All The Saints (part 20)

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul references these covenant markers as “those things… once destroyed” (Galatians 2:18), insisting that the taking up of these works of the law, by a Gentile, as the means by which he or she enters into the Creator God’s covenant people, or as the response to entrance upon the covenant, becomes the equivalent of breaking God’s law (2:18).  A profound and potentially startling conclusion!  Indeed (though this is not an attempt to join text to text, but merely a reference to others of Paul’s letters as a means to adequately grasp the thinking of the Apostle), he goes on to insist that if covenant inclusion comes from adherence to covenant markers (if righteousness could come through the law – 2:21), “then Christ died for nothing!” (2:21b) 

Following from the mention of food, drink, feasts and the like, Paul tells his Colossian hearers that “these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!” (2:17)  While the covenant markers pointed to the kingdom of the Creator God, and while they served to delineate those that were participating, those that were supposed to be participating, or those that were thought to be in a position to participate in that kingdom, it is the confession of Jesus as “the Christ,” or as “the Messiah,” that has enabled the reality of that kingdom and demonstrates its world-encompassing (people, creation, and cosmos) scope. 

Moving along to the third chapter, Paul takes up a popular theme from the early church and in his own letters (to Corinth as the most prominent example), which was the idea that the church represented a new humanity---the way of being truly human.  As Paul has championed the fusion of Jew and Gentile into one people, one must hear the words to come with a state of mind shaped by that thought as Paul says “Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man with its practices” (3:9).  This is far more than a simple juxtaposition of the “carnal,” “unsaved,” or unregenerate” man, against the “spiritual,” “saved,” or “regenerate” man.  The ideal that stands behind this statement is the new creation and the new humanity that is shaped by the mysterious activity of the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead. 

The “old man” is the old way of being human, prior to the example provided by the Creator God in Christ, which climaxed with the cross and the Resurrection.  That understood, one must allow Paul to add to that the insistence that those that confess Jesus as Lord, and who allow their lives and their interaction in, with, and for this world to be shaped by His cross and all that it implies, “have been clothed with the new man that is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created it” (3:10).  The new humanity, most importantly, will finally be able to rightly bear the divine image, to steward His creation (now the creation that is being renewed and will be completely renewed), and to reflect His glory into the world (good stewardship as His divine image-bearers), which had been the purpose of the Creator God in His act of creation. 

In this new humanity of divine image-bearers that have been given the physical and historical example of Jesus to imitate in their quest to bear that image, “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free” (3:11a).  Accordingly then, “Christ is all and in all” (3:11b).  The Messiah is a Messiah for all peoples, He is the manifestation of the Creator God, and He dwells within His people (reverting back to thoughts of the Temple as the place where the Creator God dwells and as the place where heaven and earth overlap). 

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).

All The Saints (part 11)

Notice the focus on the matter of Gentiles and the effectiveness of the Gospel’s message.  This, of course, makes perfect sense, as Paul is primarily known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.  At the same time however, he addresses himself to Jews as well, as his congregations (household meal gatherings in honor of Jesus) are a mixed bag, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles.  This is well demonstrated not only by the content of his letters, but by the fact that he spends a great deal of time addressing Jews in the synagogues in the various Gentile-dominated cities to which he travels. 

However, Luke, as the author of Acts, is free to pick and choose that upon which he focuses his attention and that which he relays to the readers/hearers of his work.  Interestingly, he consistently chooses to impart information concerning Gentiles, with this information provided its contextual setting by the Jew/Gentile issue that consumed the energy of the nascent church and so much of Paul’s attention.  This lends substantial weight to the idea that the means by which Gentiles are included in the covenant people and share in their promises (the means by which they are justified) was a (if not the) fundamental point of contention in the early church. 

Verse twenty provides the response: “When they heard this, they praised God.  Then they said to him, ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all ardent observers of the law” (Acts 21:20).  That is, they are believers in Jesus who continue to adhere to the covenant markers of circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary laws.  Going on, “They have been informed about you---that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs” (21:21).  This, as can be gleaned from Paul’s letters, is highly debatable, and probably something of a distortion or half-truth (at best). 

Paul’s primary concern was the covenant marker of Gentiles, that being confession of Jesus as Lord (their confession of the Gospel) that made them people of the covenant, and not the submission to the ongoing covenant markers of Israel as that which made them people of the covenant.  Paul was not concerned with whether or not the Jews continued to hold to these customs, being far more concerned with not forcing Gentiles to submit to them, as doing so would contribute, in his mind, to erecting barriers to the spread of the kingdom of the Creator God to all peoples.  Paul clearly demonstrates his belief that it would create unnecessary and probably unhelpful divisions among people, with these divisions based solely on identifying practices that had nothing to do with the proclamation of the Lordship of Jesus. 

If anything, Paul’s preaching probably encouraged Judaizing Gentiles (Gentiles who had adopted the covenant markers of Israel so as to come under the auspices and provisions of the covenant, so becoming Jews) to discontinue Sabbath-keeping and adherence to dietary laws (reversing circumcision, though possible, would probably not be encouraged, especially considering that Jews were not the only people to practice circumcision---it was really the combination of covenant related activities, though these changed over the years to reach the form that they had taken by the time of Jesus and Paul, that served to set Israel apart from other peoples).  This could form the basis for the mild accusation heard in the twenty-first verse, as, in order to make a point, they would not make an effort to distinguish between a Jew of national and ethnic Israel, and someone who had become a Jew through the required processes.  Though this study will not dwell on it, this chapter and its recorded exchange provides an indication that there may have been something of a struggle for honor within the church, with what has already come and what follows serving as an attempt to shame Paul.   

All The Saints (part 4)

As a result of Peter’s plea, James, grasping the movement of the Creator God’s Spirit, along with a Scriptural and historical justification for that movement, says “Brothers, listen to me.  Simeon has explained how God first concerned Himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for His name.  The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written, ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord, namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be My own, says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.’” (Acts 15:13b-18)  Remarkably, it is determined that the tent of David is to include the Gentiles (resonances of Isaiah 54:2---make your tent larger???), and that this has always been the plan of the covenant-making-and-keeping Creator God of Israel.   

In Acts thirteen, Paul and Barnabas are in Pisidian Antioch.  Paul speaks to “Men of Israel, and… Gentiles who fear God” (13:16b).  During the course of his speech, as he quickly recounts the story of the Creator God’s covenanting with humanity, he goes on to say “Brothers, descendants of Abraham’s family, and those Gentiles among you who fear God, the message of this salvation has been sent to us” (13:26). 

He goes on to punctuate the remainder of his message with words of family unity, speaking of “the good news about the promise to our ancestors” (13:32b), and “to us, their children” (13:33b), climaxing with “Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through this one forgiveness of sins,” which is the language of exodus experience and covenant inclusion, “is proclaimed to you, and by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you” (13:38-39).  Here, one needs to be cognizant of the possibility that “the law of Moses” stands in for “works of the law,” which were the covenant markers that were to be practiced as the identifying, justifying marks for those who were under covenant. 

Thus, through recollection of these scenes as recorded in the book of Acts (which, though the stories would have been shared, were not available in written and standardized form to the churches of the day),observers are provided with a glimpse into the struggle.  There were doubts.  There were prejudices and ancient biases.  There was a fear that the status gains of one group (Gentile Christians) were coming at the expense of another (Jewish Christians). 

In an honor and shame culture in which honor was a limited good (one only gained honor at the expense of another’s honor), this is more than understandable.  There were church-wide conflicts.  There were intra-church (as congregation) conflicts.  There was a lack of unity on a number of issues, both within bodies and across the body.  There were stances taken by one church that would not be taken by another church.  Indeed, a review of the New Testament letters demonstrates that each congregation dealt with different problems at different times and in different ways.

All of this lays the groundwork for a look at Colossians.  In co-ordination with the title of this study, it can be said that “all” in Colossians, seems to play a strategic role.  This “all” takes on multiple forms, and when one reads the letter with the questions concerning the inclusion and acceptance of Gentiles as part of the covenant people of the Creator God, minus their adoption of the markers of that covenant, this communiqué takes on an interesting character.  Paul is very much interested in the elimination of long established, perhaps cherished barriers (in some corners), in the name of the creation of a unified, new creation, kingdom people.

Galatians & Giving (part 2)

The setting into which Paul wrote, and in which his letter would be read aloud to the assembled congregation, would most likely be that of a meal.  Paul makes clear the primacy of the meal table in his dealings with the Galatian church, utilizing the example of his negative and somewhat definitive experience in Antioch because it would most likely resound with them.  Hearing Paul’s letter read to them while they were at their standard gathering around the meal table would heighten the sensitivity to the issues that he is addressing in this church---with their giving practices being ancillary to the larger issues at hand.  Surely, one cannot imagine Paul employing an example that had no bearing on the issue with which he deals in this letter to the church of Galatia. 

In the second chapter, Paul writes “when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.  Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles.  But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision” (2:11-12).  As was the case at Antioch, this church must have been failing to come together at an undivided meal table, as they continued to recognize the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, and therefore allowed for the upholding of the covenantal markers of Judaism (dietary laws denoting clean and unclean, circumcision, and Sabbath-keeping).  Paul saw this as highly problematic and will use the dichotomy to make his points concerning what is meant by justification.  More on this anon. 

It is necessary to spend a bit more time recognizing the structure of the church’s gathering.  In their adherence to the Jesus tradition, and very much in tune with prevailing custom and culture, the earliest Christian assemblies were centered on the meal table.  In this respect, they would have looked very much like the familiar associations of the day.  The major difference for the Christians would have been (or ideally should have been) the fact that the meal table of Jesus believers would not have been stratified according to the social order of honor and shame. 

There was to be no distinction between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, rich or poor, but all were to share equally in status at the table and in the food and wine that was available for consumption.  Paul called the Corinthian church to account for their failure to live out the model of the meal demonstrated by Jesus, pointing out their failure to have all at the table share in the same food and drink, in both quantity and quality.  It is not unreasonable to insist that such was on his mind in this setting as well. 

This shared meal would consist of two parts, the first of which was the deipnon, the second part of which was the symposium.  The deipnon is where the meal would be shared and where bread would be broken.  At the close of the deipnon, a libation would be presented in honor of the god of the association.  For the Christians, who were those who looked to Jesus as King rather than Caesar (the Caesareans), the libation would be presented, poured out, or consumed in honor of Jesus (think of Jesus and His taking of the cup “after supper”).  With this portion of the meal complete, they would move on to the symposium.  The symposium was the part of the event of the meal in which discussions were to be had, songs would be sung, people would speak in tongues (an ancient religious custom the records of which predates Pentecost by hundreds of year), messages could be delivered, etc…  Noting that this would have been customary and traditional, Paul also spoke to this situation in the first letter to Corinth. 

Samson's Hair (part 2 of 2)

Samson’s hair becomes a mark of the Creator God’s covenant with him and with his parents.  Like Israel’s covenant markers, not cutting his hair was to be taken as a signal of their collective faithfulness to the covenant that their God had taken the initiative to enter into with them.  If Samson is a microcosm of Israel, then there should be other points of contact between his story, especially related to his covenant marker, and that of Israel.  What happens when Samson’s hair is cut?  The story reports that the Lord left Him, he had his eyes gouged out, he was bound in chains, and he was deported to the land of the Philistines. 

How does this relate to Israel?  The nation to which the Creator God referred as His firstborn son, that had been so improbably brought to birth through the events of the Egyptian exodus (as improbably as Abraham and Sarah having a child in their old age and as improbably as an infertile woman giving birth), was given instructions as to how to live so that they may appropriately represent their God to and in and for the world.  Though there is a large number of specific instructions to Israel, the primary instructions that will mark them out as the people of the Creator God are recorded in Leviticus.  There they are instructed: “You must not make for yourselves idols, so you must not set up for yourselves a carved image or a pillar, and you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down before it, for I am the Lord your God.  You must keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary.  I am the Lord” (26:1-2).  

As Samson’s hair was the response of his parents and himself to the Creator God’s covenant, so too was following these basic provisions laid out in Leviticus Israel’s response to God’s covenant with them.  It demands to be noted that it is neither a refrain from hair cutting nor the adherence to what is detailed in Leviticus that brings one in to covenant with the Creator God of Israel, but rather, it is the keeping of these things that is the glad response to the covenant activity of that God. 

What would happen to Israel if they failed to keep that which was their required response?  What if they worshiped idols, violated the Sabbaths and did not reverence the sanctuary?  Would their God cut them off and have nothing to do with them?  No, such would not be the response.  Rather, the Creator God promised that He would execute disciplinary judgment according to His covenant requirements and in accordance with the fact that He was recognizing them and establishing them as His covenant people. 

This is detailed in the same chapter in Leviticus, wherein the Creator God promises that horror, consumption, and fever will be visited upon His covenant people if they fail to live up to their obligations.  He promises that seed will be sown in vain and that enemies will eat whatever happens to be produced through that vain sowing.  He promises to set His face against His people and to strike them down before their enemies, as they are ruled over by those who hate them (26:16-17).  The afflictions go on and on and culminate with “You will perish among the nations; the land of your enemies will consume you” (26:38).  Israel is also promised that the horrors that their God will inflict will serve to “diminish eyesight and drain away the vitality of life” (26:16b). 

Is this not, along with the fact that Samson was ruled over by his enemies, almost precisely what is reported to have happened to Samson when he forsakes (though he did not actually cut off his own hair) the mark of his God’s covenant with him?  However, that same God also promises that “I will remember for them the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out from the land of Egypt” (26:45a), doing so “when they confess their iniquity and their ancestors’ iniquity which they committed by trespassing against Me” (26:40a). 

In the end, Israel’s God promises to bring them back to their promised land.  In much the same way, even though Samson has been bound, and even though the Levitical curses have devolved upon him, “His hair began to grow back after it had been shaved off” (16:22). As the Creator God would not forget His people, so He had not forgotten Samson.  With words that hearken back to the Creator’s remembering of His covenant with Israel, Samson, having been placed before the Philistines, having apparently and to some extent realized his failures, and having devised a rather interesting “exit strategy,” cries out “O Master, Lord, remember Me!  Strengthen me just one more time, O God, so I can get swift revenge against the Philistines for my two eyes!” (16:28) 

With that, Samson brought the house down upon himself and the Philistines.  Thus he perished among the nations, and was consumed within the land of his enemies; and thus, though a deliverance from the Philistines is brought about through his actions, the note of personal revenge has been struck, and Samson, though the symbol of his God’s covenant with him had begun to reappear (his hair growing back), dies along with the Philistines.  He does not experience a return to the land, but dies in his bondage.  Maddeningly and enigmatically, so ends the story of Samson.     

In This Is Love (part 7)

In addition to the ground that has already been covered, it is possible to cast a gaze elsewhere in order to understand the way in which Israel was truly called to destroy the works of the devil, with this being understood to be love’s great work.  In doing that, one takes into view the covenant markers that were given to Israel at Sinai. 

The events of Sinai are intimately connected to the whole of the exodus account that generated the way in which Israel saw itself as the collective son of the Creator God, and therefore the law (terms of covenant) and its associated covenant markers that were said to have come to them at Sinai were crucial components of the way that they were to be revealed sons of God that would serve the purpose of destroying the works of the devil. 

These covenant markers ultimately point to the same age-old problem that had initially brought corruption and evil into the world, which was the worship of that which was not the Creator God.  So when one considers that Israel, above all things, was to reverence their God’s sanctuary (His tabernacle and His Temple, as well as the created world in which He is said to have rested on the seventh day---again, a temple was commonly understood to be the place where a god would rest), to observe and honor His Sabbaths (the weekly Sabbath, the feasts, the Sabbath of the land, and the year of jubilee) as a reminder of His position as Creator and sovereign over the world and of the human role of divine image-bearer in this world, and to avoid the worship of idols, one is then able to see the Creator God’s design that would allow them to take up the charge to destroy the works of the devil. 

Ultimately, this end would not be best served by physically exterminating their enemies in the land, but rather by adhering to these marks of covenant, as did Abraham, to recognize and worship and proclaim their God as the only God.  Adhering to these marks are part of what would allow these people to be the exemplification of divine blessing to the world, thus turning other peoples to Israel’s God as they forsook all others.  This would, in a sense, serve to destroy a work of the devil.  Would this then not be a shining manifestation of love?    

Alas, Israel did not live up to the call of its revelation as the firstborn son of the Creator God.  Rather than destroying the work of the devil by turning men from themselves and their gods, Israel is reported to have been repeatedly ensnared by the allure of idolatry.  Israel did not engage in the practice of righteousness (faithfulness to the covenant), denying that to which it had been called at Sinai, which was ultimately, by being the source of blessing to the world, to bring glory to their salvation-providing God by living out their covenant markers as a response of thankfulness to their gracious election as the Creator God’s chosen people.  The covenant God desired to show forth His love for the world through the vehicle of His son Israel, but due primarily to idolatry, this purpose would be denied. 

Justified By Faithfulness (part 6)

As the covenant people, responsible for bringing the blessings of the Creator God to bear in and for all of the creation, the Jews were not looking to escape from this earth so as to enjoy a blissful existence apart from the world.  As Greek thought, such desires were more at home in the realm and hopes of pagan religion.  Rather, they were looking for the establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth (the overlap of their God’s realm of existence with the realm of existence created for divine image-bearers), when the Creator God would embody His messiah and bring about the vindication, salvation, and deliverance of His covenant people, doing this together with the restoration of all things and the physical resurrection of the righteous dead (those that died in a state of positive covenant standing). 

As popularly (though not exclusively) imagined, this would occur through the messiah’s setting up of His kingdom, as Israel’s King, Who would be the King of all the earth (the Creator God becoming King), with all peoples coming to bow before Him, as was pictured and to which seemed to be pointed throughout the Psalms and the writings of the Hebrew prophets. 

The establishment of this kingdom, as was held to by a large number of people in the time of Jesus and Paul, would involve the overthrow of the Romans (the perceived enemy of God’s people, though they really only stood for the greater enemy to which was pointed by popular apocalyptic literature---think Daniel and Revelation), and their being driven from the land.  In this, the promised land would be returned to the Creator God’s people, and those people would finally live free from any and all types of foreign dominion (be it world powers or that which animated them---evil and death). 

Among other things, this would signify the blessing of the covenant God finally returning to His people.  By the people’s estimation, with this widely held conception being reinforced by the leaders of the people, maintaining the covenant markers---according to was to be understood from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, coupled with an understanding of the history of their people when they rejected their God by rejecting His covenant markers and thus demonstrating a disbelieving faithlessness---is the thing that would secure their God’s blessing. 

Thus, with a steadfast adherence to these works of the law, the presume covenant people would maintain a positive covenant standing with their God.  Accordingly, they would be justified, and in a position to enjoy His covenant blessings of land and kingdom and prosperity, according to what He had promised to them.  So the works of the law and the keeping of the works of the law were, in fact, rooted in a profound belief in the righteousness (covenant faithfulness) and power of God.  Yes, faith stood behind adherence to the covenant markers.  This had always been the case.   

By and large, prior to his well-documented “conversion,” this had been the Apostle Paul’s position.  H had been a Pharisee of Pharisees, by his own testimony.  He had been zealous for the law.  He had been zealous for these works of the law---looking to them as that which signaled one’s justification before the Creator God (righteous standing/positive covenant status).  This was rooted in His belief in the faithfulness of his God.  He called himself a Hebrew of Hebrews.  He held vociferously to these covenant markers and persecuted, attempting to destroy and stamp out the movement that, beginning with Jesus, was actively encouraging the Creator God’s very own covenant people to set these markers aside.