Adoption and Inheritance

September 18, 2016

Much of this information is available under the word studies of similar titles.  I am posting it here to give you an idea of how messages can be prepared from the topics treated in particular studies.  This one was prepared for our small fellowship on September 18, 2016.

“Adoption and Inheritance”

It is interesting that with all the noise in self-styled “evangelical” contexts about the concept of being “born”, or “born again” (which latter term appears only three times in the entire New Testament!), another rarely-appearing idea, the related topic of “adoption”, to which Ben referred in his message some weeks ago, in spite of its appearing more times – but still only 5 – seems to have escaped the fertile imaginations of the commentators, who so delight in establishing and defending long lists of regulations for including or excluding their fellows and narrowing their definitions of the Kingdom of Jesus.

Very interesting light is cast on this subject when one researches first century cultural patterns. Since inheritance is legally connected, and central in all of these cultures, it seems appropriate to examine together the two ideas, “adoption”, and “inheritance.” One could also include the references to one’s “birth family” and a “resurrection life” (more commonly mentioned than either “birth” or “adoption” in the New Testament) symbolized in baptism, and I have included those in other word studies, but in order not to become too ponderous, we will look primarily today at the much-misunderstood concepts of “adoption” and “inheritance”.

It is also interesting, that although the English translation “adoption” historically represented eleven different classical Greek words, related to at least three different roots, only a single form, huiothesia, appears in the New Testament writings, and it is unique to Paul’s epistles. It does not appear at all in the LXX. Accurate understanding of the cultural implications of huiothesia – etymologically a combination of huios (son) and a noun iteration of the verb tithemi (to put or to place) – is complicated by the fact that in the first century middle east, one is confronted with three major cultural streams: Greek, Roman, and Hebrew. These are augmented with a smattering of other customs introduced by traders who frequented the area from farther afield. Roman law prevailed, of course, since the legions of Rome had subjugated the whole area. I found the old classic, Gibbons’ The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, most helpful in this research. As pointed out in the Jewish Encyclopedia (online), the subject was not really addressed in the Hebrew context, because their system of requiring the brother (or another “near kinsman”) of a deceased man to provide for the decedent’s wife and children filled the need for both the responsibility and the privilege of inheritance. In the other cultures, however, “adoption”, or, rather, huiothesia, the word which has been translated that way, was an integral part of the legal technicalities of inheritance. It had little or nothing to do with our modern concept of providing for the care of young children. Now please understand, I am in no way intending to disparage the modern procedure of “adoption” to fill this need. It is a commendable institution: but it is NOT what the New Testament is talking about.

In all three cultures, an heir acquired not only the property, but also the debts and obligations of the deceased, as well as responsibility for the care and protection of the rest of his family. Under Roman law, there was even a provision for a debt-ridden father to arrange for his son/heir to be formally adopted by someone else, in order that the overwhelming debt might “die” with the father.

Although Greek customs in their various city-states were often more lenient and less highly defined than Roman law in many respects, it was important to both that a male heir be established to comply with legal requirements. Hence the advent of formal, legal adoption – especially when royal succession was involved. (The emperor Augustus, formerly known as Octavian, had been adopted by the family of Julius Caesar for that very reason.)

This version of adoption necessarily involved an older child, not a baby, as both the survivability and the competence of the adoptee were a serious issue, since the administration of an estate was involved.

Adoption was also a common way of cementing an alliance between families, in a way similar to the function of marriage in medieval Europe, and the son in question often maintained ties to both families.

The long-term welfare of a family without male progeny required the adoption of a son to whom responsibility for their care could be passed on. This could be the son of a friend or relative who had more sons than he needed, or even a trusted servant or slave. A formal court procedure sealed the agreement, and the adopted son assumed the name of the adoptive father.

Interestingly, under Roman law, a formally adopted son could not be disowned, as could a natural son.
Adopted sons shared all the rights and responsibilities of natural children.

Daughters were not adopted, for a very simple economic reason: a father would be expected to provide a substantial dowry for a daughter; whereas a son would be expected to add to the family’s wealth by marriage.

But there was another aspect of these cultural expectations that sheds important light upon the New Testament translations of the word huiothesia.
In the case of any family, but especially one with multiple sons, another legal provision came into play. When the designated heir attained majority – the age of legal responsibility – the father was required to make a formal legal and binding statement to that effect. This was necessary whether the son in question was naturally born or adopted. This too was described as huiothesia – the same word. It has been suggested that this requirement may have been culturally connected to the “voice from heaven” mentioned at Jesus’ baptism and again at the time of his Transfiguration. Although the word does not appear there, the statement “This is my Son” would have been readily recognized as the format of the standard legal acknowledgment. This is the reason for my choice of “acknowledgment” rather than “adoption” as a more accurate translation of the word.

On a purely civil level, responsibility would normally pass to the eldest son – the “firstborn” (prototokos)– which term, 8 of the 9 times it appears in the New Testament, uniformly applies to Jesus. Only in Heb.11:28, when the reference is to the death of firstborn sons in Egypt, is mention made of anyone other than Jesus. Twice the designation “firstborn” is in relation to Mary’s first child (Mt.1:25 and Lk.2:7), and it appears three times in Paul’s letters, twice in Hebrews, and once in the Revelation. Two of these reference Jesus’ resurrection: “the firstborn from the dead” (Col.1:18 and Rv1:5), his ultimate triumph. In Romans 8:29 he is called “the firstborn of many brethren”, in Col.1:15 “the firstborn of every creature” (or “of all creation”), in Heb.1:6 of the Father “bringing his firstborn into the world”, and Heb.12:23 speaks of “the church of the firstborn.” In assuming this title, Jesus has accepted responsibility for the welfare of ALL the other children! This realization also may help to shed light on the response of the eldest son in the parable read last week, of a younger son squandering his share of the father’s property: Now the eldest would need to provide his profligate brother’s total support! No wonder he was annoyed!

Huiothesia is the word used in all five New Testament occurrences of the English word “adoption” – Romans 8:15, 8:23, and 9:4, Gal.4:5, and Eph:1:5. All but the Rom. 9 passage refer to all the faithful. In Rom.9:4, Paul laments that the Hebrew nation, for whom the assignment was intended, refused the responsibility. Remember – huiothesia is a designation not only of privilege, but of responsibility faithfully to administer the assets and to care for the people and the property of the father! They were only interested in the privilege part! And unfortunately, privilege is the orientation of most of the modern rhetoric about “inheritance.”

That is why a correct understanding of the word huiothesia is so critical to the interpretation of the Galatians passage read this morning! Begin with 3:26:

“For you are all God’s sons, in Christ Jesus, through faithfulness. For whoever was baptized into Christ, has been clothed with Christ. There isn’t any Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, and heirs according to the promise.” …. then follows an explanation that inheritance does not take effect until maturity, and then (4:5-7) “God sent out his son … in order that we might receive acknowledgment as his sons! …So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son also an heir, through God!”

Now before anyone starts getting bent-out-of-shape over all these references to “sons”, please consider the implication of this usage of the word “sons” in the cultural context we have just examined! Embedded in Paul’s explanation is the very clear, unambiguous statement that Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, are all one in Christ! The key is in the last clause: “if a son, also an heir!” We are ALL considered “sons”, because legally, only sons can be heirs! That statement is NOT exclusive, but gloriously INCLUSIVE!!! Like nothing the world had ever seen before – or since! Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, are, by the decree of God and the life given by the Lord Jesus, equally gifted and equally responsible for the administration of the gift of his inheritance! He has made us ALL his sons” – his specifically designated heirs – in order that we ALL may become faithful executors of his will!

The idea of inheritance deserves its own study – and maybe that can happen at another time. But there are a few points that it is necessary to address here:

1. An inheritance does NOT take effect after you die! There is no “pie in the sky bye and bye” in this equation. The distribution of an inheritance requires the certification of the death of the testator – the one who wrote the will – the one from whom the inheritance is received! But the heir, who receives both the inheritance and the responsibility for its administration, is very much alive! There is a careful explanation of this process in Hebrews 8 and 9. The references to “inheritance” in Eph.1:11, Rom.8:17, and Gal.4:7 are present tense – not future. You/we ARE heirs. NOW. The Hebrews passage carefully explains that such certification is/was a major reason for the death of Jesus! Where have you ever heard that celebrated in song or sermon?

2. “Will” and “covenant” are used in most English versions as translations of the same word. And as explained in Hebrews, the new one instituted by Jesus is “not like the old,” which it labels a failure. A will has no connection with any sort of “sacrifice”, ceremony, or shedding of blood. It is a legal document. Period. No more and no less. A “covenant”, likewise, is a legal, business agreement, with carefully stated requirements assigned to both parties, and includes the stipulation that a breach by either party renders the agreement of no effect.

3. Nevertheless, the inheritance we presently are called upon to administer faithfully as executors of the Lord’s will, is not “all there is.” We have received a down-payment on our inheritance, the gift of the Holy Spirit (Eph.1:14), whose job is to enable the proper administration of the will – but there is much more to come – Heb.1:14 and Rv. 21:7 – participation in which is dependent upon the faithful handling of what has already been received. Jesus’ future tense statement, “The victor will inherit these things, and I will be God for him, and he will be a son for me,” again, the formal statement of a father concerning his designated heir, immediately precedes the arrival of the Bride of the Lamb, and the joyful final consummation of history.

Perhaps this historical overview will shed some light on the confusion of folks who wonder, “Why the interest in adoption, when we have already been born into the Lord’s family?”
Life does indeed begin with birth, the result of the expression of love.
But the acknowledgment / adoption of sons is an expression of earned trust – and that is for grown-ups!
Inheritance is the exercise of responsibility, not the popular but shallower concept of a personal, private “reward”.

Might it be, then, that Paul’s frequent admonitions to “grow up” into the life to which we have been called, have in view the faithful administration of our inheritance?

May we faithfully “grow up” together into the Kingdom of our Lord.


A “Christian Nation?”

May 6, 2016

Recently, I heard the question raised, “Doesn’t living in a ‘Christian nation’ change the context of the various New Testament statements about behavior and attitudes, especially with respect to ‘enemies’?”
Although that might be a quite valid concern in a context that assumes, contrary to the previous study of the concept of “institutional church”, that such a situation is even possible, it is troubling for people committed to a New Testament understanding of faithfulness. From a perspective of total commitment to the Kingdom of Jesus, one’s life can no longer be compartmentalized!

Although I am quite certain that it is not what Rodgers and Hammerstein intended in “Oklahoma”, they have described a distinct parallel between Jesus and (of all unlikely people!) Will Parker, when he sings, “With me, it’s all or nothin’! Is it all or nothin’ with you? It cain’t be in-between – it cain’t be now-and-then! No half-and-half romance will do!”
In a drastically different context, that is exactly the choice faced – not only in the first century under threat of execution, but in every age – by those contemplating citizenship in the Kingdom.

Although “This is a Christian nation!” has become a popular battle-cry for encoding some people’s version of “morality” into legal requirements or prohibitions, the fact is that from the very beginning, there has never been such a thing as a “Christian nation”. No such entity exists today – or has ever existed (even in areas that boast of “state” churches) – or ever will exist – until the final consummation of the King’s arrival.
There is only one way to be “Christian”: and that is by making – and living by – a personal commitment of loyalty to Jesus Christ. Those who have done so are gradually and deliberately incorporated into a Body – but that Body is made up of people who have deliberately chosen his sovereignty.

No political structure on earth is so composed. Like it or not, virtually every “nation” on earth is composed of people of varied – or no – faith commitments, some of whom lead exemplary lives.

People may join an earthly nation by their personal choice. But most are merely “citizens” wherever they were born. “State churches”, being institutional, have tried to enforce a similar pattern, but as we saw in the essay about the “institutional church”, the result is a far cry from the interactive, voluntary New Testament brotherhood described in Scripture. Please refer to the first chapter of Citizens of the Kingdom.

No one who has deliberately ceded absolute loyalty to Jesus and his Kingdom can thereafter offer that total loyalty to a mere human institution, whether political or ecclesiastical.
And no one who has not so ceded his loyalty can – or should – be expected to be capable of Kingdom behavior! This is not to say that there are not many good people who have no such commitment. There are. However, making laws for other people, and legislating what we have failed to teach, is not part of our job description.

Please refer to word study #62 for the New Testament treatment of the word “nations”. It is clear that the concept of “nation” as defined in the 21st century did not exist in the first. The Roman Empire had dominated many “nations”, allowing most of them a considerable degree of autonomy, as long as both the puppet leaders and the common citizenry overtly acknowledged that “Caesar is Lord”. (See Word Study #4.) “Nation” defined ethnicity, more than political allegiance.

Notice that in Paul’s testimony in the trials recorded in Acts 24 and 26, and in his interview with the Jewish leaders in Rome, he speaks of “my nation”, obviously referring to Israel, although he also on occasion referred to his Roman citizenship. Citizenship in Jesus’ Kingdom does not expect one to renounce nor to reject his earthly allegiances and responsibilities. It simply subjects them to his ultimate, primary loyalty to the Kingdom.

Unfortunately, this is seldom acceptable to the people in power – in any institution, political or ecclesiastical – and consequently may incur the wrath of one or the other – or both.

Peter is the only one of the New Testament writers to refer to the committed as a “nation” (I Pet.2:9). We are not only a “nation” (of common birth and cause), but a “holy nation” – one set-apart for God’s deliberate purposes. The rest of his description makes abundantly clear that this is a very different sort of a “nation” – one designed to demonstrate, by its faithful living in the face of extreme persecution by the “official” nations with which it co-exists, the excellence of the Lord who has called its people “out of darkness into his amazing light”!

Notice, please, that Peter does not call for his readers to oppose the structures under which they suffer, but “by doing good” to counteract the wrong that surrounds (and even abuses) them. It is an exercise in futility to expect the uncommitted to exhibit behavior that is enabled only by the Lord we serve.
Obeying when we can, and refusing only when we must in order to remain faithful to our prior commitment, bears testimony to the true justice of our King.

Notice also, please, that IN NO INSTANCE are the faithful called upon to force their own principles upon any other individual or group – legally or by any other form of coercion. It is not only impossible, but not even permissible, to expect Kingdom behavior of the uncommitted. We are not called to reform the society around us, but to DEMONSTRATE AN ALTERNATIVE to the futility, the oppression, even the evil that prevails there – whether or not such a demonstration project is acceptable to that society.
To what extent it is ever appropriate for Kingdom citizens to participate in any sort of prescriptive action beyond their own brotherhood, is a question best settled on a situational basis by a consensus of folks personally and corporately committed to their acknowledged King and to Kingdom principles.

For the most part, our energy would be far more productively spent in working together to become the Body – the brotherhood – the “holy nation” – in which onlookers can see “the excellence of the one who called you /us”. That is the only truly “Christian nation”.


Making Everything New

April 24, 2016

This was prepared for our local fellowship in April 2016.
Everyone was asked to  prepare by looking for everything they could find in the New Testament that was characterized as “new”. The response was excellent.  This was an attempt to pull several streams together.

Making Everything New

Jesus’ triumphant statement, “Behold, I am making everything new!”, has been variously interpreted ever since the first time it was recorded, as have so many of the things he talked about.

It is certainly true that commitment to the Lord, especially for someone like me, who at that time had only recently been introduced to the life that Jesus advocated and enabled, often results in what some have called a “honeymoon phase”, where the whole world takes on a surreal sort of beauty. But all too soon, it is time to get down to the business of learning a new way of life.
There are still people and groups who insist on proclaiming a hyped-up “victory” over all problems and situations, which they attribute to their narrow definition of “faith” (auto suggestion?).
There are others who get around the difficulty of when the “magic” doesn’t work, (as well as ignoring any personal responsibility) by postponing all evidence of the “victory” until the Lord comes.
And there are all sorts of variations in between.
One major deviation of the Anabaptist movement from the “mainstream” was its determined effort to bridge the gap between the “already” and the “not yet” in their efforts at Kingdom living. This is especially true of attitudes regarding the contemporary phase of the Kingdom. They made an earnest effort to contradict the little ditty “To live above with the saints in love, Oh that will be glory!
But to live below, with the saints we know,Well, that’s a different story!”
It is precisely among the “saints below”, with all our oddities, stumblings, bruises and warts, where the “newness” of life in Christ most needs to be seen!

The writer to the Hebrews (8:13) observes, “In saying “new”, he has made the first “old”. And what is old and has been superseded, is near to disappearing!”
Even so, to examine the new situation, we have to start somewhere, and the logical place is at the “new creation” that happens whenever a person commits his life to the Lord.
I Cor.5:17 “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation! (or, “creation is new!”) Old things are gone, and something new has happened!”
In other places (notably the first paragraph of Romans 6), Paul uses the figure of baptism to represent death, burial and resurrection, to emphasize the same point, and in Ephesians 2:15, he expands it to include the bringing together of Jew and Gentile – formerly bitter enemies – into what he calls “one new person” – the Body of Christ!
In that Body, LIFE IS EXPECTED TO BE DIFFERENT!!! There has been a New Creation!

For many – perhaps most – of us, this doesn’t happen instantaneously. One is neither “born” nor “re-born” as a fully mature adult! We don’t expect adult behavior of our two-year-olds. That’s the perfectly reasonable impetus for all the admonitions to “grow up” into the image of Christ that appear like a refrain in so many of the New Testament letters. We’re not there yet. The direction has been set, but it will take the rest of our lives to learn to conform them to the “image of Christ”!

Unfortunately, in many groups that represent themselves as “Christian”, no change, radical or not, is expected. If a group represents itself as “welcoming” (the new codeword for “liberal”), people’s “lifestyle choices” – of whatever variety – are considered their own business, and are not to be questioned, let alone challenged or critiqued. “I won’ t mess with your choices, and you better not mess with mine”!
If, on the other hand, a group congratulates itself on its careful “faithfulness” (read, “conservative”), a simple but rigid list of rules is imposed, with very specific (and non-negotiable) requirements and prohibitions regarding both thought and behavior.

Neither of these bears the remotest resemblance to a New Creation!
Jesus’ creation of a Body, growing together into his image, stands in equally sharp contrast to both of these positions.

He spoke very deliberately of a people brought together under a New Covenant.
Probably this is picked up in the most careful detail in the letter to the Hebrews because the concept of “covenant” was such an integral part of their history and culture. But notice how this idea is treated, especially in chapter 8:6-13. Repeatedly, they are reminded that this New Covenant is “NOT LIKE the old one”, which is characterized as a total failure!

To make sense out of this concept, we first need to clarify our understanding of the idea of “covenant”. Most significantly, we need to recognize the error of the assumption that a “covenant” is or was somehow an unconditionally permanent thing! A covenant was and is a legal contract – seriously binding, after ratification, but (as is clear even in many Old Testament accounts) a breach by either party renders a contract or covenant of no effect! Subject to litigation, perhaps, but no longer binding!
There is nothing mysterious about a covenant. Employers have them. Neighborhood associations have them. Real estate or other financial deals require them. They impose responsibilities upon both parties.
A covenant is cast, historically, legally, theologically, and linguistically, in a series of “if x…then y” statements, which, grammatically, are classified as “conditional” constructions. A covenant is neither a threat nor a promise. It is a legal contract – no more and no less.

The writer of Hebrews then goes on to explain the actual historical meaning of the word translated “covenant”. In the larger society, it referred to one’s legal will, and seldom to contracts or covenants at all. (I have devoted two word studies on the web site to this subject, if you are interested). The “doctrinally” over-emphasized, ancient pagan requirement of “blood sacrifice” to seal a covenant is corrected by the simple statement that a will only takes effect after the death of the testator is certified! That topic deserves an entire study of its own, for which we don’t have time this morning. Chapters 8-10 of Hebrews elaborate on the connections between the concepts of covenant, inheritance, and the Body of Christ, which could be very helpful to our understanding. Remember that the letter to the Hebrews is pointing out differences from the old system, not ideas to be copied!

Additionally, as Paul points out in II Cor.3:6, we, the people of God, are the administrators – the executors – of that will! Executors are responsible to see that a will is carried out according to the wishes of the one who wrote it! They don’t make their own rules. They simply follow instructions. And that is our job, people! We have been appointed the executors of our Lord’s will! That is a huge – and perhaps somewhat intimidating – assignment, also calling for deeper study.

Finally, just as the Old Covenant was based upon instructions (“commandments”) relayed to the people for whom it was instituted, so is the New Covenant/ inheritance predicated upon Jesus’ New Commandment.
It would have been so much easier if he had just given us a check-list! Although that obviously had not worked under the old system.
But Jesus must have really meant what he said, since he repeated it so many times (Jn.13:34, 35; 15:12, 17). Love of – and among – the brethren is our passport – our Kingdom ID.
“If you love me, you will follow my instructions!” (Jn.14:15,21) is not a demand, but a simple statement of “cause and effect.”

Interestingly, it is right after this repeated statement that we find the inclusion of his analogy of the Vine (15:1-8). A branch MUST be connected to the vine in order to fulfill its intended purpose – bearing fruit. However, the most elementary observation reveals that branches are connected to a vine only by other branches!!! Connectedness is essential!
Actually, this is the beginning of the formation of Jesus’ people into the Body of Christ! That Body is integral to the New Creation!
Only together can such a disparate collection of people become the “demonstration project” in which the world can see Jesus’ Kingdom. A recent example of this is Shirley’s report of her neighbors’ reaction to the roofing job. Kingdom behavior was demonstrated.

Details of the composition and function of that Body are most specifically outlined in Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12-14, and supplemented in Ephesians and Colossians. The lists are not identical. They address different needs, different situations. We could – and should – spend a good chunk of time exploring this aspect of Kingdom life. The common thread, which is absolutely essential, is that each membereveryone! – has a very necessary contribution to make for the formation, growth, and fruitfulness of the Body, and to enable the recognition “by all people” that we are our King’s citizens.

This is a totally new way of operating. It had never been tried before! and therefore extreme caution is required. Creation is new, but not everything represented as “new” is necessarily better. Discernment, one of the Spirit’s essential gifts to the Body through its members, is desperately needed, to distinguish between the actual leading of God and the half-baked theories of “new” ideas (Colossians 2:4-10 is an example) where some were suggesting that Jesus alone was not sufficient, and needed to be understood as just one element of an elaborate, mythological hierarchy invented by some pagan Eastern cultures; or the revisionists referenced in Galatians 1:8-9 whose legalistic, abusive and oppressive teaching threatened the faithful message of freedom in Christ. Both of these are parallel to some contemporary threats as well. Only careful discernment by a faithful Body committed to a reliable standard can evaluate whether what is represented as “new wine” that needs “new wineskins” is really from the Lord. Maybe it is – or maybe not.

This has to be why, after a long discussion of the futility and failures of the old system, the writer to the Hebrews urges (10:24-25) “Let’s concentrate on prodding each other, with love, and good deeds! Let’s don’t neglect getting together, as some have made a habit, but keep on coaching each other more and more, as you all see the Day getting nearer!”

Functioning as his New Creation – under the New Covenant – obedient to the King’s New Commandment – may we learn together to keep coaching each other into greater faithfulness!

April 24, 2016, GMF


A Brief Introduction to Anabaptist History

September 15, 2015

This piece was developed for a small group that traces its roots to the Anabaptist wing of the Reformation in 1525.  Like so many groups with a unique and troubled history of attempted faithfulness, the modern progeny of those devout New Testament students sometimes lose sight of the vision of New Testament living that drove their antecedents to risk, and often to sacrifice, their very lives in their search for New Testament Christianity.

Perhaps many of you are also unaware of the serious devotion to Scriptural principles of the folks whom the formal “Reformers” tagged with the label, “Anabaptist heretics.”  It is for this reason that I am including it among my postings of New Testament studies, in the  hope that it may contribute to the “Recovery of the Anabaptist vision” among people who, although they may or many not share that heritage, find the New Testament descriptions of the early church to be attractive, and worth the effort to emulate.

May we all become better acquainted with the Lord Jesus, as we seek together to “follow him in life”!

A Brief Look at Early Anabaptist History

I usually prefer to use the opportunities I am given to share, to examine some specific aspect of the New Testament. But Tim Wyse’s testimony a couple weeks ago was such an excellent summary of what a gathering of folks of Anabaptist persuasion should be, that I feel compelled, for the benefit of those who, like me, did not grow up acquainted with the reasoning behind much of our history, to highlight some significant parts of Anabaptist beginnings, in the hope that perhaps at some point we may all engage together in a more in-depth look at “where we came from” as a guide to “where we are going.” This is an attempt, neither to idealize, nor much less to idolize, the past, but to learn from it.

Tim, as you may recall, attributed much of the attractiveness of our little group to “a focus on discipleship rather than doctrine.” This matches the statement on our bulletin very well.
There could be no distinction more appropriate for a group of Anabaptist origin.
That is not at all to discredit the importance of “what one believes”, but rather to push beyond the theoretical, to ask “OK, now, what are we going to DO about it?”, a question which most other groups answer, if at all, in very different ways.

Of primary importance to this question is a proper linguistic understanding of the word usually translated “faith”, which actually would be better understood if rendered “faithfulness” or “loyalty”. It was classically a very practical word, not at all theoretical. If you are curious, please check out the very first word study in my online collection. Or try substituting “loyalty to Jesus” in places where you are accustomed to reading “faith”, and you will begin to see the difference it makes.
It is precisely that difference for which our forefathers (spiritual, if not genealogical) gave their lives.

There is an old saying, most frequently applied to social or political issues, “Those who choose not to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” This is readily observed on the world scene, where formerly oppressed individuals or groups who become “liberated” waste no time in becoming the oppressors of their former masters, or even of former fellow-victims, and the cycle repeats endlessly, just with a different “alpha dog” on top of the pile. Examples abound around the world, whether of national, ethnic, religious, racial, gender, or any other origin.
Sadly, the self-proclaimed followers of the Prince of Peace have evidenced little deviation from this pattern.

When the emperor Constantine, in the early 4th century, declared that “Christianity”, the formerly persecuted minority, was to be the officially recognized “religion” of his empire, “conversion” and baptism became a legal requirement rather than a daring departure from convention. Only political loyalty and submission to ceremonial duties, were required, after the pattern of the earlier “worship” of the Caesars. It had little, if anything, to do with anyone’s way of life. Officials of the already-growing church hierarchy hailed as a victory,what was in actuality an ignominious defeat for a true NT church.

The problem with that is, commitment to Jesus was never intended to be a “religion” – simply one of many ways for people to attempt to understand and manipulate powers that are beyond common human control. JESUS DID NOT COME TO ‘START A RELIGION’, NOR TO REFORM AN EXISTING ONE! By his own testimony, he came that his people might have LIFE (Jn.10:10), and have it abundantly!

I have often previously quoted Solomon’s excellent summary: “He did not come to tell us what to think but to SHOW us how to live.” The “inaugural address” of Jesus’ Kingdom (Lk.4) detailed “good news to the poor, healing broken hearts, release for captives, sight for the blind, and freedom for the oppressed!” I have never seen any of those items in the “doctrinal statement” of any group, have you? If that was Jesus’ agenda, why is it not the agenda of those who claim to follow him?

It certainly did not describe Constantine’s agenda, or that of the burgeoning church hierarchy! As the clerical and political hierarchies merged and their wealth and power increased, the true King’s “Inaugural” lay pretty much forgotten. When an occasional brave soul advocated any of its principles, such an advocate was either peremptorily disposed-of, or elevated to “sainthood”– either one of which conveniently marginalized their influence on the average person.

The powerful church-state alliance established, and canonized, very carefully crafted statements of “doctrine”/ “belief” to which all were required to subscribe, on pain of exile, or even death. What the religious rulers had been unable to achieve by persuasion, they demanded by legislation – a very 21st century “solution” which really belongs to the middle ages!   (NOT the editorial pages!)
Compulsory assent to official pronouncements or accepted “doctrines” forcibly replaced the loving, mutually sharing brotherhood which had been the lifeblood of the early, persecuted church.

It was into this atmosphere that a tiny spark of light exploded, and became a conflagration that had to be reckoned with, in the early 16th century. “Reformers” had already tried to tackle some of the most egregious abuses by the powerful, but they all allowed their “reforms” to be vetted, approved (or not), and regulated by the political rulers, and tried to fix things by simply creating new hierarchical structures to replace the old: the power of the state was still invoked to enforce the submission of everyone in a given territory.

But in a small home near Zurich, in January of 1525, a small group of students who had been introduced by the reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, to Erasmus’ compilation of the Greek text of the New Testament, had finally had enough of waiting. Having compared the findings of their New Testament study to what claimed to be “the church”, they realized that the results just didn’t match! That’s exactly what happened to me as a college student.
With no official or clerical authority or approval, they declared their intention to follow Jesus Christ in their whole life, baptized each other in testimony to that commitment, and at the same time, ordained each other to spread the word – the New Testament – that had encouraged them to do so. And all the drownings, burnings, tortures, and assorted other abuses heaped upon them by both political and religious officials could not quench that flame. It spread like wildfire.

Do you see any parallel here? The early church had thrived and spread throughout the empire, despite brutal persecution by Rome. The Swiss Brethren, likewise brutalized, spread rapidly through Switzerland, Germany, and surrounding territories: so rapidly that the more institutionally-inclined reformers were alarmed, and turned up the heat on the “heretics”.
What was their “heresy”? It was perhaps best defined by Hans Denk, who simply stated: “No man may truly know Christ, except he follows him in life.”

As summarized by historian Harold Bender, “The Anabaptists could not understand a Christianity that made regeneration, holiness, and love a matter of intellect, doctrinal belief, or subjective experience, rather than the transformation of life.” For them , the operative word was not “faith”, a theoretical concept independent of observable evidence, but “following”, for which any “theology” might perhaps be a means, but certainly not an end.
Even their enemies recognized this, and a “godly life” was frequently cited in trials as proof that someone was an Anabaptist, and the person was thereby condemned, either to drowning or the stake!

Two years after the initial meeting, a group of brethren under the leadership of Michael Sattler (who was martyred soon thereafter), met to define their points of departure from the state-church system.
The resulting “Schleitheim Confession” did not focus on any “doctrinal” deviation from the basic theology professed by the official churches. It’s seven brief articles dealt specifically with the resultant behavior to which the brethren had committed themselves. Primary was the voluntary nature of the church. The baptism of mature adults at their own request, careful discipline within the group, and the informal celebration of the breaking of bread among the committed, were all outgrowths of this principle, and “separation from the world” (a phrase later badly abused, as if it had been instituted as a new “Law”) was simply the observable result of their commitment. As part of their rejection of any and all coercion, they rejected both “the sword” (political coercion) and the oath (a follower of Jesus was committed to absolute truthfulness on every occasion.) Out of necessity, they also detailed the rapid replacement of their leaders, since martyrdom was so frequent. Notice that nothing whatever was said about “doctrinal” issues. Accused of “trying to abolish the clergy”, someone is said to have retorted, “Not at all: in obedience to Jesus Christ, we intend to abolish the laity”!

In those turbulent early years, councils, debates, and “disputations” were convened by various authorities to halt the spread of “heresy”, but to no avail. Every faithful person had become a preacher/evangelist!

In 1531, a “disputation” was arranged, in which the principals were Martin Bucer, an ally of Martin Luther, and advocate of a “Christendom” promoted and coerced by civil authority, and Pilgram Marpeck, who considered the gathered church to be an extension of the Incarnation of Christ, (detailed in word study #150), an “advance party” of his Kingdom. Marpeck maintained that in order to create a true community, one’s commitment must of necessity be voluntary. True faithfulness can never be coerced.

Bucer, on the other hand, argued that the church was a continuation of the Old Testament “people of God”, and equated baptism with circumcision, to which all children must be subjected, and by which they were obligated to eventual membership. He therefore held the OT to be of equal authority with the New – the “flat book” approach advocated even today by many denominations, self-designated “evangelicals”, and even some who claim Anabaptist roots, and therefore ought to know better!

Bucer also insisted that the civil government was “ordained” to enforce this system. Consequently, of course, since he maintained that it was the duty of the state to enforce conformity, Bucer was declared to have “won” the debate.

Marpeck did not reject the OT, but considered it merely preparatory, and saw the relation between the testaments as “preparation vs. fulfillment”. He held that where there was conflict, the New must always take precedence. Jesus made the deciding call, and served as the prime example.

Notice, that here, too, the Anabaptist objections were practical, not theological. The basics of “belief” were challenged only as they impinged upon the expected behavior of the “church” and its members. It was the practical outworking of commitment to Christ that was in question.
None of these debates or arguments even touched on the “theological” issues so carefully defined, proof-texted and footnoted by modern “defenders of the faith.” That preoccupation has been copied from 19th and early 20th century Fundamentalism. It was nowhere present in historical Anabaptism.

In his essay, “The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision”, Harold Bender highlights three areas where the Anabaptist brethren departed from the prevailing norm:

  1. The essence of Christianity is discipleship: the transformation of one’s life according to teaching of Jesus. Life is expected to be observably different.
  2. An entirely new concept of church as voluntary, not automatic, and definitely NOT an adjunct to state citizenship. Church is expected to be observably different.
  3. The ethic of love and nonresistance in all human relationships, which allows no room for coercion of any kind: theological, civil, or military. Members are no longer under the Old Covenant, expected to do battle on behalf of their god, but now serve the Prince of Peace, in a lifestyle patterned after his.

Please note that they were not trying to change the prevailing social order, but to create a new one!
They neither made nor imposed any rules upon people outside of their own committed group.
They never expected to be a majority – persecution was assumed, and for over 200 years, even after the initial executions subsided, advocates of the “free” or voluntary church were hounded from their homes and property. Sheltered by the occasional compassionate local potentate, they took refuge wherever it could be found: in the Netherlands, Moravia, some German duchy areas, and even czarist Russia!

In the early 18th century, battered from centuries of abuse, with most of their original leadership executed, those who eventually found refuge in “Penn’s Colony” just wanted to be left alone. For a time, they maintained their defensive isolation– and who could blame them? It was pleasant not to be constantly running and hiding in order to survive. I could still take you to Pennsylvania churches where an opening prayer would predictably include “We thank thee that we may gather here today unmolested and undisturbed”!

But peace has its own perils. Both the descendants of the folks who had received Constantine’s decree with a sigh of relief, and the progeny of those who found refuge in Penn’s colony, eventually learned: The absence of overt opposition can quickly dull the edge of commitment.

Although it is noted by some Church of the Brethren historians, that when in 1719, Benjamin Franklin asked their elders to provide a “creed”, and a list of “officials”, in order that they might be enrolled as a legitimate “church”, they refused, saying “We have no creed but the New Testament, and acknowledge no superior but the Lord Jesus Christ”, one would be hard-pressed to find such a response today. (We have tried!)

And what a contrast is the brief but bold statement that emerged at Schleitheim, to the so-called “Mennonite Confession of Faith”, with its 20 lengthy articles, fully half of which appear to be designed to identify with evangelical protestantism rather than to describe a difference, and only one of which refers to the group’s official attitude toward the state.

Have we so completely lost sight of the central principles by which our forebears governed their lives – and for which they even gave their lives?
How did nearly five centuries of persecuted minority status become a burden instead of a badge of honor?
Is a retreat to “doctrine” always safer than an exemplary life, and therefore to be preferred?

In the last half-century, a few voices have again been raised in advocacy of a deliberate, even if costly, choice of discipleship over the comfort of a passive reliance upon “accepted doctrine”. This is a hopeful sign.

But have you noticed how many of the agenda items for “official” meetings (which are announced as being open only to “credentialed” individuals) in recent years have been issues already noisily aired in the popular press?

Or how frequently the announced “conclusions” are also those already “approved” by the general populace, or proclaimed in national legislation?

I am not saying that we were better-off being burned and drowned – not idealizing the days when faithfulness meant a peremptory death sentence. But have we really deliberately decided, with the rest of society, that it is more appropriate to “fit in” than to wrestle with the challenge of discipleship? Or have we just carelessly slouched into that stance?

What will we do, if we again find ourselves placed into a position where we must make a choice?

We need to make every effort to become fully aware of the alternatives and their implications, in order that we may choose faithfully.

 

Suggested resources for Anabaptist History:

The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision – ed.Guy Hershberger, 1957

Becoming Anabaptist –J.Denny Weaver – 1987

The Origins of Sectarian Protestantism – Franklin Littell, 1964

Introduction to Mennonite History – C.J.Dyck, 1974

The Politics of Jesus – John Howard Yoder, 1972

The Priestly Kingdom – John Howard Yoder, 1984

The Believers Church– Donald Durnbaugh, 1970


The Most Neglected Event of Easter Week

May 3, 2015

This message was prepared for our church group on May 3, 2015.  The scriptures were (O.T) Exodus 26:31-35 and 34:29-35 and (N.T.)  Mark 15:37-39 and II Corinthians 3:12-17.

The Most Neglected Event of Easter Week

Of all the cascade of events during the Easter season, none of which is without meaning, and each of which has been variously interpreted through the centuries – with varying degrees of fidelity to the New Testament text – there is one that usually receives little notice, although I consider it to be second in importance only to Jesus’ triumphant resurrection which utterly and permanently destroyed the power of death over his people. It is generally mentioned only in passing, if at all, despite its inclusion in all three synoptic gospels, most of a chapter in Paul’s second letter to Corinth, and three separate references in the letter to the Hebrews. That event is the dramatic tearing apart of the thick, heavy curtain called the “veil”, that served as the boundary in the Jewish temple (earlier, the tabernacle), beyond which no one but the designated High Priest was ever allowed to venture, because it concealed the supposed residence of God.

Many years ago, when working on Citizens of the Kingdom, I had done some work on the subject of a “veil”, primarily because of Paul’s mention of the “veil” used by Moses, but I was prompted to dig deeper into the idea by a question raised by John Bender some time ago in reference to Mark’s account of Jesus’ baptism. He wondered if Mark’s observation of heaven being “torn open” at that time was the same word as the one used of what happened to the veil of the temple at the time of Jesus’ death.
This is one of many examples of the value of the contribution of every member of the Body, which enables one person to trigger another to explore unexpected treasures in the Scripture.

A quick check revealed that it is indeed exactly the same word. Schizo is quite a violent word, elsewhere used of rocks shattered by an earthquake, the guards’ decision not to rip apart Jesus’ cloak, and the ruin of a fish net or an improperly mended garment, as well as of sharp divisions in the response of various crowds to Jesus’ teaching.
But interestingly, these two are Mark’s only uses of the word. Might this have been a deliberate choice on his part, and not, as is often supposed, just the effusive, but limited, vocabulary of an excited young man?  We will return to this idea momentarily.

To understand the connection, we must notice the vocabulary of references to “the temple”. There are two different words that are translated “temple”, and they are not distinguished in English translations. This is true of references to pagan temples as well as the Jewish one. One word refers to the whole temple complex – the building and grounds and all its courtyards and accouterments, where people freely met, walked, talked, argued, begged, bought and sold. The other refers specifically (in both pagan and Jewish contexts) to the “inner sanctum”, where the god was believed to dwell – in this particular case, the area walled-off by the veil, the “Holy of Holies”, with access restricted to the high priest or his designate. No one else could enter, on pain of death – although that penalty was not mentioned in the original Law. (Neither, incidentally, was the notion that God “lived” there.)

It was the site of Zachariah’s vision, and where Judas, in his despair, had hurled his bribe-money. It was also the word Jesus and Paul both used of the Body of Christ – both his own physical body and the “temple of the Holy Spirit” into which his people are being built! (That is worthy of a separate study of its own.)
So where is the parallel here? Mark says, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, that “the heaven (sky) was split open” – perhaps not so much in order that the dove/spirit could get out, as that the awe-struck observers could see in, and hear the very voice of God acknowledging his Son!
And at the end of Jesus’ sojourn among people, the temple’s veil of separation, that had been designed to prevent us “ordinary folks” from approaching the presence of God, is likewise “split open” – torn apart – as Mark carefully notes, “from top to bottom” (making it obvious that this was the work of God, and of no human hand). That thing was HUGE – ten cubits was about 15 ft! And as a result of its destruction, all God’s people can not only see in, but be provided, as detailed in Heb.6:19, 9:13, and 10:20, definitive and permanent access, as Jesus’ own people, to the very presence of God!

The destruction of the overt physical barrier dramatically illustrated that interaction between God and his people had been radically and permanently changed! But there is even more!

Closely related to this access is the removal of the other veil – explained in II Cor.3:12-17 – the only other mention of a “veil” in the New Testament. Here, Paul has chosen a different word, one classically used of a much smaller piece of fabric, often worn, in antiquity, as a sign of mourning. It does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament.

Interestingly, Paul and Moses offer differing explanations for the use of this veil. According to Moses (Ex.34), he covered his face because people were frightened by its glowing appearance after he had been talking with the Lord. There is no hint that this was done at God’s direction: it was Moses’ own idea. Paul says (II Cor.3) that Moses didn’t want them to see the “glory” fading from his face! For whichever reason, just like the temple’s heavy curtain, Moses’ “veil” also served to separate – in this case, to separate God’s spokesman from “ordinary people” – the classic clergy-laity division! ButPaul goes on to explain, “Whenever anyone turns to the Lord, THE VEIL IS TAKEN AWAY”!!! And “WE ALL” are charged with “reflecting the Lord’s own radiance” as we are in the process of being “transformed into his image”!

The temple’s veil, whose purpose, in harmony with both the old Jewish hierarchical system and its pagan counterparts, had been to separate ordinary mortals from the presence of God, kept everyone but the high priest from approaching, or even seeing, the place where God’s glory was said to dwell. In sharp contrast, Jesus’ act, in bringing people TO God, by the giving of his own life, utterly destroyed not only the physical barrier, but also any need for such separation.  Remember that what Jesus referred to as “his work”, by his own testimony, was to make us ONE – with himself, with the Father, and with each other. His prayer in Jn.17 included the petition that we may behold his glory, and thereby be transformed, together, to reflect his image. ALL OF US!!!

THE VEIL IS TAKEN AWAY!!! That has to be one of the most gloriously triumphant statements in all of Scripture! But why, then, is it one of the most neglected? Are there still people and institutions that would prefer that we “ordinary folks” should not know that *BOTH the separation between God and man (the veil of the temple), and that between “layman” and leadership (Moses’ veil) are intended to be FOREVER DONE AWAY IN CHRIST?  Any manifestation of either such division, on the part of any group that calls itself a church, constitutes a blatant denial of the finished work of Christ!*
Forget anything else I have said, but don’t forget this. I will say it again: (repeat between *)

This, I believe, was the primary thing that really distinguished the Swiss Anabaptist brethren not only from all the other reformers, but even others who eventually shared the “Anabaptist” label. They were hounded from their homes and possessions, and even their very lives, simply because of their adamant refusal, on the grounds of their New Testament study, to remain or to become subservient to the dictates of the state-authorized systems and individuals (whether Catholic or Protestant) who officially held absolute power over the life, thought, and behavior of their underlings. Thousands were martyred for their insistence that Jesus alone was their superior, and only he had the right to command their obedience.

I consider it a major tragedy when groups who claim “Anabaptist” ancestry turn around and create hierarchical systems and obligatory “doctrinal statements” of their own, instead of encouraging and enabling ALL faithful followers of the Lord Jesus to exercise both their responsibilities and their privileges in the formation and function of the Body for which Jesus prayed, and gave his life! An often-omitted part of the history of that first believers’ baptism in Zurich in 1525, where five earnest students of the New Testament spontaneously baptized each other, is that those committed brethren at the same time “ordained” each other to the ministry of spreading that good news! They considered the two acts – baptism and ordination – to be the opposite sides of the same coin!

I don’t know if you all realize the extent to which Jim’s faithful and excellent leadership of this little “colony of the Kingdom” has courageously departed from what has become “standard procedure” today even in most groups that say they share the Anabaptist heritage. Instead of “running the church”, and personally dictating all of its activities and teaching, he has graciously assumed the (truly Scriptural) role of an “enabler”, taking care to see that we all benefit from one another’s insights, abilities, and concerns. That stance, if I may put it a bit crudely, takes guts!
This choice on his part, unfortunately, is extremely rare, although it should be considered the primary task of every person in any kind of a leadership role: to assure that the Body benefits from the contribution of every brother and sister.

Because THE VEIL IS TAKEN AWAY!!! In a New Testament brotherhood, NO task, NO responsibility, NO privilege is reserved for members of a carefully vetted in-group who can be counted on not to rock any boats or kick any sacred cows. In fact, if there is no boat-rocking or cow-kicking going on, there is probably little studying, learning, or growing going on either!
THERE IS ONLY ONE VALID QUALIFICATION for total participation in the Body to which we are called: unequivocal commitment to faithfully following and representing the Lord Jesus and his Kingdom; and there is likewise ONLY ONE VALID STANDARD OF JUDGMENT by which to assess the authenticity of that faithfulness: mutual and careful study of the New Testament.
Within a community committed to that objective, THE VEIL IS TAKEN AWAY!!!

The key word here is “committed.” A committed community is not an “anything goes”, one-size-fits-all mixture; and certainly not a lowest-common- denominator affair! There’s one of those on nearly every corner! A committed community is something altogether different. If we are not different from the group down the street, why should we even exist? What do we have to offer? As James correctly remarked a couple weeks ago, that’s not what at least some of us want – OR , I would venture to add, not what the Lord wants, either!

The popular contemporary question, “Who is allowed to come to visit, and expect to be welcomed?” is completely irrelevant here. That answer must always be “EVERYONE!” A group committed to the Lord Jesus – and to the purpose of faithfully representing his Kingdom – must ask a very different question instead: “Who can participate in decision making and policy determination?” And the answer to THAT question is also different – both more and less restrictive – it must always be, “ALL, but ONLY those who are likewise committed!”

What is different about a group of Jesus’ committed followers when the veil is taken away?
There will – there must – still be leadership in the Kingdom. But faithful leaders will take care that there be NO VEIL – no activity or decision that is not completely open before all, for in Christ,
THE VEIL IS TAKEN AWAY!!! The agenda will not be set by the society around them, but by their study of the New Testament. Total openness, total honesty, the complete absence of any shred of secrecy or manipulation, and careful avoidance of any attribution of status or power to any individual, is the order of life in the new Kingdom..

Another safeguard which helped – and still helps – to prevent any abuse of authority in a New Testament brotherhood is the consistent pattern that every “office”, task, or assignment is consistently spoken of in the plural. In every city where a group of believers emerged, the apostles who had brought the message established local elders (plural) to supervise. Eph.4:11 lists apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers – all plural – who are to facilitate and enable the ministries of “all the saints”. And even a cursory review of that word reveals that “saints” consistently refers, not to individuals of unusual powers or superior “holiness”, but to all the people of God!

Jesus himself has sharply defined the function of disciples, and strictly forbidden any honorary titles or positions. He stated it very plainly: “You have one Teacher, and you are all brethren.” Different people may (and should) be entrusted with leading or supervising different aspects of life in the brotherhood, but NO INDIVIDUAL, and certainly NO HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE, whether internal or external, is “in charge.”

In the New Testament church, (and this is yet another study we should undertake), the assignment of responsibilities happened in many different ways: group or individual initiative, a direct word from the Lord, the request of a group in need, general consensus, or simply someone being in the right place at the right time. The method of selection does not seem to have mattered. But IN NO INSTANCE was a permanent, or even a temporary title conferred upon anyone. JESUS HAD FORBIDDEN THAT!!! Each was simply called to perform a necessary function, to address a specific need, at a specific time. We had an excellent demonstration of this principle last week, when a spontaneous gathering of brethren discerned together an appropriate response to the concern that James had presented.

THE VEIL IS TAKEN AWAY!!! The destruction and removal of the veil, whether of the temple, enabling the access of all the Lord’s people to his glorious presence, or the veil of Moses, eliminating the elevation of any individual above his brethren, makes abundantly clear that it is Jesus’ desire that ALL OF HIS PEOPLE not only “behold” his glory, but be transformed, together, to reflect it!

I still think one of the best summaries I have ever heard was our brother Solomon’s, when he said simply, “Jesus did not come to tell us how to think, but to show us how to live!”

Through his Holy Spirit, whom we will celebrate in a couple weeks at Pentecost, the Lord has chosen to speak TO all of us, THROUGH all of us, in order to accomplish that goal.

We now have no reason to be either intimidated by glory, nor ashamed of our humanity. Our Lord has graciously made ample provision for both, by giving us himself and giving us each other.

THE VEIL HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY!!!

Thanks be to God!


The season to “Rejoice”

December 21, 2014

This is a compilation of the studies on “rejoice” and “joy” previously posted, along with some added notes.

“Rejoice!”
prepared for Greensboro Mennonite Fellowship
December 21, 2014

Intro: regarding the Scripture readings: Joel 2:21-27; Lk.1:26-38 and 46-55.
I changed the O.T. reference because the ones suggested were only dealing with King David’s ascension to power. Christmas focuses not on King David, but on King Jesus, who, although genetically related to David, came to establish a much more far-reaching Kingdom – not only in time and place, but also in its purpose and accomplishments! Notice how the prophecy is reflected in Jesus’ “inaugural” in Lk.4 when he was announcing his purpose.
You may have also noticed that this part of Joel’s prophecy immediately precedes the one Peter quoted in his Pentecost sermon. Jesus’ arrival was the first installment of its fulfillment; the Spirit’s coming to create and empower a faithful brotherhood was the second, and the final triumph of the King of Kings will finish it off – and each stage is intended to cause “rejoicing” among his people!

Notice also that the folks who put the bulletin passages together used Mary’s response to her angelic visitor two weeks in a row. I used to be bothered by her statement, “My soul doth magnify the Lord”. “Magnify”? How can a mere person make God appear to be any bigger than he is? But someone – probably one of the “scientific-types” that I have lived with all these years (a husband and four sons) — pointed out that a “magnifying” lens really doesn’t make anything bigger: it just enables us to see better – greater detail, more intricacy, more beauty. The change is in our perception, not the object of our examination. And until it all wraps up, we will always need to see the Lord more clearly! I think we are all expected to do this “magnifying” to and for and with each other, so that “(our) spirit may rejoice in God (our) savior!”

At any rate, the recommended response to all of these is the same: “Rejoice!”

As is frequently the case, “rejoice” is a term used to describe widely varied ideas, all the way from simply being “glad” about something, through boasting or bragging, throwing a party, celebrating good fortune or expressing gratitude for blessings, to breathless awe at recognizing the hand of God at work.
The four different original words represented are not easily sorted into categories: it is not rare to find yourself asking, “Why did the writer make that choice?” Often two of the words are used together, as “joy and gladness/celebration”, “rejoice with joy”, or even three, in the announcement to Zachariah, (Lk.1:14) “You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth”.
So rather than trying to sort out vocabulary, it probably makes more sense to look at the situations and conditions represented. A few are rather easily disposed of, as less than relevant to the promise of the season.

The idea of boasting or bragging, virtually always viewed in a negative sense in classical usage, does appear Biblically in warnings not to take personal credit for what the Lord has done, or for one’s “spiritual” experiences, but it is also used when Paul is trying to leverage relief effort (“Don’t make me sorry I bragged about you” – II Cor.7), and to encourage people’s obedience to the Lord.

Another word is only occasionally connected to God – a frequent translation is “make merry”, and primarily describes the luxurious feasting of the wealthy in several parables, the partying of those who killed God’s faithful witnesses in Rv.11:10, and even of idol worship, but also simply of frivolous behavior, although it is also used of the celebration at the return of the prodigal son.

The more usual (and more positive) word for “celebration”, used in the LXX of coronations, and classically of paying honor to a god, in the NT speaks primarily of the joy of those who have become faithful (like the jailer in Philippi), or in recognition, or expectation, of God’s faithfully fulfilling prophetic promises.

Far more common – and probably therefore more ambiguous — is the use of chairo and its noun form, chara (usually rendered “joy”). It can be as simple as the standard greeting or leave-taking (perfunctorily wishing someone well), or as profound as an admonition to acknowledge – and live up to — one’s position in Christ, and many levels in between. Some of its uses are understandable on a purely human level.
There are frequent references in both the OT and NT to the “joy” of a good harvest.
A shepherd “rejoices” when he finds a lost sheep, and a woman at the recovery of her dowry coin, or the safe delivery of a child.
The Magi “rejoiced” when they saw the star, perceiving that it would lead them to the King they sought.
Zachariah was told that his neighbors would “rejoice” at the birth of his son.
Jesus mentions “rejoicing” at a wedding.
Paul speaks of “rejoicing” at the arrival of encouraging friends, or a gift from a supporting group, as well as hearing of the faithfulness of many folks in the churches.
The men who find treasure in a field, or a valuable pearl, “rejoice” at their good fortune.
But even the conniving council of priests were “glad” (same word) when they contracted with Judas for Jesus’ betrayal, and Herod was “glad” for the chance to see Jesus when Pilate sent him over.

Jesus’ gracious acts of healing or other restoration mark a transition to a different level of “rejoicing.”
The 70 disciples Jesus had sent out to preach returned all excited (“with joy”) about their successful campaign, but Jesus admonished them that their “rejoicing” was misplaced – it should rather be focused on the privilege of participating in his Kingdom.
Jesus was “glad” for his disciples’ sake that he was not present when Lazarus died, so that they could see beyond that event. Later, his words proved true in their joy over his own resurrection.
The whole town was said to be “rejoicing” at the miraculous things that happened in Samaria when Philip was preaching there.
There was “rejoicing” among the churches Paul visited enroute to Jerusalem when they heard of the conversions among the Gentiles
The Gentile churches “rejoiced” at their gracious acceptance by the Jerusalem Conference.
The Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian jailer “rejoiced” at their commitment to the Lord.
Paul and the other writers of epistles express joy or rejoicing at the faithfulness of their correspondents.
And of course there are numerous scenes of the rejoicing of the faithful around the throne in Revelation. In scenes of triumph and celebration, “rejoicing” is no surprise.

But more prevalent than any of these is the use of the word in situations that one would NOT expect to produce “rejoicing”. And this, completely absent in classical literature, is the truest message, not only of the season, but in the whole of our life in the Lord.
It is easy and appropriate to “rejoice” — to celebrate – when things are going well: whether we perceive it as a result of the Lord’s intervention, as the outcome we desired or hoped for in any situation, or simply a beautiful day!
The thing that sets NT admonitions to “rejoicing” apart from anything ordinary – indeed, seems totally contrary to “normal” expectations — is that the vast majority of these are focused on situations where everything seems to be going WRONG!

Early on, Jesus had advocated “rejoicing” in the face of persecution and abuse (Mt.5 and Lk.6) as a result of one’s faithfulness to him, looking past the present reality.
He had prayed that his own “joy” would remain among his followers, even as he faced imminent torture and death. He repeatedly returns to this theme through John 14-16, also looking beyond what his listeners can see at the time.
A similar theme recurs in Ac.5, when the disciples are said to have “rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor” for the name of Jesus.

Peter seems to have identified quite deeply with this message, as much later, probably near the end of his life, he wrote:
“Keep on celebrating about that [him] , though right now, for a while, you all may have to be grieving over various trials …. Continue to love him whom you have not seen, being faithful toward him whom you don’t see now, and celebrating with indescribable and glorious joy!”
Please notice that this is NOT, as some folks through the centuries have tried to present it, a shallow promise of “pie in the sky bye and bye” as a reward or antidote for misery in life here and now. There is NO HINT of advocacy for abject submission to evil, as if it were “God’s will”! IT IS NOT!!! James, in his own epistle, makes that abundantly clear. Peter immediately moves on to employ our future hope as an incentive to determined (even stubborn!) present faithfulness, encouraging the brotherhood (notice that the entire message is written in the plural) to live presently as an incarnation of Jesus’ triumph!
Sometime, sit down and s-l-o-w-l-y read Peter’s whole letter as a single message, paying attention to the way he weaves together suffering and celebration, abuse and glory, and how intimately both are connected to the interaction of the Body of believers. This is absolutely essential to maintaining our “rejoicing” in the face of difficulty, misfortune, suffering, or even outright evil. WE NEED EACH OTHER!!! Sometimes desperately!

Paul, too, juxtaposes these apparently contradictory ideas as he speaks in
Rom.12:12   of “rejoicing in hope [confidence]” producing patience in trials
II Cor.6:10 of being “sorrowful, but always rejoicing”
Phil.1:18, even from prison, rejoicing at the faithfulness of the church
Col.1:24 even when he is being abused on their behalf
and in both letters to the beleaguered church of Thessalonica of the joy imparted by the Holy Spirit despite the turmoil that surrounded (and resulted from) their faithfulness.

The letter to the Hebrews (10:24 and 12:12) connects the prospect of eventual triumph to one’s reaction to persecution, with Jesus’ own focus on the eventual outcome.

Perhaps the most vivid contrast, though, appears in Rev.18, at the economic collapse of Babylon – which throughout Scripture has served as a label for all the world powers that have chosen either to oppose or to ignore the genuine King . While the participants in Babylon’s excesses and luxury are mourning, in despair at the system’s destruction, the message to God’s people (v.20) is to rejoice – to celebrate, recognizing that it is the gracious intervention of God on their/our behalf! Interestingly, the word chosen here is the one more frequently used of throwing a party! Is that what you do when the stock market tanks?
At first that seems odd – but perhaps it is a deliberate reinforcement of the counter-cultural nature of the life to which we are called! The same choice of wording was made in Rev.12:12, celebrating the vindication of the martyrs by the destruction of the dragon and his minions.

So where does this leave us? And how is it connected to the celebration of the Christmas season? It is really rather simple:

The coming of Jesus was promised, many centuries before his arrival. He came! The God of the whole universe came, walking as one of us, among his people, in kindness and incredible love. REJOICE!!!

After demonstrating as well as explaining how his Kingdom was intended to work, he left us, as he had promised, with a “Coach”, the Holy Spirit, to form us into his winning team, to enable his “demonstration project”, and to help us hang in there, together, regardless of any temporary consequences. REJOICE!!!

Having seen his fulfillment of all his earlier promises, we can have total confidence in the fulfillment of the third: He will come again, and rule forever as rightful King!   REJOICE!!!

Amen.

 

 


Invitation to Transformation: RSVP

August 17, 2014

(This was prepared and presented for Greensboro Mennonite Fellowship, August 17, 2014)

I’d like you to think of this message as an expression of appreciation, and a bit of a supplement, to both Jim’s and Solomon’s recent focus on the transformation of life that Jesus offered, expected, and accomplished – and still intends to accomplish – in those of us who choose to follow him.

That is what attracted me to the Lord in the beginning, as a college student many years ago, and it still does. I never had the dramatic story of a messed-up, “wicked” life that seems to be requisite in some circles in order to qualify as having been “redeemed”. My life was just empty: with no purpose, no way to be worthwhile, no place to belong, no people to belong TO. I found the life described in the New Testament, and partly demonstrated by a few small groups committed to it, to be enormously attractive, precisely because it was completely different from anything I had ever seen or known.

That’s why I get so bothered by the prevalence of a few themes that continually crop up in what is labeled “Christian” teaching, preaching or writing, that seem, instead of inviting folks to a transformed life, rather to be trying to assure them that “Just as I am” asserts that no transformation is needed!

These well-meaning, but misguided people promote only half of the real message, that was succinctly displayed on a bumper-sticker in the 60’s and 70’s: “God loves you just as you are – but he loves you too much to leave you that way!” The real message is all about being transformed!

“Transform” – the original word is the one from which we get our biological term, “metamorphosis” – the caterpillar – cocoon – butterfly scenario – actually occurs only four times in the New Testament: twice in the accounts in Matthew and Mark of Jesus’ transfiguration, once in Romans 12:2 (transformed by the renewing of our minds), and once in II Cor. 3:18 (our being transformed, together, into the image of Christ). It would be an interesting project to try to discover together how those four passages are related. The idea, however, runs through the entire New Testament, as people, groups, and situations are radically changed to reflect Jesus’ Kingdom.

Solomon put it extremely well when he observed, “Jesus didn’t come to tell us what to think, but to show us how to live!”, and Jim recently pointed out that being set free from fear enables us to welcome changes. These two ideas are basic to the Kingdom that Jesus came to create, but sadly very rare in “Christian” teaching.

I am convinced that for most people and groups, the confusion results, not from deliberate deception, but from a serious misunderstanding of four words, two of which are found in the New Testament, and two of which are not.

The first, nowhere near as common as general usage would lead one to expect, is metanoeite, traditionally translated “repent”. To the average modern listener, a challenge to “repent” implies having been caught in some sort of misbehavior, or some doctrinal error, for which he needs to beg to be “forgiven”. This interpretation has absolutely NO New Testament basis. Rather, the word indicates a total and radical change of one’s mind, focus, attitude, and behavior away from its self-centered concerns, to a focus on the ways and goals of the Kingdom.

This was already obvious in the conversations of John the Baptist with his audience. When, obviously expecting that some behavior was involved, they asked,”What shall we DO?” he answered, “If you have food and clothing, share it with those who need it. Government agents must quit enriching themselves by cheating people. Soldiers must do no violence to anyone!”
Not a word is said about what anyone was supposed to “believe.” And not a word about anyone’s “eternal destiny”. Just Kingdom values to live by!

The second word is “conversion”, for which the primary original word means simply “to turn around,” or “to return.” It usually had purely physical implications, but could also apply to the direction of one’s attention. It is translated “convert” in only 7 of its 39 New Testament appearances. IN NO INSTANCE does it indicate having lost an argument, or become convinced of some theoretical or theological construct. Even modern usage provides several better illustrations :
* an engine may be converted to run on a different fuel
* a factory may be converted to produce a different product
* farm land may be converted to grow a different crop
* a property’s zoning may be converted to allow a different use.
Any of these would merit a study of its own. The operative concept here is CHANGE.
It may entail a change of ownership, and consequently of activity.
It may indicate a change of direction, or a course correction. (If you’re on I-85 trying to head for Charlotte, and you see a sign for “Raleigh”, you turn around! That’s conversion!)
None of these has any necessary connection to either moral failure or losing a theological argument. The one thing they all have in common is change – with observable results.

The other two words, neither of which appears at all in the New Testament, have compounded the confusion. Far too frequently, whether from a conservative or a liberal perspective, “transformation” and “inclusiveness” are assumed to be opposites. They are NOT.
The early church was a case study in the genuine inclusion of “Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female”, not only in the Kingdom, but in the very family of the King! And this was accomplished without either succumbing to the excesses of first century Greek and Roman culture (the debauchery of which was more similar to our own than we like to admit) , or imposing rigid legal requirements upon prospective participants; and certainly without robbing all languages concerned of their pronouns and making a meaningless muddle of their grammar! (That’s another subject for another time.)
Jesus himself had taught and healed both among the despised Samaritans and in Gentile territory. The crowd present at Pentecost represented the whole world known to Rome. The Jerusalem Conference, described in Acts 15, was a classic example of a faithfully managed confrontation of issues regarding inclusion. The strictures of the old covenant were not imposed upon Gentile converts, but neither were they “affirmed” and encouraged to continue their former behavior!
Every description of the message proclaimed by the early church assumed a radically changed life, whether on the part of Jews or Gentiles. This subject should have a much more thorough study on the part of anyone who is serious about inclusion.

Closely related is the other popular buzz-word, “unconditional.” “Unconditional love”, “unconditional grace”, and their fellows, also pepper the preaching of conservative and liberal alike, although neither phrase appears in the New Testament, nor does “unconditional” anything else.
Now, it is certainly true that nowhere are we told that it is necessary for a person to attain some exalted level of “holiness”, moral or ethical perfection, or anything else, in order to be eligible to answer Jesus’ call. If one person is demanding of another, “you MUST” or “you MAY NOT” (insert your favorite requirement or no-no) – in order to be a Christian”, or if his “target” is asking “Do I HAVE TO” or “Will I be LOST if I… (insert as above) ?”, then both have failed utterly to understand either the scope or the goal of Jesus’ banquet invitation. That invitation is exceedingly broad, as the parable read this morning illustrates. But it does require an RSVP. Both accounts, in Matthew and Luke, assert that the invitation must not only be accepted, but the invited need to show up, and to accord the event absolute top priority. The idea is not to meet any minimum requirement for admission, but to make the maximum effort to conform to Jesus’ pattern!
Even the Old Testament prophets, as well as Jesus and his disciples, constantly urged their hearers to make a choice – and they all also made it abundantly clear that choices have consequences.
This is where the misunderstanding of the term “conditional” comes in. A “condition” is NOT an entrance exam, a resume requirement, or an eligibility test. It is simply a grammatical structure indicating cause and effect. It is recognized by clauses introduced by “if” or “unless”, which are paired with others containing (or implying) “then”. It is neither a threat nor a promise, but a simple statement of fact. It describes the circumstances under which something will – or won’t – happen. Jesus used this kind of statement all the time. Grammatically, if the “condition” is not met, the premise is of no effect. “If it doesn’t rain, we’ll have a picnic.” “If it does, we won’t.” There is no “judgment” involved. But the picnic plans are conditional.
When it involves people, CHOICE is the universal key. Zacchaeus, (Lk.19), the Samaritan woman (Jn.4), and many more of the people healed, rescued, or forgiven by Jesus, were commended for choices made, or instructed in a changed way of life. It was their RSVP that mattered!

This is what Paul was getting at, in the Colossians 3 passage, and parallels in several other letters. Although Paul speaks in the figure of death and resurrection, the transformation of life, the actualization of the “new nature” that Alexis noted a few weeks ago, is neither automatic nor immediate. The RSVP is a lifetime commitment. Most of the tenses are present, which indicates continuous action. It is a process that will – or should– consume the rest of our lives. Only the words referring to one’s initial choice are cast in “snapshot-like” tenses.

The interplay between active and passive is also instructive. “Resurrected” is passive: something that happens to you by the action of another. “Keep on seeking” is active, referring to continuous effort on our part. “Put to death” is also active, but a single act: the deliberate rejection of behavior associated with one’s former life. This is re-emphasized in v.7, where Paul notes “you all used to live that way”, but adds the admonition to “get rid of” all the rest of the list.
It is easy for people or groups to pick out one or two of the items on these or other lists, for a pious diatribe about their unsuitability as Christian behavior – usually focusing on those which do not involve their own favorite expressions of selfishness . But it’s instructive to note that although the entire first list emphasizes components of idol worship, which are definitely to be abandoned, nevertheless, it is only “greed”, at the end, that actually is labeled “idolatry”! And the second list, which concentrates more on behaviors that are hurtful to one’s associates, is summed up with the prohibition of dishonesty! I strongly suspect that greed and dishonesty cause more damage and problems in most churches than perhaps any of the rest of the behaviors, on any of the lists! Paul’s reminder is that the WHOLE “old person” ( or “nature”) has been discarded, along with its behavior, and a new life has begun. But even this new life needs to be “continually renewed” in order to conform to the pattern of Jesus. This part is passive. The Lord does it – but requires our cooperation.

Maybe we should actually consider our RSVP to be our signature on a remodeling contract, with the Lord as the contractor! And as anyone who has done remodeling knows all too well, any worker serious about doing a good job, once he gets started, keeps finding more stuff that needs to be fixed!
The final list in this passage could be considered the “materials list”, which we are actively expected to supply for the job and the “work clothes” we need for the effort.

Fortunately, the Lord never intended for us to have to do the job alone. Absolutely all the instructions are plural. And just to make sure we don’t miss that, Paul closes this topic by urging us to replicate the Lord’s graciousness to us in our life together. It is only in the Body that real and lasting transformation can happen. But Paul is not unrealistically idealistic, either. If a bunch of radically diverse individuals are going to be formed into a unified Body, there are going to be sparks. It takes effort and skill to make all the pieces fit and function together – but our Contractor has an abundance of both.

The solution is found in another word, very common in the athletically-inclined Greek culture, but appearing only this one time in the New Testament. “The peace of Christ” is assigned the job of umpire, or referee, as we seek to follow his calling together. Elsewhere, the Holy Spirit has been designated the “coach” (a more accurate translation than “comforter”). Only under the instruction of these two – the Coach and the Umpire – do we have any prayer of learning to play skillfully on the Lord’s winning team, and to “teach and admonish each other” in a way that will enable us all to do everything “in the name” (as representatives) of our Lord and King – continually giving thanks for the privilege.

The coach and the umpire have had centuries of experience. They know the game very well. They are ready and eager to incorporate all comers into the team – but as players, not spectators.
We just need to send in our RSVP – and show up for practice!