No One Knows The Hour (part 34)

As one hears the words of the second letter of Peter (as a perfect example, though one could also comb through Paul’s letters as part of this exercise) and considers the possibilities surrounding the potential interpretation of what is to be found there, while also considering the possibility that it was produced before the fall of the Temple, in demonstration of the church’s expectation of that fall and what it would mean for their faith,  it is appropriate to think about the time frame in which the written synoptic Gospels are said to have been produced. 

If indeed it was well understood that Jesus, as reported by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, was speaking of the fall of the Temple as something that would occur within the lifetimes of many of those that heard His answer to the disciples’ question about when the Temple would be thrown to the ground with not one stone left upon another, then this can also help to explain the time period that saw the relative explosion of Gospel narratives on to the scene in the first century. 

Though there are ongoing debates about the time frame for the production of the synoptic Gospels, and though there could certainly be written records that would be incorporated into the Gospels themselves that were composed at an early stage, it is generally accepted that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Mark preceding the other two) in the forms in which the church possesses them, were all composed roughly around the year seventy.  Some suggest an earlier dating for Mark, perhaps in the late sixties.  If true, this is not problematic for our suggestion. 

However, if the insistence of this study is correct, and the early church did indeed hold Jesus’ prediction concerning the Temple in very high regard (again considering that Jesus is reported to have made precious few predictions), giving it a place at the center of their teaching about Jesus as the thing that would bring about a great validation of His ministry, then it would be quite understandable to place all three of the synoptic Gospel accounts as being produced shortly after the very fall of the Temple that was predicted by Jesus as recorded by the Gospel authors. 

Remember, a great deal of weight has been placed on the fact that, despite numerous differences in details throughout the whole of their accounts of Jesus’ ministry and of His time and activities in the Temple, all three coalesce to identically report His talk about the generation that will see the fall of the Temple, along with the words that immediately followed.  This single fact should be endlessly fascinating.  It would make perfect sense for all three of the evangelists works to spring from the fall of the Temple, with all being produced after that event in a veritable rush to generate and disperse the written account that would include His words about the Temple’s fall. 

It is possible that, in the minds of the authors and the Jesus communities, the fall of the Temple would be the final piece of the puzzle, validating all that Jesus had said and done.  Now, with the Temple destroyed, which also meant that the Son of Man had most certainly gone before the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom (for if one prediction was correct, then the prediction tied to it must be considered to be correct as well), all of the preaching and teaching about Jesus that had been taking place within the nascent church movement, and all of the persecution undergone by the church, primarily at the hands of the Temple authorities, could be seen to not have been done or experienced in vain. 

Problems For James (part 1)

My brothers and sisters, do not show prejudice if you possess faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. – James 2:1  (NET)

Social stratification and the recognition of distinctions (delineation) was so incredibly ingrained within the culture, be it Jewish or Greco-Roman culture (with concerns about dining with only people of the covenant or with maintaining proper social boundaries at the table), that it was inevitable that this societal force, if left un-restrained and unchecked, would quickly make its way into the churches, undoing and unmaking what it is that Jesus had exampled, demanded, and defended via His portrayal in the Gospels. 

The church, as a community, was marked out as peculiar by its table practices, which can be seen in the fact that many of the charges leveled against it, precipitating much persecution, had to do with accusations of cannibalism.  Such accusations, naturally, represented a lack of understanding about the celebration of the eucharist/Lord’s Supper/communion.  Regardless, it demonstrates that there was something distinctive about Christian meal practice that drew attention.  This, of course, was an excellent follow-on to Jesus’ meal practice, as it most certainly attracted all kinds of attention. 

Any type of activity within the church of Jesus that drew distinctions between one person and another, or which treated one person or type of person as a more worthy or exalted or honored member of the kingdom, when viewed through the lens of the Jesus tradition, would be problematic.  Distinctions and associated divisions could multiply quickly and become entrenched, and this would always be a risk for the church, both then and now. 

Social forces are notoriously difficult to combat, but since Jesus went to a cross and urged His disciples to take up a cross as well (and those words are to be heard within the context of the shame and horror that the cross represented), it can be reasoned that difficulties in the combat of the forces in operation within this world are not to be looked upon as a deterrent for those that confess Jesus as Lord.  Difficulties are to be expected and encountered with love and compassion, and a willingness to suffer the greatest of indignities, if need be, in the encounter. 

Though it does not initially appear to be specifically related to a meal, one must keep in mind the importance of Christian meal practice and its prominent place in the church that was seeking to embody the kingdom ethics and principles put into operation by Jesus (which were so readily seen at His table(s) that were given context by the idea of the messianic banquet that would serve to identify the Creator God’s redeeming activity on behalf of His people), while also remembering the prevailing forces of societal stratification and division, as this problem of the drawing of distinctions is encountered within the church community that is being addressed in the book of James. 

My Criminal Gospel (part 2 of 3)

Throughout the remainder of this second letter to Timothy, Paul continues to point out the criminal nature of the message of the Gospel.  After mentioning the fact of his suffering and being bound in chains, Paul brushes it off and says that even though he might be bound, “the Word of God is not bound!” (2:9b).  Clearly this was the case, since so many of Paul’s letters (though he was certainly not claiming “Word of God” status from his letters) were written from prison.  Apart from some of the records of the Book of Acts, the letters are the only source that we have for Paul’s preaching, so Paul’s inability to move about freely had no bearing on the mobility of the Word of God, the Gospel, that was being preached.  Knowing that his physical limitations were of little consequence in the larger scheme of things, Paul says, “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect” (2:10a). 

This theme of suffering for the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) is carried on throughout the letter.  In the third chapter, Paul mentions “my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, Iconium, and at Lystra---which persecutions I endured” (3:11a).  He did not dwell on the nature of the persecutions, but on the nature of His Lord, saying “yet from them all the Lord rescued me” (3:11b).  With this said, Paul goes on to make a most interesting and fascinating statement, which unfortunately, is held in a faulty understanding by most all of us.  Paul writes, “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (3:12). 

Now, how is it that we don’t really understand this statement?  Basically, it’s because we have a poor conception of what it means to live “a godly life.”  If we are honest with ourselves, when we think about “a godly life,” most of us think that what is meant by that is not drinking too much, not doing drugs, not cheating on our spouses, not killing anybody, being nice to people and animals, going to church, not robbing banks, not cheating on our taxes, reading the Bible, memorizing Scripture, not beating our kids, working hard at our jobs, giving to charitable causes, and so on and so forth.  With some additions and subtractions, this is what we think about when we hear or read that term “godly life.”  Now, if we think about this, will living that way bring any real persecution?  No, of course not.  Living in that way will generally bring some measure of honor and respect.  These things do not invite persecution. 

So what does it mean to live a godly life?  The Greek word for “godly” here is “eusebos.”  What this word denotes, above all things, is a manner of life that is marked by a constant God-awareness.  Not only that, but it is in the genitive case, so it also speaks of source, or from where something is generated, if you will.  So “godly” is a manner of life of God-awareness that has us living an acting with a constant awareness of the fact of the kingdom of God and its King, and acting accordingly.  Paul has written about living “a godly life in Christ Jesus.”  So how should we understand this?  Expanding the thought, we could say “living with a solidarity and allegiance inducing belief that Jesus Christ is Lord.”  “In Christ Jesus” is an identifier of loyalty, denoting that a person has joined up with the covenant people, and is now participating in the plans and purposes of the Creator God.  Indeed, our God-awareness, that reverential attitude of awe towards God that is sometimes called the “fear of God,” is an attitude of faith that says that Jesus is Lord, and that all rulers and authorities and powers are subject to Him. 

That living of a godly life in Christ Jesus results in a proclamation that says that every knee will bow to Him and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.  The living of a godly life in Christ Jesus, and the attendant and required proclamations (in word and deed) from those that hold to such beliefs, are bound to ruffle a few feathers and cause a fair amount of consternation to those that believe themselves to be the masters of their own lives or the ruling powers-that-be.  This is the godly life in Christ Jesus that brings persecution, not the perception of a godly life as roughly outlined above.  This is why Paul was continually suffering, enduring persecution, and finding himself bound as a criminal.  The message that he brought was a subversive message in his day, and because human nature is unchanged, it remains subversive in this day as well, which is why it is treated as a criminal message in many places throughout the world.