All The Saints (part 18)

That settled, the sensibility-shocking inclusive language expands, and Paul bursts through all manner of tradition and history as he insists that “In Him you were also circumcised---not, however, with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal of the fleshly body, that is, through the circumcision done by Christ” (Colossians 2:11).  By this, Paul completely dismisses any idea that the covenant marker of circumcision is necessary. 

Of course, the sole covenant marker to which Paul holds as absolutely crucial is the confession of Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Lord of all (the Gospel).  This confession is the means by which a person, be they Jew or Gentile, is justified (becomes a member of the Creator God’s covenant family, with the subsequent responsibility to concern themselves with reflecting that God’s glory into the world by rightly bearing the divine image that has been exampled out by Jesus of Nazareth---paradoxically, God-manifest).    

With verse twelve, realizing that baptism is not unique to the experience of the Christian faith, Paul is again found adapting exodus language on behalf of Gentiles as he writes “Having been buried with Him in baptism, you also have been raised with Him through your faith in the power of God who raised Him from the dead” (2:12).  Just as Paul allows Gentiles to participate in the exodus-related identity of Israel through the use of “redemption” from verse fourteen of chapter one, he here does the same.  Functionally, “being buried with Him in baptism” is the equivalent of exile, while being “raised with Him” is the equivalent of exodus. 

This is not unique to Colossians, as one is able to glimpse this way of thinking here demonstrated by Paul in his first letter to Corinth.  There, in the tenth chapter Paul has written: “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:1-2).  Without delving into an exegesis of what is here being said in the address to the Corinthian church(es), Paul is here skillfully intertwining the Egyptian exile and exodus experience (which was so crucial for Israel’s self-understanding, it’s comprehension of its covenant God, and its understanding of its relationship with that God) with the concept of baptism. 

For Gentiles, as far as Paul is concerned, as he folds all peoples into the story of Israel that he believes has reached its climax in the story of Jesus, this baptism with Christ becomes something akin to Israel’s experience.  In some respects, for those that are bent towards the need for some outward sign of covenant status, baptism, whatever form it takes, stands in place of circumcision. 

This allows Paul to confidently declare “And even though you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He nevertheless made you alive with Him, having forgiven all your transgressions” (Colossians 2:13).  Quickly revisiting the first chapter, with a reminder of the exodus-related redemption and “forgiveness of sins” (1:14b) there mentioned, it should be acknowledged that this is another deployment of exodus language. 

Building from that thought, what one realizes this to be is yet another statement employed to generate an equivocation between Jews and Gentiles.  Effectively, this is what the Creator God would say to Israel if and when they violated their covenant obligations.  The covenant God would speak of Israel’s transgressions that was bringing or had brought them death and judgment, as they behaved like the uncircumcised people by which they were surrounded, adopting their idolatrous ways.  The end of this judgment would be some form of exile (domination by a foreign power, whether inside or outside of their land). 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 3)

If one does not operate from within an awareness of the patron-client system of the ancient world, one will undoubtedly miss what would have been obvious to the witnesses of these things and to those to whom these stories came, whether in oral or written form.  That is not to say that it will not be possible to understand the overarching Gospel message (Jesus is Lord), but rather, that readings and the ability to apply that which is gleaned and learned from those readings will be richer by orders of great magnitude if one approaches the Scriptural text within appropriate historical and contextual boundaries. 

Moving forward then, it is incumbent upon an observer to realize that the world into which the Gospel narratives were introduced would have been more than well-versed in the dynamics of the patron-client relationship, as would those that came to identify themselves as Christians.  This cultural dynamic would certainly be put to good use, especially since, in that time, it was very much the case that all positive relationships with any god were rooted in the perception of the patron-client relationship. 

So, even though it may seem quite extraneous to a perusal of a letter of Paul, it is quite important to have a strong grasp of this underlying cultural principle of the patron-client system so that it is possible to correctly hear what Paul is communicating to Timothy.  As indicated by the title of this study, there is a strong counter-cultural bent in the first letter to Timothy, as is largely the case for Paul; and the patron-client system seems to be a useful jumping off point.  To that end, said system will continue to be explored, with that exploration providing a few more details that can serve as cultural keys in an exegesis of the letter. 

A client was a loyal supporter to a high standing Roman family, and it is the head of that higher-standing family that would ultimately be known as “patronus,” or “patron.”  The clients of the patron functioned as an extended family to the patron---something like a clan.  They would be expected to loyally support him (offer fides or pistis) in any venture upon which he chose to embark, be that military, political, or commercial.  Meanwhile, the patron would aid his clients through representing their political interests through the office that he held, or by defending them in the courts as their advocate if such became necessary. 

This bond between patron and client was one of the bedrock foundations of Roman society.  This reciprocal loyalty (again, fides or pistis) was a highly prized virtue, and it served to hold together families while serving as the unifying nexus of the social order.  The loyalty of the client would be expected to extend beyond the patron and to the patron’s family as well.  If a patron were to die, a client would be expected to offer the patron’s heir the same loyalty as had been offered to the original patron.  Likewise for the client.  Should the client die, his heir would be expected to stand in for the head of that family, continuing the clientele loyalty to their benefactor. 

Absalom (part 4)

Continuing on then, the Absalom story moves along to his insurrection against his father, King David.  Clearly, it is not going to be a mystery as to why this insurrection is going to take place.  Absalom feels slighted by his father.  As far as he was concerned, his father, having never spoken out against nor condemned his son Amnon for his heinous crime against Absalom’s sister (the rape of Tamar), at least according to the Scriptural record, was by extension in complicit agreement with the action. 

Surely, Absalom felt that, having waited two years for some type of movement, his father was never going to take action in this matter, so he would have to take justice into his own hands.  The fact that he had been forced to flee from home when he carried out what he saw as just retribution against Amnon, with his father not reaching out to him for three years, would have to have been galling.  His self-imposed exile would come to be interpreted as a banishment, with Absalom never receiving the honor that he believed was due to him for avenging the shame that had been brought to his sister and his family. 

His actions, as far as he was concerned, constituted a measured response.  He did not respond like Simeon and Levi of old, following the rape of their sister.  He did not slaughter an entire community of men because of the actions of just one individual.  No, he simply carried out that which should have been carried out by his father.  Absalom could have reasoned that his father should have thanked him for fulfilling the obligation that he was obviously refusing to carry out, but he did not. 

Even when he was called out of exile and invited to return to Jerusalem, his father still maintained an effective position of banishment, forcing him to remain separate from the king and not allowing him to see his father’s face.  When summoned from Geshur, surely Absalom felt that his father had finally come to his senses, realizing that Absalom had acted justly in dispatching Amnon with prejudice, with this dispatching taking place after a two year period of patient waiting. 

When finally summoned to the throne room, it had been seven years since the rape of his sister had been perpetuated, five years since he had dealt Amnon death’s fatal blow, and two years since he had returned to Jerusalem.  Even then, the summon for Absalom had not been solely the desire of the king, but had come at the request of Joab, who, having had his fields set ablaze by Absalom in order to gain his attention, reluctantly agreed to intercede to the king on behalf of his frustrated son, doing so because now the issue was of personal consequence.  So when Absalom comes before the king, it was only because of Joab’s influence over David (which was significant because of what Joab knew about the Bathsheba/Uriah incident), which meant that David was still not going to look favorably upon his son. 

While he must have been grateful to finally see him, as David kissed an Absalom that was bowed down before him with his face to the ground, based upon what follows, one can be confident that David’s response was not what Absalom had long desired.  At this point, because of all that had happened (or not happened) in regards to the situation of the rape, it probably became quite clear, at least in Absalom’s mind, that his father had forfeited the legitimate and moral right to rule the Creator God’s people.  Thus Absalom would take matters in to his own hands in order to correct the prevailing issue of injustice as he saw it.  

Calling His Disciples (part 5)

Now restricting this study to the records of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, particular notice should be taken of yet another feature of their stories.  Though it has been mentioned in the initial review of the record of the calls of Jesus’ first four specifically called disciples, this feature, as part of the movement of this project, demands to be given its own special attention.  That feature is the mention of the father of James and John, Zebedee, and the fact that his sons leave him when Jesus makes the call. 

Now, this is not an overlooked feature by any means, though a significant aspect of this departure has been overlooked to be sure.  Long has it been the case that expositors and preachers have drawn attention to this feature of the Gospel narratives, pointing out that when Jesus calls, He expects a wholehearted devotion that transcends family ties.  This is undoubtedly true, and the earliest followers of Jesus certainly saw themselves as a fictive kinship group and a new humanity.  Of course, at the same time, it is often said that Jesus prizes family values above all else.  This event seems to fly in the face of the commandment to honor father and mother, but that is a subject for another day. 

Reviewing the record then, Mark informs his audience that “Going on a little farther, He saw James, the son of Zebedee, and John his brother in their boat mending nets.  Immediately He called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed Him” (1:19-20).  Matthew adds that “Going on from there he saw two brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in a boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets.  Then He called them.  They immediately left the boat and their father and followed Him” (4:21-22). 

Luke’s record is a little less explicit, in that there it is reported that Peter had been astonished at the haul of fish, “and so were James and John, Zebedee’s sons, who were Simon’s business partners” (5:10a).  Following that, Jesus directs words to Peter (5:10), which then flows into a report of their bringing their boats to shore, leaving everything (which would include James and John leaving their father), and following Jesus (5:11).  It should be noted that Luke does not specifically mention James and John leaving their father (the explicit mention of which apparently does not serve a purpose in particular telling of the Jesus story), but as is obvious, it is implied in the narrative.    

Why mention Zebedee at all?  Why this identification of James and John in this way?  Is it for purposes of delineation, so that there would be no confusion due to the presence of multiple men named James in the record of the earliest church?  Such is certainly possible.  Why mention the fact that they left their father?  Did Zebedee have some type of standing in the early church and used that as a way to influence these authors to include a mention of him in their stories of Jesus?  Maybe.  Is it purely to make the point that following Jesus may very well involve the sacrifice of livelihood and of family relationships?  This would be a reasonable conclusion. 

Is a reader to take from the fact that James and John are identified in this way, and that they are said to have left their father while Andrew and Simon and others are not reported to have had to leave their father behind as an indication that the call comes differently to different people---some will be called to leave their family while others will not be asked to do such things?  That could work as well.  While all of these conclusions could certainly be drawn, and while there is no need to raise a protest to any of these ideas, there is something far more basic happening here, and it is in connection with the underlying narrative, which is that of the nation of Israel. 

Samson's Hair (part 1)

Finally he told her his secret.  He said to her, “My hair has never been cut, for I have been dedicated to God from the time I was conceived.  If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me; I would become weak, and be just like all other men.” – Judges 16:17  (NET)

The story of the maddeningly enigmatic character, Samson, begins in a familiar way for the Hebrew Scriptures, which is with a barren woman.  It is said that there was “a man named Manoah from Zorah, from the Danite tribe.   His wife was infertile and childless” (Judges 13:2).  The God of Israel steps into this situation, and the “The Lord’s angelic messenger appeared to the woman and said to her, ‘You are infertile and childless, but you will conceive and have a son” (13:3). 

Immediately upon hearing this, one is reminded of the stories of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Rachel.  Because the patriarchs of Israel had all experienced, to an extent, what was now being experienced by Manoah and his wife, those hearing this story already know that there is going to be something special about this child.  They know that the Creator God of Israel has a special purpose in mind for this family, in line with His larger purposes for Israel.   

From the angelic messenger, Manoah’s wife is said to have received explicit instructions in relation to the treatment of the boy that is going to be born to her.  The messenger tells her, “Now be careful!  Do not drink wine or beer, and do not eat any food that will make you ritually unclean.  Look, you will conceive and have a son.  You must never cut his hair, for the child will be dedicated to God from birth.  He will begin to deliver Israel from the power of the Philistines” (13:4-5). 

With this, thoughts are moved beyond the patriarchs of the nation to Israel itself.  This mention of ritually unclean foods hearkens to the Mosaic law, and the use of “son” is a reminder that in the Exodus narrative, which was intensely programmatic and definitive for Israel, the Creator God refers to Israel as His firstborn son (4:22).  Naturally then, like Samson, Israel was a child dedicated to God from its birth, with certain restrictions in regards to ritual purity.  If one was to think big picture, then Israel, ultimately, was going to be the means by which the Creator God acted in history to deliver the whole of His creation from the power of death.  Thus, Samson becomes a microcosm of Israel. 

When Manoah is given the privilege of encountering the angelic messenger and the instructions are recounted to him, he is told “Your wife should pay attention to everything I told her.  She should not drink anything that the grapevine produces.  She must not drink wine or beer, and she must not eat any food that will make her ritually unclean.  She should obey everything I commanded her to do” (13:13b-14).  Fascinatingly, the very thing upon which so many focus when it comes to Samson and the sign of his covenant, which was the instructions related to his hair, is not reiterated to Manoah. 

Instead, the messenger tells him, twice, that his wife should pay attention to everything that she has been told to do in regards to her and her son.  In this case, she has received further instruction and it is going to be incumbent upon her to share these instructions with her husband.  It is also incumbent upon her husband to trust his wife in regards to this matter of their son’s hair, which provides an interesting twist to the dynamic of the story, especially within a society ordered around patriarchal dominance.  The report of this situation is yet another compelling reversal of social norms, as it elevates this woman and forces her husband to rely on her in a way that was quite uncommon and potentially revolutionary in that day and age. 

Love On John's Terms (part 1)

I give you a new commandment---to love one another.  Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples---if you have love for one another. – John 13:34-35  (NET)

Most certainly, these words represent a very familiar saying that is attributed to Jesus.  Some might insist that this statement represents the cornerstone of what it means to live as a Christian, and it would be difficult to disagree with that assertion.  Surely, those that lay claim to a confession of Jesus as Lord would and should have a desire to live out the prescription of these words, thereby showing themselves to be functionaries within the community that has oriented their lives around Jesus and His pronouncement of the kingdom of His God. 

These words are reported to have fallen from the lips of Jesus at what is generally referred to as the “Last Supper,” and the statement is immediately bracketed by Judas’ departure for what is revealed to be the purpose of executing his plan to betray Jesus to the Temple authorities, and Jesus’ insistence that Peter is going to be shortly offering his own betrayal in the form of a three-fold denial of his Lord.

So what is meant by these words?  What is implied?  What will it look like when Jesus’ disciples are loving one another?  Quite rightly, each person comes to this text and these words with ideas concerning what it indeed it means to love.  Due to the fact that humans are relational creatures, formed in community with other relational creatures, love generally comes to be defined in relational terms---love of and for other people.  For the most part, for good or for ill, humans formulate their conceptions about love primarily according to that which is received from parents and family (regardless of who or what plays those roles). 

The love of fathers and mothers (or lack thereof from whomever plays those roles) readily serves to shape and define the parameters that are placed around the concept of love.  The love of a father or a mother is generally considered to be the strongest type of love.  It is this type of love, which is largely and ideally of the completely unconditional variety, that is simply presumed upon and taken to be an unalterable matter-of-fact.  It is this ideal of love that most people desire to cultivate in their relationships, regardless of the type of relationship. 

The model of love that is associated with mothers and fathers, whether it is a good model to which should be aspired or a faulty model which might possibly need to be avoided, lies behind the age-old adage (within societies that do not participate in arranged marriages) that insists that women most often marry men that are like their father, whereas men desire to marry women that remind them of their mothers (think of the song lyrics “I want a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad”). 

For better or for worse, humans are programmed to seek out love based on the terms of love that have been presented to them from the time of their birth.  Unsurprisingly then, it is this type of love (painting with an overly broad brush), that people desire to offer up as part of the experience of their relationship with the Creator God.  Conversely, it comes to be believed that such is the type of love that the Creator God desires to share with them---defining the God of love based upon (generally) parentally constructed concepts of love.  Of course, this does not hold true one hundred percent of the time. 

Make Your Tent Larger (part 2 of 2)

This was not simply the inclusion of Gentiles, but in the biggest sense of the picture, it was the growth of Israel---the people that were said to be “God-governed.”  The new family members were not to be looked upon as outsiders, but rather as an extension of Israel, and it is in this way that Isaiah can be heard saying, “For you will spread out to the right and to the left” (54:3a).  Furthermore, Israel is informed that their “children will conquer nations and will resettle desolate cities” (54:3b).  This conquering of nations would seem to fit well with Isaiah’s previous insistence that Israel’s servant would startle nations and shock kings with his exaltation (52:15).  Though Isaiah is understood to have written his prophecy in the wake of conquest, while also experiencing attempts at conquest and looking forward to expected conquest, there was always the hope of restoration involved. 

Within the hope engendered by Isaiah’s presentation, Israel fully expected to be set above all nations through the conquering activity of their God through their messiah, so hearing that their children would conquer nations and that they would be able to forget the shameful experiences and abandonment about which Isaiah prophesied (54:4) was probably not surprising.  What would have been surprising was the apparent inclusion of Gentile peoples, for whom they were being told to expand the size of their covenant tent. 

Post-Christ-event believers can look back on this text while also looking forward, as people that have been brought into that expanded tent of covenant blessings, seizing on the claim that the Creator God’s people will be responsible for and experience the figurative resettling of desolate cities (experiencing exodus to conclude their exile).  The Gospel (Jesus is Lord) with its message of power, has already conquered nations by making all kings and authorities subservient to its claims (whether they know it or will admit to it or not), but with this issue of the desolate cities, believers are able to obtain a glimpse of their vocation, as the Israel of God (true humanity, divine image-bearers) in the world.

As the Israel of God, those that believe in the claims of the Gospel are to be the agents and the instruments by which the Creator God brings the life and light and immortality of the mysterious power of the Resurrection into an often desolate world.  This occurs as they become the righteousness of God---embodying His covenant faithfulness by the working of the Holy Spirit through them in the form of self-sacrificial love, putting the Creator God’s saving (redeeming, restoring, recreating) power to work within this creation through the convincingly spoken and compassionately lived out message of the crucified and resurrected King Who is Lord of all. 

When believers speak of Jesus (and do more than speak), the suffering servant that is set paradoxically set on high, they are to spare no effort in setting their God’s power to work; and like the Israel to whom Isaiah was speaking, they continue to make larger the tent of their God’s kingdom, stretching out its curtains and pounding its stakes deep.  Though the cry of “foolishness” from those that refuse to submit to the Gospel’s claims will be long and loud, they are called to speak of the resurrected Lord without intimidation, without humiliation, and without shame (54:4).  In this, they speak of the Creator, the commander of armies, their Protector, and the “God of the entire earth” (54:5).                  

David & Goliath: A Battle With Death (part 2)

At this time, as is well known, David was not a part of the army.  He was merely a shepherd.  His father had sent him to find out how his brothers were doing, as they had followed King Saul into a confrontation with the Philistines.  When David went to the Israelite camp, he is said to have done so in order to bring gifts to his brothers.  He came bearing gifts.  A shepherd, sent to his brothers, bringing gifts---truly, a picture of the one that would eventually be called Lord. 

When David reaches the place of the army’s encampment, “he ran to the battlefront” and “asked his brothers how they were doing” (17:22b).  While there, he hears the defying speech of Goliath, and witnesses the retreat and fear of his countrymen.  He learns that this has been going on for forty days.  Additionally, he comes to learn that King Saul is desperate to deal with this problem, but that there is no one from all of Israel that is willing to represent the people. 

Enticements are offered.  David learns that “The king will make the man who can strike him down very wealthy!  He will give him his daughter in marriage, and he will make his father’s house exempt from tax obligations in Israel” (17:25b).  No taxes is always a nice motivator.  The story presents a David who was unafraid.  To an extent, the Gospels present a Jesus who was also unafraid, while also presenting a Jesus possessed of some understandable doubt (think of the Garden of Gethsemane) that the messianic path that He had chosen was the correct one, and that it would lead to His vindication at the hands of Israel’s faithful God.  Because he would emerge victorious from his battle against Goliath, David ultimately earned a bride for himself, eventually marrying a daughter of the king.  As is suggested by those that would offer their commentary on the Resurrection of Jesus (New Testament authors), who also emerged victorious from His pitched battle with death, Jesus also earned a bride.           

As the young David continued to make his inquiries in regards to Goliath, his brothers became somewhat irritated with him.  In fact, “When David’s oldest brother Eliab heard him speaking to the men, he became angry with David and said, ‘Why have you come down here?  To whom did you entrust those few sheep in the desert?  I am familiar with your pride and deceit!  You have come down here to watch the battle!’” (1 Samuel 17:28)  Stinging words to be sure.  They remind the reader of words that were spoken to Jesus by His family, indicating that He was out of His mind or beside Himself, and bringing shame to His family. 

Similarly, when the elders of Israel, the extended family of older brothers to Jesus (in a manner of speaking), challenged His teaching, demanding to know by what authority He was doing the things He was doing and saying the things He was saying.  In essence then, Israel’s elders rebuked Jesus in the same way that David was rebuked by his brothers, saying “Why have you come down here?  Who do you think you are?  What do you think you are doing?” 

Continuing his press for information, as he is appears to be quite intent upon engaging this Philistine, David dismisses his brother’s accusations.  Jesus would one day do the same.  Despite accusations and opposition and questioning of His methods, He would press on in His mission, never wavering from His intention to engage the enemy that stood against and continued to bring ruin into His God’s creation.  

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.

Set Free (part 3)

At that time, Israel was, for the larger part, observing the requirements of the law, but because it was being used as a boundary (keeping non-Israelites outside of the covenant) rather than as an aid to blessing the nations (bringing non-Israelites into the covenant), their God was still not receiving the glory that He desired.  Indeed, they were falling short, and seemed to be doing it willfully and proudly.  Jesus comes on to that the scene and condemns this sin of what was then termed as the “works of the flesh” (circumcision, food laws, Sabbath keeping --- what the “big three” of the law had become), which were being ardently held to as a means of identifying those that were truly God’s people and who would be the beneficiaries of God’s expected action on behalf of His people.  This apparently continued to defeat God’s ultimate purposes for Israel, for His creation, and for the people of a renewed Israel (from every tribe and tongue) that He had chosen for Himself from before the foundations of the world. 

The condemning of this sin of the flesh was brought about “so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us.”  This “righteous requirement” pointed to the plan, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (first revealed to Abraham so as to reverse that which was wrought by Adam), to extend His blessings to all peoples, doing so through the medium of His covenant people, functioning properly.  Through His faithfulness, represented by the faithful actions of His Messiah (Jesus of Nazareth), the Creator God was able to fulfill what it was that was required by His covenant, which was the creation of a covenant family that would encompass the peoples of the world. 

This covenant family would represent the living, breathing, serving kingdom of God, as in union with His Messiah through a trusting allegiance and belief in Him as the crucified and resurrected King of the entire cosmos, they would be a people willingly submitted to Him as Lord.  This submission would work itself out in countless daily actions, and it crossed all boundaries of race, ethnicity, class, and social status, showing itself as the anti-thesis of that to which Israel had been holding to through that day.

Rounding out the thought of the fourth verse of Romans eight, it can be seen that the righteous requirement is fulfilled in those “who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”  This reinforces the point that has been being made, in that the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness is demonstrated, not in those who wanted to set up systems and hold to traditions of exclusivity, doing this in accordance with the flesh (works of the flesh ---- circumcision, food laws, Sabbath keeping --- and there is no sense here of earning God’s favor or earning heaven); but rather, God’s covenant faithfulness is demonstrated by those that walk according to the Spirit.  Those that are apparently brought to faith and belief by the activity of the Holy Spirit, believing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, are a new creation in union with Christ.  The works of the flesh (circumcision, etc…) were now irrelevant in identifying those that were in covenant with the Creator. 

It is this new creation, empowered by the same Spirit that raised up Christ from the dead, that are those through whom the Creator God now works to continue to extend His covenant and bestow His blessings, with this accomplished first and foremost through the preaching of the Gospel (which must include crucifixion and Resurrection), which of necessity includes the living out of the Gospel.  As one continues to think about the works of the flesh that made for a continual separation of Israel from other peoples, one must also acknowledge that part of the work of the Spirit is the tearing down of those walls, so that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female---for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28-29).      

Separation Ended (part 2 of 2)

Now, just because chapter two of Ephesians has come to an end, that does not mean that Paul is changing his line of thinking.  He continues on with this theme of Gentiles now being brought into the family of God, and joined together with national Israel as those under God’s covenant.  Paul realizes that this ending of the separation of humanity from God, along with the ending of the division between Jew and Gentile, is a magnificent and perhaps unexpected turn of events.  Even with the understanding that Paul has been given, it seems that he refers to God’s choosing to operate this way as “the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (3:4b-5). 

In the seventh verse, Paul goes on to say “Of this Gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace.”  This ministry, Paul says, “was given me by the working of His power” (3:7b).  In this, he appears to admit that the ministry to the Gentiles, this ministry of the Gospel, proclaiming Jesus as King, was not something to which he had been looking or striving.  Indeed, his desires had been quite contrary to the situation in which he now found himself by the working of God’s grace and power, as prior to his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, it has been Paul’s intention to persecute the Way of Jesus (and its pronouncement of Him as Messiah and King of the Jews) to the death.  Prior to being bound in the power of God and being made a bondslave to Him through Christ, Paul saw this Gospel message as nothing short of a damnable and highly pestilent heresy, and its adherents as worthy of imprisonment and death.  As he reflected on them, Paul would probably look at this dramatic turn of events in his own life as nothing short of a mystery of God’s power as well. 

Getting back to the mystery referenced in the fourth verse, we see Paul writing that “This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the Gospel” (3:6).  Those who were members of the nation of Israel were not expecting this.  They believed that God’s promises had been reserved to themselves alone, and that the inauguration of the rule of their Messiah as King was to elevate them, as Abraham’s descendants, above all other nations.  Now, this “mystery” that Paul says “was made known to me by revelation” (3:3a), had set things moving in a new direction.  Through Christ, Who had been declared to be the Son of God in power by the Resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4---something we know was part of Paul’s thinking, though he doesn’t bring it into the letter to the Ephesians, probably because the Caesar was to be found in Rome, not in Ephesus), as the King of the Kingdom of God that was now in place to extend God’s covenant blessings to the entire world, all of mankind had now been brought into the picture, as had been promised to Abraham, though this part of the promises made to him (Abraham) had been lost from view by God’s chosen people.  Through allegiance to the Creator God of Israel through allegiance to His Christ, God’s elect from the Gentile nations had been made fellow heirs, members of the body of God’s people, and partakers in the promised blessings that God made to the whole of His people through Abraham. 

From here, Paul goes on to write about the role that God had given to him.  Referring to the gift of God’s grace for the purpose of ministry, Paul says that “this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ” (3:8b).  Through the preaching of Christ, which included the preaching of God’s unending and unbounded faithfulness to His people, highlighted by the example on offer by Jesus, Paul was “to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God Who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known” (3:9-10a).  This bringing to light can only be done if Christ is preached as the One sent forth from the Creator and covenant God.  It is in Christ alone that “we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in Him” (3:12).  Yes, through confession of Jesus as King (evidence of faith), all peoples have access to God’s judgment of “righteous, and so to are justified before Him.” 

Pointing to the preaching of the Gospel, and of a world set right with God through Christ and the granting of eternal life in union with Him, Paul indicates that the very preaching of this Gospel of Christ is empowered through the operation of the Spirit.  Indeed, Paul seems to believe that it is only the operation of the Spirit within a person that could cause that person to confess that a crucified man was raised from the dead and is now enthroned as King of the cosmos.  It is the evidence of eternal life (sharing in the life of the age to come), and this eternal life comes from the same power that raised Christ Jesus from the dead and goes forth for the purposes of renewing a fallen and corrupted creation, which is very much the duty of the covenant people, as they work alongside and on behalf of their King. 

This has all been carried out “according to the eternal purpose that He (God) has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord” (3:11).  The uniting of all of humanity in the Christ, and its attendant gift and responsibility of eternal life showed Paul the God “Who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think” (3:20a).  God Himself, through His people as they live according to the model provided, would be faithfully working out His purposes and plans, bestowing His blessings upon His people and upon His creation, so that we might be able to live out the faith, “according to the power at work within us” (3:20b).  This would all take place, the separation between Jew and Gentile and between man and His Creator would be ended, with a new kingdom of the rule of Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit inaugurated, so that “to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever and ever” (3:21).      

Becoming Blind For Sight

Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” – John 9:39  (ESV)

Leading up to this statement by Jesus, there has been a fascinating string of events, statements, and conversational exchanges, beginning in the first verse of the chapter with “a man blind from birth” (9:1b).  From what we know about Jesus’ mission, what can we say about the statement of our text?  Are we not safe in saying that Jesus, as He speaks these words, also presents the underlying premise that He came into this world to extend and reveal Israel’s God and His covenant faithfulness?  To that we could add that God’s covenant faithfulness was being revealed to those from whom it had been kept.  How had it been kept from some people?  The primary reason that Jesus seems to address is that Israel had kept the knowledge of their God and His covenant blessings from the nations by not being the light to all nations and the source of blessing to all nations that God had intended them to be.  This, of course, resulted in cursing and exile. 

So because there were people that had been kept from seeing, these people could figuratively be referred to as being blind.  Jesus said that He came to make it possible for those blind ones to see.  Not only that, but to make it possible for those who could see, who had the knowledge of the light of God’s covenant but did nothing with it, to become blind.  This may sound strange, in that we would wonder why it is that Jesus would want people to become blind.  This has to be understood in the context of the entire chapter, which appears to be why the author includes the story of the man that was blind from birth that is mentioned earlier in the same chapter.  In the story of that man, we learn that Jesus healed him of his blindness.  This was done on the Sabbath, invoking the ire of the Pharisees.  The Pharisees even went so far as to say, “This man (Jesus) is not from God, for He does not keep the Sabbath” (9:16b).  They questioned the man about his healing.  They questioned his parents about whether or not the man was really his son and if he was really born blind.  Ultimately, when the healed man questioned the stubbornness of the Pharisees, they derided him and said “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” (9:34)

In the verse following our text, we read “Some of the Pharisees near Him heard these things, and said to Him, ‘Are we also blind?’” (9:40)  The answer that was implied in their statement was “we see.”  In the context of Jesus’ words about His mission, along with the clear, underlying communication to His hearers in regards to Israel’s light-sharing, sight-bringing responsibilities under the covenant, the Pharisees were insistent that they were ones that could see.  They were not blind.  They were living up to the responsibility.  They were not under a curse.  Ultimately, they had no need to repent.  Through their diligence and zeal, they truly believed that they were being the light for seeing that they were supposed to be, but their turning inwards in national and congregational isolation, and their prejudicial treatment of the Gentiles, of those people that then stood outside of God’s covenant family, exposed the true facts of the matter. 

How does Jesus respond to their question?  He said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt, but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (9:41).  How are we to understand this?  It is in the light of the man that was born blind, and the judgment that the Pharisees pronounced upon him in the thirty-fourth verse, which was that of being “born in utter sin.”  As we consider all of these things in the light of seeing and blindness, we can hear Jesus telling them that if they would apply the same judgment to themselves that they had applied to the man that had been blind from birth, which was that of being born in utter sin, under a curse, seeing no light and therefore unable to lead others to the light, then they would have had a chance to repent from their sin of failing to live up to the terms of their God’s covenant with them, and thereby receive their sight.  They were quite willing to pronounce others as being under the curse of sin, but were unwilling to acknowledge that they themselves, in their own day, were still living under the curse of their sin, as evidenced by their being oppressed by foreign nations, which demonstrated an ongoing exile from the blessings that had been promised to them through the Abrahamic covenant. 

Because of this, because they believed themselves to have sight, to not being under the cursing of the blindness of covenant malfeasance, Jesus said that their guilt remained.  With all of this, Jesus informed them that those that they believed to be in utter sin, those who were not of God’s covenant people Israel, were the ones who were going to have God’s covenant faithfulness revealed to them and be included in the covenant family of the Creator God that was to envelop all nations.  The Pharisees, and indeed the entire nation of Israel, could enjoy the blessings of the covenant, by admitting that they had been blind guides, rightly cursed because of their failures to uphold their covenant obligations (sin).  Doing this, they would be able to see Jesus in all of His glory, as He revealed Himself and His majesty and His dominion, and through Him and the people that He would come into union with Him through faithful allegiance to Him as King, the blessings of God’s covenant would be extended to the entire world through the Gospel declaration that Jesus was King and Lord of all.    

Rome, Corinth & The Liberation Of Creation (part 2 of 3)

Momentarily skipping down a few verses in Romans, and attempting to hear these words while remembering their connection to the plight of an Israel in bondage in Egypt while contemplating their connection to a covenant people and a creation that acknowledges the promise of resurrection and an inaugurated kingdom within a creation whose restoration/renewal/redemption has begun, we find: “For in hope we were saved.  Now hope that is seen is not hope, because who hopes for what he sees?  But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with endurance” (8:24-25).  Picking back up with the verse that finishes the thought begun in the sixteenth and seventeenth verses: “because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen.  For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal” (4:18).  As we can see, there is an obvious sharing of ideas between the passages from the two letters, and that sharing continues in to chapter five.

Returning again to what really is an altogether fascinating series of thoughts on offer by the Apostle Paul, we join the Roman congregation in hearing “For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now.  Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies” (8:22-23).  It must be recognized that the language here employed by Paul, specifically that of groaning and redemption, is the language of Israel’s defining story (bondage, Passover, exodus). 

We also here note Paul’s use of “we” in his engagement with Gentiles, which appears to be Paul’s way of self-identifying with Gentiles and to play a role in his desire to see a united family of God.  Building on that, the use of “adoption” in precise connection with these highly charged terms merely amplifies and exacerbates the end that Paul believes to be on offer in the Gospel’s announcement (the Lordship of Jesus that portends the inauguration of the kingdom of God).  It is easy to understand Paul’s aims in this regard, as the congregation of Roman believers is generally understood to be a more evenly mixed congregation of Jew and Gentile and therefore in need of the “adoption” of an inclusive family language for what must become an inclusive family story.  The fact that Paul spends time in his letters specifically addressing what would be largely Jewish concerns reinforces the picture of that relatively even mixture. 

While there are also Jews in Corinth, and undoubtedly Jews as part of the assembly of Jesus believers there, the situation in Corinth is understood to be a bit different.  Perhaps there are a very small number of Jewish believers, so their concerns are not particularly germane to the entire assembly?  Accordingly, there is no pervasive crisis.  Consequently, the abiding concerns of his Jewish brethren do not warrant the overt attention of Paul.  It is possible that the Jews there were more Hellenized, and therefore less stringent in their adherence to the traditions addressed in the Romans letter, such as table fellowship and the marks of covenant inclusion.  Speculation could continue.  However, what is unmistakable is Paul’s employment of overtly Israel-centric terminology here in this passage that is quite the mirror of part of Romans eight. 

Again echoing the above-quoted words of that chapter, with words such as “suffering,” “eternal,” and “glory” ringing in our ears as that which closes the fourth chapter, along with the “creation,” “groans,” “suffers,” “adoption,” and “redemption” of Romans eight (realizing that these terms are all conceptually linked by the narratives of Israel and Jesus), we advance into the fifth chapter of the second letter to the Corinthians and hear “For we know that if our earthly house is dismantled, we have a building from God, a house not built by human hands, that is eternal in the heavens” (5:1).  Crucially then, in the next verse, Paul writes “For in this earthly house we groan, because we desire to put on our heavenly dwelling” (5:2). 

In yet another unmistakable fusion of the disparate peoples of the world into the family of God whose continuing story of relationship with the Creator God has as its foundation the story of Israel (which, we remember, goes all the way back to Adam, though Adam is also understood to be the progenitor of humanity), Paul calls to mind the exodus.  Israel, who had the promise of a return to the land that had been promised to the family of Abraham---and we do not miss the connection to the church of the Christ as the family of Abraham and the whole of creation as the land originally promised to Adam as the divine image-bearer, presumably groaned under their bondage precisely because of the remembrance of that promise (at the very least, this is what is to be taken from the people-of-God-defining narrative as supplied by the Hebrew Scriptures), longing to put on their heavenly dwelling, which was their promised land. 

Predestination

Jesus was the place of the overlap of heaven and earth (which is also the ancient understanding of the Temple---the place where God’s existence invaded the place of man’s existence), and this was evidenced by His constant defeat of the forces that stood in opposition to God and God’s purposes (healings, exorcisms, raising the dead, etc…).  The responsibility to be the place of that heaven/earth overlap was that which Israel was charged to uphold, but did not.  Jesus embodied Israel and succeeded where there had been failure, and this charge has been passed along to those that identify themselves as part of God’s family by Jesus’ name (affirming allegiance to Him, His kingdom, and the tenets of His kingdom program---bearing the covenant marker of belief in Him). 

Paul expects nothing less than that the believing community model Jesus in succeeding in being the Israel of God,  writing “because those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that His Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (Romans 8:29).  This is not about some foreordained calling of some percentage of the human population, such that some go to heaven and the rest go to hell.  This is simply not in view, especially as we consider that such thinking was foreign to Paul’s worldview.  It undoubtedly is the case that not all will embrace Jesus and acknowledge the Creator God through Him, so there is a group of people that will participate in the kingdom of God during their lives while others do not.  That said, the passage is not intended to convey information about the final destination of a human soul. 

If we trace the context of the passage, its connection to the exodus of Israel, and its placement within the whole of the letter that seems to have to do primarily with the family of God and its representation of the kingdom of God in and for the world, we realize that thoughts about predestination, in the sense of determining “who’s in and who’s out,” are simply not on the field.  Once we put that out of the way, what we see---and this seems to be far more appropriate---is that the passage is about the covenant faithfulness of the Creator God, that faithfulness that is recorded in the narrative of Israel that runs back to the story of Adam, and the impetus for the unified covenant family that is composed of all peoples to take up its role.  The passage is about what God is going to do for His creation, how He has been doing it, how He is going to do it, and about the people of the covenant getting on board with and participating in that plan. 

God had called Israel His son---His firstborn.  Israel, the groaning people of Egypt (we can’t forget our groaning context), was foreknown by God as evidenced by the promise to Abraham about His people that would go into captivity and then come out of captivity.  The foreknowing of God demands to be understood in accordance with the story of Israel.  God’s intention for Israel, whose story and purpose is predicated by God’s interactions with Abraham, was to set the world to rights, reversing the failure of Adam, who was looked upon as the son of God, created in His image, given a covenant responsibility, and failed.  Thus, Israel, whom God foreknew (as established by the narrative that includes promises and prophecies to Abraham), was predestined (purposed) to succeed where Adam had failed. 

Jesus, who pieced together the messianic mission from His understanding of Israel’s story, along with the wisdom and prophetic literature, thus establishing the idea of foreknowing and predestination for Him as well, succeeded where both Israel and Adam had failed.  So the foreknowing of God in regards to Jesus also demands to be understood in accordance with the story of Israel.  The same can also be said for the church whose mission is foretold and purposed by the Jesus-centered-and-shaped messianic tale, and which is now tasked with announcing and carrying on the successes and even the seeming failure of Jesus. 

Here, we remember that crucifixion was a mark of decided failure.  However, the Resurrection reverses the seeming failure, making it possible to understand the cross as the place where Israel’s full cursing (Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) is carried out against Jesus as embodied Israel.  Accordingly, the Resurrection tells the covenant community that embracing the cross, which will mean going to the place of willful experience of suffering and shame (mimicking Jesus in His “failure”) if it will advance God’s creation-and-humanity-redeeming kingdom program, and doing so on behalf of others so as to be the place of the coming together of heaven and earth and an announcement of the kingdom of God. 

Thus, the church (the covenant people of God culled from all of humanity, not just ethnic or national Israel, who bear the covenant marker of belief in Jesus), whom God ultimately foreknew in Abraham, was predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus, reproducing a family of divine image-bearers.  It is with this purpose clearly in mind that we then hear Paul say “And those He predestined, He also called; and those He called, He also justified; and those He justified, He also glorified” (8:30).  Paul believes that according to the Scriptures (from Abraham through the prophets), God, as planned, is calling out a people from all nations (called), including them under His covenant banner through belief in Jesus (justified), and tasking them with reflecting His glory into the world (glorified). 

Remaking Creation (part 4 of 4)

Then, having brought the creation into the scope of God’s redemptive operation and thus indicating that the power of death and corruption has been (is, and will be) nullified, Paul moves on to the people of God that are the people of God because of their covenant inclusion via belief in Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Messiah and Lord of all, stating “Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies.”  The groaning is paramount, and provides the conceptual link going forward, as Paul also proposes that the groaning is the interceding of the Spirit of God (8:26). 

So, it is with Israel’s redemption from the bondage of Egypt in mind, as it is situated as evidence of the Creator God’s faithfulness towards His covenant with Abraham, that Paul goes on to say “And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose” (8:28).  How do we know this?  We know this because a groaning Israel, with a promise of something akin to resurrection, received liberation from Egypt.  God heard, God understood, and God acted.  If God’s covenant faithfulness towards Israel is any sort of guide, then we know that God will do the same for His new and expanded covenant family that have been brought together in fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, and to fulfill the role that Abraham’s family was to have in and for the world.  With this, because of the movement of the letter and of the immediate exodus and covenant associations of what surrounds it (the groaning), we see that the statement of verse twenty-eight is rooted in the historical narrative of God’s dealings with Israel.

Israel was most certainly a people called according God’s purpose.  The creation itself was called into existence for a purpose.  The worldwide covenant family that has been made so through believing in Jesus has definitely been called out for a purpose.  As Israel routinely suffered in the midst of their being called, as the creation continues to suffer, and as those that have confessed their allegiance to the kingdom of God through their confession of the Gospel of Jesus continue to suffer, there is groaning.  There is the intercession of the Spirit.  This groaning, which we might be able to equate to a recognition and admission of the continued existence of evil and that which binds and continues to attempt a thwarting of God’s purposes and to halt the ongoing manifestation and continual advance of His kingdom (as evil seeks to discourage our holding fast to a realization of the covenant faithfulness of the Creator God), serves as a reminder to those that are part of the people that have been placed within the narrative of God’s restorative plan and who are charged to live in accordance with the activation of that covenant plan, that God hears, God understands, and that God does indeed act. 

How does He act?  While we do not limit God’s ability to act directly in the world, we, along with Paul, realize that He deigns to act through His covenant family, as they have been charged to be the righteousness of God (the covenant faithfulness of God) in the world.  Accordingly, covenant participants are to act in ways that serve to defeat that which seeks to continually deface and mar God’s creation, whether that defacing is directed towards the creation into which we have been placed or the beings created in His image, either of which limits the ability of the creation to offers its praises or the image-bearers to adequately reflect God’s glory into His creation (thereby limiting the creation’s ability to praise its Creator in a vicious, stultifying circle).  Kingdom actions are those things that demonstrate and announce the advent of the kingdom of God, with these taking the form of both word and deed (deeds being far more weighty).  The model for this, of course, is Jesus, who went around announcing the kingdom of God, and through His actions that served to show forth God and therefore the image that humanity was to put on display, proved that the kingdom had come and that God was becoming King through Him, as He carried out God’s will on earth as in heaven. 

Remaking Creation (part 2)

It is with thoughts of this defining story of a captive, groaning Israel now placed squarely in the midst of Paul’s words here that we now read “Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies” (8:23).  God redeemed Israel from their slavery and delivered them into a land of promise, flowing with milk and honey, and so too is He going to do the same for His renewed Israel who call Jesus “King.”  We know this to be true because the Spirit has convinced us of the truth of the firstfruits of that redemption, that being Jesus, raised physically and bodily into a world that was now forever changed, His physical body now a spiritual body because it is animated by the power of heaven.  God redeemed Jesus’ body from its bondage to death, delivering it, renewed, remade, and re-created from the grave, and that same Spirit is now at work, renewing, remaking, and re-creating anywhere and everywhere a person engages in an activity that declares a belief in the Gospel of Jesus and the kingdom that said belief and Gospel entails.  Israel’s small portion of good land was merely a signpost of the good land that would be the restored creation.  

Like Israel out of Egypt, “in hope we were saved” (8:24a).  It is hope because we can only catch glimpses of it, in the midst of the ongoing bondage that is to be observed all around us.  Yes, this family of God is very much like Israel in Egypt, who groaned in hopeful expectation; and to this end, Paul writes “Now hope that is seen is not hope, because who hopes for what he sees?  But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with endurance” (8:24b-25).  Israel hoped and God acted.  We hope and God acts.  We will continue to hope and we will continue to see God acting, through us, as those actions, which may entail suffering and shame, continually point us towards the consummation of all things and the glorious advent of the kingdom of God on earth.

As we move on to verse twenty-six of chapter eight, we see that Paul continues the theme that is at work, which is the enfolding of all peoples within the defining narrative of the covenant people of God.  He writes “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not know how we should pray, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with inexpressible groaning” (8:26).  The context for this statement is still Israel’s groaning under Egyptian bondage.  The context for this is still the crying out of verse fifteen, the bondage of decay of verse twenty-one, the groaning of creation expressed in verse twenty-two, and the inward groaning of verse twenty-three.  As we saw in verse twenty-five, and in the hoping for what cannot be seen, Israel hoped for what it could not see when in Egypt.  According to the story, known by Paul and by which Israel defined itself, Israel had the hope of a promise that had been made to Abraham.  In the fifteenth chapter of Genesis we read “Then the Lord said to Abram, ‘Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a foreign country.  They will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years.  But I will execute judgment on the nation that they will serve.  Afterward they will come out with many possessions” (15:14). 

With the point being made repeatedly in Paul’s communications that the Gentile peoples have been enfolded into the story of Israel, in a need to embrace that narrative as their own that they may understand the ministry of Jesus and the actions, intentions, and desires of the Creator God as they go about the business of participating in the kingdom of God that had been announced, enacted, and advanced in the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus; and with that enfolding necessarily reaching beyond Israel as a unique people and stretching back to Abraham as Gentiles join the worldwide covenant family that was promised to Abraham (of which the nation of Israel was a foretaste, much like Israel’s promised land, hearkening back to the unsullied world and the garden of Eden, was to be a glimpse of the restored creation to come), it is necessary to include this particular portion of the Abraham story, as it is gives shape to the groaning of Israel in Egypt.  Though the labor of their bondage may have seemed futile, there was a hope, based on a promise, and they were able to entrust that God was at work. 

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. 

Law & The Turn Of The Ages (part 3 of 3)

Lest we surmise that a revival of talk of justification and its requisite accompaniment of the family of God is not applicable to this portion of Paul’s letter, we need only skip down to verse twelve, where we hear “So then, brothers and sisters, we are under obligation” (8:12a).  To whom or to what?  “Not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh” (8:12a), for that is the old age of division and a fractured humanity.  Emphasizing the seriousness of the new obligation of the new covenant, Paul expands upon and punctuates that statement with “(for if you live according to the flesh, you will die)” (8:13a).  Further elaboration has Paul offering the contrasting position: “but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live” (8:13b).  This business of God’s kingdom come to earth is a matter of life and death. 

Without getting sidetracked into an examination of what Paul may mean with verse thirteen, we find him quickly returning to the familial theme with verse fourteen and “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God” (8:14).  What is the evidence of being led by the Spirit?  It is belief in Jesus as Lord (the mark of justification/participation in the Creator God’s covenant people), and the resultant participation in His kingdom purposes (with its promises, cross-shaped responsibilities, and blessings).  Further extending the family metaphor, and perhaps offering a suggestion as to the nature of the composition of the congregation of believers to which he writes, Paul goes on to adapt the language of, and rely upon familiarity with, the practices surrounding the act of adoption in that day, writing “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery leading again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’” (8:15) 

Though there are numerous ways to hear these words, and while it certainly is suggestive of the type of relationship that can be individually enjoyed with the Creator God, it is important to keep this in line with what we have learned to this point in the letter, and to assert that this ability to cry out to God is about Paul’s continued insistence that all peoples can now rightly cry out to the God of Israel as their Father.  Before now, in their role as the covenant people, which we realize had degenerated into a defensive, protective, and excluding stance, it was only Israel that could rightly and justly cry out to their Father God and expect to be heard.  This is no longer the case.  Paul declares that “The Spirit Himself bears witness to our spirit that we are God’s children.  And if children, then heirs (namely, heirs of God and also fellow heirs with Christ)---if indeed we suffer with Him so we may also be glorified with Him” (8:16-17). 

Talk of heirs reaches back to what was suggested in the fourth chapter, being firmly ensconced within the world of the Abrahamic covenant and the inheritance to be had by all those that are his children, by a faith like that which he exercised.  Here, Paul reaches out to the four corners of the world, suggesting a united, renewed humanity under the new covenant and in the new age that has dawned in the Resurrection, with that humanity joined together with the Christ, and called to a kingdom-oriented life that takes its cues from the suffering and shame of the cross.  This suffering, which we can certainly equate with conceptions of honor and shame as the implications of a willful journey to the cross are explored and embraced, is efficacious as the means by which Jesus’ Lordship is proclaimed and by which the kingdom of God is advanced. 

Because every act that would, in that day and age, bring shame upon the believer (at least as understood by the world and the court of public opinion), was an embracing of the cross and of the tenets of a Lord and a kingdom that is manifest in such ways, and because every shame-embracing act is performed because of the hope of resurrection and the renewal of creation, Paul cannot help but say “For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us” (8:18).  For those that believe in Jesus, behind every kingdom-directed thought and every kingdom-inspired action lies the idea that just as Jesus was raised from the dead into a glorious existence of a glorified body here in a creation that has begun to experience its renewal through the resurrecting power of the Spirit, so too shall all those that believe in Him (with that belief the evidence of the Spirit’s present work and evidence that the power of the new creation is at work) experience the same.  

Law & The Turn Of The Ages (part 1 of 2)

When we consider the opening of the eighth chapter of Romans, we are eventually and necessarily forced to make a regression into chapter seven, as the letter is a continuous narrative and flow of interconnected thoughts.  In the first verse of the eighth chapter, and in his highly important continuation of the narrative construct of the letter, Paul picks up on that which effectively closes out the movement of the fifth chapter (5:18-19), while also folding in the union with Christ theme that can be seen in the sixth chapter and writes “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (8:1).  With what comes in verses three and four, Paul emphasizes the contrast between the old age (flesh) and the new age (spirit)---the old age prior to the Christ-event in which Jew and Gentile were separated by covenant boundaries (law) and the new age after the Christ-event in which Jew and Gentile are joined together as the family of God and in union with Christ, writing “For God achieved what the law could not do” (8:3a). 

What could the law not do?  It could not generate a covenant family of divine image-bearers to represent the Creator God throughout the whole of His creation.  Why could it not do this?  Because it had enemies and adversaries.  “Because it was weakened through the flesh” (8:3b).  It was weakened by that which marked the old age, which was sin and death. 

Indeed, relying on chapter seven of Romans, it was weakened through distinctly non-divine-image-bearing characteristics such as covetousness (7:9).  Certainly, if one is consumed by covetousness, one can hardly be in a position to embody the cross of Christ in and for the world through self-sacrifice and preference of others.  The law and its commandments, which Paul believes to be “holy, righteous, and good” (7:12b), when placed in human hands, were simply overwhelmed by the powers at work in the world, that had not yet been conquered by the cross and the Resurrection.  Their application led to the division of humanity in a way that was far afield of God’s intentions for those created in His image and those that were tasked to carry His covenant.  In Jesus, and in God’s covenant faithfulness therein represented, this division is dismissed.  As a new Adam, Jesus marks a new beginning for a new type of people---those that are animated by the Spirit, which is the power of the Resurrection in the world in which the kingdom of God is a reality.    

This struggle in the old age, even with the law and its commandments as a guide to proper image-bearing, which was perhaps intended to be a sign-post (much like the ministry of Jesus and His church following Him) of the in-breaking of the always-expected age of God’s proper rule over creation, is well-articulated by Paul’s famous and much-debated words in chapter seven of Romans.  He writes “For we know that the law is spiritual” (7:14a).  That is, the law is related to the new age and expectation of God’s kingdom and God’s rule (age of the empowering Spirit), “but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin” (7:14b). 

Paul, speaking on behalf of and embodying all those that had failed to rightly bear the covenant (from Adam to Israel), indicates that the law is wholly unsuited to the people of the old age (people of the flesh).  This, of course, is a component of Paul’s ongoing insistence that the law has been put aside by the grace of God, especially in light of the use of the law to create boundaries around covenant participation, in a manner that was antithetical to God’s ultimate purposes, which was the redemption of all of humanity and all of His creation, rather than just one particular group of privileged people.  Whatever stands in the way of creating a single family of God---a new humanity, must be set aside, with the life of Jesus, as He represents and acts out God’s covenant faithfulness, the new law of life.  Those who believe in Jesus are to be like Him as they take up the command to “present yourselves to God as those who are alive from the dead and your members to God as instruments to be used for righteousness” (6:13b).  As Jesus was (and is), so is His church called to be and to do.   

Covenant Of Belief (part 3 of 3)

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

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

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

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