Lenten Reflection: Luke 4:3-4

February 26, 2013

God tests Jesus in the wilderness and Satan tempts him to satisfy his desires by inappropriate means.

One need is hunger. It would seem that satisfying hunger should not be characterized as inappropriate. Food is a created good to be enjoyed.

The Slanderer (Diabolos) suggests that Jesus should create his own food. If he really is the Son of God then he should provide his own bread. He should satisfy his hunger. There is nothing that prevents him from doing this if he really is the Son of God.

Jesus does not respond by saying, “I could make bread from these stones if I wanted to.” Rather, he addresses the Slanderer’s presumption about what the purpose of his wilderness experience is. While the Slanderer wanted to minimize the wilderness experience by reducing it to physical hunger, Jesus reminds him about its real purpose.

The purpose of the wilderness is not a physical endurance test as if acetic practices are about how much a human being can physically endure. Rather, the wilderness is about a hunger for God; it is about depending on God for strength for the soul. Jesus is in the wilderness to clarify his mission and deepen his dependence on the Father.

The wilderness reminds us that we can’t live on bread alone. Our material ambitions–from food to clothing to housing to video games–cannot satisfy the deepest longings of the human soul. When we live at this level we ultimately feel empty and this emptiness will kill our souls. When we live at this level, the mission of God takes a back seat.

In the wilderness we hunger and thirst for God. Fasting reminds us that the fullness of life is not found through pizza and beer, but eating the bread of God. Authentic life feasts on communion with God and embraces, by God’s strength, the mission of God.

Fasting leads to feasting. When we fast from the idolatry of  instant gratification, we learn to feast on God for true life.

3 Comments | Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Zechariah 8:1-17 – God Remembers Jerusalem

March 16, 2012

In December 518 representatives from Bethel came to Judah and asked the leaders whether they should continue their lament fasts over the fall of Jerusalem (Zechariah 7:1-3). Zechariah responded with four distinct oracles (identified by the phrase the “word of the Lord came to me/Zechariah” in7:4, 8; 8:1, 18).

He first questioned their motives for fasting (7:4-7) and then reminded them why Jerusalem had fallen in the first place with an implicit rebuke that they were not much different (7:8-14). They continue to practice injustice just as their fathers. Nevertheless, the word of the Lord comes to Zechariah again (8:1). Though questioning their present motives and interests, Yahweh assures Judah that God loves them and will return to Zion.

This section of Zechariah is structured as a series of five brief oracles and two longer (practically sermonic) ones. The author structures the message with seven uses of an introductory formula: “this is what Yahweh says.”

• “I am jealous for Zion” (8:2)
• “I will return to Zion” and dwell in Jerusalem (8:3)
• Jerusalem will experience peace and rest again (8:4-5)
• Nothing is too difficult to God though it may seem impossible to others (8:6)
• They will be the people of God and God their God (8:7)
• Judah and Israel will be a “blessing” among the nations (8:9-13)
• God will “do good again to Jerusalem” (8:14-17).

The movement in this series is from

• God’s jealous love
• to God’s intent to dwell in Jerusalem
• to God’s intent to renew rest in Jerusalem
• to God’s ability to accomplish his intent
• to God’s renewal of relationship
• to the renewal of God’s mission for Judah and Israel among the nations
• to God’s determination to “do good” to Jerusalem.

The prophet’s message is a reassuring one. God is still passionate about Zion (temple), Jerusalem, Judah and even Israel. God has not forsaken his first love—his firstborn among the nations. God will return to Zion and “dwell in Jerusalem.” Zion will again become a “holy mountain.” The result is that the elderly will rest and watch the children play in the streets of the city. And while this remnant thinks this incredible, it is not beyond God’s power and love.

Yahweh is jealous for Jerusalem, so Yahweh will act and save his people from the nations by returning them to Jerusalem. In this God renews covenant with Israel—again they will be his people and he will be their God. This is the promise God made to their fathers (Exodus 6:7), he accomplished through the tabernacle (Leviticus 26:11-12), and now God will renew that promise for the returning exiles.

This answers the fundamental question of the postexilic community—does God still love us? Will God return to dwell among us? Does God still have a purpose for us? Do the promises of Abraham still apply to us? And the answer is yes, yes, yes and yes!

This renewed covenant entails that God still intents to fulfill the promise to Abraham through Judah and Israel. The land inheritance remains intact (8:12) and the divine intent to bless all nations through Abraham also remains intact (8:13). Though they have been an “object of cursing” among the nations, they will yet—through the salvation of God—become a blessing. This is the language of Genesis 12:2.

Yahweh is not finished with Judah and Israel; the divine promise is not yet fully realized. Israel will yet become a blessing to all the nations that had cursed it. God will reverse the fortunes of Abraham’s descendents. They will inherit the land and become a blessing. God is faithful to his promises.

Though in the recent past God brought disaster and showed no pity on those who acted unjustly and showed no mercy to their neighbors, now God has “determined to do good” to Jerusalem. “Doing good” is a metaphor for benevolent acts of mercy and blessing. It is also language that echoes the promise to the Patriarchs (cf. Genesis 32:9, 12; Deuteronomy 30:5). God will faithfully accomplish his purpose for Israel in the world; God will keep his promise to Abraham.

Embedded within this reassuring message, however, are several key imperatives or homiletical exhortations. Jerusalem and Judah are called to respond to the message and act upon it.

1. “let your hand be strong so that the temple may be built” (8:9, 13)
2. “Do not be afraid” (8:13, 15)
3. “Speak truth to each other” (8:16)
4. “Render true and sound judgment in your courts” (8:16)
5. “Do not plot evil against your neighbor” (8:17)
6. “Do not love to swear falsely” (8:17).

Essentially, Zechariah says: (1) don’t be afraid—rebuild the temple because God loves you and will return to dwell among you, and (2) don’t be afraid—live before God the way your fathers failed to do.

The ethical imperatives relate to social and economic injustices. The courts were the place where the rich and powerful would steal land and livelihood from the poor. They would swear false oaths and implement their plots to take what was not theirs. The remnant is called to live as their fathers failed to live (Zechariah 7:9-10).

But it is important to notice where the imperatives fall. The indicatives—the declaration of God’s love for Jerusalem and God’s determination to dwell among the remnant—precede the imperatives. Israel does not evoke God’s love by their good works, fasting and mourning. Rather, God elects Israel. God determines to redeem Israel and Israel called to respond in gratitude with a life that mirrors God’s own compassion, mercy and faithfulness.

Ethical imperatives are grounded in divine indicatives. We love because God first loved us. Our hope, faith and love are rooted in God’s acts which empower our ability to hope, trust and love.

Believers—even in Scripture (Psalms 44, 77, 89, for example, as well as Malachi 1:1-4)—sometimes doubt the love of God due to their circumstances. God’s electing, redeeming love assures us that we are not forgotten and that God is faithful to covenanted promises. God’s indicative acts of mercy, love and compassion—the declaration of God’s love in the cross of Jesus is the climatic act—ground our confidence and hope. In response we offer our lives in grateful obedience and seek to mirror God’s life in our own lives.

Thanks be to God!

Leave a Comment » | Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

What Was the Mission of Christ? David Lipscomb Answers

January 29, 2012

I am often amazed at how some contemporary writers–missional and emergent–seem to believe that they have embraced a new vision for the mission of God. It also amazes me that some more traditional writers–some Evangelicals and some New Calvinists–regard the missional emphasis as a new understanding of the gospel.  David Lipscomb (1831-1917) reminds us that such emphases are not new.

Below is an extended section from Lipscomb’s chapter “The Ruin and Redemption of the World” in his 1913 Salvation from Sin (pp. 114-116) which J. W. Shepherd edited from previous writings. As you read, note the emphasis on the physical (material) as well as the spiritual and moral. Particularly important is his focus on the mission of Christ. The mission of Christ is not fundamentally to save the world from suffering in this life or the next. In other words, the mission of Christ is not primarily to save us from pain or hell. That is quite an astounding statement given contemporary versions of the Evangelical and New Calvinist theologies. Lipscomb’s statement is much more in line with Scott McKnight’s King Jesus than John Piper’s Neo-Puritanic, crucicentristic substitutionary atonement theology.

Notice how theocentric his missional vision is. Whatever benefits humanity is secondary to the goal of God’s intent to restore the reign of  God upon the earth.

I will let him speak for himself at this point.  Enjoy, ponder and take up the mission of Christ.

     The object of God’s dealing with man, and especially the mission of Christ to earth, was to rescue the world from the rule and dominion of the evil one, from the ruin into which it had fallen through sin, and to rehabilitate it with the dignity and the glory it had when it came from the hand of God: to restore man–spiritually, mentally, and physically–to the likeness of his Maker, and to reinstate him as a prince and a ruler in this rescued and restored kingdom of God; to displace the barrenness and desolation of the earth with the verdue and beauty of Eden and ‘make the desert blossom as the rose;’ to root out every plant not planted by the Father, and to make this earth again a garden of God’s own planting, every plant planted by a Father’s hand and nurtured by a Father’s love. The mission of Christ is to root up all the briers, thistles, and thorns that grow in the material, moral, and spiritual world, and so restore this home of man to its primitive and pristine relations to God, its Maker and rightful Ruler.  With God as its Ruler, in it God’s Spirit must dwell and God’s blessing and protection abound.

     The leading aim and end of Christ’s mission on this earth was not to make man religious. He was religious before Jesus came. Where Christ’s name is not known, man is still religious. The specific object of Christ was not to make man moral or honest; this was a secondary and subsidiary concomitant and a means to the great end. His leading and specific object was not to save man from suffering in this world or in that which is to come. The world, the religious world, errs here; and this error-the failure to appreciate the leading idea of Christ’s mission–leads to grevious mistakes. Under this idea, much labor is done to induce men to be willing to go to heaven in order to be saved from sufferings, and willingness on their part is taken as an indication that they are saved and will be forever happy. The one great purpose of Christ’s mission to earth and the end of the establishment of his kingdom on earth, and of all the provisions he has made and the forces he has put in operation to affect man’s course of life, were and are to rescue this world from the rule and dominion of the evil one, to deliver it from the ruin into which it had fallen through man’s sin, and to bring it back to its original and normal relations with God and the universe, that the will of God shall be done on earth as it is heaven. The will of God, as manifested in his laws, guides and harmonizes the universe and holds it in subject to and in union with the throne of God. Every intelligence that conforms to the will of God is held in harmony with him and with the universe by the workings of his laws, and is guided forward as a factor and helper with god in the accomplishment of the divine purpose. In becoming a helper and coworker with God, he becomes a joint heir of the life, the home, the glory, and the honor of God himself; an heir of the inheritance that is incorruptible, undefiled, that fades not away, reserved in the heavens for those who are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto the salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (See I Pet. 1:4,5.)

  

17 Comments | Stone-Campbell, Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Mark 6:30-44 — A Missional Table

December 12, 2011

Jesus sent (apostellein) his disciples with authority over demons and diseases (6:7). The apostles (apostoloi) returned reporting what “they had done and taught.” They followed Jesus into the practice of the kingdom of God—announcing the coming reign of God and demonstrating that reign by wondrous acts of mercy. The twelve had become apostles (cf. 3:14—they had been sent) who heralded and enacted the kingdom of God.

But now they needed rest. The crowd—no doubt swelled by the activity of the apostles in the Galilean hills—hindered their self-care, that is, they could not even find time to eat. Jesus suggested that they go to the “desert.” This is the same word as in Mark 1:12-13 when Jesus was tested by Satan in the wilderness. It is also the same word the narrator used to describe Jesus’ withdrawal to pray (1:35) or to avoid crowds (1:45).

Jesus recognizes that the Twelve need some “alone time,” perhaps some quality time, with himself. Returning from traveling among the villages of the Galilean hills, they now needed some “rest.” Jesus is not “all work and no play;” rather, there are times for re-creation when we stop what we are doing and seek refreshment. The mission demands that sometimes missionaries should rest. So, they got into a boat and went to a deserted place on the Galilean shore.

But the crowds were like sheep without a shepherd. Or better, they followed Jesus like sheep that recognized their shepherd. They hurried along the shore as the followed the trajectory of the boat and they picked up others “from all the towns.” When Jesus landed, the crowds were not far behind. A large crowd met him, just as before in Mark’s narrative (3:7-8; 4:1; 5:21).

Jesus recognized their intensity and helplessness. They ran as they followed the boat—they would not let him go, and they seemed to Jesus as sheep without a shepherd—helpless, confused without a leader, and endangered by that lack of leadership. And Jesus loved them, just as he loved the leper earlier (1:41). So, he led them; the mission continued and sometimes the missional needs of others dictate a change of plans. Jesus led these sheep—he taught them, announcing the coming kingdom of God….and he fed them.

How do you feed 5,000 men (andres—the word for males), not counting women and children if they were present? The disciples were puzzled by the same question. The mission had to stop, the disciples think. The fellowship had to break up so the crowds could go home or scatter among the villages to find food. But Jesus has a different idea.

“You give them something to eat,” Jesus says to his apostles. They were missional disciples; they had been sent on a mission and the mission was also in front of them now. Feed the sheep! That is their mission. Here is a test for his newly formed missional community. Can they see the possibilities that Jesus sees?

Alas, they could not, much as we often do not. They can only see the limitations. “It would take almost a year’s salary to feed these people.” They do not have the resources, so they think. But Jesus assesses the resources—“you have five loaves of bread and two fish. That’s enough.”

The Shepherd gathers his sheep (cf. Ezek. 34:26-29). He sits them down in green pastures (cf. Psalm 23:1). He organizes them into small groups (cf. Exodus 18:21). Just as God fed Israel in the wilderness (Exodus 16), so Jesus feeds Israel in this deserted place. Twelve “basketfuls” (a word describing a wicker lunch box) were collected–twelve, of course, corresponds to the apostles who represent the twelve clans of Israel.

Mark’s account not only functions as a “filling to the full” (fulfillment) of God’s provision for Israel; it also anticipates the table in the kingdom of God. Indeed, as a meal which Jesus hosts, breaks bread and eats with his people, it is already a table in the kingdom of God. Everyone, including Jesus, eats, and everyone eats with Jesus. They eat what Jesus has provided.

The language of this table is eucharistic. Jesus takes the bread (and two fishes), blesses God (giving thanks), breaks the bread (symbolic distribution), and gives it. This is the language of the Last Supper where the exact same verbs are used (Mark 14:22). It is the language of the Christian Eucharist.

The symbol of bread, fish and a cup of red wine was common in early Christian art. One of the most significant was found in the crypt of Lucina in the catacomb of Callistus (early third century). The fish probably represented Jesus as well and may have been part of their eucharistic meals in the early centuries.

Christian readers, and narrative readers of Mark, should not miss the theological significance of this moment in the story. God provided food and ate with Israel in the wilderness. Jesus provided food and ate with the people in this wilderness. Jesus gives his life as food and eats with the church as it journeys in the wilderness on its way to the fullness of the kingdom of God.

When we eat and drink together as disciples, we sit at a eucharistic table. We give thanks for the provision of life we have in Jesus.

We also sit at a missional table. Jesus gave his disciples a mission: feed the sheep. They failed; “they did not understand…their hearts were hardened” (14:52). Nevertheless, Jesus ate with them as well as the 5,000.

Whereas Jesus went into the wilderness to rest with his disciples, he ends up providing rest for Israel. We are invited into that rest.

The table invites everyone to sit at the feet of Jesus—to hear his message and eat with him. His provision is sufficient. His love is welcoming. His message is hopeful. “The kingdom of God is near! Come, rest and eat with me.”

7 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Mark 6:1-13 — Hometown Rejection and Missional Action

November 22, 2011

Jesus leaves the shores of the Galilean lake and enters the Galilean hills east of the lake. Numerous Jewish villages, as well as a few Greco-Roman cities (like Sepphoris), dotted the hills of Galilee. One of those villages was Jesus’ own home town of Nazareth (Mark 1:9, 24). This is not necessarily the first time Jesus returned to his origins, but if this is a separate incident from Luke 4, it had a very similar result. One might imagine that Jesus would visit his mother and family on occasion, especially as he ministered nearby.

The contrasts between Capernaum and Nazareth are significant. Jesus taught in both synagogues on the Sabbath (1:21) and both audiences were “amazed” (1:22). However, that is where the similarities end. While in Capernaum they marveled at this teaching authority, in Nazareth they questioned his audacity. While in Capernaum huge crowds followed him, in Nazareth they were scandalized by his presence and teaching. While in Capernaum Jesus healed all the sick brought to him (1:32), in Nazareth he only healed a few.

The hometown folks are unimpressed. They recognize him as a common carpenter (a wood-worker) and the son of Mary. Perhaps Joseph was already dead at this point and thus Mary is the focus of his parentage. (Another textual tradition in Mark calls him the “carpenter’s son” but the better reading is “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary?”) The question, however, is disparaging and demeaning. Jesus is not only a blue-collar laborer but his mother is Mary who conceived Jesus before she was married–we might imagine a stigma might still be attached to her. Jesus is not simply “one of us”—like his brothers and sisters—but his origins are perhaps considered shameful. Jesus is no one special and he certainly does not have the authority to call these hometown folks to “repent and believe” (1:15).

Apparently, the family of Jesus is part of the synagogue audience or at least well-known in the environs. Mary, four brothers (named as James, Joses, Judas and Simon), and an unidentified number of sisters are referenced by the synagogue attendees. In the late fourth century, Jerome suggested that these “brothers and sisters” were actually cousins and Epiphanius at the same time suggested that they were Joseph’s children but not Mary’s. But there is no biblical reason why they could not be the children of Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus and thus Jesus’ younger siblings.

Jesus’ response to the reaction of the synagogue’s audience includes his family, most likely his siblings rather than his mother (though we cannot rule out that she thought him a bit “out of his mind” as in Mark 5:21, 31. The proverbial line that a prophet is not without honor except in his own country (city of Nazareth) is extended to include his relatives and his house (where he lives). It seems true everywhere, “you can’t go home.” The memories of childhood and old stereotypes remain, and those hinder any recognition of how a hometown child might have excelled.

Mark characterizes the synagogue’s response as “unbelief.” Whereas Jairus believed and the woman who touched Jesus believed, his hometown does not. Faith was a key ingredient in the Galilean stories in chapter five but is lacking here. Just as many marveled at the witness of the demoniac in Mark 5:20, so Jesus marveled at the unbelief of his hometown folks.

Why does not Jesus conduct a healing ministry here? It would be unwise to read Jesus’ inability here as some sort of metaphysical reality, that is, he did not have the power to heal in this situation. It is perhaps better to read this as a decision by Jesus. Since his message was rejected and he was personally demeaned, Jesus refused to conduct a healing ministry in Nazareth. Jesus is not interested in being a side-show or a crusading miracle-worker which might only solidify their unbelief and harden their hearts in any event. In this sense, he cannot heal in Nazareth. Where there was no receptivity, Jesus moved on (as he counseled his disciples in 6:11); but even this is not absolute here since he did heal a few.

Leaving Nazareth, Jesus becomes a “circuit rider” preacher. He travels around the Galilean villages teaching about the kingdom of God (cf. 1:14, 28), just as he had done in Nazareth. Given the context, Jesus is not only widening his Galilean ministry but is also apprenticing the Twelve which enables him to widen it even more.

Jesus called the Twelve “apostles” (“ones sent”) in Mark 3:14 because he intended to send them into the field in order to participate in his mission. Jesus now widens his ministry by sending the Twelve out in pairs. They will extend the mission of Jesus from village to village. Six pairs can cover more territory in Galilee than one group led by Jesus.

The Twelve fully share in the missional ministry of Jesus—they “herald” the good news of the kingdom in order to turn the people toward repentance. They proclaim the same message as Jesus: the kingdom of God is near; repent and believe the good news (Mark 1:14-15). The Twelve fully share in the missional ministry of Jesus—they demonstrate the presence of the kingdom of God by exorcizing demons and healing the sick (Mark 1:34). The Twelve were given “authority over unclean spirits” just as Jesus had authority over them—Jesus shared the authority of the kingdom of God with the disciples (Mark 1:27; 3:15). The Twelve are full participants in the kingdom ministry of Jesus.

Why does Jesus restrict their travel baggage? They are forbidden to take extra clothing (tunic), food, money (and begging for money, that is, the beggar’s bag is excluded), but they are permitted sandals and a walking staff. In general, we see an emphasis on total dependence. The Twelve are to trust God for their provisions. The disciples are on probation; they are hereby tested.

However, more is going on here. Going out in pairs may reflect the requirement for truthful testimony in the Torah (Deuteronomy 17:6), but the significance of their sending and the restrictions mirrors God’s instructions to Israel as they left Egypt. In Exodus 12:11 Israel is instructed to eat with tunic, sandals and staff in hand for their flight out of Egypt, and then in the wilderness they depend upon God’s provision. The disciples, as new Israel—a remnant of Twelve, go out among the people to herald a new Exodus which is the inbreaking of the kingdom of God.

The Twelve are also given a criterion for staying or leaving in a particular village. If they are welcomed, they stay and practice the kingdom of God by heralding and healing. If they are rejected, they leave for another village. To shake the dust of the feet was a symbolic gesture of disassociation and judgment. If the village rejects God’s missionaries, they heap upon themselves their own judgment.

Jesus himself faced rejection and unbelief. The disciples will face the same. Not everyone will accept the message. If they will not listen to Jesus, they will not listen to the disciples. As we follow Jesus, sometimes we are welcomed and sometimes we are rejected. Nevertheless, we have a mission as Jesus has invited us to participate in his redemptive mission.

6 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 966 other followers

%d bloggers like this: