All The Saints (part 1)

We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, since we heard about your faith in Christ Jesus and the love that you have for all the saints. – Colossians 1:4-5  (NET)

Are these words really read when these words are read?  Is it possible that so many have grown so accustomed to the use of “spiritual” language, that readers miss some of the more radical assertions to be found in what, at first glance (and beyond), appears to be part of a nice greeting from Paul to another body of believers?  That may indeed be the case when it comes to the Colossian letter. 

Paul’s world was not the world of a struggle to maintain a monolithic orthodoxy within the church.  It was a world in which the church was struggling to come to terms with what it meant to take shame and suffering upon itself, as those that were faithful to Jesus attempted to view the world through the lens provided by the cross and the empty tomb.  There were no Gospels to lead and to guide, providing an accepted and uniform look at the life of Jesus.  There were the stories about Jesus and there was the Gospel claim, which was that “Jesus is Lord.” 

By extension then, and this cannot be overlooked, if Jesus was Lord, then Caesar was not.  This implied conflict cannot be diminished in the least, especially as the church began appropriating many of the things that were then being said of Caesar, and applying them to Jesus.  Most certainly, this was a source of tension for the church (people) of the Creator God.   

A significant component of this struggle was the integration of the church.  Israel was the elect people of the God that had revealed His nature and had made Himself physically manifest in His creation through the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  To underscore this election, the events of that singularly important life took place in Israel, culminating in Jerusalem.  Though Christians twenty centuries removed from these events think of Israel and Jerusalem with a sense of awe and as a place of pilgrimage, with this undergirded by the fact that events in Israel are constantly in the news, this could not be said of the land and its capital in the times of Jesus and of Paul. 

Then, Israel was an insignificant province, and Jerusalem was the often troublesome capital city of an insignificant province.  In the big scheme of things, it was a place of little consequence.  When compared to the glory of Rome and the other gleaming cities of the Greco-Roman world (Corinth, Ephesus, Athens, Alexandria, etc…), Jerusalem had no place at the table.  Speaking of tables, if one was to rate the city on the scale of honor and shame, and seat the cities of the world around a proverbial meal table, Rome and others would occupy the places of honor (the protoklisian), whilst Jerusalem, as far as large cities go in terms of importance, would occupy the lowest place (the eschaton), or perhaps not be afforded a seat at all.  Of course, Jesus did say something about the last being first and the first being last, and what He had accomplished in Jerusalem certainly changed things.

Speaking In Tongues (part 28)

The assembly in which none go hungry and in which the needs of all are met, with a conscientious and attentive eye cast towards the wider community for the purpose of meeting the needs of those outside their association, and not for the purpose of gaining honor for their assembly but because of the example of their God that went to a cross and was said to have suffered on behalf of His people and to establish His kingdom, and as a component of their expressed desire to go to the lowest places and people in order to share in their suffering and shame (taking it upon themselves in a sense, as such an association would cause them to be viewed more shamefully as well), would certainly serve to bring a level of conviction. 

Such a person, witnessing the activity of the gathered church of the Christ, could very well be called to account by all, especially if that calling to account is not a condemnation of his or her sin as some tend to think of it (those things referred to as “activities of the flesh”), but rather a calling to account that causes that person to reflect on what it means to be truly human and one’s obvious failures in this area. 

The heretofore uninstructed observer would be witnessing that which the Creator God has intended for His divine image-bearers.  The true working of the Spirit, rather than being seen as something that results in a personal display of Spirit-led activity, takes place as the covenant God’s Spirit flows through the kingdom-modeling activities of His body and calls one more person to conviction and account.  As the Spirit works, gifting a man or woman to participate in the kingdom of their God, re-shaping mindsets and transforming the heart so that it stands in opposition to the values of a fallen world, while also being ready to engage in ways to effectively impact and re-shape the values of those that inhabit a fallen world, “The secrets of his heart are disclosed, and in this way he will fall down with his face to the ground and worship God, declaring ‘God is really among you.’” (1 Corinthians 14:25) 

That deep-seated knowledge of the responsibility to bear the divine image, along with the failure to do so, springs to life.  Without doing so as a means of proof-texting, one can borrow from the letter to the Romans in order to buttress the statement and the ideas that stand behind verse twenty-five to possibly understand Paul’s thinking, as there he writes “because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributed---His eternal power and divine nature---have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made.  So people are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-20).  The Creator God is put on (puts Himself on?) display through His kingdom community.

As part of this same process of understanding this portion of Paul’s communication, it is possible to look to one of his speeches recorded in Acts, as he speaks about the “Unknown God” of Athens, and about His power, His presence, and His purpose of revealing Himself in the manner in which He has revealed Himself (His Christ and His church), “so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).  Through the gift of His Spirit, which is meant to shape an ever-increasing portion of humanity into conformity to His own image, with this occurring by certain but not limited manifestations of that Spirit that can be referred to as individual gifts, conviction is brought about, and the Creator God receives the glory that is due to Him.  Bringing this about has always been part of the required role of His people. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 10)

Before Paul brings up Apollos, who is renowned for his eloquent speech and his ability to employ lofty speech in his presentation and defense of the Gospel (thereby explaining Paul’s making mention of Apollos), Paul defends this recognized deficiency in his own abilities.  Naturally, though he may see his abilities as being deficient, he believes that the message that he preaches, and the effects that it produces in those that hear it and live it, more than make up for his perceived failings. 

With a solid framework in place, it is now possible to better understand what Paul is getting at when he writes “When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with superior eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed the testimony of God.  For I decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.  And I was with you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling.  My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God” (2:1-5). 

This very thing that he did not want to see, which is faith based on human wisdom (with this being tied to the honor competition rather than this being a knock on the mental pursuit of the appropriate understanding and application of facts, not to mention that the message of the cross as the place of actual honor for Jesus and those that would follow Him, when the world saw it as the place of the greatest shame), is what was happening among those that were inclined to identify themselves with Apollos, in alignment with the prevailing principles of honor and shame.  This also illuminates Paul’s asking them “are you not merely human?”  Again, Paul takes no issue with Apollos.  Indeed, Paul may have desired to possess Apollos’ abilities.  At the same time, what he saw in Corinth, as the people were perhaps reacting to Apollos more based on his abilities rather than on the message that he faithfully delivered to the best of his abilities, served as a tremendous example to Paul. 

In the end, he would rather see that the message of the Gospel (Jesus as Lord of all) and its cross (humiliation, suffering, weakness, cursing, shame) carry the day, for then there would be no doubt as to wherein lied the mysterious efficacy of the message against all reasonable expectations (the whole thing being absurd prima facie).  It was Paul’s underlying hope that if honor was to be accrued and assigned, that it would not be assigned to the one that delivered the message, but to the one of whom the message spoke, and it would hopefully spark imitation of the supreme honoree along cross-shaped lines.

This must be approached carefully, especially if one finds himself in the midst of a Christian culture that decries deep learning as being somehow antithetical to the spirit of the Gospel.  Paul does not take issue with learning and the ability to speak persuasively.  He is taking issue with the response of the people in accordance with social norms that valued power and persuasion and the individual pursuit of honor at all costs as the dominant ethic of society, rather than the embrace of suffering and shame if need be as the dominant ethic of the society of the followers of Jesus as they turned the world on its head. 

Failing in this area would mean that they were continuing to value the standards of the kingdoms of man rather than the standards of the kingdom of the Creator God as demonstrated by Jesus, as those standards were outlined in the what they have would known about Jesus through the traditions that were being orally transmitted about Him (in word and deed), and as displayed through His cross. 

Proclaim The Lord's Death (part 2 of 2)

In the second chapter of the first letter to the Corinthian congregation, Paul reports that he “decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (2:2), while also mentioning that if the rulers of the age truly understood the message of Jesus, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (2:8b).  Though thoughts of the resurrected Christ naturally permeate the entire background of the letter, as there would be no church apart from a resurrected Messiah, and though there is a reference to the raising of Jesus in the fourteenth verse of the sixth chapter, the movement of this letter suggests Paul’s desire that the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) be closely (and foolishly, as he will point out) associated with the crucifixion, and therefore the cross.

Why should this be the case?  Why is it that Paul apparently believes that it is the crucifixion, rather than the Resurrection, that should be the locus of attention and proclamation when the church comes together to take up the bread and the cup (share an egalitarian meal)?  Is it because the cross, rather than being looked upon as a thing of beauty and as an object of grace, was considered to be the lowest place of ultimate suffering and complete shame?  Might this be a reflection on the traditions then in circulation in which Jesus is understood to have instructed His disciples to take up their cross and follow Him---willfully going to the places of suffering and shame, because Jesus is Lord, as the means by which the kingdom of the Creator God is made manifest, established, and advanced? 

Putting aside the fact that it was rather obvious that there were individuals in the church at Corinth that needed to be reminded of the willingness to endure suffering and shame that is demanded of those that proclaim loyalty to Jesus, which is made clear by the language that precedes Paul’s recitation of the tradition of the Lord’s Supper, the focus on the death of the Christ situates those who sit together at the meal table at the foot of the cross, as they are become identified with their crucified Lord, and are branded as He was, as foolish and shameful---as failures according to the way the world has always looked at such things.

What will it mean to be identified with a crucified Christ?  As the new age, signaled by the Resurrection, looms large in the background, what will it mean to truly proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes?  Paul provides his hearers with a guide in the fourth chapter of the letter.  As the believer listens and considers the communion in which he or she gratefully participate, this guide is indelibly stamped by Jesus’ crucifixion as Paul writes “For, I think God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, as men condemned to die, because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to people. We are fools for Christ… We are weak… we are dishonored!  To the present hour we are hungry and thirsty, poorly clothed, brutally treated, and without a roof over our heads.  We do hard work, toiling with our own hands.  When we are verbally abused, we respond with a blessing, when persecuted, we endure, when people lie about us, we answer in a friendly manner.  We are the world’s dirt and scum, even now” (4:9-13). 

May the believer indeed be empowered to be the spectacle of the cross to an on-looking world, proclaiming the Lord’s death at His table and in the world in which He reigns---demonstrating that reign by living as part of a community that embodies the cross (suffering and self-sacrificial love).  Let not the members of the congregation of those that proclaim allegiance to Jesus as Lord take up the bread and the cup alone to signal their union with the Christ, but indeed, let there be a commitment to taking up that vile instrument of death and of the power that attempts to stand against the purpose of the Creator, gladly enduring its foolishness, its suffering, and its shame so that the Lord and God, Jesus the Christ, might be glorified and His kingdom might be extended.  When sharing in the cup, let it be done as a sincere and faithful attempt to always and forever remain the humble tradents, adherents, and servants of the crucified King and the cruciform kingdom.                

Compassionate Brother (part 18 of 18)

In the parable of the prodigal, the younger son returns home, doing so with the knowledge that he is taking a risk and potentially putting his life in jeopardy.  If he is seen and recognized by the community, he is possibly going to be subject to stoning at worst, and a very public ceremony of shaming at best.  However, Jesus says that “while he was still a long way from home his father saw him, and his heart went out to him: he ran and hugged his son and kissed him” (Luke 15:20b).  Like Esau running to Jacob, the compassionate father ran to his son, subjecting himself to loss of honor (increase in shame).  As is said of Esau, who did not take it upon himself to inflict pain and suffering on Jacob, the compassionate father, following the model of the compassionate brother, shamed and dishonored himself, rather than allowing his son to suffer. 

As Esau hugged and kissed his brother, enduring the shame and extending compassion, so too did the father and true star of the parable hug and kiss his son, in a similar demonstration of merciful compassion.  The son of the parable attempted to execute the plan that he formulated and rehearsed, but before he was able to deliver his prepared speech, the father cuts him off and restores him to the position of honor as if he had never wronged his father, his family, or his community.  Likewise, Jacob’s planning and preparations were wholly unnecessary, as Esau welcomed him with open arms, celebrating a joyous reunion with no apparent thought of retribution or a need to re-pay (thought Jacob is revealed to not be fully convinced of his brother’s compassion). 

The father in the parable exclaims that “this son of mine was dead, and is alive again---he was lost and is found!” (15:24a).  Esau, who had wished his brother dead, and to whom he was effectively dead, celebrates the return of his brother---alive again.  Here are the stories of a compassionate brother and a compassionate father, who dealt with a brother and a son whose stories shared some common features.  Both had been dishonored and both had been shamed.  Both had the right to take vengeance.  Both exercised compassion. 

Both stories, as told to and for a people of the covenant-making and providential Creator God that seeks to reconcile His image-bearers and His world to Himself, reveal a God that revels in compassion---willing to take the pain and shame and suffering that rightfully belong to others upon Himself (there was no greater shame than the curse of the cross) so as to set His world to rights, restore the beings created and set forth as His image in the world, and show forth His kingdom and His glory.           

In This Is Love (part 11)

In the first and third of the temptations of Jesus that are recorded in Luke, interestingly enough, Satan’s challenge is prefaced by the words “If you are the Son of God” (Luke 4:3,9).  So Satan’s challenges to Jesus ask to be understood and come within the context of whether or not He is the Son of God. 

These temptations, and the written record of these temptations, reflect upon a time at which a messiah is expected.  In popular comprehension, this messiah would be the son of God in that he would be Israel’s king, but in some circles he would also be the Son of God, in that many believed it to be the case that the Creator God would take human flesh upon Himself in order to personally intervene on behalf of His people, establishing Israel’s rule over the nations.  As Israel’s king therefore, this would mean that the Creator God, through His son, was going to establish His own physically present rule over the whole of the world. 

So when Satan tempts Jesus, it appears that what He is tempting Jesus to do is to take a shortcut to acclimation as king.  He could turn stone into bread (an allusion to Israel receiving manna in the wilderness), and with such a miraculous demonstration He prove Himself to be the messiah and therefore immediately hailed as king.  Such would be a reasonable expectation on the part of Satan, because as would come to be seen, when Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fishes, the people attempted to come and make Him king by force, which caused Jesus to quickly withdraw into isolation. 

It would seem that Jesus knew that there was only one way for Him to ascend to the throne, and ultimately only one way in which He would be recognized as the Messiah (along with all that would entail according to the expectations of a great number of His fellow citizens), and that was going to be the path of suffering on an altogether unlikely cross.  That, presumably, is why Jesus refutes Satan’s insistence to worship him in exchange for earthly rule, and why He also rejects the idea of putting His God to the test by casting Himself from the Temple for the purpose of forcing a miraculous rescue that would have the likely effect of an immediate elevation to the throne of Israel.  Apart from that, Jesus may not have been altogether confident that the covenant God would come to His rescue if he flung Himself from the pinnacle of the Temple, as such would not have been an exilic suffering in the mold of Israel into which their God would enter in to provide deliverance.   

What does this have to do with Adam?  Well, where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded.  When the serpent tempted Adam with being like the Creator God, Adam acceded to the temptation.  When Satan tempted Jesus (the second Adam) with the opportunity to show Himself forth as God ( being “like God” for all practical purposes), Jesus refused.  Subtle to be sure, but here in the wilderness Jesus destroyed a work of the devil.  By holding on to the fate of suffering, love was put on display. 

To further reinforce the congruity between Adam (son) and Jesus (Son) as presented through Jesus’ experience of wilderness temptations, Mark adds that Jesus was “with the wild animals” (1:13c).  Adam, according to the Genesis narrative, was given “rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth” (1:26b).   Additionally, the animals that had been created were brought before Adam “to see what he would name then, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field” (2:19b-20a).  Adam, the son of God before Jesus, was very much with the wild animals.  Perhaps this is why Mark, drawing from the son of God tradition that would have included Adam, makes what seems like a rather out of place insertion about Jesus being with the wild animals during His wilderness trials? 

Den Of Lions (part 16 of 16)

Why were both Daniel (figuratively) and Jesus (literally) resurrected from their respective (or intended) graves with no injury?  The answer that was given in Daniel’s case, as has already been seen, was “because he had trusted in his God” (6:23b).  This was true of Daniel, and it is equally true of Jesus.  At this point, Daniel could have easily retreated once again into the words of the Psalmist, saying “For He did not despise or detest the suffering of the oppressed; He did not ignore him; when he cried out to Him, He responded” (22:24).  This crying out would be based upon a hopeful trust in the delivering power of Israel’s faithful, covenant God.  Such words could certainly be found, reflecting that same trust, on the lips of a risen Jesus as well.  Trust was paramount.  

Now, the fact that Jesus’ ordeal of suffering is so closely linked to the story of Daniel’s ordeal of suffering, with both sharing the controlling, compelling narrative of the twenty-second Psalm, what now follows in Daniel’s story helps to shed a great deal of light on the response to the stories of Jesus’ Resurrection. 

If Jesus has successfully connected Himself to the story of Daniel, and it seems that He has, then this does not bode well for those who were directly responsible for His death.  For “The king,” who is positioned as the sovereign ruler desirous of appointing a “resurrected” Daniel to a place of rule over his entire kingdom (with all of the connections to the kingdom-related desires of the God of Israel and His messiah that are implied and which would have been well understood in Jesus’ day), “gave another order, and those men who had maliciously accused Daniel were brought and thrown into the lions’ den---they, their children, and their wives.  They did not even reach the bottom of the den before the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones” (6:24). 

With such a fate in mind, there is little wonder that the chief priests and elders began telling the story that “His disciples came at night and stole His body” (Matthew 28:13b).  It is not difficult to understand why these same men would later order the disciples “not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18b), and later reminded the disciples of this order, saying “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name” (5:28a).  The words that immediately follow the reminder of the order draw direct attention to the men that were cast into the lion’s den, as well as the shouts of the people upon Pilate’s washing of his hands, as they said, “Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood on us!” (5:28b) 

When one considers that the story of Daniel, for a number of reasons, was so incredibly important and significant to the Jews of the first century, and that Jesus had so well seized upon that fact (especially during the whole of His ordeal), it makes sense that those who stood to find themselves identified with Daniel’s accusers (and therefore identified with those thrown to the lions) so furious with and desirous of executing (Acts 5:33) those who said things like (noting the parallels with Daniel) “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging Him on a tree.  God exalted Him to His right hand as Leader and Savior” (5:30-31a).  Anyone who found him or herself in that position would be just as unwilling to allow this story to be told. 

Ultimately, as was said of Daniel’s God by Darius, as he is said to have echoed what was previously set forth by the Psalmist, would be said of Jesus and His God, by the church, with this communicated to what would eventually be all believers by the Apostle Paul.  Jesus experienced and overcame His own den of lions, and (noting the parallels with Daniel) “As a result God exalted Him and gave Him the Name that is above every name, so that at the Name of Jesus every knee will bow---in heaven and on earth and under the earth---and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11).             

Den Of Lions (part 15 of 16)

Upon opening the lion’s den and expectantly calling out into the darkness, the very first words that Darius is said to have heard from Daniel were “O king, live forever!” (6:21b)  This was followed by Daniel’s report about the angel, the lion’s mouths, and a lack of harm to come to him.  To this Daniel added, by way of explanation, that he had not suffered the expected demise “because I was found to be innocent before him.  Nor have I done any harm to you, O king” (6:22b). 

With this, Daniel has confirmed the king’s Psalm-inspired inquiry, effectively answering the Psalmist’s pleading words in regards to the lions from the verse previously quoted, with more of the Psalmist’s words, which were “You have answered me” (22:21c).  As the Psalm continues to play out here in the Daniel story, when Daniel speaks to the king and says “live forever,” the Psalmist can almost be heard saying “Let those who seek His help praise the Lord!  May You live forever!” (22:26b).  When Daniel speaks of not having done any harm to the king, the Psalmist can be heard declaring: “You loyal followers of the Lord, praise Him!” (22:23a).        

Following Daniel’s Psalm-ic declaration, the king is obviously and demonstrably thrilled.  The author reports that “the king was delighted and gave an order to haul Daniel up from the den.  So Daniel was hauled up out of the den.  He had no injury of any kind, because he had trusted in his God” (6:23).  Here one remembers that one of the first similarities that could be observed between the stories of Daniel and Jesus was that Darius had intended to appoint Daniel over his entire kingdom.  This, of course, was also the Creator God’s intention for His messiah, who was to be appointed over the kingdom of heaven on earth. 

So Darius, in essence, gets to play multiple roles, which assists in explaining why it is that he does not disappear from the tale of Daniel’s suffering to vindication in the way that Pilate disappears from the story of Jesus’ suffering to vindication.  Because of the desire to bequeath dominion over a kingdom, Darius, in the context of the analogy and in the telling of Daniel’s being pulled from what was to be his tomb, is here positioned in the role that would be taken up by the Creator, covenant God of Israel in relation to His messiah. 

What is here said in the story of Daniel, not surprisingly, is also to be said of the story of Jesus.  Darius was delighted and he gave an order for Daniel to be hauled up out of the pit of death into which he had been sent.  This is what the God of Israel would also do for Jesus, who is said to be the Son in whom He delighted.  Not only did Darius give the order, but Darius also had the power to execute the order, thus Daniel was taken out of the den.  Naturally, the Creator of the cosmos had the power to pull Jesus up out of death and the grave as well, and so He was. 

It is written that Daniel had no injury of any kind, and this because the lions’ mouths had been closed.  Jesus, of course, had been subjected to a terrifyingly painful and shameful ordeal, in which He suffered torment and grave injuries that ultimately resulted in death.  However, when He came forth from the grave, apart from the marks of the nails in His hands and feet (preserved for some reason), it appeared as if He had been subject to no injuries.  Why was this?  Had the lion’s mouths been closed?  Well, if one was to think of His accusers and opponents as the lions, then they were most certainly not closed.  However, if one consider those men to have been little more than the physical manifestations and pawns of the lion of man’s ultimate enemy, that being death, then yes, the lion’s mouth had been closed. 

Den Of Lions (part 2)

When it came to Daniel and those that are reported to be his adversaries, with jealousy presumed to be the reason for their ugly and unjust disposition towards him, “they were unable to find any such damaging evidence, because he was trustworthy and guilty of no negligence or corruption” (6:4b).  As this is found to be true of Daniel, so it is found to be true of Jesus as well.  Though this analysis need not get too far ahead itself, one only need consider the witnesses at the “trial” of Jesus, who attempted to bring forth condemning accusations and testimony. 

Ultimately, as had been the case with Daniel, their testimony was found to be lacking, though ultimately those adversaries (in both cases) would be successful in that the objects of their respective accusations would be sentenced to death.  In the case of Jesus, plans were hatched and attempts were made to get Him to speak against the Temple, or against the Roman government, or against the Mosaic Law, but all proved futile.  Indeed, Jesus was trustworthy, and could not be found to be guilty of negligence or corruption by which he could be challenged or damaged in any way. 

Having failed to gather any credible evidence against Daniel, “these men concluded, ‘We won’t find any pretext against this man Daniel unless it is in connection with the law of his God.’” (6:5)  Ultimately, this would be the path traveled in the plot to take down Jesus, with the accusation of blasphemy against Israel’s God.  Jesus would be said to have made Himself equal with the Creator God, and would thereby be subject to the attendant demand for death associated with a conviction related to that charge.  However, those that sought to bring death to Jesus were not in a position to carry out that death penalty, so a case had to be made to those who could do so (the Romans).  To that end, Jesus was taken before Pilate. 

Before going any further, it needs to be said that the value in constructs such as the one here being made is that Jesus, as He (as it would be imagined) diligently searched the Scriptures and pondered the ultimate validity of the method that He would employ to bring in the kingdom of God---that being suffering to vindication (exile to exodus), may have found stories with that theme highly instructive for the purpose of what He seemed to have believed was His mission.  Stories such as Daniel could very well have provided Him with guidance, strength, and sustenance for the path that He believed lay ahead of Him.  In this way, He could develop the trust that the God that had been the God of deliverance for a faithful Israelite such as Daniel, would also be the God of deliverance for Him as well. 

Continuing to explore this story of Daniel, one finds that “these supervisors and satraps came by collusion to the king and said to him, ‘O King Darius, live forever!’” (6:6).  After this bit of customary flattery, they continued on and said “To all the supervisors of the kingdom, the prefects, satraps, counselors, and governors it seemed like a good idea for a royal edict to be issued and an interdict to be enforced.  For the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or human other than you, O king, should be thrown into a den of lions” (6:7).  Finally, to this was added, “Now let the king issue a written interdict so that it cannot be altered, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be changed” (6:8). 

Quite understandably, as these individuals had successfully appealed to human vanity, “King Darius issued the written interdict” (6:9).  With this, he has ironically and unwittingly put in jeopardy the life of the very one that he had intended to appoint over the entire kingdom (a classic hero tale). 

But The World Will Rejoice (part 2 of 2)

Believers are called to, at the least (if they have not personally experienced suffering and shame), empathize and sympathize with those that are suffering, making the cares and concerns (troubles and suffering) of the fatherless and the widows (and those in prison or in need of clothing or a cup of water) their own cares and concerns.  Believers are to enter into this suffering and know that it is worthwhile, and know that their work will remain, precisely because they serve the one hailed as the risen King who endured suffering and gross humiliation, overcame it in every respect, has conquered the world, and is ruling it even now, even though this often would not appear to be the case.  Does this view of suffering and conquering not seem to be more in line with the Spirit of the Word? 

With this said, how should one approach this issue of the world rejoicing?  Is it negative or positive?  Does the world rejoice because Jesus has been removed and “the world” (when viewed through the lens of “the church versus the world”) can now go on its merry way in defiance of the Creator, or is it something altogether different?  Perhaps it is worthwhile to see it in the positive light of the Creator God’s intentions for His once-good-though-fallen-creation? 

The Apostle Paul, based on His understanding of the Christ-event and its implications (perhaps relying on the oral version of the Gospel accounts, but certainly offering his thoughts on the subject prior to the written biographies of Jesus) writes in Romans about the creation (the world) itself, having been subjected to futility through no fault of its own, groaning and suffering under the bondage of decay, while awaiting its liberation from the same (8:21-22). 

When Jesus went away into death, His disciples were sad because they did not expect a Resurrection.  As expressed in the narrative, nobody did.  Somehow though, as implied by Paul, the world (the creation) itself knew that with Jesus’ death, a Resurrection was coming, and it rejoiced that its new day was about to dawn.  Yes, Jesus’ Resurrection marked the beginning of the covenant God’s new creation, and the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven on earth.  A new world had begun.  In this world Jesus reigned, having conquered the power of death that had ruled the world since Adam, by making it possible for those that lived with a trusting allegiance to Him as cosmic ruler, to overcome any and all fear of death (or suffering and shame), grounded in the hope of their own resurrection into the world that Jesus now inhabited---the world of the coming together of heaven and earth.  

To convey this, Jesus uses the imagery of a woman giving birth, experiencing pain and distress because the time has come for her to deliver (John 16:21).  Is it not interesting that Jesus, in speaking of His death and hoped-for Resurrection, in the expectation that His Resurrection, if it happened, was going to mark the beginning of a new age, resorts to speaking of the pain of childbirth that was said to have been introduced into the world because of the fall, thus linking the climactic act of world history with the veritable beginning of the story?  The woman giving birth groans and suffers, but when the “new human being has been born into the world” (16:21b), she forgets her suffering and she rejoices. 

Is this not what happened when Jesus came forth from the tomb?  Was not a new human being born into the world?  Indeed, something more than what is thought of as a human being was born into the world.  Affirming that thought, those who served as eyewitnesses of this exalted individual struggled to find the words to adequately convey what they were experiencing in their interactions with this one that came to be understood to be the firstfruits of the new creation---a being now fully and truly human---with a physical, resurrected body fully animated by the Spirit of the Creator God, bearing the divine image as that God had intended for the being that was intended to be the crowning glory of His creation.       

But The World Will Rejoice (part 1 of 2)

I tell you the solemn truth, you will weep and wail, but the world will rejoice; you will be sad, but your sadness will turn into joy. – John 16:20  (NET)

These words from Jesus follow statements like “But now I am going to the One Who sent Me” (16:5a), “it is to your advantage that I am going away” (16:7b), and “In a little while you will see Me no longer; again after a little while, you will see Me” (16:16).  Though the disciples did not understand what it was that Jesus was He referencing with such statements (16:18b), believers have the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge that Jesus was speaking of His what He was almost certain was His pending crucifixion, along with what He hoped and prayed was His Resurrection. 

To that end, Jesus goes on to say that “though you have sorrow now… I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you” (16:22).  In the Gospel accounts, Jesus is presented as one who is fully reliant upon His understanding of the promises of the one He called Father, as it related to His understanding of the role and vocation of the messiah as set forth based upon Israel’s prophetic history and long-running narrative as the covenant people of the Creator God, that the suffering and death of the messiah was necessary (the messiah, as king, represents the people and would experience a personal exile and exodus on their behalf).  

Based on the presentation of Jesus in those same Gospel, it would seem that Jesus also hoped that the messiah, having suffered on behalf of all of the covenant people (the Creator God’s chosen people from Abraham through this day) and the whole of the creation, would be delivered from that suffering and be somehow raised up from the dead. 

Generally, when one reads about the world rejoicing at Jesus going away, or going into death, there is an almost natural tendency amongst those trained in the sometimes unhelpfully dualistic Christian mindset of “us versus the world,” to think about the “wicked” and “evil” sinners exalting in jubilation over the fact that the man that was pointing out their sins and making them feel bad about themselves, was removed from their presence, never to be heard from again.  In doing this, there is another tendency to point an unwarranted finger of judgment, especially as one considers that it is said that it was while believers were yet sinners (outside of right covenant standing and failing to rightly bear the divine image) that Jesus died for them (Romans 5:8). 

As one thinks in this way, he or she is naturally led to the final verse of this chapter in John, where it is insisted that “In the world you have trouble and suffering, but take courage---I have conquered the world” (16:33b).  Believers too often get themselves hung up on that which applies to them---the trouble and suffering---thinking of this as the wicked sinners of this world---the ones that rejoiced at Jesus being killed---as being against them because of their trust in Jesus, somehow forgetting or not realizing that the more important part of the statement is that Jesus has indeed conquered the world. 

In thinking along such lines, believers may also fail to recognize that part of what they are called to do, if they are truly in a believing union with the Christ, is to, by the mysterious motivation and empowerment of the Spirit of the Creator God that is so heavily spoken of in this chapter, enter into the trouble and suffering of the world, as did Jesus (who certainly did not escape suffering and shame).  This is to be done so that they might, as the Apostle Paul says, rejoice in sufferings and fill up in their physical bodies what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (Colossians 1:24). 

Deceit & Judgment (part 2 of 2)

With this somewhat clear presentation of idolatry as the reason for judgment to fall upon Israel, one can then go on to make sense of reading about children that “are always thinking about their altars and their sacred poles dedicated to the goddess Asherah, set up beside green tress on the high hills and on the mountains and in the fields” (Jeremiah 17:2-3a).  Following that, the God of Israel says, “I will give your wealth and all your treasures away as plunder” (17:3b).  So here an explicit connection is made between idolatry and the material wealth of the people.  Before that point is reached here in chapter seventeen however, the reader will have stumbled across some words that should help to properly shape the conception of the true problem of idolatry that was being presented here by the people of Judah. 

In the sixteenth chapter, when the Creator God gives Jeremiah an answer to give to the people that might find themselves questioning the reason for the judgment and disaster that was going to befall them, He says to tell them, “It is because your ancestors rejected Me and paid allegiance to other gods.  They have served them and worshiped them.  But they have rejected Me and not obeyed My law” (16:11).  That sounds pretty bad, but it does not end there.  The covenant God continues His answer with “And you have acted even more wickedly than your ancestors!  Each one of you have followed the stubborn inclinations of your own wicked heart and not obeyed Me” (16:12). 

What is to be found in that statement?  Effectively, it is self-idolatry---the same old sin from the time of the garden---which always seems to get a far harsher reaction and treatment from the Creator God than the simple worshiping of wood and stone.  It is with this conception of self-idolatry that one can then move back to the Creator God’s statements about the human mind and its deceit and incurable “badness.”  Following that statement then, one finds “I, the Lord, probe into people’s minds.  I examine people’s hearts.  I deal with each person according to how he has behaved.  I give them what they deserve based on what they have done” (17:10). 

What does this have to do with idolatry or self-idolatry?  Well, connecting the thoughts concerning idolatry and wealth and treasures found just a few verses before, the reader goes on to learn in the next verse about “The person who gathers wealth by unjust means” (17:11a).  This is what follows talk of the human mind being more deceitful than anything else and incurably bad.  It could be said that the person who gathers wealth by unjust means is guilty of self-idolatry, especially in light of the statement in Deuteronomy that the Lord “is the One Who gives ability to get wealth” (8:18b). 

Surely, it can be said that a Creator God-granted ability to get wealth will see wealth accumulated by just means, and will therefore result in proper worship of the God that gave the ability, and Who therefore gave the wealth.  Wealth gained by unjust means will result in worship of what provided for the accumulation of wealth, which is the marred and falling-short-of-the-divine-image heart and mind that is said to have come about because of the desire on the part of the first humans to be like their God.  Because of this, it can be surmised that not only was idolatry, along with its companion of self-idolatry, the reason for the judgment that came upon the people of the covenant God, but one can also now understand that the gathering of wealth by unjust means, which will generally be connected with idolatry and with the extension of suffering and oppression, was a reason for that God’s judgment as well. 

In My Father's House (part 7)

The first time that Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, and His mother and father were not immediately able to locate Him, “they began to look for Him among their relatives and acquaintances” (Luke 2:44b).  At the times of the feasts, individuals or families would not travel by themselves from Galilee to Jerusalem and back.  They would travel in groups.  Customarily, the men would form one group and move at a quicker pace, whereas the women would form a second, more slowly-moving group (with babies and younger children), catching up with the men at the conclusion of the day’s travels. 

It would have been at the end of the first day’s travel from Jerusalem that it would have been discovered that Jesus was not with them.  Such an over-sight could have occurred relatively easily.  Jesus’ mother would have presumed that He was in the lead group with His father, while His father would have presumed that He was back in the trailing group with His mother.  So it was natural that they first look for Him among their relatives and acquaintances, as reported by Luke, before discovering that He was not with them. 

Making the connection with the second time that He stayed behind in Jerusalem (having gone to the cross and into the grave), and doing so based on the messianic movements and expectations of the day, one can reasonably assert that, once again, there was a search made among His relatives and acquaintances.  What does this mean?  There are at least two ways to think about this.  The first is that, in order to keep the “Jesus movement” going, those that were ardent in their support for Him would have looked among His relatives and close friends in order to find and choose a new leader of the movement.  Ultimately, it can be seen that this happened, but not right away, as Jesus’ brother James, who was not one of His followers during Jesus’ lifetime, came to eventually be looked to as the head of the Church in Jerusalem. 

The second way to think about this is that the Romans, as well as the Jewish leaders that were involved in putting Jesus to death, would have expected Jesus’ followers to appoint a new leader, so as to continue His movement (at least temporarily), partly in order to avoid the shame and dishonor associated with backing a fallen leader.  Of course, it would also have been a possibility that the group would disband permanently, having been shamed out of existence with the crucifixion of Jesus, and living with the abiding fear that anybody believed to have been closely associated with Jesus would come to suffer the same fate.  If standard practices were followed in the way that revolutionary or seditious groups were handled in the wake of a state sanctioned execution, these groups would have diligently searched out Jesus’ relatives and acquaintances, to have them executed as well, so as to stifle any further “problems” in association with Jesus. This would explain the disciples’ hiding and cowering in fear, behind locked doors.                

So having looked “among their relatives and acquaintances” (2:44b), “they did not find Him” (2:45a).  As it relates to Jesus’ crucifixion and Resurrection, as previously discussed, of course they did not find Him.  Jesus was not attempting to establish the kingdom of God in the expected way of a revolution by overthrow at force of arms, so a new leader of the movement was not a necessity.  Beyond that, the appointment of a new leader was not necessary, for the One that had been killed and buried, though unbeknownst to His followers, was going to be returning to life, to reign over the kingdom that was being established through His suffering and vindication.

Marring Of A Servant (part 1)

His form was so marred he no longer looked human---so now he will startle many nations. – Isaiah 52:15a  (NET)

When one takes a look at the prophecy of Isaiah and the “suffering servant” that has come to carry such a tremendous amount of significance to the understanding of Jesus’ crucifixion and Resurrection, an observer is met with some rather unsettling words.  One learns that the servant will be “so marred” that he will not even be recognizable as a human.  Time can be allocated for a brief and useful analogy here, and say that even though these words, following the lead of the earliest believers, can be rightly applied to Jesus, due to that which He underwent through the ordeal of the crucifixion (including the scourging and the crown of thorns), it is also possible to make words such as these, lifted from their immediate context of course, apply to the whole of humanity. 

Humanity was created in the divine image, but the fall, as it is reported in the Scriptural narrative, marred that image, so much so that what can be seen in self and others can and should be thought of as barely recognizable as human.  Following in the logic of that same Scriptural narrative, it is only when Jesus mysteriously works in and through believers by the Spirit, as He represented and fulfilled the Creator God’s intention for His divine-image-bearing creation, that such an individual can actually be recognized as human. 

Is it not ironic that, in order for this recognition of humanity to take place, through a union with the Christ by faith, that Jesus had to endure an infliction of suffering that would so mar Him that He would be unrecognizable as a human?  The indication of Scripture, and more appropriately the understanding that followed that indication, was that He would be marred so as to provide the basis for the reversal of the marring of humanity, beginning with those that believed in Him as the Christ and cast their allegiance with Him and His kingdom model as and Lord and King of all. 

So the suffering servant of Isaiah would be horribly marred.  Prior to that, however, it can be read “Look, My servant will succeed!  He will be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted” (52:13).  Words such as these create an expectation of something different than what is to come, so a reader could be justifiably confused by the next verse, which says, “(just as many were horrified by the sight of you) he was so disfigured he no longer looked like a man” (52:14).  The same one that is to succeed, be elevated, lifted high, and exalted is the same one that will be disfigured and marred.  It is quite the interesting contrast, but compares well with the first part of the fourteenth verse and the horror experienced on the part of the nations at the sight of the covenant God’s people Israel.  The suffering servant, as representative of Israel, is going to be marred and made unrecognizable, because as the embodiment and representative of Israel, he must share in their cursing. 

Here one must recognize that Israel itself could easily be recognized as the suffering servant, marred and no longer recognizable as the covenant people, suffering because they had failed to be the servants of all humanity in their representation of their covenant God. With that in mind,  a question can be asked as to what Isaiah is referring when he writes “just as many were horrified by the sight of you”?  He seems to be hearkening back to the ever-present comprehension and narrative-coloring of the Levitical and Deuteronomic curses, and the statement to be found attached to those curses as Israel wantonly violates its covenant with their Creator God by going after idols, not reverencing His sanctuary, and dis-honoring His Sabbaths, that “You will become an occasion of horror, a proverb, and an object of ridicule to all the peoples to whom the Lord will drive you” (Deuteronomy 28:37).  In this, it can then be seen that Israel itself was disfigured, no longer resembling the nation that the Creator God had drawn out from Egypt and set forth as the representative of His glory and the light to all nations. 

What Would God Have Me Do? (part 3 of 3)

Now, as one lives within the kingdom of heaven that was inaugurated at Jesus’ Resurrection and is ruled by Him so as to serve as lights to all peoples for the glory of the Creator God, the Gospel of Jesus is preached.  It is the very preaching and proclamation of that Gospel, which has power in itself according to the Apostle Paul in Romans (1:16), that gives a Father to the Fatherless, bringing men and women into the covenant through belief in Jesus as the Christ (Messiah).  At the same time, as the Gospel takes root and inspires a trusting allegiance to its claims, the Creator God’s people are inspired to meet the physical needs of literal orphans.  It is the power of the Gospel that brings His image-bearers close to the heart of their God, for preaching and for serving, carrying them into a devotion to what it is that God desires for His people if they truly seek to serve Him.    

The Psalmist goes on to write, as He presents God’s plea to His people, saying “Vindicate the oppressed and suffering!  Rescue the poor and needy!  Deliver them from the power of the wicked!” (82:3b-4)  With the inclusion of “the wicked” in this verse, one can make a return to the favoritism towards the wicked of the second verse and realize that, more than anything, man needs to be delivered from his idolatry.  That idolatry, among a range of possibilities, is the idolatry of self, as man worships a harsh and cruel taskmaster that keeps him in subservience to a stream of desires that was brought into being when man, in Adam, renounced his purposes and his dominion and his bearing of the divine image, choosing to trust and serve the creation rather than His Creator. 

According to the Scriptural narrative on which the Psalmist and presumably Jesus as a member of the covenant people operated and based their interaction in and for the world, because of the fall, all that are under the curse that had been wrought by Adam can be said to be oppressed by the stalking specter of death, while suffering under the corruption and violence that is in this world.  It is only in becoming people of the covenant, now through belief in Jesus as the One through Whom God has sufficiently dealt with these things, that the oppressed and suffering can be vindicated. 

This vindication, as indicated by the New Testament, only comes through sharing in Christ’s conquering of death---by being crucified with Him and being raised up with Him (an unthinkable thing)---and sharing in His Resurrection (His vindication) and eternal life through faith that shines through as belief in Him.  Through a belief in the Gospel of Jesus as Christ and Lord of all, and through that alone, is a man delivered from the power of the wicked, by being given a faithful King to Whom he can render submission.  Along with that, a man is also given a God to serve that exists and that took human flesh upon Himself in order to suffer, that sympathizes with man as His brother.  That does not change.

There is a Gospel, and an empowerment to belief in the Gospel, somehow by the Gospel message itself, so that the covenant God’s people can carry out His purposes in this world, to be what He would have them to be, and to do what He would have them do.  It is only through that Gospel and its power to grip and to change and to conform a person into the divine image that had been previously forfeited, that a believer can truly make just decisions, defend the poor, support the orphan, vindicate the oppressed and suffering, rescue the poor and needy, and deliver them from the power of the wicked.  If oneis found engaged in this battle, motivated by their allegiance to the Gospel proclamation, then that same one can trust that he or she is quite close to the heart of the God revealed in Christ, and serving according to His will.    

My Criminal Gospel (part 2 of 3)

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

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

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

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

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

My Criminal Gospel (part 1 of 3)

Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my Gospel. – 2 Timothy 2:8  (ESV)

This is followed by a very interesting statement.  Paul continues on to write, “for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal” (2:9a).  How often do we take a moment to pause and consider the things that Paul says?  How often do we make this consideration in light of the Jesus about which we think, talk, sing, and preach?  Paul says that because of the Gospel that he preaches, he suffers.  For the Gospel that he preaches, he is bound in chains as a criminal.  Isn’t the message of the Gospel simply that God loves us so much that He sent Jesus to die on the cross so that everybody can live happy lives and go to heaven?  Why would that induce suffering?  Why would that cause someone to be bound as a criminal.  Well, that message would not cause such things to happen, because that is not necessarily the message of the Gospel.

The Gospel, “my Gospel,” as Paul says, is that Jesus Christ is Lord.  The kingly message of the Gospel is that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His Resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:3b-4a).  Having been raised, thus being vindicated in everything that He implied that He was in both His message and activities, and everything that the prophets had declared the Messiah to be, He is, as Paul says, “Jesus Christ our Lord” (1:4b).  This statement from the opening verses of Romans is echoed here in the second chapter of Timothy.  Not only is He “our Lord,” but He is Lord of all creation.  He is the King over all kings.  He is the Ruler of all rulers.  All, without exception, are subject to Him and to His kingdom.  This was so, in part as Paul indicates, because He was risen from the dead. 

The Roman cross seemed to have conquered another pretender to glory, but that cross had been overcome, and it no longer held the power that it had once held.  Empires had been raised and razed through the power of death.  They may have fancied themselves as peaceful and enlightened and tolerant, but in the end, a significant portion of emperors ruled through the threat of death.  In His Resurrection, Jesus had conquered death as well, while showing that death held no ultimate power over Him.  It was also being claimed that if one was in union with Him, which entailed recognizing His Lordship and believing in Him as the Son of God and Savior, that neither the threat of death by the cross (the symbol of the world’s powers) nor death itself held any power over the one that believed that either.  In a world in which Caesar reigned supreme, and in which Caesar was king, and ruler, and lord, in which “all the world” was subject to him, and in which it was Caesar that was known and hailed as the divine son of god, this was a startling message. 

This Gospel that Paul was preaching and with which he was charged to carry to the ends of the earth, was a threat to the stability and orderliness of the Roman empire.  The Romans had a practice of adaptation in their conquering, in which, for the sake of peace and unity and harmony, conquered peoples were allowed to hold on to their religions, so long as they were willing to recognize the Roman deities, and more importantly, were willing to recognize Caesar’s claims to divinity, joining in the worship of Caesar as divine. 

The Jewish people were exempted from this requirement, owing to the fresh memories of the Maccabean revolts and the reputation that had been won by the Jewish people.  The early Christ-followers, such as Paul, refused to accede to this.  Not only were they unwilling to accept Caesar’s claims or the claims that were made on his behalf by the denizens of the Caesar cult, but they were going out preaching that there was only one God, and one true King, and that His name was Jesus.  They were preaching that all gods, or all so-called gods, were subservient to this Jesus, and more than that, that all kings and rulers, though they may have had God-ordained responsibilities and functions, were subservient to Him as well.  Naturally, this not only threatened the fragile “peace” of the empire, but it challenged the power of the Caesar and all of Rome.    As we keep these things in mind, it is no wonder that Paul, and indeed, the rest of the Apostles of Jesus and so many early believers in the Christ, suffered as they did and were treated as criminals. 

Isaac's Life Of Exodus (part 3)

With this examination of Abraham and Isaac, let’s not use this as a reason to get too down on them.  They were, after all, human.  They were not demi-gods, though for some reason we tend to think of them in that way.  No, they were simply two of those that God chose so as to make manifest His will and to carry forward His purposes of human and cosmic redemption.  They were also men of faith.  In what was important in God’s eyes, which was trusting Him in going out to the lands and places that God had for them, they seemed to have attained.  The bottom line was that they trusted in the God of exodus, who would lead them to the places and the situations in which He could best demonstrate, through them and their blessed lives, His covenant faithfulness.  He could do this in spite of their shortcomings. 

Returning to the story of Isaac, we find that “After Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines happened to look out a window and observed Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah” (Genesis 26:8).  It seems that Isaac had gotten a little careless, perhaps forgetful of their ruse in that moment.  Abimelech was distressed at this situation, and with what appears to possibly be a knowledge of what happened to Pharaoh’s house when Abraham’s wife was taken in to his harem, said “What in the world have you done to us?  One of the men might easily have had an sexual relations with your wife, and you would have brought guilt on us!” (26:10b)  Here again we see a sense of honor, which is further demonstrated by Abimelech’s subsequent command that “Whoever touches this man or his wife will surely be put to death” (26:11b).  So contrary to Isaac’s “fear” that he would be killed so that the men of the land could get to Rebekah, we see the opposite established, in that anybody that so much as lifted a finger in the direction of Isaac and Rebekah would invite death upon themselves. 

There is an element here that causes use to hearken back to an earlier event in the life of Isaac, which was his near-sacrifice at the hands of his father.  In that event, Abraham expected to have to slaughter his son.  However, he had a promise that he would have countless descendants through that son.  The fact that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son in the face of that promise, along with his words to his servants that both he and the boy would return from the mountain of sacrifice, is an indication that Abraham expected his covenant God to raise his son up from the dead.  Abraham’s faith was vindicated.  As the author of Hebrews would come to write, Abraham “reasoned that God could even raise him from the dead, and in a sense he received him back from there” (11:19).  This event was looked upon in the history of Israel as something like a movement from death to resurrection.  It was conceived of as an instance of suffering to vindication.  This means that we can view it as a movement from exile to exodus. 

So likewise, Isaac’s fear of being killed by the Philistines (regardless of whether it was true fear or a strategic ploy by which to gain wealth), coupled with his “rescue” from death by Abimelech, can be viewed according to the same pattern, as it points not primarily to the actions of Isaac, but to the exodus-ing, vindicating God of Scripture.  With such thoughts in place, the same can then be said of Abraham, in that there is a recurring theme of death to resurrection (suffering to vindication, exile to exodus) in relation to the situations with he and his wife.  For Abraham, both of those situations resulted in his being tremendously blessed with material wealth by the very men that he had defrauded.  As we have said, it is possible that Isaac was hoping for the same outcome.  However, it did not happen in this way for Isaac.  Nobody took his wife from him, so he received no bride price (as did Abraham in Egypt).  Nobody took his wife from him, so he did not receive payments for his and his wife’s vindication (as did Abraham with Abimelech).  However, we do go on to find out that “When Isaac planted in that land, he reaped in the same year a hundred times what he had sown, because the Lord blessed him.  The man became wealthy.  His influence continued to grow until he became very prominent” (26:12-13).               

David Spares Saul (part 2 of 2)

At the close of this first encounter with Saul, which saw David deliver him from certain death by his own hand, Saul says, “The Lord delivered me into your hand, but you did not kill me.  Now if a man finds his enemy, does he send him on his way in good shape?...  Now look, I realize that you will in fact be king and that the kingdom of Israel will be established in your hand.  So now swear to me in the Lord’s name that you will not kill my descendants after me or destroy my name from the house of my father” (1 Samuel 24:18b-19a,20-21). 

Casting our thoughts rearward, again, to the plagues and the exodus and to Moses’ encounters with Pharaoh, we look to chapter twelve of the book of Exodus and to the words of Pharaoh after the carrying out of the plague of death against the firstborn.  There, “Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron in the night and said, ‘Get up, get out from among my people, both you and the Israelites!  Go, serve the Lord as you have requested!’” (12:31)  With these words, Pharaoh, like Saul, is admitting to the fact of the Lord’s power.  Pharaoh, like Saul, can see that he is being spared, though it is certainly not beyond the power of Israel’s God, at the word of Moses, to take his life.  Pharaoh realizes that Israel must be freed, and that they will be established as a nation, and that Moses will be their king.  Pharaoh then gives voice to a statement echoed by Saul, saying “take your flocks and your herds, just as you have requested.  But bless me also” (12:32).  Saul asked for David’s blessing and mercy upon him and his family, as did Pharaoh to Moses. 

We can stay here in Exodus, moving forward to learn that “When it was reported to the king of Egypt that the people had fled, the heart of Pharaoh and his servants was turned against the people, and the king and his servants said, ‘What in the world have we done?  For we have released the people of Israel from serving us!’  Then he prepared his chariots and his army with him…  the lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he chased after the Israelites” (14:5-6,8a).  Israel had been rescued from foreign subjugation, but their former oppressors wanted to re-subjugate them, turning exodus back to exile.  How is this related to David?  It is related in that the sentiment of the words that Saul spoke to David, which seemed to be words of peace and release, in recognition of the Lord’s faithfulness to David (like those of Pharaoh to Moses), seemed to be short-lived.  A short time after the cave incident, “The Ziphites came to Saul at Gibeah and said, ‘Isn’t David hiding on the hill of Hakilah near Jeshimon?’” (26:1)  Rather than recalling David’s mercy and the Lord’s faithfulness to David, “Saul arose and went down to the desert of Ziph, accompanied by three thousand select men of Israel, to look for David in the desert of Ziph” (26:2).  Following a report, Saul’s heart is turned.  This sounds remarkably like Pharaoh’s reaction to the departure of the people, after his previous recognition of the power and faithfulness of Israel’s God. 

Pharaoh reversed his assertion and set out after Moses and Israel, and Saul would do the same.  What happens?  David confirms that Saul is pursuing him again, reversing the exodus, previously granted by Saul, from the subjugating and exile extending pursuit, but he does not respond in either fear or anger.  Like Moses at the Red Sea, when learning that Pharaoh and Egypt were once again in pursuit in order to subjugate and bring Israel back to exile, David knows that the Lord is fighting his battles for him.  He says, “Who will go down with me to Saul in the camp?” (26:6b)  Naturally, this was not for the purpose that his men expected, which they hoped was to kill Saul and thereby end their exile, but rather, for David to take another opportunity to make yet another point to Saul, and function, yet again, as a deliverer in the eyes of Saul, Saul’s men, his own men, and ultimately all of Israel as well. 

When Saul is approached while sleeping, the man that went with David, Abishai, said, “Today God has delivered your enemy into your hands” (26:8b).  Quite rightly, he speaks of God’s blessing upon His faithful servant, David.  David, however, does not necessarily focus on what God has delivered to him, but rather, God’s delivering of him from his own exile, and with being a deliverer, and a light, and a reflection of the glory of the God that has anointed him to be his ambassador in this world.  It appears that David does not see deliverance coming through the striking down of his enemy, but rather, in loving his enemy, and sparing his life again, in what is going to be, for David, because his own exile and subjugation will continue for the forseeable future, a costly act of sacrificial love. 

“David said to Abishai, ‘Don’t kill him!  Who can extend his hand against the Lord’s chosen one and remain guiltless?’” (26:9)  Pharaoh had attempted to do this, and things had gone poorly for him.  David, of course, was not in the same position as Pharaoh (who was not the Lord’s chosen one), as it is Saul that, as far as David is concerned, still stands in that role.  He said, “may the Lord prevent me from extending my hand against the Lord’s chosen one!” (26:11)  David continued to rely on the faithfulness of his God, choosing to endure hardship and suffering, rather than enter in to the establishment of his kingdom by raising his sword against the one that was persecuting and subjugating him.  He trusted that he would eventually be lifted from his exile and set upon his throne, with the requisite glory and honor and dominion that would be attendant upon that enthronement.  In this particular instance, we see David bearing the image of the One from heaven.