The Pioneers’ New Testament

The following was prepared for our small fellowship.  After its presentation, I was severely taken to task for failing to parrot some “doctrines” of a “statement of faith” advocated by a member.  I welcome any New Testament based comments.

Redemption:“Get out of Jail Free” or “Under New Management”?

In spite of the fact that the Easter season, and indeed, every Sunday!, is supposed to celebrate Jesus’ glorious triumph over death by his resurrection, and, as I have pointed out previously, his complete superiority over everything that once separated earnest worshipers from God, demonstrated by the destruction of the temple veil, far too many people still choose to focus most of their attention on self-flagellation for having supposedly “caused” his suffering and death –  often mistakenly calling it “redemption” – despite the fact that JESUS NEVER SAID THAT!  I would challenge anyone to find one single place where he did!  These are entirely separate concepts. The former (the definitive defeat of death and the opening of access to God) are well documented in the gospels and the epistles; and the latter (assuming personal, individual responsibility for causing Jesus’ suffering and death) is completely absent from both gospels and epistles.  I am not quite ready to join the “red-letter Christians” who accept only direct quotations of Jesus, but I do consider those to be of greater authority than anything else.

People exacerbate this problem by continually lamenting what they represent as the dreadful “cost” or “price” of their “redemption”, which they interpret to require yet another mournful excursion into their own “unworthiness” or “sinfulness”, for which the slightest infraction is assumed to “deserve” capital punishment!  I have yet to be shown a single culture in the whole world that imposes a death penalty for every misstep!

This was certainly NEVER the focus of either Jesus or any of the New Testament writers. I think, choosing the most charitable option, that its prevalence probably grows, at least in part, out of at the very least a gross misunderstanding, if not deliberate ignorance, of the original words connected with the concept of “redemption.”  It is my hope that, by considering this topic, we may recover (or discover) some of both the beautiful wonder and the serious responsibility that is implicit in the concept of “redemption”.

In order to do this, it is necessary to correct our understanding of several terms that have been seriously distorted by what passes for “Christian teaching”.
Let’s start with a common phrase that is frequently used of a person who exerts tremendous effort toward a goal – any goal.  When you hear that someone has “given his life” to the pursuit of a cure for a particular disease, do you assume that he died in the course of his work?
Or when an investigator lectures about the scientific, historical or archaeological discoveries to which he has “given his life” – Is he dead?
Then when Jesus clearly states (in Mt.20:28) that his own purpose “to serve, and to give his life as a ransom” is supposed to be a model for the service to one another that he expects of his followers (who at the time of that conversation were jockeying for positions of power and honor), why do you assume that he is referring to his death, instead of to his selfless life?  Context, as usual, is critical to the understanding of any statement.

Similar misunderstandings surround the word translated “redemption” and “ransom” (both of which are used by English translators, to represent the SAME Greek word). Although another word – the one commonly used for the ordinary commerce of buying and selling – occurs in a few places, the principal one is represented by both English translations. Classically, it refers primarily to the ransom of prisoners of war, who had been enslaved by a conquering nation (in this case, Rome), which was common practice in many ancient cultures.

Nobody in the first century had to ask the meaning of the word “slavery” or “slave”.  The concept was painfully familiar.  The word “doulos”, although often translated “servant”, almost always referred to slavery, regardless of whether it described one born into bondage, a person captured as a prisoner of war,  or a child sold by indigent parents.  Slaves were wholly owned possessions of their masters, even though some held positions of great responsibility, or were even officially adopted into the master’s family.  It was also not uncommon for a faithful slave to be set free, either by his master’s generosity, by having earned and purchased his freedom, or by having been “redeemed” or purchased by someone else.

Insight into the varied status and responsibilities of slaves is available throughout the New Testament: for example, notably,
Mt.8:9 – they do what they are told
Mt. 13:27 – they refer problems or uncertainty to the master, and receive instructions, which they are then expected to follow.

There are many others.  I highly recommend to you the exercise of scanning the gospels for other examples.  In doing so, remember that “servant” and “slave” represent the same original word.
Paul makes an eloquent case in Romans 6:16-20 that a person is a servant/slave to whomever or whatever he chooses to obey.  Autonomy is not an option: never was, never will be.

Under Roman law, a redeemed slave could not only gain his freedom, but could even acquire Roman citizenship, which gave him many legal rights and privileges not available to others.
People “redeemed” by Jesus are also eligible for citizenship in his Kingdom!  But sadly, not all accept that generous offer.

Please notice (and confirm by searching the New Testament) that neither slavery nor ransom from that condition has anything whatever to do with “offenses”! People convicted of wrongdoing were beaten, imprisoned, and sometimes executed, but not enslaved. Likewise, it has nothing to do with “sacrifice” – another word, incidentally, which JESUS NEVER USED in reference to himself or to anything he did.  Check it out – using a genuine translation, not a paraphrased version, of the New Testament.  The six uses of the word “sacrifice” in the gospels are never applied to Jesus, and the majority of the uses in the epistles refer to idol worship, or the formerly required Jewish temple rituals.

Notice also that “redemption”, also occasionally represented by the word for simple purchase, does NOT confer total autonomy!  Far from the much-trumpeted concept of escape from the consequences of bad behavior (the “Get out of Jail Free” card in your Monopoly game), “redemption” represents simply a change of ownership: no more and no less.

Here is the beginning of an impressive list of oppressors from which our Lord has “bought” or “redeemed” his people:
Gal.3:13 and 4:5 – the curse and bondage of the Law
Titus 2:14 – ALL lawlessness
1 Peter 1:18 – the empty /futile ways of our ancestors  (the only reference to “blood” – and that is connected to the Passover, the feast of freedom from bondage, and nothing else).
Ephesians 1:7 – our transgressions
Colossians 1:14 – our failures
and you can find many more.  Please note that the latter two, “transgressions” and “failures”, which many people prefer to lump together and label “sins”, (although the New Testament does not), are literally “taken away”, not simply overlooked, and certainly not “forgotten”.

Using slightly different vocabulary, Paul reminds the folks in Colossae, “He (God) has delivered (rescued) us from the power of darkness, and has transplanted us into the Kingdom of his beloved Son!” (1:13)

Those whom Jesus has “redeemed” have been graciously offered citizenship in his Kingdom!  But please remember that citizenship entails BOTH privilege and responsibility.
Paul’s reminder to the Romans, mentioned earlier, is still very much in effect:  we are servants/slaves to whatever power we choose to obey!!

Do not forget that redemption is much more than mere escape from negative things and circumstances! The deliverance described in Col. 1:13 is into the Kingdom of the Son of God!
It includes (Rom.3:24) being made (not merely “considered”) just (which is the same word that some folks call “righteous”), (Rom.8:24) being adopted as sons of God, and having been set apart as the possession of the Lord Jesus (I Cor.1:30 and Eph.1:14),by his seal of ownership, the Holy Spirit, who alone is able to make kingdom living possible for us mere mortals!  It’s about life – not “after you die”!

On a practical level, having been “bought” by our Master, it is reasonable to expect (I Cor.6:30) that we become eager to reflect honor upon him; (I Cor. 7:23) that we refuse to allow ourselves to become enslaved to anything or anyone else; and (II Peter 2:1) that we make every effort not to deny or discredit him in any way.  For all the “redeemed” there is one single assignment:  reflecting, however imperfectly, the whole personality of the One who has redeemed us.  Such an assignment assumes that our lives will be radically altered, in order to represent him correctly and faithfully!

This is a concept that is often ignored in groups today that label themselves “welcoming”.  It is perfectly true that all are indeed welcome, regardless of their previous situation or condition – but all must also be changed! Not a single aspect of our life is exempt!  We are under new management!
The question “Can you be a Christian if you –-?” (fill in the blank with your currently preferred no-no) is totally irrelevant.

There exists no check-list of qualifications or requirements, after which we can relax. The re-direction of our lives is an assignment that lasts for our entire lifetime! If we choose to accept citizenship in Jesus’ Kingdom, as ransomed, redeemed people, we will NEVER outgrow our need for course-corrections!  Our whole life needs a total overhaul to conform to his ways.  It must be obviously and always “under new management”!

Even if this were “all there is”, the condition of those so “redeemed” would be glorious! But there is more! In Eph.1:4, the Holy Spirit is described as simply the “down-payment” on the inheritance of the folks redeemed from every nation and tongue, to enable our faithfulness until, with those gathered around his throne, we celebrate the final triumph of the King!  What a day that will be!

You may have noticed that there is one question that we have not addressed:  “To whom was the ransom owed or paid?”  This is neither oversight nor deliberate avoidance.  The reason for its lack is simple:  Although centuries of “theologians”, preachers, and teachers of many persuasions have adamantly (and often arrogantly) proclaimed the accuracy of their theories, The New Testament itself does not speak to that issue.  Since this is a New Testament study, I will not presume to do so, either.

Our attention can much more profitably be focused upon faithfully seeking to fulfill the purpose of the One who has redeemed us for himself!

He has graciously provided us with very clear instructions for that effort, the resource of the power of his Holy Spirit to teach and enable us, and the supportive companionship of each other, with whom to learn to demonstrate his style of living, “under new management!”

Thanks be to God!

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.

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.