Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 21)

If there was a sustained reflection on the afterlife, and given the remote possibility that the soul lived on (with no concern for the body), it was determined that the gods would pay little attention to deceased humanity, as they lived in a separate sphere of existence that did not touch the sphere of human existence, and were unconcerned with human affairs.  The gods, to the epicurean way of thinking, were completely absorbed with their own pursuit of pleasure, which could be looked upon as an example of fashioning gods in one’s own likeness.  Conversely, and more positively as it relates to what should be the Christian response to what is believed about the entity to whom Christians look as God, this could serve as a sterling inducement to living one’s life in imitation of what one believes to be the case concerning the gods. 

It was routinely believed that the gods would only bring ruination to their blessed condition if they took it upon themselves to interfere, at any level, with human affairs.  So for the most part, the gods stood as examples of how to go about living a happy life.  This way of thinking, with its obvious self-imposed limitations, can be quite useful for the Christian.  Subtracting the lack of interaction with humanity from this point of view, the foundational belief that the Creator God of the universe manifested Himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, revealing Himself and His character through His ministry and His cross, and erecting those things as the lens through which He must be subsequently viewed and understood and revealed by His worshipers to the world, is an example that, if followed, most assuredly leads to what will ultimately be defined as a happy and virtuous life.     

Without commanding assent, and certainly eschewing dogmatism at this point, as one attempts to discover the multi-level counter-cultural sensibilities on offer in this first letter to Timothy, this information about both Stoicism and Epicureanism becomes useful background noise when listening to what comes next in the fourth chapter.  Building on the statement that “every creation of God is good,” which led to the examination of this component of the religious and philosophical culture of the day, one reads “By pointing out such things to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, having nourished yourself on the words of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed” (1 Timothy 4:6). 

This now leads to tuning in to the underlying tension between the physical and the spiritual---between the creation-affirming Christian worldview and its opposites, and hearing “But reject those myths fit only for godless and gullible, and train yourself for godliness.  For ‘physical exercise has some value, but godliness is valuable in every way.  It holds promise for the present life and for the life to come.’” (4:7-8)  Notice the talk of value and the dual emphasis on this life and the life to come.  Paul continues: “This saying is trustworthy an deserves full acceptance.  In fact this is why we work hard and struggle” (4:10a).  Why?  Why work hard and struggle?  Many in that time would affirm that such is pointless.  Paul says it is “because we have set our hope on the living God” (4:10b), that being the God that represented the overt over-lapping of heaven and earth, and who was physically resurrected into this world, “who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers” (4:10c). 

Calling His Disciples (part 6)

The “basic” happening connected to a couple of disciples departing from their father would have been readily identifiable to the original hearers of these Gospels, as the majority of the audience would have been well-versed in the history of Israel and the story of the Creator God’s people.  The primary audience (and later audiences that would come to be necessarily versed in the Israel narrative that gives shape to Jesus and His Gospel message) would have been ready (and rightly so) to hear, process, and interpret this story of Jesus according to the worldview that was constructed and given shape by that history. 

Much like those that confess Jesus as Lord and believe in His Resurrection are conditioned to a pre-disposition to accept accounts of the supernatural and miraculous, so too would the audience of the Gospel accounts, following His Resurrection that was understood to have shown Jesus forth as Israel’s Messiah and therefore the Creator God acting in the flesh on behalf of Israel and the world, be conditioned to place the story of Jesus and His ministry within the context of the covenant God’s long-running redemptive plan for His people and His world.  That plan, of course, was intimately connected to Israel and is shown forth in the history that they told and by which their identity and their interaction with the world was shaped.

So when the Gospel authors tell stories about Jesus calling His disciples, and these stories are heard with a post-Resurrection understanding of Jesus as the human voice of Israel’s Creator God (realizing that all of these accounts, though seeking to relate pre-Resurrection history, are presenting a post-Resurrection narrative with an obvious and justifiable theological bias), and the authors offer this seemingly minor detail about the father of two of these disciples and the fact that they were called to leave him, the thoughts of the hearer should take flight to Genesis and to Abraham.  In chapter twelve of Genesis one finds “Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you” (12:1). 

In substance then, those hearing these stories of the call of the disciples as they are presented in the synoptics, are hearing a recapitulation of the call of Abraham.  If this is the case, an objection might be raised that Abraham was not actually called to leave his father, or at the least, that he did not have to make that difficult decision, as the eleventh chapter of Genesis appears to close by recounting that Abraham’s father died in the land of Haran before Abraham received his call from God.  That objection falls flat, as the text of Genesis does not necessarily indicate a chronological progression of events. 

Understanding that the Genesis account is not necessarily a progression takes a step in the direction of reconciling the Genesis account with the account of Abraham that is provided by Stephen in Acts (the second part of the Luke’s two-part narrative).  There, Stephen says “The God of glory appeared to our forefather Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he settled in Haran, and said to him, ‘Go out from your country and from your relatives, and come to the land I will show you.’  Then he went out from the country of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran.  After his father died, God made him move to this country where you now live” (7:2-4).  

Problems For James (part 3)

As should be expected from those that are operating with a proper, first century Jewish mindset, it is the earthly manifestation of the kingdom of the Creator God and its demonstration through the meal (the prominent social event of the day in that time---this has gone effectively unchanged) that is the foremost consideration, rather than an ambiguous concept of “salvation” that relied on relatively foreign, Greek concepts of an ethereal escape into a good-creation-denying-and-therefore-supposedly-blissful disembodied condition, with an eternal residence in some nether-regions beyond the clouds. 

This concept, though familiar to Jews of the first century, was largely rejected as antithetical to their worldview and the way that they understood their God.  It would also come to be rejected by Gentiles that came into contact with the Gospel claim of the Lordship of Jesus.  Contrary to the denial of the inherent goodness (though corrupted) of the creation, by submitting to the Lordship of Jesus via the Spirit’s mysterious though effectual application of the power of the Resurrection, those that called Jesus Lord came to be concerned with the manifestation of the Creator God’s kingdom on earth, along with what they understood to be the intended end of the renewal and restoration of the creation and its gathering together of a people into a body that was called to live out, in advance, that soon-to-be consummated kingdom as they celebrated the re-creation that was to come.  The Resurrection of Jesus into this world (that had been changed and was constantly being changed by the power of the Resurrection) with a new and transformed physical body, served as the model for their expectation.

So moving forward here in James, one does well to keep in mind the words of Jesus (from Luke 14---which would likely have composed part of the oral traditions of Jesus being shared by the church community at large) concerning exaltation and humiliation, about the first being last and the last being first, about the filling of the empty seats in the parable of the great banquet, and about the prevailing mindset (that Jesus sought to change) in His day about the messianic banquet (that it was the Creator God’s judgment on non-covenant people, represented by the deaf, blind, and lame), in order to rightly hear the contextual critique that is being offered. 

Doing this allows for the avoidance of anachronistic and improper application of terms when reading statement such as “But you have dishonored the poor!  Are not the rich oppressing you and dragging you into the courts?” (2:6)  James, presumably with the messianic banquet as exampled by Jesus (as Messiah) in mind, and with Jesus’ criticisms of the rich (Sanhedrin, High priest, Temple authorities, scribes, etc…) that were in circulation amongst believers at that time, is expressing incredulity that these same rich ones to whom they are offering the chief seats in their assemblies are the same ones that are dragging them before courts and councils, demanding that they disavow their claims that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.  This seems to be made clear when he writes “Do they not blaspheme the good name of the one you belong to?” (2:7)  With this, believers are reminded of what Jesus said to His disciples, which was that “they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons.  You will be brought before kings and governors because of My name” (Luke 21:12b).    

Only Son (part 10)

How so?  What thoughts would Nicodemus have had upon Jesus’ use of these words?  Well, reference has already been made to the long-standing Jewish hopes of the kingdom of God, the resurrection of the righteous dead, and their God’s restoration of the fallen creation, but there is more.  It has been made quite clear that eternal life, as Jesus uses it (as a first century Jew) and as Nicodemus understands it (as a first century Jew), has nothing to do with the idea of escaping the physical world so as to enjoy eternity in a state of dis-embodied bliss that could only be enjoyed by soul and spirit.  No, that was Greek thought.  That was pagan thought.  To whichever culture such thinking is assigned, and though Jesus and Nicodemus (and the author of John) could certainly have been aware of that worldview, Jews were highly resistant to such ideas, and in general were fervently opposed allowing such ideas to creep into their particular worldviews.   

The dominant Jewish worldview affirmed the absolute goodness of their God’s perfectly created (though fallen) physical world, whereas the other dominant worldviews of the day (Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Buddhism, etc…) largely held the physical world to be sub-standard and second rate.  Judaism, in large part (though there were groups like the Sadducees that denied this worldview, though their denial may not have been completely legitimate and deeply held, perhaps owing to the fact that they were in collusion with the Roman powers---this is significant because they were partially charged with keeping peace and tranquility in Israel, whereas the hope of resurrection and restoration was very much a motivating factor for Israel in their long-running opposition, both passive and active, to foreign dominance) stood against “other-worldliness,” and embraced a “this-world” view. 

It could be insisted upon with a great degree of certainty then, that when Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God and eternal life, He is decidedly not speaking to Nicodemus about going to heaven.  In that same light then, the author would most certainly not be asking his readers to consider the possibility that Jesus is speaking about going to heaven, and thereby promoting an escape from this world---an idea rooted in so much anti-Jewish, anti-Biblical thought. 

How can this be known?  It can be known because “eternal life” is the language of exodus.  Exodus meant more than simply leaving Egypt.  Exodus, for Nicodemus (and for all who count themselves among the covenant people) meant rescue, deliverance, liberation, redemption, salvation, resurrection, restoration and more.  Eternal life as exodus was a powerful notion.  Exodus meant that Israel’s God was establishing His kingdom, through and for His chosen people, for the purpose of accomplishing His purposes for the world, through and for them.  Exodus meant that Israel’s God was not only rescuing, delivering, liberating, redeeming, saving, resurrecting, and restoring the beings that had been created to bear the image of the Creator and reflect His glory into His world, but it meant that He was doing the same thing for the whole of His world (and by extension the cosmos) as well. 

Therefore, it must be insisted upon that all of these things, for a first century Jew, when spoken and heard inside a long-running narrative by which a people defined and understood themselves and their place in the world, had a decidedly this-worldly reference.  Thus, when Jesus said these words, and when Nicodemus heard these words, the entire scope of the Creator God’s plan of salvation (exodus) was brought into the picture.  This plan did not begin with Jesus, but rather, with Adam.