All The Saints (part 18)

That settled, the sensibility-shocking inclusive language expands, and Paul bursts through all manner of tradition and history as he insists that “In Him you were also circumcised---not, however, with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal of the fleshly body, that is, through the circumcision done by Christ” (Colossians 2:11).  By this, Paul completely dismisses any idea that the covenant marker of circumcision is necessary. 

Of course, the sole covenant marker to which Paul holds as absolutely crucial is the confession of Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Lord of all (the Gospel).  This confession is the means by which a person, be they Jew or Gentile, is justified (becomes a member of the Creator God’s covenant family, with the subsequent responsibility to concern themselves with reflecting that God’s glory into the world by rightly bearing the divine image that has been exampled out by Jesus of Nazareth---paradoxically, God-manifest).    

With verse twelve, realizing that baptism is not unique to the experience of the Christian faith, Paul is again found adapting exodus language on behalf of Gentiles as he writes “Having been buried with Him in baptism, you also have been raised with Him through your faith in the power of God who raised Him from the dead” (2:12).  Just as Paul allows Gentiles to participate in the exodus-related identity of Israel through the use of “redemption” from verse fourteen of chapter one, he here does the same.  Functionally, “being buried with Him in baptism” is the equivalent of exile, while being “raised with Him” is the equivalent of exodus. 

This is not unique to Colossians, as one is able to glimpse this way of thinking here demonstrated by Paul in his first letter to Corinth.  There, in the tenth chapter Paul has written: “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:1-2).  Without delving into an exegesis of what is here being said in the address to the Corinthian church(es), Paul is here skillfully intertwining the Egyptian exile and exodus experience (which was so crucial for Israel’s self-understanding, it’s comprehension of its covenant God, and its understanding of its relationship with that God) with the concept of baptism. 

For Gentiles, as far as Paul is concerned, as he folds all peoples into the story of Israel that he believes has reached its climax in the story of Jesus, this baptism with Christ becomes something akin to Israel’s experience.  In some respects, for those that are bent towards the need for some outward sign of covenant status, baptism, whatever form it takes, stands in place of circumcision. 

This allows Paul to confidently declare “And even though you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He nevertheless made you alive with Him, having forgiven all your transgressions” (Colossians 2:13).  Quickly revisiting the first chapter, with a reminder of the exodus-related redemption and “forgiveness of sins” (1:14b) there mentioned, it should be acknowledged that this is another deployment of exodus language. 

Building from that thought, what one realizes this to be is yet another statement employed to generate an equivocation between Jews and Gentiles.  Effectively, this is what the Creator God would say to Israel if and when they violated their covenant obligations.  The covenant God would speak of Israel’s transgressions that was bringing or had brought them death and judgment, as they behaved like the uncircumcised people by which they were surrounded, adopting their idolatrous ways.  The end of this judgment would be some form of exile (domination by a foreign power, whether inside or outside of their land). 

Speaking In Tongues (part 31)

Along with these things, in an act of preferring one another and valuing all participation equally, though it will be subject to evaluation by the whole of the assembly as they mull over the words within the framework of what they have been taught by Paul and the Jesus tradition that is to shape their modeling out of the kingdom of their God, Paul adds “And if someone sitting down receives a revelation, the person who is speaking should conclude” (1 Corinthians 14:30), giving no thought to their own honor or standing. 

With thoughts of selflessness and a shame-embracing love ringing in the background, one can then read “For you can all prophesy one after another” (14:31a), with the now ubiquitous and completely expected directive in regards to the exercise of spiritual gifts, “so all can learn and be encouraged” (14:31a), and presumably strengthened.         

Paul reinforces the social leveling that he desires to see happening within the church when, after putting brackets around the usage of ecstatic speech and again encouraging prophecy as something that is encouraging and strengthening, by adding “Indeed, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (14:32a).  When encountering this, it would behoove an observer to focus less on the “spirits of the prophets,” as this most likely is simply a reference to the Spirit being at work within the assembly through those engaging in body-strengthening words of prophecy, and more on the side of being “subject.”  This subjection serves as a reminder that one person is not going to vaunt themselves over or be vaunted over the community of believers. 

Any type of movement related to the activity of prophecy being used as an elevating factor within the body, as glossolalia was apparently being inappropriately used, wherein those that prophesy began to be afforded certain honors or by which a certain class of individuals within the church body began to appear, would be very much out of order.  Thus, rounding out his thought about the mutual subjection of those that engage in prophetic activity (which Paul hopes to be as widespread as reasonably possible in the assembly because of the purpose that it serves --- reminder: prophesy is NOT about predicting the future), Paul concludes with “for God is nor characterized by disorder but by peace” (14:33a). 

It cannot be repeated enough that honor competitions had no place in the church that is to be the visible representative of the One who eschewed being honored at every turn, and instead embraced suffering, shame, and the lowest places (including the lowest place ever devised, that being the cross).  These honor competitions, as can be gleaned from this letter to Corinth, were conducive of animosity and productive of factions.  This would unfortunately and decidedly militate against the order and well-being of the body of Christ, damaging its ability to engage in true fellowship for and among believers, while also damaging its ability to witness to a King and a kingdom to which all are subordinate. 

Indeed, if the members of the body of Christ are pre-occupied with participating in social systems that result in the subordinating of one believer to another, is there going to be a focus on all being completely subordinate to their Lord that subordinated Himself by going shamefully to a cross?   

Seeing God (part 8)

If it has been adequately established, both historically from the Scriptures and the tradition that they inform and by which they are informed and with which Jesus would have been familiar, as well as within the context of the sermon on the mount, that purity of heart is related to money (treasure) and its use, it is possible to then go on to discern, based on that understanding, what it might mean to “see God.” 

To determine what this means, it is necessary to look outside the sermon on the mount, realizing that the sermon of chapters five, six, and seven serve as the foundation of what is going to be seen and hear from Jesus throughout the remainder of Matthew’s Gospel.  That is a completely understandable and plausible assertion, as when one read a story that is presented in narrative form, as Matthew’s presentation of Jesus most certainly is, the reader knows that the things that are seen and heard and read early in the story will inform an understanding of what comes later, just as what comes later generally allows a reader to interpret that which has already been encountered. 

With that said, it is possible to turn to the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew.  In the thirty-first verse of this chapter, Jesus is heard speaking.  He says “When the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.”  Now it is obvious that Jesus is here speaking of Himself.  Prior to this, Matthew presents Jesus speaking of Himself as the Son of Man on twenty-three occasions.  After this usage, there will be an additional four, all found in the twenty-sixth chapter, thus making for a total of twenty-eight self-references by Jesus as the Son of Man. 

When Jesus speaks of the Son of Man in conjunction with coming in glory, angels, and a throne, He is making explicit reference to the Son of Man of Daniel chapter seven.  Looking to Daniel, one finds “I was watching in the night visions, And with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching.  He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before Him.  To Him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty.  All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving Him.  His authority is eternal and will not pass away.  His kingdom will not be destroyed” (7:13-14). 

When one hears reference to the Son of Man, especially at this juncture in Matthew’s work (though really throughout the entirety of the work), the reference demands to be heard in the context of and in connection with the kingdom of heaven.  This Son of Man is given rule over all.  He rules over the kingdom of the Creator God, which is an interchangeable term with kingdom of heaven, with both meaning the same thing (the Creator God’s will being done on earth as in heaven, through the agency of covenant members).  Since it is the Creator God Himself that is understood to ultimately rule His kingdom, then it is quite safe to say (though this probably needs far more qualifications and explanations), that the Son of Man, though not the Ancient of Days, and though He is not necessarily supposed to be looked to as “God the Father” (to use a Trinitarian term), is of a piece with the Creator God. 

Naturally, as the Matthean narrative is compiled from a post-Resurrection perspective in which Jesus is worshiped as the Son of God and the Messiah (the manifestation of the Creator God in the flesh), the term “Son of Man” is quite naturally and overtly bestowed with divine attributes.  Put simply, if Jesus is understood to be the manifestation of the Creator God, and if He calls Himself the Son of Man, then the Son of Man can be understood to be the Creator God.

No One Knows The Hour (part 37)

Before tackling the specific text from which this study commenced and provided the title of the study, it will be appropriate to take the opportunity to bolster the conjecture in which this effort has been engaged concerning second Peter.  To get there, one must first look to Matthew.  As Jesus continues on with His discourse about the fall of the Temple, he says to “stay alert, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.  But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, He would have been alert and would not have let his house be broken into” (Matthew 24:42-43).  Because of what has been determined, that the author of second Peter is referencing the prediction that the Temple would indeed fall, it is not at all surprising to hear him say “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief” (3:10a), as the analogy is drafted into use. 

Along the same lines, if second Peter is being written with a knowledge of that which will eventually come to be communicated in Matthew twenty-four, then it is also unsurprising to hear the regular references to Noah and the judgment of the flood, especially considering what Jesus can be heard to say with “For just like the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be.  For in those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark” (24:37-38).  To that, Jesus adds “And they knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away.  It will be the same at the coming of the Son of Man” (24:39). 

If Jesus’ prediction is, in fact, in mind, and if questions concerning the legitimacy of His prediction and therefore His ministry and therefore the church and its proclamation concerning Him, then this provides an interesting avenue by which to approach something to be found in the first chapter of the letter, which is “Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing.  You do well to pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place” (1:19a). 

In the third chapter of the letter, after insisting that the day of the Lord will come like a thief, a question is proffered: “Since all these things are to melt away in this manner,” as one remembers the three uses of “these things” in the synoptic recountings of Jesus’ discourse (while also remembering that, if this is indeed written before the Temple’s fall, that there is no access to Matthew, but rather, only the oral tradition and possibly Mark, if it was written before the fall, though this particular letter seems to make reference to that which would find its way into the Matthean tradition), “what sort of people must we be?” (3:11) 

Jesus proposes an answer to this question about the sort of people that His people must be as they wait for the fall of the Temple and the coming of the Son of Man to receive His kingdom.  He says “Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom the master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their food at the proper time?  Blessed is that slave whom the master finds at work when he comes.  I tell you the truth, the master will put him in charge of all his possessions” (24:45-47).  He then goes on to provide a contrast with an evil slave. 

Jesus continues, saying “At that time,” the time when the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days and the Temple falls, “the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom” (25:1), with a further contrast between those that were wise and foolish in their preparation in relation to the coming of the bridegroom (who clearly stands in for the Son of Man for purposes of this parable).  Following that, Jesus offers up that which is referred to as “the parable of the talents,” saying “For it is like a man going on a journey, who summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them” (25:14).  Like the previously mentioned slaves, these slaves were all given certain responsibilities. 

Continuing to seek the answer to “what sort of people must we be?”, Jesus is heard saying “When the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the angels with Him” (another telling mention of angels---not even the angels in heaven know when the Son of Man is going to come to the ancient of days), “then He will sit on His glorious throne.  All the nations will be assembled before Him,” as Daniel seven indicates, “and He will separate people from one another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  He will put the sheep on His right and the goats on His left.  Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (25:31-34). 

No One Knows The Hour (part 35)

This line of thinking becomes especially poignant when one considers that Jesus’ dealings with and in the Temple are a central feature of the Gospel accounts, and that all three make it more than clear that it is this ongoing clash with the Temple authorities, culminating in Jesus’ enacted judgment (in the mold of Jeremiah) against the Temple that ultimately resulted in the collusion with the Roman authorities that was productive of His death by crucifixion. 

While this can be said, it is more than possible that Mark did in fact write His Gospel before the Temple had come to its end, as is often posited.  Mark’s Gospel lacks the embellishments (in the sense of a more rounded-out presentation) on Jesus’ life that are to be found in Matthew and Luke, with this lack of embellishment being quite understandable.  If Mark writes before the Temple’s fall, whereas Matthew and Luke write after the fall and because of that fall, then it is understandable that Mark’s account would be more direct and straightforward, lacking the material details and stories to be found in the narratives on offer in Matthew and Luke.  Understandably, composing their accounts of Jesus in a post-Temple-fall world, Matthew and Luke could be far more comfortable relating more of Jesus’ life story, as preserved and transmitted via the oral tradition. 

Together with these important realizations, if one also holds to the idea that the early church, having rightly comprehended what Jesus meant by His fall-of-the-Temple-focused discourse (as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21), tightly connected the fall of the Temple with the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days in order to receive His kingdom, then the heavy inclusion of all of the Son of Man language throughout the Gospels makes even greater sense.  While this study will not take the time to offer an in-depth review of all of the mentions of the Son of Man, it is worth taking a bit of time to review and to draw out some conclusions and inferences that would have been obvious to Jesus’ original audience. 

In a superficial review, one cannot help but notice that John has the fewest uses of “Son of Man.”  Mark clocks in with the next fewest, while both Matthew and Luke are replete with its usage (Luke nearly doubling Mark’s count, while Matthew more than doubles Mark’s usage).  While John obviously pursues its agenda on a different path than do the synoptics, Mark’s relative restraint in using the term is understandable if it is, in fact, cautiously and expectantly composed before the fall of the Temple.  If Jesus presents Himself as the Danielic Son of Man, while tying the expected reign of the Son of Man to the fall of the Temple, it would not be odd to see a pre-Temple-fall composition being a bit more judicious in the use of the term.  If both Matthew and Luke are composed and disseminated post-Temple-fall, then all things considered, it would make far more sense to include far more Son of Man language. 

Of course, one does not simply assert that a lack of details in indicative of a pre-fall composition, as Mark could certainly have been just as precise and non-verbose, as opposed to his evangelistic counterparts, while writing after the Temple’s fall.  Once a position has been achieved in which it possible to correctly and contextually hear Jesus’ Son of Man language within His crystal clear, prophetical, and predictive speech about the coming fall of the Temple, doing so in the light of Daniel’s seventh chapter, it would be a tremendous dis-service to fail to reflect on a few of its appearances prior to the Temple speech in which Jesus connects the Temple’s fall with the Son of Man’s arrival and kingdom acquisition.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 24)

Jesus, who is unmistakably speaking about the fall of the Temple and the events that will surround that fall, goes on, saying “Immediately after the suffering,” or persecution, as it can also be translated, “of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken” (24:29).  With this, Jesus is quoting from Isaiah, primarily the thirteenth chapter (with allusions to the thirty-fourth chapter of Isaiah and the second chapter of Joel). 

Beginning in verse nine of that chapter, Isaiah writes “Look, the Lord’s day of judgment is coming; it is a day of cruelty and savage, raging anger, destroying the earth and annihilating its sinners.  Indeed the stars in the sky and their constellations no longer give out their light; the sun is darkened as soon as it rises, and the moon does not shine.  I will punish the world for its evil, and wicked people for their sin.  I will put an end to the pride of the insolent, I will bring down the arrogance of tyrants… So I will shake the heavens, and the earth will shake looks from its foundation, because of the fury of the Lord who commands armies, in the day He vents His raging anger” (13:9-11.13). 

In this passage, as is the case in much of the work that bears the name, Isaiah is employing apocalyptic imagery.  That is, he is not being literal, but rather, he is using language that will serve to inform all who hear that the events to come are going to be world-shaking, earth shattering happenings.  With this established, one then realizes that Jesus, in fine Jewish prophetic tradition, is using such language.  For what it’s worth, it is the same type of language in use in the book of Revelation, which is also known as “The Apocalypse.”  Without digressing into that discussion, it should be noted that the very name of that work informs all who approach it that apocalyptic, non-literal language is there being used. 

Remaining focused on Isaiah and taking in the context for what is on offer in the middle of that chapter, one notes that the preface to what has been written is “This is a message about Babylon that God revealed to Isaiah son of Amoz” (13:1).  In reference to Babylon, the Creator God is said to have revealed to Isaiah that “I have given orders to My chosen soldiers; I have summoned the warriors through whom I will vent my anger, my boasting, arrogant ones” (13:3).  This God’s soldiers and warriors are the Babylonians and His anger is going to be vented against Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple.  Those that experience the Creator God’s angry judgment (His actions to set things right according to His covenant and His larger purposes for His world), as far as Isaiah is concerned, are God’s very people.  When Judah is overrun, Jerusalem is ravaged, and the Temple is destroyed, it will be as if the stars, the sun, and the moon have ceased to give their light.  It will be as if the foundations of the earth have crumbled. 

In the thirteenth verse, Isaiah speaks of both the heavens and the earth, which Jesus can also be heard to do in just a short while, which is quite important for the purposes of this study.  This judgment from Israel’s God, of course, came to pass.  Babylon did conquer Judah, destroy Jerusalem and its Temple, and carry many off into captivity.  Quite obviously, the stars, sun, and moon did not actually cease to give light and the earth did not fall from its foundations.  When considering that Jesus’ hearers will understand the reference to Isaiah and to Babylon (and the judgment that their God brought upon His people through Babylon) that He is making, they understand that these images are not to be taken literally.  Thus the readers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are reminded that they are likewise not to take them literally when Jesus says employs said imagery.  It is the judgment of the Creator God and the earthly happenings that such judgment portends that are to be taken literally. 

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 10)

The second Scriptural use of “seventy seven” is in the book of Judges.  In the eighth chapter, as part of the story of Gideon (which would have been a very popular story for an occupied people such as the Israel of Jesus’ day, or a persecuted people such as the early church communities), Gideon is said to have “captured a young man from Succoth and interrogated him.  The young man wrote down for him the names of Succoth’s officials and city leaders---seventy-seven men in all” (8:14). 

It was at Succoth that Gideon, with he and his three hundred men pursuing the Midianites and exhausted, requested loaves of bread for his army.  The men of Succoth refused.  Gideon vowed vengeance and eventually took that vengeance, executing the city’s men (8:17).  Presumably, those executed first, if not exclusively, were those seventy-seven.  Again, if Jesus is speaking of the need for forgiveness instead of vengeance in the face of wrongs that are done, then it is more than possible that His insistence that forgiveness be offered seventy-seven times might very well be offered with this story in mind as well. 

The third and final use of “seventy-seven” in the Hebrew Scriptures comes from the book of Ezra.  Ezra is a post-exile work, chronicling the trials and travails of the Creator God’s people as many exiles returned to the land of their inheritance, joining those who had been able to remain in the land, and seeking to rebuild the Temple.  There, in the thirty-fifth verse of the eighth chapter (which, based on what is to be found there, seems as if it should be located after the second chapter), it is written that “The exiles who were returning from the captivity offered burnt offerings to the God of Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven male lambs, along with twelve male goats as a sin offering.  All this was a burnt offering to the Lord.” 

Also in the eighth chapter, Ezra presents the record of his group’s travel to Jerusalem with the expressed purpose of re-building the Temple of their God.  Reading there, one finds “On the twelfth day of the first month we began traveling from the Ahava Canal to go to Jerusalem.  The hand of our God was upon us, and He delivered us from our enemy and from bandits along the way.  So we came to Jerusalem, and we stayed there for three days” (8:31-32). 

This itself is an interesting point of comparison, as Jesus Himself, in a way, was traveling to Jerusalem.  It will not be too far down the road in Matthew’s narrative that Jesus will be seen to be triumphantly entering Jerusalem and dramatically entering the Temple.  Of course, later on, as part of Jesus’ “trial,” there will be testimony that Jesus had said “I am able to destroy the Temple of God and rebuild it in three days” (26:61b), which is an allusion to an underlying motif of the Jesus tradition, not explicitly heard in Matthew, that Jesus saw Himself as a replacement for the Temple. 

The parallels with Ezra, and with the words previously quoted, are quite striking.  If Ezra is in mind when Jesus speaks words in regards to forgiveness (and based on what follows immediately thereafter, this doesn’t seem to be a stretch at all), then He is calling attention to the wider context and story in which this use of “seventy-seven” is to be found.  For those that will be hearing Matthew’s story, which will occur well after the Resurrection and after the various components of the oral (and written, to be sure) Jesus tradition have been relatively fixed, the resonances between the Ezra passage and Matthew’s narrative practically jump off the page. 

Love On John's Terms (part 30 of 30)

With that said, and at risk of being redundant, one cannot allow himself to drift too far from awareness of the fact that Jesus’ hearers, along with those for whom the account recorded in John is prepared (again, relying on both oral and written components of the Jesus tradition that became relatively fixed at a very early stage), would have been thoroughly immersed in a worldview that had the entire history of Israel that stretched back to Abraham (including the creation narrative in which Israel’s God orders the cosmos) in view, as the story was told and re-told (much like can be seen in the book of Acts).  This would have been true even of Gentile members of the church, as the story of Jesus would not have been presented without instruction related to proper background, lest the Jesus story become void of any real meaning. 

Without this immersion, and without this critical historical framework, Jesus would not have been able to be understood by His contemporaries.  If every attempt is not made to become immersed in much the same way, so as to be able to hear Jesus and the stories of Jesus with the same mental construct as that which was possessed by first century Jews and those who made up the early Christian communities, hearing the story of God’s redemptive plan as presented through Israel, there will be a failure to understand Jesus.  If there is a failure to understand Jesus, then there is a failure to understand the God whom Jesus shows forth; and, at least for the purposes of this author, if one fails in those things, then one fails to understand what is truly meant by love.     

So, getting back to miraculous signs and the Moses/exodus motif that is prevalent in this Gospel, consider the previously referenced signs provided by Moses before Pharaoh.  In the second chapter of John, after Jesus performs an action in the Temple, “the Jewish leaders responded, ‘What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?’” (2:18)  In the sixth chapter, after Jesus feeds the multitude, walks on water, and speaks about Himself as the bread of life, there one finds the inquiry of “what miraculous sign will your perform, so that we may see it and believe you?  What will you do?” (6:30)  What can be seen in Exodus?  In the seventh chapter, when the Creator God commands Moses to go before Pharaoh to demand the release of His people, He tells Moses that Pharaoh will say “Do a miracle” (7:9).  The miraculous signs come forth, but Pharaoh’s heart is hardened.  This same type of thing can be seen being played out in John, with Jesus obviously playing the role of Moses. 

Early on, Moses signs are mildly effective, but they are said to be matched by Pharaoh’s servants that are practiced in the secret arts.  Indeed, the signs aren’t quite good enough, which is also reflected in John.  Moses begins with the signs for Pharaoh, but then come the plagues.  Though these are meant to convince Pharaoh to set Israel free while also demonstrating the supremacy of Israel’s God and the impotency of Egypt’s gods (much like the creation narrative in Genesis is meant to, among other things, show forth the supremacy of Israel’s God over the gods of the other nations, answering their various creation mythologies with that which is presented as the creative action of the one true God), they have the greater role of proving to Israel that Moses is the deliverer that their God has provided, and that their God is acting on their behalf in faithfulness to His covenant. 

It is not difficult to imagine that faith in this fact---in Moses as God’s appointed deliverer---grew over time as the miraculous signs came forth.  With the signs, there is a growing tension between Moses and Pharaoh, and the final plague results in the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh in which the freedom of the people is finally granted.  The people are given their freedom, though Pharaoh quickly attempts to rise up and re-assert himself to no avail, and even in the freedom there will be a long and difficult journey to their land of promise.  In John, the author indicates that Jesus signs are mildly effective, gaining him a following in which people begin to express their loyalty to him.  He even has John the Baptist as something of a mouthpiece, just as Moses had Aaron.  Within John’s narrative world, these miraculous signs culminate in the raising of Lazarus from the dead.  In that story, it is Jesus’ love for Lazarus and his family that prompts Him to act to raise him---to give him an exodus from the exile of death. 

This point does not go un-noticed in an attempt to comprehend the Johannine conception of love.  In the end, the author suggests that “the chief priests and the Pharisees,” quite alarmed by what has happened, “called the council together and said, “What are we doing?  For this man is performing many miraculous signs.  If we allow him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation” (11:47-48).  In this, does one not hear echoes of Exodus and of Pharaoh’s decision to pursue Israel?  There it was said, “What in the world have we done?  For we have released the people of Israel from serving us!” (14:6b) 

For the author of John (and the Johannine corpus), who appears to have a specific notion concerning love, this miraculous sign of raising Lazarus from the dead is a dramatic turning point, as it is said to be that which was responsible for the crowds gathering to hail Jesus in His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, “because they had heard that Jesus had performed this miraculous sign, the crowd when out to meet Him” (12:18).  It is what ultimately leads to Jesus’ death on the cross, which was ultimately the supreme act of self-sacrificial love (going down into death to bear the curse of an entire people) to which the entire narrative points and upon which the fate of the cosmos rests.  This, of course, leads to the Resurrection, which, following His paramount act of love (endured in suffering and shame), is Jesus’ exodus to the long-awaited promised land of the redeemed creation of the Creator God, there to be joined by those that cast their lot with Him and share in a world now re-shaped and re-formed by the supreme ethic of love.  

Love On John's Terms (part 26)

Just as it has become apparent that it is a self-sacrificial love as supremely demonstrated in Jesus’ talk of Himself as the good shepherd that comes to undergird the life of the church, and that the absence of self-sacrifice or a willingness to undergo suffering and deprivation will be fatal to the Jesus movement, so also it can be affirmed, as part of an approach to the Scriptures so as to hear them on their own terms and in their own voices, the hearers of the Gospel of John will know that pulling out isolated pieces and examining them independently of the entire narrative, would be damaging to the story and to the message of the Christ as a whole. 

Clearly, the issues of love, Jesus as the embodiment of Israel’s Creator God, miraculous signs, the concept of eternal life (with its exile and exodus subtext that hinges on an understanding of the history of Israel), sight and blindness, the idea of Jesus being the prophet like Moses, Gentile inclusion, bread and water, and talk of Jesus as possibly being demon possessed are to be held in mind while the story is being told (whether it is being heard or read). 

The narrative is constantly building, and it is clearly designed to be consumed as a whole, rather than treating passages in isolation, as this will lead to a consistent mis-construal of the author’s intentions as it relates to his attempt to convey that which he wants to be known about Jesus.  As one considers how strange it seems that the Gospels were originally designed to be heard as dramatic presentations for an orally attuned community rather than read as part of a devotional experience, one is also forced to confess that our post-Gutenberg press culture is just as foreign to John’s author, as would be John’s author’s pre-Gutenberg culture.    

The Gospel reader must subject himself to this reminder because it has a bearing on the entire project of discerning love on John’s terms, related to the whole of the Johannine corpus that does not explicitly reference an author by the name of John (John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John).  If one intends to understand the ethic of love within the community of Christ-followers, which is an ethic that would appear to be of paramount importance to this author and therefore the community addressed by his composition, it is entirely necessary to take a wide-angle approach to his story of Jesus, attempting to interpret the presentation in a way that allows for an accurate glimpse of the issues with which are being dealt in the early decades of the Christian movement (presumably in the latter part of the first century) through this particular telling of the Jesus tradition. 

Not only must it be said that individual scenes in John’s Gospel are not to be taken in isolation, but it must also be said that histories are not created in isolation.  That is, there is no such thing as a truly objective representation of the facts.  In the process of doing history, and especially when one is doing history that is heavily tinged with theology, as can be seen in the Gospel of John, one is forced to realize that all facts and events are viewed through a lens that is colored by the worldview with which one approaches a given set of facts.  There is nothing wrong with that, but the reader does himself a disservice by failing to acknowledge such things.  Along with that, any creation of a historical narrative will be affected by a culture that is constantly conditioning its members respond to events along certain lines. 

Corinth's Communion (part 11)

Though Paul does write that “A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup” (11:28), the thrust of the letter, when considered within a diligently teased out knowledge about the context of meal practice and what it communicated about the church and the presentation of the kingdom of heaven that is the responsibility of the church, forces one to consider the “person” in the context of the community in an attempt to fully and rightly discern what it is that is taking place and what has the Apostle so exercised at this congregation. 

This is hardly a nonsensical deduction, as Paul began this section of the letter with a general address to the whole of the church that he would have intended to hear his words together as a community at the same time and same place.  He wrote “I do not praise you” (11:17).  This is clearly directed to the group.  When he writes “you come together not for the better but for the worse” (11:17), and then reinforces this with “when you come together as a church” (11:18), this is clearly group-speak and should be heard as such.  Hearing it in this way serves as a reminder that it is the actions of the believing community, composed of individual actors (but not necessarily the actions of individuals in isolation) that are the concern of the Apostle.  

The addition of “I hear there are divisions among you” (11:18) reveals Paul’s desire for unity as a group, while also serving as a lament that there are divisions.  Such a lament would militate against any type of practice that served to elevate the individual aspect when concerning oneself with the meal which identified one as a loyalist to Jesus and as a willing participant in the kingdom program of the Creator God for the world that was being enacted through the actions of the church.  It would seem that, owing to the attention that he is providing to this issue, the ongoing actions of the church of the Christ will be reflected in the meal table and then, as an outgrowth of their meal practice, enacted by the church community 

This is not to say that the Creator God does not work through individuals, but such a thought does serve as a reminder that no man (or woman) is an island unto himself.  So there is no need to devalue the importance of individual pursuit within the kingdom.  However, maintaining consideration of the context, which is that of a meal that is communal through and through, individualistic concerns, especially as Paul addresses this church, fall by the wayside.  Realizing this makes it possible to get at the root of the problem.   

It has become clear that an approach to that which serves to identify the church of the Christ, that being the communion table, that puts a premium on the individual heart or soul condition of the one that comes to the table, is almost counter-intuitive to what Paul believes is necessary and appropriate (and has no place in a reading of the first Corinthian letter).  Indeed, if the example provided by Jesus is considered again, as the meals of the Jesus tradition have come to devolve upon the communion table, one could, if hung up on individualism and anachronistic determinations of worthiness and examination, say that Jesus was Himself prompting violations that would bring judgments of weakness, sickness, and death, as He was consistently coming to the table and welcoming to the table (and thus breaking bread with) those identified as tax collectors and sinners, who were therefore most certainly examined and considered to be individuals of the unworthy variety.  This is quite the conundrum, and one is only forced to it if one continues to miss the main concern of the Apostle as he addressed what he had learned was happening in this church.        

Compassionate Brother (part 5)

Moving forward in the story, it is said that even though Jacob had willingly taken her as a wife, that “Leah was unloved” (Genesis 29:31).  In direct response to this---at least, this is what the author seems intent on conveying---the Lord “enabled her to become pregnant while Rachel remained childless.  So Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son” (29:31-b-32a).  This son was named Reuben, which was a Hebrew word meaning “The Lord has looked with pity on my oppressed condition” (29:32c).  In turn, the name of each child that would be born to Jacob would also be a Hebrew word reflecting the circumstances of their birth or the mindset of the mother at the time of conception or birth.  Here, one notes with great interest that it is suggested that the wives of Jacob and not Jacob himself that give names to the sons born to them.  Surely this was an oddity in that age.  If so, this oddity would not be lost on the original hearers of the Genesis narrative, so nor should it be lost on those who read this narrative today. 

Though this study will not dwell on it, it is worth pondering that the Scriptural narrative preserves the tradition that the mothers took for themselves the honor of naming these children, especially considering the fact that these women were, for all practical purposes, the property of their husbands.  Taking in the wider scope of the whole of the record of Scripture, this record of naming is something akin to the unsuppressed and seemingly celebrated fact that in the Gospel narratives it was women that were first given the responsibility to announce the Resurrection of Jesus.  This was a curious thing indeed in a time in which a woman had no societal standing, were believed to be largely incapable of accurate reporting of factual matters, and in which even their testimony in civil or criminal judicial proceedings carried no weight whatsoever.

The text suggests that the sons of Jacob come forth in rapid-fire succession.  This appears to be a competition among the wives---an honor competition, to be sure.  After the birth of Reuben, Leah becomes pregnant again, giving birth to a boy that she names Simeon.  Another pregnancy results in a son that she named Levi.  With a fourth pregnancy, along comes Judah.  With a growing jealousy of her older sister while she herself remained childless, Rachel demands that Jacob also marry her servant named Bilhah, insisting that “she can bear children for me and I can have a family through her” (30:3b).  Subsequently, Bilhah gets pregnant and delivers a son, whom Rachel names Dan.  Bilhah experiences another pregnancy, delivering yet another son.  Rachel names him Naphtali. 

Not to be outdone in the ongoing intra-household honor competition, Leah provides her servant Zilpah to Jacob.  Zilpah becomes pregnant and provides a son that Leah names Gad.  With another pregnancy comes another son to whom Leah provides the name Asher.  Leah gets into the game again, giving birth to fifth and sixth sons of her own and naming them Issachar and Zebulun.  For good measure, Leah gives birth to a daughter named Dinah as well.  Finally, after all of these things, it is said that “God took note of Rachel.  He paid attention to her and enabled her to become pregnant” (30:22).  She would give birth to a son and name Him Joseph.       

Of course, though it is clear that Joseph does indeed come last of all, there is no need to presume that all of these children came in the precise chronological order in which they are presented in the text.  As was said, this appears to be a competition among wives for the almost singular honor that could be awarded to them---that of giving sons to their husbands.  Though Reuben obviously comes first, there is no reason to imagine that, according to the Scriptural record, there was not significant overlap in these ongoing developments.  Must one presume that Rachel waited until after Leah’s fourth child before she insisted that Jacob take Bilhah?  With her position and honor as favored wife at stake, this hardly seems likely.  Similarly, one needs not imagine that Leah waited for Bilhah to deliver two children to Jacob and Rachel before insisting that Jacob take Zilpah as a wife, that Leah’s fifth or sixth sons had to come after all the sons delivered by Bilhah and Zilphah, or that Dinah came last of all?  There is no reason to do so.  That said, what should be noticed is that this is a rather riotous series of events, and should be understood as such.                   

Experts In The Law (part 8)

The next instance of the use of this key phrase is found in the nineteenth chapter of Luke.  In the forty-seventh verse, Luke writes that “Jesus was teaching daily in the Temple courts,” and that “The chief priests and the experts in the law and the prominent leaders among the people were seeking to assassinate Him.”  This will be followed up at the beginning of the twentieth chapter with “as Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple courts and proclaiming the Gospel, the chief priests and the experts in the law with the elders came up and said to Him, ‘Tell us, By what authority are you doing these things?  Or who is it who gave you this authority?’” (20:1-2) 

Predictably, maintaining the rabbinic challenge motif that Luke seems to have carefully sought to build through his narrative, and yielding no ground in the perpetual contest of honor and shame, Jesus answers the questions with a question of His own, related to John the Baptist (it seems that Luke intends to demonstrate the explicit connection between Jesus’ ministry and that of John), eventually eliciting an embarrassing and honor-sacrificing “we don’t know” from His interrogators. 

Before the mentions of the experts in the law that close out and open the nineteenth and twentieth chapters respectively, it is reported that “Jesus entered the Temple courts and began to drive out those who were selling things there, saying to them, ‘It is written, “My house will be a house of prayer,” but you have turned it into a den of robbers!’” (19:45-46)  Thus, with this stirring reminder of the words of the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (which would not have been lost on those who witnessed the incident or those who would hear about the incident from Luke and others), Jesus, with the full weight of His increasingly messianic life-path providing support, enacts a symbolic judgment against the Temple (as did Jeremiah). 

The people who hear these words of Jesus will know and potentially call to mind that Jeremiah went on to announce, presumably on behalf of Israel’s God, “I will destroy this Temple which I have claimed as My own, this Temple that you are trusting to protect you.  I will destroy this place that I gave to you and your ancestors” (Jeremiah 7:14).  Coming from the one that has been successfully challenging and meeting any and all challenges from the representatives of the Temple and of the Temple tradition at every turn, these are weighty words in deed. 

Those listening to Luke’s presentation, who are also aware, as would be the modern reader, of the way that the story proceeds, know that this is going to provoke a response by the very ones whose authority and legitimacy is being challenged.  Concordantly then, any mentions of the experts in the law, going forward, will carry with it this symbolic judgment of the Temple.  After reporting that Jesus has said these things, Luke writes that “Jesus was teaching daily in the Temple courts” (19:47a).  This would only be natural, in that if He has pronounced judgment on the Temple, and if He does indeed believe Himself to be the new Temple (the place at which the Creator God dwells/the place of the coming together of heaven as the realm of the Creator God and earth as the realm of the those created and put in place as the image of the Creator God), then Jesus is quite naturally going to locate Himself at the place where the legitimate Temple is to be found. 

Now it is much easier to understand why it is that “The chief priests and the experts in the law and the prominent leaders among the people were seeking to assassinate Him” (19:47b).  Luke is explicitly linking Jesus’ pronouncement as king (by the enthralled masses) and His judgment against the Temple with the desire for His assassination by those that represented the Temple’s power structure.  This most definitely feeds into the negative portrait of the experts in the law, which will also serve to heavily inform a statement that is soon to come, and which will be sure to draw the desired response from his hearers.    

Where Your Treasure Is (part 4 of 4)

Shortly thereafter, Jesus can be heard saying “So do not be overly concerned about what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not worry about such things… your father knows that you need them” (Luke 12:29,30b).  The rich man in the parable had taken this to the opposite extreme, which should have been obvious to Jesus’ audience.  Jesus then brings the story back to His primary concern, which was the rule of the Creator God (the coming together of heaven and earth) exercised through His covenant people, saying “pursue His kingdom, and these things,” food, drink, clothing (12:28), “will be given to you as well” (12:31). Clearly, the man in the parable was not in pursuit of the kingdom of heaven (the rule of God/the coming together of heaven and earth). 

With this, Jesus has outlined a portion of His vision of the service of the kingdom of heaven.  He says, “Do not be afraid, little flock,” positioning Himself as the shepherd-King of the kingdom, for your Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom” (12:32).  The kingdom of heaven (the Creator God’s rule), Jesus says, is not unattainable.  Though it will eventually take a direct action on His part to accomplish a final and grand consummation, the Creator God intends to work through His people to make manifest His rule as a foretaste of what is to come. 

The Creator God’s constant desire has been to move through His people in a way that will cause them to provide witness to the world that He is ultimately Sovereign.  To this end, Jesus’ ministry has been marked by His going “through towns and villages, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God” (8:1b).  Indeed, the larger witness of the Gospel records are that Jesus was insistent that the kingdom of God was at hand. 

Jesus then goes on to fill out His thoughts about the appearance that will be taken when the rule of the Creator God on earth was made manifest, by saying, in contradiction to storing up one’s abundance for oneself, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor” (12:33a).  This firmly connects these words with the earlier parable, which Jesus introduced by saying “one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (12:15b).  In this selling, Jesus’ listeners are informed that they will “Provide yourselves purses that do not wear out---a treasure in heaven that never decreases, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys” (12:33b). 

Because Jesus’ use of “heaven” is here framed by His reference to “the kingdom,” one should not imagine a place somewhere off in space.  Rather, along with His and Luke’s hearers, the call is to imagine the rule of Israel’s God on earth, a time in which death has lost its sting, in which the grave has no victory, and where corruption and decay are no more.  Jesus’ words fit squarely into the vision of a restored creation, which was part and parcel of the conception of the full manifestation of the kingdom of heaven.  It is then that there will be no wearing out, no decrease, no thieves, no moths, and no destruction. 

To this is then added, “For where your treasure is, there you heart will be also” (12:34).  The location of the treasure is firmly ensconced within the vision of the kingdom of heaven.  Selling possessions and giving to the poor, and doing so in recognition of Jesus’ claim of Lordship and of His God’s claim on all things, becomes an operation that causes an overlap of heaven and earth.  The treasure, ultimately, because of the selling of possessions, ends up with the poor. 

This, of course, in a way that should be of massive interest to anyone that claims an allegiance to Jesus as Lord, is where Jesus was and is to be found.  Though it is not to be found in Luke’s narrative, a substantial component of the Jesus tradition that would have been in the air at the time of Luke’s writing is “Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me… I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me” (Matthew 25:34b-36,40b). 

One is not left to wonder at what is implied by these oh so important words.  In providing for the poor, the location of one’s treasure and heart is revealed, and in so doing, one is able to stand with Jesus in acknowledgment of His rule and of the presence of God’s kingdom.              

In This Is Love (part 4)

Nevertheless, despite his failure, it remains the case that Adam, according to Scripture, which is written with a conceptual framework dominated by Jewish tradition and custom, is thought of as the son of God.  The Scriptures posit multiple sons of God.  Indeed, to remain consistent with terminology employed by the author, Scripture contains multiple revelations of the sons of God.  This is quite important to consider when returning to the place of embarkation upon the theological, Christological, and missiological voyage of this study, which was the tenth verse of the fourth chapter of this first letter of John.  Even the author’s own choice of words and structure spur the reader on to a remembrance of the multiple revelations of God’s sons, as can be seen in the regular usage of “revealed” throughout the third chapter, and on into the fourth chapter. 

The repeated use of “revealed” in the third chapter seem to hang on and gain their meaning from the most direct and purposeful statement in connection with the word, which was that the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil.  Here, one makes note of the fact that this author is not alone in his appeal to the revelation of the Son of God (or sons of God) as an obvious part of the divine plan of the Creator. 

To that point, in his letter to the Romans, the Apostle Paul engages in similar rhetoric, writing that “the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God… in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:19,20b-21).  Can one not surmise what it is that Paul is implying by the use of such language?  Can one not equate the setting free of creation, in connection with the revelation of the sons of God, with the destruction of the works of the devil?  Doing so does not at all seem like an unrealistic or implausible application of the premise. 

So now there are two New Testament witnesses to the idea of the revelation of the sons of God, which should certainly lead an observer to explore this idea.  The application of the title of son, in relation to God, is not limited to Adam and Jesus.  Adam is merely the first.  It would seem that he is the first to be given a task related to destroying the works of the devil, with this task connected to his righteousness, or his being righteous, and that in the context of faithfulness to a covenant.  The second son, or at least the second explicit reference to a son whose revelation is in connection with a charge to do battle with the works of the devil, with this son-ship presented in a manner consistent with that of Adam (righteousness---covenant faithfulness marked out by obedience to specific commands), is the nation of Israel. 

It is necessary to qualify this statement for a number of reasons.  The first reason is that Adam, in Genesis, is never referred to as the son of God.  This can only be seen for the first time in the Gospel of Luke.  When seen here, one must also come to the realization that the thought therein reflected likely demonstrates a long-held opinion.  The first Scriptural reference to sons of God occurs in the sixth chapter of Genesis, where it is reported that “the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful.  Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose” (6:2).  The Creator God’s reaction to this is indicative that such activity was not pleasing to Him, as the text there quickly progresses to the pointing out of the wickedness of humankind (6:5).  Clearly, these sons were not sons purposefully revealed to destroy the devil’s works, and there is no reference to any type of covenant of obedience. 

Den Of Lions (part 12)

Now, returning to the issue of what it was that Darius said to Daniel, it is worth asking again why it was that Darius said what he said.  It would seem to make a great deal of sense that Daniel, who was being threatened with the lion’s den, would have quoted this Psalm to Darius, with Darius quite easily able to make the connection (based on a review of the Psalm to this point) between the words of the Psalm and what it was that he knew Daniel was going to be experiencing.  After the Psalmist speaks of his horrific plight, and his being set in the dust of death amidst lions and wild dogs, while indicating that death was inescapable (the Psalmist speaking of a state of exile, in strong Israelite tradition), there comes a change of tone. 

After the Psalmist considers himself dead, which is indicated by the fact that “They were dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments” (22:18), as dead men need no clothes, he speaks of deliverance.  The Psalmist speaks and says “But you, O Lord, do not remain far away!  You are my source of strength!  Hurry and help me!  Deliver me from the sword!  Save my life…!  Rescue me…! (using Israel’s familiar exodus language)  You have answered me!” (22:19-21) 

It is in the wake of this that the Psalmist insists that he “will declare Your Name to my countrymen!  In the middle of the assembly I will praise You!” (22:22)  Could this be why Darius says to Daniel that “Your God whom you continually serve will rescue you,” as he was somehow and in some way expecting Daniel to be preserved?  If Daniel has cast himself in the role of the Psalmist that is now experiencing this misfortune, which would not be terribly difficult considering the nature of the ordeal (den of lions), then it is not a stretch in the least little bit to presume that Daniel made this Psalm known to Darius and to all who were responsible for this attempt on his life, as did Jesus.     

Not only could Daniel have spoken the words of the Psalm in the ears of Darius, but like Jesus, he could also have offered these words to the ears of all of his accusers as well.  Darius then, could have heard and responded to what could be believed to be Daniel’s strange choice of words, which spoke of help, deliverance, rescue, and answering that would enable him to declare the Name and praises of his God following the ordeal.  Naturally, the others could have responded to the words as well.  So upon Daniel’s having been thrown into the den of lions, and subsequent to the king’s reassuring words to him (spurred by Daniel’s faithful referencing to a song of His people), “a stone was brought and placed over the opening to the den.  The king sealed it with his signet ring and with those of his nobles so that nothing could be changed with regard to Daniel” (6:17).  This should quickly put one in mind of Matthew’s reports of what followed Jesus’ death (surrounded by “dogs” and “lions,” with His allusions to Psalm 22), after Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body of Jesus and placed it in his own tomb. 

Matthew reports that “The next day (which is after the day of preparation) the chief priests and the Pharisees assembled before Pilate and said, ‘Sir, we remember that while that deceiver was still alive He said, “After three days I will rise again.”  So give orders to secure the tomb until the third day.  Otherwise His disciples may come and steal His body and say to the people, “He has been raised from the dead,” and the last deception will be worse than the first.’  Pilate said to them, ‘Take a guard of soldiers.  Go and make it as secure as you can.’  So they went with the soldiers of the guard and made the tomb entrance secure by sealing the stone” (Matthew 27:62-66).  According to the Gospel records, Jesus had indeed spoken of rising again after three days.  Along with that, His recent reference to the twenty-second Psalm (while on the cross) in an atmosphere in which there was a great awareness of the book of Daniel, as well as a constant looking forward to a Davidic king not unlike the king that had been said to have spoken that great Psalm, would have induced this exchange between Pilate and those responsible for Jesus’ own journey into the metaphorical lion’s den that was crucifixion and death.   

Table Of The Justified (part 2)

The Jesus tradition, as it would have been known at that point in time, would have spoken to this matter quite clearly.  Though we must reiterate that the Gospel accounts, in their written form, were years from being completed and shared amongst the believing communities at the time of the Jerusalem council and its attendant letter, the oral traditions of Jesus would have been making their rounds.  Based on Paul’s position concerning joint table fellowship, with no real concerns being expressed by him about food (as indicated by his words from Galatians and the report of “no small disagreement” in Acts fifteen), we can reasonably and profitably conclude that the apostle was aware of that which is presented in the seventh chapter of Mark. 

There we read “Then He (Jesus) called the crowd again and said to them, ‘Listen to Me, everyone, and understand.  There is nothing outside of a person that can defiled him by going into him.  Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles him.’” (7:14b-15)  A few lines later, we hear Jesus expanding and expounding on this statement, saying “Are you so foolish?  Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him?  For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out in the sewer” (7:18-19a).  Mark parenthetically adds “This means all foods are clean” (7:19b).  We can only imagine how this record of Jesus’ life and ministry would have been received within the church communities that had seen the dust-up between Paul and Peter, learned about the Jerusalem council, or received the letter that resulted from that council. 

The scene in Mark concludes with Jesus saying “What comes out of a person defiles him.  For from within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, and folly.  All these evils come from within and defile a person” (7:20-23).  Of course, what had prefaced these words from Jesus was His insistence that “Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition” (7:8), and this could certainly have colored Paul’s perception of the issue.  

With this in mind, it can also be said that the far more pressing issue is the unity of the church.  Concerns over who can sit where, based on where certain types of food are placed, seem wholly irrelevant when considered in the shadow of the cross or in the light of the Resurrection.  Such considerations would seem to be a motivating factor behind what Paul communicates in the fourteenth chapter of Romans.  

Let us consider the whole of that chapter in the light of the Acts controversy, doing so while the pouring out of the Spirit, the controversies and events and letter of Acts fifteen, concerns about food, Gentile justification (covenant participation), the unity of the church, the family of God composed of all peoples, the importance of the church’s meal table, the value and place of traditional covenant markers, costly acts of sacrificial love performed by those that claim allegiance to Jesus as Lord, and the role of faith (as connected to the story of Abraham that functions as part of the basis for Gentile participation in the covenant/kingdom of God family that was founded with Abraham) linger in the background.  These things, rather than attempts at identifying the “weak,” “strong,” “servants,” “holy days,” “clean,” or “unclean,” will provide a more profitable reading that is far more consistent with the larger purpose of Romans and with Paul’s goal to advance the realm of the kingdom of God (multiplying the places at which heaven and earth will overlap via the activities of the people and communities that are to function as the Temple of God) through the announcement of that kingdom and the universal dominion of Jesus as the Christ (the Gospel). 

Paul writes: “Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.  One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables.  The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him.  Who are you to pass judgment on another’s servant?  Before his own master he stands or falls.  And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (14:1-4). 

As we read the opening we should not fail to notice Paul’s use of “opinions,” which, if the Acts fifteen controversy plays a role in his overall thinking about the church (which it most certainly does), allows us to enter into the previously referenced silence on offer in Acts fifteen when it comes to Paul’s response to the events there recorded and to the letter there delivered.  It is certainly feasible that Paul here makes mental reference to the “opinions” of the Jerusalem council, while also addressing the opinions of believers in Rome.  Regardless, they are opinions, which is key.  We must imagine a deliberate use of that word, being reminded that so many opinions must be subsumed to the word offered by the cross and the Resurrection. 

Also, Paul’s use of the language of “accepted” is not insignificant, for that is a word, being both ambiguously and equally applied to two groups of peoples, that suggests the importance of the unity and equality of believers, be they Jew or Gentile (which lurks in the background of issues of food consumption and table fellowship).  In addition to that, the idea of the Lord being responsible for the standing of a believer could offer resonances of covenant standing, with the use of “Lord” going back to Jesus, who provides covenant standing to all peoples based on belief in Him and His Gospel.