New resources

January 3, 2016

Hello, folks.

As I’m sure you have noticed, there have been no new postings for the last couple months.  We have been working on the problem with the Translation Notes.  Seems that the Greek font I had been using, no longer is compatible with PDF’s, and so when anyone tried to print that off, Greek words came up with a crazy jumble of English letters that were completely meaningless.  After trying a bunch of alternatives, Dan and I decided that the best solution was to simply use the transliteration we have been using in the regular studies. So I re-did the whole thing.  Sorry about that, to those of you who would prefer”real” Greek — but although the technology is out there somewhere, my computer skills are not up to learning a whole new system at this point.

So Dan has now posted the Notes in a printable (transliterated) form, which you can access from the “download” section of the homepage.  In case any of you want the Greek version, it is still there, and you can get to it if you download “SLGreek” to your computer.

We apologize for the inconvenience and nuisance, but it is the best we can do.

Wishing a blessing-filled New Year to you all — Now I will get back to a few waiting requests for studies.  Keep your suggestions for new work coming.

Ruth

2 Comments | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

2015 in review

December 31, 2015

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2015 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 16,000 times in 2015. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 6 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

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

1 Comment | history, Messages Given at GMF | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

Would Jesus be allowed in your church?

July 9, 2015

Would Jesus be allowed to join – or to represent – your church?

The previous posting dealt in some detail with only one of the favorite “bandwagon issues” to which individuals and groups demand that their adherents, in order to be considered “faithful” or “orthodox”, must unequivocally subscribe. The discovery that there was no such idea included in the New Testament text provoked a broader investigation, and raised the question with which we begin.

I know a young man, deeply committed to the Lord and his ways, who was desirous of serving his people through a health initiative of a denomination to which he had related. The leader of the project had known and appreciated his faithfulness for a period of years, and requested that he be appointed for service. That request, however, was denied by the denominational hierarchy,not because they had any problem with his excellent academic or experiential qualifications, but because of the candidate’s conscientious refusal to sign a detailed “statement of doctrine” which included a number of assertions which, although amply footnoted with carefully edited “chapter and verse” references, went far beyond any ideas that could responsibly be derived from the actual New Testament message.

Now, it is perfectly reasonable that enlistees in the service of the King be deeply committed to him personally, and to the way of life that he advocated and demonstrated. But if you have followed many of these studies, it should be clear that Jesus on no occasion raised any philosophical or theological questions with those whom he called. He asked only for personal loyalty and obedience.

Most of the issues so adamantly defended by “doctrine police” deal with subjects which Jesus either chose not to address at all, or tackled head-on to correct popular misconceptions!
Here is a small sampling of “required beliefs” which, if insisted upon, would peremptorily exclude the Lord Jesus himself from the privilege of service or fellowship in many of the groups that most loudly proclaim their faithfulness!

  1. Creation.
    Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament (except for editorial footnotes of the last couple centuries) makes any statement regarding the popularly disputed ideas of the “when”, “where”, or “how” of “creation.” Everyone assumed that “God did it” – Paul, in Eph.3:9 and Col.1:16, specifically refers to Jesus himself as the agent of creation. Jesus himself uses the word only three times: the incident in Mt.19:4 and Mk.10:6 regarding the creation of male and female, and Mark’s version of his description of the destruction of Jerusalem (13:9).
    Much more attention is given to the concept of the NEW creation, which begins with one’s identification with Christ (Eph.2:10, 4:24 and Col.3:10), and its purpose: “for good works” Eph.2:10, and “for thy (Jesus’) pleasure” (Rv.4:11)!
    Paul, in Romans 1:20, also asserts that it is IN creation that God reveals himself even to people who lack the correct “pedigree”!
  2. “Inerrancy” of both the Old and New Testaments
    Repeatedly, Jesus made serious corrections (“you have heard it said … but I say to you…”) to the “Law”, and consistently referred to it as “your law” and never once as “God’s law”. There are six such corrections in Matthew 5 alone, and many more scattered throughout the gospel accounts. For more detail on this subject, please refer to the “Flat Book” posting.
  3. “Original sin”
    This idea is mentioned only once in the entire New Testament, and that was not by Jesus, but by his Pharisee opponents (Jn.9:34)! Even Paul, the hero of the doctrine crowd, who love to cherry-pick isolated “verses” (or even just phrases in his writing) to support their theories, spends the first two chapters of his letter to the Romans – one of their favorite “cherry-picking trees” – establishing that the depraved condition of people was their deliberate choice, and not their original condition. Jesus himself never mentioned the subject at all.
  4. “Virgin birth”
    Although this is certainly clearly a fact, being asserted in both Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels, Jesus never commented at all upon the circumstances of his birth. He repeatedly referred to God as his Father, but plainly was not overly concerned with his own genealogy.
  5. “Penal Substitutionary Atonement”
    Please see Word study #151. This subject was never mentioned by Jesus. When challenged on his right to forgive (see Word Study #7), Mt.9:6, Mk.2:7, 10; Lk.5:21-24, neither he nor his challengers said anything about his death. It was his identity with God that was the source of his authority, and also of their fury at him.
  6. The “fate” of nonbelievers: condemnation to hell-fire, etc.
    Although poor translations of “pisteuo” (Please see Word Study #1) can be twisted to support such an idea in Jn.6 and elsewhere, the word more accurately denotes faithfulness/loyalty than theoretical or philosophical “belief”. When Jesus spoke of “eternal” consequences, they were predicated upon the behavior of the people in question (Mt.25:31-45 and Jn.5:29) and not their theological opinions. (Word Study #10)
  7. Jesus’ promised return
    Two things – and only two things – are significant and certain here: (1) He IS coming, to assume his rightful role of King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and (2) by his own testimony, No one knows when that will happen (Mt.24:36 and elsewhere). Just as significant are his very plain warnings NOT to follow people who pretend to know all the details of time and place and circumstances (Mt.24, Mk.13, Lk.21) and his statement to the disciples enroute to Jerusalem for the last time that “ALL that has been written about me” would then be fulfilled. By Jesus’ own testimony, therefore, NONE of the rhetoric about “unfulfilled” Old Testament prophecy could possibly be true. Please refer to Word Studies 164-167.

And those are just a few of the discrepancies. I stopped at seven of them because some of you folks seem to like that number – although that is another thing Jesus never addressed.

How about it? As the purveyor of this sort of teaching, would Jesus be allowed in your church?

It is long past time for faithful followers of the Lord Jesus to quit sniping at each other over their theological constructs, and get about the business of accurately representing him in a world so desperately in need of his touch!

10 Comments | essays | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

Was Jesus really “Abandoned”?

June 17, 2015

 

As I have noted previously, both in essays and in various word studies, I consider the Lord Jesus himself to be the final and the only reliable arbiter of either “doctrine” or “destiny”, and our only reliable resource for information about his directives to be the New Testament writings.
In more than a half-century of careful study, I have found no evidence of his having made any effort to dictate what his followers should “think” or ”believe” about any topic, idea, or event, whether historical, philosophical, or theological. I see him rather inviting all manner, sorts, and conditions of people to choose and to demonstrate personal loyalty to him, and a determined commitment to “follow him in life” as mutual and faithful citizens of the Kingdom that he came to establish.
As the Author of life (whether “temporal” or “eternal”), and the Sovereign of that Kingdom, all subsequent decisions, directions, or decrees are rightfully his, and his alone.

Through the centuries, however, hierarchies, both political and ecclesiastical, have tried to usurp the power of our King and to impose their own complexities of theory and practice upon their followers (or perhaps “victims” would be a better word). It is these self-styled “authorities” and their descendants who have shamefully distilled and distorted the message of the New Testament, preferring to heap blame upon their audiences for Jesus’ suffering and death, rather than to encourage faithfulness by declaring the power of his glorious resurrection; and to flog those hapless listeners to the point of paralysis with accusations of “guilt and shame” (please see word study #128), rather than to teach and encourage their active, loyal participation in the continuing work of the Body of Christ on earth.

One of their most insidious tools in promoting their distorted views is the claim that because of that purported “guilt”, and to avoid the threatened penalty (which, for the record, Jesus neither initiated nor endorsed) of capital punishment for even the slightest infraction, God actually “turned his back” or “turned his face away” from his own Son in his hour of death. This claim is totally without support anywhere in the New Testament! Jesus never said it, and neither did ANY of the gospel writers! In fact, careful perusal of the Gospel accounts reveals its polar opposite!
The proponents of this grisly scheme base their case upon the badly misunderstood quotation by Jesus, noted only in Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34), of the introductory verse of Psalm 22. They zero in on a single word, “forsaken”. There are three major errors here: (1) the poor translation of the word, (2) the failure to consider the psalm as a whole, and (3) the failure to read all the way to the end of the witnesses’ report.

First: the word “forsake, forsaken”. It is used in conventional translations to represent five different Greek words:
apostasia – appearing only once (Ac.21:21) in the accusation that Paul had been “teaching people to forsake Moses”.
apotassomai – also only once translated “forsake” (Lk.14:33), of the need to leave behind all else for the Kingdom, and elsewhere rendered “bid farewell” (2x), “send away” (1x), and “take leave of”(2x).
aphiemi – rendered “forsake” (5x), usually about simple physical departures, but which is more frequently translated “forgive” (47x) – please see W.S.#7 — , or simply “leave” (52x), as well as 30-some ideas similar to the latter.
Likewise, kataleipo (22x as “ leave”) is only twice rendered “forsake”: of Moses’ departure from Egypt (Heb.11:24) and of a person’s departure from the right way (II Peter 2:15).
The word that appears in the psalm, egkataleipo, which bears a double prefix (emphatic), is the only one where the translation “forsake” predominates, and even so occurs only 7x, including the two Ps.22 quotations (which could, with equal fidelity to the vocabulary and grammar, be rendered “Why have you left me here?” as in “couldn’t I please come home now”?) The others are II Cor.4:9 (“NOT forsaken”), I Tim.4:10 and 16 of companions who had left Paul, Heb.10:25 in the admonition “not to forsake” fellowship, and 13:5 in the promise that the Lord will neither “leave nor forsake” his own.

Classical use of the word, according to L/S, include primarily “to leave behind” (by departure, or in a race), and only secondarily “to abandon.” They also note that it is closely related to the word usually referring to a “remnant”, whether human or material. The two references in Matthew and Mark are the only ones connected to Jesus, and this is not picked up by any other New Testament writer. Although Matthew is the writer most careful to reference all possible Old Testament parallels or prophecies, he is not the only one.

Secondly, it is important to notice that the source of that quotation, Psalm 22, also complains of the scorn of the hierarchy (v.7-8), noted in all the synoptics, and the casting of lots over clothing (v.18) noted in all four gospels, neither of which the “doctrine people” have emphasized to a similar extent.
Is it even possible that the psalmist (unwittingly) anticipated the error that would arise centuries later from his words, when he specifically included (v.24) the affirmation that God had NOT “scorned” or “hidden his face” from the complainant? And please notice that the remainder of the psalm is occupied with triumphant thanksgiving!

Finally, what, then are we to make of the rhetoric about Jesus’ having been abandoned, and his prayer being ignored, or at least unanswered?   These (well-meaning ???) folks totally ignore the rest of the very same story! John and Luke, for example, both note Jesus’ emphatically committing his spirit to the Father with his last breath, and all three synoptics describe his last “word” as a “great shout”! A “shout” is NOT characteristic of the weak expiration of an exhausted crucified victim overcome by his agony. One “shouts” in triumph!!!
John, the only one to record Jesus’ actual words, tells us that it was because he “knew that everything had been completed” (19:28-30) that Jesus proclaimed, “It is finished!” as he deliberately “handed over” his spirit. (Please see W.S.#154). And if that wasn’t enough, the immediate destruction of the temple’s veil (see former post), and the opening of tombs, and the solar eclipse made the triumph unmistakable! I wonder why no one has made more of the eclipse. Such phenomena, although spectacular, are temporary. It does become very dark; but after the hours of deepening darkness, the sun does emerge, totally unscathed! A lovely figure of the resurrection on the third day!

It took Sunday’s resurrection to display the whole truth of everything being “finished” in a way that others could see the final defeat of the power of death. But the events of Friday can only have been, for Jesus, a glorious answer to his prayer.

Thanks be to God!

1 Comment | essays | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

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!

2 Comments | Messages Given at GMF | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

Why I am not a “Flat book” advocate

March 27, 2015

I listened recently to a conversation in which the dominant spokesperson vehemently asserted, “The whole Bible is based on a big lie!”

He then proceeded to present as evidence of his claim that the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel, which, he correctly stated, is found in many versions, in many diverse cultures , portrays “a god who is afraid of his own people”, and consequently takes action to separate them, from himself and from each other, lest they become more powerful than he. This thesis was so preposterous that my first inclination was to dismiss it as sheer madness.

On further reflection, however, I realized that, although seriously misguided, the speaker had stumbled upon an excellent example of one of the best reasons why folks whom I consider to be the most faithful followers of the Lord Jesus Christ do NOT subscribe to the “flat book” approach to the Biblical writings (which holds the Old Testament and New Testament to be of equal value and authority), but rather find both their inspiration and their instructions almost exclusively in the New.

Like ancient writings from many cultures, the Old Testament certainly bears testimony to varying degrees of people’s perception/acceptance (or not) of God’s attempts at self-revelation as described in Romans 1:19-23. But as described in Hebrews 1:1-2, 8:7-13, and 10:1-7, “if the old had been satisfactory, there would have been no need for a New!” And Jesus provided the New Way, in which we are privileged to walk with him! The rest of the letter to the Hebrews, as well as the overt corrections he detailed, as quoted in the gospel writings, make the contrasts abundantly clear. One of the sharpest of these contrasts concerns the idea of separation.

While it is certainly true that much of the Old Testament is concerned with separation – Jew from Gentile, priest from lay-person, even to the point of dividing the temple (earlier, the tabernacle) into sections reserved for God, for the High Priest, for lesser priests, for men, for women, for Gentiles, with each area forbidden to any but the designated group – Jesus, and the whole of the New Testament, is about bringing together not only all people, but “all things”! (See Ephesians 1:10 and elsewhere). I have dealt in greater detail in Citizens of the Kingdom with the observation that one of the reasons for Jesus’ coming in person was to correct people’s mistaken understanding of God and his purposes, by creating a “demonstration project” – a “show and tell” — of his actual intentions. Here, I will confine my observations to four examples of Jesus’ radical departure from the customary culture of division and exclusion.

  1. During his earthly ministry, Jesus flatly ignored any convention that demeaned, denigrated, or oppressed any person. This included his habit of “hanging out” with the “wrong kind of people”, whether that classification involved their health, their race, their gender, their employment, or their social strata. This aspect of his behavior is trumpeted loudly by members of assorted “equality” movements today: however, those well-meaning folks often forget that the Lord’s parting admonition to many of those whom he had so graciously included, was, “Go in peace, and sin no more!” Please see Word Study #177 for an exploration of this perspective. Lives were transformed, not “affirmed”, by his presence.
  2. At the moment of Jesus’ death, the heavy veil of separation in the temple was ripped from top to bottom! (See chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom and Word Study #127.) Later, in addition to that dramatic destruction of separation, the writer to the Hebrews, and Paul to the Corinthian church return repeatedly to Jesus’ glorious accomplishment of the destruction of death itself, the ultimate separation! The corollary of that achievement is the concomitant destruction of bondage to fear. Jesus said nothing about the popular notions of wings, halos, and harps, but promised his presence with his followers, on either side of the “death” transition.
    It is normal to be apprehensive about the unknown.
    I found an interesting illustration of this when we were privileged to visit our oldest son in his mission assignment in Tanzania. Although I was still ignorant of the language, culture, and just about everything else, as soon as we cleared customs and caught sight of Dan waiting at the door, my apprehension melted into delighted anticipation. I expect the same thing on the other side of that ultimate door!
  3. The re-creation of Jesus’ people into the members of his own Body, as described in the Acts and the epistles, is the ultimate in bringing people together. His final recorded prayer, in John 17, focused repeatedly upon his people becoming one, with himself and with each other – in order to “do what he had been doing” – the direct opposite of the Babel concern. Please see word studies 84, 150, and 197, and chapter 7 of Citizens. Whether the focus is on the care of the members for one another, or their care and service to the hurting world, a faithful Body is probably the most effective demonstration that our Lord is alive and active, and still intent on bringing people together.
    Historically, it took some rather dramatic events to get that point across, even to Jesus’ earliest disciples. Even after Peter’s unusual vision (Acts 10), the idea of separation or exclusiveness died hard. Understanding began to emerge at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15), and gradually became clarified as scattered congregations learned to work together and care for one another.
  4. Perhaps the starkest contrast between the old pattern and the new lies in the Biblical description of two cities, both said to be “of God.”
    The first is Jerusalem, during and just after the exile. The city had been laid waste: its protective wall in ruins, and its gates destroyed by fire (Nehemiah 1.) The returning exiles poured their energy into rebuilding the wall and restoring its gates, while being harassed by those whom they were expecting to exclude by the construction. Read that whole account, as well as the parallel in Ezra! Observe how zealously they pursued their policy of the exclusion of all foreigners, even to the cruel extreme of breaking up family units! And they considered this a triumph! For God! How very sad!Then look at John’s beautiful description of the final “City of God”! (Revelation 21). This city, too, has walls and gates, as did all cities in ancient times. But the gates of this city are never closed (v.25)! All nations are welcomed (v.24), and bring their honor into it! Its light is the glory of God (v.23), and it needs no temple (v.22), because the Lord himself is there, and is gloriously accessible! The only “exclusion” is (v.27) whatever is “not devoted to the Lord”, whoever is “committing abominations” (more specifically defined in the next chapter), and “all liars”.

Interesting, that we should end about where we started: with the idea of “lies.”
Jesus, please remember, by his own word, and by that of faithful followers, is the very personification of the truth. (please see Word Study #26)
Consequently, we must ask, “Which, then, is the bigger lie?” Is it the scornful caricature of a frightened, vindictive, self-defensive god, or the representation of that caricature as an accurate analysis of “the whole Bible”? Or does that even matter, seeing that ALL lies are excluded from the Kingdom of Truth?

While it may be necessary, sadly, to agree that much of what has been presented to the world as “Biblical” is less than an honest picture of the genuine message of Jesus, it is also necessary to challenge the folks whose perception has been colored by that misrepresentation of the message as consisting of alienation and fear, at least to consider a first-hand investigation, in the New Testament, of the Real Thing, independent of “flat book” assumptions. It is likewise necessary to challenge those who are committed to Jesus and his Kingdom, more honestly to represent his gracious and inclusive invitation to Life!

In the words of the writer to the Hebrews, (12:2),May we focus our entire attention on Jesus! HE is the beginning, goal, and end of faithfulness!

Amen!

 

Leave a Comment » | essays | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

Note to readers

March 16, 2015

Dear folks who have been using this resource:

Some of you have wondered about the lack of postings lately, and you deserve to know that I too will be glad when they can come back.  The site has been used nearly 75,000 times, in 174 countries.  This is a real delight, and each one of you continues to be in my prayers.
The fact is, that after a silly injury, I ended up having spinal surgery, and although it went well, I am not allowed to bend over or to lift more than 5 pounds.  Nearly all of my reference works are heavier than that!  And sitting for a long time does not work either.

So, dear people, thank you for your interest, and I hope to be back with you before too much longer.  Any prayers are greatly appreciated.

Ruth

6 Comments | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

2014 in review

December 29, 2014

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here's an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 20,000 times in 2014. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 7 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

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.

 

 

Leave a Comment » | Messages Given at GMF, Word Study | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »