Gospel as Peace: Final Part

In his book “Surprised by Scripture,” N. T. Wright has a fantastic chapter; “Jesus is Coming – plant a Tree.” He describes this hope of renewal when God’s people will live on the renewed earth in peace with one another and with creation itself. 

“‘When Christ shall come,’ we sing in a favorite hymn, ‘with shout of acclamation, and take me home, what joy shall fill my heart.’ What we ought to sing is, ‘When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation, and heal this world, what joy shall fill my heart.’ In the New Testament the Second Coming is not the point at which Jesus snatches people up, away from the earth, to live forever with him somewhere else, but the point at which he returns to reign not only in heaven but upon the earth.”[1]

The new creation God is wielding through Jesus is a wonder surpassing even that of Eden. Violence between God’s creatures and creation has no place there. 

“The Liberation of creation is to happen at the end of history, when Christian believers will attain their full salvation in the glory of the resurrection. . . . Like the Kingdom of God, we cannot achieve the liberation of creation but we can anticipate it.”[2] 

The Bible gives a meta-narrative, but its way of telling the story is often through symbolism, mythologized or parabolic form, and falls outside the kind of reality that includes static knowledge.[3]

Bauckham summarized the meta-narrative[4] in this way: it is the story of humanity and all the nations that comprise it. This story involves God’s chosen clan whose objective was to model a proper community of faith. The story takes a large step forward in the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus. The story as a whole then expanded to include the rest of the nations within this community, as originally intended. Through Jesus, as idealized Israel and humanity, God has inaugurated the new creation and revealed that restoration is on its way. 

“What we can know from the Bible’s prophetic visions is that it is a new future for the whole creation, not just for humans.”[5] 

We are able to anticipate this kingdom, but it does not mean taking preemptive measures regarding God’s eschatological action. Establishing the kingdom in its universal fullness is God’s prerogative.[6]

Heaven is neither our inheritance nor our hope. The “gospel” has often been reduced merely to “accepting Jesus” as Lord for the purpose of entering into personal salvation and thereby leaving the body and corporeal reality upon death. This is borderline Gnosticism.[7] Thus, sharing the “gospel” with someone is giving them the “secret knowledge” by which they too can escape “hell” and flee into an eternal heavenly bliss. I suggest that this paradigm misses the whole intended point and purpose of our participation in this good creation. 

“Our inheritance is the whole renewed, restored creation . . . the whole world is now God’s holy land. That is how Paul’s retold Exodus narrative makes full and complete sense.”[8] 

I love the way Wright framed it in another place, 

“We find, not ransomed souls making their way to a disembodied heaven, but rather the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth, uniting the two in a lasting embrace.”[9]

God introducing shalom into chaos is a theme found throughout the Bible. At creation, the earthlings are made from the ground and placed in a garden to manage, enjoy and dwell with God in an intimate environment. As the narrative depicts, God dwelt with humanity in perfection, everything was right. There was safety and shalom, no fear or violence; everything was in its proper sphere. Humanity chose to rebel, but God continues the work toward restoration. Jesus, through obedience, [10] has become the ultimate ruler, mediator and high Priest of God’s kingdom. This is our hope: if God raised Jesus, we too can be raised.[11]

“The task of creating communities where shalom is lived out may not be easy, but we can know whether or not we are successful in our efforts. How can a community tell if it is practicing shalom? Fortunately, a consistent standard is given throughout the sacred Scriptures. Shalom is always tested on the margins of a society and revealed by how the poor, oppressed, disempowered, and needy are treated.”[12]

As Christians, may we strive to do everything in our power to defeat chaos with shalom, but leave the rest to God. We can pray as though everything were dependant upon God, but we must act as though it is dependant on us. Fear is powerful, but it is no match for hope.

---

[1] N. T. Wright, Surprised By Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues (New York, NY.: HarperOne, 2014), 102.

[2] Bauckham 2010, 99-100.                                                                          

[3] Ibid., 143.

[4] Ibid., 144.

[5] Ibid., 125.

[6] Ibid.

[7] The view of a “lesser God” within the Hebrew Bible as a mean, violent God contrasted with Jesus, the meek and mild peace-loving savior is stronger in some Protestant traditions than others.

[8] Ibid., 93.

[9] N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope (London: SPCK, 2007), 26.

[10] Acts 2; Phil 2; Heb 5.

[11] Acts 17; 2 Cor 4:14.

[12] Randy Woodley, Shalom and the Community of Creation: An Indigenous Vision (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2012), 15.

Photo credit: Jon Imhoff, Glacier National Park, MT

Gospel as Peace: Part Three

This brings me to the topic of new creation. God created, and it was good. To truly love God's good creation as intended, we must despise all that threatens and destroys it. In the Apocalypse of John, when justice is being done, it was said that those who “destroy the earth” were to be judged.[1] While being careful not to read an anachronistic, post-modern, polluted and industrialized world back into the text, it is worth noting that if there were those guilty of “destroying” the earth then, how much guiltier are we today?

I have found that dualism,[2] as a theological paradigm, has caused a certain amount of damage in the faith community and has resulted in a negative impact upon the environment. Here is what I mean. When the hope of Christianity shifted from bodily resurrection on a renewed and renovated earth to a disembodied, ethereal escape into the heavens and outside of the physical world, the attitude toward the earth changed.

The old cliché, “it’s all going to burn” is a phrase I heard frequently growing up.  When apocalyptic imagery of fire, brimstone and destruction pervades our eschatological motif and accompanies the idea of dualism, there remains little incentive for maintaining an attitude of remediation. The point is fixing, not fleeing. God is going to mend our broken, violent relationship with creation. Biblical prophecy is not only meant to be predictive, but also meant as a call to action by highlighting misconduct now in light of a future reality; inaugurated eschatology.

Jesus’ action – as ours should be – was in anticipation of a greater kingdom, where the defeat of chaos will be universal, throughout all of creation and to every creature. Christians are to be conquering people, howbeit not through the sword, violent measure or human strength, but as channels of mercy, love and grace which bring healing.

“The renewal of creation, the birth of the new world from the laboring womb of the old, will demonstrate that God is in the right . . . the New Testament invites us, then, to imagine a new world as a beautiful, healing community; to envisage it as a world vibrant with life and energy, incorruptible, beyond the reach of death and decay; to hold it in our mind's eye as a world reborn, set free from slavery of corruption, free to be truly what it was made to be.”[3]

I will finish up this series in the next post, concluding with the new creation.

---

[1] Rev 11:18; cf. 2 Bar 13:11.

[2] I am specifically referencing the dualistic notion of body/soul: humans are mortals that have spiritual experiences, not immortal spirits having human experiences. Bauckham touches on this: Richard Bauckham, The Bible and Ecology : Rediscovering the Community of Creation (Waco, TX.: Baylor University Press, 2010), 148-49, 171.

[3] N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 118.

Click here for part two

Reclaiming the Apocalypse: Some Thoughts on Revelation 19:11-21

Fear is powerful. It can elicit awe, foster motivation, induce panic, create division and frequently cause disruption. Fear is chaotic and disrupts inner shalom. It can be created in various ways, one of which is ignorance. Often, that which is not understood and cannot be controlled is a source of fear.

In response to the disturbing content within the Apocalypse, there are Christians today that express a response of fear when reading or discussing Revelation. Experiences range from neglecting Revelation for reading, study, and preaching, as well as questioning its authentic inclusion in the NT canon. I am not necessarily taking a position one way or another, just pointing out the variety of feelings toward this book.

Juxtaposed to a response of fear, theories have been proposed to explain the imagery in the apocalyptic text. Often, these propositions ignore the genre and view the Apocalypse as speaking only to the future. Up to the present time, every attempt to force the text into a modern framework for predicting or elucidating current and expected events has failed completely.

“Those to whom John originally wrote Revelation may have known how to interpret apocalyptic texts. Most present-day people do not, so the possibility of unqualified readers going astray is even greater than with other parts of the New Testament. Let readers beware.”[1] 

These approaches have wreaked fear into the hearts and minds of those on whom the paradigm has been forced. Unfortunately, this “fleecing good-minded folks”[2] has become all too common and is partially responsible for the disdain many have of Revelation.

When examining the text with consistent hermeneutical methods and in light of its historical and literary context, a clearer vision emerges. Richard Bauckham said it well:

“Revelation itself allows no neutral perception: either one shares Rome’s own ideology, the view of the Empire promoted by Roman propaganda, or one sees it from the perspective of heaven, which unmasks the pretensions of Rome. Revelation portrays the Roman Empire as a system of violent oppression, founded on conquest, maintained by violence and oppression. It is a system both of political tyranny and of economic exploitation.” [3] 

Focusing on the aspects of war and violence as though it were the point of the vision seems to miss the allusions being represented.[4]

An import element to note in this passage is the image of a slaughter. Although universal in language, “flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great” (19:18 NRS),[5] these are not worshippers of God but those who have refused and rebelled. Here, God is crushing a political system for refusing to acknowledge heaven’s kingship. This system has usurped the divine prerogative for personal greed and oppressed the weak.[6] 

The paradoxical conquering motif is prevalent throughout the Apocalypse. While often accused of being a violent depiction of slaughter and carnage only, Jesus in the Apocalypse – it can be consistently argued – is dripping with his own blood, rather than that of his enemies. The Greek word for “slaughtered,” is always used in the Apocalypse in relation to the violent acts of empire.[7] The only weapon this text describes in Jesus’ arsenal as a conquering Messiah is the sword of his mouth,[8] not in his hand.[9] To suggest this text is denoting acts of violence counteracts the intentional apocalyptic imagery that the book evokes; Jesus, as the slain Messiah, has conquered through self-sacrifice.

The irony regarding the Apocalypse of John is that this message, intended as a declaration of hope to early followers, has turned into fearful dread for some modern readers. The response to Revelation – and this text – should be that of shalom, not terror. God’s people can be a people of peace precisely because the Lamb has conquered through self-sacrifice.
Divine judgment is never for justifying human oriented acts of violence or physical aggression. Interpretations used to justify unethical behavior toward humanity and environment merit reconsideration on these grounds alone. Readers are encouraged to “persist in rendering faithful witness, in imitation of Jesus and his ‘patient endurance’ (1:5, 9).”[10]    

---

[1] Patricia M. McDonald, God and Violence: Biblical Resources for living in a small world (Scottdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2004), 248.

[2] Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 324.

[3] Richard Bauckham, New Testament Theology Series: The Theology of the Book of Revelation (New York, NY.: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 35.

[4] The Isaianic root of Jesse, the servant of Yahweh (Isa 11:4; 49:2 cf. Rev 19:11) with a mouth like a rod and sharp sword is he who will fairly treat the poor and oppressed. Even faithfulness and righteousness are around his waist.

[5] Cf. 19:19; cf. 6:15; 13:16.

[6] This is also reminiscent of Psalm 2, where the “kings of the earth” (2:2) set themselves against Yahweh and his anointed in rebellion. “Probably also from the psalm is John's use of the phrase 'the kings of the earth' as his standard term for the political powers opposed to God which Christ will subdue (1:5; 6:15; 17:2, 18; 18:3, 9; 19:19; 21:24; cf. 16:14).” Bauckham, 1993, 69.

[7] Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now (Bible & Liberation) (Maryknoll, NY.: Orbis Books, 2005), 140.

[8] Cf. 1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:15, 21.

[9] See Michael J Goreman, Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness : Following the Lamb into the New Creation (Eugene, OR.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010), 153-155.

[10] McDonald 2004, 275.

The Bloody City – A Reflection of Ezekiel 22

As I sit at my desk reading, writing and listening to the enchanting melodies of master guitarist Phil Keaggy,[1] I am transported into the ancient world of a Zadokite[2] priest. Ezekiel lived in Jerusalem and was active (594 – 571 B.C.E.)[3] before the first group of exiles were taken to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C.E.[4] He was at the heart of Judean society and a proponent of Zionist covenantal theology, which was a tradition emphasizing them as Yahweh’s choice people, Jerusalem as the capital of a perpetual Davidic dynasty, and Zion (Jerusalem) –with the Solomonic Temple – as the divine habitation.[5] The exile considerably challenged this belief, as it called into question God’s promised protection of the holy city.[6]

Following the destruction of Jerusalem, the tone of Ezekiel’s proclamations changed. This is reflected in the book’s division into three distinct sections: chapters 1-24 are primarily oracles against Jerusalem and Judah and contain material preceding the Babylonian invasion.[7] Chapters 25-32 are directed against foreign entities, and the third – chapters 33-48 – contains oracles regarding Israel’s future salvation and restoration. Chapter 22 is also divided into three units: vv 1-16, 17-22 and 23-31.[8] The textual and historical tradition of Ezekiel has a long, complicated history of criticism and is far too extensive to address here.[9]

“The bloody city” rings loud and clear at the onset of these oracles in chapter 22. This is a phrase used to describe Nineveh in Nahum 3:1. The divine decision was been made to punish God’s chosen, but guilty city.[10] The list of wrongs is detailed throughout this chapter: v 6 rulers are shedding blood; vv 7, 25, 29 aliens suffer extortion, fathers and mothers are treated contemptuously, orphans and widows are wronged; vv 10-11 women are violated in horrific ways, adultery, fornication and incest are taking place; v 12 bribes are made for killing; v 26 priests have done violence; v 27 officials portrayed as wolves; v 28 prophets are declaring lies as though from Yahweh; v 29 the poor and needy are oppressed.[11]

It is also important to note that God warns people to adjust their course and honors repentance. Even in verse 30, with its military metaphor,[12] there is the hyperbolic sense of God looking for one for whom the city could be spared.[13] Regardless, the people’s actions have brought these consequences on themselves.[14]

Surveying this spectacle, I cannot help but shudder at the eerie familiarity it has to our own day. Jesus made pronouncements similar to that of Ezekiel when dealing with the corruption of his own time. Israel in our time still finds itself as the center of attention for unethical behavior. As a Christian who has some Jewish ancestry, I can appreciate that these issues are sensitive for many. Yet, there are still questions. When will God deal with corruption? Does God still protect Israel? Does Israel still oppress its own people and countrymen?

In a class lecture,[15] John Goldingay made this statement,

“God still protects the Jewish people. In our time we have to make a distinction between the state of Israel, which is a state like any other and the Jewish people, most of whom live outside the state of Israel. And declaring that God is committed to the Jewish people does not mean that you reckon that God is committed to the state of Israel, particularly over against the Palestinians. But it’s hard, I think, for Christians to make those distinctions.”

This is crucial because today there are Christian and messianic Zionist movements who have not been able to make a distinction. Some are of the mind that Israel – the state – can do no wrong. “We must bless Israel,” goes the mantra. This is not about Israel but rather an ideology that desires to nationalize God to fit political agendas.

Regardless of one’s eschatology and opinions of political policy, categorizing the State of Israel as though it is the legitimate recipient of God’s favor before all others is a gross mistake with detrimental ethical repercussions.

“For believing that God accompanies one’s army is always comforting, and a people can perhaps be braver the more inclined they are to view God as able and willing to come out in their defense.”[16]

The history of humanity, including Christianity, is strewn with a trail of blood where imperialistic aspirations have been religiously justified as though it were God’s own desires.[17]

“It is always easier to assume that God is with us more than he is with our enemies. In war, how can God be on the side of the foe? Whether it was the time of the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, or the Persian Empire (etc) those Israelites who heard or read the story . . . were all people who chafed under subjugation by a foreign power. Their natural tendency would be to presume that God was with them and not with their oppressors.”[18]

---

[1] “Study helps for the book of Ezekiel should include a musical instrument—a guitar or recorder. Ezekiel is noted as a musician, one who has a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument (33:32).” Millard Lind, Ezekiel, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1996), 13.

[2] John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: Second Edition (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2014), 371.

[3] Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (Philadelphia, PA.: The Westminster Press, 1970), 1.

[4] Ezek 33:21; 40:1.

[5] Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel,” New Interpreter’s Bible, A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. VI,  Leander E. Keck, et al., eds. (Nashville, TN.: Abington Press, 1994), VI:1082-3.

[6] Michael Coogan, The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version, 4^th ed. (New York, NY.: Oxford University Press, 2010), 1160.

[7] L. S. Tiemeyer, “Ezekiel, Book of,” Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (Downers Grove, IL.: IVP Academic, 2012), 219.

[8] Leslie C. Allen, Word Biblical Commentary: Ezekiel 20-48, vol. 29 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), xx.

[9] G. W. Bromiley, “Ezekiel,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988; 2002), 2:250-52; David Noel Freedman, “Ezekiel, Book of,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4 vols. (New York, NY.: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 2:714-16.

[10] Eichrodt 1970, 308.

[11] This is my compilation, cf. Lind’s list, “Ezekiel has his own list of Ten Commandments”: (Lind 1996, 187).

[12] Darr 1994, 1315.

[13] Cf. Gen 18:20-33; Jer 5:1-5, although seemingly contradictory to Ezek 14:12-20.

[14] Cf. 9:10; 11:21; 16:43. Jesus, when dealing with the corruption of his own time made references similar to that of Ezekiel: Matt 23:37-39; Luk 13:33-35; 23:28-30. Upon contemplation of this, I recalled the poem by William Blake, “Prologue, Intended for a Dramatic Piece of King Edward the Fourth.”

[15] John Goldingay, class lecture, Chronicles and Esther Part 2 (27:49),” OT500: The Writings as an Introduction to the Old Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, Fall 2010.

[16] Patricia M. McDonald, God and Violence: Biblical Resources for living in a small world (Scottdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2004), 77.

[17] David A. Leiter, Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2007), 10.

[18] Douglas Stuart, Word Biblical Commentary: Hosea-Jonah, vol. 31 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 502.

For All Nations - A Reflection of Mark 11:12-25

I sincerely apologize again for my negligence in posting new material on the blog. I have finished my school semester so I will try to post more frequently, as time allows.

           Mark has the theme of “son of God”[1] as its bookends.[2] This work was written at a time when the emperor claimed divine status with this title. Here, Jesus was declared the son of God, and there could hardly have been a more “counter-political message”[3][4] for the Markan audience. However, he was characterized by acts of mercy, kindness, and intervention on behalf of the oppressed rather than cruelty, brutality and selfish ambition.

            When considering the content of Mark and the ways it differs from the later traditions found in Matthew and Luke, there are numerous elements that stand out. Matthew and Luke[5] quote from Jeremiah 7 but only Mark has the more complete reference to Isaiah 56:7, “for all the nations.”[6] While there are multiple possibilities present in this text,[7] there are two particular themes of interest for this post.

First, it does not appear in Mark that Jesus is against the temple or ritual in and of itself.[8] There is the suggestion that commercialization and corruption of the priesthood,[9] at the people’s expense, is the focus of his protest. This is seen in the contrast between “house of prayer for all nations” and “den of robbers.”[10] Sources indicate that many Jews in this period were overtly perturbed with the way the leadership was abusing their authority[11] and failing to guide the God-ordained system of worship in just ways.

The second theme is the exclusion (“for the nations”) of outsiders. If the outer court[12] was the location of this scene – where the “other nations” worshiped – it opens the possibility to Jesus addressing the exclusion of those desiring a close proximity to God and being interrupted by an elite system of greed. Israel’s calling was to be a light to the nations and a kingdom of priests. The intended role was to put God on display, thus drawing others in, not keeping them out. And it appears that the temple had grown quite popular among the Gentiles[13] in the time of Jesus.

Jesus’ action, as N. T. Wright comments, was more than only symbolizing the Temple’s destruction and a “mere intention to replace the present temple with a new one,” it was also a critique of what the system had become, which fits within the eschatological dynamic of Jesus.[14] Daniel Kirk summarized it well: “Thus, the cursing of the fig tree, together with the indications that a new exilic state for the temple is looming, make a stark statement about the state of the temple and likely its leadership, according to Jesus. Not being a time for fruit,[15] it is a time for judgment.”[16]

In sum, if Christians today earnestly seek to be a peaceful people, the ethics and concerns of Jesus must be adopted in practical ways. At times, unity among God’s people is sacrificed in favor of uniformity. Those “who understood their humanity and their religiosity differently that that of the dominant voices of the text”[17] have often been marginalized for it.

The point is not necessarily to emulate Jesus’ actions exhibited here, but rather conclude that action belongs with conviction. Even though tensions can appear too mountainous to move, this is not a new phenomenon. When one individual is willing to take a stand on behalf of those who will not, or cannot, anything is possible. “For those” – says the Apostle Paul – “who are led by the Spirit of God are children [sons] of God” (Rom 8:14 NRS).

---

[1] Nuances to this title are found within Hellenism and Hebraic tradition. See Karl-Josef Kuschel, Born Before All Time?: The Dispute Over Christ’s Origin, trans. John Bowden (New York, NY.: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992), 311-13.

[2] There are however numerous manuscripts from various text groups lacking the phrase “son of God.” Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 126.

[3] Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 93.

[4] Cf. Romans 1:4.

[5] Matthew 21:13; Luke 19:46.

[6] J. Marcus draws the distinction that the citation in 1 Macc 7:37 is restricted to Israel alone, while Mark has a universal nuance. Joel Marcus, Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries: Mark 8-16. (New Haven, US: Yale University Press, 2009), 783.

[7] Eugene Boring notes five proposals having been argued in this text. Eugene. M. Boring, Mark : A Commentary  (Louisville, KY.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 320-21.

[8] Judgment against the temple could be concluded from 11:12-25; 13:1-2. He is accused in 14:49, 58; 15:29. Exposing the corruption of what the system had become is arguably different than opposing the Temple cult.

[9] It is also worthwhile to note the critique of scribes in 7:1-13; 12:39; etc.

[10] Steve Moyise, Jesus and Scripture: Studying the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2010), 22.

[11] N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2 (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 1996), 413.

[12] This is not the most plausible historically as Adela Yarbro Collins notes, “The narrative description of Jesus' actions does not emphasize the Gentiles or their relation to the temple. This lack is especially important since the outer court, where the actions probably took place, was not called the 'Court of the Gentiles' in the time of Jesus and Mark.” Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark A Commentary: Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2007), 526.

[13] Marcus 2009, 783.

[14] Wright 1996, 417-18.

[15] Or perhaps it could be that the Messiah disagrees with the tree about whether it is time for fruit. The demons believe that Jesus has come to torment before the proper time. But if the Messiah is already here, it is time for the temple to be producing the fruits of righteousness.

[16] J. R. Daniel Kirk, “Time for Figs, Temple Destruction, and Houses of Prayer in Mark 11:12-25,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74 (2012): 522.

[17] Renita J. Weems, “African American Women and the Bible,” in Stony the Road We Trod, ed. Cain Hope Felder (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 1991), 74.

Christian Patriotism and the War Machine

There's got to be a better way 

What is it good for?

. . .

War, I despise 'cause it means destruction of innocent lives

War, means tears to thousands of mothers how

When their sons go off to fight and lose their lives

. . .

War, it ain't nothing

But a heartbreaker

War, friend only to the undertaker

It's an enemy to all mankind

The point of war blows my mind

War has caused unrest

Within the younger generation

Induction then destruction

Who wants to die

War, what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing

Edwin Starr, War

Regardless of one’s eschatology or opinions of political policy, categorizing any political state as though it is the legitimate recipient of God’s favor before all others is a gross mistake with detrimental ethical repercussions.

The allegiance of members within the community of God to a "nation state," as though God were taking a particular side, is troubling. There are many who are convinced that God is with the United States, including its perpetual military endeavors. For some, this is rooted in the mistaken notion that this nation was founded upon and still is an inherently "Christian" nation, blessed by God. What about those who serve God in territories we have invaded and afflicted? If they cry to God against us, who is God obliged to answer? 

“For it is not right that a worshipper of God should be injured by another worshipper of God.” - Lactantius, A Treatise on the Anger of God (ANF 7.271). 

Far too often, theology has been poured into an ideological mold for the purpose of casting a nationalized image of God to fit worshiped, political agendas. 

"Believing that God accompanies one’s army is always comforting, and a people can perhaps be braver the more inclined they are to view God as able and willing to come out in their defense.” Patricia M. McDonald, God and Violence: Biblical Resources for Living in a Small World (Scottdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2004), 77.

When did Christianity become so inseparably intertwined with political agendas and identities? Why is it that a "conservative" Christian will question the faith of someone they deem as "liberal" or who identifies with another political party?

The history of humanity, including Christianity, is strewn with a trail of blood where imperialistic aspirations have been religiously justified as though they were God’s own desires. See David A. Leiter, Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2007), 10.

“You kill one person, they lock you up and throw away the key. You kill three-hundred thousand and they give you a knighthood.” PBS Masterpiece, Endeavor, S1E1, 48:46 (In the context of what happened to Hiroshima).

What does Jesus have to do with Caesar?

Storied Salvation: Assurance

Salvation According to Paul: Assurance

“Paul would certainly see 'salvation' as secured through 'belief in the Lord Jesus', however much such belief would have to be spelled out in any particular case.”[1]

The book of Jude with its unique content and non-canonical citations contains a noteworthy warning to its readership:

“Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe” Jud 1:5.

The idea that belief and obedience are mutually exclusive or autonomous is not found in the OT or apostolic tradition. God does indeed secure his people, but not without their consent or cooperation. Security and safety are found in continual obedience to God; it’s his word not ours. Once the later idea that grace and obedience are separate from each other is removed – one being accomplished by God’s fiat alone and the other optional by us – Jude’s warning is perfectly appropriate. “Those who did not believe” are not those who wandered into heresy,[2] but rather those who after participating in God’s renewing and restoration power refused to participate and act in the obedience required to be part of that kingdom. This is not a matter of maintaining proper theology, but rather a failure to put into action God’s commands. There are numerous examples of faith as obedience, where those who were once obedient but did not continue on that path were subsequently judged by God.

The psalmist wrote:

“The salvation of the righteous is from the LORD; He is their strength in time of trouble. The LORD helps them and delivers them; He delivers them from the wicked and saves them, Because they take refuge in Him” Ps 37:39-40.

There is no question that Yahweh is the source, character, nature, substance, and reality of salvation. It depends on his faithfulness, consistency and reliability, not our wavering attempts. Does this then describe our eternal security; are we eternally secure? I believe that is the wrong question to ask. A better question is, “Who are the righteous,” which the passage describes? This passage (and others like it) is about the righteous, a topic about which the OT (especially the Psalms) has a lot to say. Jesus came teaching Israel what the actions of a righteous (kingdom citizen) look like. God himself is our guarantee, as Paul said, “by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” Eph 4:30.[3]

Within the idiomatic way biblical language works, salvation can be spoken of as an accomplished action, although in modern ways of reckoning it causes substantial confusion regarding that from which we are being “saved.”

The proof of spiritual transformation in the Gospels is the confirmation of the people and the spirit of God. There is a sense in which the principle, first taught in the OT, and taught also by Jesus with the witness of at least two, is appropriate. It’s not a matter of self-confirming statements, but rather community affirmation. Obedience is obvious.

“The sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death” 2 Cor 7:10.

The declaration by many dedicated men of God should ring in our ear; hineni, “here I am,” your servant waits for your instruction. Obedience is the best gauge in the present regarding one’s salvation being a reality in the future.

“The righteous dead still await the promised resurrection, 'God' has singled out Jesus, bestowing on him, uniquely, resurrected existence and making him thereby the exemplar of what believers can hope for and the assurance that their hope in 'God's' readiness and power to raise the dead is not in vain (esp. 1 Cor 15:20-58; Heb 2:5-18; 1 John 3:1-3). Resurrection, thus, is presented as the essential means by which ‘God’ will demonstrate faithfulness to believers, and their hoped-for salvation/vindication is directly patterned after what 'God' did in/for Jesus. . . . So, 'God' in the NT is emphatically known as the deity who raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to glory, which justifies and even demands now that Jesus be proclaimed as 'Lord' (e.g., Phil 2:9-11). But God's resurrection of Jesus also serves to signal incomparably this God's great power and purpose, which are to eventuate in a personal/bodily glorification of believers that is patterned after that given to Jesus.”^[4]

---

[1] J. D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, Christianity in the Making, vol. 2 (Erdmans, 2008), 674.

[2] 1 Tim 4:16.

[3] Eze 9:4; Eph 1:13-4; 4:30; 2 Cor 1:21-2; 5:5; 2 Tim 2:19; Rev 7:3; 9:4.

[4] L. W. Hurtado, God in New Testament Theology (Abingdon Press, 2010), 42.

Beam Me Up Scotty

It is my contention that rational dialogue and meaningful conversation are the lifeblood of truth pursuing activities within the diverse community of God. So therefore, I offer you the opinions of N. T. Wright (FYI, that is said with humorous intent, but seriously, I believe he’s right on track and far from alone in the world of NT scholarship regarding the opinion expressed here).

In his book Surprised by Scripture, N. T. Wright made the following comments pertaining to the perspective generically known as the “rapture,” which represents the belief of many Christians today:

“It isn't a matter of simply deconstructing the massive 'left behind' theology that has been so powerful in North America in particular, though we must do that if we are to think biblically. We must focus on one element of particular. The word parousia, 'royal appearing,' was regularly used to describe Caesar's 'coming' or 'royal appearing' when visiting a city, or when returning home to Rome. And what happened at such a parousia was that the leading citizens would go out to meet him, the technical term for such a meeting being apantçsis, The word Paul uses here for 'meeting,' as in 'meeting The Lord in the air.' But when the citizens went out to meet Caesar, they didn't stay there in the countryside. They didn't have a picnic in the fields and then bid him farewell; they went out to escort their Lord royally into their city. In other words, Paul's picture must not be pressed into the nonbiblical image of the 'Second Coming' according to which Jesus is 'coming back to take us home' – swooping down, scooping up his people, and zooming back to heaven with them, away from the wicked earth forever. Revelation makes clear in several passages, with echoes in other New Testament books, the point is that Jesus will reign on the earth, and at his royal appearing the faithful will go to meet him, like the disciples on the road to Jerusalem only now in full-blooded triumph, and escort him back into the world that is rightfully his and that he comes to claim, to judge, to rule with healing and wise sovereignty.” N. T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues (HarperOne, 2014), 101-102.

Within the New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures there are metaphors the writers used for communicating a picture. For example, in the NT – with regard to what is called “atonement theology” – Jesus is called a “Lamb” by John, a “High Priest” by the writer of Hebrews and referenced as the culmination of Israel and the Isaianic suffering servant in varying other places. Well, which is it? How can he be both the sacrifice (in some interpretations) and the priest who mediates it? Can both pictures be valid in different ways, without having to be harmonized? Did the writers have the literary freedom to choose their own illustrations, metaphors and have their own set of interpretations for the purpose of communicating to differing audiences and/or for different theological motifs? There are distinguishable reasons as to why they used the metaphors they did, and generally they are rooted in the Hebrew Scripture. 

Now back on topic. There are historical grids sometimes put in place for the sake of governing interpretations as to what the NT writers meant with respect to Jesus’ anticipated return. One such example is the somewhat elusive “Jewish wedding.” While the practice of betrothal, separation for a time, immanent appearance of the husband for his bride, then leading her from her father’s home to his may be evidenced somewhere, this does not mean it was by any means the predominant practice of all Jews everywhere for all time. Actually, it is attested to infrequently. 

(For more information, see Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life; The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Hendrickson; The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, v. I, Bride of Christ, Eerdmans; Evans and Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Background, Marriage, IVP; Metzger and Coogan, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Marriage, Oxford; Werblowsky and Wigoder, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, Betrothal, Oxford; Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Marriage, Baker Book House). 

This particular custom has become a favorite of some due to its parallel in rapture interpretation: Jesus became betrothed to the Church, went away for a time and at some unknown point in the future, he will return to usher his people back to heaven (i.e. his home and now theirs for eternity, which will be consummated by the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb” found in Revelation).There is no question that the NT portrays an image of betrothal and marriage between God and his people, albeit in the NT, it is through Jesus as the intermediary. This is covenant speech, possessing the same imagery found in the Hebrew Scriptures, specifically in the Torah and Prophets. This imagery was used to describe the relationship between God and the covenant people (e.g. Hosea and Ezekiel). 

Merely saying something or other is the “Jewish” way (such as a wedding) may sound impressive but doesn’t mean anything. What “Jews”, where and when? Customs and practices changed and evolved throughout their history as surely as it has in our own. Having a model of betrothal or marriage that may have been used at a particular place or time is not justification for allowing it to govern our hermeneutics in relation to what the gospel writers or Paul was trying to communicate. 

I don’t have a problem with the term “rapture,” referencing a general “catching away,” but rather have difficulties in the sub-modern divorcement of it from the “day of the Lord” and the “resurrection,” both of which are found in the NT. If there is a rapture to catch away believers “somewhere else” before the restoration of the Kingdom of God upon the earth, it means that: 

1. Jesus must return twice, once to snatch away God’s people to “heaven” (i.e. somewhere other than earth) and also at his restorative coming. 

  

2. The saints have to be evacuated to some “other” place. Where do the Scriptures speak of going to heaven in an ethereal, quasi-spiritual existence or being anywhere but on earth, where we were created to inhabit? The rapture theology teaches that we are swept off “somewhere else” while the earth goes up in smoke, which is something other than a renewed, restored and declared good earth. This is akin to Gnostic doctrine. The popularized rapture theory (as commonly believed) does not square with the scriptural definition of resurrection. 

In addition to the Jewish perspectives, there is also evidence of varying points of view within the writings of the Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr’s contention in Dialogue with Trypho (LXXX) saying: 

“For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit the truth of the resurrection and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their soul when they die are taken to heaven: do not imagine that they are Christians.”

To be clear, I have no difficulty with those who express this opinion, but am only pointing out that it does not hold up to a sound and thorough exegesis of NT literature with the OT framework the prophets had been declaring for ages. Regardless of what the Ante-Nicene and proto-orthodox apologists believed does not validate or invalidate what the NT documents describe on those merits. If a half-way thorough search of their (the patristic fathers) writings were done, it would reveal a disunity of opinions and beliefs that most Christians would no doubt find disturbing, even outrageous. This is why when scholars refer to those people groups and sects, they do so in a plural sense, “Judaisms,” “Christianites,” etc. 

“‘When Christ shall come,’ we sing in a favorite hymn, ‘with shout of acclamation, and take me home, what joy shall fill my heart.’ What we ought to sing is, ‘When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation, and heal this world, what joy shall fill my heart.’ In the New Testament the Second Coming is not the point at which Jesus snatches people up, away from the earth, to live forever with him somewhere else, but the point at which he returns to reign not only in heaven but upon the earth.” N. T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues (HarperOne, 2014), 102.

Don’t think that the story of the Bible is about abandonment and evacuation. Christianity has been falsely led to believe this. We are to be restorers, peace-makers, care-takers and stewards now, of this place with the hope of resurrection and ultimate renewal. Don’t be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good. You were created to be good on earth, this is your home.

I did a podcast on this subject here.

I've also written on this topic before.