Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 32 of 32)

The cultural engagement part of the universal penetration of the kingdom of the Creator God (as the realm of this God’s existence overlaps with the realm of human existence whenever Jesus is proclaimed as Lord in both word, and equally importantly in deed), and as was seen earlier in this study, must be considered as a counter-imperialism.  To this end, the apostle could he heard taking up the language reserved for and applied to the Caesar, and appropriating it to the true Emperor of the eternal empire of the Creator God. 

That said, and as one nears the end of the letter, there is a necessary circling back to this counter-imperialism which is foundational to a counter-cultural movement, as governments, through their deity-aspirant brokers of power almost invariably attempt to shape the culture around themselves, desiring to orient the lives of their citizens towards the needs of the state (creating a patron/client system in which the government, or a single entity, becomes all in all as the locus of power). 

In the first chapter, Paul refers to Christ Jesus as the one who strengthens and saves, while exulting in Him as “the eternal king, immortal, invisible, the only God,” who was deserving of honor and glory forever.  This was how the worshipers of Caesar (and of Rome) then spoke of the one that say they saw as the savior of the world.  Paul does not let Timothy forget that the first and foremost claim of the church is the universal Lordship of Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Messiah, whose sovereign rule encompasses all kings and all kingdoms; and that this rule is demonstrated by the compassionate, kingdom of the covenant God affirming activities of those that acknowledge themselves to be the body of the Christ (His hands and feet). 

To accomplish this reminder, Paul builds on his directive of keeping away, pursuing, competing, and confessing, inching towards the close of his letter (though the instructions concerning the rich will intervene between these words and the final close) in much the same way that he basically began, with a Caesar parodying doxology. 

He writes, and the words echo in solemn contemplation of the believer’s charge to be counter-cultural change agents: “I charge you before God who gives life to all things and Christ Jesus who made his good confession before Pontius Pilate, to obey this command without fault or failure until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ---whose appearing the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal at the right time” (6:13-14).  Paul makes it clear just who it is that truly rules the world, contrary to the claim of the stewards of Rome’s far-flung but ultimately miniscule empire, adding “He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see.  To Him be honor and eternal power!  Amen” (6:16).        

Speaking In Tongues (part 3)

Corinth was a very wealthy city, as it was a center of commerce.  Naturally, a city that is a center of commerce is also an intersection of culture as well.  Corinth was situated on the isthmus that connected the area of Achaia with that of Macedonia and Thrace, all of which, taken together (along with some islands), form the area generally referred to as Greece.  Situated on the isthmus, Corinth had two harbors, east and west, thus effectively connecting Asia with Italy (Rome most importantly) and by extension the rest of the known western world. 

One can easily imagine Corinth’s being viewed as a quite attractive place to do business.  Owing to that, it would also be an ideal place from which to exert cultural influence, which probably accounts for the fact that Paul spends so much time with this body of Jesus-followers, taking great pains to influence it in its unique role as an embassy for the kingdom of the covenant God, and working diligently to see that it behaves in ways that will appropriately represent the King and the kingdom to which it claims its allegiance. 

At the same time, one can also understand how and why accepted practices of the wider culture could creep into this believing fellowship, as its members were constantly exposed to the ideologies and practices of practically the entire world, and almost always within what would have been a competitive commercial environment (not to mention the ongoing honor competition). 

Not only was Corinth a center of commerce, but it was also a center for sport, as it would play host to the Isthmian games (similar to the Olympics) every two years, while hosting the Imperial and Caesarean games every four years.  This, of course, would attract tourists, thereby increasing the opportunities for commerce as well as its cultural standing within the empire.  Though Corinth would have had its share of wealthy inhabitants, it would also have had its poor, with some in-between, therefore reflecting the variety of social levels which characterized the large cities of the ancient world. 

As one considers Paul’s letters to the church of Corinth, and hears him specifically dealing with the issue of speaking in tongues and what it would represent within the church and to those outside the church--- as the church lived and worshiped and exercised their spiritual gifts within a culture largely dependent on constructs of honor and shame (the pursuit of honor for social advancement in public and in private associations), care must be taken to never forget the underlying and quite visible, accepted, and enforced social stratifications and ordering of the ancient world. 

While taking care to consider the social stratifications and cultural cues of Corinth while observing Paul’s instructions to this congregation, it is also quite interesting to note that the very term “glossolalia,” which is used to denote what is generally believed to be the uniquely Christian practice of speaking in tongues, is a term that is in wide use long before this church in this city (or any church in any city) is on the scene.  This reminds an observer that it is not a term that had to originate with Christians for the purpose of explaining their ecstatic utterances, and that this church that was situated at the crossroads of the world did not have to explain itself or find a way to fit this particular practice into the ongoing honor competition of the day.  

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 13)

Christians, as would be expected, were to be different.  Their table was to represent far more.  Their table represented their Lord and their God and His rule, so it had to be different and it had to look different.  It had to (and has to) command the attention of the watching world.  Peter writes “So they are astonished when you do not rush with them into the same flood of wickedness, and they vilify you” (4:4). 

As has been noted, Christians (noting that this letter is the only New Testament letter to employ the term) were accused of heinous activity in association with their meals (e.g. cannibalism), while also being charged with atheism and with having a destructive effect on the social cohesion of their communities and of the empire itself.  Indeed, vilification took place and it did so in conjunction with the derisive name of “Christian” (kristianos as opposed to kaisarianos), so it is quite interesting that Peter takes up its usage in the sixteenth verse of this chapter, mentioning suffering “as a Christian,” as well as in the third verse, using it negatively with the term “non-Christians.” 

Based on what comes in between the use of non-Christian and Christian, it becomes strikingly clear that Christians were to be primarily identified by their meal practice.  The socially defining meal table would be the place that their sensibilities would develop, and be the place from which would stream their good works for the benefit of their communities and ultimately the world.  This would, of course, be in keeping with the fact that those with whom the Creator God has entered into covenant, have largely been identified by meal practice of some form. 

This is patently obvious when it comes to the Jews, as the major provisions of their God’s covenant with them involved keeping His Sabbaths, which were the feasts ordained in the Mosaic law.  This also included dietary laws that would come to be used as a means to readily identify an individual as being in good covenant standing and able to participate in the rule of the covenant God.  This notion, however, stretches back to the very first covenant of Scripture. 

Genesis records that “The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it.  Then 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, for when you eat from it you will surely die.’” (2:15-17)  There, the bearer of the divine covenant, who was charged to represent the Creator God in and for the whole of the creation, has his covenant marked out by what could be easily termed as meal practice. 

Maintaining that position in Genesis, the next covenant, which the Creator God made with Noah when He “blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’” (9:1), was codified with “You may eat any moving thing that lives.  As I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.  But you must not eat meat with its life (that is, its blood) in it” (9:3-4). 

Moving on to Abraham, and though one does not see any type of meal associated with the initial report of the Creator God’s covenant with him that occurs in chapter twelve of Genesis, one does find such a thing just two chapters later.  After Abraham defeats the kings that had captured his nephew, the author reports that “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine” (14:18a), learning that “he was the priest of the Most High God” (14:18b).  

Triumph Of Jesus (part 7)

The procession had wound through the city.  The crowds had cheered the triumphator and his army, while mocking the defeated foes.  Finally they reached Capitoline hill.  It is here that the exalted general and his armies would pay homage to the one from whom they received the power to conquer, and where those conquered would face the image of mighty Jupiter, realizing that the great god of Rome had overcome their pithy deities. 

The defeated army was forced to part, to give way to their king and to his bedraggled generals.  They were marched through the midst of their men, bound in heavy chains.  Then they were forced to trudge through the midst of the army that had broken the spirits of their fighting men and hastened their demise.  Finally, they were presented to the triumphator, who dragged them, by their chains, up the steps of Jupiter’s temple, where he would force them to participate in a sacrifice in honor of Rome’s supreme deity before employing them as gruesome examples of the eternal might of Rome. 

It was reported, quite comically I might add, that the king had attempted to infiltrate the ranks of Rome’s army, promising some of Rome’s soldiers all of the splendor and treasures that his kingdom had to offer, if only they would turn their backs on Rome, leave their posts, fight for him, and encourage others to do the same.  Comical, for what king could offer something that glorious Rome could not provide?  Surprisingly and tragically, some had been won over to his side.  Traitors!  They too had been identified and captured.  Infamy would come upon them and their fates would not be dissimilar to the one that wooed them.  I’m sure they wished that they had not joined his side. 

They had renounced the marks that had been placed on their bodies, identifying them as members of the Roman legion.  As part of their disavowal of Rome, they had scraped those various marks from off of their skin.  This new mark, they were told, the one that showed that they had left the side of Rome, would cause them to be honored by their new people and their gods.  They had genuflected before gods that were doomed to fall.  They had even consented to worshiping that king as if he was a god in the mold of blessed Caesar.  How absurd.  Now, that same mark, an anti-mark really, was one of ignominy.  It branded them as traitorous rebels.  Many have attempted to mount campaigns of propaganda against Rome, against its emperor, and against its gods.  All had failed.  All will fail!  Futility indeed. 

The white bulls were offered in sacrifice.  Then, the king and his generals were brought forward, with the generals forced to take a knee.  The very dagger that had been used to slit the throats of the sacrificial bulls was placed in the hands of the triumphator.  With one swift motion, each of the generals, in turn, was dispatched from this mortal existence---their immortal souls sent to wander the underworlds in punishment for their crimes against the empire of the son of god.  Then the king himself, who had attempted to stand against the power of almighty Caesar, was forced to kneel before the altar of Jupiter.  He was forced to bend his knees, acknowledging the being who is supreme over all.  Having done this, the triumphator, having had one of the fasces placed in his hand, drew back, swung the axe, and decapitated the now permanently fallen king. 

Triumph Of Jesus (part 5)

I could spend all day describing the triumphator alone, but of course, no man does what he has done by himself.  An army is required to conquer, and his is a fine one.  So yes, the army of Rome followed him triumphantly, as would be appropriate, and they were certainly decked out in all of their military splendor for this occasion.  Some walked and some rode horses---fine steeds indeed.  Rome has the finest horses, of that there is no doubt.  The spoils from this war must have been great, as it looked like they were all wearing brand new uniforms and brand new armor.  Normally, one would expect to see evidences of battle, especially some spatterings of blood, but there were none to be seen.  They looked sharp.  Crisp and clean.  That certainly said something about the way that Caesar felt about this man and his accomplishments on behalf of glorious Rome. 

Getting back to the triumphator, I could see that he was carrying the ivory baton.  You don’t see this every time either.  Yet more evidence about the nature of Caesar’s feelings toward this general, as if the fact of the adoption wasn’t enough to communicate such things.  He held the baton aloft like a sword, as if he is charging in to battle right now, with army in tow.  I wonder if he lead his army into battle or if he called out the execution of battle plans from the safety of the rear.  Something tells me that this general was out front, risking himself bravely for his king, his gods, and his fellow countrymen. 

Between him and his army came his bodyguards.  He had a group of them.  I’ve never seen that many, though I’m told that if this was a ‘triumph’ for the Caesar, that he would have that many, if not more.  A general has never had that many bodyguards.  I suppose being the newly adopted son of Caesar affords one such luxuries.  Perhaps they are necessities?  After all, Caesar does have his enemies---there’s always rumblings among the people.  One hears things.  Each of the bodyguards is carrying a ‘fasces.’  Ah, the symbol of Rome and its power. 

Has there ever been a kingdom more glorious than Rome?  Has there ever been an empire so powerful?  When Rome strikes, nations fall.  Sure, other empires may have been larger geographically, but none has ever been united in the manner of Rome, with its roads, its aqueducts, and especially its religion.  Combined with the wonderful system of Roman justice and the ever-present military to help preserve the occasional outbreak of revolution (though why anybody would want to revolt against Rome, I have no idea), Caesar’s rule is iron-clad.  Rarely does Caesar have to execute his power on a grand scale, but when he does, it can indeed be furious, like the falling of the wrath of all-powerful Jupiter himself. 

We have all heard tales of the fury of Rome’s legions when unleashed---the ‘gates of hell’ I believe it is called.  I would never want to experience it, that’s for sure.  Pity those who do.  Once the full force of Rome’s military might is marshaled, battles tend to come to an end very quickly.  This triumphator, I’m told, had done this very thing.  He probably could have refrained from doing so, but then the war would have dragged on and on, and more would have died needlessly.  He had an enemy to defeat.  He knew that if he could bring down or capture just one general in particular, then Rome’s victory would come quickly.  Owing to that, his strategy was to bring it all to a grand conclusion, at a single time and place, and that is just what he did.  He risked a great deal by this, but the enemy was defeated and many were spared. A plan executed flawlessly!  So not only does it seem that he has very much earned this adoption by Caesar, but he has earned the titles that he bears on this day, which were embroidered on his tunic. 

Triumph Of Jesus (part 3)

The ceremony would commence outside the walls of Rome, on the western bank of the Tiber River.  The “triumphal entry” would enter the city of Rome by means of a gate that was only opened for these specific occasions.  The procession would not only include the army and the spoils of war, but it could also be replete with floats that depicted battles won and groups of captives consisting of enemy soldiers and famous leaders of the now vanquished foe.  Naturally, this can be recognized as the forerunner to what is generally thought of as a modern parade.  At the head, or sometimes at the center of all of this would be the celebrant, as cheering crowds often showered him with flowers.  A winding path would be followed through the city, with this path known as the “sacred way.” 

The climax of the procession would occur at Capitoline Hill.  There, in devotion to Jupiter, white bulls would be sacrificed to Jupiter.  On some occasions, the vanquished leader of Rome’s enemy would be slain before the eyes of the cheering masses.  Then, if the celebrant was a general (rather than the emperor), he would enter into the temple of Jupiter so as to offer his laurel wreath (his celebratory crown) to the god, doing so in order to signal that he had no intentions of becoming the king of Rome.  With this portion of the ceremony brought to a close, the temples were kept open, incense was burned at the altars, soldiers would disperse throughout the city in order to properly celebrate, and a great banquet would be provided for the citizens of Rome. 

If one was to take the position of a spectator of the Roman “triumph,” and found himself in a position to view the entirety of the procession and offer a description of what was being seen, with this sight fused with knowledge of what all would take place in association with the procession and the symbolism at work by what was being seen, and then offered a report on what we witnessed, it might go something like this: “I was so excited for the events that were about to unfold before my eyes.  Truly this was a banner day for Rome and its glory.  From what I understood, the war had been fierce.  Some thought it would never end, but eventually the general triumphed.  There were some rumors that Caesar intervened and took command of the army, directing it to its victory, and I can believe it; but if he did, he’s allowing the general to receive all the credit and be the subject of today’s ‘triumph.’ 

So even though this general was being honored today, and even though we eventually looked to him as a ‘god for a day,’ or ‘king for a day,’ there was a bit of an undercurrent amongst the populace that it should have been the Caesar himself riding at the head of this procession.  Along those lines, it’s interesting that, with all he has done for the empire, it’s the Caesar that is truly responsible for the victory that was celebrated here today, but he has never once insisted upon his own ‘triumph.’   What humility.  It tends to make one think that he truly is a son of the gods.’ 

I had a great seat.  I could not believe it when Caesar himself sent a royal messenger to bring me to the place from which I could watch the whole thing.  Then, when I was asked to write an account of it, from the people’s point of view, well, wow!  How could I refuse?  Me, of all people.  It was all a bit overwhelming.  I was so stunned by the news that I think I fainted.  I could have kissed the messenger’s feet, but he wouldn’t let me.  I was day-dreaming, thinking about my good fortune, and I almost missed the beginning of the parade.  It’s a good thing I came to myself when I did.  That would not have been a good thing. 

Triumph Of Jesus (part 2)

When it comes to the “triumph,” the subjected realms of the Roman Empire would be enlightened as to these happenings through the never-ending stream of Roman imperial propaganda (of which the Caesar cult was part and parcel and served to undergird), proclaiming the endless glory and power of Rome, the bringer of peace and security.  Finally, those that were defeated at the hands of Rome would be well aware of this grand event, as they would find themselves as very unwilling and unfortunate participants.

So what was this “triumph”?  The “triumph” was perhaps the greatest honor that could be bestowed upon a citizen of the empire.  The “triumph” would generally be connected to the leading of an army to victory over an enemy of Rome.  Also known as the “triumphus”, it was a both a civil ceremony and a religious ritual.  As just indicated, it was held in order to celebrate the celebrate the military achievement of an army commander who had posted significant military successes.  By origin and by tradition, the triumph would be held at the successful completion of a war on foreign soil---enemy conquered. 

Though there are records indicating the celebration of hundreds of “triumphs,” in line with the elevation of the Caesar to the status of “son of god” in connection with Augustus Caesar (the reason that Augustus began to be referred to in this way, with this epithet falling to the emperors to follow him, is that Julius Caesar, who was essentially deified at his death, was also said to have adopted Augustus as his son via his last will and testament, thus he could be referred to as the “son of god”.  Augustus is not the given name of the emperor, but rather, it means “revered one”), the number of “triumphs” dropped dramatically.  Between 27 B.C. and 166 A.D., there were only five recorded “triumphs.”  Therefore, in the time of John the Revelator, though few such events had taken place, these few events were accorded a place within the civil and religious liturgy of the Roman Empire.  As one would expect when power and prestige and authority moves from the many to the few (or the singular), the number of “triumphs” dropped dramatically upon Rome’s transition from a republic to an empire.   

On the day that the “triumph” would take place, the one being so honored, if not the emperor---in the vast majority of cases, a general, would wear clothing that would readily identify him as semi-divine or kingly.  Essentially, the one that would be referred to as the “man of triumph” was being trumpeted as something close to “king for a day.”  The clothing that he wore would be that which was traditionally associated with the statue of “Jupiter Capitolinus,” the supreme deity of Rome.  This would include a pure white and gold toga, a laurel crown, and red boots.  He might even have his face reddened in honor of the god whose garments he was presumed to be wearing, albeit briefly.  Obviously, if it was the emperor himself, then his divinity, along with his kingly status, would be a given and implied. 

The one being celebrated, the man of triumph, would ride through the streets of Rome in a chariot.  He would do so at the head of a procession with his army and the spoils of his victorious campaign of warfare trailing behind him.  His army would be unarmed.  The only weapon (or weapons, as there would often be more than one) to be found within the procession would be something known as the “fasces,” carried by the bodyguard of the honoree.  Though carried by his guard, it would be understood that this weapon is one that had been truly wielded, and would be well handled, by the celebrant.  The “fasces” is a bundle of sticks, tied together, with the blade of an axe emerging from the center of the bundle.  Traditionally, this symbolized power and jurisdiction, and the power of life over death.  It often served as a symbol of Rome itself. 

Triumph Of Jesus (part 1)

He has a name written on His clothing and on His thigh: ‘King of kings and Lord of lords.’” – Revelation 19:16  (NET)

In the time period in which the Apocalypse of John (also known as the book of Revelation) was composed, there was a well known ritual within the Roman Empire.  This ritual was referred to as a “triumph.”  All were familiar with this ritual, especially the residents of the city of Rome, as this would be the place at which the greatest of “triumphs” would take place.  Along with those who were privileged to witness such things in person, those who participated in the Caesar cult, who worshiped Caesar as a god (or son of god), though residing in far-flung regions of the empire, would most assuredly have been aware of this glorious celebration, as it would serve to reinforce proscriptions concerning the divinity of the Caesar.  This is especially true if the “triumph” was in celebration of the Caesar himself, though the ritual was not limited to the emperor, and could be afforded to a general of Rome. 

Speaking of the worship of Caesar, which must be comprehended in accordance with any thoughts about the “triumph,” one must realize that the cult that was dedicated to the worship of the emperor and his household was believed to be one of the most popular (if not the most popular) cults of the ancient world in which John the revelator would take up his pen.  An excellent example of the honor afforded to the divine emperor an inscription from the Provincial Assembly of Asia that took place in the year 9 B.C. 

It reads: “The most divine… we should consider co-equal to the beginning of all things…; for when everything was falling [into disorder] and tending toward dissolution, he restored it once more and gave to the whole world a new aura; …then common good fortune of all…The beginning of life and vitality. …All the cities unanimously adopt the birthday of the divine as the new beginning of the year…Whereas Providence, which has regulated our whole existence…has brought our life to the climax of perfection in giving to us (this man), whom it [Providence] filled with strength  the welfare of men, and who being to us and our descendants as Savior , has put an end to war and has set all things in Order; and [whereas] having become [god] manifest, has fulfilled all the hopes of earlier times… in surpassing all the benefactors who proceed him…, and whereas, finally, the birthday of the god has been for the whole world the beginning of the good news concerning him [therefore let a new era begin from his birth]”. 

One must presume that John, exiled to the island of Patmos by the empire, would also have been familiar with the grand celebratory event of the “triumph”.  To go along with this point, the seven cities of Asia Minor to which John writes in his apocalypse, are believed to be strong centers of emperor worship, which serves as a bit of a backdrop to John’s message to those churches.  The Revelation, “Apocalypse” in Greek because of its use of almost exclusively apocalyptic language (“apocalyptic” meaning “behind the veil”) to present the Creator God’s perspective on things, as can be seen in regular use in the writings of the Hebrew prophets (while also being scattered throughout the historical and poetical/wisdom writings as well), asks to be read with the Roman empire, its Caesar cult, and its imperial pronouncements, standing in the background and most assuredly coloring the thoughts of its intended audience. 

Evidence of this worship was to be found in virtually every significant city of the empire, with cities even competing with each other to show forth their commitment to the cult through the erection of temples and statues and the offering of substantial sacrifices, so as to receive greater imperial (and therefore divine) benefaction.  Indeed, a portion of the liturgy surrounding the worship of Caesar indicated that Caesar had been faithful to his subjects, so his subjects, in turn, were to be faithful to him.  The Greek phrase that was employed to communicate this message was “ek pistis eis pistin.”  This is generally translated as “from faith to faith,” and is co-opted by the Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Romans (right under Caesar’s nose), and made to more properly apply to the true King and His subjects.   

A Table In Philippi (part 2 of 2)

Having said that, it is interesting to see how early Christians put all of this familiar language and imagery to use.  Certainly it would have been said of the Caesar that “the gods exalted him and have given him the name above every name, and that at the name of Caesar every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Caesar is Lord.”  Unlike Caesar, however, it was said of Jesus that His Lordship over all (including Caesar) came about through a process that the rulers of the world would not have supposed. 

Whereas Caesar positioned himself as the son of god (divi filius) and laid claim to his rule according to this proclamation, Jesus is said to have “existed in the form of God” but “did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped.”  Whereas Caesar exalted himself and enslaved others to extend and enrich the empire of the one referred to as the son of god, to bring about the kingdom of the Creator God, Jesus countered the Caesar “by taking on the form of a slave.”  Whereas Caesar and his sycophantic worshipers lauded him as being a man among men and therefore endowed by the gods with the right to rule because of the superiority of his very nature, the true Emperor, that being Jesus, came “looking like other men” and “sharing in human nature.”  The dichotomy that is being drawn is stark indeed. 

Caesar, of course, inflicted his power (the pax Romana) upon the peoples of the world by the looming threat of death at the end of a sword, whereas Jesus became “obedient to the point of death.”  The Roman cross and its accursed death was the emblem of power of Caesar and of his right to unchallenged rule.  All those that presumed to challenge his divinely appointed and sanctioned rule would meet their horrible ends upon that emblem. 

So naturally, as the hymn continues the contrast, Jesus, as the anti-Caesar, went to “death on a cross,” with His Resurrection proving that the great powers of the world (Rome, Caesar, death) had no power over Him or over any member of the kingdom of the Creator God.  Whereas the cross was meant to shame and humiliate, it became Jesus’ path to honor and exaltation (as the Philippian passage clearly demonstrates the kingdom ideal of the first becoming last and the last becoming first).  This, of course, was contrary to all thinking in that day. 

The fact that the early church so freely employed the language of death by crucifixion, within a world that had a robust understanding of the explicit implications of such a death (you’re not a king), and within a Jewish world that saw such a thing as evidence of their God’s highest cursing, gives tremendous weight to the firm belief in the fact of Jesus’ physical Resurrection into a world that was materially changed by that very fact.  The Resurrection stands as the only explanation for the language about Jesus that is here employed.  It remains to be concluded that if there was the smallest doubt that Jesus did not physically raise from the dead, then the church would certainly not give triumphant voice to the fact of His crucifixion at the hands of Rome.    

Den Of Lions (part 3)

Before moving forward, it’s appropriate to put some flesh and blood on this story.  For all practical purposes, the story of Daniel asks the readers to understand that Daniel has effectively become the second most powerful man in the empire.  He knew his position.  Similarly, it can be suggested that Jesus, in all likelihood knew (based on the events of his life, from what He would have been told were the angelic prophecies of His birth, to His experience at the age of twelve in Jerusalem, to His baptism, to the miracles that attended His ministry), or at least had a strong and abiding hope, that He was the Creator God’s Messiah for Israel. 

Daniel, who is presented as a wise counselor and keen politician, would have been well aware that Darius desired to make him the ruler of the kingdom.  Likewise, if Jesus strongly believed Himself to be the Messiah (to the point that He presents Himself as a messiah-figure, while, according to the Gospel accounts of His life, also used messianic titles, imagery, and language in reference to Himself), then He also strongly believed that He was the one that was to be appointed as King of the coming kingdom of God.  Indeed, Jesus seems to be in a state of almost constant awareness of what awaits Him at the end of His journey, as He is reported to have made regular references to the betrayal and suffering and death and resurrection to which He understood Himself to be headed. 

The picture of Jesus that is presented in the Gospels is one in which He has a complete mastery over all that eventually happens to Him at the hands of His adversaries, especially as He lays down His life willingly.  So it was with Daniel.  In the narrative that bears his name, Daniel exudes an aura of measured control.  In addition, he was by no means a political novice, as before King Darius comes on the scene, he is said to have dealt quite well with the great King Nebuchadnezzar, gaining power and prestige in Babylon in the process. 

Both Daniel and Jesus were astute observers who were well engaged with the machinations of the political machines of their days.  Owing to this, there is very little chance that Daniel was unaware of what was happening, just as Jesus is shown to have known what was going on behind the scenes in the corridors of power, owing to His miracles and His proclamation of the presence of the kingdom of God, with its inclusion of all and sundry peoples. 

Daniel, with the position that he had attained, could quite easily have stepped in and protested the decree that had been proposed.  Had he so desired, he could probably have kept it from being made.  The same could presumably be said of Jesus, as when He is arrested in the garden, He speaks of being able to call upon more than twelve legions of angels to protect Him if that was His desire.  It is easy to imagine that, with the influence and power that he is said to have, Daniel could very well have commanded the loyalty and affection of some of the leaders of the king’s army, attempted a coup, started a revolution, and done any number of things in an attempt to save himself from the repercussions of a decree that was quite obviously directed at him. 

Neither Daniel nor Jesus chose such a route.  Instead, Daniel, just as he had determined to do from the time he reached Babylon, was going to put the Creator God of Israel on display.  More importantly, he was going to put the covenant faithfulness of Israel’s God to rescue His people, on display for all to see.  This too was presumably Jesus’ goal, as He trusted, based on the Scriptural record that was the source of His knowledge of the Creator God, that the covenant God of Israel was going to fulfill His covenant for the world (made with Abraham), through Him and through His death and Resurrection. 

Only Son (part 24)

As has been previously stated, Scripture insists that Adam was charged to steward the creation and to be the out-raying of the Creator God’s glory in and to the creation in which the Creator is said to have walked with man.  The whole of the creation was this God’s temple.  By Adam’s sin (not being the out-raying of his God’s glory through dis-trust and self-idolatry) this was lost, and the world fell into a terrible state of disrepair, becoming something quite far from the “very good” condition in which it had been ordered by God. 

As the outworking of the covenantal promises to Abraham, Israel was then charged with stewardship over a small portion of that now-fallen creation, with their God promising to dwell with them in the land (their God’s temple) that had been promised to them through Abraham.  From that land, they were to show forth the glory of the covenant God so that all nations would stream to the land of Israel in search of the reasons for their blessings, which would ultimately mean that all men were searching for Israel’s God.  Their record in this, as suggested by their defining historical narrative, is mostly one of failure. 

Solomon was then specifically charged with building a temple within the land.  This Temple, located within the promised land, would then be recognized to be the specific place of the Creator God’s dwelling with His people.  It would then be to the Temple itself to which nations would be drawn, as the Temple itself was filled with the Creator God’s glory, as well as being a magnificent structure that visually testified to the glory of the God for Whom it was made to represent.  Solomon, however, did not show forth his wholehearted trust in his God, falling prey to idolatry as had Adam and Israel before him.  As a result, the Temple of Jerusalem itself would come to be defiled and destroyed, just as the land of promise had been defiled by idolatry, as had the whole of the creation.  All of the Creator God’s temples had been brought to the place of desolation. 

When Jesus came upon the stage of history, the temple in Jerusalem was not the temple that the Creator God had ordered to be built (at least according to Israel’s story).  Rather, it was the temple that had been built under the direction of Cyrus, the king of the Persian empire (who was recognized as the ruler of the world at that point in time).  It was not the place where the glory of the Creator God was reflected into the world, and indeed, Jesus would deride the temple authorities as having turned this temple into a den of robbers, where theft and oppression and injustice took place on a regular basis. 

 In contradistinction to the temple that then stood in Jerusalem, Jesus would speak of Himself as the true Temple.  In doing so, He would speak of Himself as the place in which the glory of the Creator God now resided (according to the widely held belief that the Messiah would somehow be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God), thereby making a physical temple irrelevant and redundant. 

If He was the Son of God, and if He did understand the role and understanding of the son of God within the historical tradition that has here been explored, then it seems likely that Jesus would have understood at least a portion of His role to be the rebuilding and restoration of the very first Temple which the Creator God had originally desired to be the place of His dwelling, that being His once very good creation.  Yes, He would be for Israel what Solomon had been intended to be.  He would be for the nations what Israel had been intended to be.  He would be for the whole of creation what Adam had been intended to be.  

Calling Down Fire (part 5 of 6)

So, given the prevailing sense of the “Roman peace” (pax Romana) when Jesus’ disciples arrive in a village and in a house and say “May peace be on this house,” one can almost imagine them being met with some trepidation.  Again, this is not un-familiar.  It is not difficult to envision the people, as they receive this greeting, thinking “Great, more peace,” as they entertain what they know and perhaps have experienced to be Caesar’s notion of peace. 

Then, when those same disciples go out into the public square and begin speaking of the kingdom of the Creator God that has come upon them (heaven has invaded earth and the Creator God is ruling the world through the true Son of God, Jesus the Christ of Nazareth), that message of peace, coupled with kingdom, could very well continue to invoke thoughts of Rome’s crushing domination and their means of establishing peace and extending their kingdom.  This, of course, is where attentiveness to the sick comes in as being dramatically important to the kingdom message, as it was and would never cease to be a distinctive badge worn by the disciples of the Christ. 

Naturally, the distinction is drawn because the usual, traveling preacher would pay little if any attention to the sick, as there would be almost nothing to be gained from them financially.  Similarly, the Caesar or his representative also cared little to nothing for the sick, as those that were sick to the point of being an unproductive subject of the empire, could very well be looked upon as nothing more than a burden that members of the local populace were all to happy to shift to Rome. 

Still, even with the healing of the sick (conscientiously serving them and attending to their basic needs so that they might recover their health and so be healed, and this alongside recoveries that could be described as nothing short of miraculous) accompanying the message of the rule of the Christ on earth, this preaching of the kingdom of God that had come, as indicated and proved out by the Resurrection, could create a natural skepticism and induce a “here we go again” attitude amongst the populace, as they would be fully cognizant of the Caesar’s methods that would be meted out to those that rejected the message. 

In this light, what is it that Jesus tell His disciples?  He says, “whenever you enter a town and the people do not welcome you, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you’.” (10:11a)  This was a different approach.  This was certainly not a calling down of fire.  Far from it.  When heard within the appropriate context, it hardly even sounds like the invoking of a curse.  Where Caesar would have whetted his sword with blood (which would then need to be wiped off) and left men, women, and children lying in the dusty streets for their rebellion in rejecting him, Jesus suggests a different though significant, symbolic action.  

Visiting Bethany (part 4)

If a compare and contrast is underway, one glaring contrast between Jesus and the Caesar can be found in verses previously quoted from the third chapter of John.  There it is said that the covenant God of Israel “gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:16b-17).  Caesar, the man entitled with “son of god,” was looked to as the one who dragged the world from darkness to light.  With this, the parallel between John and the Augustus inscription becomes increasingly obvious. 

Yes, it was Caesar Augustus who was said to have brought order out of the chaos.  It was Caesar Augustus that was said to be responsible for the life and vitality of the world, with this spread throughout the world via the pax Romana (Roman peace).  It is Caesar Augustus who is referred to as the “Savior” of the world.  Ironically, though war would be almost endless, Augustus is credited with putting an end to war.  It is worth nothing that, though death continues, Jesus is credited with putting an end to death. 

For Ceasar of course, the end of war was accomplished by crushing his enemies through massive warfare.  Furthermore, it is said that Caesar Augustus is the fulfillment of all hopes and in him the world has “good news.”  How did this son of god “save” the world?  How did he bring the world into new life?  It could be argued that he did so through the instrument of death. 

He, his predecessors, and those that would follows and take up his mantle, slaughtered millions so as to usher in an era of “peace” and to give their version of life to the world.  Effectively, in order to give the world life and vitality through the establishment of the Roman empire, the world experienced an almost unprecedented level of condemnation.  The other Son of God, however, is said to bring eternal life and peace and light, which will be accomplished and effected through His worldwide kingdom. 

As the Gospel of John informs its readers, through Jesus the world will be saved, but this salvation will not come about through the world-condemning instrument of war and its power of death.  Ultimately, this salvation will come about through the laying down of His own life and going willfully into death in an act of self-sacrificial love---making Himself subject to that which was (and still is) the Caesar’s only true power. 

Returning to the issue at hand then, Martha can be heard speaking to Jesus and saying, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.  But even now I know that whatever You ask from God, God will grant you” (John 11:21-22).  In calling Jesus “Lord,” and doing so in the context of what is increasingly looking to be a “parousia” of Jesus, Martha has conferred upon Him one of the titles that was then accorded to and reserved for the Caesar.  Much like that which would have been experienced by the emperor when he would visit subjects within his realm, the one that has come out to greet Jesus makes it a point to honor the world’s ruler and to make comment upon His power. 

Everyone Who Calls (part 2)

Not only were there many in Israel that were expecting their messiah to accomplish the overthrow of the subjecting Romans, but many of those that harbored that expectation also expected that the messiah, with the sovereign power of the covenant God of Israel at his back, would subjugate all nations (Gentiles) to them as the covenant people.  For many (though not all), this was a zealously held position.  However, it would turn out that this was not at all in line with the revealed truth (using Paul’s language) that the Creator God intended to bring all nations, both Jew and Gentile, into a single covenant family under the rule of His Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. 

As Jesus would come to demonstrate, the creation and construction of this worldwide family (a global empire) was not going to be accomplished through a zealous taking up of arms, but rather, through a laying down of nationalistic claims and aspirations, and the embracing of an entirely different kingdom ethic. 

The Apostle Paul cuts right across all of these Jew versus Gentile issues, getting directly to the heart of the matter when he writes, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).  That’s it!  This salvation, which must be understood in accordance with and according to Israel’s covenant narrative, was for Jew and Gentile alike.  Salvation, as understood by the covenant people, was not to be the exclusive domain of Israel alone. 

Restricting considerations to this letter to Rome, it can be insisted this was “the word of faith” (10:8) that Paul said was his singular message, and this can be demonstrated to be true, as effectively, verse nine outlines the message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord).  Belief in this Gospel, as ridiculous as the claim may be in light of the crucifixion (which would indicate the failure of a messiah figure) and a supposed resurrection (it was a well known and readily accepted fact that people do not simply come back from the dead), and submission to its strange power that would serve to make it possible to order one’s life according to the Creator God’s purposes, was that which would graft (to use terminology from chapter nine) an individual into the grouping of the Creator God’s covenant people, and allow that person to experience the blessings associated with being a member of the covenant people (as addressed to Abraham, as outlined in Israel’s historical narrative, as expounded upon by Jesus Himself, and as would have been understood at the time by Paul). 

The next verse follows in the same vein, as Paul goes on to write: “For ignoring the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (10:3).  Paul says that they ignored the covenant God’s righteousness.  That is, they ignored their God’s covenant faithfulness to His oft-stated desire to draw all nations to worship Him because of and as a result of the knowledge of Him and the light of His glory that they would be able to see and experience in and through His people Israel.  Rather, Paul insists, they sought to establish themselves as the separate and autonomous people of their own separate God, setting up strict and un-breachable boundaries of covenant markers such as circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and food-laws, that would serve to identify them as the Creator God’s chosen people, and therefore as the exclusive recipients of the benefits to be had from allegiance to Him.

Birth Of A Nation (part 1 of 2)

Can a country be brought forth in one day?  Can a nation be born in a single moment? – Isaiah 66:8b  (NET)

The answer to this question, posed by the prophet Isaiah, is yes.  A country can be brought forth in one day, and indeed, a nation can be born in a single moment.  This is especially so if that day and that moment is the Resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, from the grave, with the birth of a nation (a kingdom, an empire) without borders, encompassing the entire globe.  In his proleptic vision of a world in which Israel’s God rules without challenge (though certainly post-Christ-event observers read messianic events back into the text), Isaiah writes, “Yet as soon as Zion goes into labor she gives birth to sons!” (66:8c)  Zion, in popular prophetic language, is the Lord’s mountain, often serving as the purported location of the New Jerusalem, of which it is said, “Be happy for Jerusalem and rejoice with her, all you who love her!” (66:10a) 

With what appears to be a nod to the sixty-sixth chapter of Isaiah, the author of the letter to the Hebrews pens, “But you have come to Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the assembly and congregation of the firstborn, who are enrolled in heaven” (12:22-23a).  Let it be said that the language of “Zion,” while also standing in for a physical location, is the language of the kingdom of heaven, and the kingdom of heaven that will be enlarged by the Gospel proclamation that Jesus is Lord of all, is that which was inaugurated and unleashed upon the earth as a kingdom without end at the Resurrection of Jesus. 

In the book of Revelation, which possesses its own vision of the presence of the kingdom of heaven and which rests upon the same over-arching Scriptural narrative on which rests Isaiah and the letter to the Hebrews, the heavenly Jerusalem comes to earth.  One recognizes the influence of the Isaianic vision there as well, as the believing community continued to draw from the narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures in their attempt to understand the work of the Christ and its implications, in the Creator God’s declaration that “just as the new heavens and the new earth I am about to make will remain standing before Me…so your descendants and your name will remain”(66:22).  That new heavens and new earth seem to be tied to the birth of this new nation, which is an eternal nation that is populated by descendants that share in eternal life in a renewed creation---at the intersection of heaven and earth.      

Tying the birth of a nation to the Resurrection of Jesus and the labor and birthing of sons of Zion, it can be said that yes, as soon as Zion goes into labor---as soon as the kingdom of heaven begins to be manifest on earth by the power of the Resurrection, the preaching of the Resurrection, and the power of the preaching of Gospel of Jesus (He is Lord) and the consequent belief in these things---Zion does indeed give birth to sons.  Those sons are indeed sons of the kingdom of heaven.  Those sons are the manifestation and the revelation of the sons of God (a name given to the covenant people), brothers in the union of belief with the risen Christ, for whom the creation has been eagerly awaiting (Romans 8:19).

Christ's Peace (part 2 of 2)

It is possible to see further evidence that Jesus might very well have been thinking of “peace” in the context that has been suggested when He appears before Pilate.  While standing before the man who represented Rome and its might, and having been questioned as to whether or not He was “the King of the Jews” (John 18:34), Jesus replied by saying, “My kingdom is not from this world” (18:36a).  Just as the peace He was going to provide was not going to come in the way that the world provided, so He was also not going to establish His kingdom as the world does. 

Elaborating on the point made, Jesus thus continued on to say, “If My kingdom were from this world, My servants would be fighting to keep Me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities” (18:36b).  Had they fought to establish Jesus’ kingdom, then the “peace” of that kingdom would have been achieved in the same way as the Roman peace had been achieved.  This peace, as can be seen when one glances through the history of the Roman empire, was not terribly peaceful outside of the city of Rome itself, as the years at which Rome was not at war or putting down rebellions in order to extend or preserve its peace were few and far between. 

Finally, providing a significant underscore to what He has insisted concerning His kingdom and the nature of what it brings, Jesus adds, “But as it is, My kingdom is not from here” (18:36c).  With this, He reinforces the point that He has just made, saying, “As you can see, I have no servants fighting for Me.  So yes, though I am a King, as you have said, My kingdom is dramatically different from any that has come before, is going to be established and inaugurated in a radically different way than you could possibly imagine, and it will be extended through the foolish means of telling people about the fact that I was crucified and raised up from the grave.”   

After His Resurrection, when Jesus appears to His disciples, the author of the Gospel calls attention to the theme that has been created, as Jesus revisits His talk of peace (with its underlying kingdom sensibility) says, “Peace be with you.  Just as the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (20:21).  Could this not have served as a reminder of words that He had previously spoken to His disciples in regards to the peace that He was leaving with them and giving to them?  His crucifixion had just taken place at the hands of the Romans, so it would have been quite natural for His disciples to be harboring a substantial measure of hostility towards them, hardly thinking of peace nor desiring peace to be visited upon them. 

In the midst of that possible mindset, Jesus comes to remind them that His kingdom was to be established according to His means.  He came and reminded them that they were to extend the knowledge of the Creator God, and of the Creator God as demonstrated through the mission of the Christ, to the peoples of all nations, including those very Roman soldiers that had nailed Him to His cross.  Indeed, to that end, the disciples would have had the very example that Jesus had provided them, not only in remembrance of His daily course of life in which He routinely engaged with Gentiles, but in that He had asked the Father to forgive those that were involved in the terrible ordeal. 

How could they do this?  How could they extend His peace?  At this point, all indications are that they were fearful of the Jews and angry at the Romans.  Clearly, Jesus was special.  Sure, it was easy for Him to say that they needed to put aside their fear and their anger, and to go out of that place with Jesus’ mindset of “as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”  For them, doing this was going to be a bit more difficult.  It is understandable that Jesus would know this, so “after He said this, He breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’.” (20:22)  With that, a new creation (heavy Genesis/garden/Adam imagery at work here) springs forth, and His disciples were covenanted to carry the Gospel message of Jesus as Lord of all, representing the Creator God and His purposes of renewal and recreation, and of peaceful submission to Him and His claim to rule.  This would stand in stark contrast to the Caesar of Rome’s demand, at the point of the sword, to bow the knee in exchange for his version of peace.   

Subject To Rulers & Authorities (part 1)

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work. – Titus 3:1  (NET)

Why would the Apostle Paul write such things to Titus?  If we give it a moment’s thought, we’ll realize the eminent practicality of this communication.  We can embark upon the process of realization by asking what it was that was the substance of the message that Paul preached?  He preached, above all things, that Jesus Christ is Lord.  Along with that over-arching message, Paul preached the crucifixion and Resurrection of the Christ.  For Paul, the Resurrection of the Christ functioned as the demonstration of His Lordship over all things. 

Paul, along with other early believers, consistently posits that the power that raised Jesus out from the dead was unleashed into the world for and through the preaching of the Gospel message.  This unleashing was for the purpose of sharing eternal life (bringing the life of the age to come into the world) with and through those who would believe that message.  Those who believed the Gospel proclamation, and thereby acknowledged Jesus as the supreme Lord and Master and Savior, were then said to be in union with Christ (believing in Him and joining His kingdom movement), transferred from kingdom of the Satan into the kingdom of the Christ. 

The warning then served two purposes.  With his understanding of human nature, Paul would have been keenly aware of where it was the conception of Jesus’ supreme rule could lead.  As we come to terms with the substance of this message, and what it would mean for ourselves as we operate in the world, we’ll have to confess that it would be rather easy for us to take the position that, since we are under the Lordship of Christ, and seeing as how He is in fact the Lord of all, with all principalities and power and rules and authorities under His feet, then we no longer have any need or compunction to submit to the human rulers to whom we find ourselves subject.  Of course, this can be nuanced to take into consideration the idea that, in a democratic republic such as that which exists in the United States of America, that the citizenry is not properly understood to be subject to the governing powers, but that the elected and appointed officials stand in subjection to the citizenry.

That said, “If we are a part of Christ’s kingdom,” some might think, “then we are in union with Christ and rule with Him, so we do not need to indulge any human authorities with our continued obedience or support.”  Such thoughts that would have naturally arisen are why it was so practical and appropriate for Paul to tell Titus to “Remind them,” that being the believers to which Titus was responsible, “to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work.”

Another purpose served by this warning was eminently practical, in that followers of Jesus were, by definition, not followers of the Caesar.  They did not participate in the Caesar cult, nor the public worship of the Roman gods, and therefore were looked upon as subversive of public order, as the Caesar cult was a unifying force across a wide and diverse Roman empire.  With this perception of Christians coming to be widely held by those in positions of authority, and with various kinds of persecution potentially attached to this perception (if their leader was crucified as a rebel, it would be natural to crucify His followers that are continuing His rebellious mission).  Thus, the reminder to be subject, along with the insistence towards the doing of good works (deeds of public benefaction for their communities), which would show them to be the best citizens---indeed, the embodiment of what it would mean to be truly human.

Life & Immortality & Light

…and which has now been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, Who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel – 2 Timothy 1:10  (ESV

Our Savior.  Our Christ.  Jesus the Messiah.  This is the One Who had taken the Apostle Paul into His grip and set him upon the mission which would consume the totality of his being until he breathed out his very last breath.  As we read those titles, especially that of Savior, let us always bear in mind that these were risky claims that Paul and his fellow Apostles and saints were making on behalf of Jesus.  There was insurrection and revolution in these words, as it was Caesar that also bore the title of “Savior” (soteros here in the Greek) in that day.  It was Caesar, through the power of Rome, that was recognized and roundly worshiped as the man responsible for bringing the world out of the crushing darkness of barbarism, into the marvelous light of the glory of Rome, bringing life to all through its “Pax Romana” (Roman peace), and through the immortal empire that was never to fail or fall. 

Paul made such claims about Jesus, saying that it was through the Gospel---that message that Jesus was Lord of all (rather than Caesar), with at least partial evidence of this being that He was raised from the dead (and the judgment of the world’s powers)---that Jesus brought life and immortality.  It was through the appearance of Jesus that eternal life (the life of the age to come) was manifested, and not merely as something to be expected after death, but as something that is present in the world through all who are brought to believe in these factual claims about Him.  Rome expanded its empire and extended its power in the same way that all empires before it had done, which was through the bringing of death.  For Rome, the cross was the symbol of its power over all who dared stand in opposition to its claims.  By undergoing death upon this dreaded symbol and then rising to new life, Jesus asserted His mastery over death and informed all principalities that all power belonged to Him.  In the Resurrection that followed His dying upon Rome’s symbol of death and power, Jesus abolished death and brought new life to those that were going to be His people.      

It was because Jesus was raised from the dead as the firstfruits of those who would also be raised from the dead, that Paul could speak of immortality; and indeed, in his great passage about the Resurrection in the fifteenth chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul speaks of that which is mortal putting on immortality (15:53) because Jesus also put on immortality.  This was not merely a spiritual immortality, but a literal, physical immortality, sharing in that same type of imperishable and immortal body in which Christ walked His very creation after His Resurrection, before ascending to heaven to symbolize (among other things) the overlapping of heaven and earth in Him.  Together with that, though the Roman empire was spoken of as an empire without end, with Rome itself fancied as the eternal city, Jesus Himself spoke of a Kingdom, the one over which He sat as King, which was an everlasting Kingdom that would indeed never come to an end.  This would be a truly immortal Kingdom, and it would be inhabited by those who had been thrust into immortality by their allegiance to Jesus.

Paul informs Timothy that it was for the proclamation of this message that he had been “appointed,” by the Christ Himself no less, as “a preacher and apostle and teacher” (1:11).  He goes on to tell Timothy that the telling of this message, in the face of all threats, intimidations, persecutions, and indications to the contrary (the message of the cross being foolish and weak, conveyed in a foolish way by foolish men), “is why I suffer as I do” (1:12a).  Why did he suffer?  He suffered because he challenged the entrenched power structures of his day with this message of a King above all other kings, Whom all must acknowledge as supreme, and to Whom all must bow the knee. 

This gained the Apostle beatings, rejections, stonings, dismissal by his own people, mocking from those that were not his people, and imprisonment.  Nevertheless, Paul says “I am not ashamed” (1:12b).  Why was he not ashamed in spite of all these things?  He says “for I know Whom I have believed” (1:12c).  He knew the One He served.  He knew that He had died and then came out of that tomb.  He knew that He had been shown forth to be the true Son of God in power.  He knew that He was King of kings and Lord of lords, with all principalities and powers in ultimate and final subjection to Him.  Paul knew that eternal life and Resurrection power had been shared with him, and that he was empowered by the same power, at the hands of the same Spirit that rose up Christ from the dead.

Paul knew that he had been entrusted with a message to proclaim to all the world---to all who had been appointed to eternal life as manifested by their belief in Jesus as King.  Paul knew that He had a King that would never fail, would never pass away, and Who would always guarantee and remain faithful to His Word.  Paul told Timothy that he was “convinced that He (Jesus) is able to guard until that Day what had been entrusted to me” (1:12d).  Paul was convinced that Jesus would always maintain His claim as Ruler and Master and Savior and Lord, so that Paul would not have run the race in vain, nor, having been entrusted with this message of the Gospel, would he ever have a reason to be ashamed of the claims that he had made on behalf of the risen Messiah.         

My Criminal Gospel (part 3 of 3)

Paul was preaching revolutionary, criminal ideas, and the worst thing was that those who opposed him did not know how to stop this revolution because there was no violent uprising associated with it that could be warred against and put down.  This revolutionary war was being waged with the weapons of peace and love and faith and hope, so the best that its opponents could do was put its proponents in prison or simply kill them off by the hundreds.  However, this never seemed to work, as the more they were bound, the more the message spread; and killing them publicly merely gave them a platform to preach the message of the Christ to more people, as they went to death with no fear of death, for they believed that their Lord had conquered death, and in that conquering, because they believed themselves to be in union with Him in death as well as life, they believed that death had no power over them either.  In the face of persecution and death, they truly believed and proclaimed that “If we have died with Him, we will also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him” (2:11b-12a).  This had the effect of causing the movement to grow, which was contrary to all expectations, much like the Resurrection itself.

Moving on to the fourth and final chapter of Paul’s second letter to Timothy, who is presented as his son in the faith, Paul writes, “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, Who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the Word” (4:1-2a).  Paul’s charge to Timothy was the same that he himself had received when commissioned to the role of Christ’s Apostle.  He was to preach the Word of the living presence of Christ Jesus the Lord and of His reign.  He was to preach that Jesus the Christ was the final authority and the only One Who would ultimately be the Judge of life and death.  In that day, Caesar and empire were looked to as the ones that held that right, but this was not truly the case. 

He was to preach that Jesus had not only appeared to hundreds of eye-witnesses who could offer proof of His physical Resurrection, but that He would one day appear again.  He was to preach that Jesus was the King of a kingdom, and that kingdom was an everlasting kingdom which would not be destroyed, a kingdom that held dominion over all the kings and kingdoms of the earth.  This was largely the Word that Timothy was charged to preach.  This is the Word that we are charged to preach, never forgetting that the preaching is in both word and deed, looking to the New Testament examples offered by Jesus and His church, so that deeds of love would be the hallmark of those living godly in Christ Jesus.

With this charge in mind, Paul writes, “As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (4:5).  When Paul told Timothy to be sober-minded, was he telling him not to drink too much alcohol?  Let’s not be silly.  The imploring to sober-mindedness was in light of the nature of the message that Timothy had been and would be preaching, as it was fraught with danger.  Remember, Paul is in prison, enduring sufferings and persecutions for the message.  Paul wanted to be sure that Timothy never lost sight of that.  He wanted him to always keep in mind that suffering for the message was always going to be near at hand, and that if and when it was experienced, Timothy need not think that he was somehow outside of the will of God or was somehow not fulfilling his ministry.  In fact, it would be a great indication that he was sending forth the message properly. 

He was to do the work of an evangelist.  What was an evangelist?  An evangelist was one who sounded forth an “evangel.”  That is, somebody who boldly pronounced the “good news,” or “gospel.”  In the day in which Paul wrote, the evangelist was a person, generally a slave, that went out proclaiming that Caesar was coming to visit a town or city, or that a son had been born to Caesar, or that it was Caesar’s birthday, or that Caesar had won another victory, and in that victory Caesar had extended his salvation and his peace, in his self-estimated role as the savior of the world.  That was what was treated as “good news.”  That was “gospel,” and making these things known was the role of an evangelist.  So Paul tells Timothy to think of himself in this role, as did Paul, as a slave, proclaiming the good news of the true King. 

Yes, the King had visited, a truly Divine Son had been born, a King had won a great victory, true salvation and peace had come, and yes, all of this was through and about a Man Whom Caesar had condemned to a cross, but Who rose from a grave.  Declared to be the true Son of God in power, this Jesus was a King unlike the world had ever seen or known.  This was not only a criminal Gospel, but the Gospel of a criminal.  To this King, crucified as nothing more than one more traitor to the glory of Rome, but resurrected as Master and Lord and Savior, was due all glory, all allegiance, and all honor.       

My Criminal Gospel (part 1 of 3)

Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my Gospel. – 2 Timothy 2:8  (ESV)

This is followed by a very interesting statement.  Paul continues on to write, “for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal” (2:9a).  How often do we take a moment to pause and consider the things that Paul says?  How often do we make this consideration in light of the Jesus about which we think, talk, sing, and preach?  Paul says that because of the Gospel that he preaches, he suffers.  For the Gospel that he preaches, he is bound in chains as a criminal.  Isn’t the message of the Gospel simply that God loves us so much that He sent Jesus to die on the cross so that everybody can live happy lives and go to heaven?  Why would that induce suffering?  Why would that cause someone to be bound as a criminal.  Well, that message would not cause such things to happen, because that is not necessarily the message of the Gospel.

The Gospel, “my Gospel,” as Paul says, is that Jesus Christ is Lord.  The kingly message of the Gospel is that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His Resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:3b-4a).  Having been raised, thus being vindicated in everything that He implied that He was in both His message and activities, and everything that the prophets had declared the Messiah to be, He is, as Paul says, “Jesus Christ our Lord” (1:4b).  This statement from the opening verses of Romans is echoed here in the second chapter of Timothy.  Not only is He “our Lord,” but He is Lord of all creation.  He is the King over all kings.  He is the Ruler of all rulers.  All, without exception, are subject to Him and to His kingdom.  This was so, in part as Paul indicates, because He was risen from the dead. 

The Roman cross seemed to have conquered another pretender to glory, but that cross had been overcome, and it no longer held the power that it had once held.  Empires had been raised and razed through the power of death.  They may have fancied themselves as peaceful and enlightened and tolerant, but in the end, a significant portion of emperors ruled through the threat of death.  In His Resurrection, Jesus had conquered death as well, while showing that death held no ultimate power over Him.  It was also being claimed that if one was in union with Him, which entailed recognizing His Lordship and believing in Him as the Son of God and Savior, that neither the threat of death by the cross (the symbol of the world’s powers) nor death itself held any power over the one that believed that either.  In a world in which Caesar reigned supreme, and in which Caesar was king, and ruler, and lord, in which “all the world” was subject to him, and in which it was Caesar that was known and hailed as the divine son of god, this was a startling message. 

This Gospel that Paul was preaching and with which he was charged to carry to the ends of the earth, was a threat to the stability and orderliness of the Roman empire.  The Romans had a practice of adaptation in their conquering, in which, for the sake of peace and unity and harmony, conquered peoples were allowed to hold on to their religions, so long as they were willing to recognize the Roman deities, and more importantly, were willing to recognize Caesar’s claims to divinity, joining in the worship of Caesar as divine. 

The Jewish people were exempted from this requirement, owing to the fresh memories of the Maccabean revolts and the reputation that had been won by the Jewish people.  The early Christ-followers, such as Paul, refused to accede to this.  Not only were they unwilling to accept Caesar’s claims or the claims that were made on his behalf by the denizens of the Caesar cult, but they were going out preaching that there was only one God, and one true King, and that His name was Jesus.  They were preaching that all gods, or all so-called gods, were subservient to this Jesus, and more than that, that all kings and rulers, though they may have had God-ordained responsibilities and functions, were subservient to Him as well.  Naturally, this not only threatened the fragile “peace” of the empire, but it challenged the power of the Caesar and all of Rome.    As we keep these things in mind, it is no wonder that Paul, and indeed, the rest of the Apostles of Jesus and so many early believers in the Christ, suffered as they did and were treated as criminals.