Love & The Public Good (part 2)

When reading about “respect” and “honor,” one must remember the culture of honor and shame, and understand this part of what Paul is saying accordingly.  Naturally, if the Christian has complied with his duty to be a voice to the rulers, doing good so as to receive their commendation (Romans 13:3b), with this doing of good the language of public benefaction; and if the church has been complicit in its responsibilities to care for orphans, widows, lepers (sick), and the poor, then the governing authorities will be able to restrict the scope of its activities to being “God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer” (13:4b), rather than engaging in all manners of activities with which the Christian will find disagreeable.  This then allows the Christian to pay taxes with a clear conscience, properly acknowledging their God’s provision of those charged with government functions. 

Of course, this also bears on the responsibility of the church to communicate the words of one who preached the kingdom of the Creator God, as the Gospel of Luke records of John the Baptist that “Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, ‘Teacher, what should we do?’  He told them, ‘Collect no more than you are required to.’” (Luke 3:12-13).  The idea that tax collectors would collect only that which they were required to collect would have been quite the radical notion in that day, as it was well understood that tax collectors, quite simply, collected more than what was required, lining their pockets and enriching themselves with the excess.  Yes, this issue of government and taxes, as presented by Paul, must be understood within the context of the church’s responsibility to embody the love of its God by effectively preaching the Gospel of the kingdom and living out in their own community the principles of that kingdom. 

If a government, on this side of the cross, has become oppressive, with oppression generally linked to high levels of taxation (while understanding that the average person under the Roman empire paid well over half of their income---in the course of a subsistence lifestyle---in taxes, with this often leading to debt and ultimately slavery, which brings in the issue of “owe no one anything”), then the church of the Christ need only look at itself and its failure to remain true to Jesus’ message of the advent of the kingdom of the covenant God, and of that God’s desire to bring the rule of heaven to earth, as it has most likely retreated into an escapist fixation that limits the acceptance of Jesus’ challenging and world-altering message to going to heaven when one dies. 

It is worthwhile to re-read this section as a whole so that one can frame it within a statement made very early in this letter to the Romans.  Paul writes “Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  For the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,’ (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does no wrong to a neighbor.  Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (13:7-10). 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 10)

Condemnation, attempts at heavy-handed transformation, or a mission-denying withdrawal and separation are not the means by which either Paul or Jesus asked for or expected the culture to be countered.  Remember, Jesus saved his denouncements for the leaders of the people.  Rather, the culture is countered, and the  transformation into a culture that comes closer to living as the true humanity originally intended by the Creator, through the kingdom-modeling, sacrificial, love-motivated and service-oriented activities of the members of the body of Christ, as they demonstrably and tangibly live out, in imitation of Jesus their claim that Jesus is Lord, and that He is Lord even over the Caesar that bears the title of “son of god.” 

What appearance will be taken by these activities?  Naturally, one can find the answer on nearly every page of Scripture.  Believers can look to the Jesus tradition as embodied by the Gospel accounts.  They can look at Acts.  When it comes to Paul, an observer can look at the entire body of work that is attributed to him in order to formulate an answer to this question.  However, this study is focusing in on a letter to Timothy, to whom Paul refers as his genuine child in the faith, seeing there what can be understood to be, regardless of Timothy’s “position” in the church, a personally directed letter that demands a personal response of a single member of the body of Christ, who is presumably attempting to live and to serve as part of a community that is yet one small component of a global kingdom.  Thus, realizing that there is a helpful counter-cultural message in the text of the letter may show the letter to be even more useful than some have previously imagined.   

When one thinks about countering the culture, it is almost inevitable that the first thoughts run to laws and to government.  In many ways and in many places, humans are brought up to think in such ways, believing governments to be either the source of problems or of solutions to problems, and are thereby ingrained with an almost unshakeable desire to effect changes that they would like to see through the coercive power of laws and regulations.  Government is recognized as the locus of power for the enforcement of laws.  By extension then, a government is an entity that has the power to regulate behavioral changes.  Such thinking was probably just as true in the days of Paul and Timothy as it is now. 

As the church presented a counter-imperial and counter-cultural ethic, it would be quite easy for the members of the body of Christ, who saw themselves (and should still see themselves) as representative of a kingdom to which all other kingdoms are subservient, to slip into a mindset that being counter-imperial or counter-cultural also meant that they were to be anti-government, especially if that government was actively oppressive towards Christians.  It is quite understandable why their Roman rulers were suspicious of so many Christians, considering the fact that Christians claimed to serve a Lord that was far superior to the emperor, while at the same time affirming their loyalty to a kingdom that was not Rome. 

It was one thing to maintain loyalty to tribal deities and to long-standing territorial power structures that could be taken advantage of by Rome as a means of preserving order and extending its reach, and which could stand side-by-side with Roman imperial ideology and worship, but it was quite another to take a position that ran contrary to that ideology that also served to discount the worship of Caesar, and even going so far as to place a criminal that was executed by Rome at the center of its worship and allegiance.  This was a direct affront to the power of Rome and to all community and civic sensibilities. 

Absalom (part 10)

“So the king and all the members of his royal court set out on foot” (2 Samuel 15:16a).  This is Israel’s exodus from Egypt, but applied in reverse.  It is the oppressive king that is fleeing, rather than the people.  This is the king of Israel, who represents the people, going into exile rather than leading them to and then in their promised land.  David, whether directly or indirectly, through the situation that he created by not dealing with Amnon, and by not dealing with Absalom, is delivering the people that are loyal to him into exile.  Their march is not one of exodus, in power and glory, but rather one of fear and shame.  Not all of the members of the royal household left Jerusalem however, as “the king left behind ten concubines to attend to the palace” (15:16b).  This becomes significant later on, as this allows for the fulfillment of a “prophecy” that had previously been given to David. 

Like Israel, but again in reverse, “The king and all the people set out on foot, pausing at a spot some distance away” (15:17).  This should cause a reflection upon Israel’s flight from Egypt, in that they paused at the Red Sea, and then again at the mountain of God.  It should also serve as a contrast to what it is that is happening with the two events.  Drawing attention to the fact that he knew that he was going into exile, “the king said to Ittai the Gittie, ‘Why should you come with us?  Go back and stay with the new king, for you are a foreigner and an exile from your own country… Today should I make you wander around by going with us?’” (15:19,20b) 

David asks Ittai, who already lives in a state of exile, why he wants to continue in exile.  H then uses the language of wandering, which present thoughts of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness after their faithless response to the call to enter the land of promise.  Ittai, however, refused to leave David, saying “As surely as the Lord lives and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king is, whether dead or alive, there I will be as well!” (15:21)  Clearly, not all is lost for David.  This response from Ittai seems to boost David’s spirits a bit.  Perhaps he began to think that if this man would not forsake him, then perhaps the Lord God of Israel had not completely forsaken him either. 

One must take note of a startling fact.  That fact is that the first mention of the Lord God of Israel in relation to David’s situation and in the midst of Absalom’s insurrection, comes from this foreigner Ittai who is living in exile.  It seems that David had forgotten about his Lord.  To make the point, the author does not have David mentioning his Lord since the twenty-second verse of chapter twelve, as he does so in connection with the death of the child that was born to he and Bathsheba.  As one can be sure that these books of Samuel are both historical and theological treatises, this mention of Israel’s God by Ittai is quite striking.  It seems to jar something within David. 

After this reminder of the Lord, it is said that “All the land was weeping loudly as all these people were leaving.  As the king was crossing over the Kidron valley, all the people were leaving on the road that leads to the desert” (15:23).  This is understandable.  Jerusalem, after all, is the capital of the country.  Many that lived there would have served the king in official government positions.  With David fleeing and a new king on the way, it would not be unreasonable for these people to believe themselves, at the least, as out of a job, and at the worst as liable to be put to death by Absalom so that he can appoint his own people into government positions---people that he can trust to be loyal to him and to serve him well.  Along with that, “Zadok and all the Levites who were with him were carrying the Ark of the Covenant of God” (15:24a).  For some reason, they were taking the Ark of the Covenant with them, as if somehow it was only David that could legitimate its presence there in Jerusalem, rather than the other way around, with the Ark serving to legitimate the rule of the Creator God’s people by its presence near the throne. 

Calling Down Fire (part 1)

Now when the days drew near for Him to be taken up, Jesus set out resolutely to go to Jerusalem.  He sent messengers on ahead of Him.  As they went along, they entered a Samaritan village to make things ready in advance for Him” – Luke 9:51-52  (NET)

This action of sending messengers ahead of Himself, so as to make things ready in advance for Him, as can be here read about in relation to the Samaritan village, is a Caesar-like action.  Undoubtedly, as the recipient of Luke’s writing (who was likely a Roman government official) is borne in mind, these words were meant to draw a contrast between the Caesar (the man that was then honored and widely worshiped as the world’s savior and son of god) and Jesus the Christ.  It is also possible that Luke’s use of “taken up” in reference to Jesus is a subtle allusion to the “apotheosis” of the Caesar, which is the recognition of Caesar’s deification as a god (making a son that would follow him on the throne the “son of god”). 

Sending a messenger ahead of himself was a common practice for the Caesar.  Those messengers, who could be referred to as “evangelists,” went out proclaiming the “good news” (evangelion) concerning Caesar, regularly going ahead of him for the purpose of preparing a town or city within his realm to welcome the Caesar with all appropriate honor.  In this role, the evangelist prepared the people in subjection to the son of god to bow the knee to the Caesar as their lord and master and the giver of all good things.  This is the likely interpretive framework within which the reader/hearer of Luke’s narrative is asked to understand Jesus’ sending of messengers on ahead of Himself---Jesus is the world’s true Savior, Son of God, King, Lord, Master, and giver of all good things. 

In the case of the particular instance reported here by Luke, though Jesus had sent these messengers to make ready things in advance for Him and presumably to prepare the people for His visit, “the villagers refused to welcome Him” (9:53a).  Luke adds what he must have thought was a necessary explanatory statement, indicating that the refusal to welcome Jesus stemmed from the fact that “He was determined to go to Jerusalem” (9:53b). 

The Samaritans, of course, were looked down upon by the Jews, though clearly, according to the record in the Gospels of His interactions with them, not by Jesus.  However, apparently owing to the ill-will between Jews and Samaritans, the Samaritans refused to honor one that had determined, within His messianic mission, to simply use their city as a stopping point on the way to Jerusalem.  Regardless of the reason or motivation behind their refusal to receive Him, the significant fact to observe is that Jesus was not welcomed. 

Because of this, Luke writes: “Now when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to call fire to come down from heaven and consume them?’” (9:54)  Why would they say such a thing?  It would seem to be clear that Luke is pointing out the fact that James and John were well aware of the very Caesar-like nature of what was Jesus had done in sending messengers ahead of Him to prepare various places to welcome Him as King. 

To go along with this, if Luke’s record is accurate, Jesus’ disciples have already repeatedly heard Him use royal titles for Himself, such as Son of Man.  In the course of the linear progression of the narrative, they have also seen him cast out demons, heal the sick, raise a man from the dead, still a storm, and feed a multitude.  They rightly interpret these things within the messianic, kingly context in which they are performed, and which Jesus had provided to them by the very words of His mouth, so the sending of an advance team, in the mold of the Caesar, is not at all surprising to them.  Human nature being what it is, it is not difficult to imagine that these followers enjoyed being a part of the chosen entourage of the King that was now traveling the path to Jerusalem. 

Salvation For This House (part 1 of 2)

He entered Jericho and was passing through.  And there was a man named Zacchaeus. – Luke 19:1-2a  (ESV)

The first ten verses of the nineteenth chapter of Luke tell the story of Zacchaeus.  As we go through this story of Zacchaeus, attempting to understand the truths conveyed herein, we must bear in mind to whom this Gospel of Luke has been written.  It has been written to a Roman government official, a believer, presumably a Gentile, named Theophilus.  That is important as it relates to this story.

It is said of Zacchaeus that “He was a chief tax collector and was rich” (19:2b).  In this role, he would have been quite hated by a sizable majority of the people of Israel with whom he came into contact, as he worked to collect taxes on behalf of the oppressive Roman government.  Thus, he served to perpetuate and enforce the rule that the people wished to throw off and bring to an end.  For what it’s worth, he would also have been known as a publican.  

The people of Jericho gathered to see Jesus, the one that they had heard about, and who some had come to believe might very well be the promised Messiah.  Though there were many views of the Messiah, one that was quite prevalent was one in which the Messiah was the individual that had been purposely sent by their Creator God to overthrow those who presumed to rule over God’s chosen people.  Not surprisingly, with the stir that the presence of Jesus created wherever He went, Zacchaeus wanted to see this Jesus as well. 

It is reasonable to presume that he also would have been fully aware of what was implied by messianic claims, especially as it related to his own job and his livelihood.  Normally, though he would have been the object of the scorn of the members of the family of Israel, being the chief tax collector would have afforded him a place of honor (though begrudging) when it came to significant happenings and public events, but in this case the people ignored him, which is understandable because of what was implied by all this talk of Messiah.  Of course, as is generally noted when people talk of Zacchaeus, it did not help that “he was of small stature” (19:3b). 

We all know how the story goes.  Zacchaeus, this chief tax collector for Jericho, “ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him, for He (Jesus) was about to pass that way” (19:4).  Would that not have been an odd sight for the people of Jericho?  Their hated chief tax collector, was climbing a tree so that he could get a glimpse of the Messiah, the One that was about to put him out of a job.  Not only that, but he ran.  Both of these activities were considered to be dishonorable, and a respectable man would not engage in them.  

Putting aside the potential shame of climbing a tree (hints of Jesus’ own ignoring of shame to come when He would effectively “run ahead and climb a tree”?) Zacchaeus had elevated himself so that not only was he going to be able to see Jesus, but also so that Jesus could see him.  It is likely that the people thought that Jesus, upon seeing Zacchaeus in the tree, would have some harsh words for him.  However, something quite surprising happens when Jesus encounters part of Rome’s oppressive cabal.  “When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, ‘Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.’  So he hurried and came down and received Him joyfully” (19:5-6). 

Commanded By The Lord

So I sent for you at once, and you have been kind enough to come.  Now therefore we are all here in the presence of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord. – Acts 10:33  (ESV)

It is likely that we have read these words dozens of times, yet have never taken their full measure or grasped the significance and importance of what it is that is being said here.  What is significant is not only what is said, but by whom it is being said.  These are the words of a man named Cornelius, a Roman centurion and commander of the Italian Cohort.  Cornelius speaks these words to the Apostle Peter, who has been brought to his house from Joppa, having just received a vision from the Lord in regards to things clean and unclean.

Earlier in this chapter of Acts, we read that Cornelius “saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, ‘Cornelius.’  And he stared at Him in terror and said, ‘What is it, Lord?’”  (10:3-4a)  That statement is worth noting because of the consistent, underlying message that we find in the New Testament, which sets Jesus in contrast to Caesar.  In that day, “Lord” (kurios) was a title that was reserved for Caesar.  Yet here we find this title on the lips of one of Caesar’s soldiers, as it is directed to the “angel of God.”  Then we see him using the title again in our text above. 

Now Cornelius was in Caesarea.  As a ranking military official in the land in which the events of the life and death of Christ had taken place, it would be unreasonable to think that he was unaware of the things that were being said about Jesus, or that he was unaware of the activities of the main proponents of that message.  He would have known the claims that the followers of Jesus were making for Him.  Indeed, the speech that he made in welcoming Peter to his house indicates his awareness of the message of Jesus that Peter carried, and perhaps of his growing understanding of the significance of the claim, as he says, using official, military language, that “we are all here in the presence of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.”  Clearly, Cornelius, the Roman centurion and subject of Caesar, with his use of both “God” and “Lord” and “commanded,” makes a distinction that shows us that he himself had come to think of Jesus as “Lord.”  Coming from him, as the commander of up to one thousand soldiers of Lord Caesar, this would be no light matter.

Having been encouraged by Cornelius to speak of the Lord Jesus, “Peter opened his mouth and said: ‘Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him’.” (10:34-35)  With that as a preface, Peter continues and says, “As for the word that He sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)” (10:36).  Here, before a Roman military commander, and likely, before a group of Roman government officials and probably some soldiers as well, Peter uses some startling language.  He speaks of the “good news of peace.”  This is the Gospel of peace.  For the Roman hearer, this would be the good news of the Caesar and of the peace (pax Romana) that he brings.  Peter applies it to Jesus.  Then, in the same breath, while a number of his hearers are contemplating the depth of this statement and its inherent challenge to the Lordship of their emperor, Peter extends his claim and says frankly that it is Jesus that is “Lord of all.”  A bit later, Peter adds that Jesus “is the One appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead” (10:42b).  This claim is made in stark contrast to the well-known fact that it is Caesar, the all-powerful ruler of the world, that has the power to judge, and who has the power of life and death. 

While it is said of Cornelius that he was “a devout man who feared God” (10:2a), and that he used the language of “Lord” in reference to Jesus, this would not necessarily apply to all those that were around him, so Peter is being quite bold.  Cornelius himself is being quite bold, revealing his revolutionary beliefs to the people closest to him, inviting certain scrutiny, possible persecution, and probable removal from his position.  This should tell us something about the revolutionary and resolute faith that is demonstrated by those that confess their belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior.  Just as “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” (10:38a), He does the same for all those that choose to testify of His Son.