Love & The Public Good (part 3 of 3)

Because this is a mixed congregation of both Jews and Gentiles, one can surmise that Paul’s use of “the law” would be well understood to be those basic provisions of the law (circumcision, Sabbath keeping, food regulations, refraining from worship of idols) that served as identity markers for Jews, and were constant points of contention and division in the early church.  Knowing this allows one to see how the unity and actions of love that are outlined and encouraged in chapter twelve of Romans come into play.  In addition to that, when considering that this is a letter that will be read to a gathered church at a single sitting, it is worth remembering a very early statement in the letter, wherein Paul uses the phrase “from faith to faith” (Romans 1:17). 

This simple statement sees Paul borrowing from the imperial propaganda of the day, which presents Caesar as the supreme benefactor.  The statement implies that Caesar is faithful to his subjects, providing them with peace and security, and therefore his subjects are faithful and loyal to him and to Rome.  One must hear the words of the thirteenth chapter with such words and thoughts in mind, in the knowledge that Paul is presenting Jesus as the actual supreme benefactor, of which the Caesar is merely a parody.  All civic interactions proceed within this framework, and the self-sacrificial love modeled by Jesus which saw Him go to the cross (unconcerned with the shame because of the honor He trusted would come), becomes the model upon which the life of the Christian community is based (unconcerned with shame because of the honor that comes with what counts as the fulfillment of the law, thereby marking one out as a member of the people of the Creator God and a participant in His kingdom). 

From here, Paul advances towards the meal table, which it is clear that he has in mind as he goes on to write “Let us live decently as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in discord and jealousy” (13:13).  Though it is not meant to serve as an accusation, this is language of the portion of the Hellenistic meal referred to as the “symposium” (period of revelry---singing of songs, debates, speeches, etc…---following a meal), and as it is possible that this church is hearing this letter while gathered for fellowship that will include a meal, the language would not be lost on them either.  It is to this then that Paul adds “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to arouse its desires” (13:14). 

A great disservice is done to the apostle if one simply substitutes personal and subjective notions of “the flesh” here, rather than considering “the flesh” within the context of the potential for disunity, division, stratification, and unwarranted authoritarianism within the church, as well as its connotations of the old age prior to the Resurrection, the inauguration of the new creation, and of the kingdom of the covenant God, in which preferring others above oneself is to be the norm. 

One must also take this statement into consideration in the context of the dissertation regarding the Christian’s responsibilities towards governing authorities.  Because one considers himself or herself to be part of the kingdom of God, a desire of the flesh might be to cast off all restraint and disregard governing authorities.  This was obviously a real possibility, which would account for Paul’s insistence that such authorities are “God’s servant for your good” (13:4a), and that it is “necessary to be in subjection” (13:5a)  (Note: Though democracies did exist, Paul does not have knowledge of a government that is constituted by “We the people,” such as to be found with the United States of America; so it is incumbent upon all generations of Christians, the world over, to understand Paul’s words in context and then to work out the implications of those words within their own time and place, guided by the dictates of the existing kingdom of heaven.) 

Rather than thinking about putting on the Lord Jesus Christ in the context of the cultivation of private spirituality, the understanding of putting on the Lord Jesus Christ should be shaped, and processed horizontally and outwardly, by embodying the transformational, kingdom-of-God-contexted love that was put on display by Jesus throughout the entirety of His mission, culminating in the cross.  This would certainly serve to quell any fleshly desires that might be manifested (separations based on honor and shame) or discussed (open rebellion against Rome that could result in the taking up of arms and the discrediting of the Jesus movement) at the meal table, thus resulting in a life of true holiness (a life laid on the altar of sacrifice in service to Israel’s God). 

Triumph Of Jesus (part 9)

With this, one should think of the Pauline words from the letter to the Colossians.  The “triumph” is in mind when reading: “And even though you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He nevertheless made you alive with Him, having forgiven you all transgressions.  He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us.  He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.  Disarming rulers and authorities He has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:13-15).  Combining that with words from the second letter to the church of Corinth: “But thanks be to God Who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and Who makes known through us the fragrance that consists of the knowledge of Him in every place” (2:14-16).   

This study began with setting the background for the path by which one should approach the book of Revelation.  One must realize that, first and foremost, the book of Revelation employs apocalyptic language (behind-the-veil language) to present what is believed to be the Creator God’s perspective on the events of the day.  One is also required to understand that the language employed, obscure as it may be, would have been readily understandable by the audience to whom it is directed---especially those who have ears to hear (the repetitive refrain from chapters two and three of the book). 

To have any hope of understanding revelation, an individual must attempt to become appropriately situated within the Rome-shaped world of the late first century, and hear the message accordingly.  Failing this, the message will be missed, there will be no controls around interpretation, and one will become engaged in all manner of fanciful interpretation that would be completely incomprehensible to the author. 

The presence of the Caesar cult has been effectively highlighted.  Reference has been made to the effective employment of imperial propaganda that speaks in exalted language of both Rome and its divine Caesar, and mention has been made of the fact that early Christians, with Paul being an example, co-opted such propaganda (“from faith to faith” as but one minor example), putting said propaganda to use on behalf of the One they saw as the world’s true Lord and what they saw as the world’s truly glorious kingdom.  Thus, one should be unsurprised to find the apocalyptic author doing the same type of thing in the course of his presentation to the churches of Asia Minor. 

Furthermore, details concerning the Roman “triumph,” have been observed; and with those details, a historical-fictional account of a “triumph” has been constructed, viewed from the perspective of one in attendance, with this construction presuming a knowledge on the part of the attendee of the history and symbolism at play.  All of these things have been done in the course of a study that has been given the title of “Triumph Of Jesus,” commencing this study with a single verse from the nineteenth chapter of Revelation, which was “He has a name written on His clothing and on His thigh: ‘King of kings and Lord of lords’” (19:16). 

Calling Down Fire (part 4)

In addition to what would have been a widespread cultural familiarity with the method that was employed, the message of “The kingdom of God has come upon you” would not have been unfamiliar.  Though it held particular and incredibly significant meaning to those that dwelled in the land of Israel, not only was it the case that Jesus’ disciples would not be the first to go out heralding the arrival of a messiah, and thus the arrival of the kingdom of God, but it was also the case that this was largely the same message that Caesar’s representatives dutifully carried into the world that he had conquered as well. 

Those that would come to hear this message of the kingdom of God, whether inside or outside of Israel as it was shared before and after the ordeal of the cross and the vindication of the Resurrection, were likely to have been familiar with the “gospel of Caesar.”  This “gospel” was, among other things of course (as the Caesar cult aided in the spread of imperial propaganda), that the Caesar was lord of all and the savior of mankind.  This message could easily be presented as the “kingdom of the son of god has come upon you; and you do not need to feel conquered, as Caesar extends his realm of peace and security to you.”  This should serve as a reminder that one would do well to always consider the setting into which the message of the Christ had come.   

  

Before continuing to move forward, it is necessary to back up just a bit so as to continue what one hopes is an effective contextualization and historical integration.  Included within Jesus’ commands to His appointed disciples, He can be heard to say: “Whenever you enter a house, first say, ‘May peace be on this house!’” (Luke 10:5)  There would have been a number of reasons for giving this particular greeting, but there is one particular reason to which has already been alluded, which is that of the Caesar and Rome’s notion of peace. 

Remember, Luke still has the reader of his work situated within the mental context of that which he has previously written, as chapters nine through nineteen (which includes chapter ten) of his Gospel narrative are presented as a lengthy, single story.  As would have been familiar to the Roman government official (most excellent Theophilus) for whom Luke is presumed to have constructed his two-part series, Caesar’s peace---Roman peace, or the “pax Romana,” would have been part and parcel of the message of the herald of the Caesar, as Caesar (as Jesus would also be shown to do) “sent messengers on ahead of him… to make things ready in advance for him” (9:52a,c). 

What would happen if Caesar’s peace and gospel message about himself and his kingdom was rejected?  As has been previously indicated, it is quite likely that death would come upon those that rejected the message.  This death would have fallen until there were either no more rejecters, or until all willingly bowed the knee to accept his “peace.”  This is the context, as has been seen, for James and John wanting to call down fire from heaven and consume those that rejected Jesus. 

This would also be the context for Jesus’ rebuke of them for wanting to adopt Caesar’s forceful and deadly way and contra-kingdom-of-heaven way of establishing his rule and authority.  It would seem to be clear that, at that point, they did not understand Jesus’ true power or the nature of the kingdom and peace that He was bringing to the world, as they were likely to have been steeped in messiah and kingdom expectation that was rooted in forceful overthrow of a foreign oppressor by violent means and awe-inspiring displays of power.