Water Into Wine (part 8 of 8)

To assist in further explaining the head steward’s words and actions towards the bridegroom, one must bear in mind that as far as he is concerned, it is in fact the bridegroom that has provided this new wine.  This is truly the only reasonable assessment at hand.  If this is so, then for some reason the bridegroom has gone behind the back of the head steward and colluded against him in this area, in what could be easily understood to be an attempt to make him look bad before the community. 

Also, the head steward would be completely justified in thinking that, for some reason, the bridegroom was making an overt attempt to dishonor his honored guests by purposely not providing them with the best wine.  The head steward, apparently, is not only not willing to let this blame be put on him, thereby letting the scheming bridegroom off the hook, he is also not willing to go along with the dishonoring that he sees taking place. 

Finally, and though things should probably not be pushed too far in this area, it should be noted that the wine was produced in the “six stone water jars… for Jewish ceremonial washing” (John 2:6b).  For reasons of purity, ceremonial washing was of crucial importance.  These ceremonial washings may have been limited to the hands, but one can also bear in mind the incident recorded in the seventh chapter of Luke, in which Jesus, while a woman is washing His feet with her hair, mentions to Simon that He had not had his feet washed when He entered Simon’s house. 

So it is within the realm of possibility that these jars had been the jars employed in the washing of the guests hands and feet as they arrived for the wedding feast.  If this is so, then the servants of the house would have been employed in this process, as they assisted the attendees in the process of washing, and perhaps were even completely responsible for doing the washing of the feet themselves.  It is these servants then, who are part of the group of people will be drinking the best wine, which now flows from out of their jars of service. 

With this, those at the party and those learning about the party afterwards through either the social network or via the text, are able to witness the first becoming last (ironically because they refuse to drink the better wine being served at the end of the meal), while the last become first (as those who had been relegated, due to the prevailing social structure, to the end of the meal now drink the finest wine).  As this thought is entertained, it is quite useful to hear the author say “Jesus did this as the first of His miraculous signs” (2:11a), with the first becoming last and the last becoming first.  “In this way He revealed His glory” (2:11b) and the advent of the kingdom of the Creator God.

Water Into Wine (part 6)

Rather than looking upon this sharing of the best wine at the latter end of the wedding feast as an act of considerable generosity and thoughtfulness on the behalf of this bridegroom, which some may be prone to do, this would be readily perceived as a slight to his honored guests.  Questions would arise.  Why was it that they not receive this wine?  Why was it that they were not thought to be good enough to receive these superior libations? 

It would be wondered why the bridegroom was mocking his guests in this way.  Rather than being enjoyed by the elites and those in the community that possessed the most honor according to the court of public opinion and reputation, the best wine is now going to be enjoyed by the servants and less honored guests, thus putting those that were less honorable on the same level as the honored guests.  Worse still, what this would have accomplished at the level of perception (which is what mattered), this elevated those that were possessive of less honor above the honored guests, which could be perceived as an insult to honor, thereby becoming a source of conflict for the bridegroom and his family (as well as the family of the bride).  

The head steward, as indicated by the presentation of the author of the text, comes to realize the dynamics that are now at play.  It is interesting that the author includes the information that the head steward of the feast did not know the source of the wine (John 2:9), and it is upon his tasting of the wine that he is spurred into action.  The actions that follow, which are often interpreted as his commendation of the bridegroom, can only be so interpreted outside the context of cultural meal practice and the social constructs that are on display in the meal. 

Rather than interpreting his actions in this way, what can also be realized is that the head steward, as he thinks about all of the problems that have now been presented to both him and the bridegroom due to the revelation of this new and better wine that is now being served at the end of the meal, must take quick action on his own behalf, so as to preserve his own place of honor and standing in the community (whatever that may have been).  If he does not take these actions, it is he that runs the risk of being shamed, and this is what can be understood to be playing out in the story. 

The head steward, of course, is the master of the feast.  Chief among his duties would be the duty to see to it that the most honored guests had received the best wine and the best food.  This is crucial.  Now, unbeknownst to him, and certainly without his approval, the best wine is going to go to the guests at the lower end of the honor spectrum.  Among other things, this would mean that the head steward had not done his job, thus he would be shamed (though this shaming would not stop with him). 

Thinking quickly then, the steward makes his way to the bridegroom and says “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the cheaper wine when the guests are drunk.  You have kept the good wine until now!” (2:10)  Again, one must resist the temptation to think of this as simply a matter of the head steward offering some type of praise to the bridegroom for his unexpected generosity.  This is much more likely to be the head steward’s attempt to shift the negative reactions that are sure to come, along with the associated dishonoring that is bound to take place, on to the bridegroom and away from himself. 

Water Into Wine (part 5)

It has been previously said that Jesus created a problematic situation.  What was that situation?  Why was it problematic?  Was it a problem for Jesus?  Responding to the last question first, the answer is “no,” it was not a problem for Jesus at all, at least directly.  It could be an indirect source of problems for Him, which will come to be understood as this analysis is continued. 

So it was not a problem for Jesus, but rather, it was a problem for the bridegroom, who was the host of the meal.  How was it a problem for him?  One would think that Jesus had solved a problem rather than creating one, but reaching that conclusion would be unfortunately short-sighted and fail to take cultural norms into consideration.  At least initially, if the story is viewed from too great a distance, one might be tempted to think that the bridegroom would be appreciative of Jesus’ actions, as He intervenes to “save” the party (at least according to a customary way of thinking), but it is useful to be quickly disabused of this notion. 

One should not look at the fact that His mother presents the information that the party had run out of wine as indicative of a problem that the bridegroom would be looking to rectify, as the fact that they had run out of wine would actually be of no real concern to either the head steward of the party or the bridegroom himself.  Running out of food and wine was a common occurrence, and based on what is revealed later in this story, would have hardly constituted an emergency for this particular event.  Sometimes, guests who were slated for service later in the function would receive nothing at all, and this was simply accepted as part of the prevailing meal culture that was a subsidiary of the honor and shame culture.  It might very well be the case that Jesus, His mother, and His disciples were going to be part of the group that would not have received any wine, as, remembering Pliny and Martial, it is possible that they were sitting at the “wrong end” of the table. 

With this in mind then, and this has been said before, it is necessary to look at this as a situation into which she believed Jesus would want to enter, based upon what she knew about her Son, and about His conception of the kingdom of God which He is said to have preached.  One might even be able to surmise an intrusion of her own sense of His status as Messiah, and based upon that, her interpretation of the great messianic banquet of Isaiah, with this interpretation possibly informed by Jesus’ own thoughts on such (though this is pure and unsupported speculation). 

Again, the fact that there is no wine is not a problem.  Why is that?  It is not a problem because the bridegroom would, presumably, though he would have some type of concern for the enjoyment of all of his guests, be most concerned with providing wine and food to the most honored guests, which had (again, relying on the way the story unfolds) already taken place.  As the service of food and wine reached further and further away from his seat and that of his honored guests, so too would his concern with their provisions recede.  As long as a certain group of individuals had been able to eat and drink to their heart’s content, all was well.  The wedding feast would be looked upon as a success. 

Additionally, it must be pointed out that the bridegroom was now going to gain stature in the community due to the fact of his marriage.  That can be coupled with a successful wedding feast, which would also contribute to his and his family’s enhanced stature in the community.  Because Jesus has done what He has done, this is now at risk of being undone.  The bridegroom, while he is lounging at the banqueting couch with his honored guests, is being unknowingly put at risk of a diminished stature in the community.  How is this so?  It is because the best wine is now being served at the end of the banquet to the less honorable guests.  

Water Into Wine (part 4)

With his actions, Jesus has created a problematic situation for all involved.  This should not be overlooked.  There is a tendency to romanticize the words of Scripture, looking at them through goggles that distort the image that would have been easily seen and obvious to the first century author, reader, and hearer.  That distorted image can cause a distant or detached observer to hear the head steward going to the bridegroom and offering him a compliment in regards to his generosity and his unexpected grace, which has been put on display by lavishing the best wine upon his guests at the end of his party, clearly sparing no expense in so doing. 

From that distorted image, commentators often take it upon themselves to make an analogy about the grace of the Creator God as shown through Jesus, and perhaps even toss around a couple of ideas about the law as good wine, gifted by God, whereas the Gospel is an even better wine that has been saved for the end.  Consequently, Jesus is placed in the role of head steward, God the Father as presented as the obviously generous bridegroom, the servants that filled the purification jars (now obviously representing the strictures of the law---with an associated new wine versus old wineskin paradigm) representing the church, and the historical Jesus that speaks to the servants now functioning as more of a Holy Spirit figure, commanding the eager servants (the church). 

This popular mode of comprehension of the story of the wedding feast at Cana sets off something of a spiritualized, proof-texting binge in which this miracle is taken and folded in with other miracle reports in the Gospels as little more than evidences of the divinity of Jesus---as if the Gospels were merely meant to function in such a way.  In an even more entertaining venture, some attempt to use this event as Jesus’ own approbation of drinking alcoholic beverages, as if this occurrence was the Creator God’s way, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on the writers of Scripture, of legitimating what some consider to be a questionable activity. 

Amazingly and in the same vein, some individuals with equally narrow fields of vision as those who actually want to use this event as a sanction for the drinking of wine, endeavor to employ the miracle at this wedding feast as a polemic against the drinking of alcohol.  As surprising and antithetical as that may sound, the claim is made with the argument running along the lines of “because the wine was new, it had not had time to ferment and was therefore non-alcoholic.  This therefore means that the newly made wine was nothing more than grape juice, which is Jesus’ (and therefore the Creator God’s) way of informing the world that since this ‘wine’ (though it’s really just grape juice) is clearly recognized as being better than what had gotten everybody drunk to that point, then this is what the Creator God would prefer His people imbibe from this point.”  Both positions, of course, are equally ridiculous.  Any attempts to draw inferences for Christian practice in the area of beverage consumption from this miraculous intervention by Jesus and its presentation by the author of John, is an exercise in woefully missing the point.

Now, all of this is not to say that the world does not have a lavishly generous and unexpectedly gracious Creator God.  It is not to say that implausible or inappropriate to draw inferences from the events in the life of Jesus that will assist believers in their spirit-animated journey of faith as functionaries in this world on behalf of their God’s kingdom.  It is to say, however, that if one is not attuned to the real world importance of the life of Jesus, and if these stories are not properly shared and heard from within their historical, cultural, and social contexts, with every effort made to first understand them on their own terms as they would be understood by those who experienced them first-hand, then it is highly likely that the observer is going to miss out on the true theological richness that lies ready at hand, as Jesus does go about revealing the Creator God.  The fact must not be overlooked that this is, first and foremost, a real-world event happening to and with real-world people with real-world customs and concerns.

Only Son (part 14)

Eternal life, therefore, must be understood to be a part of the Creator God’s intentions for the beings that He created in and as His image, as well as the creation over which that being was set in rule.  For man, this can be extrapolated from the existence of the tree of life and the point made to bar the way of the fallen image-bearer from accessing the tree.  For the creation, this can be extrapolated from the insistence that all of the creation fell from a state of eternality of life when Adam (its steward) fell. 

The Apostle Paul would seem to be making an explicit reference to this type of understanding in the eighth chapter of Romans, when he writes that “creation was subjected to futility---not willingly” (8:20a), while also going on to make the point that the creation awaits a time of restoration when it “will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:21).  If only Adam had believed the Creator---trusted, relied upon, adhered to the commandment while believing in the associated promise---it could be surmised that neither he nor the creation would have experienced decay and death.  If he had believed, he would not have perished. 

Having covered so much ground, and having done so much to at least partially construct a more appropriate mindset in which to hear the words of Jesus, it is now possible to connect some of the dots, discovering part of what is being communicated in the Nicodemus/Jesus dialogue, and interpreting John 3:16 in light of the experience of Adam as revealed in the Hebrews Scriptures and as told as part of Israel’s historical self-understanding and as part of their God’s overall purposes for mankind, to which Jesus appeals in order to legitimate His mission as that of the promised and long-awaited Son of Man. 

The Creator God indeed loved the world that He is understood to have created and set in order.  He loved it so much that He made a being in His own image (as His image)---a son---and placed that being in the world.  As part of His creation, He also loved this son.  He is understood to have given that son responsibilities and a commandment, asking that son to believe in Him, so as to be able to faithfully and rightly perform His duties in the world, before his Creator.  If that son did in fact believe in the God that had created Him and given him his position, then we would have eternal life.

If he did not believe in his Creator, and did not exhibit trust in His word such that he did not live up to the terms of the covenant that had been set for and with him, then the result of that dis-belief and the forsaking of His expressed purpose in and for the world, would be that He would perish.  His fate would be shared by the much loved realm over which he had been set.  He would be exiled from that place of purpose, forfeiting access to that which granted eternal life, which, in reality, is the unbroken relationship with the Creator as His exact image, and thereby losing eternal life itself.  What ultimately perished was trust, and therefore his union with his Maker, which was the source of that life.  Quite naturally then, to perish at the hands of death was the only logical result.  Such was the history of the Creator God’s initial sending of His son into the world.  Coming to grips with this provides a portion of the much-needed framework for an understanding of Jesus’ mission. 

With all of this said and hopefully absorbed, one becomes able to more effectively peer into the historical context that surrounded these famous words of Jesus, reflecting on the fact that the Creator God’s love for the world, His sending of His Son, the necessity of belief, and the subsequent reception of eternal life, could and would cause Nicodemus to hearken to the “beginning of the story,” and the story of Adam and his fall.  

Only Son (part 2)

The brief answer to that important question is found in chapter twelve of Genesis.  There, the Creator God instructs Abraham (Abram) to “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you.  Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing.  I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse, and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name” (12:1-3). 

So yes, the covenant God is demonstrated to have chosen Abraham so that through Abraham the nations and families and the whole of the earth could be blessed.  This becomes, for all time, the explicit charge of the covenant people.  Naturally, a person that is recognized as a “teacher of Israel” would have been quite familiar with the answer to this question.  This, however, it should be recognized, is not a sufficient answer. 

The Creator God’s words to Abraham merely beg the question as to “why.”  Why did the sovereign God of the cosmos need to choose Abraham?  Why did this God have a need or desire to make Abraham into a great nation?  Why did the one who, as indicated in the story of Scripture, repeatedly showed Himself as the God of covenants want to bless him?  Why make Abraham’s name great?  Why was there what seems to be a pressing need to exemplify divine blessing through Abraham?  Why is there all this talk of blessing and cursing in association with Abraham?  Why indeed? 

The reason for all of these things is to be found in what comes before the introduction of Abraham.  In the narrative structure, what comes before, of course, is the presentation of the ordering of the creation as the Creator’s cosmic temple, the pronouncement at every stage that this ordering was “very good,” and the placement of man, created as the divine-image, into that creation-as-cosmic-temple so as to steward it, to be a reflection of the glory of its Creator into it, and to stand as a constant reminder to the whole of the creation of its Ruler, that being the Creator God of Israel (Genesis 1 & 2). 

This record of the ordering of creation is quickly followed by the report of the divine image-bearers’ first act of idolatry, rebellion, and violation of their God’s commandment.  This is swiftly followed by the exile of the now marred image-bearers from the role to which they had been assigned by the Creator.  What accompanied this, as pointedly and painfully indicated by Scripture, is the exile of the creation from the condition and state in which it had been created (very good, perfection), as it came to share in the cursing brought about by the one appointed to its rule and stewardship (Genesis 3). 

Subsequent to that the first murders are to be found (Genesis 4), along the fathering of a son in the likeness of the fallen image-bearer rather than in the image of the Creator God (Genesis 5), the growing wickedness of the collectively fallen image-bearers (Genesis 6), a worldwide flood of judgment (Genesis 7), the curse of Canaan (Genesis 9), and the culmination of man’s self-idolatry, rebellion, and defiance of the Creator, which was the construction of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). 

It is at this point that the Creator God is said to have reached down into His creation for the purpose of choosing and appointing Abraham, as something of a project manager charged with the task of the restoration of the fallen creation.  Undoubtedly, accurately and purposefully communicating this definitive story would be part and parcel of being a “teacher of Israel,” and it would have to in such a context that Jesus delivers the words of what have come to be the most famous words in the whole of Scripture.   

Law To Become Void (part 1)

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. – Luke 16:17  (NET)

Before Jesus gets to the words presented above, He told a story about a manager that had been irresponsible in the handling and management of the assets of his master.  Without here delving too deeply into the parable itself, it can be posited that his irresponsibility eventually resulted in dishonesty, though this dishonesty was heavily dependent upon the prevailing and determinative honor and shame culture, as the steward ultimately pins his hopes on his master’s concern about his own honor standing in the community. 

Unfortunately, to the western reader, there are a number of nuances to that particular parable that escape notice, including the fact that the initial termination of the steward in the story would not necessarily be understood as an event of finality, but rather, the beginning of a negotiation, which would have most likely ended up with the steward not losing his position.  Because it is the world in which they walked, and as they were steeped in the honor and shame culture and the push and pull that goes along with that, Jesus’ audience would have been able to grasp these nuances almost inherently---as familiar as breathing. 

After telling the parable, Jesus says, “The one who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and the one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” (16:10).  As Jesus continues to point back to the one framed as the dishonest manager, He says, “If then you haven’t been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will entrust you with the true riches? (16:11) 

As one considers the application and interpretation of the parable that is provided by Jesus, it is necessary to remember that this particular story, and its application, follows the three parables of the fifteenth chapter of Luke (the parables of the sheep, the coin, and the “prodigal”).  Along with that, one must consider Jesus’ audience, and that He is reported to be speaking to “the Pharisees and the experts in the law” (15:2a), who had offered up the complaint that Jesus “welcomes sinners and eats with them” (15:2b). 

This particular accusation was true, as Luke begins his record of Jesus’ dealings in this section of the telling of his story with “Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming to hear Him” (15:1).  So when Jesus is speaking about those who are faithful in a little and dishonest in a little, His original audience, along with the audience of Luke’s Gospel, must keep in mind that He is directing His comments towards the Pharisees and the experts in the law.  The same is true of His statements concerning the handling of worldly wealth and the true riches. 

Considering the nature of His audience, Jesus’ comments were quite direct, as He continued on to say “And if you haven’t been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you your own?” (16:12)  With the clear statement at the beginning of the fifteenth chapter in regards to the Pharisees, who were the self-appointed (in many respects) guardians of the law and the traditions of the elders, and their being included with the experts in the law, it is reasonable to surmise that Jesus is reprimanding these groups in regard to their handling of the law.  

Nebuchadnezzar's Fall (part 5)

As man is driven from the good and bountiful garden, which had freely yielded the fruit of the trees for his sustenance, he is informed about a different way that his food is going to come to him from that point forward.  The Creator God told Adam, “cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.  It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain of the field” (Genesis 3:17b-18).  This eating of the grain of the field---of what grows from the ground---could be likened to Nebuchadnezzar’s being “fed grass like oxen,” as both are now going to be eating what grows from the ground, as they live among the wild animals, rather than having plenteous quantities of food delivered to them by their humble servants. 

Humble servants?  In Adam’s case, because he was the Creator God’s image-bearing steward over all creation, and because he had been given a responsible dominion over the works of his God’s hands, his humble servants would have been the trees of the garden.  Scripture seems to suggest that creation itself would have willingly yielded its bounty to its steward.  For Nebuchadnezzar, of course, his servants would have been those men and women over which he ruled.  This eating of grass, for both Nebuchadnezzar and Adam, as Adam (man) was now forced to till the ground to yield food (“eating grass” then serving as metaphor), would serve as a constant reminder that they had fallen from what had been intended for them.  Yes, if He truly holds the world in His hands, it is to be borne in mind that the Creator God had purposeful intentions for Nebuchadnezzar.   

As has been said, the respective falls came through pride and self-worship, as both Adam and the king of Babylon presumptuously reached for that which did not belong to them.  Each time they ate the grass of the field, they would be reminded of their having been driven from human society.  Adam would be forced to remember that he had willfully departed from what it meant to be fully human, which was living in a complete, trusting allegiance to his Creator, faithfully carrying out his divine purpose to be the bearer of the divine image.  He now lived in cursing and exile, fallen from glory, and now inhabiting a world cursed because of his faithlessness.  Nebuchadnezzar would be separated from fellowship with his fellow human beings, therefore separated from relationship with others that had been created in the image of the covenant God of Israel, and therefore even further separated from that God, in an awful state of exile and in full experience of the Creator God’s cursing upon himself.

After this pronouncement on the man that is so often thought of as an evil and idolatrous king, the story of Nebuchadnezzar takes what might be perceived as an unexpected turn.  The Creator God makes a promise to Nebuchadnezzar that this state of affairs in which he finds himself living a beastly existence, will go on for “seven periods of time” (4:32d).  So it was not going to be a permanent condition for Nebuchadnezzar.  As the story goes, he was informed that he was going to undergo this cursing and exile so that he would be made to “understand that the Most High is ruler over human kingdoms and gives them to whomever He wishes” (4:32e). 

There is grace and mercy for Nebuchadnezzar here.  Not only is his time of insanity going to have a defined limit, but through it, the Creator God is going to enter in so as to reveal Himself to this king.  He will do this in a way that will, for Nebuchadnezzar, give real meaning and substance and conviction to his previous declaration about that God, in which he had said, “How great are His signs!  How mighty are His wonders!  His kingdom will last forever, and His authority continues from one generation to the next” (4:3).  In these words, Nebuchadnezzar had told “all peoples, nations, and language groups that live in all the land” (4:1), that he was “delighted to tell  you about the signs and wonders that the most high God has done for me” (4:2).  Perhaps this was nothing more than lip service following that to which he had been witness in the situation with Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and the fourth man in the fiery furnace?  Perhaps not? 

Nebuchadnezzar's Fall (part 3)

Looking to Genesis then, it is not difficult to observe that the fall of Nebuchadnezzar well mirrors the fall of man.  How so?  Firstly, with the statements that are attributed to him, he appears to have assigned himself the place of the Creator God.  He effectively deified himself.  This, of course, was not all uncommon in that day.  Having previously spoken of Daniel’s God by declaring “How great are His signs!  How mighty are His wonders!  His kingdom will last forever, and His authority continues from one generation to the next” (Daniel 4:3), by his declaration concerning “the great Babylon that I have built for my royal residence by my own mighty strength and for my majestic honor” (4:30b), he re-assigned the words that had previously been offered up in recognition of the God of Israel, to himself.  This is hubris indeed.   

So how does this mirror the fall of man?  If one were to turn to the third chapter of Genesis, the reader would find the serpent speaking to Eve in regards to the “forbidden fruit” and saying, “God knows that when you eat from it your eyes open and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil” (3:5).  So what was the temptation that was offered to Eve?  Essentially, it would seem that she was being told that she could be like the Creator God. 

Moving forward then, efforts must be made to place flesh and blood on the story, imagining that, having taken the step of eating but not dying (at least not physically in that moment as she may have expected), she would have taken the next step of communicating similar information to that which she had heard from the serpent to her husband Adam.  Thus he also ate the fruit.  In this, he too, not satisfied with having been made as the divine image in and for the creation, and rather than humbly and faithfully serving as a steward of the creation over which he had been given dominion by the Creator, Adam desired to be like the Creator God.  In the eating of the fruit, in what was a likely a full knowledge of what it was that he hoped to attain (being like his Creator), like Nebuchadnezzar, Adam (and Eve) appropriated to themselves that which was not theirs. 

For Nebuchadnezzar, the awful announcement and execution of judgment came with rapidity.  The Creator God does not ultimately abide those that He ordains for a purpose transgressing their roles.  Thus, the voice from heaven rang out, informing the self-idolatrous king that had put himself in the place of the Creator God and was now thinking of himself along the same lines that he had previously thought of God, “that your kingdom has been removed from you” (Daniel 4:31b). 

It could certainly be said that Adam’s experience, as set forth in the Scriptural narrative, was no different.  Illustrating this, Genesis reports that “the Lord God said, ‘Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.’  So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken” (Genesis 3:22-23).  In Adam’s situation, it seems that the last thing that the Creator God wanted was for Adam to eat of the tree of life, and therefore, be able to live forever in his now corrupted and completely unintended state. 

Broken The Permanent Treaty (part 1 of 2)

The earth is defiled by its inhabitants, for they have violated laws, disregarded the regulation, and broken the permanent treaty. – Isaiah 24:5  (NET)

Before one reaches the verse above, one also encounters the verses which state that “The earth will be completely devastated and thoroughly ransacked.  For the Lord has decreed this judgment.  The earth dries up and withers; the prominent people of the earth fade away” (24:3-4).  Though this was clearly not the Creator God’s intention for His good creation, this is the situation wrought by man’s rebellion in the garden.  Man was able to have this impact on the earth because He is the creature made in God’s image (the divine image-bearer).  Man was specifically tasked by God and was given the responsibility to steward the creation---to steward it wisely as the vice-regent of the Creator God---and failed to do so, introducing evil and its effects into the world. 

In the Scriptural narrative, it is Adam’s faithlessness to what were his God-given responsibilities and limitations by which the earth becomes defiled.  The narrative insists that Adam willfully and egregiously violated the law that had been given to him by his Creator.  Tying this together with what is offered by Isaiah, it can be said that he most certainly disregarded the regulation.  The covenant God of Israel had designed His creation to be permanently good, and for man to tend His good creation in perpetuity, but that permanence proved to be fleeting.  As Isaiah writes, mankind broke “the permanent treaty.” 

Another rendering of the Hebrew that is here translated “permanent treaty” would be “the everlasting covenant.”  Adam, representing all mankind, violated the everlasting covenant of the Creator God.  Naturally, any talk of covenant would immediately call to mind the covenant governing the relationship between Israel and its God.  What was the result of this defiling, violation, disregarding, and breaking?  “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children.  You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you’.  But to Adam He said, ‘Because you obeyed your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, “You must not eat from it,” cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.  It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat of the grain of the field.  By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you will return’.” (Genesis 3:16-19) 

Yes, the Lord decreed this judgment.  The earth would be devastated and ransacked by thorns and thistles and pain and hostility.  Though the earth had produced bountifully, in effect it would now be dried up and withered.  Man would indeed fade away into dust.  It is in the stream of identity that flows from this understanding of their story that begins with Adam in which Isaiah would write, “So a treaty curse devours the earth; its inhabitants pay for their guilt.  This is why the inhabitants of the earth disappear, and are reduced to just a handful of people” (24:6).  Isaiah, whose worldview is shaped by the Adam story and all that flows from it, appears to indicate that Israel is effectively recapitulating the fall of Adam, failing in their stewarding responsibilities and their everlasting covenant.  

Thus, as one continues to focus in on what occurred with Adam, so as to read or hear Isaiah from within the sweep of the Scriptural narrative, it can be seen that God cursed the earth because of the broken treaty, the ignored agreement, the disregarded covenant.  As a result, man has continually suffered from death and decay and all that goes with man stepping outside of the bounds of God’s covenant.  

Messiah's Renewal (part 2 of 2)

The new creation, as has been previously mentioned in this study and visualized by Isaiah, was inaugurated and goes forth with the word (and power) of the Resurrection.  Any understanding of the telos of the new creation is contingent on understanding the first creation, as presented by Genesis.  Thus, one can only comprehend the role of the covenant people in the new creation in light of the role that was to be played by the original covenant bearer.  As the first divine image-bearer, Adam was placed in God’s good creation, to tend and steward it as his charge.  The second and complete divine image-bearer, Jesus, was resurrected into a world of the covenant God’s creation---a world that was now fundamentally changed because of the power for Resurrection that had been somehow unleashed into the world through its delivery to His lifeless body. 

Considering the comprehensive renewal that is associated with the Messiah (whether in Isaiah’s vision or in the New Testament reflections upon the Christ), Scripture insists that Jesus was the first-fruits of those to be raised up from the dead.  Thus, just as Jesus was raised, so too will those that believe in and order their lives around His royal claims be raised with Him.  Along with that, the creation itself awaits its liberation from its long bondage to corruption.  Jesus’ Resurrection into this very creation, along with the Creator God’s working through His people to be ambassadors of His light and glory and purposes in this world, means that believers do not simply await the end of their days or the world’s days, so that they can be whisked off into the blessed, eternal state, of an other-worldly existence.  The Creator God did not broker a deal with death and corruption, giving over the somehow sub-standard physical bodies and this world that He created.  On the contrary, the bent of Scripture informs the world that the Creator intends to redeem the whole of His creation. 

Believes then do not await the demise of this world.  The Scriptures constantly point to a restoration of this world to the condition for which it was intended by its Creator.  Again, this is part of the renewal that accompanied messianic activity, and it could be said that, among other things, this restoration was why Israel’s God sent forth His Messiah.  This restoration is why that Messiah, contrary to all expectations, would suffer and die.  As the King would embody Israel in both exile and exodus, this restoration is why that same Messiah, contrary to all expectations, would be physically raised up from the dead.  All of this was done, it seems, to point the covenant God’s people to the time in which the final defeat of death would be accomplished, and in which “there will be universal submission to the Lord’s sovereignty” (11:9b). 

Though that Resurrection power is manifest in and works through believers that share in eternal life as they live the Gospel (Jesus is Lord of all), those same believers will most certainly fade and die; but because Jesus was physically raised, with a glorified body, and because all that cling to Him as Lord have the promise that they will experience the same, believers look to their being raised to a new life and a new creation in which “A wolf will reside with a lamb, and a leopard will lie down with a young goat; an ox and a young lion will graze together, as a small child leads them along” (11:6). 

When the curse of exile from the Creator God’s original purposes is finally broken, and the people of the covenant are led into the promised land of that God’s renewed creation, they will see that “A cow and a bear will graze together, their young will lie down together.  A lion, like an ox, will eat straw” (11:7).  Because of the Resurrection, “A baby will play over the hole of a snake; over the nest of a serpent an infant will put his hand” (11:8).  When Jesus reigns without question, the Creator God says, “They will no longer injure or destroy on My entire royal mountain” (11:9a).  If this is truly believed, then it is incumbent upon believers to lift up the Gospel of Jesus “like a signal flag for the nations,” so that “Nations will look to Him for guidance and His residence will be majestic” (11:10b).