Triumph Of Jesus (part 10)

The tale of the “triumph,” offered from an attendee’s perspective, simply followed a pattern to be found in the same chapter from which that verse was drawn.  Revelation nineteen, quite obviously, presents  a “triumph of Jesus,” providing the Creator God’s point of view on His world, doing so as Rome continues to celebrate itself as the greatest of empires while not realizing that it has already become subject to one that is greater by far.  As the fictional but historically plausible “tale of the triumph” was being told in the course of this study, those that have ears to hear (or eyes to see), will have recognized the almost exact parallel with the Scriptural text. 

Looking to those words now (and it may be worthwhile for the reader to quickly review the “eyewitness account” before doing so), one can read “Then the angel said to me, ‘Write the following: Blessed are those who are invited to the banquet at the wedding celebration of the lamb!’  He also said to me, ‘These are the true words of the God.’  So I threw myself down at his feet to worship him, but he said, ‘Do not do this!  I am only a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony about Jesus.  Worship God, for the testimony about Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’ 

Then I saw heaven opened and here came a white horse!  The one riding it was called ‘Faithful’ and ‘True,’ and with justice He judges and goes to war.  His eyes are like a fiery flame and there are many diadem crowns on His head.  He has a name written that no one knows except Himself.  He is dressed in clothing dipped in blood, and He is called the Word of God. 

The armies that are in heaven, dressed in white, clean, fine linen, were following Him on white horses.  From His mouth extends a sharp sword, so that with it He can strike the nations.  He will rule them with an iron rod, and He stomps the winepress of the furious wrath of God, the All-Powerful.  He has a name written on His clothing and on His thigh: ‘King of kings and Lord of lords.’  Then I saw one angel standing in the sun, and he shouted with a loud voice to all the birds flying high in the sky: ‘Come, gather around for the great banquet of God, to eat your fill of the flesh of kings, the flesh of generals, the flesh of powerful people, the flesh of horses and those who ride them, and the flesh of all people, both free and slave, and small and great!’ 

Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to do battle with the One who rode the horse and with His army.  Now the beast was seized, and along with him the false prophet who had performed signs on his behalf---signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.  Both of them were thrown alive into the lake of fire burning with sulfur.  The others were killed by the sword that extended from the mouth of the One who rode the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves with their flesh” (Revelation 19:9-21).  Though this is obviously  much shorter, primarily owing to the fact that the first century reader would not need any background information to provide context for the visuals on offer in a triumphus, the parallels to the Roman triumph “observed” earlier in the this study should be inescapable. 

Compassionate Brother (part 17 of 18)

Jacob did not squander his wealth, though as has been seen, life was a bit wild for him.  Like the prodigal in his exile from his father’s house, fortune had eluded Jacob though others had gotten rich at his expense.  The son of the famed parable is said to have experienced the effects of destitution, as a terrible famine grips the land.  Seeking whatever income he could find, he attaches himself to a citizen of that country, much like Jacob was attached to Laban because of the need to pay him for all of the wives (and children until the wife debt obligation is met), and is sent to feed the citizen’s pigs. 

Naturally, as the hearers of Jesus’ parable were predominantly Jewish, and because they would naturally assume that the family in the story is Jewish, they would see this as an attempt by the man to get rid of an unwanted hanger-on, expecting that the young Jewish man would resolutely refuse to lower and defile himself in such a way.  This was viewed as a possibility in Laban’s business deal with Jacob, which, based on Laban’s actions after striking the deal, might be taken to have indicated a desire to rid himself of Jacob. 

Eventually, while feeding the pigs but while still hungry, the young man in the parable is said to have come “to his senses,” saying “How many of my father’s hired workers have food enough and to spare, but here I am dying from hunger!” (Luke 15:17), and so hatches a plan to return to the home that he had left in shame and dishonor.  Similarly, Jacob comes to his senses.  With the documented hostility that he is experiencing, he wonders why it is that he remains where he is, when he could return to his father’s house, rather than continuing to serve under a man who clearly did not want him around any longer. 

The younger son however, knows that he has shamed himself and his family, and knows that harsh consequence up to and including the possibility of death, await him if he returns to his father’s house.  Owing to that, and considering the fact that his father’s hired workers earn enough to feed themselves with money to spare, he devises a plan that will allow him to gain one of those positions, so as to be able to pay back his father over time, and in the process allow him to regain the honor that he had lost.  So he says “I will get up and go to my father and say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.  I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired workers.’” (15:18-19) 

This is the same thing that can be seen with Jacob.  He cannot simply return to the house that he left, covered in shame, having dishonored his father and his brother.  He has a brother that has previously declared his desire to kill him, and a father that he greatly dishonored.  Therefore he must devise a plan.  Clearly, because his father (though it was done unwittingly) passed the covenantal blessing on to him, his primary concern is with the wrath of his brother, thus the planning taking place with the division of the families, and then the gifts of animals, with the message passed along by the servants. 

Effectively, with the language that is heard on the lips of Jacob, bowing to the ground as he refers to himself as Esau’s servant while also referring to Esau as “my lord” and telling him that seeing his face is like seeing the face of God, it is almost as if Jacob can be heard saying something like “I have sinned against heaven and against you; treat me like one of your hired workers.” 

Compassionate Brother (part 12)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suppression Of Truth (part 1)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness – Romans 1:18  (NET)

Immediately after speaking of what he understood to be the mysterious and inherent power of the Gospel (the proclamation that Jesus is Lord of all), the Apostle Paul launches into a statement concerning the pouring out of the wrath of the Creator God, and the connection of the pouring out of that wrath to ungodliness and unrighteousness.  Following that lead-in, the remainder of the first chapter of the letter to the Romans is decidedly direct, as Paul, in his writing here, would seem to have in mind certain individuals or groups of people to which his words are directed.  Rather than analyze in an attempt to ascertain to whom or to what situation the words from verse eighteen through thirty-two are directed, it would probably be better to take into consideration the grand narrative of the Scriptures so as to make an appropriate application. 

So in looking at the eighteenth verse, and contemplating the scope of the Scriptural narrative, one could identify the verse with the presumptive parents of the human race, that being Adam and Eve.  Because human beings were made in and as the image of the Creator God, it should be understood that an aspect of godliness is rightly bearing the divine image.  Accordingly, ungodliness could be considered to be the failure to adequately and properly bear the divine image. 

Righteousness is perhaps best defined as “covenant faithfulness” (faithfulness to the covenant, whatever that covenant may be during the course of the Scriptural narrative), and that particular trait is usually and accurately ascribed to the Creator God, though when humans find themselves attaining to righteousness, it can also be said that they are in a state of faithfulness to the particular covenant that is to govern their interactions with their Creator and their fellow man. 

Unrighteousness then, conversely, is a state of not being faithful to the covenant (covenant unfaithfulness).  When Adam and Eve partook of the “forbidden fruit,” in contradiction of their Lord’s command, they were not faithful to the covenant under which they were tasked to operate.  Consequently, they found themselves in a state of unrighteousness.  This resulted in them not being able to completely fulfill the Creator God’s intention for what was understood to be the pinnacle of His creation that bore His image, and was responsible to play the role of reflecting His glory into the world, stewarding the creation, and constantly reminding the creation of the God that was responsible for its existence. 

According to the Genesis narrative, Adam and Eve, having eaten the fruit, now found themselves unable to attain to the reflection of their God’s glory for which they had been created.  Thus, entering into a condition of unrighteousness, they also succumbed to the condition of ungodliness and they fell short of the glory of God.  This is marked out as the beginning of sin.  With this, the indication is that mankind began to lose its right knowledge of the Creator God; and with this presence of the force of sin that marred and distorted the divine image that was supposed to represent and reveal the Creator, one could say, the truth of the Creator God began to be suppressed.   

Reign Of Life (part 1 of 3)

For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. – Romans 5:17  (ESV)

Paul writes that because of one man’s trespass, death reigned.  This death is very much present.  It’s presence is felt and seen and experienced on a daily basis.  It is inescapable.  It is real.  It is here.  We do not speak of it in lofty, supra-existential terms.  As Paul says, death does indeed reign.  Paul however, continues on with the words of hope, saying that those who receive an abundance of grace in the “free gift” that “brought justification” (5:16), who were “saved by His life” (5:10), who “have now received reconciliation” (5:11) because “while we were still weak…Christ died for the ungodly” (5:6), have been “saved by Him from the wrath of God” (5:9). 

This escape from the wrath of God appears to be wrapped up with an escape from death.  That seems to be a reasonable conclusion, as Paul writes that the free gift of God’s righteousness, that is, the free gift that stems from the execution of God’s covenant faithfulness as dramatically evidenced by and through the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, is life.  Not only is it life, but Paul informs us that the reigning in life, the reigning of life, the reigning that takes place because of the Resurrection, is to be understood akin to the way in which death reigned.  How does death reign?  As has already been said, death’s reign is present, felt, seen, experienced, inescapable, and very much real.  Yes, through one man’s trespass death reigned.  This was not the Creator God’s intention for this world that He is said to have brought into existence and ordered as recorded in Genesis, and over which He set a being created in His own image to have dominion and to represent Him.  Therefore, this skewed situation was set right by one man’s “act of righteousness (covenant faithfulness)” (5:18). 

If it has been set right, then the reign of life, eternal life, which is concomitant with the resurrected life of Jesus, must also be spoken of as being very much present and felt and seen and experienced on a daily basis.  It must also be understood to be inescapable and real and here.  Paul does not present this reigning of life as being something solely on the other side of the termination of mortal existence.  No, he sets it alongside the reign of death, which occurs in this present world, saying that the reign of life replaces it when one confesses Jesus as Lord, and so shares in the life of the age to come, bringing the kingdom of heaven to bear in the world.  Paul is not pointing to an other-worldly existence in which to enjoy the reigning of life that is associated with God’s faithfulness to His covenant, which is evidenced through Jesus, but says that that life is to be understood as having dominion in this world, in the exact same way in which we speak of death. 

If there must be a wait until an earthly existence has ceased in order to enjoy eternal life in and with Christ, then a true deliverance from death is something of which we cannot rightly speak.  If we do not speak of the reign of death in spiritual, other-worldly terms, but employ understandable and sensible earthly terms when speaking of death as Paul does here, then why must we constantly couch our speaking of the gift of eternal life in covenant participation in such ethereal terms, rather than in the present, earthly terms in which Paul is clearly presenting them?  Why must we constantly engage in pushing our hope away from us?  Is God’s arm shortened?  Is His power to save only limited to the after-life?  Is the power that raised up Christ from the dead actually insufficient to quicken our mortal bodies?

Justification, The Spirit & The Family Of God (part 2 of 3)

If the people of God were in exile, it was well understood that they were not in covenant (not in right standing, not righteous).  A people in exile, or a people experiencing the Levitical/Deuteronomic curses that accompanied exile, were understood to be experiencing God’s wrath.  When a time of exile was brought to an end and the people were restored to their right standing according to God’s covenant with them, they were then thought to have escaped (having endured) God’s wrath.  It was also understood that God Himself would intervene to end the exile of His people, and this was very much the hope of Israel in the days of Jesus (though they were in their land, they were under the heel of Rome).  However, the oppression went much further than that of Rome. 

Owing to the understanding of the world’s oppressive powers/kingdoms that was provided by the visions of the book of Daniel (a popular book in the days of Jesus, and a book on which Jesus relied quite heavily, as evidenced by His employment of the title and imagery of the Son of Man), the people of God were under the impression (quite rightly it seems) that the true oppressor was not the kingdom of man that happened to be the prevailing world power under which they labored and to whom they paid tribute, but was actually the power of death that stood behind and animated those kingdoms.  Post-cross, towards the end of the first century, and drawing heavily from the imagery on display in Daniel and the popular prophetic genre of apocalyptic, this understanding of the nature of power in the world is given voice by the book of Revelation. 

What has this to do with what Paul writes in Romans?  Well, it goes hand in hand with the drawing together of all peoples, as they share in Israel’s covenant and Israel’s history.  In this sense then, all peoples, being ungodly and sinners, are in exile, rightly experiencing God’s wrath.  It is belief in Jesus, which provides justification and therefore induces right standing with God, that delivers all people from their long-standing exile, and so saves (justifies) from God’s wrath.  God’s wrath, of course, is generally reserved for His people that are failing to live up to their covenant responsibilities.  By extending this to all peoples, Paul makes the point that it has always been God’s intention to encompass all peoples within His covenant family, doing so on the basis of belief in Him that produces an unswerving loyalty to Him and His ways.  Therefore, this saving from God’s wrath informs the reader/hearer that God does indeed view all of humanity as being His covenant people.  This goes a long way in informing believers that God intends His redemption to be cosmically holistic.     

We can hear the language of an internationally inclusive redemption from exile flowing heavily from Paul: “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by His life?” (5:10)  Reconciliation and salvation, from out of exile, are components of the language of justification, and Paul continues to apply it liberally to all peoples, as he also continues his self-identification with Gentiles.  As always, he re-centers his thoughts on Jesus and the belief in Him that provides said justification, writing “Not only this, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” another thumb in the eye to “lord” Caesar as he writes to this assembly of believing kingdom representatives in Rome, “through whom we have now received the reconciliation” (5:11).  Yes, it is through the instrumentality of the cross of Christ, and the belief in Jesus that centers on that event that did so very much to reveal God and His radical kingdom principles to the world, that God grants the exodus from out of exile that seemed to have been specifically and previously reserved to the designated covenant people that had begun with Abraham. 

Abigail

In between the two instances in which David exercises mercy and spares the life of the one that is attempting to kill him (Saul), we come upon an interesting incident of a person who stands in the role of deliverer within Israel.  The name of this particular deliverer is Abigail.  Abigail, of course, will eventually become one of David’s wives, but when we meet her, she is married to a man named Nabal.  He is said to have been “very wealthy,” while also being “harsh.”  Additionally, we are informed that “his deeds were evil” (1 Samuel 25:2,3).  That use of “evil” should be a clue that God’s judgment is eventually going to fall upon him.

Apparently, David had taken it upon himself, without being asked it seems, to serve as protection for Nabal’s shepherds and his flocks when they were out in the field.  David instructs his men to go and inform Nabal that “When your shepherds were with us, we neither insulted then nor harmed them the whole time they were in Carmel” (25:7b).  On the surface, this hardly seems noble, but for this, David appears to have expected some type of reward.  When Nabal heard this, his response to what he obviously perceived as extortion was “Should I take my bread and my water and my meat that I have slaughtered for my shearers and give them to these men?  I don’t even know where they came from!” (25:11)  David’s predictable response, upon being rebuffed by Nabal, was to give his men instructions to “strap on your sword” (25:13a).  He intended to bring pain and shame and cursing and exile to Nabal and his household.  This is the point at which Abigail actually enters into the story.  One of her servants told her that “These men were very good to us.  They did not insult us” (25:15a), which hardly seems worthy of reward, but nevertheless, the servant went on to tell Abigail, “nor did we sustain any loss during the entire time we were together in the field.  Both night and day they were a protective wall for us the entire time we were with them, while we were tending our flocks” (25:15b-16).  In regards to Nabal, the servant rightly feared that “disaster has been planned for our lord and his entire household” (25:17b), and urged Abigail to intercede. 

In response, Abigail “quickly took two hundred loaves of bread, two containers of wine, five prepared sheep, five seahs of roasted grain, a hundred bunches of raisins, and two hundred lumps of pressed figs” (25:18a), intending to take them to David and his men, so as to appease David’s wrath and spare her husband from the exile of death that was coming to him.  Eventually, Abigail greets David, falls at his feet, and says “My lord, I accept all the guilt!” (25:24b)  In accepting the guilt, she stands in her husband’s place, asking David for mercy, and for the sparing of the one who has become another enemy to him.  She asks to take the punishment upon herself.  At the same time, she offers the presents that she has ordered to be brought to David and says “Please forgive the sin of your servant” (25:28a).  With her gift of fruits and grains and animals, Abigail is not only functioning in the role of deliverer, rescuing her husband from David’s sword that will subjugate him to death, but she also becomes a vibrant reminder of God’s promised blessings upon His people. 

In Deuteronomy, we read about blessings upon baskets and mixing bowls (28:5), upon the produce of the soil, and upon the livestock, which is represented by what Abigail is offering to David.  She does not stop there, but goes on to tell David that “When someone sets out to chase you and to take your life, the life of my lord will be wrapped securely in the bag of the living by the Lord your God.  But He will sling away the lives of your enemies from the sling’s pocket!  The Lord… will make you leader over Israel” (25:29-30a,c).  Now Abigail has reminded David of God’s promises to him, in regards to his rule, doing so by the use of words that sound suspiciously like that which are also to be found in Deuteronomy, when Moses speaks to the people of God’s promise to cause His people’s enemies to flee (28:7), while also making them “the head and not the tail” (28:13), and making sure that they always end up at the top and not at the bottom (28:13). 

David had been about to take it upon himself to stand in the role of one whom God uses to bring the curse upon His people, rather than being the king and deliverer for which purpose his ordination had come.  Not only does Abigial deliver Nabal from David’s sword, but she is also used to deliver David from, as he would say in quoting the words of Abigail, “taking matters into my own hands” (25:33b). 

When Abigail eventually informs her husband about what David had purposed for him, and what she had done for him, “He had a stroke and was paralyzed.  After about ten days the Lord struck Nabal down and he died” (25:37b-38).  We read that “When David heard that Nabal had died,” he was reminded of God’s faithfulness---surely reflecting on the two-fold deliverance that Abigial had provided---and said, “Praised be the Lord who has vindicated me and avenged the insult that I suffered from Nabal!” (25:39a)  David insists that Nabal had attempted to insult and shame him, which is a component of exile, and David sought to return the favor, bringing exile upon Nabal.  With this turn of events, and in his speaking of vindication and the Lord’s vengeance, David employs the language of exodus (redemption, deliverance, salvation), as it was the repeated acts of exodus that would consistently demonstrate God’s vindication of His.  David recognizes that through Abigail’s sacrificial act of deliverance, that “The Lord has kept His servant from doing evil” (25:39b), and he responds by inviting Abigail to be his wife.