All The Saints (part 21)

As if Paul has not made himself clear enough to this point, having made this point about the composition of the new humanity that is the church of the Christ, Paul continues to take up and extend language that had been exclusively reserved to national Israel and to those that had Judaized, building on talk of being clothed with the new man and further describing the appearance that should be taken by this new humanity, writing “Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if someone happens to have a complaint against anyone else.  Just as the Lord has forgiven you,” remembering the exodus connotation of “forgiveness,” “so you also forgive others” (Colossians 3:12-13). 

Paul believes that unity is key for the church, and he does not underestimate the difficulties in melding disparate people groups into one body.  Speaking to that, he continues in this stream of thought, writing “And to all these virtues add love, which is the perfect bond.  Let the peace of Christ be in control in your heart (for you were in fact called as one body to this peace), and be thankful” (3:14-15).    

Though this study moves towards a conclusion, there will be no tiptoeing past Paul’s use of peace here in verse fifteen of chapter three, casually applying a possibly inadequate definition to this important term.  This is much more than just a feeling of serenity enjoyed by an individual, as part of a reconciliation with the Creator God.  Though that certainly can be a component of the peace, when approached from within the larger movement of the letter and the heavy emphasis on inclusiveness and unity as the covenant of the Creator God extends outwards to all peoples, it is possible to understand that this peace is specifically part of the reconciliation between Jew and Gentile.  This is rightly evidenced by Paul’s connecting it with the fact the church has been called to peace as part of their calling to be “one body.”

In the twenty-third verse of this chapter, following a digression that deals with the leveling out of the church body in mutual submission and self-sacrifice (remembering that Paul has made it clear that there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free---one can safely add “male or female” to that list, as that would not be a falsification of Paul’s way of thinking), Paul once again plucks language from the lexicon of Israel’s heritage, applying it equally to all, be it Jew or Gentile, when he writes “Whatever you are doing, work at it with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not for people, because you know that you will receive your inheritance from the Lord as the reward” (3:23-24a). 

Though one may have a tendency to think of this “inheritance” as “going to heaven” or eternal life, or some such limited and far too ethereal and ill-defined notion, it is far more likely that this use of “inheritance,” as Paul always, always, always locates the story of Jesus and the church along the path of the story of Israel (for without doing so, the story of Jesus and of Paul’s Gospel lacks substance and meaning), is designed to call to mind the promises first given to Abraham, that had been passed along to Israel, and were now being dispersed abroad and made available to all nations through the spread of the kingdom of the covenant God. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 32)

Skipping past what appears to be an interpolation that does not seem to fit at all with the ethos of Paul’s letters (verses 33b-35, which is sometimes found in manuscripts at the conclusion of verse forty, with this fluid placement indicative of its potentially extraneous nature, not unlike the story of the woman taken in adultery of John chapter eight, which is not found in many early manuscripts and sometimes shows up after Luke 21:38), this study picks up with Paul asking the question “Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone?” (1 Corinthians 14:36)  This is a rather pointed question, and seems to flow quite naturally from the statement concerning disorder and peace.  It is clear that the question is directed to the wider church, but one is forced to wonder why. 

Though dogma-level assertions are probably not possible, considering the regular competitions for honor that took place amidst the meal associations of the day, it is possible that here Paul speaks to the possibility of multiple church bodies within the same community entering into some type of similar honor competition that pitted body against body in their attempts to honor their object of worship (namely Jesus).  As it is quite easy to see churches effectively competing against each other for members, for recognition, and for the types of public honors that are available in our own time, this possibility does not seem overtly remote. 

Closer to home, an individual member of the body that was the primary recipient of this message (leaving open the possibility that this letter was directed to multiple assemblies of Christ-worshipers) could hear these words in a more personal manner, as they follow hard upon Paul’s insistence that participation within the church should be widespread, with all exercises attributed to the influence of the Spirit accorded equal value. 

This equal valuation of the Spirit’s presence and the person through whom the Spirit is active (with whether or not Jesus’ Lordship, which can be declared in any number of ways, and especially in ways that are derived from the understanding of the Jesus tradition that was then in circulation prior to the formation of the Gospels as we have them, is affirmed as the sole determiner of the activity of the Spirit of the Creator God), along with the insistence upon mutual subjection (preferring one another in humility) in the exercise of the gift that Paul most highly encouraged, provides a helpful framework in which a hearer could understand the words of verse thirty-six, making it possible to understand it as Paul’s continued encouragement for individuals to continually disavow the personal accumulation of honor. 

Hearing these words in this way could lead to seeking opportunities for community affirming mutual subjection that is based upon the desire to emulate the one to whom they look as Lord (who consistently sought out the lowest place rather than the highest place while instructing His disciples to do the same, who performed the role of a slave, and who set Himself amidst those considered to be possessive of shame or who stood completely outside the system of honor and shame, such as children) and who is deserving of all honor.  

Visiting Bethany (part 4)

If a compare and contrast is underway, one glaring contrast between Jesus and the Caesar can be found in verses previously quoted from the third chapter of John.  There it is said that the covenant God of Israel “gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:16b-17).  Caesar, the man entitled with “son of god,” was looked to as the one who dragged the world from darkness to light.  With this, the parallel between John and the Augustus inscription becomes increasingly obvious. 

Yes, it was Caesar Augustus who was said to have brought order out of the chaos.  It was Caesar Augustus that was said to be responsible for the life and vitality of the world, with this spread throughout the world via the pax Romana (Roman peace).  It is Caesar Augustus who is referred to as the “Savior” of the world.  Ironically, though war would be almost endless, Augustus is credited with putting an end to war.  It is worth nothing that, though death continues, Jesus is credited with putting an end to death. 

For Ceasar of course, the end of war was accomplished by crushing his enemies through massive warfare.  Furthermore, it is said that Caesar Augustus is the fulfillment of all hopes and in him the world has “good news.”  How did this son of god “save” the world?  How did he bring the world into new life?  It could be argued that he did so through the instrument of death. 

He, his predecessors, and those that would follows and take up his mantle, slaughtered millions so as to usher in an era of “peace” and to give their version of life to the world.  Effectively, in order to give the world life and vitality through the establishment of the Roman empire, the world experienced an almost unprecedented level of condemnation.  The other Son of God, however, is said to bring eternal life and peace and light, which will be accomplished and effected through His worldwide kingdom. 

As the Gospel of John informs its readers, through Jesus the world will be saved, but this salvation will not come about through the world-condemning instrument of war and its power of death.  Ultimately, this salvation will come about through the laying down of His own life and going willfully into death in an act of self-sacrificial love---making Himself subject to that which was (and still is) the Caesar’s only true power. 

Returning to the issue at hand then, Martha can be heard speaking to Jesus and saying, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.  But even now I know that whatever You ask from God, God will grant you” (John 11:21-22).  In calling Jesus “Lord,” and doing so in the context of what is increasingly looking to be a “parousia” of Jesus, Martha has conferred upon Him one of the titles that was then accorded to and reserved for the Caesar.  Much like that which would have been experienced by the emperor when he would visit subjects within his realm, the one that has come out to greet Jesus makes it a point to honor the world’s ruler and to make comment upon His power. 

In My Distress (part 2 of 2)

The Psalmist continues, writing “For I have lived temporarily in Meshech; I have resided among the tents of Kedar” (120:5b).  Not that we mix the Gospel stories and interpret one according to another (though John’s Gospel almost certainly comes well after Matthew’s Jesus narrative has been established and relatively fixed, and could thus be influenced by its telling), but recognizing that all of the Gospels would almost certainly have drawn from and been shaped by the traditions of the Psalms, in John’s Gospel it is written that “the Word became flesh and took up residence among us” (1:14a).  A literal translation could read that the Word, that being Jesus for the Johannine community of believers, “tabernacled among us.”  Thus, “temporarily” and “tents” takes on added significance.

The tabernacle, of course, was the temporary tent in which the God of Israel took up His residence among His people.  When that God took up temporary though necessary residence in a tent of flesh, “by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature” (Philippians 2:7b – a pre-Gospel composition understanding of who Jesus was, that would have undoubtedly shaped the way that the Gospels would have been composed, preserved, and transmitted), He would become that which He had created in His own image.  So it became understood, quite early, that the God of Israel, the Creator God of the whole of the cosmos, temporarily took upon Himself the form of that which was precious in His sight.  This is reflected in the use of the Hebrew word “Meshech,” which has the meaning of “precious.”  He also took flesh upon Himself and “resided among the tents of Kedar.”  “Kedar” means “dark” or “darkness.” 

With all of this said, one can now look to this particular Psalm armed with an overt understanding that Jesus’ mindset, as a member of Israel, would have been at least partially shaped by the Psalm-ic tradition, and hear the Lord Jesus speaking directly as it is read, “For too long I have had to reside with those who hate peace” (120:6).  In considering this hatred of peace, one must contemplate the recent history of Israel in the time of Jesus.  That history, leading up to, during, and following the time of the presence of the Christ was littered with those that attempted to accomplish God’s will through force of arms.  A large part of that history shows that Israel did not want to love their enemies, pray for those who persecuted them, or go the second mile when the Roman soldier legally requisitioned them to carry his pack for one mile.  Peace, as Jesus saw it and pronounced it, would have been anathema to many that would hear His message and observe His acts.   

For too many of the people, Jesus represented little more than another chance at revolution and overthrow.  He was indeed that chance, but not in the way that so many of His fellow citizens desired.  He was there to overthrow death and to deliver God’s people from the exile of failing to bear Him image and to be lights for His glory, through the ushering in of the kingdom of heaven on earth.  The way that He intended to bring this about, which encompassed an act of self-sacrifice, was truly revolutionary. 

One can only imagine how many times the people, having heard the words and experienced the miracles of Jesus, attempted to make Him king by force.  To that, those that are committed to hearing and living the words of Jesus, can regretfully hear Him join with the Psalmist and say, with great frustration and wrenching of heart, “I am committed to peace, but when I speak, they want to make war” (120:7).     

Separation Ended (part 1 of 2)

Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. – Ephesians 2:12  (ESV)

Separated.  Alienated.  Strangers.  No hope.  Without God.  These are quite descriptive terms that the Apostle Paul is using to paint the picture of a dire situation for those that are outside of God’s covenant of promise.  That covenant of promise had begun with Abraham, and had been extended, through Isaac and Jacob, to the sons of Jacob, or Israel.  Those that were not part of national Israel, those who were “Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision” (2:11b), did not have the hope of experiencing the fulfillment of God’s promises. 

That was the case until Christ came.  In being “separated from Christ,” that is, separated from the expected fulfillment of God’s promises through Israel’s expected Messiah, the Gentiles were not a part of God’s redemptive plan for all creation.  “But now,” Paul says, all that has changed, for “in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have brought near by the blood of Christ” (2:13).  You who were far from being a part of God’s covenant people have been brought near to God by Christ.  Prior to that, there had been enmity, not only between man and God, but between Israel and the Gentiles. 

That enmity, that hostility, was primarily directed towards the Gentiles by Israel for a couple of reasons.  The first reason had to do with the presence of the Mosaic law (and that down to which the Mosaic law had been whittled---the covenant markers of circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and food laws) which Israel held to as what it was that distinguished them from all of the rest of the peoples of the world, which became to them an unfortunate source of pride, and which the Gentiles sought to get them to violate so as to remove their marks of national identity and so make them an easier people with which to deal and over which to rule.  The second reason for the hostility stemmed from that very rule of the Gentiles, over the land and people of Israel, for even though it was the manifestation of God’s cursing on Israel for their own failure to extend God’s covenant to the whole of the world and so glorify their God, prompted Israel to naturally resent their rulers. 

Paul addresses this situation and writes, “For He Himself is our peace” (2:14a).  Jesus is the one that brings this hostility to an end, because He “has made us both one” (2:14b).  How has He done this?  Because He “has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility” (2:14c).  Partly by what He did on the cross, through the physical, bodily suffering and sacrifice that He endured, Jesus broke down the wall that separated God’s chosen people (national Israel), from the rest of God’s chosen people, that being the renewed Israel, that were a group that was to be gathered out by God from all of mankind.  Jesus did this “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (2:15).  The covenant of God expressed exclusively for His chosen people (Israel) through the law was no longer necessary, for now the covenant would be expressed exclusively by His chosen people, which now included all the people of the world, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

In this proclamation of the Gospel, which included that Jesus had defeated sin and death (borrowing from enhancing the gospel proclamation that Caesar Augustus had defeated darkness and dissolution), the evidence of which was His Resurrection, and that Jesus the Messiah was not only the King of the Jews, but the King of all peoples and the One for whom every knee would bow, Paul says that Jesus has served to “reconcile us both (Israel and Gentile) to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility” (2:16).  There was no longer a dividing line when it came to God’s covenant to Abraham.  He had promised that all families of the earth would be blessed through the seed of Abraham, who was looked to as the Messiah; and that seed, Jesus, had now done what was necessary to bring that about.  What was the greatest blessing?  It would have to be that “through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father” (2:18), where previously, all had been separated, by sin, from God. 

All had been “strangers and aliens,” but through Christ, Paul tells the Gentiles that “you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (2:19).  Israel alone had been the saints, or the “called-out-ones” of God, but now the grouping of those referred to as God’s called-out-ones, God’s chosen, would extend to all the races of man.  Now, not even the Temple in Jerusalem, from which Gentiles were barred from entering, need be a source of division, for Paul looks to a new Temple for a new people of God, that is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord” (2:20-21).  There is an underlying Jesus-as-Temple theology built into all of this, as Paul declares that the God of Israel has moved beyond what might be thought of as the confines of the Jerusalem Temple, through the work of Christ, and that “In Him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit” (2:22).   

Leader & Savior

God exalted Him at His right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. – Acts 5:31  (ESV)

Thus Peter spoke before the council of the elders in Jerusalem.  Hearkening back to what we find in the fourth chapter of Acts, when Peter and John were first brought before the council, Peter is reminded of their previous decision and its accompanying order, saying “We strictly charged you not to teach in this Name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us” (5:28).  Ironically, Peter and the rest of the Apostles did, in fact, intend to bring the blood of Jesus upon them, as an efficacious sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, but this was not the way that the council supposed.

Peter, fully aware of what had been told to him in the wake of the healing of a crippled man, answered that “We must obey God rather than men” (5:29).  He adds “The God of our fathers raised Jesus, Whom you killed by hanging Him on a tree” (5:30).  It was in this raising that Jesus was then exalted as “Leader and Savior”.  That is, Jesus was exalted as “archegon kai sotera.”  This is something at which the council would have cringed.  This was the crux of the matter.  This was what had the leaders of the people so gravely concerned, the continuing proclamation of this Jesus fellow in such ways.  This was the type of talk that would bring about the very thing that they feared the most, which we find in the eleventh chapter of John.  Surely, just as they had thought about Jesus and His preaching, they now thought about Peter and his preaching, saying “If we let him (Peter) go on like this, everyone will believe in Him (Jesus), and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (John 11:48). 

Now, why would Peter’s statement about Jesus as “Leader and Savior,” or “archegon kai sotera” cause such a reaction?  It is because these were titles reserved in that day for Caesar.  Caesar was the “archos.”  He was the leader, master, ruler, and authority.  Along with that, it was Ceasar that was referred to as “soter.”  Caesar was the savior of mankind.  It was Caesar that secured peace on earth.  It was Caesar that set things right and established justice; and it was Caesar, through the kingdom and power of Rome, that was dragging the world out of darkness and barbarism.  Now this was being said of Jesus, and that it was Him and His kingdom that was pre-eminent, and that it was Jesus, through His Kingdom, that was dragging the world out of its darkness, through the power of His Resurrection. 

This was dangerous speech that must be controlled, which is the primary and fundamental reason why Peter had been ordered not to speak in such ways about Jesus.  Rome, through its local governors, would not long tolerate such things, but would swiftly deal with such pretenders to rule and challenges to Ceasar’s absolute authority.  If the movement behind a particular revolutionary became too large, and the people became overly pestilent, Rome would simply take steps to put down the whole group of people, regardless of who was or was not involved.  They would come and take away both place and nation, thereby solving the problem permanently. 

Previously, Peter had declared Jesus as the “cornerstone,” the source of “salvation,” and “that there is no other Name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12).  Peter spoke of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, together with everything implied by that title.  One of the primary implications was that Jesus was the King of Israel, and by extension, King of all, making the claims of Him as “Leader and Savior” both counter-imperial and revolutionary.  These imperial claims on behalf of Jesus were well-understood by Jesus’ disciples and those that came to believe in their word about Him, as we read about them lifting up their voices and saying, “Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain?  The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against His Anointed” (Acts 4:25b-26). 

Kings and rulers generally only set themselves against those that oppose their power.  In their calling Him “Anointed,” and in referring to Him as “Leader and Savior,” they were affirming all that was to be true of Israel’s Messiah.  This was the last thing with which the Jerusalem council thought they would be dealing, having made sure that Jesus had been put to death by the Romans, in a way, that being the cross, that was reserved for those who challenged the power of Caesar.   

We are able to better understand the message of Jesus, and why it engendered such fear in the leaders of Israel and such persecution from both Israel and the Romans, when we place it in its proper context.  Yes, there is a massive spiritual component to it, but there is a temporal component as well.  Jesus declared Himself to be King, as did His followers.  They declared Jesus as the ruler of the world, with all other powers and authorities in subjection to Him, even Caesar.  So, are we correct in looking at these passages in Acts through this lens?  Well, what follows Peter’s statements about Jesus here in the fifth chapter of Acts?  “A Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher…held in honor by all the people, stood up” (5:34a).  Having stood up, did he begin denouncing Peter’s claims? 

Did he preach against Jesus?  Did he defend the truth of Judaism?  No, he did not.  Rather, he spoke of revolution.  He talked about “Theudas,” who “rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men…joined him.  He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing” (5:36).  He then went on to talk about “Judas the Galilean,” who “rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him.  He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered” (5:37).  Having said these things---having talked about men who were revolutionaries, who had risen up to overthrow Caesar and to throw off the pagan, Roman yoke---he suggested leaving these men (the followers of Jesus) alone, suggesting that if it was of man, it would fail and come to nothing, but that “if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them” and they “might even be found opposing God” (5:39).

Is it of God?  From that day, “and every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ” (5:42), and nor do we.  He is, most assuredly, “Leader and Savior.”  

Commanded By The Lord

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Criminal Gospel (part 3 of 3)

Paul was preaching revolutionary, criminal ideas, and the worst thing was that those who opposed him did not know how to stop this revolution because there was no violent uprising associated with it that could be warred against and put down.  This revolutionary war was being waged with the weapons of peace and love and faith and hope, so the best that its opponents could do was put its proponents in prison or simply kill them off by the hundreds.  However, this never seemed to work, as the more they were bound, the more the message spread; and killing them publicly merely gave them a platform to preach the message of the Christ to more people, as they went to death with no fear of death, for they believed that their Lord had conquered death, and in that conquering, because they believed themselves to be in union with Him in death as well as life, they believed that death had no power over them either.  In the face of persecution and death, they truly believed and proclaimed that “If we have died with Him, we will also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him” (2:11b-12a).  This had the effect of causing the movement to grow, which was contrary to all expectations, much like the Resurrection itself.

Moving on to the fourth and final chapter of Paul’s second letter to Timothy, who is presented as his son in the faith, Paul writes, “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, Who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the Word” (4:1-2a).  Paul’s charge to Timothy was the same that he himself had received when commissioned to the role of Christ’s Apostle.  He was to preach the Word of the living presence of Christ Jesus the Lord and of His reign.  He was to preach that Jesus the Christ was the final authority and the only One Who would ultimately be the Judge of life and death.  In that day, Caesar and empire were looked to as the ones that held that right, but this was not truly the case. 

He was to preach that Jesus had not only appeared to hundreds of eye-witnesses who could offer proof of His physical Resurrection, but that He would one day appear again.  He was to preach that Jesus was the King of a kingdom, and that kingdom was an everlasting kingdom which would not be destroyed, a kingdom that held dominion over all the kings and kingdoms of the earth.  This was largely the Word that Timothy was charged to preach.  This is the Word that we are charged to preach, never forgetting that the preaching is in both word and deed, looking to the New Testament examples offered by Jesus and His church, so that deeds of love would be the hallmark of those living godly in Christ Jesus.

With this charge in mind, Paul writes, “As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (4:5).  When Paul told Timothy to be sober-minded, was he telling him not to drink too much alcohol?  Let’s not be silly.  The imploring to sober-mindedness was in light of the nature of the message that Timothy had been and would be preaching, as it was fraught with danger.  Remember, Paul is in prison, enduring sufferings and persecutions for the message.  Paul wanted to be sure that Timothy never lost sight of that.  He wanted him to always keep in mind that suffering for the message was always going to be near at hand, and that if and when it was experienced, Timothy need not think that he was somehow outside of the will of God or was somehow not fulfilling his ministry.  In fact, it would be a great indication that he was sending forth the message properly. 

He was to do the work of an evangelist.  What was an evangelist?  An evangelist was one who sounded forth an “evangel.”  That is, somebody who boldly pronounced the “good news,” or “gospel.”  In the day in which Paul wrote, the evangelist was a person, generally a slave, that went out proclaiming that Caesar was coming to visit a town or city, or that a son had been born to Caesar, or that it was Caesar’s birthday, or that Caesar had won another victory, and in that victory Caesar had extended his salvation and his peace, in his self-estimated role as the savior of the world.  That was what was treated as “good news.”  That was “gospel,” and making these things known was the role of an evangelist.  So Paul tells Timothy to think of himself in this role, as did Paul, as a slave, proclaiming the good news of the true King. 

Yes, the King had visited, a truly Divine Son had been born, a King had won a great victory, true salvation and peace had come, and yes, all of this was through and about a Man Whom Caesar had condemned to a cross, but Who rose from a grave.  Declared to be the true Son of God in power, this Jesus was a King unlike the world had ever seen or known.  This was not only a criminal Gospel, but the Gospel of a criminal.  To this King, crucified as nothing more than one more traitor to the glory of Rome, but resurrected as Master and Lord and Savior, was due all glory, all allegiance, and all honor.       

My Criminal Gospel (part 1 of 3)

Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my Gospel. – 2 Timothy 2:8  (ESV)

This is followed by a very interesting statement.  Paul continues on to write, “for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal” (2:9a).  How often do we take a moment to pause and consider the things that Paul says?  How often do we make this consideration in light of the Jesus about which we think, talk, sing, and preach?  Paul says that because of the Gospel that he preaches, he suffers.  For the Gospel that he preaches, he is bound in chains as a criminal.  Isn’t the message of the Gospel simply that God loves us so much that He sent Jesus to die on the cross so that everybody can live happy lives and go to heaven?  Why would that induce suffering?  Why would that cause someone to be bound as a criminal.  Well, that message would not cause such things to happen, because that is not necessarily the message of the Gospel.

The Gospel, “my Gospel,” as Paul says, is that Jesus Christ is Lord.  The kingly message of the Gospel is that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His Resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:3b-4a).  Having been raised, thus being vindicated in everything that He implied that He was in both His message and activities, and everything that the prophets had declared the Messiah to be, He is, as Paul says, “Jesus Christ our Lord” (1:4b).  This statement from the opening verses of Romans is echoed here in the second chapter of Timothy.  Not only is He “our Lord,” but He is Lord of all creation.  He is the King over all kings.  He is the Ruler of all rulers.  All, without exception, are subject to Him and to His kingdom.  This was so, in part as Paul indicates, because He was risen from the dead. 

The Roman cross seemed to have conquered another pretender to glory, but that cross had been overcome, and it no longer held the power that it had once held.  Empires had been raised and razed through the power of death.  They may have fancied themselves as peaceful and enlightened and tolerant, but in the end, a significant portion of emperors ruled through the threat of death.  In His Resurrection, Jesus had conquered death as well, while showing that death held no ultimate power over Him.  It was also being claimed that if one was in union with Him, which entailed recognizing His Lordship and believing in Him as the Son of God and Savior, that neither the threat of death by the cross (the symbol of the world’s powers) nor death itself held any power over the one that believed that either.  In a world in which Caesar reigned supreme, and in which Caesar was king, and ruler, and lord, in which “all the world” was subject to him, and in which it was Caesar that was known and hailed as the divine son of god, this was a startling message. 

This Gospel that Paul was preaching and with which he was charged to carry to the ends of the earth, was a threat to the stability and orderliness of the Roman empire.  The Romans had a practice of adaptation in their conquering, in which, for the sake of peace and unity and harmony, conquered peoples were allowed to hold on to their religions, so long as they were willing to recognize the Roman deities, and more importantly, were willing to recognize Caesar’s claims to divinity, joining in the worship of Caesar as divine. 

The Jewish people were exempted from this requirement, owing to the fresh memories of the Maccabean revolts and the reputation that had been won by the Jewish people.  The early Christ-followers, such as Paul, refused to accede to this.  Not only were they unwilling to accept Caesar’s claims or the claims that were made on his behalf by the denizens of the Caesar cult, but they were going out preaching that there was only one God, and one true King, and that His name was Jesus.  They were preaching that all gods, or all so-called gods, were subservient to this Jesus, and more than that, that all kings and rulers, though they may have had God-ordained responsibilities and functions, were subservient to Him as well.  Naturally, this not only threatened the fragile “peace” of the empire, but it challenged the power of the Caesar and all of Rome.    As we keep these things in mind, it is no wonder that Paul, and indeed, the rest of the Apostles of Jesus and so many early believers in the Christ, suffered as they did and were treated as criminals. 

God's Time Of Visitation (part 3 of 3)

Is such guiding of “feet into the way of peace” (Luke 1:79b) really a reference to the way in which God intended His covenant people to interact with the world around them?  When Zechariah speaks of giving “light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death” (1:79a), is he really referencing what God had charged Israel to be for the Gentiles, and by extension, what God charges to all those that He brings into covenant with Himself through Christ?  Let’s see.

In the sixty-eighth verse, Zechariah speaks of “Israel” and “His people.”  In verse sixty-nine, he uses the term “us.”  In the seventy-first verse, we read of “our enemies” and those who hate “us.”  In verse seventy-two, we see “our fathers.”  The seventy-third verse presents “us” again.  In verse seventy-four, we find the use of “we” and “our,” with “our” used again in verse seventy-five.  The seventy-seventh verse presents “His people” yet again, along with the use of “their” in conjunction with sins.  Verse seventy-eight again says “our” and “us,” and verse seventy-nine once again posits an “our.”  Clearly, these words are given a corporate understanding, and are not to be taken primarily in a personal sense, with God revealing Himself and His light to individuals, so as to speak of this in terms of personal salvation and a personal relationship with God. 

Through the One Who was to come, of Whom John the Baptist was serving as His messenger---much like a slave would go before the Caesar in proclamation of the king’s greatness---God’s people would be brought into the way of peace, to be a light for the revelation of the glory of God.  As a follow-up to Zechariah’s prophecy of this way of peace, Luke records the message of the angels that was delivered to the shepherds of the field, as they exclaimed “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased” (2:14).  As we hear the words of the angelic host, something that should be remembered here is that such words would not be uncommonly spoken or heard in those days.  That slave that went before the Caesar would make such a declaration, speaking of the “glory” of the lord and god-man Caesar, and of the “peace” that he brings to his subjects that are pleasing to him.  In this case, however, they were being spoken by “a multitude of the heavenly host” (2:13b), which would tend to lend the message a greater degree of credibility.    

As we keep things in the context of a continuing narrative here in Luke, we can see that this declaration by the angels seems to be connected with a guiding of feet into the ways of peace.  The announcement, and its ultimate connection to the Gospel of the Christ, the declaration of the Lordship of Jesus, and the loyalty inducing belief in that Lordship that is brought about by the Holy Spirit’s evidencing exercise of faith as shown by the belief, is what brings peace.  That is what reconciles a man to his Creator God, and brings that man into renewal and restoration through the sharing of the power of the age to come (Resurrection power) that returned Jesus to life from out of the grave.  In the power of what was accomplished by Christ’s faithfulness to the long-standing covenant, and by the open confession of allegiance to the claims of the Christ as a man believes and proclaims the message that Jesus is Lord, that man has victory over death and the grave, also sharing in the life of the age to come, as both a repository and harbinger of that life.  That is a battle that has been fought and won.  Could there be a greater peace?  Should this not elicit, from God’s covenant people, “Glory to God in the highest”? 

In attempting to understand the implications of this time of God’s visitation, as it is referred to by Zechariah, we are brought by Luke to the story of Simeon.  Simeon is said to be “righteous and devout” (2:25).  When Jesus is brought to Jerusalem, Simeon takes Jesus into his arms and says, “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace” (2:29a).  There’s that use of the word “peace” again.  It seems to be a recurring theme in Luke and of God’s visit to His people.  Simeon says that, in seeing Jesus, “my eyes have seen Your salvation that You have prepared in the presence of all peoples” (2:30-31).  This was part of the hope of Israel in that day, that their God would save them, redeem them finally from their ongoing exile from what He had promised to them. 

God’s purposes, however, went far beyond that.  The salvation of Israel, represented by Jesus, Whose Name means salvation, was for the purpose of Israel (the Creator God’s covenant people) being “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” (2:32a).  This echoes what was said by Zechariah in the first chapter.  Additionally, this being the light of revelation was also “for glory to Your people Israel” (2:32b).  God’s covenant people truly attain to and reflect His glory, not when they are saved and assured of heaven and are satisfied with the hope of an escape route from hell at the end of life, but when they are being a light for the revelation of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord).  The proclamation of the Gospel is what spreads God’s glory, restoring fallen men and a fallen creation, as an allegiance to Jesus as the Christ brings a glorification together with Him.  

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.