Hot, Cold & Lukewarm (part 1)

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot.  I wish you were either cold or hot!  So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold…” – Revelation 3:15-16a  (NET)

The vast majority of those reading this study live in a world that bears very little resemblance to the first century world of the middle east and Asia Minor, and that fact must be borne in mind when approaching Scripture and its world.  No matter how educated one is in terms of being able to interact in the world on multiple levels and in and with a variety of disparate environments or group, or how Spirit-filled one may consider himself or herself to be, and no matter how strongly one declares a strong reverence the Bible, serious presentations of the all-important message of the Gospel cannot take place without serious study. 

In that light, when looking at this sliver of the message to the church at Laodicea, it must be insisted upon that one cannot casually approach the Scriptural text as if the terms in use carry the precise meaning today that they did when first penned.  In addition, it would behoove a reader not to overly rely or place a possibly un-warranted confidence in a knowledge of either Greek or Hebrew.  This knowledge often finds one translating the words from their original language and then interpreting the translation according to a modern understanding within one’s own subjective pre-determination that has been probably been determined by a relatively un-critical (and even unacknowledged) acceptance of a prevalent theology, philosophy, soteriology, ecclesiology, or eschatology, while simply congratulating oneself on the use of the ancient languages and acting as if truth has been rightly grasped. 

If and when effort is undertaken to translate from the original languages of Scripture, it is critical to be all the more attentive to the historical, cultural, and social contexts into which the words were uttered, bearing in mind that the words may have carried a meaning in those days that has been lost to modern hearers or readers, but which can be re-discovered upon the application of adequate effort in such a pursuit.  Words are regularly re-defined through usage, and often take upon themselves a variety of meanings and connotations that may very well be entirely foreign to original usage. 

To take a non-controversial Biblical example, consider the name “Nimrod.”  A reader will come upon this name in the tenth chapter of Genesis and read that “Cush was the father of Nimrod; he began to be a valiant warrior on the earth.  He was a mighty hunter before the Lord.  (That is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.’)” (Genesis10:8-9)  From there, one can go on to find out that he was a king and the builder of great cities.  Without going into further detail of the life of Nimrod, it is quite clear that he was a man that demanded great respect.  He is called a valiant warrior and a mighty hunter.  He was the builder of a kingdom, and men flocked to his leadership.  His name, in his day and in the days that followed, was a great name. 

Now, however, the situation is dramatically different.  In this day, if somebody is referred to as a “Nimrod,” the name is being offered as an insult.  That person is being referred to as a fool, with the ensuing implications standing at a great distance from “valiant,” “warrior,”, “mighty,” and the like.  So in a bygone era, if somebody was referred to as being a Nimrod, it would have been considered an honor.  Today, this is not the case.  Words change. 

All The Saints (part 12)

Verse twenty-two poses a rhetorical question to which the Jerusalem elders have what takes the appearance of a ready-made response.  That question, following up on the not-entirely-accurate suggestion that Paul teaches “all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to their customs” (Acts 21:21b---note the use of the word “custom” rather than “law”---a subtle reminder that the then-employed covenant markers were more custom than law perhaps?), was “What they should we do?” (21:22a)  Coupled with the lack of accuracy in the statement that leads to the question, one is tempted to hear the prepared response as little more than the feigning of concern, as they say “They will no doubt hear that you have come” (21:22b). 

Now, it does exist as a possibility that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, with whom Paul is here dealing, are simply reporting what they have heard, and that they are simply relaying the general tenor of the grumblings about Paul that they hear around the Temple and in Jerusalem.  However, though again there is no desire to here dwell on it (as it is not the primary issue at hand), this exchange takes on the appearance of an honor competition for position within the church, with the Jerusalem elders seeking to shame Paul.  Knowing Paul through his letters and through Acts, and knowing his demeanor in the lead-up to his return to Jerusalem, which he expected to be fraught with troubles, this potential attempt at shaming would probably not have much of an effect on him.

So a suggestion is offered.  Paul is told that “We have four men who have taken a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved” (21:23-24a).  Is this talk of Paul needing to purify himself a subtle jab that stems from the fact that he spends the vast majority of his time with Gentiles (echoes of Galatians two ringing in one’s ears)?  The rejoinder to the suggestion, which is “Then everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the law” (21:24), indicates that it is a veiled insult. 

What they have in mind when speaking about “conformity with the law” is revealed in what follows, as they make reference to an earlier event, saying “But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we have written a letter, having decided that they should avoid meat that has been sacrificed to idols and blood and what has been strangled and sexual immorality” (21:25).  This serves as something of a modified version of the prevalent covenant markers, setting forth the still-underlying position that Gentiles should be required to, in some way, become Jews in order to have the privilege of participation in the blessings of Israel’s God as members of the covenant people.  Submission to the God of Israel and to the crucified and resurrected Messiah of Israel was simply not going to be enough. 

Paul, who, according to what can be found in the twentieth chapter and the first part of the twenty-first chapter, has an inkling as to where all this might be headed and has already embraced the possibilities, does not argue with the elders.  Because he could look upon this activity as being relatively meaningless in the great cosmic, kingdom picture with which he was concerned, and because he had no desire to create disharmony or dissent in the church, “Paul took the men the next day, and after he had purified himself along with them, he went to the Temple and gave notice of the completion of the days of purification, when the sacrifice would be offered for each of them” (21:26).

Absalom (part 6)

David, it would seem, could not muster such feelings towards Absalom.  David was not this kind of father.  Perhaps Absalom hoped he could be so?  “When someone approached to bow before him” (2 Samuel 15:5a), he did not treat that person as his own father had rather disdainfully treated him, without acknowledging the righteous behavior of his son that had prompted the exile that had now been brought to something like exodus. 

Rather, “Absalom would extend his hand and embrace him and kiss him” (15:5b), no doubt recounting the tale of his appearance before the king, the lack of the extension of a loving and compassionate hand, and the absence of a loving embrace.  Without those things, the kiss could be positioned as little more than an insult---a customary and expected greeting that one might even offer to an enemy, if that enemy ever happened to reach the place of bowing. 

“Absalom acted this way toward everyone in Israel who came to the king for justice” (15:6a).  They were coming to the king for justice and Absalom made sure that they received so much more.  He gave them himself.  “In this way Absalom won the loyalty of the citizens of Israel” (15:6b).  They were going over to the side of the son that had been exiled simply because he had attempted to defend his sister’s honor (within an honor and shame society) by punishing an evildoer. 

Yes, Absalom was even willing to raise his hand against his own brother in the defense of righteousness and in response to shameful acts.  In the eyes of the people, that was probably to his credit.  Accordingly, he was going to be their Moses, who had been raised in the royal house of Egypt but was willing to take an Egyptian life if necessary.  Just as Moses had killed for the sake of the honor of his countrymen and was forced to flee to the wilderness, so too had Absalom acted, at least it could be seen as such in the eyes of the people that were becomingly increasingly loyal to him. 

It is possible that the people of Israel were coming to believe in his exile, Absalom had obviously met Israel’s God, and the people experienced the obvious result of his meeting of their God when they experienced his warmth, his handshake, his embrace, and his kiss.  His return to Jerusalem was a mirror of Moses’ return to Egypt, and accordingly he was there to lead the people of the Creator God.  To this end, for Absalom and his supporters, David had become the new Pharaoh---oppressing the people of God just as he had oppressed his very own son---and he was rightfully going to be removed from his place of authority. 

As before, Absalom was patient.  He had waited two years from the rape of his sister before acting on her behalf.  He had spent three years living apart from his people, in Geshur.  He had spent two years in Jerusalem, living apart from the face of the king.  “After four years” of winning the loyalty of the people “Absalom said to the king, ‘Let me go and repay my vow that I made to the Lord while I was in Hebron.  For I made this vow when I was living in Geshur in Aram: “If the Lord really does allow me to return to Jerusalem, I will serve the Lord”’” (15:7-8). 

One cannot help but notice the similarities to Moses’ encounter with Pharaoh.  Moses, upon his return to Egypt from a long time of exile (remembering that in the case of Absalom it has now been eleven years since Tamar was raped, which was the catalyst to all of these events), went to Pharaoh and spoke to him of letting Israel go into the wilderness to make a sacrifice to the Lord.  How does David respond to a similar plea from Absalom?  “The king replied to him, ‘Go in peace.’  So Absalom got up and went to Hebron” (15:9). 

Can the Moses/Pharaoh analogy be here continued?  Absolutely it can, as it was when Pharaoh’s power had been completely broken that he eventually gave the command for Israel to go up out of the land to sacrifice.  Absalom, if he was indeed positioning himself as a new Moses and casting his father in the position of Pharaoh (and ruling the Creator God’s people unjustly), would use this to further his ongoing campaign to cement the validity of his own leadership in the eyes of the people. 

He had been enduring his father’s disdainful treatment long enough.  He had spent years gaining the hearts of the people.  This has all been well-calculated.  He had built his grassroots support and his coup was effectively rooted in the grand story of Israel’s flight from Egypt and their God’s conquering of those that had become enemies of the people of the Creator God.  Yes, Absalom was attempting to lead his own exodus, and with his departure to Hebron, the place where his father had initially been crowned and ruled, that effort had now begun.