Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 18)

As Paul would give his instructions concerning deacons, he would be unable to escape the weighty and terrible fact that he had been involved in the death that had come to the martyr Stephen.  How ironic that believers (at least in terms of the order of the books of the New Testament) are introduced to Paul at the death of the first person to be mentioned as a deacon of the church, and then here he is, years later, instructing Timothy in regards to the qualifications and conduct of deacons. 

Re-reading the words concerning deacons that are on offer here in this letter, along with an underlying contemplation of the culture into which this position was introduced and against which it gravitated and stood as a counter-cultural witness in its revelation of the functioning of the kingdom of the Creator God, should be done with Stephen in mind.  To that end, one hears that “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not two-faced, not given to excessive drinking, not greedy for gain, holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Timothy 3:8-9). 

Truly, Stephen went to his death with great dignity, expressing a desire, like Jesus, that those taking His life be forgiven.  Not being given to excessive drinking would serve him well in his service of others.  Not being greedy for gain, which is fundamentally an honor proposition, would enable him to conscientiously take the lowest place.  His holding to the mystery of the faith, part of which was a reversal of the social order, in which the last become first and the first become last as a significant component of Jesus’ kingdom teaching, is demonstrated by willful service to those considered last, treating both first and last as equal in the eyes of the covenant God as they participate in their God’s kingdom come to earth.  In a world defined by honor competition, these can be difficult propositions, which is why, with Timothy and the first set of deacons in mind, one can go on to read “And these also must be tested first and then let them serve as deacons if they are found blameless” (3:10). 

Why must they be tested?  Because in the kingdom of the Christ it is servants that were to be honored, rather than those that are being served.  Therefore, if this is rightly grasped by a congregation, there would be a significant temptation to give undue honor to those that serve, elevating the individual that serves rather than elevating the position of servant and ideal of service.  Accordingly then, a deacon would have to be willing to relegate the position if it became vested with honor, distancing himself from the undue honor that might be heading his way, and allowing another to take up the role.  In a way then, divesting oneself of the position of servant is a way of embracing shame.  This elevation of service as conducive to honor, as opposed to public speech acts such as speaking in tongues or words of wisdom and knowledge, could only take place in a community transformed by the re-shaping message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord---and all honor is due to Him). 

Going further, it is said “Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect.  Deacons must be husbands of one wife and good managers of their children and their own households” (3:11-12).  As was seen with similar words said concerning overseers, this may very well be a way to specifically identify certain men that should not be considered for this position.  Why provide such limitation?  Would not the service serve to bring about what may be much-needed humility and change to such a person and to their family?  Though this may be a position held by an on-looker from outside the congregation, who sees the role of servant in opposition to the accrual of honor, this would not be so inside the church, as the taking of the role of servant at the table becomes that by which honor can be accrued. 

A person that is not “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” may take advantage of this reversed situation, using it for their own advantage.  So in rounding out the treatment concerning deacons, with all of these thoughts in mind, Paul writes “For those who have served well as deacons,” with service being the crux of the matter, “gain a good standing for themselves and a great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (3:13).  Truly then, honor and standing in the church come from service, though it is not an honor or a standing that should cause one believer to be set over another believer in an intra-chuch honor competition.  The boldness comes from taking the role of servant, living out the principles of the kingdom, and even experiencing, to an extent, as the surrounding community viewed a person of honor taking the role of a lowly servant, a portion of the shame that came the way of their Lord.    

A Tradition Of Wells (part 5)

Because the woman at the well mentions Jacob, one quite naturally expects to find Jacob connected to wells.  This expectation is not disappointed.  Indeed, having seen Abraham and Isaac in connection with such, with wells proving to be an important piece of Israel’s historical narrative, it would indeed be astonishing not to find similar stories concerning Jacob.  Like Abraham’s servant, who had found Isaac’s wife (Jacob’s mother) through an event at a well, so too does Jacob find a wife for himself in much the same way.  In light of that, it’s almost surprising that the story of Jesus’ encounter with a woman at a well did not end up with Jesus finding Himself a wife.  

In Genesis twenty-nine, Jacob, having fled from his father’s house because of the ruse and fraud he had perpetrated upon his father and his brother (the source of a none-too-minor dispute between Jacob and his brother), “saw in the field a well with three flocks of sheep lying beside it, because the flocks were watered from that well” (Genesis 29:2a).  Providentially, Jacob, even though this is the place to which he has been directed by his mother, presumably comes to the same well to which the servant of Abraham had come and at which he is able to make inquiries concerning his mother’s brother, Laban.  It is in concert with this inquiry that one of his future wives, Rachel, is introduced into the narrative, as she was coming towards the well with her father’s sheep (29:6). 

In contrast to what was seen with Abraham’s servant, whose plea to his Lord was answered with Rebekah watering his animals, Jacob “went over and rolled the stone off the mouth of the well and watered the sheep of his uncle Laban” (29:10b).  Similar to what was seen previously from Laban, when Rachel informs her father about Jacob’s presence, “he rushed out to meet him.  He embraced him and kissed him and brought him to his house” (29:13b). 

Fascinatingly, this is the only well to be seen in connection with Jacob as part of the Scriptural narrative.  Never is there a report of anything referred to as “Jacob’s well,” as alluded to by the Johnannine author and the Samaritan woman.  Now, this is not to say that there was no such thing as Jacob’s well, as it is most likely, due to its location, a well located within the territory of the promised land that was bequeathed to Joseph before Jacob’s death. 

With such knowledge, one can surmise that a well there came to be known as “Jacob’s well,” even if there was no overt connection to Jacob within the shared historical memory of Israel.  This piece of information, however, does nothing to change the nature of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman.  The fact remains that a tradition of wells would underscore Jesus way of thinking, along with that of His disciples, the woman at the well, the townsfolk that would come to hear the woman and her story, and the author of the narrative. 

A Tradition Of Wells (part 3)

It is not at all difficult to see this idea at play in the fourth chapter of John, as Jesus said to the Samaritan woman “Give me some water to drink” (John 4:7b).  Of course, in the story of Abraham’s servant, his request is precisely met, thus a wife, Rebekah, is found for Isaac.  When the servant reveals his identity to Rebekah, “the young woman ran and told her mother’s household all about these things” (Genesis 24:28), much like the Samaritan woman runs off to tell the townspeople about her strange encounter at the well.  Rebekah’s action, in turn, prompts her brother Laban to rush out to meet the man at the spring (24:29). 

It can be said of Rebekah that she will be the vehicle through which the Creator God brings Jacob to birth, from whom will come the Creator God’s covenant people, that being the twelve tribes of Israel.  In the same light, what is seen and heard in the encounter with the woman at the well with Jesus?  Though the reader is left to guess at whether or not this woman provides Jesus with any water, such becomes a secondary issue in the wake of her conversation with Jesus.  In recounting the story of Rebekah, an allusion has just been made to the fact that “the woman left her water jar, went off into the town and said to the people, ‘Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did.  Surely He can’t be the Messiah, can He?’  So they left the town and began coming to Him” (4:28-30).  Obviously, this becomes a major divergence in the stories, though the end result will be the same. 

The action of Laban aside, Abraham’s servant is taken to Abraham’s relatives, whereas the people to whom this woman speaks come out to meet Jesus.  However, as said, the result is somewhat identical, in that the Creator God’s covenant purposes are advanced and His kingdom is broadened, “as many Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of the report of the woman who testified…So when the Samaritans came to Him, they began asking Him to stay with them” (4:39a,40a). 

Abraham’s servant experiences much the same, in that after securing the bride for Isaac, he stayed overnight (24:54).  The next morning, upon indicating his intentions to return to Abraham, he was pressed to stay “a few more days, perhaps ten” (24:55b).  The text, however, would lead the reader to believe that he left that day.  At the same time, it would not be unreasonable to presume that at least one more night was spent at that place, in preparation for the journey home (for Abraham’s servant), and the journey from home (for Rebekah and her attendants/servants).  Returning to John, Jesus, and that particular well story, it is reported that “He stayed there two days” (4:40b).  There is a reiteration of this point a few verses later, as it is reported that “After two days He departed from there to Galilee” (4:43). 

Before going any further, the reader should be reminded that this study is not merely looking for points of contact between the story of the woman at the well and stories from the Biblical tradition by which it is preceded.  Rather, this is an attempt to allow the Scriptural narrative---that which provided self-definition and cosmic understanding to the people of Israel, to Jesus, and to those that provided their remembrances of Him, to inform an approach to the Jesus of the Gospels. 

It is to be reiterated that what is being attempted with this study is not an interpretation and application of Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman and that which resulted from it, but rather an attempt to put an observer in a position to come to the well, with Jesus, with the woman, and with the disciples of Jesus, with shared sensibilities that will allow one to hear Jesus, and to better determine the purpose and movement of the kingdom of the Creator God that stands behind this encounter along with understanding the purposes of His biographer.

No One Knows The Hour (part 15)

While still in the Temple, Jesus says “The experts in the  law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat.  Therefore pay attention to what they tell you to do and do it.  But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach” (Matthew 23:2-3).  The previously referenced Markan warning comes out with what comes next, as Jesus says “They do all their deeds to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries wide and their tassels long.  They love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’…  And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (23:5-7,9). 

When considering the fact that Jesus is saying all of these things at the Temple, which is understood to be the place where heaven and earth join together---the place where the realm of the Creator God’s dwelling and the realm of man’s dwelling meet, intersect, and overlap, Jesus’ contrast between earth and heaven takes on an interesting dimension that will be revisited at a later point in this study.  In addition, his talk of the calling of someone “father,” in juxtaposition to His sustained critique of the Temple authorities, while also going on to say “The greatest among you will be your servant.  And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (23:11-12), adds fuel to the critical, judging fire of His actions in the Temple and His words that follow that action.  Indeed, Jesus goes on to stoke those flames, providing stark contrast to the humble servant mentality when He says “But woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites!  You keep locking people out of the kingdom of heaven!  For you neither enter nor permit those trying to enter to go in” (23:13). 

When “kingdom of heaven” is placed on terra firma, rather than thinking of it as some place “out there,” while also tying in the conjoining thoughts of land and Temple, one rightly hears Jesus continuing His critique of the Temple authorities and their mis-use of the Creator God’s Temple.  Shortly thereafter, Jesus makes explicit mention of the Temple and their mis-use of it, still echoing Jeremiah in style if not in substance when He says “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the Temple is bound by nothing.  But whoever swears by the gold of the Temple is bound by the oath.’  Blind fools!  Which is greater, the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred?” (23:16-17)  In a mocking report of the words of the Temple authorities, Jesus informs his audience of what they say and then comments on it, saying “’Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing.  But if anyone swears by the gift on it he is bound by the oath.’  You are blind!  For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?  So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.  And whoever swears by the Temple swears by it and the one who dwells in it.  And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and the one who sits on it” (23:18-22). 

There is a fascinating and almost imperceptible movement that takes place from verses thirteen through twenty-two.  It is only with the Temple firmly in view that one is able to pick up on that movement.  In verse thirteen Jesus mentions the kingdom of heaven.  In verse sixteen He mentions the Temple.  In eighteen and nineteen, within the same movement of thought, He speaks of the altar.  Beginning in the twentieth verse, Jesus goes on to draw conclusions.  In verse twenty He again speaks of the altar.  In verse twenty-one He mentions the Temple.  In verse twenty-two He speaks of heaven and the throne of God. 

Through this entire sequence, Jesus has moved out of and back into the Temple.  As was said, this movement can only be seen if the Temple is kept in view, and it only comes together after hearing Him speak all the way to the end of the twenty-second verse.  When Jesus mentions the kingdom of heaven, He speaks of the holy of holies and the place in which the Ark of the Covenant is supposed to be resting (though it was not there at that time)---where the Creator God would come down to sit, as if on His throne, to dwell with His people.  By mentioning the Temple, He moves outside of the holy of holies to the holy place, for it is the holy place, which housed the holy of holies, that was thought of as the Temple proper.  Jesus then mentions the altar, which was positioned outside of the holy place in the Temple court.  In His conclusion He speaks of the altar that sits outside of the holy place, then the Temple (the holy place), and finally heaven and the throne of the Creator God, which is an unmistakable reference to the holy of holies and the throne-like lid of the Ark of the Covenant. 

Compassionate Brother (part 13)

The compassion on display is a remarkable response from Esau.  Esau has every right to be angry.  He was grossly dishonored.  He is in a position to justifiably lord himself over Jacob until such a time as Jacob recompenses him for the wrong that has been done to him.  However, he runs to Jacob, embracing him, kissing him as a brother, and weeping with him.  This is indeed a tremendous act of compassion on the part of Esau.  Though he is often dismissed and looked down upon, it is in this very act that Esau reveals himself as the quintessentially compassionate brother. 

As Jacob goes through a process by which he is effectively attempting to divest himself of honor (effectively shaming himself through behavior that is set at quite a distance from behavior that works towards the accrual of honor), Esau’s gracious compassion shines through.  He actually takes shame upon himself (divesting himself of honor) by running to Jacob.  It was well understood that men, in that culture, did not run.  A man’s honor was at least partially measured and revealed by the slowness of his walk.  It was shameful for a man to even show his legs, and with the type of clothing that was common in that day, showing the legs would be necessary for running to take place.  Now, one might believe that Esau was being disingenuous, and was actually harboring resentment towards Jacob, but the fact of Esau’s running to Jacob takes this possibility out of play.  This is extraordinarily revelatory when it comes to providing knowledge of the character of Esau, and this would not be lost on the hearers or culturally attuned readers of the story. 

The scene of Jacob and Esau’s reunion continues, as “Esau looked up and saw the women and children,” asking “Who are these people with you?” (33:5a)  Continuing his effective prostrations before Esau, Jacob answers with “The children whom God has graciously given your servant” (33:5b).  With this, the pattern established by their husband and father is carried forward, as “The female servants came forward with their children and bowed down.  Then Leah came forward with her children and they bowed down.  Finally Joseph and Rachel came forward and bowed down” (33:6-7).  Surely, this pleased the compassionate Esau.  Searching out his brother’s intentions, Esau goes on to as “What did you intend by sending all these herds to meet me?” (33:8a)  Of course, those who have been hearing the story know the answer, as Jacob replies by saying “To find favor in your sight, my lord” (33:8b). 

It can be observed that Jacob has done well in keeping up the language of servant and lord.  Undoubtedly, he is still fearful and hopeful.  What has been seen from Jacob, though assuredly genuine, is also a negotiation tactic.  Jacob has sent the animals ahead of him, laying the groundwork for their face to face meeting, but Esau does not immediately acquiesce in acceptance.  Things will not be so simple for Jacob.  He is not going to be able to give Esau some animals and get himself off the hook.  He is going to have to demonstrate some penitence.  Esau makes it clear that this is not a matter of property.  He says “I have plenty, my brother.  Keep what belongs to you” (33:9). 

Jacob insists and even ups the ante, moving beyond the use of servant and lord while also presuming Esau’s satisfaction, saying “If I have found favor in your sight, accept my gift from my hand.  Now that I have seen your face and you have accepted me, it is as if I have seen the face of God.  Please take my present that was brought to you, for God has been generous to me and I have all I need” (33:10-11a).  With this, it is said that Esau relents and accepts the gift, though it seems as if he does so in a way that is actually against his wishes, especially as he has demonstrated such compassion and mercy, and because there is nothing in the Scriptural record to suggest that this compassion was not genuine. 

Compassionate Brother (part 12)

Jacob extended his instructions, as he “gave these instructions to the second and third servants, as well as all those who were following the herds, saying ‘You must say the same thing to Esau when you meet him.  You must also say, “In fact your servant Jacob is behind us!”’” (Genesis 32:19-20)  Notice the language that is being used.  Jacob is asking his servants to refer to him, before Esau, as “your servant,” while also asking them to refer to Esau as “my lord.”  The goings-on could not be more obvious. 

Jacob’s plan is now in full effect.  He knows that this must be done in order to, as he hopes, deflect the vengeance that he knows is due him.  The author confirms this, once again sharing a thought process (with this forming part of the oral tradition that had, no doubt, been passed down through the generations beginning with Jacob’s own telling, before it would be composed in written form), in which “Jacob thought, ‘I will first appease him by sending a gift ahead of me.  After that I will meet him.  Perhaps he will accept me.’” (32:20b)  This process of appeasement would be terribly important, as Jacob, dishonored his father, his brother, himself (shaming himself), and his entire family, is well aware that he deserves something far different.

The thirty-third chapter (though it is necessary to always be cognizant of the fact that there would have been no chapter and verse divisions, especially considering that the primary means of conveying the story would have been orally rather than as a written story to be read) begins rather ominously for the hopeful Jacob.  “Jacob looked up and saw that Esau was coming along with four hundred men” (33:1).  At this point, the herds of animals have already been presented to Esau.  The servants have already made repeated references to Jacob as Esau’s servant.  Esau has already heard himself referred to as lord on a number of occasions.  Yet here he is, coming with his four hundred men. 

What must Jacob be thinking at this point?  If this story was being told afresh into a community shaped by honor and shame concerns, or if it is being read for the first time by an individual who has grown up steeped in a culture that values honor and shame, what would the hearer or reader be thinking?  Clearly, Jacob is still fearful.  He can probably surmise that his plan has been unsuccessful to this point.  Taking further steps, “he divided the children among Leah, Rachel, and the two female servants” (33:1b).  These, lest it has been forgotten, are Bilhah and Zilpah---his other two wives.  “He put the servants and their children in front, with Leah and her children behind them, and Rachel and Joseph behind them” (33:2).

Jacob, with what would appear to be a lavish display of humility on his part, and in a last ditch effort to avert his brother’s wrath (while also knowing that, if he survives, he will still have to deal with the wrath of his dis-honored father), “went on ahead of them, and he bowed toward the ground seven times as he approached his brother” (33:3).  One should not underestimate what this would have communicated to all involved---Esau included. 

Jacob is actively humbling himself.  He is divesting himself of his honor, and demonstrating that he is willing to shame himself before his brother.  The total effort has been a substantial gesture, indicating Jacob’s penitent spirit and his willingness to do whatever it takes to rectify the shame while preserving his own life.  So how does Esau respond?  To what would be the astonishment of those hearing or reading the story, “Esau ran to meet him, embraced him, hugged his neck, and kissed him.  Then they both wept” (33:4). 

Compassionate Brother (part 3)

After Jacob’s dream, he moves on to “the land of the eastern people” (Genesis 29:1b).  There, at a well, he meets up with a woman named Rachel.  She is his cousin---the daughter of his uncle Laban.  In this, he has come into contact with the very family to whom he had set out to join himself, with this occurring according to his mother’s wishes, as the plan that Jacob’s mother had devised included Jacob living with her brother “for a little while until your brother’s rage subsides” (27:44). 

According to her, Jacob was to “Stay there until your brother’s anger against you subsides and he forgets what you did to him” (27:45a).  Rebekah concluded her plan with “I’ll send someone to bring you back from there” (27:45b).  However, the final part of Rebekah’s plan never came to pass.  When Jacob finally does return, it is said that he does so because “The Lord said to Jacob, ‘Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives.  I will be with  you” (31:3).

When Jacob approaches Laban’s house, he is greeted enthusiastically.  It is reported that Laban “rushed out to meet him.  He embraced him and kissed him and brought him to his house,” where “Jacob told Laban how he was related to him” (29:13b).  This greeting by Laban was preceded by the fact that “When Jacob explained to Rachel that he was a relative of her father and the son of Rebekah, she ran and told her father” (29:12).  With this information, coupled with previous information in the narrative that is on offer about Laban, neither the reader or the hearer are left to wonder at the welcome that is offered to  Jacob. 

Yes, this is not the first time that Laban is encountered in the Genesis narrative.  He is present when the servant of Abraham was sent out to find a wife for Isaac.  In that story, the servant came to the house of Bethuel, Abraham’s kin.  The first person that he met, not unlike would be the case in Jacob’s story, was the woman (Rebekah) that would become the bride to one of the patriarch’s of the Creator God’s covenant people.  Indeed, there one hears Abraham’s servant exclaim that “The Lord has led me to the house of my master’s relatives!” (24:27b) 

Continuing there in that Abraham-related story, one learns that when “The young woman ran and told her mother’s household all about these things” (24:28), the author also points out the fact that “Rebekah had a brother named Laban” (24:29a), and that “Laban rushed out to meet the man at the spring” (24:29b).  It is said that he was motivated to such action “When he saw the bracelets on his sister’s wrists and the nose ring” (24:30a).  It would seem that Laban has a penchant for “rushing.”  Here, the rushing is appears to be connected to the fact that the bracelets and the nose ring were composed of a significant amount of gold (24:22).  One can simply not imagine Laban, in a time in which women were treated as little more than chattel property to be used in the pursuit of honor and wealth and children, thinking that accepting this stranger (connected to a relative) into their home could possibly be a bad thing. 

Upon settling in, Abraham’s servant, presenting the reason why he is there and building his case as to why it would be worthwhile to effectively sell Rebekah to him so that she could become the wife of Abraham’s son Isaac, informs Bethuel, Laban, and the remainder of the household that he is “the servant of Abraham” (24:34).  He adds that “The Lord has richly blessed my master and he has become very wealthy.  The Lord has give him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, male and female servants, and camels and donkeys.  My master’s wife Sarah bore a son to him when she was old, and my master has given him everything he owns” (24:35-36).  

Describing David, Seeing Jesus (part 2 of 3)

How should one frame this issue of Jesus offering tribute to His enemy?  Jesus does not say “You take the bodies, I only want the souls.”  Jesus did not experience merely a spiritual, soul-ish Resurrection, nor will those that stand in the union of trusting allegiance to Him, calling Him Lord.  Jesus did not say to His enemy, “You take this world (the creation), we’re just going to heaven.”  No, with man’s fall came the fall of all of the covenant God’s good creation and the flood of death and corruption into the world.  The Creator God’s promise is to redeem all of His creation, defeating death in its entirety and ending corruption.  Indeed, the creation is described as groaning for this redemption to occur, as it was subjected to futility through no fault of its own, and hopes for a resurrection like that which will come upon the Creator God’s children (Romans 8:20-21). 

The Resurrection is taken to be the sign and the promise that the enemy exacts no tribute whatsoever from Jesus.  If there was to be no physical resurrection and no restoration of the creation---if believers are just waiting to be whisked away into heaven so that they can watch the world be destroyed---then they can know that a tribute (sign of subservience to His enemy) was exacted from Jesus, that death was not truly defeated, and that they have no true reason to hope in Him.       

As believers continue to see their King Jesus through the Psalmist’s description of the anointed, supported, and strengthened one referred to as “David, My Servant,” they read that “a violent oppressor will not be able to humiliate him” (89:22b).  Death, of course, is the greatest of all oppressors.  It is and has been the constant, stalking, baneful enemy of man from the time of the fall.  It has crowded in upon his thoughts, and in some way, covered the majority of his waking moments. 

For Jesus, as a man, death stood in the same role.  When the Gospels are read, the reader finds that death surrounded Jesus on a regular basis.  Not only did it surround Him because people were constantly coming to Him for healing from maladies that were often productive of death, and not only did He raise people from the dead, but quite often, the Gospel stories reveal that his own life was threatened, with reports of there being a relatively consistent existence of plans, from nearly the beginning of His ministry, to silence Him through assassination.  Sometimes, these plans were well thought out and deliberated, and sometimes, such as that which occurred in Nazareth, they seem to be a spur-of-the-moment thing. 

When death finally caught up with Him and had Jesus in its grasp, not only was it going to be an oppressor, but it was going to be a violent oppressor.  Jesus was going to experience the full weight of death’s might as He underwent the scourging and the cross, which represented the pinnacle of man’s corrupted creativity, as it was one of the most torturous and painful means of death ever devised. 

The cross, along with its attendant punishments, was designed to not only induce the utmost of painful deaths, but also to humiliate, and to demonstrate the shamed victim’s utter powerlessness against the nearly omnipotent power of Rome.  This is that which Jesus underwent.  To all appearances, it seemed that He was made to succumb to the same fate as all that had been sent down the path of the cross, sharing in its shame and its humiliation, violently oppressed by death at the hands of Rome. 

Law To Become Void (part 3)

Again, this law of the Creator God, delivered to Israel, represented a rich heritage for the people of that God.  However, the guardians of the law in Jesus’ day, as far as He was concerned, were not handling it adequately.  Jesus observed that the law, rather than serving its intended purpose, had been used as a means to draw boundary lines and erect walls around the blessings that were associated with living according to the revealed covenant of the Creator God.  It had been used for purposes of exclusion and isolation, thus denying the idea that their God could bless anybody but those that were marked off as Israel---those that were properly ascribing to the works of the law. 

At the same time, the Pharisees and the experts in the law were eagerly awaiting and expecting the promised messiah to come forth, so as to establish the kingdom of God on earth and to elevate His covenant people above all nations.  The kingdom of the their God, which represented the Creator God’s realm of existence (heaven) breaking in to the realm of existence understood to be occupied by those that were created as the image of the Creator God (earth), was what was looked forward to as the true riches that were going to be experienced by God’s covenant people.  Here, one can think of Jesus’ prayer that the will of His God be done on earth as it is in heaven.  Jesus, much like those with whom He lived, expected heaven to come to earth through the Creator God abiding with and among His people.  

It was the true riches of that coming kingdom of God, as these Pharisees and experts in the law understood them, that caused them to be so rigid and vigilant in their application of the required works of the law and the traditions associated with those works.  As they looked upon Israel’s history, with the idolatry (and associated problems) and its results (judgment and repeated subjugations) that seemed to stem from inappropriate contact with surrounding nations, their efforts were somewhat understandable, and can even be looked upon as noble in some respects.  Jesus however, as He seems to consider the way that these individuals understood the kingdom of God, with their purposeful and strident exclusion of the Gentile nations and all that did not perform according to the law and the traditions of the elders, disagrees with their program and informs them that they cannot be entrusted with the true riches. 

This established, Jesus can be heard to continue His dissertation against the presumption and what He apparently saw as the kingdom-of-God-denying high-mindedness of the Pharisees and the experts in the law.  With the words that followed His telling of the story of the irresponsible and dishonest manager, He can be understood to be clearly painting these people in that role.  This will have the effect of winning Jesus additional supporters amongst the “commoners”, but it will certainly gain Him little to no favor with those who fancied themselves as the guardians of the covenant. 

Jesus makes the connection between the dishonest-though-hopefully-relying-on-his-master’s-honor-standing manager and the Pharisees and experts in the law even more clear, as He continues on to say, “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and money” (Luke 16:13).  Luke reinforces the connection in the very next verse, writing that “The Pharisees (who love money) heard all this and ridiculed Him” (16:14).  The connection appears to be rather clear.   

Carrying Some Dirt (part 1 of 2)

…please give your servant a load of dirt, enough for a pair of mules to carry, for your servant will never again offer a burnt offering or sacrifice to a god other than the Lord. – 2 Kings 5:17  (NET)

In the fifth chapter of the second book of the Kings, a Syrian general by the name of Namaan is introduced into Israel’s historical narrative.  He is introduced as “the commander of the king of Syria’s army” (5:1b).  Right away, an interesting and often overlooked fact about him is offered, as it is said that “through him the Lord had given Syria military victories” (5:1d), and for this reason, it’s reported that he “was esteemed and respected by his master” (5:1c).  Imagine how a member of the covenant people would respond to this type of statement.  The insistence that the Lord had given Syria military victories through him would certainly play a role in how this man would be perceived by the people of Israel.  This “Lord” that had delivered victories to Syria is to be understood as the Creator God of Israel.

However, the thing for which the readers of Scripture are most familiar with Namaan is that “this great warrior had a skin disease” (5:1e).  Generally, this “skin disease” is referred to as “leprosy,” but in the Scriptures, “leprosy” is a term that is used to denote a variety of skin ailments, up to and including that which is often thought of as leprosy in modern times.  Due to his skin condition (whatever it may have been), it is said that he was informed by one of his wife’s servants---a young girl from Israel---that there was a prophet in Israel that could “cure him of his skin disease” (5:3b).   

As indicated by the Scriptural narrative, Namaan seized on this information and went to Israel to visit the prophet Elisha.  There Namaan received instruction as to how he could be cleansed, eventually acceded to the directive though he initially opposed it, and was ultimately healed of his ailment.  His response to being healed of his troubling condition was to say “For sure I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel!” (5:15b).  To give weight to his proclamation, Namaan offered to give Elisha a gift.  Elisha refused the gift. 

Upon this refusal by the prophet, which was undoubtedly an odd occurrence in Namaan’s experience, Namaan is reported to have made a very interesting request.  This Syrian general asks Elisha to “please give your servant a load of dirt, enough for a pair of mules to carry” (5:17a).  He asked this of Elisha because, according to his pronouncement that “there is no God in all the earth except in Israel,” Namaan never again wanted to “offer a burnt offering or sacrifice to a god other than the Lord” (5:17b). 

One might think that this would be easy enough to avoid.  Namaan could not simply not offer worship to another god.  For Namaan there was a complication, as the king of Syria, from whom Namaan had garnered respect and esteem and honor, precisely and presumably because “the Lord had given Syria military victories” through Namaan (the source of Namaan’s honor is thus understood to be the Lord God of Israel), relied on Namaan when he went to the temple of his god to offer worship. 

Namaan, with knowledge of this and speaking with a heartfelt conviction, said, “May the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to worship, and he leans on my arm and I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this” (5:18).  Noting Namaan’s sincerity in this, as it was in conjunction with the request of dirt from the land of Israel---dirt on which Namaan, presumably, was going to kneel down in worship to the Lord---Elisha replies favorably to him, saying “Go in peace” (5:19b). 

Humiliation (part 2 of 2)

When the Romans carried out a crucifixion, the victim would be crucified naked.  This was meant to add to the humiliation of the victim (shaming him and increasing the honor of Rome and the Caesar), adding yet another display of his utter powerlessness in the face of Rome’s great might.  For crucified Jews, the fact of being naked meant that their covenant marker, their circumcision, was exposed for all the world to see.  The Romans, of course, knew this, and it added yet one more dimension of humiliation to the process.  Naturally, and though artistic representations of the event present something slightly different, Jesus underwent crucifixion in this way---completely unclothed. 

Along with this, though there is no record of it in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, there is a long tradition that Jesus’ beard was ripped from His face at some point during His ordeal.  This tradition stems from the words of Isaiah, in which his “suffering servant” speaks and says, “I offered my back to those who attacked, my jaws to those who tore out my beard; I did not hide my face from insults and spitting” (50:6).  The Gospel narratives do record that Jesus was scourged, which involved lashes primarily to the back (though certainly not limited to the back), that He was insulted, and that the Roman soldiers spit in His face.  Therefore, an extrapolation is made, in conjunction with this prophecy, and as those that believed in Jesus came to see Jesus as the embodiment of Isaiah’s suffering servant, it was presumed that His beard was ripped from His face as well.  

In light of the sheer number of prophecies that came to be understood as being fulfilled in the life and death and Resurrection of Jesus, it is probably quite safe to accept this tradition, especially in light of the continued and enhanced shaming (not to mention intense pain) that would go along with this.  These two things then, that being naked crucifixion and beard-pulling, bear a similarity to the humiliating exposure and beard-shaving of the servants of King David.  As it relates to Jesus and His crucifixion, these two things, naturally, were designed to not only increase pain and suffering, but to induce a thorough humiliation.  This connection would have been especially pronounced for a Jew, as this story of David’s servants might very well have sprung to mind, in light of Jesus’ messianic claims and the messianic title of “Son of David” that was attached to Israel’s messiah-king. 

Undoubtedly, in undergoing these things, it is not difficult to imagine that Jesus would have been humiliated.  That would have been the intention.  David’s servants experienced such humiliation, so such a thing would have been a natural response.  However, if one were to move forward in Isaiah, as Isaiah himself perhaps looks back to the “Hanun situation,” the suffering servant is found to have undergone these actions that were meant to induce humiliation, saying, “But the sovereign Lord helps me, so I am not humiliated” (50:7a).  He goes on to say, “For that reason I am steadfastly resolved; I know I will not be put to shame.  The one who vindicates me is close by” (50:7b-8a). 

Jesus, in defiance of the intended shaming and humiliation, steadfastly trusted that His God was going to raise Him up.  Jesus knew that His vindicating Resurrection was not far away, so rather than rage against His adversaries and accusers, He asked for their forgiveness and entrusted all things, His spirit included, into the faithful hands of His Father.  In a culture in which being put to shame was the equivalent of undergoing death, He knew that He was going to be made to overcome the pending grave, thus trumping any possible shame brought to him by the crucifixion, while also paradoxically accepting the shame and providing the model for service to His kingdom for all that would come to pledge their allegiance to Him.  

Deeds Of Love & Faithfulness (part 1 of 2)

I am not worthy of the least of all the deeds of steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps. – Genesis 32:10  (ESV)

The words of this text are spoken by Jacob.  In them, he makes reference to the steadfast love of the God of Abraham that has been shown to him as covenant faithfulness.  He speaks of the fact that, when he first crossed the Jordan, when he was escaping the sure wrath of his brother Esau, that he crossed over the river with nothing but his staff in his hand, and presumably, the clothes on his back.  The point was, he had nothing.  Now, however, Jacob has become rich.  He had so much that he was able to divide his people and property into two camps.  He “divided the people who were with him, and the flocks and herd and camels, into two camps, thinking, ‘If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, then the camp that is left will escape’.” (32:7)  It seems that his riches and possessions were the evidence, in his mind, of the covenant blessings of God, which is why he prefaces his statement of the tenth verse, by saying “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Lord Who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your kindred, that I may do you good’.” (32:9)

The preface to this story has Jacob leaving the house of his uncle Laban, for whom he has labored many years.  He is returning to his home, the place he had left years prior, fleeing from Esau, having secured the blessing that would rightfully have fallen to Esau as the firstborn.  As he returns, he is fearful of how his brother will react, and whether or not Esau is still angry with him.  In order to appease him, he is willing to give him “oxen, donkeys, flocks, male servants, and female servants” (32:5a).  Jacob sends some of his servants on ahead of him, to ascertain his brother’s mindset, and they returned to Jacob, telling him that Esau “is coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men with him” (32:6b).  Naturally, Jacob thinks the worst, and finds himself “greatly afraid and distressed” (32:7a). 

In the midst of his fear and distress, Jacob is sure to remind the Creator God of the covenant that had been made with Jacob.  This was the extension and continuation of the covenant that this God had originally made with Abraham, and which had been passed along to Isaac.  When Jacob is blessed by Isaac, Isaac references the covenant that we first find God making with Abraham in chapter twelve of Genesis, saying “Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you” (Genesis 27:29b).  This, in both narrative structure and in historical understanding, is designed to reflect God’s words to Abraham, when he was told “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (12:3). 

Returning to Jacob, the blessing from his father was obviously something nice to receive, but the Scriptural record indicates to us that it was not precisely in Isaac’s power to transfer the Creator God’s covenant on from himself.  It seems that this was something that is left to God alone.  Abraham had not passed along the covenant to Isaac.  Rather, Isaac had received the call of the covenant in the twenty-sixth chapter of Genesis, when the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am the God of Abraham your father.  Fear not, for I am with you and will bless you and multiply your offspring for My servant Abraham’s sake” (26:24b).  Abraham is not reported to have taken steps to pass along the covenant to Isaac through customary and traditional means.  So as Isaac is reported to have received the covenant directly from the covenant maker (as did Abraham), so too should the same type of scenario be expected for Jacob, rather than the passing on of the covenant from father to son, though this is something that Isaac is shown to have apparently attempted.   

Matthew's Centurion (part 2 of 2)

In all of the uses of “Lord” that have been encountered up to this point in Matthew’s Gospel, the Greek term that is used is “Kurie.”  We see this in Matthew 7:21, Matthew 7:22, and in Matthew 8:2, as it used four times by Jesus, and then once by the leper that Jesus heals.  Then we come to the Roman centurion in Capernaum.  He is aware of this man Jesus.  He sees the crowds following Him.  He has most likely heard of Jesus’ usage of the term “Kurie, Kurie” in reference to Himself, along with His associating that usage with entering “the kingdom of heaven” and His “Father in heaven” (7:21).  As a good, Roman soldier, loyal to Caesar, he should be casting a suspicious eye towards this fellow called Jesus, and be ready to arrest Him for His claims.

So what does the centurion do?  When Jesus enters Capernaum, the centurion “came forward to Him, appealing to Him” (8:5b).  What did he say to Jesus?  How did he greet Jesus?  He said, “Lord” (8:6a).  This is more than just a sign of respect.  What reason would this centurion have to show Jesus such respect?  This usage of “Lord” is incredibly worthy of our attention.  Why?  Because in the Roman empire, in the first century, it was Caesar who was Lord.  Caesar was “Kurie.”  Not only would this be true for the vast majority of the people under his dominion, but it would be especially true of a solider of the empire.  This solider, however, having heard about Jesus, having likely heard of the cleansing of the leper, having heard of the way that the leper approached Him by calling Jesus Lord, and recognizing the power to heal and the connection of that power to the telling of words of the kingdom that he has heard, comes to Jesus and says, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly” (8:6). 

How does Jesus respond to this Roman centurion, this Gentile?  Well, He responds the way that we have been trained to think He would respond.  He says, “I will come and heal him” (8:7).  Does He respond in that way simply because it is in Jesus’ nature to heal, or is it something deeper?  Does Jesus respond in that manner because the centurion calls Him “Lord”?  Should we equate Jesus being called “Lord” with Jesus’ own preaching of the kingdom, which is invariably connected with His performance of healing?  In essence, by calling Jesus “Lord,” this centurion preaches the Gospel, and does so in a revolutionary way, especially as we consider the context in which his statement is made, in which it is probably quite likely that the only person that this centurion had ever referred to as “Lord” up to that point, and in that way, was Caesar himself. 

Making his reply to Jesus, the centurion said, “Lord, I am not worthy to have You come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed” (8:8).  From there, he goes on to speak about authority and commands and servants.  Clearly, this centurion understood the nature of power.  In addition to that, it is becoming increasingly obvious that he knew of the cleansing of the leper, because in that instance, Jesus had spoken and the leper had been cleansed.  With this understanding of power and authority, and by his calling Jesus “Lord,” he knew that Jesus need merely speak the word for healing to take place. 

Here, it must be said that “Jesus is Lord” is the message of the Gospel.  The Gospel announcement, as Paul would say, is the power of God to salvation.  Salvation entails a rescue and a deliverance from all those things that are the effects of the failure of the divine image bearers to rightly bear that image, and sickness and disease are numbered among those effects.  Recognition of Jesus as Lord is salvation (joining with the covenant people of God so as to share in the prescribed responsibility to be a blessing).  In that moment, we can say that, rightly understood, the centurion and his servant experienced God’s salvation through Christ.  They experienced His eternal life---the renewal and restoration that Jesus brings as the in-breaking of the age of new creation to come---and they did so because the centurion called Jesus “Lord.”  It is no different for us.    

We read that “When Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who followed Him, ‘Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith’.” (8:10)  What a remarkable statement!  Jesus makes the point that the first overt recognition of Him as Lord, and of the power of His kingdom, came from a Gentile, and not from a member of the people of Israel.  By extension, this would indicate that the leper that was cleansed was a Gentile as well, which we can well understand, as Jesus was in “Galilee of the Gentiles”.  After making this crucial point, Jesus goes on to say “I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (8:11).  Almost immediately, Jesus embarks upon the usage of covenant language, referencing the covenant first given to Abraham, and then passed along to Isaac, and to Jacob, and then to Israel, that through that covenant all of the families of the earth would be blessed.  Jesus was fulfilling the covenant, according to God’s covenant faithfulness, in extending the blessings of that covenant to the Gentiles, by being the light of the world that had been God’s intention for His people Israel. 

Israel had failed in that, though all they truly had to do in order to be that light was refrain from idolatry, keep God’s Sabbaths, and reverence His sanctuary (which, in the end and according to the Scriptures, would look a great deal like caring for orphans and widows).  That had proven to be too much, so they experienced cursing and exile and dominion by foreign nations.  This was designed to get them to return to the covenant and be that light to all nations for the glory of their God.  Instead, they had ostracized the Gentiles.  They had separated and isolated themselves from the Gentiles.  They had risen up violently against their Gentile rulers, and would eventually demand that Jesus do the same if He was to have their support.  It is for this reason that Jesus follows up His invoking of the covenant and its inclusion of Gentiles, by saying “while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness.  In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (8:12).  Indeed, this is the lot and end of all that fail to live up to the terms of the covenant that Christ delivered, which is to believe the Gospel and to preach the Gospel, so that God might be glorified.

Jesus goes on to say to the centurion, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed” (8:13a).  It is written that “the servant was healed at that very moment” (8:13b).  What was it that was believed?  Why was the servant healed?  Did healing take place because the centurion believed that Jesus could heal?  Absolutely.  More importantly, it was the belief in Who Jesus was, and the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, and its associated proclamation of the kingdom of heaven, that was the more crucial aspect of belief.  That was what showed forth faith and its associated allegiance.  That was what brought the healing.    

Table Of The Justified (part 6 of 6)

Importantly, we and the body of believers in Rome are reminded of the purpose of the words of the fourteenth chapter, and of much of the letter itself, by the words of the fifth verse of chapter fifteen: “Now may the God of endurance and comfort give you unity with one another in accordance with Christ Jesus” (15:5).  Unity, especially at the table of fellowship, was to be a hallmark of the church of Christ that lived out the kingdom of God as exampled by the life and ministry of Jesus.  Why was unity, across both the social spectrum and the long-term ethnic (Jew & Gentile) divide so crucial, “so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:6).  Obviously, this “voice” was both verbal and non-verbal; and the unity that was productive of this voice would run back to its basis, which was the belief in Jesus and the Gospel of the kingdom that provided justification for all. 

Is there really a place here to consider justification, with its production of a kingdom of Jesus believing Jew and Gentile children of Abraham?  From the beginning of chapter fourteen, we can look at the meal table through the lens of Jewish and Gentile sensibilities, and Paul is sure to bring this back squarely into focus when he instructs this body of Jesus believers to “Receive one another, then, just as Christ also received you, to God’s glory” (15:7).  This “receiving” probably carries with it an element of election, and is directed to both Jew and Gentile, who stand in equality before God, doing so on the basis of their belief in Jesus and their unswerving loyalty to Him. 

However, one might be tempted to ask if the Jew/Gentile issue is really here in sight.  The answer would come back that it most assuredly is, as Paul unleashes a veritable flood of Scripture, reminding us that the all-inclusive kingdom of God and the Scriptural narrative of His reconciling interaction with the world is always top of mind for him, and writing “For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of God’s truth to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and thus the Gentiles glorify God for His mercy.  As it is written, ‘Because of this I will confess you among the Gentiles, and I will sing praises to Your name.’  And again it says: ‘Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people.’  And again, ‘Praise the Lord all your Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise Him.’  And again Isaiah says, ‘The root of Jesse will come, and the one who rises to rule over the Gentiles, in Him will the Gentiles hope.’” (15:8-12) 

As we are well aware, this rule over the Gentiles is not a domineering rule, but is something more along the lines of a surprise, as the Gentile nations are compassionately encompassed within God’s merciful rule, just as God did with Abraham.  Thus, the Gentiles, rather than being subsumed under the previously elected covenant people, with Israel exalted over the nations, praise God that they, through the instrument of the Messiah Jesus, have been made to stand alongside Israel, justified as full and equal participants in the kingdom of God.  Quite rightly then, Paul closes out this section of the letter, encouraging his hearers with “Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you believe in Him, so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (15:13).  As always, belief is in the foreground.  By that belief, Gentiles are able to join in the hope of Israel, which is the hope of resurrection and new creation, doing so via the power of the Holy Spirit that has been poured out on all (5:5).