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.

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 24)

Having placed new parameters around honor and shame, especially concerning widows and the response to widows, Paul then goes on to present his thoughts concerning the same in a way that is not entirely dissimilar to what he did with overseers and deacons.  In a sense then, it is almost as if Paul is creating “widows” as a position in the church, which he knows will result in the appropriate amount of honor coming their way.  Again, this stands in opposition to the culture, which was generally dismissive of widows and which left widows to what was going to be a harsh and miserable existence.  So just as Paul has offered directives concerning the role and the requirements pertaining to overseers and deacons, he now does the same for widows. 

To that end, Paul writes “No widow should be put on the list unless she is at least sixty years old” (1 Timothy 5:9a), which would be quite old in a day and age in which life expectancy was much, much lower.  This restriction is extended as Paul adds, “was the wife of one husband, and has a reputation for good works” (5:10a), which is the language of public benefaction, extends beyond service in the church, and does not carry any connotation whatsoever in relation to performance-based righteousness or the attainment of salvation, “as one who has raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of saints, helped those in distress---as one who has exhibited all kinds of good works” (5:10b).  This should give each reader pause, causing the believer to continue efforts towards that which is here defined as good works (as it matches up well with the words and actions of Jesus), especially as Paul makes the point of using “good works” twice in relation to these things.

In contrast, Paul adds the instruction to “not accept younger widows on the list,” presumably those concerned with pleasures, “because their passions may lead them away from Christ and they will desire to marry, and so incur judgment for breaking their former pledge” (5:11).  Clearly, with these harsh words, Paul has specific individuals in mind, much like was probably the case with the restrictions placed around the qualifications for overseers and deacons.  Talk of the widows that have been the wife of only one husband, combined with this talk of desire to marry and judgment for the breaking of pledges, dovetails with Paul’s insistence that overseers and deacons be the husband of only one wife, and should probably not be read in isolation from each other. 

Taken together, all of this lends itself to the idea that there were certain individuals in the church that were attempting to elevate themselves or to create a hierarchy within the church, and Paul would not have this in the church of the Christ.  With such things in mind, Paul can be heard continuing with his condemnatory words, not speaking in generalities in the least, and writing “besides that, going around from house to house they learn to be lazy, and they are not only lazy, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things they should not” (5:13).  Apparently, Paul is attempting to shame somebody specifically, as this is a far cry from “one who has raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of saints, helped those in distress---as one who has exhibited all kinds of good works.”     

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 4)

So when Peter speaks of good conduct and good deeds, he is not necessarily speaking about refraining from activities that the Christian community looks down upon, but instead he is speaking the language of self-sacrificial love.  For that reason, as does Paul, in dealing with the ramifications of their substantial claim on Jesus’ behalf and of what is going to be learned through their table fellowship, Peter instructs this church (who are most likely hearing this letter read to them in the setting that would be most conducive to such things---the acted out messianic banquet of the church’s meal table) to “Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good” (2:13-14).  This is language that is practically identical to what is to be found in the thirteenth chapter of Romans, which is highly instructive when it comes to the church’s interaction with and for the world. 

Whether Peter was influenced by Paul or Paul was influenced by Peter, the point is that both were influenced by the demands of the reality of the kingdom of Israel’s God that was actualized at the Resurrection of Jesus.  In Romans, Christian love (along with concerns about the meal table) bracket Paul’s concern for interaction with governing authorities, as the church functions in its ambassadorial role, declaring “So now, you kings, do what is wise; you rulers of the earth, submit to correction!  Serve the Lord in fear!  Repent in terror!  Give sincere homage!” (Psalm 2:10-12a).  It is no different for Peter, with this fact continuing to demonstrate how incredibly large looms the meal table for the early Christian communities---as it should through all of time. 

Peter continues, writing “For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good” (2:15).  Taken together with the “those who do good” of the fourteenth verse, Peter is here reinforcing the need for public benefaction, as this is what such words implied when used in that day.  Most believers, with the overt suggestion and experience of Christianity as intensely personal (and it is, but the only reason for it be intensely personal is so that it may be intensely social in demonstration that the kingdom of heaven has invaded this world and that Jesus is its Sovereign), are accustomed to reading “good deeds,” “good works,” and “doing good,” as either the avoidance of that which is considered to be “bad deeds,” or in the Reformation-oriented paradigm of the doing of good works for the purpose of earning salvation. 

Therefore, an over-compensating reaction attempts to smooth out this supposed wrinkle in the Scriptural witness by saying “No, we don’t do good works to earn salvation, we do good works as a response to God’s having saved us” (which is true), with all of this colored by a mis-guided notion about what is meant by the “works of the law” and the way that those “works of the law” functioned in the days of Jesus, Peter, and Paul. 

It takes a bit of work to discover that the language of good deeds, in this context, is truly about seeking to do what is best for the communities in which the believers lives.  In general, believers have no problem extending helping hands “to those who belong to the family of faith” (Galatians 6:10b), but often forget the attitude that was basic for those who understood themselves to be the harbingers and representatives of a real and present kingdom, which was that “whenever we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people” (6:10a), while finding that there is a natural inclination to do good for those with whom one shares a meal.  This is what truly allows the people of the Creator God to function as a light to all peoples, fomenting a desire to become aligned with this movement of cosmic reconciliation, and in so doing bring glory to the God of the universe. 

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 3)

This behavior learned through the church’s meal table (which is representative of the messianic banquet that has been transformed into that which is commonly thought of as the Lord’s Supper) is what makes the love that is embraced and professed by the Christian community tangible and observable, as it is expressed in such ways in order to bring glory to the Creator God.  Conversely then, a church composed of believers that is not operating with such a mindset, that is turned in on itself and seeking separation from the world so as to prepare themselves for their notion of heaven (a distant isle of blessedness, which is Greek thought, not Jewish), is actually modeling something that stands in fundamental opposition to what the confession of Jesus’ Lordship demands. 

A church that is turned in on itself is most likely not learning the principles of self-sacrificial love and the preference of one another for the benefit of the body, so that the body might benefit the community in which it is located as it demonstrates Jesus’ universal Lordship over all things and all areas of life, is probably perverting the meal table (symbolic or otherwise), having turned the Lord’s Supper (which is supposed be an enactment of the messianic meal as envisioned and put into practice by Jesus) into a source of personal benefit as well. 

Accordingly then, in that environment it is likely that the Lord’s table finds itself replete with authoritarian structures based on subjective spiritual rankings.  If love is not being learned and encouraged at the meal table, so that it aspires to the Jesus-backed vision of the messianic banquet, then it is highly unlikely that the church that is not learning these things is going to be engaging in public benefaction (good conduct/works/deeds). 

Ironically then, and transposing the issue for Peter’s time, the church that is isolated essentially becomes that which the Christians were accused of being.  Since they were not seeking the good of the world by their public display of Jesus’ Lordship, then yes, widespread maladies and calamities must be laid at their feet.  If they are claiming that their King is the true King (in opposition to Caesar’s claims), but not putting that claim into practice by demonstrating the fact that said Kingship extends to all things through their seeking of good for themselves and their neighbors, then the fundamental message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) is brought into disrepute.  Yes, they might as well be looked upon as atheists and cannibals, for all the benefits they are bringing to their world. 

One must never for a single moment lose sight of the fact that the hope of the Christian is to be resurrected just like Jesus.  It is this that is the repeated claim of the New Testament, and it stands in a polar opposition to a desire for an escape to heaven.  As they were thoroughly steeped in Jewish expectations concerning the kingdom of their God and the hope for resurrection thereby entailed, the earliest believers understood that Jesus was resurrected into this world with a glorified physical body, with that resurrection power set to work in this world. 

This resurrection is that for which the Christian hopes.  Christians living in isolation, concerned for nothing more than their personal eternal salvation rather than embracing a full engagement with the world to which their God is reconciling Himself through their overt kingdom-conscious actions and behavior, have a wrong-headed notion about the kingdom of God, seeing it as something distant in both time and space, rather than viewing it as did Jesus and His apostles, within their (fully Jewish) claim that the kingdom of their God was both present and coming. 

Son Of Abraham (part 1 of 2)

Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!” – Luke 19:9  (NET)

Jesus, in a move that was likely to have been viewed as shocking by many of its witnesses, went “to be the guest of a man who is a sinner” (19:7b).  That man, of course, was Zacchaeus.  Zacchaeus was not only one of the hated tax collectors that worked in collusion with the Roman authorities and serving as a constant reminder of Israel’s continued subjection to a foreign power, but he was also tagged with the second epithet of being a “sinner” (someone who did not live up to covenant obligations).  Luke informs his audience that Zacchaeus was, in fact, a “chief tax collector” (19:2), and that commensurate with such a position, he “was rich” (19:2). 

When Jesus encounters Zacchaeus while passing through Jericho, He invited himself to the house of this rich, chief tax collector, saying “I must stay at your house today” (19:5b).  Though it is not explicit in the text, one can certainly find an implication that Jesus was going to be sharing a meal with Zacchaeus, who was going to serve as His host.  Now, this is not the first time that Jesus has made what some would consider to be a questionable choice in dining companions.  The Gospel of Luke, and indeed all of the Gospels, are littered with accusations of Jesus dining with “tax collectors and sinners,” which simply was not perceived to be comely behavior for a man that was somewhat clearly presenting Himself as a messiah figure. 

Beyond that, even when Jesus is not going to dine with those that are perceived to be the wrong people, and dines with the “right” people instead, He still comes in for criticism, be it for allowing a disreputable woman to wash His feet (chapter seven), or for not washing His hands (chapter eleven).  Seemingly, Jesus can’t quite do things properly.  Such is His burden.

Now, no record of Jesus’ interaction with Zacchaeus is provided.  Luke moves from the complaint about Jesus to reporting that “Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Lord, ‘Look, Lord, half of my possessions I now give to the poor, and if I have cheated anyone of anything, I am paying back four times as much!’” (19:8)  Why Zacchaeus does this is left for the audience to determine.  Clearly though, he is quite overwhelmed by Jesus’ presence.  Perhaps he was also a witness to Jesus’ healing of the blind beggar, which was done “As Jesus approached Jericho” (18:35a)? 

To that point, Luke write that “When all the people saw” this healing, “they…gave praise to God” (18:43b).  Obviously “all” does not mean “all,” as it is a use of hyperbole, and one should not presume that Zacchaeus was part of this group that offered praise to the Creator God as a result of the healing of the blind man, but surely, even if he did not personally witness it, the news of this healing would have come to the ears of Zacchaeus, as tax collectors were certainly attuned to the local goings-on.  Whatever the reason, the fact remains that Zacchaeus is reported to have said these things after welcoming Jesus joyfully (19:6b), and presumably after hearing the complaints of the people. 

It is Zaccheus’ expression of financial commitment that prompts Jesus’ statement of “Today salvation has come to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!” (19:9)  Though this commitment by Zacchaeus and the resulting words from Jesus were probably surprises to Jesus’ audience, it would not necessarily come as a surprise to those that have been paying attention to Luke’s narrative.  In fact, the story of Zacchaeus represents something of a summary of what has come before and is a vindication of Jesus’ teaching. 

In chapter eighteen, Luke presents a parable from Jesus about “Two men” who “went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector” (18:10).  In this parable, the tax collector “stood far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!’” (18:13)  Without need to recount it here, suffice it to say that the Pharisee’s prayer was somewhat different. 

Jesus explains that “this man went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee” (18:14).  Interestingly, if one went from the Temple to Jericho, one would be said to have “went down to his home” (to be fair, all are said to “go down” from Jerusalem) which fits nicely with the story of Zacchaeus (but Luke has also told the story of the “Good Samaritan, in which “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho” (10:30a), so it is not at all difficult to surmise that Luke wants his audience to think of the tax collector “going down” to Jericho from the Temple).  One also notices that this tax collector referred to himself as a sinner, which is also said of the tax collector Zacchaeus, which offers some additional symmetry to the accounts.  

Absalom (part 3)

Absalom returns to his home after years in banishment and under the authority of a foreign power, but he has not regained or attained to his proper position.  Similarly, even after the Egyptian exodus, Israel’s exodus is incomplete.  First, Israel wander in the wilderness for forty years.  Then, when they finally do enter the promised land, they must begin the process of subduing the land as a whole by driving out the inhabitants that their God said were defiling the land. 

This proved to be a feat that, for them, could not be accomplished, as Israel never achieved a complete consolidation of both land and power.  In a sense, then, their exodus, though very much real, and though very much a sign of their God’s blessing upon them (so that they could be a blessing) was never complete.  There was always one more battle to be fought, one more challenge to overcome, and one more temptation to resist. 

This is how the believer is able to consider his or her own exodus (salvation, redemption) as well.  Though the believer has been retrieved from exile by an operation of grace and Divine favor, that exodus---though the believer has certainly entered into the kingdom of God that was inaugurated at the Advent and confirmed by the Resurrection and Ascension (just as Israel had entered into the place that their God had for them)---will not be complete until that kingdom is finally consummated.  There will always be one more battle to fight, one more challenge to overcome, and one more temptation to resist. 

More than that, there will always be evil that needs to be pushed back, which is done through one act of the manifestation of the mysterious power of the Resurrection and the Gospel at a time (caring for orphans and widows, giving up a cup of cold water or food or clothes to those in need).  It is in this way that the believer continually works out their ongoing salvation (our exodus), with fear and trembling, here within this world, with a constant desire to see the face of their King and their God.  That said, this study returns to Absalom. 

“Absalom lived in Jerusalem for two years without seeing the king’s face” (14:28).  This was not good.  One can be sure that neither the king nor Absalom reveled in this situation.  Absalom sends for Joab and says to him “Why have I come from Geshur?  It would be better for me if I were still there” (14:32b).  This does not sound at all unlike what Israel would say to Moses on numerous occasions during the time of their incomplete exile, with the regular refrain of “wouldn’t it have been better for us to have stayed in Egypt?” 

Absalom continues and says, “Let me see now the face of the king.  If I am at fault, let him put me to death!” (14:32c)  In response to this, “The king summoned Absalom, and he came to the king.  Absalom bowed down before the king with his face toward the ground and the king kissed him” (14:33b).  Thus, having seen the face of the king and having not been put to death, Absalom’s exile was concluded, and his exodus was consummated.  Those that live in this day, presumably as sons and daughters of the King, look forward to the same.  Did Absalom feel as if his exodus was complete at this point?  It can be said that it was, but only in a sense.  

Inspired Scripture (part 1)

Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17  (NET)

A powerful statement indeed!  Too often, however, there is a tendency to become focused on the first part of the statement, that of Scripture being inspired by the Creator God.  Though it is customary to go on to quote the last part, it is often seen as something of an add-on, proving the fact of its inspiration because it provides teaching, reproof, correction, and training.  In addition to that, some users reference the verse in a post-Reformation context, using it as a proof text for the infallibility of Scripture, which was a relatively late development (historically speaking) proposed essentially in response to the doctrines of the infallibility of Pope and church.  This, of course, while certainly worth considering when contemplating the value of the sacred text of Jesus-followers, is entirely anachronistic and not really worth pursuing if one desires to hear the letter speak on its own terms and within its own setting. 

There is a movement here in what is found in the text.  Naturally, it is a movement in the sense that this particular Scripture is not designed to be heard in isolation.  Prior to the sixteenth verse, the author of the letter (presumably the Apostle Paul) writes: “You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are confident about.  You know who taught you and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (3:14-15). 

With this one is reminded that there is no reference being made here to anything that would be considered as part of the New Testament.  At the time at which this letter is written, if indeed composed by the Apostle Paul and forwarded on to Timothy during the Apostle’s lifetime, the only “New Testament” writings that can be safely and confidently presumed to exist would in fact be the letters of Paul.  While it is possible, and indeed probable that the letters of James and Peter would have been in existence at that point, it certainly cannot be said that Paul was referring to their or his own letters as “holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” 

By no means would Paul, based on what can be known about his personal disposition through his letters, and though they were certainly meant to be impactful for their recipients, have considered his letters to the churches as being inspired Scripture on par with the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures (the law and the prophets).  Though Paul can be heard offering words from the Lord in contrast to words that come from him, and though Paul can be heard speaking confidently and tersely at times, this does not allow for the presumption that Paul thought extraordinarily highly of his own writings. 

Any attempt to make this insistence on his part would be solely due to the preservation of the writings and the value of the teaching and instruction contained therein, as Christians have studied and preserved the writings for well nigh two thousand years.  However, that does not allow for going well beyond that which is warranted when the letters and what is contained therein are considered on their own terms and in their own contexts.  That said, it would seem to be undeniable that the Creator God has most certainly and mysteriously worked through the New Testament writings to bring about a portion of His purposes for the world, which actually goes towards proving the point of this study. 

Love On John's Terms (part 24)

As it relates to Jesus, the scattering of the sheep under the false shepherd can be understood as another reference to the words of Zechariah (13:7), while also serving to make the point that Jesus, though with the path that He was traveling, certainly had an inkling as to what was in store for Him in His pending crucifixion, was not going to flee from the wolf (the Romans and their cross) and leave His sheep unguarded.  No, He was going to be the shepherd that cared for His sheep, faithfully seeing His role through to the very end for their salvation and life in His kingdom.  Driving this point home, He reiterates that He is “the good shepherd” (John 10:14a), and says “I lay down My life for the sheep” (10:15b).     

Expanding upon this thought in a way that plays into the sensibilities towards Gentiles that have been created throughout the Johannine narrative, and doing so in a way that would have been readily identifiable by the respective audiences (that of both Jesus and John), Jesus says “I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold.  I must bring them too, and they will listen to My voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd” (10:16).  Without spending too much additional time with this story or attempting to unpack the final words of Jesus, it is abundantly clear that it is the willful laying down of His life, especially in a way that is quite contrary to what would be expected of a presumed Messiah that is ushering in the kingdom of the Creator God, that is to be taken as a supreme manifestation of love.  This, among other things of course, is what sets Jesus apart from previous messianic claimants. 

Now this is not to say that previous messianic claimants did not act out of a love for the covenant God and His people, but it does indicate that there was a limiting factor with which Jesus does away, in that His love and His willingness to lay down His life due to that love was not limited to Israel.  This would speak quite loudly to Jesus’ audience and to John’s community, while also speaking quite loudly (when its context and referents are well understood) to all that would come to encounter this love-rooted narrative.  For the Johannine writings, which reflect the ongoing understanding of Jesus amongst the growing and persecuted Christian community, the fact that Jesus is believed to be the Creator God-manifest, and that He is willing to lay down His life for His sheep (encompassing all nations) in a humble self-sacrifice that would brand Him with unspeakable shame in an honor and shame culture, speaks untold volumes about that which is expected from those that strive to rightly bear the image of the Creator God. 

With that understood, and before offering up a change of scenery within Jerusalem, the Johannine audience finds itself ushered out of this story with “Another sharp division took place among the Jewish people because of these words” (10:19).  “These words” were, presumably, His words about sheep, sheepfolds, laying down His life, and His taking that life back up again (10:17-18), along with His speaking about “the Father” (10:17) being “My Father” (10:18).  Not only had Jesus effectively castigated many of the revolutionaries that had come before Him, who were often looked upon as heroic champions of the Jewish people (which presents its own set of problems for Him), the “Father” language that He was employing could have been quite troubling for His hearers. 

Though those that hear this Gospel tale are not going to be troubled by such usage, they would have more than well-understood the reaction recorded within the story, which had “Many of them saying, ‘He is possessed by a demon and has lost his mind!  Why do you listen to him?’” (10:20)  Naturally, this response was not universal, as “Others said, ‘These are not the words of someone possessed by a demon.  A demon cannot cause the blind to see, can it?’” (10:21)  This last statement stands as a reminder of the larger movement (the healing of the man blind from birth) in which the author presents this discourse in which Jesus casts Himself as the good shepherd.  

Corinth's Communion (part 9)

If personal concerns are at the fore when one participates in the communion table, then attempts taken to determine what it would mean to take the elements in an unworthy manner, along with an examination of self, juxtaposed with the irrelevant notion of examining oneself to see if one is in the faith, then this would most likely devolve into an idea that sins must be confessed before taking communion so that the participant will then be worthy to receive the symbols of the body and blood. 

Conversely, some would declare that this type of self-examination is precisely not what is to take place, as it puts the focus on one’s own self rather than on Jesus, and that Paul is indicating that the focus must be on Jesus, with the bread and the cup acting as useful symbols that allow such a focus to be maintained.  Therefore, in a strange twist, it is declared that confession of personal sins in order to become worthy is that which makes one unworthy, as doing so is nothing more than part and parcel of an attempt to work towards one’s salvation and is therefore a denial of grace, which is ultimately taken to be a denial of Jesus. 

Beyond that, semantics and grammar are brought into play, and it is declared that proper understanding is had when one sees that “unworthy” is not the word that is used, but rather “unworthily,” which is then what makes all the difference in the world, with a determination as to whether the word in question is meant to be taken as modifying the noun or the verb.  Now, this is not the place to delve into whether or not the proper word is the adjective unworthy or the adverb unworthily, and basing an entire communion methodology upon what is implied by the differences between the two. 

Getting focused on such a thing would seem to miss the point either way, as determining if one is supposed to be focusing on self and sins as opposed to Jesus and His sacrifice, may be an unwarranted flight into a disconnected and individualized spiritualization in the realm of personal concern and the final destination of one’s eternal soul.  This would be another instance of losing focus on the larger movement of the letter itself and the kingdom community, of forgetting the environment into which Paul writes and the concerns that he is raising and addressing within this entire section that runs as one unit from at least the seventeenth verse through the thirty-fourth verse, while also failing to consider the fact that there is a very real and known situation that would be readily identified by Paul’s intended hearers. 

Quite frankly, though the thoughts and actions of individual persons are in view here, it seems clear, at least based on the way that Paul has introduced the specific topic of communion as well as what follows (verses twenty-seven through thirty-four), that it is the actions of this church as a group---as a body---when they are coming together for what they are erroneously referring to as the Lord’s Supper (their actions making it an erroneous application) that is the concern, and the demand is placed upon the reader to see, hear, and understand the situation in this way.  

Corinth's Communion (part 2)

As Jesus invited tax collectors and sinners and those that would have been rightly identified by observers as being outside of the covenant to join Him at His tables, and as He did so with thoughts of the long-hoped-for messianic banquet clearly in the background, and as believers today (along with the early church) view the communion table in that light, it would seem ridiculous to raise such onerous limitations and boundaries that are productive of fearfulness and ultimately exclusion, around that which allows us for the mimicking of Jesus’ table practice and its associated and seeming inherent power to show forth the kingdom of heaven. 

When these words from the Apostle Paul are read, and as the communion table is considered, the thoughts that must be dancing at the forefront of the mind cannot be consumed by a concern for a personal salvation.  Rather, those deterministic thoughts must be the kingdom of heaven and its manifestation and advancement.  If the communion table is going to be correctly approached, the focus cannot be on the self, but on what the table and what happens there communicates about the kingdom of heaven. 

Based on what has been said to this point, it seems that this approach may be the right one, and that it is in approaching the table in this way that a better interpretation and understanding of Paul’s treatment of the subject is to be found.  Not only that, but bearing in mind the kingdom of heaven, and doing so in the context of the meal practice of the early church rather than one’s personal salvation, allows an observer to understand why it is that Paul even brings up the subject in the first place.

Most unfortunately, context is quite often neglected when it comes to Paul’s treatment of the communion in his first letter to Corinth.  So often, when the passage is referenced or quoted, the reference picks up at the twenty-third verse of chapter eleven.  There, Paul writes “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which He was betrayed took bread, and after He had given thanks He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you.  Do this in remembrance of Me.’  In the same way, He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood.  Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’  For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (11:23-26).  These are the words that are regularly shared for the purpose of creating the familiar setting in which one partakes of the elements of the table. 

When this happens, the words of the Apostle are treated as if they were some type of instruction manual on how to engage in the church’s meal practice.  In a sense that is true, but that is only a part of the story.  In the regular time of communion, is it the case that the opportunity is taken to look at what precedes the “instructions”?  Sadly, no.  As is the case in so many other exegetical situations, there is a tendency to simply pull things out of context and use them for the purpose that is immediately at hand---reading into the text that which one desires to see. 

Making reference to the “instruction” portion of chapter eleven without making reference to what comes before or after, forces an analysis or exegesis into the unfortunate situations of being ahistorical and subjective, thereby causing the hearers of the exegesis to miss out on the aspects of the kingdom of heaven and on the reference to Jesus’ meal practice that was so instructive and important for the early community of believers.

Corinth's Communion (part 1)

Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper. – 1 Corinthians 11:20  (NET)

When one grasps the importance of meals and the meal table in the first century world and for the early church that sprung up into that world, as they were an effective means by which to communicate concepts concerning the kingdom of heaven, any mention of meals can be vested with a significant amount of weight and meaning.  This can be done even if there does not appear to be any overt controversy or angst in the situation. 

However, one such place in which there does appear to be much controversy concerning the meal table is the church at Corinth.  This angst is expressed by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, which is the place where one is able to discover the most detailed treatment of the communion table, outside of the Gospels, in the whole of the New Testament.  The words used in Paul’s presentation of the communion in the eleventh chapter has been, for centuries, the basis for the celebration of communion, shedding clear light on the practice of the early church, as Paul helpfully elaborates on the goings-on that we see in the “Last Supper” of Jesus and His disciples. 

At the same time, while extraordinarily helpful, those same words have been the source of much controversy, as words like “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup.  For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.  That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead.  But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged” (11:27-31), have been applied in a number of not always altogether helpful or appropriate ways. 

Quite often, there is an encouragement to apply these words in an individual and personal manner, which fits well within a notion of salvation that is predominantly individualistic and focused on an other-worldly escapism.  However, this type of application presents us a bit of a problem, as it is unlikely that such notions would have been the thrust of Paul’s understanding, nor that of the early church.  It is a near certainty that such would not reflect the worldview in which Jesus Himself was ensconced, which was also the world in which He would re-orient the Passover celebration and its meaning towards Himself. 

While there is certainly a sense of individual salvation to be found, as the collective salvation of the covenant people would naturally include the salvation of individuals, Jewish thoughts of salvation, especially as connected with the Passover celebration, as would come to be the case for the church’s communion table, were oriented towards the deliverance of the people of the Creator God from exile and oppression, with the deliverance from out of Egypt as the functional model.  So while there is indeed an individualistic component here, that individual benefit cannot be disconnected from the community. 

Also, the escapism that is prevalent in so many popular interpretations of the communion passages of chapter eleven would not have been a part of Paul’s worldview.  The guilt and judgment reference in the passage previously quoted would not at all be connected with the eternal destination of one’s soul, and would certainly not have been used as a means of limiting participation at the communion table or of generating fear and trepidation at partaking of the elements.  

Hated (part 5)

This study then returns to what Jesus said in the thirteenth chapter of Mark (and elsewhere): “You will be hated by everyone because of My name.  But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (13:13).  It is appropriate to key in on the second part of that statement, in which Jesus speaks of enduring to the end and being saved.  This use of “saved” links Jesus’ words to Israel’s Egyptian exodus, as again, “salvation” expressions, for Israel, speak of their God’s rescue from enemies or their deliverance from oppressors. 

Though it can be easily missed by the modern reader, such language would be easily picked up on by His hearers.  It would have been readily discerned by the majority of first century readers of the Gospels, as they would also have been steeped in Israel’s history.  When that is understood, and once one picks up on the exodus context for the hatred of which Jesus speaks, while at the same time discarding the idea that Jesus is talking about some ethereal, other-worldly notion of a paradise somewhere off in the sky to be enjoyed after death (a thoroughly un-Jewish notion) when He speaks of being saved, readers will find themselves better positioned to identify the reason for the hate. 

So why in the world is this connected to Israel’s exodus?  What is the reason that the Creator God gives for rescuing Israel (His covenant people through Abraham) from their Egyptian bondage?  Essentially, it is the same reason He gives for rescuing the church (His covenant people through Jesus) from their bondage?  The answer is to be found in Deuteronomy, where one finds Moses’ report that “It is not because you were more numerous than all the other peoples that the Lord favored and chose you---for in fact you were the least numerous of all peoples.  Rather it is because of His love for you and His faithfulness to the promises He solemnly vowed to your ancestors that the Lord brought you out with great power, redeeming you from the place of slavery” (7:7-8)  Just before this, Moses reminds Israel that they “are a people holy to the Lord” (7:6a), and says that “He has chosen you to be His people, prized above all others on the face of the earth” (7:6b). 

One of the Psalmists picks up on this, making it possible to catch yet another glimpse of that historical self-understanding out of and into which Jesus spoke, when the Psalmist writes (in reference to Israel in Egypt): “The Lord made His people very fruitful, and made them more numerous than their enemies.  He caused them to hate His people, and to mistreat His servants” (105:24-25).  This should provide pause to consider a question that is never asked, which is “what was Israel doing for Egypt when their God made them fruitful in that land?”  Were they being a blessing as Abraham had understood to have been?  What was it that caused Egypt to turn against Israel and to hate the covenant people of the Creator God?  Were they serving those people well by sharing their God’s blessings and revealing their God to them, or were they hoarding the blessing? 

That goes to the question of why the Abrahamic covenant existed.  Presumably, it existed so that Abraham could exemplify divine blessing (as indicated in Genesis), so that his God could be recognized and glorified as the Creator God of the cosmos.  This is the covenant under which Israel went into Egypt, and it is also the covenant that comes to be fulfilled by Jesus through His church, with the message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) as the mark of that covenant.  

Den Of Lions (part 4)

Daniel knew that there were lions waiting to devour him if he violated the satrap and governor induced order of the king of Babylon.  However, he continued to ply the course on which he had been set, and is said to have continued praying openly and without shame, as he always had done.  Daniel is shown to have continued in steadfast faithfulness to the God that he understood to have chosen him and specifically appointed him, that had apparently used him over and over, that had preserved his life, that had raised him up to a position of power and prestige, and had put him in the place where he had much to lose by continuing to walk the path of a prayerful trust in his God.  If one was to read these last few lines again, would it not be possible to simply replace “Daniel” with “Jesus”? 

As was said before, as far as the story is concerned, Daniel did not make any attempts at persuading the king to change the order or to issue a new decree.  Daniel did not attempt to foment a rebellion to overthrow the king and install himself as king, which he might very well have been able to do.  No.  This was not the path.  Instead, he placed his trust in the faithful, covenant God of Israel, to provide him with salvation (deliverance, exodus), regardless of what might occur. 

The same can be said for Jesus, when faced with what was, in essence, the same situation.  Both Daniel and Jesus would move forward with a confident reliance upon promises granted and outcomes implied.  Daniel continued to travel the route on to which he had been placed by his God, which had brought him to the position in which he now found himself, which had caused him to be hated by some, and which had caused his enemies to want to destroy him.  The life of Jesus echoes in these statements, through and through. 

What, specifically, was Daniel’s response to learning what his adversaries had planned to entrap him?  “When Daniel realized that a written decree had been issued, he entered his home, where the windows in his upper room opened toward Jerusalem.  Three times daily he was kneeling and offering prayers and thanks to his God just as he had been accustomed to do previously” (Daniel 6:10).  From this point, the analogies to Jesus present themselves in rapid fire succession. 

It is reported that Daniel prayed in the direction of Jerusalem, and that he did so three times each day.  The men who stood against Daniel, and who wanted to destroy him, would have possessed the knowledge that Daniel did this.  The story would seem to imply that they were counting on the fact that Daniel would continue in his customary practice, and that he would not hide himself in his praying, even with the deadly decree having been issued against him.  What can be said in analogy to Jesus in this regard? 

Well, His betrayal took place in the Garden of Gethsemane, which was just across the Kidron Valley, opposite the eastern walls of Jerusalem.  The record of Jesus’ activity in that garden is that He went off by Himself, on three individual occasions, to pray.  It is not difficult to imagine that He prayed, like Daniel, facing Jerusalem; and the fact of three prayers playing a part in both stories cannot be written off as mere coincidence.  In addition, just as Daniel’s opponents knew that he openly prayed in the manner that is reported, the Gospel of John reports that “Judas, the one who betrayed Him (Jesus), knew the place too, because Jesus had met there many times with His disciples” (John 18:2). 

Den Of Lions (part 1)

It seemed like a good idea to Darius to appoint over the kingdom one hundred twenty satraps who would be in charge of the entire kingdom.  Over them would be three supervisors, one of whom was Daniel. – Daniel 6:1-2a  (NET)

With this, Daniel appears to have been provided with a tremendous responsibility for a member of the covenant people of the Creator God.  It is written that “These satraps were accountable to them,” meaning the three supervisors, “so that the king’s interests might not incur damage” (6:2b).  These words, as the Hebrew Scriptures, post-Resurrection, ask believers to view them through the lens of the Christ event, allow an observer to make a consideration of the role of Jesus.  That role was to see that His (God’s) interests, that being the salvation of a people and the restoration of His creation, might not incur damage.  Others had been sent into the world for this very purpose.  In fact, if one was inclined to press the analogy, it could be said that Jesus was essentially the third of three “supervisors” that had been appointed to this purpose, with the first being Adam, and the second being Israel. 

As one makes this analogous comparison between Daniel, doing so in association with the story of Daniel and the lion’s den, while taking the extremely wide, cosmic view entailed by connecting the two men together, it is possible to go on to think of the aforementioned one hundred twenty satraps (which is a technical term for an official in charge of a region of the empire) as the steady stream of patriarchs, judges, kings, and prophets that had been either chosen or raised up by the Creator God to be partially responsible for protecting that King’s interests from incurring damage. 

With regard to Daniel, one can go on to read that he “was distinguishing himself above the other supervisors and satraps, for he had an extraordinary spirit” (6:3).  Again, it is not difficult to transfer and make the application of these words to Jesus, recalling the event of His baptism, when “a voice came from heaven” saying “You are My one dear Son; in you I take great delight” (Mark 1:11).  To this utterance, Matthew would add that the Spirit of the Creator God descended upon Jesus and came upon Him (Matthew 3:16).  It could certainly be said that, owing to this descent of the Holy Spirit, Jesus possessed an extraordinary spirit that would enable Him to distinguish Himself above Adam and Israel and all of the prophets and holy men of the Creator that had come before Him---thus preserving the King’s interests. 

Of Daniel, it is said that “in fact, the king intended to appoint him over the entire kingdom” (6:3b).  This would be no less true of Jesus, as His God’s apparent intention was to appoint His Messiah, that being Jesus, over the entirety of the kingdom that He Himself was establishing on the earth, as He (Israel’s God) personally embodied the Messiah so as to act in history to inaugurate this kingdom. 

It seems clear that Daniel had great favor with the king, as did Jesus.  As a result, “the supervisors and satraps were trying to find some pretext against Daniel in connection with administrative matters” (6:4a).  On the local (not cosmic) level, because Daniel’s position of authority along with the will of the king is being challenged, it becomes possible to view these supervisors and satraps as the chief priests, elders, scribes, and rulers with whom Jesus, according to the Gospel accounts, almost incessantly finds himself in conflict.  Just as there was a movement against Daniel in the area of “administrative matters,” so too was there a movement against Jesus.  Here, without taking the time and space to go into specifics, one can call to mind the numerous attempts that were made to challenge Jesus and His teaching (in the common battle for honor), along with the questioning of His authority to do and say the things that He was doing and saying. 

Only Son (part 11)

With Adam?  Is the reader of the Gospel supposed to think that when Nicodemus heard Jesus speaking of the Creator God’s love for the world, the Son of God, belief, and eternal life, that he was not only supposed to be having ruminations along the lines of the exodus (because of the reference to Moses), but that he was also supposed to connect Jesus’ words all the way back to the beginning of Genesis?  Is this what Jesus had in mind? 

The case has been made that Jesus is grounding this conversation with Nicodemus in the history of Israel.  Since Israel’s history and purpose is wrapped up with the Creator God’s purpose for the world, one can be fully justified in understanding that Jesus grounded His mission within His God’s purposes and plans that He would certainly have believed stretched all the way back to Adam, from whence His mission derives the fullness of its purpose.  Naturally, Jesus’ statement is multi-faceted, and this study is now positioned to explore the Adamic-oriented premise of these wonderful words. 

So how is it that Nicodemus is going to connect all of these things to Genesis?  How can it be insisted that Jesus is making the same connection?  It has to do with Jesus’ use of the “one and only Son.”  Turning then to the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke (though John is not relying on knowledge of Luke, Luke presents material that would have been familiar to a member of the nation of Israel, thus a modern reader needs to be able to position himself or herself to operate with the same type of knowledge that would have certainly been held by a Pharisee and member of the ruling council), the first piece of the puzzle can be found.  There, Luke provides the genealogy of Jesus. 

For purposes of the point being here made, it is not Jesus’ genealogy that is important, but rather the information communicated in the presentation of the genealogy that reflects what would have then been general knowledge within the defining narrative of the covenant people.  Luke’s genealogy begins with Jesus and works its way backwards.  For what it’s worth, there is another genealogy in Matthew.  It begins with Abraham and makes its way to Jesus.  Luke’s genealogy is more extensive, as it traces Jesus’ lineage beyond Abraham, taking it all the way back to Adam. 

Significantly, in his genealogy, Luke refers to Adam  as “the son of God.”  If Luke refers to Adam in such a way, one can rest assured that this is not a novel concept.  It is quite likely (and probably certain) that Adam is widely thought of in this way by those that fill the role of teachers of Israel.  If Adam is thought of as the son of God, then is it possible that Jesus is referring to Adam when He speaks of God sending His “one and only Son”?  One would have to respond that it is absolutely possible that Jesus is making such a reference.  This is especially so in light of the historically grounded lens through which Jesus is causing Nicodemus to look at Him and to consider the mission of the Son of Man, as He answers the questions that have been posed to Him by Nicodemus.  This is even more obviously the case when one takes the time to think about the fullness of Jesus’ statement, and that with which it begins, which is “For this is the way God loved the world,” which is followed by “He gave His one and only Son.” 

Again, it simply cannot (and should not) be imagined, when Jesus says this to him, that Nicodemus is supposed to connect the statement exclusively to Jesus.  If that is so for Nicodemus, then those that would hear these words through John’s report of them are most definitely not supposed to think solely along the lines of a personal salvation experience.  This would not have been the mental framework of Jesus, of Nicodemus, or of the author.  Such thinking would make no sense, as a personal, world-escaping salvation experience, contexted by the usual, short-sighted dichotomy between the alternative eternal choices of either heaven or hell, carried absolutely no theological weight inside the Judaism of that day.  

Calling Down Fire (part 3)

Yes, the messengers that had been charged with their task by Jesus Himself, were to go out and preach the Gospel.  The coming of the kingdom of God to earth, with all that this implied for the overlap of the realm of the Creator God and the realm of the divine image-bearers, meant the arrival of the Messiah.  What it meant was that the long night of exile in their own land and foreign oppression was coming to an end.  This was portended by the healing of the sick.  Together with this, the declaration that the kingdom of God was at hand meant that the Lord was at work, redeeming His people. 

This was to be the sum and substance of the message and activity of those sent by Jesus.  Though these that Jesus then sent out were instructed to limit their ministry to the house of Israel, these instructions do indeed sound very much like those which are reported at the end of Matthew, where Jesus says “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations” (28:19a).  This making of disciples would include informing all nations about the kingdom of the Creator God that had come to earth in and through Jesus’ death and Resurrection, and that “all authority in heaven and earth” (28:18b) had been given to Him. 

Then and now, this message---the Gospel message---was a message of power, somehow carrying the Creator God’s power to accomplish His missional purposes for His world and His people in this world, with the mission carried out through His people.  It would seem that such is what the Apostle Paul believed, and to that end he wrote what are regarded to be some of the most beautiful words ever penned, making the declaration that the Gospel “is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16b).  Jesus’ demand that this message of the kingdom be preached, along with the appropriate response to the response of those that hear and possibly reject the message, stands up as a daily challenge as to whether or not presumptive believers truly believe in the message and in the power inherent within it. 

As these things are considered, it is incumbent upon those that claim allegiance to Jesus to always, always, always historically contextualize Jesus’ words and actions as presented in the Gospels so that they may be better understood and applied by those that do indeed wish to live by them.  In that time, people will have seen actions such as these and heard words not completely unlike those of Jesus.  Neither the mode of preaching nor the message was entirely new, either in the Israel of Jesus’ day or in the world into which His disciples would later travel.  One can ascertain that the method of preaching was not new, because Jesus is said to have provided directives that were designed to insure that His disciples looked different from all of the other traveling preachers---thus the restriction on the bags and sandals and greetings, along with His insistence that they not move around from house to house. 

The cultural familiarity with the practice that Jesus’ disciples were to undertake probably has a hand in the Apostle Paul referring to the foolish method of spreading the Gospel of the kingdom of the covenant God of Israel that had been established in Jesus (and this completely apart from the apparent foolishness of the message of a crucified and resurrected man being the Lord of all, rather than the Caesar that was ultimately responsible for the state-sanctioned execution).  It is to be understood that the Creator God did not ordain a new practice that would somehow make it easier to preach the message of the Gospel of Christ.  He did not give a new tool that would make the Gospel’s gaining of attention a much more simple task.  Mysteriously, the Creator God took something familiar and imbued it with the confounding power of the Resurrection.   

In My Father's House (part 3)

Moving forward then, it is learned that this trip did not go exactly according to plan, which serves to explain why Luke chooses to tell the story of twelve-year-old Jesus making what may have been the annual trip to Jerusalem, even though the pilgrimage was something that could have been customarily undertaken by the family.  While the story is learned from Luke, the larger purpose of his writing is kept in mind, and the crucifixion and the Resurrection are always very close to the surface of thought.  That said, Luke writes that “when the feast was over, as they were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.  His parents did not know it, but (because they assumed that He was in their group of travelers) they went a day’s journey.  Then they began to look for Him among their relatives and acquaintances.  When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for Him” (2:43-45).

It is not terribly difficult to imagine His mother’s mind-set at this terrible thought concerning what has happened to her son upon this visit to Jerusalem.  The first time she visited Jerusalem with Jesus, she heard and was amazed as a man named Simeon refers to her son as the “salvation” that God “prepared in the presence of all people: a light, for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to Your people Israel” (2:30-32).  Additionally, Anna had spoken of Jesus as “the redemption of Jerusalem (2:38b). 

So even though Mary is said to have been amazed, one must remember that the words of Simeon would not have been completely surprising, considering the reported visit to Mary of the angelic messenger that announced the event of conception.  Before those things were said by Simeon and Anna, Mary had heard the voice of an angel that “the child to be born will be holy; He will be called the Son of God” (1:35b).  Much of what Simeon and Anna had said can be said to have been implied in the information that the son of Mary would be called the “Son of God”.    

As if the idea that her child would be the “Son of God” was not enough, that same voice had informed her that “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.  He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will never end” (1:32-33).  Her relative Elizabeth has said to her “who am I that the mother of my Lord should come and visit me?” (1:43)  Shepherds were said to have visited her at the birth of her child, telling her what they had heard from angels, that the Savior was born in the city of David, and that He is Christ the Lord (2:11).  According to Luke, “Mary treasured up all these words, pondering in her heart what they might mean” (2:19), and one can be sure that the pondering never ceased throughout the whole of her life. 

Now, however, with all that she has heard about her Son pounding in her ears, she has lost this child.  This is tragic.  Though Jesus has most likely been to Jerusalem before, it is a big city, overflowing with people that are there to celebrate the Passover.  Mary, herself being naturally overcome with fear, could be relatively certain that her Son must be fearful as well.  In the midst of her fear, she can be forgiven to have not borne in mind Luke’s editorial insertion that between His birth and the age of twelve, “the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon Him” (2:40). 

In that moment then, it is not difficult to be quite certain that all Mary can think about is getting to her Son and making sure that He is safe.  With this, as one imagines Mary pondering the great and swelling words that had been spoken concerning Jesus, it could certainly be surmised that her and Joseph’s return to Jerusalem was frantic.  Luke tells Theophilus that it took them a few days to find Jesus.  In fact, it was “After three days they found Him in the Temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions” (2:46). 

Repudiating Its Power (part 1 of 2)

They will maintain the outward appearance of religion but will have repudiated its power.  So avoid people like these. – 2 Timothy 3:5  (NET)

Consider Paul’s use of the term “power.”  This terms makes frequent appearances in his writings.  To take just a couple of examples that set out Paul’s opinion concerning power, one can look to the first chapter of Romans.  There, Paul refers to Jesus as the Son-of-God-in-power (1:4).  He then goes on to declare that the Gospel “is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes” (1:16b).  Here, Paul equates the Gospel of Jesus, which is the message that Jesus is the crucified and resurrected Lord of all, with power.  That is what produces salvation---bringing a person into the ranks of the covenant people. 

For Paul, it seems that the very declaration of the fact of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ, which for him is somehow brought about through the prompting of the Holy Spirit (for Paul insists that one only calls Jesus Lord---confesses a trusting allegiance in the Gospel---by the movement of the Holy Spirit – 1 Corinthians 12:3), is what releases the inherent transformative power of the Resurrection into the world. 

Returning then to the second letter of Timothy, one finds Paul writing that it is through “our Savior Christ Jesus,” that the Creator God has “broken the power of death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel” (1:10).  The fact that Jesus is Lord, and ones belief in such, is paramount.  It is what brings heaven to earth and ushers in the new age.  Paul here informs his audience that the power of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) is such that it breaks the power of death.  Since the Gospel includes the message of One that was raised from the dead, such an insistence is a necessary corollary.  It goes beyond the breaking of death’s power, as the Gospel brings life and immortality. 

To see this life and immortality, Paul has only to reflect on what he takes to be the fact that the risen Jesus is alive and ruling the kingdom of God that has been inaugurated, in a world that is now subject to two forces (death and Resurrection), and in which one of those forces (death) has already been defeated, while all creation, together with the people of God, await the consummation of that kingdom and the installation of the force of Resurrection as the animating principle of the Creator God’s kingdom in a restored and renewed creation.  In this way of thinking, Paul, in hope, awaits the life and immortality to be shared by the Creator God’s people, through their believing union with the Christ, in the Resurrection of the righteous that is to come. 

Having spoken in this way, Paul goes on to insist, “For this Gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (1:11), with a clear echo (along with his talk of power) of the opening of Romans, as he refers to himself as “a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the Gospel of God” (Romans 1:1).  To Timothy he continues on to write: “Because of this, in fact, I suffer as I do.  But I am not ashamed, because I know the One in Whom my faith is set” (1:12a).  Paul’s use of “not ashamed” is not only significant in that it reminds the reader of the fact that he lives in an honor and shame culture in which casting one’s lot with a crucified man was a shameful thing, immediately evokes thoughts of Romans 1:16 again, where he announces the power of the message of the crucified yet risen Lord, prefacing it with the words “I am not ashamed.” 

Law To Become Void (part 5 of 5)

Based on the model of the kingdom of God that Jesus is shown through the Gospel narratives to be constantly presenting, which was that of inclusion of all peoples---Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free, clean and unclean, sinner and righteous.  This inclusion was demonstrated in His far-reaching and highly impactful practices of table fellowship, as He regularly ate with those that were considered to be outside the covenant and of varying social standing. 

By this, Jesus subverted what were the standard and widely accepted societal norms and customs, and in doing so as a would-be messiah figure that represented the interests and kingdom of the Creator God of Israel, He provided a inherently critical response to what He apparently deemed to be the wrong-headed and presumptuous self-adulation of the “guardians” of the covenant.  Though they lauded their own efforts to provide what they believed was legitimate protection of their God’s promises to His covenant people, Jesus referred to their efforts and the way they went about it as being “utterly detestable in God’s sight.” 

So would it be proper to connect these words of Jesus to His thoughts about the kingdom of God?  Well, what can Jesus be found saying in the next verse?  He says, “The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it” (Luke 16:16).  These words inform the observer that he is on the right track, as it is to be considered that John the Baptist is first introduced with his words of repentance and the kingdom of God being at hand.  In fact, Luke makes a connection between John’s preaching and that of Isaiah, and that in his preaching “all humanity will see the salvation of God” (3:6).  Without getting into what is meant by “salvation,” while pointing out that it is far more than going to heaven when one dies, one can comfortably assert that this fits quite nicely with Jesus’ statement about the proclamation of the Gospel, the kingdom of God, and everyone being urged to enter it. 

Having said all of these things, Jesus, with what might very well need to be heard as indignation and sarcasm in His voice, raises His voice and says to these people that He has been critically accusing of shutting up the kingdom of God: “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a letter in the law to become void” (16:17).  With the context that has been constructed, it can be determined that when Jesus says this, He is not offering up a praise of the law, and neither is He making an existential statement about its eternality. 

In this context, as can be readily apprehended based on all that has been seen and understood to this point, He is mocking and condemning these Pharisees and experts in the law.  In this mocking that is also a plaintive cry, Jesus decries their adherence to their covenant boundaries according to the performance of the well-understood works of the law.  Jesus indicates that it has become readily obvious to Him that these individuals will hold on to these exclusive standards of identity and covenant standing that are being improperly employed to keep the Creator God’s blessings for Israel alone, and that they are so entrenched in this position that they would do so even if heaven and earth were to pass away.

Interestingly, this is actually an existential statement about the Temple in Jerusalem, which was understood to be the place of the Creator God’s presence---the overlap of the heaven and earth.  With Luke’s Gospel likely composed after the fall of that Temple to the Romans in 70AD, as the Romans crushed the Jewish rebellion that was so intimately connected to positions about which Jesus was highly critical, with all of this taking place after the Christ-event had ushered in a new basis of covenant standing.  Thus, this of the passing away of heaven and earth would make the well understood statement about that common phraseology and the impossibility of the law becoming void even more poignant. 

Yes, Jesus derides them because they were so convinced that God’s blessings were for national and ethnic Israel alone, that they would rather the heavens and earth pass away than allow their God’s covenant blessings to be extended to the Gentiles.  Indeed, they would not let go their perceived grip of control on the bestowal of their God’s blessing and act according to the way that Jesus demonstrated, not letting one tiny stroke of a letter of their law become void.

Justified By Faithfulness (part 9 of 9)

Later and finally, in summing up his message, Paul would write, “I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing!” (2:21)  In Paul’s estimation, and quite rightly it would seem, the grace of the Creator God was paramount in the justification transaction.  From first to last, when it came to covenant, to blessing and cursing, and to resurrection and newness of life, all would be rooted in the grace of the God of Israel.  This grace was extended because of His faithfulness to His plans for this world and His creation. 

The works of the law, as Paul would apparently come to realize and understand, were just far too man-centered.  When they were considered against the backdrop of the all-powerful Creator God, these covenant markers were terribly insufficient to carry out and communicate the weight of His glory and of His intentions for His image-bearers and the creation.  Beyond that, Paul would seem to conclude, if righteousness (justification and the completion of the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness) could come through human effort to hold to a few meager works of the law, then truly, the Christ did not need to die. 

Paul would find it impossible to brook an agreement with this position.  He would encourage people, when it came to these issues, to hold to that to wish they wished to hold, while also insisting that it was presumptuous, and perhaps even a denial of the grace of the covenant God, upon which the covenant people relied, to impose these standards on others.  In the face of the obvious and overwhelming power of the God that was put on display through the Resurrection, as that event served to show forth Jesus as the Messiah---therefore demonstrating that the God of the covenant had indeed faithfully poured out His promised blessings on all those that wished to enter in to those blessings through a belief in Jesus as Messiah in a way that would bring glory to God---it had come to be the case that the works of the law (covenant markers) were no longer needed or useful in identifying the people of the sovereign God of the cosmos. 

Belief in Jesus, and in His faithfulness to His covenant obligations, was now the order of the day, just as belief in the faithfulness of the Creator God had always been necessary, with that faith-based belief always demonstrated by a covenant marker.  The covenant marker, since the time of Moses, had been the works of the law (though morphed over time).  Now though, the covenant marker, as has been said, was belief in Jesus.  This belief, as one is obliged to never forget, is set forth as being a gift of faith---a faith that somehow comes from a faithful God. 

A faithful, outworking believing in Jesus, and in the covenant God that was at work in and through Jesus to reveal Himself and His nature, is now all that mattered.  This had become the basis for all service.  This was the basis for worship.  This was the basis for giving.  Yes, Paul would say, that belief in the covenant God is what would and did deliver from cursing.  That is what would bring exile to an end.  That is what brought blessing.  In the Christ, the Creator God had entered into history and produced its climactic event.  He had indeed been faithful.  Because of the faithful service of a faithful Man, justification (entrance upon the covenant so as to secure its blessings, escaping exile, and experiencing salvation) for all was now available.  This justification was not to be found in a man’s faithfulness to  a specific set of covenant markers and that which divided man from man, but it was to be found in the Creator God’s faithfulness to His work, and that which united a globally sourced people to Him.