 

If the first option is chosen, then Laban will have gained himself women and children (which will result in greater wealth and honor).  If the second option is chosen, then Laban will have a basis upon which to take Jacob’s wives and children by force, especially if it is understood that Jacob, by leaving with his wives and children while his debt is still unpaid, has presented a grave challenge to Laban’s honor---a challenge that would be begging to be met by force. 

Something like this can be seen in the thirty-first chapter of Genesis.  When Jacob does indeed leave, he is pursued by Laban.  When Laban questions Jacob about his abrupt departure, Jacob responds by saying “I left secretly because I was afraid!  I thought you might take your daughters away from me by force” (31:31).  Either way, with his actions it seems clear that Laban actually desires to rid himself of Jacob.  With Jacob’s sons coming of age, Jacob, in Laban’s eyes, has outlived his usefulness.  Jacob’s sons can now do the work that their father had performed, and do so on a more grand scale.  If Laban can successfully remove Jacob from the picture, and because it appears that they are still his property, then they can do that work for Laban, rather than for Jacob. 

Additionally and importantly, Jacob’s continued presence with Laban constitutes a threat to Laban’s authority and his honor.  If one understands that honor is a limited good, and that a rise in the honor possessed by one individual would automatically mean the diminishing of the honor that is possessed by another individual, then at least part of Laban’s motivations can be easily comprehended.  Jacob however, in spite of all of these machinations, is undeterred.  He does not acquiesce to the poor treatment and depart.  He effectively counters Laban’s plans.  Through careful breeding practices, Jacob accomplishes what it is that he set out to accomplish, becoming “extremely prosperous.  He owned large flocks, male and female servants, camels, and donkeys” (30:43). 

To make this point, chapter thirty-one opens with a report on the disposition of Laban’s sons towards Jacob.  There it is reported that “Jacob heard that Laban’s sons were complaining, ‘Jacob has taken everything that belonged to our father!  He has gotten rich at our father’s expense!” (31:1).  Bear in mind that the honor competition is also at play here.  Jacob’s obtaining of riches is owing to the fact that, in line with the interesting breeding practices that were employed by Jacob even after Laban had attempted to undermine he and Jacob’s arrangement, “the weaker animals ended up belonging to Laban and the stronger animals to Jacob” (30:42b).  Clearly, Laban was well aware what had happened.  Though he had attempted to force Jacob to depart, Jacob had gotten the upper hand.  Now, with the words that were on the lips of his sons, it is clear that Laban’s honor had been diminished.  Little wonder then, that “When Jacob saw Laban’s face, he could tell his attitude toward him had changed” (31:2). 

Compassionate Brother (part 6)

At this point, for better or for worse, Jacob is attached to Laban.  He has a large number of children (at least eleven sons and one daughter) and essentially four wives to support.  His fortunes are clearly intertwined with those of Laban.  However, he is restless.  He longs to return to his home.  “After Rachel had given birth to Joseph, Jacob said to Laban, ‘Send me on my way so that I can go home to my own country.  Let me take my wives and my children whom I have acquired by working for you.  Then I’ll depart, because you know how hard I’ve worked for you.’” (Genesis 30:25-26) 

Though Laban’s response is one in which he seems to be imploring Jacob to stay, saying “If I have found favor in your sight, please stay her, for I have learned by divination that the Lord has blessed me on account of you… Just name your wages---I’ll pay you whatever you want” (30:27-28), this hardly seems necessary.  The fact that Jacob has requested that Laban allow him to leave and that Laban allow him to take his wives and children with him, is indicative of the nature of the relationship.  This probably has to do with his need to continue paying for his wives. 

Though Scripture provides the record of his seven years of service by which he acquired Leah, and then the seven years of service that he promised after also acquiring Rachel, there is no record of his service rendered for the acquisition of Bilhah and Zilpah.  These two women would be just as much the property of Laban as were his daughters before Jacob met the required bride-price.  Until Jacob had paid for them as well, he would be under obligation to Laban.  Until payment was completed, both these wives and the children birthed through them, would be the property of Laban.  So even though Laban seems to plead with Jacob, it does not appear that Laban has to engage in such behavior. 

It is clear that Jacob wants to return home.  However, as part of the previously mentioned plan, he has not been summoned by his mother, nor is there yet any indication in the text that his brother’s rage against him has subsided.  Though he wants to leave Laban, the circumstances conspire against him.  So rather than leaving with his wife and children so as to return to his father’s house, he takes Laban up on his offer, naming his wages. 

An arrangement is made wherein Jacob suggests that, while he continues to care for all of Laban’s flocks, that he have the opportunity to “walk among all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb, and the spotted or speckled goats,” saying “These animals will be my wages” (30:32).  Laban indicates that this arrangement is satisfactory to him, but on “that day Laban removed the male goats that were streaked or spotted, all the female goats that were speckled or spotted, and all the dark colored lambs… Then he separated them from Jacob by a three-day journey, while Jacob was taking care of the rest of Laban’s flocks” (32:35a,36). 

This could be understood to be quite underhanded and hardly in tune with the spirit of the agreement.  It certainly does not seem like the actions of one who has “learned by divination that the Lord has blessed” him because of Jacob’s presence and service.  Laban knows that if Jacob is able to gain his own flocks, that he will be able to complete the transaction for acquisition of his wives and children and depart.  So by these actions, at least on the surface, it would seem to become clear that Laban does not want Jacob to leave.  What is obvious is that this is an oppressive course of action that has been undertaken by Laban, and it is quite in line with what would have come to be expected from him, especially as one keeps in mind his substitution of one daughter for another after Jacob’s first seven years of service. 

In This Is Love (part 6)

These three men (Abraham, Isaac & Jacob), and even their nephews and brothers (Lot, Ishmael & Esau), who also benefited greatly and were apparently able to amass fortunes of their own, would only be able to point to the covenant of the Creator God as the source of blessing.  Thus, they would be that blessing to the world, causing men to turn their eyes to that God and away from idols, and in so doing diminish the power of the work of the devil, which seems to have always been (since Adam) to get men to worship and honor that which is not actually God. 

That said, it is now possible to turn attention specifically to Israel, the son of God, and another revelation of the Creator God’s love.  Is Israel rightfully considered to be the son of God?  Not only did Israel largely think of themselves in that way, thus undoubtedly causing the author of the Johannine letters to operate within this cultural and mental framework, but the whole of the Bible is infused with the idea of Israel as the son of God. 

This idea takes shape, unsurprisingly, within the book of Exodus.  It does so “unsurprisingly” because the story of the Egyptian experience and the exodus is the single most defining story of Israel’s history.  It is the exodus and the associated fulfillment of long-held expectations associated with that exodus that gave them their identity as a nation, and it is that to which they were constantly looking back, with regularity, to understand the various situations in which they would find themselves and to properly understand their God and His dealings with them. 

In the fourth chapter of Exodus, the Creator God is said to have personally instructed Moses to go to the Egyptian Pharaoh and tell him, on behalf of his God, that “Israel is My son, My firstborn… Let My son go that he may serve Me” (4:22b,23b).  Of course, there are numerous other examples littered throughout the divine record, but the example of Exodus will suffice because the portrayal of Israel is suffused with this understanding that is rooted in their experience of exodus no matter where one were to look, be it the Hebrew histories, poets, or prophets. 

Consequently, this self-understanding bleeds through to the Gospels, into Acts, and into the letters of the New Testament, which means that the whole of the Bible, with all of it written in the wake of Israel’s understanding of their being chosen out as the covenant people of God, is written within the context of Israel, the covenant people, understood as the son of God.  One must not fail to understand that the concept of covenant people as God’s children, with that as the basis for mission, is a paradigmatic construct of Scripture. 

If all of this is the case (and it would seem to be clear that it is), then Israel had been given the task of destroying the works of the devil.  This will be in response to the love and grace that their God has shown to them in bringing them into covenant with Him, and the associated response will result in showing forth their God’s love for the world (which is thematic for the Johannine writer).  Israel would be initially charged with taking possession of the land that had been promised to them through Abraham, and to do so through the extermination of the peoples that occupied the land (the record of which is loaded with hyperbole, and which they would never accomplish). 

When considered within the covenantal narrative, this would appear to be a strikingly overt call to destroy that which represented the works of the devil, along with that which defiled and defaced the land that their God had given to His son, His firstborn.  Putting aside the call for extermination, this serves as something of a microcosm of what the Creator God intended for the whole of the creation.   

In This Is Love (part 5)

Continuing to qualify the insistence that Israel is the second entity in the line of definitively regarded sons of God, note must also be taken of Abraham.  Clearly, Abraham is given a covenant, and that covenant carries with it terms that will allow for the demonstration of his obedience.  In his case, the term was circumcision.  Also, righteousness is a term regularly associated with Abraham.  As one considers the divine promises that are said to be on offer to Abraham, it becomes rather clear that the Creator God reveals Himself to Abraham, and in turn reveals Abraham to the world. 

This revelation, when considered within the grand scheme of the Scriptural narrative, would seem to be for the purpose of destroying the works of the devil.  This becomes poignant in light of the fact that Abraham will come to be identified as the father of the faithful, with all of those that eventually gain status of being a part of the Creator God’s covenant people, both before, during, and after the time of Christ, referred to as children of Abraham. 

Abraham may not have thought of himself as having the role of destroyer of the devil’s works, and this may be true of Adam as well, but this study is concerned with the worldview of the author, and with what that means for the worldview that would have undoubtedly shaped his communication to the church of the Christ.  It must be well-noted that Abraham makes his Scriptural appearance after what is said to be the height of man’s rebellious activity, which was the event generally referred to as the tower of Babel, as mankind is reported to have gathered together in one place for the purpose of making a name for themselves.  In this, it is implied that mankind is thereby rejecting the Creator God’s implied command to inhabit the whole of the created world. 

This rejection of responsibility could quite plausibly be identified as the work of the devil, and it can be nicely equated to what Adam had done.  Consequently, Abraham’s call represented the beginning of the Creator God’s corrective measures, and one is almost always well served by bearing in mind that the church (the covenant people of the Creator God) does not strictly begin with Jesus and His disciples, but rather with Abraham.       

In an continuation of this process of qualifying Israel as the explicitly referenced son of God of Scripture, the study is also forced to make reference to the son and grandson of Abraham.  These two, Isaac and Jacob, are set forth as in-line recipients of the Abrahamic covenant and its blessings.  Therefore, if at the bottom line, Abraham’s covenant-connected call was to destroy the works of the devil, then so too was that the call and charge of these two men as well.  However, it should be recognized that the call to do this destroying of the devil’s works was not nearly as overt as it would be for the descendants of Jacob. 

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s roles appear to be more oriented towards being a blessing to those that surrounded them, primarily (it would seem) through the amassing and distribution of the wealth that is understood to represent the direct blessing of their God, thus providing them with the ability to function in that world-blessing role.  Not only would this be a matter of being able to meet physical needs, but the great wealth which all three came to possess without having to resort to domination and oppression, would inevitably lead to numerous inquiries, from all manner of men, as to the reason and source of such wealth.  

In This Is Love (part 2)

To talk of the Father’s love and becoming children of the Creator God is added: “Dear friends, we are God’s children now” (3:2a), which the author of the letter insists is the case even while admitting that there is a mystery to the purpose of being the children of that God, as he writes “what we will be has not yet been revealed” (3:2b).  From here, though confessing that he does not know the precise reason that he and others are have become the children of God or what exactly it will look like when they are functioning as the children of God, he goes on to write that “We know that whenever it (or He) is revealed we will be like Him” (3:2c). 

Furthermore, the author goes on to insist that “Jesus was revealed to take away sins” (3:5a).  Is it not of the utmost interest that the practice of righteousness (faithfulness to the requirements of the covenant---a right standing) is connected to being fathered by the covenant God and to being His children, with this immediately connected to that which is “revealed”?  “Revealed” is used three times in relatively rapid succession before the author makes his grand claim that “the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil.”  This, of course, is the devil who it has been said has been sinning from the beginning.  

So here the term “righteousness” or “covenant faithfulness” is now connected to the children of God.  Righteousness is ascribed to Jesus, as the author wants all to know that He is faithful to the covenant.  The Son of God, who presumably also operates in righteousness (meeting all covenant requirements), is revealed and sent to destroy the works of the devil, and this seems to be roughly equated, by the author, with being an atoning sacrifice for sins as part of the activity of the love of the Creator God.  As has been said, the devil has been operating outside the bounds of the covenant---in covenant unfaithfulness---since the beginning.  This, presumably, is what necessitated the revelation of the Son of God, so that such work could be destroyed.  This then is the mission of the Son of God. 

Inevitably, proper consideration of authorial intent drives one back to the beginning (since the beginning is mentioned), so for the purpose of gaining a more in-depth understanding, one is forced to look to the book of Genesis (the beginning) and to the first revelation of the Son of God.  Demonstrating that such is necessary and proper when considering Jesus, it is worth noting in the Gospel of Luke, as the narrative recounts the genealogy of Jesus, traces that lineage back to Adam.  In that presentation, Adam is referred to as the son of God.  If Adam is the son of God, then he was placed in this world (or revealed) to destroy the works of the devil. 

This forces the reader into the realm of cosmology, to look at the beginning of the beginning as far as one with an Israelite worldview is concerned, where one finds that the God of Israel created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).  Somehow and for some reason, without going to deeply into this and thereby getting dramatically off-topic, the earth became “without shape and empty” (1:2), or traditionally, “without form, and void.”  The Hebrew words used in this passage, “tohu” and “bohu,” are often taken to imply that this is a new situation far afield from what had been intended by the Creator when He brought the cosmos into existence.  

In My Father's House (part 4)

Now, at first glance, this should seem quite unusual and a bit suspicious.  Jesus was in the midst of the teachers, listening and asking questions?  This is difficult to believe.  Children were not afforded respect in those days.  Yes, Jesus had reached the age at which he could begin to sit at the feet of a teacher, but that would occur based on relationships and an invitation.  It is unlikely that such was the case here.  Yet here it is reported that Jesus is not only sitting and listening to the teachers, which means that He is intruding and out of place when it comes to His station, but that He is even going so far as to ask them questions.  Can this be true to life?  Is this believable?  Even if a boy of the same age was there at the feet of his teacher, one can be certain that no other twelve-year-olds were allowed to ask questions in the Temple courts. 

So why is this grace, and this honor, extended to this particular child that has no particular honor standing, and who does not even yet participate in the honor and shame culture and competition (which is one the reasons to engage in listening and asking questions)?  One would have to presume that it is because He is of David’s family line, and that this has been somehow made known to this group of men.  He is of Israel’s true royal lineage, and this in a day when the three kings of Israel were considered to be nothing more than usurpers upon King David’s throne. 

Together with that, because the Creator God’s messiah (Israel’s king and deliverer in the mold of Moses, who led forth Israel from its exilic subjection to a foreign nation) is called the Son of David, and because messianic expectations were running quite high in that day, owing to what would have been popularly believed to be the conclusion of the four hundred ninety years set forth in the book of Daniel, a place among the teachers might very well be granted to a boy (on the cusp of adulthood) that can make a legitimate claim of descent from King David.  Now, that’s not to say that Jesus would be automatically granted the floor, treated with the utmost of honor and respect, and deferred to in the asking and answering of questions, but that as long as He did not make Himself too much of a nuisance, He would be tolerated.   

When Jesus’ parents found Him in the Temple courts, not only did they observe that He was asking questions, but they were also able to see that He was able to interact with the teachers.  Luke writes, “And all who heard Jesus were astonished at His understanding and His answers” (2:47).  Remembering that Jesus was fully human, it must be said that this is indeed quite remarkable for a twelve-year-old.  Now, it is one thing to be able to ask an intelligent question.  Many twelve year-olds are capable of such things.  It is quite another thing altogether to be able to make informed inquiries based upon the answers provided. 

It is unlikely that these teachers were actually asking Jesus questions in order to solicit His opinions on the subjects under discussion, but rather, it is more likely that His “answers” were along the lines of additional, probing questions.  Quite simply, a boy would not presume to instruct a group of teachers, nor would a group of teachers in that day, regardless of how astonished they might be at His instruction, sit and listen.  There is always honor at stake, and a child of that age is not going to be allowed to accrue any of the limited good of honor to himself.  It is quite reasonable to think in this way, as it would be in the mold of what can be seen throughout the records of Jesus’ ministry.  While Jesus would teach, quite often the teaching would be prompted by a question that has been put to Him; or Jesus would receive a question, and in response, posit an additional question, with all of these engagements occurring under the pretext of honor challenges in the honor and shame culture and competition. 

Groaning (part 2 of 2)

Continuing his train of thought, the apostle goes on to write, “For the creation was subjected to futility---not willingly but because of God Who subjected it” (8:20).  Again, it seems that what we have here is an echo of Israel’s subjection by the Egyptians.  Just as the story of Israel has the people being subjected against their will, owing to the king that did not know Joseph (with the story indicating his having apparently forgotten what Joseph did for Egypt), so too was the creation subjected to futility against its will, with this presumably owing to Adam’s forgetting of the commands and covenant of the Creator God.  However, in both cases, there is a reminder that the same Creator God remains in control, cognizant of the situation and His continuing purposes.

In Romans, this subjection comes with a hope “that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:21).  Here, the analogy to Israel in Egypt grows increasingly clear.  Just as Israel was going to be set free from its bondage and returned to their long-looked-for land of promise, so also will the creation be set free from its bondage to death and decay, and from its thorns and thistles, being returned to that state for which its Creator intended it, and which He had originally declared to be good. 

The creation then functions much like Israel in Egypt, and we can grasp that as Paul writes “For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now” (8:23).  Just as the Creator God heard His people and remembered His covenant with Israel’s forefathers, so He also hears the groans of His creation, as it reacts to its futile subjection and oppression and rigorous servitude.  Not only does Paul set forth creation’s groaning like Israel, he also connects the groaning to the people of God in Christ, who have come to be the renewed Israel with a renewed covenant based on its new forefather (Jesus), writing “Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies” (8:23).

As the Passover narrative of Exodus culminates in the redemption and rescue of Israel, together with the destruction of its enemies, so too does the use of exodus language as it is applied to both the creation and the renewed Israel in union with Christ (those that confess Jesus as Lord).  Paul and others have come to understand that through the Resurrection death was defeated; and though all living things still die, death has no ultimate power, as fear has been replaced by hope.  Because of the Christ’s Resurrection, those that believe in Him, join His movement, and share in the kingdom of the Creator God (its means and its purposes) have the sure and steadfast hope and promise of a resurrection to come, when the kingdom of heaven, already inaugurated through the ruling Lordship of Christ, is fully consummated upon His return. 

Though there is an ongoing groaning, because of Christ’s Resurrection, death can no longer oppress.  Through that same power for resurrection, the creation also eventually escapes oppression, expecting renewal.  Just as redeemed humanity regains the image of Himself that had been God’s intention, so too will the creation experience the benefits of God’s covenant faithfulness.  As the Creator God reverses the curses pronounced against man upon his fall, so too does that same covenanting God reverse the curse pronounced upon His good creation.  As God’s work for His people in Egypt began with groaning and progressed through God’s miraculous intervention on behalf of His people, so too can we contemplate and comprehend God’s work for His people---for though we groan, and though the creation groans, we experience His eternal life (the life of the age to come) in the midst of hope because of the miraculous intervention that God performed through His Christ, and when He miraculously intervenes in His world through His image-bearers that bear the name of the crucified One. 

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. 

Establishing His Rule

As he reigns as king In Hebron (over Judah) before being king over all of Israel, it is there that David begins to experience the reversal of his exile, as “sons were born to David in Hebron” (2 Samuel 3:2a), with the blessings of children representing the blessings of God for faithfulness to His commandments and covenant obligations.  At the same time, David’s enemies began turning towards him, as Abner (Saul’s general), insulted by Ishbosheth (Saul’s son), looks favorably towards David in recognition of the promises of God upon David’s life, telling Ishbosheth, “God will severely judge Abner if I do not do for David exactly what the Lord has promised him, namely, to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul and to establish the throne of David over Israel and over Judah” (3:9-10a).  Abner, sensing the growing strength of the house of David, did not want to share in the exile that was surely coming to Ishbosheth, instead wanting to participate in David’s exodus, as the Lord firmly entrenched him as king over all of the land of Israel and over all of the people of God.  Furthermore, “Abner sent messengers to David saying, ‘To whom does the land belong?  Make an agreement with me, and I will do whatever I can to cause all Israel to turn to you’.” (3:12)  Naturally, David, responding to Abner’s reminder of the promises given to him when he was anointed as king, is favorably inclined to Abner, striking an agreement with him. 

Abner does not stop there.  He goes on to offer counsel to the elders of Israel, saying “Previously you were wanting David to be your king.  Act now!  For the Lord has said to David, ‘By the hand of my servant David I will save My people from the Philistines and from all their enemies’.” (3:17b-18)  With these words, Abner firmly inserts himself in the overall Biblical narrative, utilizing the words of exile and exodus, of rescue from foreign subjugation, and of deliverance from enemies in connection with David’s being established as king over all of Israel.  With these words, Abner, before the elders of Israel (as if David needed assistance from man in his being elevated), raises David to the status of Moses, causing both his listeners and us to hear the voice of God appointing first Moses and every subsequent appointed leader of Israel, as deliverers for their people and combatants of oppression. 

Moving forward a bit, eventually we come to read that “All the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron saying, ‘Look, we are your very flesh and blood!  In the past, when Saul was our king, you were the real leader in Israel.  The Lord said to you, “You will shepherd My people Israel; you will rule over Israel.”’” (5:1-2)  Whether or not this was born of sincerity, is left to debate.  Nevertheless, David is finally acclaimed by all of Israel as the one who is to be their king and leader and shepherd, and the one who will lead them against their enemies, to rescue them from subjugation.  We go on to read, “When all the leaders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, King David made an agreement with them in Hebron before the Lord.  They designated David as king over Israel” (5:3).  It is here that the author makes the point to mention that David was thirty years old when he began to reign (5:4), and the fact that Jesus was thought to have been the same age when He began His ministry is not lost upon us. 

Having been acclaimed as king, “the king and his men advanced to Jerusalem against the Jebusites who lived in the land” (5:6).  These were a portion of the difficult thorns and thistles with which Israel had to constantly deal because they had not fully redeemed the land of promise for themselves.  These were the lions that made it impossible for the lambs to lie down.  It was against this group that David was going up, so as to take Jerusalem.  Still pursuing his exodus, his going up to Jerusalem is a reflection of Israel’s crossing the Jordan and finally going up to their promised land, after forty long years of waiting in the wilderness, as God purged from their midst those who faithlessly looked to Egypt.  For David, those that looked to Saul had been finally purged from Israel, allowing him to begin his stewardship over God’s land and people. 

Like both Israel and David, Jesus would eventually set his face towards Jerusalem, after a period of acclaiming Himself and being acclaimed as Son of God and Son of Man (king of Israel), to enter in upon that mission towards which His life had been directed, which was to end the long exile of His people, doing so through His own exile and exodus.  We note with interest that it was “all the tribes of Israel” that “came to David at Hebron” and “designated David as king over Israel” (5:1a,3b), which was followed shortly by David attempting to take Jerusalem.  This is noted because Jesus was also hailed as the King of Israel, and the Blessed One Who comes in the Name of the Lord (John 12:13), as He approached Jerusalem, with His kingship ultimately sealed by what would take place within and just outside the walls of that city.  Having reached that point, “David’s power grew steadily” (5:10a), as would the power of Jesus, in that He would be appointed the Son of God in power (Romans 1:4) when raised from the dead.  It is also said that “Even more sons and daughters were born to David” (5:13b), and of course, Jesus would figuratively give birth to an innumerable number of offspring, sons and daughters the world over and for all time.