By no means can we escape missions. Jesus said take the gospel all over the world. If humans someday colonize other worlds, we'll take it there, too.
In 2007 the Southern Baptist Convention announced plans to implement a program to fund a new wave of missionaries, some 2800 of them. Giving actually decreased during 2008, and drastic cuts were made. This year, they are hoping to recover the lost ground, as they view it. There is a tremendous sales pitch made in their churches this year. God can do a miracle anytime He likes, but I don't think the money is out there to give. It's not about faith alone, but about a great many other things. I believe they have been doing it wrong, for the most part, so God is not protecting it. Specifically, I sense they aren't getting as much as they could from the money they have gotten.
You may know SBC missionaries often have various specialties to meet very real needs on the ground where they go: medical treatment, orphanages, schools, etc. How could I complain of such a thing? Most missionaries are basically just pastors, though many of them find ways to help just keeping people alive, with civil engineering, basic sanitation, etc. Good things, God things, right?
Compare that with some of the things we read in Acts. They went. They preached and taught. Yes, times were different, and no one had the Internet, phones, and even printed material was a little rare. Everyone got their news from the public square and gossip, so getting the Word out required preaching in public like that. And quite a bit of time was spent just trying to convert Jews in synagogue meetings. Pare away the specifics which aren't of the essence of the thing, and we see Paul visiting in someone's house, teaching in a rented facility. He didn't buy or build a home, nor even a church house. After he felt they were well established, he ordained some local elders and pastors, and moved on to the next place.
We know Rome was evangelized by someone else, but not exactly whom. Near as we can tell, aside from the Apostles, it was mostly folks who lived in the area reaching their own, and folks taking their faith with them when they had other reasons to go. Most of the time, the missionaries stayed with local hosts, and others simply lived among the locals. It was exceedingly rare for either to live well above the local population's level of creature comfort, and often somewhat on the low side. I suppose it helps the places they went were mostly civilized and commensurate where the came from, but we know for the next couple of centuries, they went to increasingly wild places.
Aside from keeping necessary customary differences to avoid sin, we never saw missionaries move in and live better than the local ruler or chief, as we often do nowadays. In fact, it seems every missionary I know sent from the US always brings their own minimum standard of living with them. It's often way, way above the local average, to the point they often have a special American style house and facilities built for them. And their American level of pay goes with that, to the point they could easily buy out the combined personal and business debt of the entire surrounding community on the salary from just a month or two.
Nobody says they aren't sacrificing to go. But nobody is sent with less than a master's degree in something, a requirement carved in stone by mission agencies. How much of what they share is simply a matter of lifestyle and unconsidered expectations? I don't doubt such things are considered, but I assure you I seldom agree with their answers. I feel certain the Apostles would disagree, too. Once in awhile you see it done right, and you rejoice. I really like the projects which train up local folks to evangelize their own country, and pay them local standard income, and so forth.
Americans are typically a very active, generous and loving bunch of folks. At the same time, they are awfully pampered about most things. They talk a good game, but I don't see too many of them stepping away from the big money comforts. Materialism is the invisible sin -- they just don't see it. And there is still way, way too much of that old "White Man's Burden" in the way most evangelical denominations do missions. For quite some time, we have been as ripe for missionaries coming here as other places to which we send them.
I can't pretend to have all the answers, but I don't have too much trouble seeing some of the more serious mistakes. I've worked in SBC Home Missions in Alaska, so I'm familiar with that territory. The disparity is largely absent, simply because it is "home" missions. Most missions in North America are under-funded in the sense they aren't fully supported. So some work part time, and some do their best to run a fund-raising operation, and some just do without.
Maybe Luke just left it out, but I don't recall Paul doing too much fund-raising, except for that relief effort for the famine stricken church in Jerusalem. At one point, Paul worked almost full time and taught at night. Sometimes we note he simply accepted love gifts from fellow believers. Maybe Luke doesn't mention it because they didn't give it a lot of thought. They took what they got from their home church and followed the leading of the Spirit. Not in some wild and thoughtless fashion, as too often alleged in stupid sermons I've heard. Rather, it was simply without much concern for creature comforts. I don't think they had a budget council, nor kept account ledgers, or any of that stuff, because they were faithful.
Yes, we live in a different world. I'm not sure God has changed that much, though.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
StT: Matthew 4:15-16
(more in our series on Spiritualizing the Text)
The initial months of Jesus' ministry, as reported in the Gospels, ranged from Cana in the west, to the eastern shore of Galilee. In ancient times, when the land was divided between the Twelve Tribes, that would put his work in the lands granted to Zebulun and Naphthali. And since before Israel invaded Canaan Land, there had been a well established highway which ran across the Plain of Megiddo to the Valley of Jezreel, which itself than ran down to the Jordan. The route crossed the Jordan and followed the east shore of Galilee north to Hazor. This route was called the Way of the Sea.
It's no mystery what Matthew meant by quoting Isaiah 9:1-2. Assyria was going to attack in the near future for Isaiah, and we know the invaders started in the north, working their way south. The main body of troops worked through what was then Zebulun and Naphthali, in part to cut off that Way of the Sea so Samaria could not easily escape. Another force followed on down the East Bank of the Jordan after crushing Damascus.
Isaiah saw the initial thrust would fall on those hilly lands east of the sea, in part because they had been prone to idolatry first (see previous verses in Isaiah 8). Their hearts were darkened, and the spiritual darkness would be matched by the deep sorrow and terror of the initial march of Assyria. So dark, indeed, it would be given very early over to the local Gentile population still living there, whom those two tribes failed to drive out. Isaiah also saw the Messiah would begin there in relieving that darkness. Eventually Jews would resettle some parts of this territory, but it was still dominated by Gentiles. Matthew pointedly notes Jesus began there with the call to repentance.
Here we don't have much dispute with common evangelical interpretation, because the first seven verses of Isaiah 9 were considered Messianic well before Jesus was born. What matters is we understand Isaiah's reference had nothing to do with the Restoration from Babylon. This is about the Northern Kingdom. In one sense, breaking from the House of David was justified. But breaking from Jehovah cannot be justified in any sense. They were no longer God's People, so they lost all Covenant protection, because they had forfeited their Covenant identity. Judah was quickly going the same route. While the House of David would survive, it would eventually be forgotten. That is, until the Lord Himself brought back the final Davidic King to rule, and in so doing, He would finish the work for which Israel as a nation had been called out of Egypt: He would take God's revelation to all nations.
What few want to realize is Isaiah himself intended his prophecy to be spiritualized. Had his readers in the Southern Kingdom seen this, they would be all smug about the condemnation of Samaria, and this talk of David's throne reigning there once again. They didn't know it was not coming until long after their own Exile.
The initial months of Jesus' ministry, as reported in the Gospels, ranged from Cana in the west, to the eastern shore of Galilee. In ancient times, when the land was divided between the Twelve Tribes, that would put his work in the lands granted to Zebulun and Naphthali. And since before Israel invaded Canaan Land, there had been a well established highway which ran across the Plain of Megiddo to the Valley of Jezreel, which itself than ran down to the Jordan. The route crossed the Jordan and followed the east shore of Galilee north to Hazor. This route was called the Way of the Sea.
It's no mystery what Matthew meant by quoting Isaiah 9:1-2. Assyria was going to attack in the near future for Isaiah, and we know the invaders started in the north, working their way south. The main body of troops worked through what was then Zebulun and Naphthali, in part to cut off that Way of the Sea so Samaria could not easily escape. Another force followed on down the East Bank of the Jordan after crushing Damascus.
Isaiah saw the initial thrust would fall on those hilly lands east of the sea, in part because they had been prone to idolatry first (see previous verses in Isaiah 8). Their hearts were darkened, and the spiritual darkness would be matched by the deep sorrow and terror of the initial march of Assyria. So dark, indeed, it would be given very early over to the local Gentile population still living there, whom those two tribes failed to drive out. Isaiah also saw the Messiah would begin there in relieving that darkness. Eventually Jews would resettle some parts of this territory, but it was still dominated by Gentiles. Matthew pointedly notes Jesus began there with the call to repentance.
Here we don't have much dispute with common evangelical interpretation, because the first seven verses of Isaiah 9 were considered Messianic well before Jesus was born. What matters is we understand Isaiah's reference had nothing to do with the Restoration from Babylon. This is about the Northern Kingdom. In one sense, breaking from the House of David was justified. But breaking from Jehovah cannot be justified in any sense. They were no longer God's People, so they lost all Covenant protection, because they had forfeited their Covenant identity. Judah was quickly going the same route. While the House of David would survive, it would eventually be forgotten. That is, until the Lord Himself brought back the final Davidic King to rule, and in so doing, He would finish the work for which Israel as a nation had been called out of Egypt: He would take God's revelation to all nations.
What few want to realize is Isaiah himself intended his prophecy to be spiritualized. Had his readers in the Southern Kingdom seen this, they would be all smug about the condemnation of Samaria, and this talk of David's throne reigning there once again. They didn't know it was not coming until long after their own Exile.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Practicing Self-death
There are other terms for it, including self-denial. The point is we try to get away from focusing on the self, the sin which afflicts most of the human race. There is this element of fear, and a sense if you don't take care of yourself, no one else will. There is a sense in which that is true, but we all know how this is carried to extremes. We have to overcome this fear of what God may have planned for us.
Today we would say I possess the means for self-defense. There are a number of suitable implements around the house, I have trained to use them, and have a modicum of experience. The likelihood I would do so purely for self-defense decreases the longer I serve Christ. I cannot make such a choice for anyone but myself, so I maintain the means for the sake of others. That is a duty to certain folks based on covenant obligations.
It seems to me we who claim that mystical experience of God-in-Person can hardly do anything except efface ourselves before the world. How else can people see the God we claim to have met, Whom we claim to serve? Faith isn't just some trust it will all turn out okay, but assumes He truly does direct our futures. If He has called us and we are walking in our best, spiritual and inexplicable obedience to His Spirit, how can we possibly complain at what comes out of it? By no means do I refer to taking unnecessary risks, which amounts to flinging a challenge in God's face. You cannot claim to obey if you are acting stupid.
By the same token, to assume God cannot possibly desire us come to harm is a heresy, based on presuming to define for God what amounts to harm. His Realm is essential; we are not. We are totally expendable. If He does not have full cooperation in any decision He makes for our service, we cannot call it faith. While it would equally be presumption to commit suicide, we should hardly balk at God using us up and bring us home quickly.
While I maintain the protection of others, it is not for myself. That is God's choice alone.
Today we would say I possess the means for self-defense. There are a number of suitable implements around the house, I have trained to use them, and have a modicum of experience. The likelihood I would do so purely for self-defense decreases the longer I serve Christ. I cannot make such a choice for anyone but myself, so I maintain the means for the sake of others. That is a duty to certain folks based on covenant obligations.
It seems to me we who claim that mystical experience of God-in-Person can hardly do anything except efface ourselves before the world. How else can people see the God we claim to have met, Whom we claim to serve? Faith isn't just some trust it will all turn out okay, but assumes He truly does direct our futures. If He has called us and we are walking in our best, spiritual and inexplicable obedience to His Spirit, how can we possibly complain at what comes out of it? By no means do I refer to taking unnecessary risks, which amounts to flinging a challenge in God's face. You cannot claim to obey if you are acting stupid.
By the same token, to assume God cannot possibly desire us come to harm is a heresy, based on presuming to define for God what amounts to harm. His Realm is essential; we are not. We are totally expendable. If He does not have full cooperation in any decision He makes for our service, we cannot call it faith. While it would equally be presumption to commit suicide, we should hardly balk at God using us up and bring us home quickly.
While I maintain the protection of others, it is not for myself. That is God's choice alone.
Monday, November 9, 2009
StT: Matthew 4:6
(another in our series, Spiritualizing the Text)
For once, it seems Matthew offers us a more literal rendering of a prophecy. That's because he's quoting Satan, who is misusing a quote from Psalm 91:11-12.
This section of Psalms begins with 90, by Moses, and we can safely assume the next few following are also from the same source. Thus, we have a continuing thread of thought. In 91, it's all about the faithful man of God. In typical Hebrew style, it's a mixture of dramatic symbolism, often in the form of hyperbole, along with more literal statements. The reader is expected to go with the flow, lose themselves in the moment, and know instinctively what to make of it. Read enough Hebrew literature and you'll figure it out, but you have to adapt your reading to the Hebrew frame of reference.
So the two verses work out to standard Covenant promises. They are part of a context which combines verses 10-13. The part about angels is fairly literal, but how do you describe their work, since you typically don't see them? Even if you do catch them literally in the act, with your very human eyes, it would be far more important to understand their actions always as symbolic manifestations of something more important.
Satan correctly deduces the angels were tasked with keeping good care of Jesus the man, who lived perfectly, well above the demands of the Law. The context is Satan trying to get Jesus to perform actions which the Pharisees would interpret as clear signs of the Messiah, following the False Messianic Expectations. One of them specifically suggested the Messiah would jump down from the pinnacle of the Temple plaza -- the point where the terrace had been extended far out from the original ancient site, and the southeast corner stood some 70 feet (21m) above the ground below. The Messiah was supposed to announce Himself by jumping down and landing safely, in part because of a misreading of this passage in Psalm 91.
Jesus says He refuses to be that Messiah. The act itself was not according to Scripture, but constituted flinging a challenge in the face of God. This is typical of the literalist rendering of the Pharisees, and of the modern Pharisees among Protestant theologians.
Finally, Matthew quotes Jesus responding to this and another temptation by correctly quoting Deuteronomy 6, verses 13 and 16. Those were rather obviously meant literally in the first place.
For once, it seems Matthew offers us a more literal rendering of a prophecy. That's because he's quoting Satan, who is misusing a quote from Psalm 91:11-12.
This section of Psalms begins with 90, by Moses, and we can safely assume the next few following are also from the same source. Thus, we have a continuing thread of thought. In 91, it's all about the faithful man of God. In typical Hebrew style, it's a mixture of dramatic symbolism, often in the form of hyperbole, along with more literal statements. The reader is expected to go with the flow, lose themselves in the moment, and know instinctively what to make of it. Read enough Hebrew literature and you'll figure it out, but you have to adapt your reading to the Hebrew frame of reference.
So the two verses work out to standard Covenant promises. They are part of a context which combines verses 10-13. The part about angels is fairly literal, but how do you describe their work, since you typically don't see them? Even if you do catch them literally in the act, with your very human eyes, it would be far more important to understand their actions always as symbolic manifestations of something more important.
Satan correctly deduces the angels were tasked with keeping good care of Jesus the man, who lived perfectly, well above the demands of the Law. The context is Satan trying to get Jesus to perform actions which the Pharisees would interpret as clear signs of the Messiah, following the False Messianic Expectations. One of them specifically suggested the Messiah would jump down from the pinnacle of the Temple plaza -- the point where the terrace had been extended far out from the original ancient site, and the southeast corner stood some 70 feet (21m) above the ground below. The Messiah was supposed to announce Himself by jumping down and landing safely, in part because of a misreading of this passage in Psalm 91.
Jesus says He refuses to be that Messiah. The act itself was not according to Scripture, but constituted flinging a challenge in the face of God. This is typical of the literalist rendering of the Pharisees, and of the modern Pharisees among Protestant theologians.
Finally, Matthew quotes Jesus responding to this and another temptation by correctly quoting Deuteronomy 6, verses 13 and 16. Those were rather obviously meant literally in the first place.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
No Path
How shall we describe the Truth? To what shall we compare it?
The City of Light stands in the Land Without Words. There is only one Word, and He is the Prince. The Land has no path, only ways by which each may approach. Many have glimpsed the City from afar, and believe that glimpse is all one may have. They refuse to enter the Land Without Words, cannot release the burden of their own speaking, and speaking, and speaking. They cannot accept the necessity of silence which is the border of the Land. Thus, they never come face to face with the Prince, because they cannot accept the requirement to drop their words.
Coming face to face with Our Savior means entering a place where words cannot follow. Another name for that Land is Mysticism. Mysticism is not a path; it is not the answer. But the answer stands there. You cannot come to full understanding of the Son until you enter that Land. There are plenty who enter the Land and wander about without the Guide, the Holy Spirit. They are blind and cannot see the light of the City. There are others, those who cling to their rational definitional procedures for handling truth, who refuse to enter that Land.
You will know God as a stranger, a theory at best, if you cannot accept the requirements for drawing near Him. That silence is death. Your flesh must die, must be nailed to the Cross there on the border. Your words and your rational thoughts are tied to that flesh. They cannot cross over.
The City of Light stands in the Land Without Words. There is only one Word, and He is the Prince. The Land has no path, only ways by which each may approach. Many have glimpsed the City from afar, and believe that glimpse is all one may have. They refuse to enter the Land Without Words, cannot release the burden of their own speaking, and speaking, and speaking. They cannot accept the necessity of silence which is the border of the Land. Thus, they never come face to face with the Prince, because they cannot accept the requirement to drop their words.
Coming face to face with Our Savior means entering a place where words cannot follow. Another name for that Land is Mysticism. Mysticism is not a path; it is not the answer. But the answer stands there. You cannot come to full understanding of the Son until you enter that Land. There are plenty who enter the Land and wander about without the Guide, the Holy Spirit. They are blind and cannot see the light of the City. There are others, those who cling to their rational definitional procedures for handling truth, who refuse to enter that Land.
You will know God as a stranger, a theory at best, if you cannot accept the requirements for drawing near Him. That silence is death. Your flesh must die, must be nailed to the Cross there on the border. Your words and your rational thoughts are tied to that flesh. They cannot cross over.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Acts 28
The island of Malta was in those days called by the Phoenician name, Melita ("Refuge"), because the population was Phoenician. Luke describes them in terms indicating they spoke neither Greek nor Latin. They were exceptionally friendly, building a fire for the storm-tossed survivors. Today the island is treeless, but that was unlikely under Roman rule. Thus, Paul pitched in gathering firewood along with others. As he dropped one armload on the fire, a viper fled the flames, biting Paul on the hand. He shook it back into the fire. Chattering in the local tongue, the islanders concluded Paul might have escaped the storm, but not the goddess Dike (Justice).
As far as we know, that viper's venom would prevent blood coagulation and immobilized all muscles. Victims typically collapsed and blood pooled in the extremities until asphyxiation from the inability to breathe. Paul was completely asymptomatic, and after awhile the islanders decided he must be some deity, instead of a criminal.
The island was ruled by a "First Citizen" named Publius, who hosted the bunch until they could secure accommodations for the winter. The island's goats were the primary source of dairy products, which were notorious for causing major digestive problems. The host's father was suffering dysentery, and Paul prayed, then laid hands on him. The news of the healing spread quickly, and between Luke's treatment and Paul's prayers, they spent the winter running a clinic on the island. Having become local celebrities, they lacked for nothing. When they finally departed three months later, they all had at least as much as they lost to the sea.
While mid-February might be a little early, another grain ship wintering on the island sailed north, and Julius loaded his troops and prisoners on it. Luke notes the ship's emblem was a carving of Castor and Pollux, twin patron deities of sailing. It must have been still rather rough sailing, so upon reaching Syracuse, a beautiful Greek colony on Sicily's east coast, they waited three days. While their next stop, Rhegium, was some 75 miles (120km) straight north, Luke describes it as "circling" -- heavily tacking around in circles to proceed slowly north. The wind changed the next day, offering a stiff southerly blow. They made over 200 miles (320km) in just two days, landing at the port Puteoli (modern Puzzuoli) near Naples.
They had the good fortune of finding Christians who welcomed Paul and his companions. We aren't told why, but the prison escort team is held up for a week there. Most likely the delay was due to waiting proper transportation overland. Paul continued in relative liberty, though by policy he was supposed to be chained to a single guard who was sworn on his life to deliver the prisoner on command. It's hard to imagine the fellow wasn't at least partially a believer by now. At any rate, private accommodations would be far superior to the dilapidated and filthy publicly provided hostels used by most Roman military.
The informal communication system of private runners passing messages among Christians in Italy brought news of Paul's approach to Rome. There were probably more than one congregation. Luke mentions one bunch meeting them at the Appian Forum, some 40 miles (65km) out, and another bunch at the Three Shops (Tres Taberne) 10 miles (16km) closer to Rome. Either would have been a common first overnight stop on the way out of Rome. It greatly restored Paul's spirits to know he had finally made it, as God had promised. Paul was permitted liberty to find his own quarters, with his guard, of course.
His freedom was still limited, so when Paul sent notice to the Jewish community, they came to him, some three days after settling into his house. He had been charged with a crime by the Jewish nation, and was probably hoping to clarify matters with the local synagogues, who would have taken up the case on their nation's behalf. Paul explained his side of the story and why he was in custody there, how his choice of appealing to the Imperial Court was not meant to slander his nation's leaders. He maintained his teaching was a fulfillment of all Israel had ever hoped. They denied having any idea what this was all about, but were interested in hearing his teaching to judge for themselves.
Thus, Luke indicates the Roman Jews did not carry any particular prejudice to the message. They returned, and Paul spent the whole day detailing his teaching of Jesus as the Messiah. Some believed; some did not. There was no consensus, but apparently the majority rejected it. Paul's parting shot was to quote the passage in Isaiah where the prophet laid out God's charges against Judah.
It was a solid reminder the prophets had indicated repeatedly: Israel was the worst choice of nations God could have made. Having delivered to them a unique covenant of law, and a wealth of background literature to clarify revelation, then sending a long train of prophets to ensure there were no mistakes in understanding, they always wandered away from Him. Having chosen to ignore God one time too many, He had given them their wish of not hearing any more. They rejected the terms of the Covenant. They had no unique place in His plans any longer. Every other nation on earth had been open to the gospel, so the Kingdom was now theirs.
We are left with Paul passing two years preaching and teaching anyone who came to visit him. About the only reason Luke would close here is because the narrative was delivered to some official as background to Paul's case. Tradition has it Paul was released and visited Spain, among other places. Two or three years from this point, another wave of persecution saw Paul arrested again, and this time martyred, we believe in about 64 AD.
As far as we know, that viper's venom would prevent blood coagulation and immobilized all muscles. Victims typically collapsed and blood pooled in the extremities until asphyxiation from the inability to breathe. Paul was completely asymptomatic, and after awhile the islanders decided he must be some deity, instead of a criminal.
The island was ruled by a "First Citizen" named Publius, who hosted the bunch until they could secure accommodations for the winter. The island's goats were the primary source of dairy products, which were notorious for causing major digestive problems. The host's father was suffering dysentery, and Paul prayed, then laid hands on him. The news of the healing spread quickly, and between Luke's treatment and Paul's prayers, they spent the winter running a clinic on the island. Having become local celebrities, they lacked for nothing. When they finally departed three months later, they all had at least as much as they lost to the sea.
While mid-February might be a little early, another grain ship wintering on the island sailed north, and Julius loaded his troops and prisoners on it. Luke notes the ship's emblem was a carving of Castor and Pollux, twin patron deities of sailing. It must have been still rather rough sailing, so upon reaching Syracuse, a beautiful Greek colony on Sicily's east coast, they waited three days. While their next stop, Rhegium, was some 75 miles (120km) straight north, Luke describes it as "circling" -- heavily tacking around in circles to proceed slowly north. The wind changed the next day, offering a stiff southerly blow. They made over 200 miles (320km) in just two days, landing at the port Puteoli (modern Puzzuoli) near Naples.
They had the good fortune of finding Christians who welcomed Paul and his companions. We aren't told why, but the prison escort team is held up for a week there. Most likely the delay was due to waiting proper transportation overland. Paul continued in relative liberty, though by policy he was supposed to be chained to a single guard who was sworn on his life to deliver the prisoner on command. It's hard to imagine the fellow wasn't at least partially a believer by now. At any rate, private accommodations would be far superior to the dilapidated and filthy publicly provided hostels used by most Roman military.
The informal communication system of private runners passing messages among Christians in Italy brought news of Paul's approach to Rome. There were probably more than one congregation. Luke mentions one bunch meeting them at the Appian Forum, some 40 miles (65km) out, and another bunch at the Three Shops (Tres Taberne) 10 miles (16km) closer to Rome. Either would have been a common first overnight stop on the way out of Rome. It greatly restored Paul's spirits to know he had finally made it, as God had promised. Paul was permitted liberty to find his own quarters, with his guard, of course.
His freedom was still limited, so when Paul sent notice to the Jewish community, they came to him, some three days after settling into his house. He had been charged with a crime by the Jewish nation, and was probably hoping to clarify matters with the local synagogues, who would have taken up the case on their nation's behalf. Paul explained his side of the story and why he was in custody there, how his choice of appealing to the Imperial Court was not meant to slander his nation's leaders. He maintained his teaching was a fulfillment of all Israel had ever hoped. They denied having any idea what this was all about, but were interested in hearing his teaching to judge for themselves.
Thus, Luke indicates the Roman Jews did not carry any particular prejudice to the message. They returned, and Paul spent the whole day detailing his teaching of Jesus as the Messiah. Some believed; some did not. There was no consensus, but apparently the majority rejected it. Paul's parting shot was to quote the passage in Isaiah where the prophet laid out God's charges against Judah.
It was a solid reminder the prophets had indicated repeatedly: Israel was the worst choice of nations God could have made. Having delivered to them a unique covenant of law, and a wealth of background literature to clarify revelation, then sending a long train of prophets to ensure there were no mistakes in understanding, they always wandered away from Him. Having chosen to ignore God one time too many, He had given them their wish of not hearing any more. They rejected the terms of the Covenant. They had no unique place in His plans any longer. Every other nation on earth had been open to the gospel, so the Kingdom was now theirs.
We are left with Paul passing two years preaching and teaching anyone who came to visit him. About the only reason Luke would close here is because the narrative was delivered to some official as background to Paul's case. Tradition has it Paul was released and visited Spain, among other places. Two or three years from this point, another wave of persecution saw Paul arrested again, and this time martyred, we believe in about 64 AD.
Friday, November 6, 2009
StT: Matthew 3:3
(another in the series on Spiritualizing the Text)
Matthew does it again, spiritualizing the text.
In ancient times, when an emperor was to visit some part of his empire, it was not to pull a surprise inspection. It was to cement the personal loyalty of the local vassals and population. So the various inspectors were sent ahead of time, informing the local leadership what needed to be done to demonstrate loyalty, and put the emperor in a good mood. A critical element was always the matter of roads, insuring they were fitting for the imperial entourage, with all the animals and wagons, etc. For quick trips, a herald would leave the moment the trip was decided, and he would simply run along making a loud warning, carrying the imperial standard as he traveled. The message was typically hyperbole, in that the locals were expected to do however much they could before the slow moving imperial train passed.
The Judeans would recognize the imagery Isaiah used (40:1-5). There God was coming to visit, and they should put forth an effort to welcome Him. Surely, he would expect them to repent of the sins Isaiah saw around him. Pushing so hard to make this passage fit only the Return from Exile requires intentional blindness. This is how God operates regardless of historical context. It was a warning God would come to visit in the form of Babylon's invasion force. It was a celebration God would return His people to the Land. It was the warning against, or celebration with, God's people anytime and at all times. The historical results would depend on how the herald was received. If, like Isaiah, the herald is ignored, mistreated, etc., you can be sure the emperor won't be happy, and things won't go well for the residents.
When John came, he fulfilled the spiritual principle, warning of God coming in the form of His Son. He was the herald, and while some in his audience would surely associate this with some aspect of their Return and Restoration, they would surely miss the point John was making. As we see how Jesus was received by His nation, we know what happened. Instead of a Restoration experience, it was more like an invasion. God came and took away their Land one more time, the final end of the kingdom.
Had they embraced their Messiah, it would have turned out differently. Instead, earthly Israel ceased to exist in God's eyes, and their place was given to another. That is, when the Messiah came to move the Kingdom of Israel into its intended spiritual existence as the Kingdom of Heaven, they refused to see Heaven was on a different level of existence. They demanded Heaven be planted on this earth, which could not be. Having rejected God's provision, when Israel was moved into it's heavenly, spiritual destiny, the people of Israel mostly were excluded. The earthly manifestation of that was the eventual destruction of their City and homeland, and they were justly driven out. Their covenant was dissolved, and the New Covenant was in force. They had refused to join the Empire of Heaven.
Matthew does it again, spiritualizing the text.
In ancient times, when an emperor was to visit some part of his empire, it was not to pull a surprise inspection. It was to cement the personal loyalty of the local vassals and population. So the various inspectors were sent ahead of time, informing the local leadership what needed to be done to demonstrate loyalty, and put the emperor in a good mood. A critical element was always the matter of roads, insuring they were fitting for the imperial entourage, with all the animals and wagons, etc. For quick trips, a herald would leave the moment the trip was decided, and he would simply run along making a loud warning, carrying the imperial standard as he traveled. The message was typically hyperbole, in that the locals were expected to do however much they could before the slow moving imperial train passed.
The Judeans would recognize the imagery Isaiah used (40:1-5). There God was coming to visit, and they should put forth an effort to welcome Him. Surely, he would expect them to repent of the sins Isaiah saw around him. Pushing so hard to make this passage fit only the Return from Exile requires intentional blindness. This is how God operates regardless of historical context. It was a warning God would come to visit in the form of Babylon's invasion force. It was a celebration God would return His people to the Land. It was the warning against, or celebration with, God's people anytime and at all times. The historical results would depend on how the herald was received. If, like Isaiah, the herald is ignored, mistreated, etc., you can be sure the emperor won't be happy, and things won't go well for the residents.
When John came, he fulfilled the spiritual principle, warning of God coming in the form of His Son. He was the herald, and while some in his audience would surely associate this with some aspect of their Return and Restoration, they would surely miss the point John was making. As we see how Jesus was received by His nation, we know what happened. Instead of a Restoration experience, it was more like an invasion. God came and took away their Land one more time, the final end of the kingdom.
Had they embraced their Messiah, it would have turned out differently. Instead, earthly Israel ceased to exist in God's eyes, and their place was given to another. That is, when the Messiah came to move the Kingdom of Israel into its intended spiritual existence as the Kingdom of Heaven, they refused to see Heaven was on a different level of existence. They demanded Heaven be planted on this earth, which could not be. Having rejected God's provision, when Israel was moved into it's heavenly, spiritual destiny, the people of Israel mostly were excluded. The earthly manifestation of that was the eventual destruction of their City and homeland, and they were justly driven out. Their covenant was dissolved, and the New Covenant was in force. They had refused to join the Empire of Heaven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)