Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 1)

Now to the eternal king, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever!  Amen. – 1 Timothy 1:17  (NET)

Before one can commence with an exegesis of the text of Paul’s first letter to Timothy (this study will take the position that the letter comes from the mind and hand of the Apostle Paul, though for the purposes of this study, it really makes no difference whether the letter is Pauline or deutero-Pauline), there is an obligation to take steps to construct the social framework in which the letter will be composed, in which it will be read by its recipient, and in which it may have been shared with an assembly of Christians.  Specifically, one must be aware of the patron-client relationship of the Roman world. 

The patron-client relationship was one which tied persons of significantly different social status together in a reciprocal exchange of goods and services.  The relationship is asymmetrical, in that the two sides are not social equals and will never make any pretense whatsoever of equality.  The patron-client contract, especially in a world heavily divided between free and slave or citizen and subject, as was the Roman world, provides the client with things that would not normally be available to them, whether that be material things or even something nebulous and subjectively defined, such as justice.  Whatever it is that is provided to the client by the patron, it is understood that the client badly needs these things, and that the client cannot obtain such things on his own.  

In return for the benefaction of the patron, the client gives the patron honor and loyalty.  In a world defined by the system of the limited good of honor, the client does not confer his own honor upon the patron.  Rather, the patron is accorded greater honor in the court of public reputation by amassing a network of clients that, ipso facto, demonstrates the largesse of the patron and serves to signify how truly honorable and worthy of honor the patron is. 

The honor of the patron is then noised abroad by the client (the client speaks in honorific language about his patron), so that all may hear of the deeds of the patron on behalf of the client, which is part and parcel of his demonstration of loyalty.  In Latin, this loyalty is known as “fides,” whereas in Greek it is known as “pistis.”  Translated to English, such is read as “faith.”  The denizens of the world into which Jesus and the announcement of His Gospel came would have largely heard “faith” as a response of loyalty within the parameters of the patron-client system.    

Interestingly, the existence and prevalence of the patron-client relationship seem to be implied in many accounts within the Gospels of Jesus’ interaction with those that came to Him seeking some good thing that they could not obtain for themselves.  Those that came to Jesus in search of the good that He could provide would be fully aware of the patron-client relationship, and would often expect the demand for or exhibit the desire to treat Jesus as their patron, offering their services or their selves to Him as their client.  Jesus, however, during His earthly ministry, rejects clientage, and resists becoming a patron in the accepted sense.  To demonstrate this, a couple of brief examples from the Gospels will suffice. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 34)

Subjection to another, that seeking and taking out of the lowest place, which was spoken of and modeled by Jesus, with the strengthening of the church and the emanation of justice as the Creator God sees it (supremely concerned for orphans and widows and lepers and children and all of those considered to be the lowest of all) that flows from one’s spirit-led activities as the measuring stick for true spirituality (not speaking in tongues or the exercise of other specific gifts in isolation, as constructed by one particular church community), is a vital and crucial element of true worship of Jesus and of the Father. 

Therefore, with the ceaseless and nearly inescapable striving for honor in mind, it is finally possible to hear Paul say “If someone does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (1 Corinthians 14:38).  By now, it should be realized that the language of “recognition” is the language of the court of public opinion, of reputation, and of honor.  Again, true recognition, and therefore true honor within the body of the Christ, belongs solely to the Lord of the body.  This is displayed when the one that would sit in the place of honor in the surrounding world or in any other type of association, actively subjects himself or herself to those that would be deemed less honorable outside the body of Christ, serving them with the same type of love and compassion that was displayed by the Creator God’s action of venturing forth to join and serve His creation, and the venturing forth to the cross as the summation and climax of that service.

“So then, brother and sisters,” as Paul writes in the hopes that his message about this particular issue has been properly conveyed, received, and understood, “be eager to prophesy” (14:39a), for this, engaged in by all, will encourage, console, and strengthen the church, while convicting and calling all, even the unbeliever and uninformed, to account for failures to rightly bear the divine image.  “And,” furthermore, Paul tells them that even though it has been problematic and has created a situation that has been antithetical to the true nature of the church, now that you better understand how best to put this ancient religious practice to proper use within the church, and now that you better understand the way that believers are supposed to manifest the Spirit of the covenant God and to respond to activities that manifest the Spirit of that God among you, “do not forbid anyone from speaking in tongues” (14:39b). 

Effectively, having been given their instructions by Paul, and hopefully waking away from this time of gathering with a better grasp on the world-shaking and shaping nature of the activities of the church of the Christ and of its effect on the way that the Creator God intends His world to work, Paul concludes this portion of his heavily rhetorical yet applicable dissertation with “And do everything in a decent and orderly manner” (14:40).     

Triumph Of Jesus (part 8)

The headless body of the king was added to the altar, to burn along with the white bulls, while a fragrant incense was added to the flames so as to cover up the sulfuric smell of the burning flesh.  With that completed, the bodyguards of the adopted son of Caesar, each holding their fasces that symbolized Rome’s power to execute the justice that Rome alone could bring to the world, used those very same instruments in a physical demonstration of that power, slaughtering the traitorous rebels that had taken up with the enemy.  These men, traitors that they were, and branded with the mark of that beastly king, were not considered fit to be buried or burned, so their bodies were taken outside of the city and thrown into the dump.  Before their bodies would have a chance to burn, I’m sure that the vultures and the scavengers gorged themselves on their rotting flesh.  A fitting end.  Now, we are off to celebrate.  Caesar has ordained it!”

This study has been entitled the “Triumph of Jesus,” though it can rightly be said that Jesus has yet to be seen playing a role.  Before tying everything together, let it be said that the Gospels present a picture of Jesus’ “triumph.”  The best example of said “triumph” is to be found in the twenty-seventh chapter of Matthew. 

Keeping in mind the description of the “triumph,” along with the speculative (historical-fictional) narrative that has been constructed, along with the fact that the original audience of this Gospel (like the audience of Revelation) would have been well aware of the tradition of the Roman “triumph,” one reads: “Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the governor’s residence and gathered the whole cohort around Him.  They stripped Him and put a scarlet robe around Him, and after braiding a crown of thorns, they put it on His head.  They put a staff in His right hand, and kneeling down before Him, they mocked Him: ‘Hail, king of the Jews!’  They spat on Him and took the staff and struck Him repeatedly on His head.  When they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the robe and put His own clothes back on Him.  Then they led Him away to crucify Him.  As they were going out, they found a man from Cyrene named Simon, whom they forced to carry His cross.  They came to a place called Golgotha (which means ‘Place of the Skull’) and offered Jesus wine mixed with gall to drink” (Matthew 27:27-34a). 

One can easily identify the stark contrast.  The world in which Jesus lived viewed the triumphal procession in Rome, in celebration of its glorious military victors and their prowess, as the greatest possible public event.  Yet the Creator God, through Jesus His King, did something dramatically different, new, and completely unexpected.  His King will undergo a mock coronation and will then experience a triumphal procession of shame, suffering, and humiliation.  His procession would not end on Capitoline Hill, with the execution of a vanquished king.  His procession, however, would end with a sacrifice, albeit of a different kind.  Jesus’ “triumph” would culminate in a thorn-crowned King carrying His own cross to an ignominious hill named for the skull, so as to undergo death Himself.   

Triumph Of Jesus (part 5)

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

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

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

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

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

Triumph Of Jesus (part 4)

I saw the special gates, only used for these ‘triumphs,’ opened to reveal the ‘vir triumphalis,’ as he used to be called.  Now they refer to him as the ‘triumphator.’  I wonder why that has changed.  I’ll bet a previous Caesar used it, maybe Augustus, and didn’t want anybody else to ever have that same name.  Will Rome ever have another one like him?  Oh, we could only hope.  Either way, if I was down among the people, I would have simply referred to him as the ‘man of triumph,’ as we normally do, but since I’m being asked to write a report for the Emperor, and since it was a possibility that it was going to be sent around to a number of cities that he plans to visit soon, along with the general that is being celebrated, that calls for the use of proper terminology.  So I thought that I might as well start thinking along those lines, so ‘triumphator’ it is. 

The gates were opened and I saw him.  The triumphator was riding in a brilliant white chariot, being pulled by a team of the most beautiful white horses that I had ever seen.  The chariot had writing on the side.  I could just make out what it read: ‘A faithful son of Rome.  A true leader of men.’  I was able to have a bit more background information than usual, and I was told that he was personally chosen by Caesar to lead this campaign, and that he was hand-selected to bring and impose Rome’s glorious justice upon the peoples of the enemy against which Rome was forced to go to war.  Truly, they will benefit from the ‘pax Romana,’ and will come to understand just what it means to experience ‘pax et securitas.’ 

His face was painted red, like Jupiter.  It made his face look like it was on fire.  They had done something with his eyes.  It was almost like they were glowing.  It was very impressive.  Naturally, he was wearing the laurel wreath crown.  Not surprisingly, given the extra special nature of this parituclar ‘triumph’ and triumphator, he was wearing the ‘corona triumphalis.’  For those that may be unfamiliar with this, that doesn’t happen with every ‘triumph.’  The corona triumphalis is a gold coronet that is fashioned in the shape of a laurel wreath, with dangling gold ribbons. 

I noticed that there was another inscription on the chariot.  I asked about that and was told that the triumphator asked to be able to write another name on the chariot---the special name given to him by his father.  The writing was a bit odd.  I couldn’t make out the language in which it was written, and nobody else around me was able to read that particular language either.  I made a notation to ask about it, so perhaps I’ll be able to learn what it said at a later time.  Written above that, however, was his proper Roman name.  Everybody could read that name.  Apparently, Caesar has adopted him as his very own son and he is going to function as Caesar’s mouthpiece and royal emissary.  Truly incredible!   

As one would also expect, the triumphator was dressed splendidly.  Not only was he wearing the customary ‘tunica palmata,’ which is the tunic embroidered with palm leaves, but he also wore the ‘toga picta,’ which is the painted toga.  As is the custom, the toga was the royal purple and it had a border of embroidered gold.  The gold reflected brilliantly in the light, and it must have been catching a reflection, because the gold, from time to time, looked almost red.  Because the toga is the traditional dress of the ruler of Rome, it was an excellent reminder that this particular man has been chosen as Caesar’s royal emissary.  It’s difficult to get my mind around this.  From now on, he is going to speak for Caesar.  His words are to be taken as Caesar’s words. 

Seeing God (part 7)

In the tenth chapter of Deuteronomy, Israel’s Creator God speaks to those that He intends to bear His image in the world, thereby communicating what is expected of them, saying “Now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you except to revere Him, to obey all His commandments, to love Him, to serve Him with all your mind and being” (10:12).  Having said this, He continues to describe Himself, while also informing those hearing these words how they are to perform in and for the world, saying that He “justly treats the orphan and the widow, and who loves resident foreigners, giving them food and clothing” (10:18). 

Of course, the theme of the need to care for the orphan and the widow, along with the resident foreigner and the poor, is a theme that is taken up on page after page of that through which the Creator God has revealed Himself.  Deuteronomy twenty-four is particularly focused in this area.  In the seventeenth verse the text reads “You must not pervert justice due to a resident foreigner or an orphan, or take a widow’s garment as security for a loan” (24:17).  Additionally, “Whenever you reap your harvest in your field and leave some unraked grain there, you must not return to get it; it should go to the resident foreigner, orphan, and widow so that the Lord your God may bless all the work you do” (24:19). 

Likewise, “When you beat your olive tree you must not repeat the procedure; the remaining olives,” treasure, if you will, “belong to the resident foreigner, orphan, and widow.  When you gather the grapes of your vineyard you must not do so a second time; they should go to the resident foreigner, orphan, and widow.  In the twenty-seventh chapter, just before God outlines His program of blessing or cursing, based upon His people’s handling of their covenant responsibilities (chapter twenty-eight), we find, along with a number of curses, “Cursed is the one who perverts justice for the resident foreigner, the orphan, and the widow” (27:19a). 

Turning to Exodus, there one finds “You must not afflict any widow or orphan.  If you afflict them in any way and they cry to me, I will surely hear their cry, and My anger will burn and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives will be widows and your children will be fatherless.  Most certainly, though it is far from purity of heart, those that do such things will see God, but clearly in a way which is less than desirable.  If we look to the prophets, such as Isaiah, we hear him speaking on behalf of God, delivering a judgmental cry and saying “Learn to do what is right!  Promote justice!  Give the oppressed reason to celebrate!  Take up the cause of the orphan!  Defend the rights of the widow!” (1:17). 

The corollary to this is “Your officials are rebels, they associate with thieves.  All of them love bribery, and look for payoffs.  They do not take up the cause of the orphan, or defend the rights of the widow” (1:23).  Ezekiel sounds a similar note, saying “They have treated father and mother with contempt within you; they have oppressed the foreigner among you; they have wronged the orphan and the widow within you” (22:7). 

Ostensibly, because the Creator God delivered His judgment against His people, as announced and explained by these prophets in connection with their idolatry, their mis-treatment of the resident foreigner, the orphan, and the widow could be said to have stemmed from their idolatry.  Had they been pure of heart, it would have been demonstrated in their care for these groups, though one should not pretend to insist that such care created a purity of heart.  Their lack of purity of heart was revealed in their treatment of the ones to whom the Creator God directs so much of His attention and concern.  Owing to this, the covenant God’s people saw Him in a way that they did not want to see Him, but that He had certainly promised.  In the big picture, Jesus’ talk of being “pure of heart” is set against idolatry, be it ever so subtle.   

Absalom (part 20)

While it is true that a great deal of time and space has been spent dealing with Absalom, it simply must be said that his story is truly and fascinatingly compelling, as it presents and ties together (as has been seen) multiple themes that run deep in Scripture.  Therefore his story lends itself to drawing many conclusions about the Creator God’s working, His mission, and what it is that the Creator God desires for His people (for all time), as it serves as something of a climactic turning point in the history of Israel. 

Now, it has been concluded that Absalom’s downfall came because he agreed with the idea of raising his hand against the Creator God’s anointed, thereby demonstrating that he did not fully trust that God and the promises upon which he may very well have been relying.  Is this sort of conclusion justified?  Apart from the example of Moses and Israel, which was an example and path from which Absalom was deviating, was there another example that he could have followed?  Of course there was.  It was the example that had been set by his own father, before he had been corrupted by the power of the throne. 

In the first book of Samuel, there are two occasions on which David had the opportunity to kill Saul, his oppressor and subjugator.  However, he did not seize upon either of those opportunities to do so.  In fact, David felt guilty for cutting off an edge of Saul’s robe (1 Samuel 24:4).  Of course, to this point Absalom had not even gone that far.  In response to his own action, David said “May the Lord keep me far away from doing such a thing to my lord, who is the Lord’s chosen one, by extending my hand against him.  After all, he is the Lord’s chosen one” (24:6). 

A short while later, David calls out to Saul and says “Even though I have not sinned against you, you are waiting in ambush to take my life” (24:11b).  In the case of Absalom, up until the point that Ahithophel and Hushai speak, there has been no talk, on either the side of David or Absalom, about one attempting to take the other’s life.  Certainly, it can be said that part of the judgment of the Creator God that came upon Saul was related to his ongoing desire to physically and violently raise his hand against the one that his God had been said to have anointed.  Absalom should have continued in the attitude modeled by David and said “May the Lord judge between the two of us” (24:12a), which had already apparently been happening in Absalom’s favor based on the fact of the peaceful exchange of power.  In relation to his opportunity to raise his hand against Saul, David continued with words upon which Absalom should have seized, saying “may the Lord vindicate me over you, but my hand will not be against you” (24:12b). 

Absalom already had the support of the people, and it would appear that David himself was willing to accept Absalom’s exaltation as king.  David had been disgraced and humiliated.  The last thing that Absalom needed to do was to take action that would draw attention, and perhaps even heap sympathy upon David.  Instead, it may very well have been better to completely forget about his father.  Surely, his attempted actions against David might have been perceived as a spiteful type of “kicking a man while he is down,” which would serve to elicit the sympathy and condolences of the people while creating an unfavorable opinion of Absalom as an oppressive ruler that, after all has been said and done, is not all that interested in justice. 

Now, David will be able to turn his words against Absalom, and paint him as a king who has had the hand of Israel’s God removed from him, in a way not unlike that which was experienced by King Saul, and say “Who has the king of Israel come out after?  Who is it that you are pursuing?  A dead dog?  A single flea?  May the Lord be our judge and arbitrator.  May He see and arbitrate my case and deliver me from your hands” (24:14-15).  David will now be able to turn the tables on Absalom, and make his plea for justice, when such, to that point, has been Absalom’s cry. 

Absalom (part 19)

To this point, the portrayal of David as being similar to Pharoah, David’s removal as being similar to Pharaoh’s loss of power over Israel, and Absalom’s exodus from his own exile as akin to Israel’s exodus from Egypt under Moses, was effective, and perhaps, knowing what is known about David, even appropriate.  However, it is at this point that Absalom, for some unknown reason, though he was receiving advice to do this, departs from the epic narrative that he has been creating for himself. 

As one thinks back to the story of Israel’s exodus, one thing that is not be found in that story is Moses taking it upon himself to raise his hand against the one from whom Israel was being delivered.  Remember, Moses had attempted to start the revolution in Egypt on behalf of Israel, with his killing of the Egyptian taskmaster.  This failed to accomplish the goal that Moses had in mind, and he was sent into his own personal exile.  When he returned, he was gifted with the ability to lead an exodus that was peaceful, at least as it related to the actions of the people.  As has been seen, Absalom has effectively mirrored this.  Though he was not, as far as the story goes, attempting to start a revolution through his killing of Amnon, it was that killing that resulted in his own exile away from Jerusalem.  It was during that time, no doubt, that the seeds of a plan to take the throne began to germinate, perhaps primarily because he was treated unjustly due to his execution of justice. 

Returning to the exodus story then, it is clear that Israel conducted no demonstrations of violence against Egypt.  The Egyptians, on the other hand, experienced the violent power of Israel’s God, which serves as a reminder of the fact that Moses left it to the God of Israel to bring judgment and destruction in the way that He saw fit.  Then, after the death of the firstborn, which saw Pharaoh finally relent from his stubborn stance and practically demand that Israel depart from Egypt, the last thing Moses was going to do was turn around and attempt to kill Pharaoh. 

In that case, the Creator God had already judged Pharaoh, so what good would that do?  What would that prove?  Even after Pharaoh came out after Moses and Israel, Moses did not send men to confront Pharaoh and his army.  Rather, he continued to trust the God that delivers to fight on behalf of His people.  Had Moses and Israel raised their hands against Egypt in any way, things might have turned out quite differently, as it would have been an indication that they did not fully trust that their covenant God was able to rescue them from their foreign subjugation. 

Absalom would have been wise to heed this example.  Instead, because he was convinced to believe that it was incumbent upon him to go out after his father, he essentially forsook the power of the Creator God to solidify his kingship and to carry out His promises to David through Absalom.  Israel did not turn back and fight against Egypt, rather, they looked forward, preparing themselves to face the enemies to come.  Absalom should have done the same, looking forward as well, in a spirit of thankfulness, rather than allowing for the entrance of a spirit that has to be described as nothing more than vengeful.  Had he not been vindicated already?  Had he not been exalted?  Had Israel’s God not fought his battles for him?  Absalom should never have turned back so as to bring further suffering on his deposed father.  It is this that would ultimately bring David vindication through suffering (with his own story of exile to exodus), while bringing suffering to Absalom in the wake of what had been his own vindication, and sending Absalom from exodus to exile.   

Absalom (part 18)

So here is an answer.  This, as should be well understood by now, was completely un-necessary.  Seemingly, David was not a threat to Absalom.  David had resolved to leave his destiny in the hands of his God.  Along with that, and based on the mournful response that David makes when he eventually (after the unfolding of the events to come) receives word of Absalom having been struck down and killed, one can even imagine that David asked for his God’s blessing and favor to fall upon the one whom He (God) had seen fit to place in the role of king, having given him favor with the people of that God. 

No, David did not and could not have seen himself as being unlawfully or unjustly removed from the throne of Israel; and if he truly was the man after the Creator God’s own heart, and if he truly served under a special anointing of that God, it would have been incumbent upon him to seek and to serve his God’s will, even if that meant that he was not to be the king.  Based on what he had done and had not done, as he delivered oppression and usurped justice (with morality-related mistakes to which fallen humans are prone as secondary issues), David would have been justified in believing in this way and acting accordingly.     

Hushai, the one that had sent back to Jerusalem by David to serve as a “double-agent” in Absalom’s court, suggested a different strategy than that of Ahithophel.  He reminded Absalom of the fact that his father was, most certainly, a warrior, and that the men with him were quite brave (2 Samuel 17:10).  In that light, he suggests that “all Israel from Dan to Beer Sheba---in number like the sand of the sea!---be mustered to you, and you lead them personally into battle” (17:11b). 

How interesting it is that Hushai just happens to toss in, almost as an aside, a description of the people of Israel as being as numerous as the sand on the seashore.  In his advice to Absalom, which was really part of his service to David, he invokes the memory of the covenant promise that Israel’s God had originally made to Abraham.  It is probably this, more than anything else that he said, that inspires Absalom to be partial to Hushai’s advice.  After all, what proud, self-respecting Israelite would not be moved to act when regaled with such speech, as the person on the receiving end of such words would now be connected with the great patriarchal father? 

Hushai adds: “We will come against him wherever he happens to be found.  We will descend on him like the dew falls on the ground.  Neither he nor any of the men who are with him will be spared alive---not one of them!  If he regroups in a city, all Israel will take up ropes to that city and drag it down to the valley, so that not a single pebble will be left there!” (17:12-13)  Hushai is definitely engaging in some pronounced hyperbole here.  Though he does not believe or desire that such things will happen, he uses terms such as “All Israel,” and in reference to those with David, says that “not one of them” will be spared.  These things are quite unlikely, yet for some reason they are appealing to Absalom.  “Absalom and all the men of Israel said, ‘The advice of Hushai the Arkite sounds better than the advice of Ahithophel” (17:14a).  So Absalom is heeding advice that is directed towards attacking and killing his father and his father’s men.  This becomes his fatal mistake. 

Following the report of the favorable response to Hushai’s advice, the author adds what is obviously a retroactive application of what was ultimately manifested as Divine displeasure with Absalom, no doubt because of the course of action that was now going to be undertaken, saying “the Lord had decided to frustrate the sound advice of Ahithophel, so that the Lord could bring disaster upon Absalom” (17:14b).  This is the first negative connotation that one can find, from either the Lord of Israel or from man, in the story of Absalom’s insurrection and coming to power.  To this point, Absalom could very well lay claim to being a leader and deliverer for Israel in the mold of Moses.  

Absalom (part 15)

In the Deuteronomic curses, Moses informs the Creator God’s people that one of the curses that will come upon them for their failure to obey their God’s commands (of which David was certainly guilty) would be that “You will be engaged to a woman and another man will rape her” (Deuteronomy 28:30a).  This is not strictly analogous to what Nathan has told David, or to what it has been suggested that Absalom do, as neither this God’s threat through Nathan nor Ahithophel’s suggestion to Absalom carries with it (at least on the surface) the connotation of violence or force, but it can probably be thought of as being connected closely enough to drive home the point to David that he has violated his God’s commands. 

Additionally, Ahithophel apparently sees a close enough connection in that it will play well into Absalom’s ongoing effort to show himself as a true deliverer in the mold of Moses, thereby allowing Absalom to continue co-opting the most powerful story of Israel’s history for his own purposes.  Furthermore, it adds to Absalom’s claim to be a just man and the one that is used by the covenant God to deliver justice to Israel.  This is especially and strikingly so if Absalom is the means by which the prophecy (judgment) related to cursing that had been delivered to David by Nathan is fulfilled. 

This merely cements the notion that David is no longer fit to be king, while also pointing to the fact that the story of Bathsheba and David, and the oppression and injustice that the story entails, has been made known in Israel.  If it has not, then there is no real point in Absalom engaging in sexual relations with his father’s concubines, unless it is also being used to indicate that just as David has forsaken these wives of his, that he has also forsaken his care of the people of Israel as well. 

The second part of Ahithophel’s response to the request to provide advice to Absalom is to say that “All Israel will hear that you have made yourself repulsive to your father.  Then your followers will be motivated to support you” (2 Samuel 16:21b).  Yes, Ahithophel suggests that this will be viewed by the people as Absalom being willing to be cursed by his very own father, if it indeed means justice for Israel.  This is powerful symbolism.  Absalom will be seen to be willing to bear that pain and shame on behalf of the people, with this becoming a messianic role.  In a society based upon honor and shame, this is a calculated move (though also prophetically fulfilling) to win further sympathy from the people. 

Does this aid Absalom in his desire to be seen as Moses?  Absolutely!  Moses was willing to forsake his father’s (Pharoah’s) house so as to identify himself with the people suffering under the oppression of the king.  Thinking beyond that however, this might also be an attempt to entice David to retaliate against Absalom, who up to this point has not lifted up his hand (nor asked anybody else to lift up their hand) against his father. 

David has left willfully.   He has abandoned his throne and fled from Jerusalem and Absalom has peacefully entered to take that throne.  There has been no bloodshed, violence, or loss of life (except Amnon many years prior, but that has only tangential bearing on the events at hand at that time).  If David now turns and raises sword and spear against Absalom and his supporters, then David is most certainly to be likened to Pharaoh, who allowed Israel to depart from Egypt and from his oppression peacefully, but then had a change of heart and set out to recover the Israelites (and his power) by violent means.    

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.   

Absalom (part 5)

It is not known how much time elapsed following Absalom’s obviously less than amicable reunion with his father, but “Some time later Absalom managed to acquire a chariot and horses, as well as fifty men to serve as his royal guard” (2 Samuel 15:1).  Slowly but surely, he was going to take up the mantle of kingship that he perceived, perhaps rightly, to have been abandoned by his father.  After all, he could justifiably reason, a man that will not serve justice within his own family to defend the honor of his own daughter and to punish an evil perpetrated by his son, certainly could not be relied upon to perform that task for an entire people. 

Much like was seen with Absalom’s patience with Amnon, having waited two full years between the rape of Tamar and the final delivery of the consequences for those actions, Absalom acted meticulously.  First, there were the royal trappings.  That would be the chariot and horses and a royal guard.  Next would be gaining the trust and respect of the people.  He probably did not imagine that such would be difficult, for if he saw the king as weak then surely the people did as well.  To effect this, “Absalom used to get up early and stand beside the road that led to the city gate.  Whenever anyone came by who had a complaint to bring to the king for arbitration, Absalom would call out to him” (15:2a), determine his city of origin, listen to his complaint, and respond by saying “Look, your claims are legitimate and appropriate.  But there is no representative of the king who will listen to you” (15:3b). 

The natural corollary to this would be for Absalom to say, “If only they would make me a judge in the land!  Then everyone who had a judicial complaint could come to me and I would make sure he receives a just settlement” (15:4).  Naturally, one would have to imagine that Absalom’s commiseration with the complainer would also include his own sharing of his story of injustice and exile because there was no one, and especially not the king, that was truly interested in promoting the cause of justice for the people. 

Absalom continued his efforts at building the respect and loyalty of the people, doing so through both sharing with them his own complaints with the king, while commiserating with them in their complaints.  For the people, these complaints may not have initially been against the king, but in the end, Absalom would be sure that such would be the case.  The increase in his support would have then been due to the mutual sympathy of two aggrieved parties.  It is inescapable to notice that, contrary to all of the deliverers and judges and kings that came before him, Absalom is attempting to gain a leadership position within Israel without being anointed to that position.  He is trying, like Moses, to kill the Egyptian guard in order to “rally the troops” around him.  This will have only succeeded on a short-term basis. 

Absalom also made it a point that he did not act like David.  It is possible that he thought that his father had been condescending towards him when he had had been summoned to the palace to finally appear before the king.  Absalom bowed before David as a sign of humility and respect, and David had merely kissed him.  He was a prodigal of sorts, returned from a distant land, and that was all his father could muster.  One might be tempted here to think of the New Testament parable and a son that had gone so far as to wish his own father dead, and there one also sees a son that was embraced, kissed, and re-seated in a position of honor, all at the hands of a loving and forgiving father.  

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.  

Experts In The Law (part 11 of 11)

Naturally, having heard what was said by Jesus in the fourteenth chapter and the parable that followed, this mention of the burning desire for places of honor at banquets will not be lost on Luke’s hearers.  They, as should any educated and culturally aware observer, make the connections.  The final nail is driven into their figurative coffins as Jesus informs His hearers (and Luke’s hearers), that these experts in the law, “devour widows’ property” (20:47). 

They devour widows’ property?  This is unconscionable!  How do they do this?  Is there evidence of this?  Absolutely there is evidence, and Jesus immediately points His hearers to the evidence as He “looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box.  He also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins.  He said, ‘I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put in more than all of them.  For they all offered out of their wealth.  But she, out of her poverty, put in everything she had to live on.’” (21:1-4) 

For too long this has been looked upon as Jesus offering a commendation to this widow, as she was willing to sacrifice all that she had for the Temple as a sacrifice to the Creator God.  However, in light of all that has led up to it, and in the wake of Jesus’ symbolic judgment against the Temple, it demands to be understood as a rebuke to the Jerusalem Temple, its system, and all associated with it.  Indeed, when understood correctly, it should be concluded that Jesus sees the offering of this widow as a tragedy, as her property was completely devoured by a corrupt system (they devour widows’ property) full of robbers, which He had already condemned.  This becomes especially clear when one rightly incorporates the idea that Jesus is the true Temple. 

This Temple, already “adorned with beautiful stones and offerings” (21:5b), and its functionaries (essentially the powers-that-be of the day) should have been lavishing care upon this poor widow, exercising justice and mercy, rather than taking that which she could not afford to give.  This would have been the proper attitude of those that were supposed to be representing the faithful and gracious God of Israel.  However, with the portrait of the experts in the law that has been painted, there is nobody, reading or hearing, that is surprised at what has just happened, and that this poor widow has had her property devoured. 

It is little wonder then that the remaining mentions of the experts in the law to be found in Luke take the form that they do.  Along with the Temple, Jesus has condemned them, so it is no surprise to hear that “The chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find some way to execute Jesus” (22:2a), that they played a role in an unjust and illegal trial in which “the council of the elders of the people gathered together, both the chief priests and the experts in the law” (22:66), and that “The chief priests and the experts in the law were… vehemently accusing Him” (23:10).  The point, which had begun to be made in the fifth chapter when Jesus takes up the role of the Temple by forgiving sins, adding healing to that role, with this immediately questioned by the experts in the law (their first mention), is that Jesus is the true Temple.  It would seem that Luke wants all to know that Jesus, as the embodiment of Israel’s God, is the place where the Creator God resides.        

Ahab, Jezebel & A Vineyard (part 2 of 2)

So what happens with this plan that has been set in motion by Jezebel?  As directed, “The men of the city, the leaders and the nobles who lived there, followed the written orders Jezebel had sent them” (1 Kings 21:11), unaware of the source of the orders, and believing that they had come from the king.  With this belief in mind as the story is read, one can surmise that it is doubtful that the original communication that was presumed to have come from Ahab used the term “villains” (at least, not in the way that some tend to think of villains---in reality, they were the unwitting dupes of an oppressor). 

Ultimately, the men who carried out these orders would have believed that they were simply acting in accordance with the demands of justice.  As far as they knew, and regardless of his honor standing in the community, one would suppose that there would be little reason for them to think otherwise, Naboth had actually done that of which he was accused.  Accordingly, they would be predisposed to believe that he was indeed deserving of the rightful judgment that they knew would take place.  Jezebel took advantage of this situation.  So “They observed a time of fasting and put Naboth in front of the people.  The two villains arrived and sat opposite him.  Then the villains testified against Naboth right before the people” (21:12-13a), as this would have been a gathering of the entire community, “saying ‘Naboth cursed God and the king.’” (21:13b) 

Just as the community leaders were not necessarily complicit in this act of injustice, neither were those who testified against Naboth.  Again, as far as they knew, this information and directive came from the king himself.  Predictably, “they dragged him outside the city and stoned him to death” (21:13c). 

It would seem that this horrible achievement of Naboth’s death was predicated on honor and the meal table.  The two “villains” that were set opposite Naboth would be seated to his right and left, in what would likely have been the positions of greatest honor at a meal or any community gathering.  These persons that were seated immediately to the right and to the left of the chief seat could also have been presumed to be possessive of even greater honor than the one seated in the host position, and these two men would not have been unknown to the community.  If there were unknown, or known to be men of lesser honor, their testimony would not have been acted upon so seriously. 

Accordingly then, when these two men, who were undoubtedly well-respected men of the community and not simple villains whose words would carry no weight with the community, offered these words of testimony about Naboth, their testimony would have been presumed to be truthful and would have carried a tremendous amount of weight.  Thus the resulting fate of Naboth.  

Clearly then, when the opportunity is taken to move past a merely superficial reading of the story of Ahab, Jezebel, Naboth, and the vineyard, one can conclude that the story is less about Jezebel (who is undoubtedly cast as a villain) and Ahab, and much more about the abuse of power, corruption, and injustice that so often accompanies unnecessary acquisitiveness (desire to continually acquire things).  It is not primarily (or even necessarily) a story about a rebellious wife usurping her husband’s authority and lording over him, or the story of a weak man and husband, as it is so often portrayed.  It is a story of oppression and murder that is brought about by a perverted use of the very provisions of justice that were put in place by the Creator God so as to enable His image-bearers to reflect His glory.

What Would God Have Me Do? (part 2 of 3)

It is possible then to see a picture of that God, entering into the pantheon of gods that are worshiped by the nations surrounding His people, all of which would, at some time, be worshiped by His people.  He stands in the midst of representations of these gods, looks around, holds out His arms and says, “How long will you continue showing favoritism to what is wicked?  How long will you worship these gods?” 

To the leaders of His people, the Creator God of Israel can be heard saying, “How long will you attempt to live and rule based on the subjective whims presented in the stories of these fickle and always changing gods?  If you are attempting to honor these gods, and to live and rule and judge by precepts that you believe will be pleasing to them, rather than based on the firm foundations of the covenant God that does not change, then you will forever be making legal decisions that are not just, but rather, unjust and capricious.  Because these gods represent wickedness, with stories of their rule full of pragmatism and a self-serving ethic, then your decisions will favor that which is wicked, because you are doing nothing more than following in the patterns of the myths of man-created gods, who have sprung from the imaginations of men that have been corrupted by evil.”  Clearly, this will not do for the people of the covenant God.  That God demands that His people act in justice. 

So much time and energy in wasted in the quest for an answer as to how the covenant God expects His people to live, when that God provides a straightforward response and merciful direction for the people that He chooses to carry out His plans and purpose for the creation.  After doing away with that which is purely pragmatic and self-serving, and by rendering His clear judgment on the gods that have been providing a faulty foundation for His people’s ongoing justification for not carrying out His purposes for them, Israel’s God sets forth His plan. 

Quite simply, He says, “Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless!” (Psalm 82:3a)  Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless.  Though poor is a highly fluid and relative term that is dependent on a number of subjective factors (though access to basic life necessities would be largely determinative of status in this area), “fatherless” is easily understood.  The Creator God expects His people to be an advocate for the orphaned and abandoned.  Orphans are extraordinarily close to the heart of the Creator God, an assertion which is borne out by the repetition of Scripture concerning the fatherless, and of the God of Scripture being their supporter through His people. 

This can be taken a step beyond the understanding of “fatherless” as referring to those that are orphans because they do not have an earthly father, with this conception carried into the spiritual realm as well.  Because Israel (and renewed Israel through the covenant of belief in Jesus) can look to and speak to the Creator God as their Father, those who stand outside of the covenant could be considered to be “fatherless.” 

How do the Creator God’s people defend the cause of and support and show concern for such fatherless ones?  They do so, naturally, both then and now, through the preaching the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) in both word and deed.  Prior to Jesus, Israel preached the Gospel (their God is Lord) by avoiding idolatry, reverencing their God’s sanctuary, and by keeping their God’s Sabbaths as they eventually came to look forward to a messiah through whom their God would put down evil and restore His creation.  In doing this, they were a light to all peoples for their God’s glory, and were blessed by their God in a way that was designed to draw people to Israel and to their God. 

Stop Sinning

Wash!  Cleanse yourselves!  Remove your sinful deeds from My sight.  Stop sinning! – Isaiah 1:16  (NET)

Earlier in this chapter, Isaiah writes that “The sinful nation is as good as dead, the people weighed down by evil deeds” (1:4a).  Furthermore, it can be learned that “They are offspring who do wrong, children who do wicked things” (1:4b).  This is clearly not good.  What’s more, “They have abandoned the Lord, and rejected the Holy One of Israel” (1:4c).  The result of this is that “They are alienated from Him” (1:4d).  Isaiah goes on to write about a dreadful and ghastly situation, in which it is said that the Creator God’s people “insist on being battered” (1:5a), while adding that it is as if their head has a massive wound (1:5b), and their whole body is weak (1:5c) with bruises and cuts and open wounds that have been left unattended (1:5d).  Worse than that, the devastation and desolation that has been brought about by their evil deeds, wicked things, abandoning and rejecting and being alienated from the Lord, means that their land has been devastated and burned with fire, that their crops have been destroyed by foreigners” (1:7). 

It is the midst of this that Israel’s God, through His prophet, tells His people to “Wash!  Cleanse yourselves!  Remove your sinful deeds from My sight.  Stop sinning!” (1:16)  A few lines later, their God gives His people comforting assurance, saying that “Though your sins have stained you like the color red, you can become white like snow; though they are as easy to see as the color scarlet, you can become like white wool” (1:18b). 

Furthermore, their God extends His mercy, telling His people that if they will simply “Stop sinning,” and rather, “have a willing attitude and obey, then you will again eat the good crops of the land” (1:19).  With such a will to obedience, God promises to reverse the curse on the land and the crops.  Though the covenant God has said “When you spread out your hands in prayer, I look the other way; when you offer your many prayers, I do not listen” (1:15a), we can imagine His reversing promises to extend to this as well. 

Here, one remembers God’s promise to Solomon at the dedication of the Temple, in which He is reported to have said, “if My people, who belong to Me, humble themselves, pray, seek to please Me, and repudiate their sinful practices, then I will respond from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).  This can be neatly harmonized with what is being said here in this first chapter of Isaiah.  Even though the Creator God has said that He will not hear His people’s prayers “because your hands are covered with blood” (1:15b), that He will wash away the stain to make them appear as white as wool.  Conversely, in the midst of the merciful extension of His grace, this God also warns His people, saying “But if you refuse and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword” (1:20a).  To this is appended the ominous and punctuating statement of “Know for certain that the Lord has spoken” (1:20b). 

Now, following the story arc of Scripture, one cannot help but know that the judgment that is promised to fall upon God’s people, according to the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, comes first and foremost because of idolatry (coincident with a failure to keep the Sabbaths and reverence the sanctuary, which would certainly be a by-product of idolatry).  Isaiah is apparently alluding to this here in this chapter.  Along with failing to keep the Sabbaths and reverence the sanctuary, idolatry (the divine-image-bearer worshiping the creation and therefore giving over his rightful dominion) most clearly represents their abandoning of their Lord and their rejection of their God.  However, here in Isaiah, there is more to be found. 

When the Creator God instructs His people to remove their sinful deeds and to stop sinning, calling them a sinful nation, saying that they are weighed down by evil deeds, doing wrong and wicked things, He goes on to give them and all that would read or hear these words an insight into what He had in mind.  Thus, one might be more than a bit surprised to read, “Learn to do what is right!  Promote justice!  Give the oppressed reason to celebrate!  Take up the cause of the orphan!  Defend the rights of the widow!” (1:17) 

Those are the words that follow the exhortation to stop their sinning.  That is what precedes the Creator God’s speaking about their being stained red with their sins that are red as scarlet.  It would seem that it is the failure to do these things that covered their hands with blood, that made their God refuse to hear their prayers, to hate their keeping of the feasts that He Himself had ordained and given to them, and to reject their sacrifices (1:11-15).  Apparently, it was the failure to do these things that caused their God to compare His own people to Sodom and Gomorrah (1:10) (the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah being oppression of orphans and widows, and the denial of justice, which is certainly well implied by the story of Lot as recorded in Genesis). 

The covenant people of the Creator God, according to Isaiah and their circumstances, were not doing what was right, in that they were defeating justice, causing the oppressed to mourn, turning away from the orphan, and casting off the widow.  In stark contrast to those things that so many generally want to classify as sins, it was these things that were their evil deeds.  This was their sin.  Ultimately, in this, they were failing to be God’s light.  Israel was failing to bear the image of their God.     

Unrighteous Judge (part 2 of 2)

So after finishing His account of the words that reflected the mindset of the unjust judge, how did Jesus respond?  He pointed to faithfulness of the Creator God of Israel.  He answered by saying, “I tell you, He will give justice to them speedily” (Luke 18:8a).  Yes, by way of this, Jesus insists that God will be faithful to the promises that He makes to His covenant people.  We can imagine the smug Pharisees and rulers, as Jesus says these words, believing themselves to be the widow of the parable, being God’s elect, while their evil Gentile rulers were represented by the unrighteous judge.  Then Jesus adds an important “Nevertheless.”  Jesus says, “Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes will He find faith on earth?” (18:8b) 

That was a big question.  The Son of Man was a term for the messiah, the expected king who was expected to do nothing more than enable national Israel to cast off its bonds.  Jesus asked if the messiah will find God’s elect people trusting the God to Whom they claim to cry day and night.  Will the messiah find, in God’s people, the spreading of the knowledge of God’s covenant faithfulness throughout the whole of the earth?  The implied answer is “no, He will not.”  The widow, representing the Gentile nations, had demanded “justice against my adversary” (18:3b).  We can surmise that, in this scenario, it is God Himself that is the adversary.  The Gentile nations, filled with divine image-bearers that Israel had failed to reach, wanted the justice of God’s righteousness applied to them, so that they could stand against the adversaries of death, decay, and the grace that was the lot of all mankind.  Israel, by and large and as a whole, had broken and disregarded the trust that had been given to it and kept the knowledge of God to itself.  In this day, as believers in Jesus as King claim to be the covenant people of the Creator God, we must be careful that we do not do the same.  Believers must remember that the call to missions, offering the proclamation of Jesus as King and Lord of all (the Gospel) to all nations and making disciples is the greatest of duties.   

Just in case His hearers did not grasp the point that Jesus seemed to be making with the parable of the persistent widow and the unrighteous judge, He moves on to the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector.  Somewhat clearly, continuing in context of the Gospel as a whole and that had been created by the prior parable, the Pharisee represents Israel.  He stands by himself and prays, “God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector” (18:11). 

Ultimately, this is how Israel looked upon the Gentiles.  The Pharisee thinks quite highly of himself, as one of God’s very special covenant keepers, saying “I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get” (18:12).  It seems that the Pharisee, in this story, wanted his God to know how much he sacrificed for Him.  The Pharisee wanted to remind his God of how he cries to Him day and night.   Drawing the contrast, Jesus says, “But the tax collector, standing far off” (18:13a).  The Pharisee (representing the failing portion of Israel, with specific direction to its leaders) made sure that the tax collector (Gentiles and those of Israel looked up on as being outside the covenant because they did not keep to the then current covenant markers) stood far off.  This tax collector “would not even lift up his eyes to heaven” (18:13b), indeed, how could he, without the knowledge of the covenant God that Israel was supposed to spread but had refused to do so?  All that he could manage to do, in a general awareness, was “beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner’!” (18:13c).  It is possible to hear an echo of the Apostle Paul here, in that even without Israel’s help, when it came to the Gentiles, “what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them” (Romans 1:19).   

What does Jesus say?  He says, “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other” (18:14).  It is the tax collector of the story that joins up with the covenant people.  Do we not hear the widow of the earlier story crying out with the tax collector, saying “Give me justice against my adversary”? (18:3b)  The Pharisee stood in the place of the unrighteous judge, while the tax collector served as the widow.  Like the unrighteous judge, the Pharisee was more concerned with self-preservation than with the offer of justice.  Jesus continues on, saying “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted” (18:14b).  This is the standard “reversal of position” language that regularly fell from the lips of Jesus, which would have carried even more meaning in a society defined by honor and shame.  By now, the point being made should be quite clear.  Israel looked upon the Gentile nations with contempt, especially those that ruled over them, rather than looking at them in thankfulness as evidences of God’s faithfulness towards them, as they were the instruments of God’s cursing, by which He faithfully disciplined them according to His covenant promises.  God had not forsaken them.  They had been faithless, but He remained faithful, executing His redemptive plan for all mankind through Israel and its Messiah. 

Because Israel had neither truly feared God, as evidenced by their idolatry and disregarding of God’s laws for them; and because they clearly had no respect for man (as a whole), choosing to isolate themselves from Gentile nations rather than engaging them at the level of extending God’s covenant blessings to them, they did not serve as God’s righteous judges through which He could administer His judgment of “righteous” to the families of the earth.  As the renewed Israel, Jesus believers that are children and servants of the King of Kings, must be ever so careful to not fall into the same snare through isolating themselves in their communities, looking only to those communities as being the true divine image-bearers, or to nothing more than a future blissful state, in an attempt to escape this world. 

Unrighteous Judge (part 1 of 2)

And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says.” – Luke 18:6  (ESV)

What did the unrighteous judge say?  Backing up a couple verses, we find the judge saying, “Though I neither fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming” (18:4-5).  Not only does the judge say this of himself, but this is what is reported of him in the second verse, which tells us that “he neither feared God nor respected man” (18:2b).  The widow in this parable was one that kept coming to him and saying “Give me justice against my adversary” (18:3b).  After reporting the words of both the widow and the judge, we find Jesus saying, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says” (18:6).  From there, He goes on to say, “And will not God give justice to His elect, who cry to Him day and night?  Will He delay long over them?” (18:7). 

When we look at the verses of this parable, it is natural for us to see Jesus shifting His focus following His statement about what the unrighteous judge has said.  It is natural, because believers tend to think of themselves as God’s elect and the ultimate recipients and beneficiaries of God’s justice.  However, it is possible to reframe the statement in a way that finds Him continuing along the same path without a shift in the focus of His message.  Before doing that, it is necessary to consider the context of the setting.  The context is His being asked by the Pharisees a question concerning the kingdom of God, and when it would come.  In response, Jesus told them that “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (17:21b).  Based on the wider perspective of Luke’s Gospel and its kingdom movement, we know that with this statement, Jesus was talking about His kingdom.

With that as the context, and with Jesus’ antagonism of the Pharisees and the rulers of the people a recurring theme throughout the Gospels, it is possible to see Jesus casting the nation of Israel itself in the role of the “unrighteous judge.”  How can this be?  Israel had been charged with extending the blessings of God’s covenant to all peoples.  This was to be done, at least partially, through their keeping of the law, which would bring them untold blessings, and cause the Gentiles to come to Israel to find the source of their blessings, through which they would receive the knowledge of God.  Israel had not done this.  They had forsaken their Creator God.  Repeatedly, their history informs us that they had turned to idols.  They had been destroyed and exiled, and even though a portion of the people had been returned to their land, they were still under the heel of oppressive rulers, which was what God had promised to them if they forsook His covenant.  In this, it could be said that they neither feared God nor respected man, because they did not keep their God’s laws and they did not care to be a light to the Gentiles for the glory of their God. 

So if Israel is the unjust judge, then the widow is all of the Gentile nations, coming to Israel that they may know Israel’s Lord.  If we frame the parable in this way, we can see that any keeping of the covenant that extended God’s blessings beyond the people of Israel, so that they might be bestowed on Gentile nations (the families of the earth), was done reluctantly and with an eye towards nothing more than self-preservation, rather than the glorification of God. 

Keeping in mind the Pharisees’ question about the Kingdom of God, and our positioning of Israel as the unjust judge, we can then move on to the questioning statements “And will not God give justice to His elect, who cry to Him day and night?  Will He delay long over them?” (18:7).  We can hear this as a question concerning Israel’s total restoration from their cursing and what was really a continuing exile, since the land of promise was not truly their own.  The words of the unjust judge represent Israel’s expectation of triumph over its oppressors and rulers, through their messiah, as they presume on their God, speaking of themselves in haughty terms as God’s elect, declaring that they are crying to Him day and night, and imploring God to cease His delay and return power to national Israel.    

Raising A Temple (part 2 of 2)

Why go through all of this analysis of Paul’s sermon in Acts?  We did so because we needed to be able to have some perspective on David, and the fact that David is not there held up as a model for emulation, as we examine his desire to build the Temple.  After expressing his desire to the prophet Nathan, David hears it said to him by that same prophet: “You should go and do whatever you have in mind, for the Lord is with you” (2 Samuel 7:3).  However, it so happens that “That night the Lord told Nathan, ‘Go, tell My servant David: “This is what the Lord says: Do you really intend to build a house for me to live in?  I have not lived in a house from the time I brought the Israelites up from Egypt to the present day.  Instead, I was traveling with them and living in a tent.  Wherever I moved among all the Israelites, I did not say to any of the leaders whom I appointed to care for My people Israel, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’”’” (7:4-7) 

This now allows us to return to the issue of motivation, as it is incumbent upon us not to place men like David on a super-spiritual level, but to remember that they were people like us, with fears and insecurities, prone to mistakes, and subject to the corrupting forces that shape any and all interaction with this world.  What’s more is that it is perfectly okay and legitimate to do this, as in the end it gives us an even more amazing picture of a faithful God---which seems to be one of the points of the Bible. 

So what was the motivation to build a Temple?  Through Nathan, God asks David as much, when He says, “Do you really intend to build a house for Me to live in?”  It’s almost as if God was saying, “Is this for Me or for you?”  To answer that, we cannot separate David’s desire to build a Temple from the relief from enemies that the Lord had given to His people and their king, and it is unlikely that the God of Israel separated these things from each other.  What was it that was signified by the temple of a god?  Power.  Prestige.  Authority.  Domination.  This was what Israel now had in their land.  They claimed that their God had given them these things.  However, if other nations and other peoples were to begin to look to Israel and to Israel’s God, which is precisely what the Lord desired, where would they find Him?  In a temple?  No.  They would find Him (in a manner of speaking) in a lowly tent.  This, of course, was not troubling for God.  However, in contact with many nations, Israel knew that such was not the house of a powerful god.  So not only would this invite scorn upon Israel, but with the lack of a glorious display of their God by a beautifully adorned temple, Israel’s position in the land could come to be looked upon as something of a fluke.  This would invite attack.  The tabernacle alone as the place of God’s dwelling could be understood as a source of embarrassment for Israel, as well as an undermining of their security. 

Apart from all of this, one had to consider the items that were to be found in the tabernacle.  There were a number of precious articles that were composed of gold and bronze, and yet, here they were housed in a simple tent.  This position, for a number of reasons, could be understood as untenable, and we can sympathize with David thinking that it needed to be addressed.  Therefore, to rectify the shortcomings of the house of their God, David proposed the construction of a Temple that would more adequately convey, at least in His mind, the power of Israel’s God.  It would seem that the prophet Nathan even succumbed to this idea for a brief period of time before God intervened to dissuade him, and David through him, of what he had encouraged David to do. 

As an aside, we here note that in the ancient world, the temple of a god was understood to be the resting place of that god.  The God of Israel, the Creator of all things, did not need to dwell in an elaborate temple, for the whole of creation was His Temple; and that was the Temple in which He rested on the seventh day, according to the record of Genesis.  Ultimately, God would take up His dwelling in human flesh, and call that His Temple. 

When Solomon would take up the task of building the Temple, it was not strictly because of a stated desire to do so.  He was simply following the instructions given to him by his father, as we find in the first book of the Chronicles (22:7-10).  There, we find David informing Solomon about his desire to build a temple, God’s denial of that desire, the reasons provided for that denial (David was a man of blood and war), and God’s insistence that it would be Solomon himself that would build the Temple to honor God (though this is never explicitly communicated in 2 Samuel---only that David’s son would build a “house” for the name of the Lord).  It is still of great interest to note that, even there in the Chronicles, it is not God that is demanding a temple to be built, but still only David. 

The Scriptural record is clear, in that it is David’s wish to build the Temple in Jerusalem, and this is probably due in large part to David’s desire to consolidate power and increase Israel’s relative security in its land, with an elaborate temple also serving as a witness of the divine sanction of his rule before the people.  So though this was not necessarily God’s doing, God made sure that when His Temple was built---even though David provided much of the supply, the building process would be carried out by a man of peace, wisdom, understanding, and justice (though this last term may be a pit problematic for Solomon in some cases).  These are epithets that are not given to David.  We cannot help but elaborate on this point, and say that the Temple of God that would come to be called the Church of Christ is built by the one known as the Prince of Peace.  It is in such a Temple that God will dwell.