Speaking In Tongues (part 28)

The assembly in which none go hungry and in which the needs of all are met, with a conscientious and attentive eye cast towards the wider community for the purpose of meeting the needs of those outside their association, and not for the purpose of gaining honor for their assembly but because of the example of their God that went to a cross and was said to have suffered on behalf of His people and to establish His kingdom, and as a component of their expressed desire to go to the lowest places and people in order to share in their suffering and shame (taking it upon themselves in a sense, as such an association would cause them to be viewed more shamefully as well), would certainly serve to bring a level of conviction. 

Such a person, witnessing the activity of the gathered church of the Christ, could very well be called to account by all, especially if that calling to account is not a condemnation of his or her sin as some tend to think of it (those things referred to as “activities of the flesh”), but rather a calling to account that causes that person to reflect on what it means to be truly human and one’s obvious failures in this area. 

The heretofore uninstructed observer would be witnessing that which the Creator God has intended for His divine image-bearers.  The true working of the Spirit, rather than being seen as something that results in a personal display of Spirit-led activity, takes place as the covenant God’s Spirit flows through the kingdom-modeling activities of His body and calls one more person to conviction and account.  As the Spirit works, gifting a man or woman to participate in the kingdom of their God, re-shaping mindsets and transforming the heart so that it stands in opposition to the values of a fallen world, while also being ready to engage in ways to effectively impact and re-shape the values of those that inhabit a fallen world, “The secrets of his heart are disclosed, and in this way he will fall down with his face to the ground and worship God, declaring ‘God is really among you.’” (1 Corinthians 14:25) 

That deep-seated knowledge of the responsibility to bear the divine image, along with the failure to do so, springs to life.  Without doing so as a means of proof-texting, one can borrow from the letter to the Romans in order to buttress the statement and the ideas that stand behind verse twenty-five to possibly understand Paul’s thinking, as there he writes “because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributed---His eternal power and divine nature---have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made.  So people are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-20).  The Creator God is put on (puts Himself on?) display through His kingdom community.

As part of this same process of understanding this portion of Paul’s communication, it is possible to look to one of his speeches recorded in Acts, as he speaks about the “Unknown God” of Athens, and about His power, His presence, and His purpose of revealing Himself in the manner in which He has revealed Himself (His Christ and His church), “so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).  Through the gift of His Spirit, which is meant to shape an ever-increasing portion of humanity into conformity to His own image, with this occurring by certain but not limited manifestations of that Spirit that can be referred to as individual gifts, conviction is brought about, and the Creator God receives the glory that is due to Him.  Bringing this about has always been part of the required role of His people. 

Historical Continuity (part 2)

Jeremiah, who is not even close to finished with his scathing indictment of Israel, would go on to say “But just look at you!  Your are putting your confidence in a false belief that will not deliver you.  You steal.  You murder.  You commit adultery.  You lie when you swear on oath.  You sacrifice to the God Baal.  You pay allegiance to other gods whom you  have not previously known.  Then you come in and stand in My presence in this Temple I have claimed as My own and say, ‘We are safe!’  You think you are so safe that you can go on doing all those hateful sins!” (Jeremiah 7:8-10) 

Though many of these things were most likely being carried out by the acting priesthood, it is safe to presume that the people, who also stood under Jeremiah’s gaze, are doing the same while also being complicit in the activity of their leaders.  Jeremiah continues to deliver the words of the Lord, saying “So I will destroy this Temple which I have claimed as My own, this Temple that you are trusting to protect you.  I will destroy this place that I gave to you and your ancestors, just like I destroyed Shiloh” (7:14).  These are harsh words indeed.  Jesus’ words, as they are directed at the Temple authorities and call Jeremiah to mind, were no less harsh.

So it is plain to see that Jesus is using Jeremiah and the historical situation there recorded as His model.  However, is it appropriate to consider if Jeremiah had a model upon which he drew in some way?  If Jesus is relying upon something within Israel’s history to trigger the thoughts that He desired the people to have and to provoke the response and hopefully transformation that He desired to see, it would be reasonable to suggest that there was something within Israel’s history prior to Jeremiah’s day upon which he was relying as well. 

Surely, if Jesus is not limited to only bringing new teaching founded upon an entirely new basis, then it would not be right to foist this type of responsibility upon one of the prophets.  Therefore, beyond the assertion that Jeremiah obviously had to base his understanding of the delivery of the covenant God’s judgment on Israel’s covenant failures, one could assert that Jeremiah’s 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 (which, as has been said, would have been true for Jesus as well).     

If this premise is accepted, then to what historical situation might one look in order to gain insight into Jeremiah’s understanding?  Is it possible to find something similar to the people’s reliance upon the Temple itself to protect and preserve them from the judgment that was owed to them?  The first book of Samuel records a story that may provide an answer to those questions.  The fourth chapter records in a story in which it is reported that “the Israelites went out to fight against the Philistines… The Philistines arranged their forces to fight Israel.  As the battle spread out, Israel was defeated by the Philistines, who killed about four thousand men in the battle line in the field” (4:1b-2). 

When considering the way in which the Creator God deals with His people, raising up foes such as the Babylonians and the Romans in order to exercise His judgments, as referenced by Jeremiah and Jesus, then the Philistines, clearly, demand to be understood as an instrument of the Creator God’s judgment against His covenant people, exercised in accordance with His covenant promises as the covenant people failed to live up to their covenant obligations. 

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 1)

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.  If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector. – Matthew 18:17  (NET)

Stern words from Jesus.  The context, of course, is relationships between covenant brethren.  Jesus has said “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone.  If he listens to you, you have regained your brother.  But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the testimony of two or three witnesses, every matter may be established” (Matthew 18:15-16).  The introductory verse to this study follows from this statement, presenting something resembling a system for dealing with intra-Jesus-community conflicts. 

So how are these words generally interpreted?  Upon first reading, is there a thought of something along the lines of “Yes.  That’s right.  If the necessary efforts have been made, and if the response is not correct (meaning, the response is not that which the community wishes to see), then that individual is to be marginalized and ostracized---treated as a Gentile (or a pagan) or a tax collector, for he is unrepentant and beyond reach”?  

One could venture to say that, instinctively, especially in light of an often all too parsed reading of Scripture, that such thoughts do indeed tend to present themselves.  In general there is a custom, especially within the church world, to the creation of an “us vs. them” mentality, with the “us” being those inside the church, and the “them” being the pagans, heathens, and veritable Gentiles and tax collectors that stand outside of and presumably opposed to the church and its claims on behalf of the Christ and His cosmic and unquestioned Lordship of all.  This treatment, though probably stemming from a customary reading of the text, would also and unfortunately be patently incorrect. 

Without going into too much detail, it is worth recounting that the Jews, in recognizing their role as the Creator God’s elect and chosen covenant people, and according to the prescriptions of the Mosaic law and the rather large assortment of traditions grafted on to that law, kept themselves separate from Gentiles.  Purity laws, and especially those encouraged by the strictest of the orthodox in the days of Jesus the Matthean community, demanded that there be no mixing with Gentiles.  For them, and painting with an extraordinarily broad brush, Gentiles were those people that stood against the claims of their Creator God, while also functioning in an ongoing role of oppressors (very much an us vs. them mentality). 

Tax collectors, of course, were the hated group (often of their fellow countrymen) that collaborated with their Roman oppressors to continue their ongoing exile from the place and situation that it was believed their God had promised to them.  This disdain went well beyond the general disgust that is almost universally felt towards those that collect taxes, as their presence and their role were constant reminders of Israel’s covenant failures, and their God’s ongoing punishment of them as His covenant people. 

If these basic facts are taken into consideration, then it would seem rather odd to say that an assessment of Jesus’ statement that affirms an isolation and ostracizing of unrepentant individuals through treating them as Gentiles or tax collectors is an incorrect statement.  Still, that statement stands, and this study resolutely denies that Jesus came anywhere near to implying that an unrepentant individual should be isolated, ostracized, or condemned.  At the same time, His statement is unquestionably affirmed, and said individual should absolutely be treated like a Gentile or a tax collector.