Before I begin my day at work, I always start asking Copilot to give me a quote from Christian Antiquity (roughly the first 5 centuries). Today, I changed it up. I asked Copilot for a Church Father and a female Christian witness from that era, and the conversation that followed was worth preserving.

Church Father: Lactantius (c. A.D. 250–325)

Lactantius lived through the Great Persecution and later wrote On the Deaths of the Persecutors.

He wrote:

"Patience is a great and leading virtue... the just and wise man, because he exercises virtue, has patience in himself; but he will be altogether free from this if he shall suffer no adversity."

Reflection:

Lactantius does not view persecution as evidence that God has abandoned His people. Rather, he argues that patience and faithfulness are truly revealed only when Christians suffer adversity.

The martyrs did not merely survive persecution; they displayed the character of Christ through it.

Female Christian Witness: St. Agnes of Rome (martyred c. A.D. 304)

Though not formally known as a "Church Mother," Agnes is one of the most beloved female witnesses of the Diocletianic era.

According to the ancient traditions surrounding her martyrdom, she confessed:

"I am the bride of Him whom the angels serve."

And when pressured to renounce Christ:

"I have a Lover whom I shall never leave."

Reflection:

Agnes reminds us why Christians endured suffering at all: because Christ was more precious to them than life itself.

A Reflection on the Martyrs

One of the most moving themes in Eusebius is that ordinary Christians faced extraordinary pressure without expecting to be spared suffering.

Their hope was not that Christ would save them from the cross.

Their hope was that Christ had already gone before them through it.

Lactantius reminds us that patience is formed in adversity.

Agnes reminds us why believers endured adversity at all: because Christ was worth everything.

A Word from the Desert

Abba Anthony the Great, who lived through the same era, once said:

"I no longer fear God, but I love Him. For love casts out fear."

Reflection:

The persecutors could threaten a Christian's body, property, reputation, and life.

They could not touch the Christian's union with Christ.

The martyrs were not fearless because they were exceptionally brave.

They were fearless because they were captivated by Someone more beautiful than the things they might lose.

Further Reflection

The modern imagination often pictures courage as:

"I have nothing to lose."

The courage of the martyrs was closer to:

"I have found Someone worth more than what I would lose."

That is a completely different kind of bravery.

Ignatius of Antioch, on his way to martyrdom, wrote:

"My Love has been crucified."

Not merely:

My religion

My philosophy

My tradition

But:

"My Love has been crucified."

Christ had become so beautiful to him that death itself appeared small by comparison.

The Question Beneath Church History

Beneath all the imperial edicts, prisons, torture, and executions lies a simple question:

What happens when ordinary people become convinced that Jesus is actually who He says He is?

The answer, according to Church History, is that empires discover they are not as powerful as they thought.

Or, stated another way:

The Roman Empire could confiscate a Christian's property, freedom, and life.

It could not outbid Christ for the Christian's heart.

Closing Prayer

Lord Jesus Christ, who strengthened Your servants during the persecution of Diocletian, grant us a fraction of their courage, their patience, and their love.

Teach us to value Your kingdom above comfort, reputation, and security.

Give us the patience of Lactantius, the devotion of Agnes, and the love of Anthony.

May we hold fast to You in every circumstance, knowing that nothing this world can take is greater than what we have received in You.

Amen.

The martyrs were not fearless because they were exceptionally brave.

They were fearless because they were captivated by Someone more beautiful than the things they might lose.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted^[1]

In my last Substack post, The Mountain, the Teacher, and the Bankrupt Soul, I dealt with how the Lord Jesus radically subverts the prevailing thought of what it meant to be blessed (Makarios!). He authoritatively declares His Kingdom manifesto concerning those who are poor in spirit, whose souls are spiritually bankrupt. The God of Heaven delights in them, for they are declared blessed and the true inheritors of the Kingdom. It is in plain view that the spiritually bankrupt understand the depth of their sin and their inadequacies to self-remedy. This inevitably leads to mourning.

In many cases, our modern understanding of what Jesus means in this context concerning mourning has unfortunately led to a significant amount of misconceptions, and in doing so, we have inadvertently cheapened how mourning is defined. Today, it is not a stretch to say that, for some, an example of mourning is akin to having a bad day at work, at home, or in school. For whatever reason, things simply are not going our way; therefore, our response to these unfavorable circumstances is to wallow in sadness. Please understand that I am not dismissing legitimate responses to the affairs of life that bring about days or seasons of difficulties. My point here is to prove that mourning has significant depth that is beyond the shallows and that Jesus cares about it. His plan involves us knowing that He is the remedy for our mourning, and He is the Divine Intervention that we desperately need to come alongside us (remember this!).

The Vocabulary of Grief and the Grammar of Weeping

“Bless those who mourn…”, the Greek (verb) word here is pentheō, which means to experience sadness as the result of some condition or circumstance, be sad, grieve, mourn^[2]. In the Greco-Roman times, mourning was largely a public spectacle, including long processions, tearing garments, and loud crying. Additionally, families that were well-to-do would hire professional mourners (mainly women) to ensure that grief is conveyed to the public appropriately. To mourn was deep, intense, and extremely painful for the mind, heart, and soul. It was catastrophic.

Recall earlier when I mentioned that having a bad day can be interpreted by some to be in the vicinity of mourning. This type of grief can aptly be ascribed to the Greek word lypē, which refers to being in a bad mood, or having general sadness. This is truly distinct from mourning. We all have experienced this mood from time to time, so there’s no denying that; however, understanding this distinction is critical for the sake of this article. Jesus was not addressing those who were dealing with a bad day or were having a rough go of it, yet He was directly addressing those who are wailing with deep grief, weeping, and sorrow. Let’s take this understanding a step further: when Jesus said, “Blessed are those who mourn…”, He used the present, active participle penthoūntes, which unambiguously conveys that this action is not just a one-time shedding of a tear; this mourning is a prolonged, continuous, and active posture of the heart. This is the response to a calamitous and unimaginable event which has caused an unbroken flow of tears from a devastated soul. This is the highest severity of grief in the Greek language, and according to the Kingdom, their endless tears have God’s attention.

The Biology of Grief: Leaking Life Force (Aiōn)

According to the Greeks from antiquity, human tears were considered the aiōn or “life force” of all humans. Their framework concluded that weeping poses a biological threat to those who are crying during times of mourning. The prevailing thought was that their life force was an undeniable reality and is relational to cerebrospinal fluid. For the Greeks, to weep intensely for a loved one meant that you were physically draining your aiōn. To do so, you were literally weeping your life away.[3] This understanding would lead one to believe that the value of tears is incalculable in antiquity. With that in mind, let us revisit Matthew 5:4a. This time, may we read slowly and visualize the audience as they listen to Jesus’ words, “Blessed are those who mourn (who are actively draining their own life force…)”. The picture is substantially different now.

The World’s War on Tears (The Counterfeits)

Another way that the kingdom of God differentiates from the Graeco-Roman world in how mourners are addressed lies in oppressive politics and legislative suppression. The state dictated who, what, when, why, and how citizens mourned the death of their loved ones. Such parameters included setting lines of demarcation ranging from the days and times when funeral processions could be held to limiting the number of people that could be involved. Solon, an Athenian reformer who was the sole archon (magistrate) in 594 BC, sanctioned laws that overwhelmingly targeted women mourners. One example of this is conveyed through a law that states that mourning is only allowed for women over 60 years old, thereby making it illegal for any other woman under that age to mourn. Additionally, it was illegal for anyone to mourn if they were not a close relative (up to being a second cousin). Furthermore, Plato argued that loud wailing and crying were excessive and that it should be prohibited to mourn outside of the home.^[4]

Intellectual Escapism (The Stoics)

The Stoics approached grief and sorrow through a form of intellectual escapism. They believed that mourning was a passion that must be denounced if one wishes to be considered wise. Mourning is also an emotion that is based on evils that are not based in reality (yes, catastrophic losses such as the death of loved ones are not true existences because humans cannot control them). The Stoics surmised that “true evil” occurs when humans mourn, for in doing so, their self-control has been given up. To them, mourning does not contribute positively to your moral character. To add further insult to injury, mourners are considered delusional. Epictetus, a famed 1^st-century AD Stoic teacher, argues that the universe is subject to divine and rational order. If a catastrophic event occurs and life is lost, the universe brought this forth by divine order, and to mourn is like throwing a childish temper tantrum. He believed mourners who suffer from emotional agony deserve it due to their refusal and inability to accept reality.

In Section 19 of his work, Consolatio ad Apollonium, Plutarch presents grief as a binary response: the mourner is either grieving for themselves or for the deceased loved one. According to Plutarch, mourning for oneself after the death of a loved one is selfish, because the grief arises from the loss of profit, pleasure, and benefits the deceased once provided. Conversely, if one is mourning for a deceased loved one, that person is foolish, since the dead have escaped the “true evil” of this world and is now beyond pain. In this framework, Plutarch reduces grief to a clinical, transactional response and insists that it should be suppressed at all costs.

Additionally, he cites a story involving an ancient philosopher, Queen Arsinoe, and Πένθος [Penthos] (“the god of grief”). As she is mourning the death of her son, the philosopher explains to her that Penthos was absent when Zeus was giving out responsibilities to the lesser gods, and that all the “good responsibilities” were already accounted for. All that Zeus had left was “sorrow and funeral tears,” which he gave to the god of grief. The philosopher tries to convince the queen that her mourning and tears empower Penthos and that his behavior is like that of a parasitic demon. The only way to decrease the grief-god’s power over her is to suppress her tears and sorrow for her deceased son. In the end, she adhered to the advice of the philosopher, cast off her veil, and brought her mourning to an end.^[5]

The Nihilistic Escapism of The Epicureans

The toxic positivity of focusing only on the present because the future is a void.

The Epicureans held a nihilistic framework from which they taught that human beings are an accidental collection of atoms. For them, death is the absolute end and conveys the complete cessation of feeling and consciousness. The Epicurean epitaph aptly describes their logic, “I was not, I became; I was, I am not.” Therefore, with respect to mourners, the Epicureans’ approach was to convince the grieved that their lost loved ones have entered oblivion and have escaped pain forever. Furthermore, they counseled that survivors should take heart because they too will soon join them in oblivion and find true comfort in the void. The mathematical formula for the Epicureans was simple: Death = Non-Existence. Therefore, they aggressively dismissed all things that normally caused deep human anguish and sorrow. The Epicureans considered the afterlife nonsensical and a myth; therefore, they focused their pursuits on obtaining every form of comfort and pleasure they possibly could in their present life. For this is where their consolation is found.

Clinical Escapism

Antiphon’s “technē alypias” (The Clinic of Anti-Sadness).

In this section, we meet a man from antiquity who believed that grief is a sickness, a psychological disorder, and a personal defect within humans that could be cured with rhetoric. Antiphon, an expert orator, looked to treat mourners with the skillful placement of words. After setting up himself in Corinth with a small house near the marketplace, Antiphon placed an inscription over its entrance advertising himself as a healer of troubled minds. He claimed that if sufferers would only disclose the source of their grief, he could prescribe, through words alone, a remedy to relieve and quiet their distress (See Plutarch’s Morals, ed. Goodwin, vol. 5, Medford, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1874). His position on grief conveyed that it was an annoying symptom that could be eradicated, such as a disease can be eradicated with physical medicine. He wrote τέχνη ἀλυπίας (essentially a “Technique of Anti-Sadness”) which was to be deployed as a human-centric approach in using skillful words to basically trick the mind out of a state of grief. His mantra was, ὥσπερ τοῖς νοσοῦσιν ἡ παρὰ τῶν ἰατρῶν θεραπεία ὑπάρχει^[6] (”Just as treatment from physicians is available to the sick...“). Antiphon, although he was not a medical practitioner, marketed his rhetorical skills as literal medical therapy, and historical scholars contend that he was a forerunner of modern psychotherapists.^[7]

The King’s Intervention (Paraklēsis)

Now we have arrived at the conclusion of this article. Before addressing the latter half of Matthew 5:4 “…for they will be comforted“, my goal was to build out a robust biblical and cultural exegesis of mourning. I support that to learn the size of the comfort found in Jesus, it is imperative we first understand how finite and limited the depth of human comfort truly is. To properly grasp the weight of the comfort Jesus offers, we must recognize the hard limit of human intervention. The ancient historian Polybius pulled back the curtain to show how catastrophic tragedy dismantles human dignity. In the ancient world, if you needed aid from a friend, you made a polite, dignified request (axioun). But Polybius noted that when disaster strikes with overwhelming force, these polite methods collapse. The tragedy reduces the sufferer to desperate and undignified begging with tears. Human comfort, no matter how well-intentioned, eventually hits a wall. It is precisely at this wall of total human bankruptcy that Jesus speaks the grand reversal: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.” The Greek word translated as “comforted” is derived from the verb parakaleō. Because of our modern conditioning, we often read this word and picture a sympathetic pat on the back or a warm embrace. However, in the ancient world, parakaleō was not a soft word of emotional sympathy; it was an authoritative word of action and intervention. It literally means “to call alongside.” Remember from the introduction!?

When we look at how this word functioned in the streets of the Greco-Roman world, we see that Jesus is promising three distinct, powerful faces of comfort:

The Military Ally: In classical Greek literature, parakaleō was the standard military term generals used for calling reinforcements to a breaking line. To summon an ally to fight in the trenches with you was to σύμμαχον παρακαλεῖν τινα “symmachon parakalein tina”. When your defenses were collapsing, you summoned a fellow combatant!

The Legal Advocate: By adding a prefix, the word becomes epikalein, which was a technical legal term for appealing to the highest court. When the Apostle Paul realized he would not get a fair trial, he used this exact word to appeal directly to Caesar

Now if I am in the wrong and have committed something for which I deserve to die, I am not trying to escape death; but if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can turn me over to them. I appeal (epikaleo) to the emperor.^[8]

-Acts 25:11

For the spiritually bankrupt, it is the ultimate appeal to the Supreme Judge of Heaven.

The Divine Physician: While human orators like Antiphon tried to talk people out of their grief, parakaleō was used when sending for a physician to provide actual, life-saving medical intervention (therapeia).

The theological climax of this beatitude lies hidden in its grammar. Jesus says, “they will be comforted,” using what scholars call the “Divine Passive.” The text does not explicitly name who is doing the comforting because the first-century Jewish audience implicitly understood the Actor: it is God Himself! When the world meets catastrophic grief, it demands that you suppress your tears, numb your pain, and manufacture your own self-sufficiency. But the Kingdom of Heaven works on a completely different economy. When you finally stop suppressing your spiritual bankruptcy (ptōchos) and allow your heart to break in true mourning (penthos), when you have exhausted your life force (aiōn) and your polite requests have collapsed into desperate tears, then the King responds. God does not send a philosopher, a politician, or a therapist with a new technique. He issues a paraklēsis! The King summons Himself to your side to be the strength you lack. He steps onto the battlefield as your Ally, into the courtroom as your Advocate, and into your brokenness as the Divine Physician. Blessed are the broken, for the King Himself is their intervention.

Looking Ahead to the Inheritors

Now that the spiritually bankrupt has been comforted and reinforced by the King, what happens next? How does this redeemed, comforted soul interact with the world around them? In my next post, we will journey into Matthew 5:5 and meet the enigmatic “meek” who are destined to inherit the earth.

^[1] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Mt 5:4.

^[2] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 795.

[3] (Edwin M. Yamauchi & Marvin R. Wilson, 2017, p. 1246)

[4] (Edwin M. Yamauchi & Marvin R. Wilson, 2017, pp. 1248–1249)

[5] Edwin M. Yamauchi & Marvin R. Wilson. (2017). Dictionary of Daily Life In Biblical & Post-Biblical Antiquity. Hendrickson Publishers.

^[6] Otto Schmitz, “Παρακαλέω, Παράκλησις,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 783.

^[7] Otto Schmitz, “Παρακαλέω, Παράκλησις,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 783.

^[8] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Ac 25:11.

For the longest time, I have desired to perform an open-ended study of the Sermon on the Mount. Throughout my years as a Christian, the Sermon has been regarded as the orientation and disposition of what it means to be a disciple of Christ and how to live as children of God. Identifying the most important scriptures the Christian is always challenging, as all parts of the Holy Bible are invaluable. However, personally, I have found that Christ’s sermon is extremely pivotal and of great interest for reasons I will attempt to share with this article and hopefully in others that will follow later.

I. Introduction: Setting the Stage (Matthew 5:1)

• The Text: “When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him^[1]”

• The Hook: I am of the belief that a great deal of people read the Beatitudes as a soft, comforting list of moral suggestions. That is a misconstrued lens to view the Beatitudes through, and unsurprisingly, have led many into a path that misses on the good life that is promised in Christ. The Beatitudes are a radical subversion of the ancient and modern world’s scorecard for success, human flourishing, and religious effort. This discourse that Jesus is about to walk His listeners through is not an abstract life based on hypotheticals and theoretical thoughts. Nor are they a checklist of “Do’s and Don’ts” for those who are seeking to morally justify themselves to ease their conscience. The Beatitudes are an existing reality of what a blessed life by God looks like in a fallen world. Jesus’ Sermon introduction is about to upend and transform the world of His listeners in ways that they cannot possibly imagine.

• The Posture of Authority: In the first century, sitting down was the official posture of a ruling monarch or an authoritative Rabbi. By ascending the mountain and taking His seat, Jesus is not just getting comfortable; He is assuming a position of absolute, unmatched, and demonstrative intrinsic authority. Labeling Jesus’ authority as intrinsic is interesting for it explicitly conveys His authority as naturally originating from Him. In other words, Jesus’ authority was not the result of a loan. He is one that does the lending with authority being the currency. For example, Moses was a messenger with borrowed authority, alongside the prophets and apostles. With Christ, this is an entirely different dynamic. He is the Message with inherent and absolute authority.

• The Audience Shift: He sees the massive crowd, but His disciples draw near. This observation by Matthew is critical. This teaching by Christ is designed for those willing to step out of the casual audience and into the “classroom” of the Kingdom. In our modern times, they are many people that are comfortable with being in the crowd and remain at great distance away from Jesus and His disciples. On their part, it should be noted that it is calculated and intentional. Jesus’ testimony in the Gospel of John states that people do not come to the light for they are (1.) lovers of darkness and (2.) have a fear that their deeds might be exposed (see John 3:19-21). These two examples are by no means exhaustive; however, what is to be understood here is that humankind, since the Garden, have always found ways to “hide” from God (which is ridiculous because it is impossible to hide from Him. I digress…let us continue).

II. The Voice of the Teacher (Matthew 5:2)

• The Text: “And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:”

• The Scribal Model (Theoretical): Let us contrast Jesus over and against the Rabbinic teachers of His day. The Scribes had turned “learning” into a purely theoretical, intellectual exercise. It was a system of endless debate and defensive exegesis that rarely demanded actual transformation. Scholars assign this shift to Rabbinic leaders during the time of the Hadrian Rule. In short, this was their response to the dominant cultural force of Hellenism (Greek) and the corresponding persecution of Jewish people due to their Judaic practices. They surmised that theoretical learning was an acceptable practice over and against obeying and performing God’s word. What is clearly understood from the Old Testament is the expectation of God for His people when they engage in the study of Torah is to observe and perform His word. I recall one of my favorite passages of Scripture from Ezra 7:10, “For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach the statues and ordinances in Israel.” From Ezra’s example, we see an unambiguous approach to Scripture and a definite end-goal.

  

• The Jesus Model (Didaskō): When Jesus “taught,” it was not an academic lecture. It possessed “absolute content“ and demanded a volitional response, an active surrender of the will. This is a clear contrast from the Rabbi’s Theoretical Model addressed in the previous section. The language of “absolute content” derives from scholars as an attempt to convey the weight of Jesus’ teaching. He was delivering a raw and unshakeable reality to His listeners. Furthermore, because Jesus’ teaching was not abstract and theoretical, nor was it suggestive and open to further interpretation. It demanded an immediate decision from the listener. A definite response was required, and you either surrendered to His teaching or walk away.

• Another way to envision the line of distinction between Rabbis who deployed the “Scribal/Theoretical” Model of learning and the Jesus Model of learning is by considering this analogy. If the Scribes were professors giving a lecture on contract law, Jesus was the CEO sliding the actual contract across the table with a pen. The Scribes allowed you to sit back and have an intellectual response including allowing you to debate the clauses and take notes. But because Jesus delivered absolute content, the raw reality of the Kingdom, He demanded a volitional response. He handed you the pen. You could not just sit there and analyze the paper; you had to make an active choice with your will. You either sign your life over to it, or you get up and walk out of the room. Remember the scene that is recorded by Matthew. The sitting Rabbi on the Mount is not here to debate His disciples and the surrounding crowd. When Christ opened His mouth and began to teach, it was of cosmic consequences, and the interpretive work of the Logos.

III. Redefining the “Good Life”: Eudaimonia vs. Makarios (Matthew 5:3a)

• The Text: “Blessed [Makarioi] are...”

• The Graeco-Roman World’s Framework (Eudaimonia): Greek Life Ideal = “Good Life.” It relies on good fortune, health, wealth, and favorable circumstances.

• As stated in this intro, the Greeks held the idea that the “Good Life” was the highest aim for all human life. This meant that one had a good spirit (daemon), a life of those that are at the peak of the social stratum and due to their riches, they were above the concerns of people that were considered less holistic value. The gods were considered the epitome of this good life for they occupied the superterrestrial life beyond care, labor, and death. The Graeco-Roman culture believed that such a life could be earned, yet only for a certain set of people.

• Now we have reached the main event of this short, yet powerful scene of Jesus’ sermon introduction. This is the advent of the Beatitudes. He opens His mouth and declares a truth and a maxim with divine backing. Recall my statement from the previous section concerning the cosmic effects of Christ as He opens His mouth to teach. When Jesus says, “Blessed [Markarios] are…,” this is the beginning of the complete and utter dismantling of the Greco-Roman culture worldview and its inherent value systems.

IV. The Anatomy of Poverty: Why Jesus Rejected the Working Class (Matthew 5:3b)

• The Text: “...the poor [ptōchoi] in spirit...”

· The Spiritual Blue-Collar Worker (Penēs): Now we have arrived at the middle section of Jesus’ first Beatitude in Matthew’s Gospel. Before we address “…the poor in spirit…,” let us look at a sister word for poor to establish a helpful framework as we continue our journey. The Greek word “Penēs” (English: poor) is defined as one who is poor, needy and must work to earn a living every day to eat. In the Graeco-Roman world, there were a significant number of the population that were considered “Day Laborers,” thereby obliged to work for a living to survive. Although they were not reduced to begging; however, on the Graeco-Roman social stratum, they were considered poor and forced to live extremely frugal lives. Additionally, the Rabbinic Ideal led the Pharisees to build a system for the spiritual “penēs” by teaching people how to take their limited moral resources and optimize them through strict adherence to the Law. Next, we will see how Jesus upends this notion.

• The Destitute Wanderer (Ptōchos): This is the word Jesus deliberately chooses! Ptōchos in Greek is as being poor, destitute, to being so economically disadvantaged that one is reduced to a beggar. Simply put, these are the individuals that would not survive without the support of others. In the Graeco-Roman world, such individuals would wander on foot throughout the cities and towns asking for alms from anyone they could. There is a harsh proverb used by the Greek playwright Menander to describe the destitute poor, “he (or she) is poorer than a dabchick.” For context, a dabchick was a small coastal bird that was unable to build their own nests due to their weakness. Therefore, they would seek out other abandoned bird nests to lay their eggs. They had no capacity to shelter themselves nor their hatchlings.

· I would suspect now for some that Jesus’ phrase, “…poor in spirit…” is landing a bit different from before. Jesus, The Eternal Rabbi, made a pronouncement of cosmic and cataclysmic proportions. What the audience previously believed about what it meant to be blessed has been obliterated. What they were taught, either by Graeco-Roman culture, the leading philosophers and thought-leaders of the day, and the Judaic Pharisees and Rabbi, is no longer valid. This is a spiritual, emotional, and psychological earthquake happening right under their feet, with Jesus, unambiguously, being the direct cause. The faultlines have shifted. He has declared according to God’s Kingdom Economy: the Graeco-Roman gods, the wealthy, the elite, the blue-collar poor, and the self-sufficient, are NOT blessed. Believing otherwise is self-deception. However, according to the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s favor and blessedness is upon the destitute, beggar, the “dabchick.” The happy and fortunate are those who realize that they are spiritually bankrupt. The spirit of these individuals is the epitome of humility, and their spiritual orientation is antithetical to the proud. “Blessed/Markarios (happy, fortunate) are the poor (the wandering destitute, humble, and beggar) in spirit….” According to the Eternal Rabbi, Makarios is an unshakeable, divine state of being previously reserved for the Graeco-Roman gods and the wealthy elite. By divine decree of the Son, this is no longer the case.

V. Kingdom Payoff (Matthew 5:3c)

• The Text: “...for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

• The Idol of Self-Sufficiency (Autarkeia – the state of being sufficient in oneself or having enough within oneself). The highest human achievement in the ancient world was to be completely vertically integrated, generating everything needed for life without relying on a third party. This was the predominant worldview of the Greek philosophers, especially among the Stoics. One’s aim in life was to exhaust their days until they can reach such a state. If you succeeded, you were considered Markarios! And if you were positioned in a decent space within the social stratum, your odds of reaching your goals were promising. Even the blue-collar poor aspired to climb upward, albeit their odds were not as promising. All their advancements and enterprises for upward mobility were baked in self-sufficiency and human-centricity. In short, their efforts were Godless. However, the destitute poor had no shot. Such dreams and goals were figuratively and literally impossible. Yet, Jesus says, the kingdom of heaven is a real-time and present possession for destitute in spirit. These words had to hit the crowds and the disciples nearby like a ton of bricks. “How could this be?,” they imagined. This language used by Jesus is serious business and it is not accidental that this teaching was one of the many reasons why He eventually found Himself in the crosshairs of the Religious Leaders, namely Scribes and the Pharisees.

VI. Conclusion: The Gospel Transaction

· As I stated previously, when Jesus opened His mouth and taught His disciples and the surrounding crowd, it was a cosmic event. He directly challenged the spiritual and human powers of His day. Consider the declaration of the goddess Isis and her Hymns of Andros and Kyme:

o ἅδε γονήιων | ἁζομένως τιμὰν ἔτι νηπιάχως ὑπὸ μαζῶι | κωρισμοῖς ἐδίδαξα μελίφροσι, 23: ἐγὼ ἀγάλματα θεῶν τειμᾶν ἐδίδαξα. (English Translation: “I taught [him] the reverent honor of parents, while he was still an infant at the breast, with sweet baby-talk. I taught [men] to honor the images of the gods.” Both these texts portray the goddess as one who exercises omnipotent concern for a meaningful order in the cosmos and its individual parts, and who thus seeks to promote the cultural and religious development of men.^[2]

The Sermon on the Mount was an announcement that subverts Isis and all spiritual powers. This was not the introduction of a new set of theories and ideas to be debated among Greek philosophers and Rabbinic leaders. This opening salvo by Jesus was, as we discussed before, possessed “absolute content” demanding a “volitional response.” Within a few words, He turned on its head the prevailing thought of what it means to be “Blessed.” Markarios is the destitute of spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven! This is not suggestive nor is it passive-aggressive. This is direct and confrontational. This is the Logos, the Word wrapped in human flesh, declaring unambiguously that His Gospel supersedes all Graeco-Roman teachings, philosophical maxims, and Rabbinic theoretical doctrines. According to God’s Kingdom Economics, the poor in spirit are now rich. The beggar has now become wealthy.

^[1] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Mt 5:1.

^[2] Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Διδάσκω, Διδάσκαλος, Νομοδιδάσκαλος, Καλοδιδάσκαλος, Ψευδοδιδάσκαλος, Διδασκαλία, Ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω, Διδαχή, Διδακτός, Διδακτικός,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 136.

There is a profound comfort found in the Book of Jeremiah, particularly in a verse often referred to as God's phone number:

​"Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known." (Jeremiah 33:3 ESV)

​While it serves as a beautiful memory verse, its true power is unlocked when we examine the historical backdrop and the original language. When we understand what Jeremiah was facing, this invitation from God transforms from a simple comfort into an anchor for our darkest days.

​The Backdrop: A Prophet in Prison, A City Under Siege

​To understand the weight of God's promise, we must look at the prophet's physical and geopolitical reality. As chapter 33 opens, Jeremiah is imprisoned in the courtyard of the guard. King Zedekiah had him locked up because Jeremiah remained faithful to Yahweh, fearlessly proclaiming the whole counsel of God by calling out the nation's idolatry and backsliding, and truthfully prophesying that judgment was at the gates.

​Outside of Jeremiah's prison, that judgment was actively unfolding. King Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army were laying siege to Jerusalem, attempting to ransack the Southern Kingdom. The nation was terrified and facing total destruction.

​Yet, in this dire, high distress situation, God makes Himself present to Jeremiah.

​The Imperative Command and the Unbreakable Promise

​In the midst of this chaos, God speaks to Jeremiah in the imperative: "Call to me." This was not a mere suggestion; it was a divine command. Even with the impending fall of Jerusalem, God desires a relational dialogue.

​He then binds Himself to a promise: "and I will answer you." Because it is impossible for God to lie, this is a total guarantee. In the isolation of a prison cell, God assures the prophet that He is listening.

​The Irony of the "Hidden" Things

​The most fascinating part of this verse lies in the Hebrew word used for "hidden" (betsuroth). It translates to something that is inaccessible, unassailable, or extremely fortified.

​The irony here is striking. King Zedekiah and the leaders of Judah believed the physical walls surrounding Jerusalem were impregnable and fortified. The Babylonians were actively proving them wrong. Yet, while the physical walls of the city were crumbling, God offered to reveal a divine counsel that was truly unassailable.

​These "hidden things" represent the wisdom of the divine. They cannot be unlocked by human ingenuity, craftiness, or genius. They are completely inaccessible unless God, in His grace and benevolence, chooses to share them with us.

​An Invitation for Today

​The encouragement here extends far beyond Jeremiah's prison cell; it is for you and me today.

​Regardless of our social location, our current station in life, or the highs and lows we are experiencing, God will always find time for us. He is eager to invite us into His space to share His divine counsel.

​We can bring everything to Him, bringing the deep, hidden things concerning our lives, our spouses, our children, our ministries, our careers, our neighborhoods, and even our country. We ought to approach Him with great humility, but also with great confidence, knowing He is a God who does not lie and is open to sharing His wisdom with us.

​As you go into this weekend, I encourage you to accept that invitation. Call out to the Lord.

​Grace and peace.

It is incredibly frustrating to constantly hear and see communities of Jesus and the Gospel mission assigned descriptions that are found in corporate meetings and brand/marketing strategies that promises "growth". It's heartbreaking and, in my opinion, harms our public witness.

The Body of Christ, followers of the Way is nothing like this world has ever seen. We can be assured that the ways and thoughts of GOD are nothing like the ways and thoughts of humans. May we as the people of GOD forever remember that, although following Jesus guarantees a narrow road of travel, it is the path to life.

Today marks the beginning of Passion Week. Palm Sunday commemorates the triumphant arrival of Jesus Christ into the holy city of Jerusalem. For the disciples of Jesus worldwide, from a manifold of expressions of the Christian faith, today is a reminder that Christ is Lord, Savior, and King. This perspective allows us to properly orient ourselves toward a kingdom that is otherworldly and far superior to any government that is of and in this world.

When Jesus entered Jerusalem, it was done with intention, void of ambiguity. Luke records in his account that His disciples enthusiastically declared his kingship,

“Blessed is the king

who comes in the name of the Lord!

Peace in heaven,

and glory in the highest heaven!^[1]”

The time had come for the Lord to make his long-awaited, definitive reveal that he is truly the royal heir to the throne of David. No more are the days of speculation, guessing, and concealment. Jesus’ entering Jerusalem is the prophetic fulfillment found in Zechariah 9:9,

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!

Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!

Lo, your king comes to you;

triumphant and victorious is he,

humble and riding on a donkey,

on a colt, the foal of a donkey^[2]”.

Although it was customary for the religious authorities to lay out the red carpet for dignitaries and royal leaders when arriving in Jerusalem, Jesus was not met with such fanfare and bombastic circumstance. On the contrary, he was met with resistance and contempt from the Pharisees, even being ordered to quiet his disciples (see Luke 19:39)! Yet, the response from the Messiah and King was fitting, “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out” (see Luke 19:40). All creation was made through him and for him; therefore, Jesus’ poignant response was fitting for the moment.

On this Palm Sunday, may we remember the kingdom we belong to and the king who deserves our faithfulness and fealty. By the grace and genius of God, we are intertwined in His cosmic plan for redemption. In faith and love, may we boldly proclaim during this Passion Week that Jesus of Nazareth, our trusted Rabbi and eternal Son of God, is King of kings. May this proclamation be found in our words and our deeds. Finally, may our proclamation lead to the hearts of men and women, receiving King Jesus.

^[1] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Lk 19:38.

^[2] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Zec 9:9.

In reading Darrell Guder’s article titled "The Church as Missional Community’’, I came away with multiple observations concerning his thesis and supporting research. In his introduction, I sensed his immediate urgency to engage the terminology of “missional” and how problematic the term has become within the context of American Christianity and the West. The crux of Guder’s thesis rests on the argument that the term missional has lost its original meaning due to a myriad of factors, such as the misapplication of the Church’s apostolic charge starting with Jesus Christ and its capitulation to ideals of Western Christendom. His aim is to rouse a theological dialogue that involves the redefining of the term missional and untangle the terminological confusion that surrounds the term. This endeavor is unambiguous as Guder states, “By proposing the term ‘missional’ we wanted to claim the right to define what it means.”[1] The second half of the previous quote is important, “..we wanted to claim the right to what it means.” Guder is convinced that the Church must recapture the essence of what it means to be missional communities, commissioned by the Savior and Lord of all. This will involve reimagining the original mission of God, what he began in Jesus Christ, and what he has affected in his chosen ones through the Holy Spirit 2,000 years ago. For the American Church in our current context, detangling from the cords of Western Christendom is a task of extreme importance.

In citing Wilber Shenk in his article, historical Christendom is defined as the powerful religio-political synthesis that resulted when Christianity won recognition as the religion of the state in the fourth century, which ultimately positioned the church in proximity to power.[2] It is well known regarding church history that during the era of Constantine, the socio-economic station of Christians underwent a radical change for the better. Persecution from the Empire waned, and their acceptance among Roman society was now becoming favorable. However, these benefits that Christians began to enjoy came at an exorbitant cost. Guder appeals again to Shenk as he states that American Christianity is void of the apostolic mission because of Christendom.[3] The system of Christendom, regardless of its seemingly positive in relation to our historical faith, works in contrast to the apostolic missional charge from our Lord Jesus Christ. Dr. Diane Langberg, an internationally recognized Christian psychologist, succinctly describes Christendom as a system that is preoccupied with power and less interested in truth, and we have unfortunately confused this system with the living body of Christ.[4] This articulation is sobering to which echoes Guder’s critique regarding the current state of the modern American church. If Christendom has overlapped with biblical Christianity, with Christendom’s tenets absorbed into the fabric of the church’s ecclesiology, then one should not be surprised that the fundamental essence that defines missional communities is no longer identifiable.

Another critical point of Guder’s argument is his belief that the reductionism concerning mission is a direct result of Christendom’s effect on Christian theology. Once Christendom came to full bloom in the West, the need for missional Christian communities became redundant. Guder claims that once the Christian faith became the only acceptable religious expression within Christendom, mission was no longer considered the preeminent task of the church, and that maintaining the salvation of individuals has now become the Church’s chief concern.[5] No longer was the concern regarding the fulfillment of the Great Commission given by Christ to his apostles, and the apostles charging the same to their disciples beginning at Jerusalem. Guder argues correctly that individualistic maintenance of salvation is a foreign concept to the New Testament and its writers, although it is currently an integral aspect of our current worldview. It is because of this present reality; Guder contends that core tenets within the Christian faith are now compromised within the American Church.

According to Guder, the scandal concerning the lack of missional identity among American churches stems from the rise of reductionism in the West. Reductionism has infiltrated our eschatological framework, nullified the longstanding historically accepted view of God’s cosmic plan of redemption, and replaced it with a shallow framework that revolves around what individual Christians stand to benefit from the Lord and his faith communities. In addition, reductionism has modified our soteriological and ecclesiological framework as well. Christ’s redemptive work of salvation for humankind is viewed through an entirely different lens according to Guder. The glory of Christ’s work on the cross at Calvary is reduced to a consumeristic alternate reality where the needs and wants of the Christian are the focus. With respect to the American Church’s ecclesiology, Guder posits that reductionism has reoriented the church’s practices and objectives, which now align more closely to a modern-day corporate entity that exists to meet the demands of consumers. Within our current culture, there is an incredible amount of evidence that supports Guder’s claim. There is a plethora of churches on social media utilizing the latest marketing techniques and content engagement apps to convince consumers that their Sunday service “worship packets” will provide an experience that exceeds market competitors. The rub is similar across a manifold of churches that end with the same promise that their churches will meet every “felt” need of their members. The beauty of corporate worship, table fellowship, receiving the Word, and sacrament are not considered “marketable products;” therefore, they are pushed to the backend.

Guder surmises that we are currently in a post-Christendom society, which introduces the American church to entirely new challenges. One can no longer make the assumption that being born in America automatically leads to that child being raised in a “Christian” home. The current climate, in more regions of the country than others, conveys the meteoric rise of secularization. Humanistic ideologies have become the worldview of choice. According to Guder, this new reality should force the American churches to return to their apostolic roots and recapture the essence of Missio Dei and its theology. The Missio Dei frames God as a missionary, and he is the originator of doing the “sending”. The scriptures declare that our Lord Jesus Christ was sent by his Father, which signaled an inbreaking and genesis of a new covenant between God and humankind. Additionally, the Son participates in this sending action when the Holy Spirit was sent to the apostles upon his ascension back to his Father. Guder argues that this understanding must be a core doctrine of the current churches in America if we are going to return to our original call as Christ’s witnesses.

I resonate with the arguments that Guder has presented in his article. His sharp critiques regarding the modern Evangelical churches in America are precise and accurate. One cannot deny the fact that the American church has turned away from its apostolic charge of being a mission community, a light to the world, and salt of the earth. It is true that Western Christendom has wreaked havoc on many of our core theological understandings, which has led to warped worldviews regarding our ecclesiology and soteriology. However, I had some reservations regarding Guder’s generalization of the American church. From my vantage point, it is obvious that the target audience of Guder’s critique is the Evangelical church. As an African American Christian, I and many in my context do not subscribe to the evangelical[6] label for a myriad of reasons, notwithstanding the highly volatile political connotation that is associated with that descriptor

Some of the effects stemming from Western Christendom have not affected those in my context in the same way as our Evangelical brothers and sisters. This is due in large part to our station within the United States of America, as minorities as a host of other factors that are beyond the scope of this paper. I would be remiss to note that Guder realizes the baggage that accompanies the term “evangelical”. From the outset of his article, he mentions the terminological confusion that surrounds terms such as missional and evangelical, and that a proper clarification of the terms must be conveyed.[7] It is safe to deduce that Guder understands that the term “evangelical” has taken on an entirely new meaning and is far from its original definition. Nevertheless, I would describe Guder’s article as prophetic, worthy of attention for all who name Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

Bibliography

Diane Langberg. Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2020.

Guder, Darrell L. “THE CHURCH AS MISSIONAL COMMUNITY.” In The Community of the Word: Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology, edited by Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2005.

[1] Darrell L. Guder, “THE CHURCH AS MISSIONAL COMMUNITY,” in The Community of the Word: Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology, ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2005). p 114

[2] Ibid. p 117

[3] Ibid. p 117

[4] Diane Langberg, Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2020). p 145-46

[5] Guder, “THE CHURCH AS MISSIONAL COMMUNITY.” p 117

[6] For the purposes of this section, I am using the descriptor “Evangelical” for White American Christians.

[7] Guder, “THE CHURCH AS MISSIONAL COMMUNITY.” p 114

The process of theological formation of the early church consisted of a manifold of circumstances, causes, and people that were intertwined by what we know as the Christian faith. Whether those circumstances, causes, and people were either positive or negative, the history of the early church’s theological development would not be what it is today without these elements. From the early church’s apostolic fathers and apologists to the individuals they identified as heretics, they all were instrumental, irrespective of their position on the theological spectrum. Furthermore, the ultimate components that played a pivotal role in the early church’s theological expansions are the sacred texts, deriving from its parent religion known as Judaism the Hebrew Bible, and the 1^st-century apostolic writings that were eventually compiled as the New Testament.

The beginning process of the theological process involved the early church’s musing and reflection of the New Testament scriptures, which in turn led to an articulation of what came to be understood as their theology. This was made possible in large part due to the collection and subsequent copying of the gospels and epistles, which afforded access to the apostolic fathers during their formative years of theological development. The need for a written record and the interpretation of the teachings of Jesus was critical to the early church.[1] Polycarp, the martyred bishop of Smyrna, was believed to have in possession the Pauline letters of Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and 1 and 2 Timothy.[2] One can conclude that his decision to hold fast unto his testimony in Jesus up until the moment of death was based on a theological framework cultivated from what he came to understand about Christ as revealed in the scriptures. Being a disciple of apostle John and based upon what we know from the Christian tradition, it would be assumed that Polycarp learned the words of Jesus, either by the written gospel or by oral tradition, concerning the inevitable persecution that his disciples would encounter upon his departure (See John 15). Consequently, the scriptures had a similar effect on the early church at large as they endeavored to demonstrate the Christian faith in their Greco-Roman context.

Revisiting the earlier statement concerning the positive and negative elements that played an instrumental role in the development of the early church’s theological formation are orthodoxy and heresy.  Orthodoxy from the standpoint of the early church became the rallying point for which the church would attempt to unify themselves as one new family in God through Christ. The apostolic fathers agreed that orthodoxy was a definite need for the early church, especially in light of the heretical opposition they faced during the developmental years. Orthodoxy, which is generally understood as the accepted doctrine of theological correctness, grew through the challenges of heresy.[3] The wave of attacks from the main heretical opposition was Gnosticism, although Montanus and his followers were just as severe in their hostility toward the early church. With the popularity of Gnosticism, the leaders of the church were forced to develop their theology relatively quickly and articulate it well to provide a formidable defense against Gnostics. In part, this included the decision by the apostolic fathers to begin the process to formalize and institutionalize the early church’s faith and life.[4] One of the main components of this process is the creation of the Rule of Faith doctrine, which was a summary of the main storyline of the Christian faith beginning with creation and consummation. The bishops and leaders of the early church endeavored to instruct the early church to not only memorize the Rule of Faith doctrine but to understand and articulate it. The benefits are twofold, with the early Christians having their faith in Christ growing and strengthen their defense against heresy.

The individual’s process of theological formation begins at the inception of their conversion to the Christian faith. It is at this time one begins their journey in theological development which at some point will ultimately lead to theological reflection. Theological reflection can take on many forms such as corporate bible studies within local churches with teaching pastors, individual devotion consisting of prayer and scripture meditation, and even within the public square in daily interactions with people from various backgrounds. It is important to note that theological reflection is not only personal but also an interactive, dialogical, and community-related process.[5] These activities and works eventually lead to the creation of embedded theology within the believer. This theology is implicit which Christians live out in their daily lives.[6] This is a critical stage for the individual’s theological formation process because during this time norms are formulated. The Christian worldview, the grid through which they see the world and the people within it, is impacted as well. However, significant events occur that prompt individuals to reconsider what they have come to believe about their theology. Such an event could be in the form of a personal tragedy or even tumultuous socio-political incidents that lead to civil unrest. It is during these times that an individual may delve into the process of deliberative theology. This process is primarily understood as reexamining a person’s own embedded theology and is marked by a certain critical distance toward each testimony of faith.[7] Those testimonies include but are not limited to the church’s mission statement, the oral traditions passed down by parents, or even the individual’s pastor’s teaching that he or she has always come to believe without question.

            Beginning with a theological template, the Christian utilizes this as a baseline to perform their deliberative theological process. In its basic form, a theological template allows an individual to sort and organize all data concerning life.[8] This is an important tool for theological formation because it affords the individual the opportunity to assess their own embedded theology and newly acquired data against the devices that are entrenched within their theological template. As the template is utilized at the discretion of the individual, the process of elimination begins to occur. The dethroning of certain norms that were once considered bedrock truths occurs. It is a transformative process and it alters the individual’s existing worldview that was based on previous learned behaviors resulting from theological norms of the past. In addition, the theological template provides the individual with a set of factors which are used in engaging competing philosophies and theological structures of the world’s system.  

As a result of theological deliberation, a new faith is realized to a certain degree. It is still orthodox in essence, such as the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the second Person of the Trinity. The Bible is still believed to be a work of divine inspiration by God. Fellowship with the community of believers is still believed to be a major core of the Christian praxis. However, the person now articulates a new faith that addresses his or her current context from a framework that was previously undiscovered. This is the fruit of deliberative theology. It is in this context that he or she revisits strategies and methodologies learned in the past with the hope of leading to a theological method of involvement and actual participation.[9]

 From a personal standpoint, I recall the time when I first employed deliberative theology back in 2008 when I made the difficult decision of resigning from a church that I had been a member of for about 6 years. It was during this time that I entered somewhat of a period of deconstruction of my faith. The church was considered Pentecostal with a high view of emotion and the exercising of spiritual gifts, and a lower view of the scriptures from an authoritative and exposition standpoint. It was a tough experience because the bonds of friendships were predominantly lost in the process of deliberation. However, I would like to believe that it worked out in the end due to my spiritual recovery and formation during the past decade-plus. I have been fortunate to be able to glean from my past understanding hold tightly to the good experiences and heal from the unsavory ones.

[1]Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology. InterVarsity Press Academic, 1999. 26

[2] Kruger, Michael J. Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of The Church. InterVarsity Press Academic, 2018. 210

[3] Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology. InterVarsity Press Academic, 1999. 21

[4]Ibid., 39

[5] Howard W. Stone, and James O. Duke. How to Think Theologically. Third. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013. 4

[6] Ibid., 15

[7] Ibid., 18

[8] Ibid., 45

[9] Thistlethwaite, Susan Brooks, and Mary Potter Engel. Lift Every Voice: Constructing Christian Theologies from the Underside. Revised and Expanded. New York: Orbis Books, 1998.

            Since the inception of the Church over two millennia ago, the construct of power has always been a controversial topic of debate. From the Lord Jesus to the modern church, and everyone in between, there has been a manifold of interpretations of what designates power and how power should be exercised. Nevertheless, we as the followers of Jesus must always hold preeminent his thoughts concerning not only what power entails but its utilization. In Paul’s letter to the Christians at Philippi, he records what scholars reference as the “Christ Hymn”, Jesus’ orientation concerning power, prestige, and status (See Philippians 2:5-11). Paul explains how the Lord Jesus took a descent and emptied himself of divine privileges. It is imperative that we understand that these very divine privileges were a testament to his equality with God the Father. It is in these verses and others throughout the New Testament that we obtain glimpses of Christ’s framework of power.

            In Timothy Gombis’ book Power in Weakness: Paul’s Transformed Vision for Ministry, he does a tremendous job of detailing how Paul’s theology on power was radically altered upon meeting the Lord Jesus while he was using coercive power during his Pharisaical campaign. During Paul’s pre-Christian ministry mode, he was seeking to bring about God’s purposes through forcible power and physical violence in an effort to transform sinners into Torah-observant Jews.[1] In his zeal for the Torah and faithfulness to the salvation of Israel, Paul was mistakenly persuaded that the God of his forefathers divinely sanctioned his hostile actions over and against the followers of Jesus. Power abuse is largely due to a compromised theological framework, and Paul was an unfortunate participant in this matter.

One of the steps that we must take as disciples of the Way is to be vigilant in holding fast to a robust understanding of power and its utilization. As humans, we all have a propensity to miss the mark on any given day and at any given moment. Consistent engagement with the Scriptures in community helps us to maintain our focus on the vision that God has given the church. A vision that includes a readiness to be used for the work of the Kingdom in our communities. This is critical for the Body because ultimately, our desire is the move forward in the ways of Jesus in all that we do as a collective. As Gombis puts it, Jesus forged the pathway to exaltation not through coercive power or pursuits of prestige, but through the humiliation and weakness of the cross.[2] This radically changed the framework of Paul, thereby providing an alternative pathway for his journey. We too desire to embrace the pathway of the cross and humility that the Lord Jesus forged in order to fulfill the command to obey him as his disciples.

According to Christian psychologist Dr. Diane Langberg, power is inherent in being human.[3] All humans have power, albeit in different degrees and scopes. However, what is of absolute importance is the understanding that power is not inherently good or evil. Power should be regarded as an intangible instrument, an immaterial tool to be used. The real issue that we face as the people of God is what kind of heart is wielding power. Power should not be regarded as something to be entitled unto, but power should be considered as a gift from God to his image bearers to use for good and righteousness. Godly power has its origins in the kingdom of our hearts as the followers of Jesus, is expressed in the flesh, and then is moved out into the world in word and exercise.[4] Godly power is the only type of power that the church has been commissioned to use and this same power is the only type of power that will facilitate God’s purposes for the world. We must wholly reject all types of enticements to weaponized power for our personal gain or to inflict harm on our supposed enemies.

Illicit power is seductive, and its gravity must be recognized and respected. This is of great importance because church history and human history for that matter provide extensive details concerning the atrocities that human beings have perpetrated by the use of illicit power. Power in Christian leadership requires faithful Christ-centered stewardship. We cannot afford to walk with power aimlessly and irresponsibly. When we do so, we run the risk of abusing power which in turn leads to abusing people that we are in community with every day of our lives. Take for example Langberg’s thesis on verbal power, “Words can kill a soul”.[5] In our relational dynamics in the church, we must exercise prudence and sound judgment with respect to how we verbalize our thoughts and ideas. One of the Bible’s more famous proverbs on the use of words can be found in the Book of Proverbs, “Life and death are in the power of the tongue” (see Proverbs 18:21). This is an instrumental text in light of our present discussion. Words have a devastating impact in a binary space. Our churches would do well in recognizing this truth and allowing the word of God to lead us in how we ought to use our words for righteousness.

In the political space, words are everything concerning seeking or maintaining power. Brilliant and gifted politicians can leverage words in a way that grants them access to the corridors of power where decisions are made to the highest degree. However, the way that Jesus of Nazareth used words did not include some secret or esoteric plan to ascend to the top of the Roman power of his world. Rather, his words largely subvert the political power of empire, prestige, and status. Theologian Howard Thurman challenges the use of power by Christians who have endeavored to be in alignment with human structures that are hostile to people. The Christian religion, once born of people who were acquainted with suffering and persecution has now become the cornerstone of a people who has ruthlessly obtained power and has weaponized it against weak and defenseless peoples.[6] Thurman argues that this position is drastically inconsistent with the values and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as revealed in the scriptures. This is the result of selective and disingenuous interpretations of Jesus and his overall message. Jesus sought to empower the downtrodden of his day and to bring a liberation that was far beyond the imaginations of his audience. The Christian religion is supposed to mirror and herald the same message in prophetic preaching and bind the wounds of the disinherited according to Thurman. It is important to note the context in which Thurman wrote his book. He was living right in the middle wherein Black people were suffering horrific atrocities at the hands of Whites in America and also under the tutelage of the American government that did not provide the necessary protections that were promised to every American under the law. Power in White Evangelical spaces was not interpreted in a way that would allow them to bear the burdens of Black brothers and sisters in the Christian faith. A power that is utilized in such a way is void of prophetic power and evil in its orientation.

            A power that is based on the love of Jesus will ultimately lead to sincerity of heart. Thurman states that sincerity in human relations is equal to, and the same as, sincerity to God.[7] This is where Godly power must lead us regarding how we relate to one another in our faith communities, and even to those who are on the outside. What is the use of power if it does not lead to sincerity? It is established that Jesus has some pretty strong views about loving people who love you back, and not loving people who do not reciprocate (See Luke 6:32). What distinguishes the Christian is that he or she lives like Jesus in this example, thereby glorifying God in the process. This is the result of a heavenly power that has transformed the person from within. Furthermore, this frame of thinking concerning power has ramifications that can reach throughout our existing culture irrespective of socioeconomic background. It is by the example of righteous and faithful living by Christians that the onlooking world will see and perhaps glorify God. The statement, “Jesus is Lord” is a political statement in itself and as we respond in obedience to his commands, we become inherently political and faithful to a power that surpasses the authority of all worldly and supernatural powers.

Works Cited

[1] Timothy G. Gombis, Power in Weakness: Paul’s Transformed Vision for Ministry (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021). p 38

[2] Ibid. p 44

[3] Diane Langberg, Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2020). p 3

[4] Ibid. p 11

[5] Ibid. p 64

[6] Howard Thurman, Jesus and the Disinherited (Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1996). p 2

[7] Ibid. p 62

               In this book, N.T. Wright challenges longstanding thoughts within Western Christian expressions that have dominated much of our understanding of New Testament subjects such as eschatology, the resurrection, and the church's mission. From his standpoint, he hopes that his challenges provide a clearer and more robust understanding of the Christian hope. Furthermore, Wright also attempts to create a new frame of reference about how Christians embrace new possibilities that are within the present world as a result of the Christian hope that we all share. Wright believes that for the global church to lead the lives that God has ordained within the present world, the church must understand its mission in the proper context. This can only be appropriated by taking on the meaning of mission from the New Testament writers of the first century.

               The constant theme throughout the book is Wright articulating a reimagined understanding of heaven and the resurrection. He argues that the existing framework through which the Western church interprets heaven is largely foreign to what the Bible says about the subject. Principally, he contends that we have to completely abandon the prevailing thought we are all saved by Jesus so that we can go to heaven to be with God for all eternity. This view, he believes, creates a faulty understanding of the created order and ultimately God’s cosmic plan of redemption. In addition, Christians who subscribe to this view embody an escapism mentality, excusing themselves from the work of engaging in the world as co-partners in God’s new enterprise enacted in His Son Jesus. Wright cites some forms of Gnosticism and supposedly esoteric knowledge as contributors to what he believes are incorrect frameworks through which these subjects are viewed and debated.

               Wright does an incredible and compelling job not only in his critique of existing Christian thoughts that dominate the Western church, but he also offers persuasive evidence from the Scriptures that remedies these longstanding missteps. In addition, a strength that Wright employs is that he allows for a variety of Christian expressions on the subject of the Christians celebrating the annual Easter season without condescension or divisive commentary. This is important because he argues that one of the major issues that the church is facing today is the propensity of the church to devour itself due to disagreements on traditions, discussions on the sacraments, etc. during the centuries past. The main goal of Wright consists of bringing ideas to the church that may be interpreted as new, yet from his vantage point are actually from the church of old, and to force the readers to confront their embedded theologies truthfully while giving room for reform.

               I honestly did not find too many weaknesses in Wright’s work. Yet, I would say that I did not necessarily agree with him taking Adrian Plass to task for his statement on salvation from his book, Bacon Sandwiches, and Salvation (https://a.co/d/6Rip9xX). Wright disagreed with Plass’ interpretation of salvation, but I do not believe that Plass’ interpretation should have warranted a rebuke from Wright on this level. Now, to Wright’s credit, he did mention that he did not believe that it was hardly fair to take on Plass in his current book providing that Plass does not claim to be a theologian of any sort (see page 196). However, based upon Plass’ salvation commentary that speaks on the reconciling work of Jesus Christ and his resurrection, I believe that Plass is closer to the biblical understanding concerning these subjects. Yet, I can also understand why Wright took issue with Plass due to his, “…we shall one day go home to God and find peace” comment.

               Up until four years ago, I have never heard of N.T. Wright. The first work that I read of his was the Biography of Paul back in January of 2020. That book transformed my entire worldview on Paul, and I am inclined to say that this current work is having a similar effect on me. I readily confess that I was challenged by Wright in reading this book and became aware of embedded theologies that I was not aware that I possessed. I have never done an in-depth study on the subjects of heaven and the resurrection, and this book has exposed a breadth of understanding from an eschatological and theological standpoint that I did not originally understand. I did not realize how much I was in line with the thought of the “going to heaven when we die” crowd until I began reading the material. Now I am compelled to take some time to unpack many of the themes that Wright dealt with and bolster my understanding so that I might be able to articulate these subjects to my local church community in due time.

*Surprised by Hope Amazon book link: https://a.co/d/aPhnwwq

During this week’s reading and studying of the Book of Job, one thing that stood out was how Job’s integrity played an instrumental role throughout the entirety of the book. His integrity, for lack of a better term, incited a conflict between Satan The Accuser and Yahweh, which in turn facilitated a season of incomparable suffering, and ultimately played a role in bringing about his restoration. In the first chapter and the first verse, the Scriptures characterize Job as a blameless and upright man who revered the LORD God and hated evil (See Job 1:1). His character descriptions are incredibly lofty! It makes complete sense that a man of his stature would be one of influence, that many would view him as a model to learn from and to follow his example. I am almost certain that young men in his day would have desired to apprentice under his leadership in some capacity. The author details that young and old would come before him in honor and humility, to consider his wisdom and advice on matters (See Job 29:7-11). Therefore, considering these few points, one can comprehend why Yahweh presented Job as one that Satan should consider. One can come to terms as to why He highly regarded Job as one to be tested. “Have you considered my servant Job? No one else on earth is like him, a man of perfect integrity, who fears God and turns away from evil.” Job’s integrity pleased God and his same integrity was undeniable among his family and peers.

            Reflecting on the impact of Job’s integrity and its effect on me, I contemplate the challenges he faced in maintaining steadfastness. Let us not forget that his integrity is the reason why he is occupying these trials of fire in the first place. Throughout the book, Job reckoned that the onslaught was a result of Yahweh’s hand, yet breaking his integrity was not an option for him to consider. However, his wife, the one who was closest to him, did not share his sentiments. Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die (See Job 2:9)! I imagine that those words had to sting him in unimaginable ways. Not soon after, his friends compounded his sufferings by falsely accusing him of sins that they believed had led to his predicament. When the hour of adversity is upon us, it is natural to look in many directions to find reasons as to why things are happening in painful and chaotic ways. What is also natural is to look for comfort and solace from those who we deem to be rocks and anchors of trust when the heat from adversity is at its highest. However, while the temptation to look horizontally is natural, looking upward unto God should be our preeminent choice. During the toughest seasons, our gaze should be on the One that controls all seasons. God sees things differently than we see them, just as our vantage point is vastly different from an ant. From the human point of view, to suffer is a horrible thing but they are considered light afflictions according to the Scriptures (Wurmbrand, 1998). Righteous suffering is a signpost that we are in God’s new family in the Lord Jesus Christ. We must remember that our sufferings and afflictions are not lost on God, nor does He regard them as nothingness. There are purposes for His plans, and many times they are simply beyond our intellectual capacity to ascertain. Yet, remaining faithful to Yahweh in the difficult hours indicates that our integrity is true and intact.

Works Cited

Wurmbrand, R. (1998). Tortured for Christ. Bartlesville: Living Sacrifice Book Company.

One of the things that I became aware of during this week’s reading of the Book of Proverbs is the intensity that the writer used in his warnings of the forbidden woman in the 5^th chapter. In paying close attention to the integrity of the language used in his admonishment, I found it quite compelling and moving. Starting in the first verse, he calls his listener to attention and to bow his ear to his understanding. The word “bow” here is in the verb tense, translated to stretch out or to extend based on its root meaning (Harris, Archer, & Waltke, 1980). The implication here is that the son is commanded to put a strenuous effort into observing the words and sayings of his father. This is important because the utilized language here is antithetical to passive and sedentary behavior. As an imperative, the father’s command is undeniably unambiguous. The father is clear in this aspect that: if his son is going to be able to maintain discretion and use his lips to safeguard knowledge (See Proverbs 5:2), then he will need to attune his listening beyond its normal state. To escape the bitterness and two-edged sword that accompanies her (See Proverbs 5:4), his son will need to focus all his energy on the words of his father and eliminate any competing distractions.

I found this exchange between the father and the son impactful on multiple fronts. First, the warning of sexual immorality is always a clear and present danger, in large part due to fallen men in general and the malevolent forces that tempt men to sin. In his letter to the Christians at Colossae, the apostle Paul puts the onus on the believers to put to death what belongs to our earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry (Blue Letter Bible, 2020). Ultimately, we are responsible for possessing our bodies in the holiness that God requires. In our struggle with the flesh, our nature within that opposes the things of the Spirit, we must lean on the Spirit to do the things pleasing unto Him. So, as I read the words of Solomon unto his son, they have a profound impact on me as an individual and part of the collective Body. Secondly, as a father of an 8-year-old son, I am constantly thinking about how to prepare my son for the world that awaits him as he grows older. I picture Solomon stretching his hand unto his son, looking him in the eye, and telling him, “My son…listen to me”. There is going to come a point in time when he will have to face temptations from external forces and deal with inward struggles. This part of fatherhood is nerve-racking, but ultimately I trust that God’s grace is sufficient for the task. Solomon is trying to lead his son well by committing godly wisdom unto his son so that he will not get to the end of his life and lament about what could have been (See Proverbs 5:11). Likewise, my desire is for my son is staying clear of the traps and schemes of the enemy. I believe that those chances can be increased in his favor by the teaching and demonstration of God’s word.

Works Cited

Blue Letter Bible. (2020, May 31). The LIfe of the New Man. Retrieved from Blue Letter Bible: https://www.blueletterbible.org/csb/col/3/1/s_1110001

Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Publishers.

Kingship came to Israel when the people of YHWH requested a king to rule over them like their neighboring nations. Scholars have debated whether human kingship was a backup plan within YHWH’s larger plan for His rule and eventually the nations. Their approach to their leader and prophet Samuel accompanied complaints that his sons were wicked and did not follow their father's righteousness (See 1 Samuel 8). Therefore, for Samuel’s sons to succeed him in leadership over Israel was completely off the table and the people used this as a reason to install a monarchy in Israel. Saul becomes the first king of Israel, marred by scandals ranging from unfaithfulness to God to presumptive worship in sacrificing outside of Samuel’s instructions. Due to a lack of an intimate relationship with YHWH, Saul failed as king to unite the monarchy.[1] Eventually, the kingdom reign of Saul ended tragically with God removing His grace from him and his death.

During the latter days of Saul’s reign as king, God sought out David to anoint him as king over Israel. As YHWH began to prosper, King David began to set his sights on building a house for YWHW to reside in significantly better than the Tent of Meeting. In the Ancient Near East, it was customary for kings to build elaborate temples for their patron deities who they believed served as the main reason for their successful military campaigns.[2] David sought to honor the God of Israel in the highest capacity, and he was convinced that a grand structure was the means to accomplish such an endeavor. As he communicates his thoughts and intentions to the royal court prophet Nathan, YHWH in turn informs David that his ambition is disapproved; however, a house will be built and sustained for Him. It is at this point in 2^nd Samuel 7 where we discover the genesis of the Davidic Covenant or as some others have termed it the beginning of the Davidic Dynasty. The term “house” is significantly important in a royal context for it conveys a dynastic connotation, which has future implications.[3] YHWH is explicit in His plans for David as He swears that not only will He build David a house, but that his house or dynasty and the kingdom will endure forever (see verses 11 and 16). In addition, YHWH promises to establish David’s name as great, like the language YWHW used in the call to the patriarch Abraham in Genesis 12. The land of Israel benefits from the Davidic Covenant as YWHW pledges unfailing security for the Israelites, promising rest from conflict and freedom of oppression from hostile neighboring nations. The promise of rest from all surrounding enemies echoes the Sinaitic covenant conveyed in the 12^th chapter of Deuteronomy.

David has now become aware of this astonishing promise with an eternal element. As previously mentioned, YHWH promised that David's reign, even longer after his physical demise, would reign through his descendants. These are critical passages of Scripture in the Hebrew Bible not only because they mark the beginning of YHWH’s covenant with David, but also because it serves as the basis of the hope for the Messiah. YWHW takes an oath and swears that He alone will secure the succession of David’s throne. The promise of establishing an eternal kingdom, and a dynastic house, connotes the power and authority of YHWH in this context.[4] There is a parallel in meaning here for just as YHWH is communicating unchallenged power and authority, the blessing of the Davidic Covenant also could be interpreted that the kingship of David will possess a similar power albeit on a human level. The God of Israel is co-regent with King David; therefore, they share the same qualities regarding kingship. This co-regency allows YHWH to rule Israel and eventually, the nations as He intends. In this context, the Davidic Kingship and the Divine Kingship are inseparable. His choice of David as ruler and king meets even the wildly held view in the Ancient Near East that the king was an earthy steward of the deity and there was a cosmic order behind the monarchy.[5] YHWH promises to never remove his love from David’s son (Solomon) even when he sins. This is interesting language used within the Davidic Covenant for it alludes to the fact that YHWH’s oath to David is unconditional. This is a far cry from the Sinaitic covenant for the premise of blessings and curses is based on Israel’s obedience. YHWH promises to be his father and promises to chastise him with human agents; nevertheless, his removal will never occur.

               In Psalm 2, we see that the overwhelming theme of the passage of Scripture involves YHWH responding to the rebellion of the nations. This rebellion included conspiratorial behavior involving the nations and the formulation of a confederacy. The response consists of the enthronement of the Davidic King based on YHWH's preceding covenant with David. The Psalm is a royal coronation hymn celebrating the ascension of the heir to the Davidic Dynasty; however, scholars believe that Psalm 2 was originally composed to celebrate the enthronement of either David or Solomon.[6] Furthermore, it is also highly probable that there were annual festivals for the Davidic Kings wherein Psalm 2 would serve as the grand theme is conveying to Israel the plans that YHWH has in store for the nations by the way of His chosen one. Those plans include the crushing of the vassal rebellion. Verses 7 and 8 lend to the idea that the Davidic Kings were the ones subject to be YWHW’s son, before Jesus. I can see that being the case from a historical perspective. Contextually speaking Psalm 2 initially functioned as an oracle of legitimization during the royal enthronement ceremony of the kings.[7] However, the NT is clear that Jesus Christ is the Son of David according to human genealogy and is the Davidic King who fulfills this Psalm in the Messianic context (See Acts 4:23-31).

               Like Psalm 2, Psalm 110 is also considered a royal enthronement Psalm due to its reflection of the ancient Israelite dedication ceremony of the Davidic King.[8] What is extremely significant about this Psalm is the explicit language of co-regency involving YWHW and the Davidic King; “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand…”. It is an invitation by the Divine to His human agent to rule Israel and the nations with the backing of YHWH. There is no ambiguity here regarding the inseparability of the Davidic Kingship and Divine Kingship. The two monarchies, earthly and heavenly, are the same. The right hand of YHWH protrudes an image of YHWH’s right hand from a symbolic standpoint, conveying divine power and favor.[9]

               The exilic prophet Ezekiel prophesies in the 34^th chapter that the Davidic King will serve as the shepherd of YWHW approval. This is also a joint operation between the two, and it comes on the hills of the prophet’s rebuke of the selfish and wicked shepherds of Israel. YHWH promises to place only one shepherd over Israel (see verse 23) and that one shepherd will provide everything that is needed for the sheep. The language here points to a Messianic figure to come, which is Jesus the Good Shepherd according to John’s gospel (see chapter 10). Historically speaking, Israel failed to produce a Davidic king even after their return to Israel. The monarchy never materialized according to the days of old. Nevertheless, even in the Babylonian exile, the nation of Israel is reminded of the YHWH’s everlasting covenant to David, and it produces hope that their salvation remains in His hands.

[1] Robin Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach (InterVarsity Press Academic, 2009). p 234

[2] Gordon H. Johnston, “Messianic Trajectories in God’s Covenant Promise to David,” in Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel’s King, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV and Darrell L. Bock, n.d., 59–74. p 59

[3] Ibid., p 62

[4] Ibid., p 63

[5] Robin Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach. p 233

[6] Gordon H. Johnston, “Messianic Trajectories in the Royal Psalms,” in Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel’s King, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV and Darrell L. Bock, n.d., 75–105. p 75

[7] Ibid., p 76

[8] Ibid., p 91

[9] Ibid., p 94

Introduction

A new age had arrived when God broke into the world with a new paradigm consisting of His Gospel mission with His eternal Son. As the preeminent herald of this Gospel, Jesus was the principal agent in brokering a new relational dynamic between humanity and the divine. God’s kingdom was coming, and he taught his followers to pray, “on earth as it is in heaven.”[1] Covenant Jews and God-fearing Gentiles experienced a relationship with God, but this new act introduced a level of relational intimacy that had not previously existed. God reconciling man unto Himself by the finished work of His sinless Son, instituted a new type of relationship between Creator and creation. The social norms were flipped and reimagined in a way that ran counter to what was originally expected according to the cultural context of first-century Palestine. In his earthly ministry, Jesus Christ embodied this fellowship in his selection and training of twelve Jewish disciples, which they in turn embodied within new communities created by the Holy Spirit’s transformative power beginning in Acts of the Apostles. As these new communities began to grow as a result of the Gospel mission conducted by the apostles, a new understanding of relating began to permeate throughout Palestine and eventually into the Roman world.

The focus of this paper is to analyze sharing and fellowship in its New Testament context and its importance to the Gospel mission for the Christian community. The intention of this paper is to convey how partnership within the Church is cultivated and strengthened by the study and application of scripture. Furthermore, an examination of how Christian communities successfully identify and repel threats against their established fellowships that are existential in nature will be discussed. Such threats include antagonistic treatment from the outside culture towards Christians, and selfishness within the ranks of Christian communities beginning with the works of the flesh. Additionally, a point of emphasis of this paper will be to survey Paul’s theological framework on sharing and partnership. This is due in large part to his prolific usage of the language throughout his epistles. Finally, there will be an attempt to ascertain theoretical tools from this research on sharing and partnership that can help mold into practical examples for modern Christian communities in their effort to continue the Gospel mission in reflection.

How does the NT define Fellowship and Sharing?

In his correspondence to the Christians at Philippi, Paul conveys his gratitude and joy unto God in prayer and praise for them due to their “sharing in the gospel from the first day until now” (see Philippians 1:5). In Greek, sharing is translated as κοινωνία and transliterated as koinonia, which is defined as a close association involving mutual interests and sharing, association, communion, fellowship, and close relationship.[2] Koinonia, which was utilized so expansively in the Greek world as to lose much of its shape (it covered all types of common enterprise, including a marriage union and bonds of human friendship), had to do with “having something in common with someone” and was rendered in the New Testament by “association,” “communion,” and “fellowship,”.[3] The term invokes a sense of togetherness, a mutual investment of two or more parties that is significantly more meaningful than transactional relationships. However, it is important to note that terms such as “fellowship” did not necessarily derive from the social world of religion, but from first-century business or political partnerships that were based on arrangements where people combined their efforts and resources to accomplish a specific task.[4]

There is a personal element to κοινωνία that induces intimacy and love that is godly and pure. In the 17^th chapter in John’s Gospel, Jesus prayed to God pleading that He would protect his disciples and that they may be one as he is one with the Father (see John 17:11). Being one with one another implicates patience; it involves forgiveness and breaking the grip of our culture which tells us the things that we accumulate are not to be shared but guarded.[5] That sense of oneness and sharedness in Christ’s prayer crystalizes the Christian faith and it exudes what it means for the Christian community to be in fellowship. The followers of Jesus are not kept as a unity; rather, their unity is the purpose of their being kept which connotes being one together along with God and Christ.[6]

In his book titled Cruciformity, Dr. Michael Gorman offers interesting insights that are in close relation to what it means for Christian communities to have an orientation of sharing and fellowship. He states that the corporate character of being in Christ corresponds to the inherently relational character of cruciformity and cruciform faith is not complete until it issues cruciform love for others.[7] With this in mind, there is no wonder why Paul expresses to the Christians at Philippi his gratitude toward God for them and how he prays with joy because of the sharing of themselves with him in the Gospel mission (See Philippians 1:3-5). There is a connection made between lives that are based on cruciformity and sharedness.

Why does Paul view Fellowship Important?

In turning the focus of our attention unto the apostle Paul, the Christian communities are privileged with a vast amount of material within the New Testament that communicates his framework on fellowship and sharing. In fact, it would be appropriate to state that Paul's apostolic career would not have become what we understand it to be if it had not been for the fellowship he enjoyed with the Christian communities in his day. Scholars have posited that the apostle Paul’s letter to the Philippians could be categorized as a “friendship letter” based on the structured topics in the first chapter compared to ancient friendship letters' motifs.[8]

In developing his friendships and partnerships with the churches, he leveraged his relationships for the advancement of the Gospel mission, which also included preaching, teaching, and demonstrating ethics. This is not surprising considering that Paul already had at least a decade-long relationship with the Christians at Philippi after his initial visit to the city in approximately 49 AD.[9] Such a friendship would allow for the two parties to develop a fellowship that would include cultivating shared interests in spirit and with their natural resources. Paul communicates in the fourth chapter of the Philippian letter that their decision to share their resources with him is a sign of their love and concern for him, which led to his rejoicing in the Lord (See Philippians 4:10). Their generosity conveys that their fellowship is authentic and is elevated beyond mere words. He recounts the earlier days of neglect that he experienced from other churches save the Philippian community with respect to financial contributions to his Gospel mission (See verse 15). This is a window into what Paul thinks of fellowship and partnership for the advancement of the Gospel. Sharing and participation make the Gospel mission possible.

Practices that Contribute to Cultivating and Strengthening Fellowships

It is not a revelatory statement to communicate that all Christians desire to embody the life of Jesus Christ as he demonstrated according to the witness of the gospels’ evangelists. In his correspondence to the Christians at Colossae, the apostle Paul states that Christ is the full expression of God and that in him dwells the fullness of deity (See Colossians 2:9). In concert with that truth, followers of Jesus are ordered to embody his life and ethics according to Jesus’ commands and the apostles (See Luke 14:27; 1 Corinthians 11:1). The call of discipleship goes forth, and it at once followed by the response of conformity, which conveys obedience and not only a confession of faith in Jesus.[10] The question to respond to now is: How do one cultivate and strengthen fellowships within the Gospel mission?

The answer to the preceding question is not intended to be exhaustive but a list of Christo-centric practices that contribute to the building of healthy fellowships. The preeminent practice that all disciples of Jesus must employ in order to cultivate and strengthen Christian fellowship is the practice of loving one another. The Gospel of Matthew records Jesus’ conversation with a lawyer from an orchestrated futile attempt to trap Jesus with a question concerning the Law: “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” (See Matthew 22:36). Jesus easily acquitted himself from the snare by propelling love for God and neighbor as the twin chief practices of which all of the law hangs. Jesus Christ fully and faithfully reveals God in his death and call his disciples to remain in him by loving each other just as Jesus loved them which is expressed in an ethic that is cross-shaped.[11] Furthermore, Paul communicates to the Christians at Corinth where he posits that love builds up. He reimagines the virtue of love as a metaphorical construction equipment that is designed to build (See 1 Corinthians 8:1). It should be noted that he does not visualizes love as a destroying instrument.

The second practice that Christian communities can employ to cultivate and strengthen fellowships is prayer. Prayer is the language that heaven understands. It has been said that prayer is a weapon, a powerful tool that supersedes the potency of physical weapons of war and can serve as a supernatural agent that can bring about liberation.[12] It is probably safe to assume that the apostle Paul would agree with such an assessment seeing that he subscribed to the notion that the Christian’s weapons of warfare are not human in nature, but they are divinely powerful (See 2 Corinthians 10:4). Furthermore, the Lord Jesus commands his disciples to constantly have a heart oriented toward prayer (See Luke 18:1). Christian communities have thrived on prayer since the inception of the Church. Prayer is the vehicle that is needed to make headway for the Gospel mission. Paul commissions the Colossians to not only devote themselves to prayer in thanksgiving, but he also asks them to pray for him and his team that God would open doors so that they may declare the mysteries of Christ (See Colossians 4:3). Christian communities that are on one accord in fellowship are able to accomplish significant achievements through prayer.

Lastly, Christian communities that employ biblical applications strengthen the church’s fellowship for the Gospel mission. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells his disciples a parable on the severity of hearing and doing his words. He likens people who both hear and perform his words to a wise man who builds a home on a rock which in turn fortifies the home against storms. However, those who choose not to execute his commandments are akin to foolish men who build their homes on sand (See Matthew 7:24-27). Jesus fashions this parable as a make-or-break choice with eternal consequences. Furthermore, to do Jesus’ words here is the equivalent of doing the will of the Father in heaven as he referenced in the 21^st verse of the same chapter.[13] Doing the will of the Father includes the forward movement of the Gospel mission. Jesus Christ completed his Gospel mission moving forward in perpetuity and Christian communities must adopt this same mindset and framework.

Threats to Fellowship in Gospel Mission

When it comes to the enemies of the Gospel mission, the Bible has much to say on this matter. From the religious leaders of Jesus’ day to the worshippers of Artemis in Ephesus in Paul’s day, Christian communities have faced manifold threats that have sought to cripple and derail the Gospel mission. Nevertheless, followers of Jesus are called to demonstrate resolve in responding to hostile forces that are outside the communities of faith. This is critical because, in situations of dispute, Christians have often found themselves as accomplices in conflict rather than agents of peace.[14] Being peacemakers is the Christians’ lot. Followers of Jesus will forever have enemies, yet those same enemies should not have the power to influence how Christians respond to agitations and persecutions. When the Church’s witness is compromised, the mission of the Gospel suffers.

While hostile forces outside of Christian communities are well documented throughout the Bible and the history of the Church, the more serious threats lie within the camp. It can be argued that the works of the flesh among Christians have done the most harm of all other hostile entities combined. Paul warned the Galatian community to be careful not to use their newly found freedom in Christ for self-indulgence but to utilize it to love one another, and refrain from consuming each other by backbiting (See Ephesians 5:13-15). It is critical to note that “flesh” denotes not merely the bodily passions and lust, nor even a “lower nature” contrasted with a “higher nature” in an individual, rather the human in their sin and depravity apart from the redeeming grace of God and the sanctifying work of the Spirit.[15] The works of the flesh can lead to debilitating the work of the Gospel mission and Christian fellowship. The fifth chapter of Second Corinthians supports this statement. Paul chastises the Corinthian community for their insolence regarding an ongoing act of sexual immorality that is not even practiced among the pagans (see 2 Cor. 5:1). Surely the surrounding community will not hear and respond to the witness of the Christians at Corinth in lieu of such despicable behavior. The alternate choice that will lead to a strengthened fellowship among believers is to walk in the Spirit for it is the open secret to successful Christian living.[16]

My Reflections on Fellowship in the Gospel Mission

In preparing to compose this paper, I was conflicted on a manifold of fronts as it pertained to which subject to address. The subject of fellowship is of utter importance for many reasons. I have been a follower of Jesus Christ for well over 20 years now, and I have had the privilege of serving in different contexts with some amazing people. I look back on my journey with gladness and joy, knowing that I was edified in my development as a disciple of Jesus, while simultaneously assisting others in their discipleship process. However, I would be remiss to note that I have witnessed heart-breaking incidents that have derailed fellowships to the point of no return. From financial malfeasance among church leadership to the dissemination of harmful doctrine (i.e., Prosperity Gospel) to congregants, these unfortunate events have led to tragic ends for some Christians on an individual and corporate level, and the Gospel mission suffered.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer states that the physical presence of followers of Jesus is a source of incomparable joy and strength.[17] This is the starting point of a healthy Christian fellowship after the Holy Spirit has indwelt the believer. Once this has been established, Christian communities are empowered to move forward in the Gospel mission, preaching the message of the Lord Jesus Christ and demonstrating his deeds. We have to do the hard and honest work of taking inventory of ourselves and determining if we are aligned with the Gospel and its Messenger. We must become ardent in prayer. Making intercession on behalf of one another and supplicating unto God for ourselves must become a natural way of living. It is natural for humans to desire community and become part of a whole. It would behoove the Christian community to make sure that we are cultivating fellowships and relationships that will lead to Christo-centric partnerships in the Gospel. Our hope should be to desire the testimony of the Philippian Christians wherein Paul says, “I constantly pray with joy because of your sharing in the gospel from the first day” (See Phil. 1:3-5). May we become such a sharing fellowship.

Works Cited

Craig S. Keener. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2014.

D.A. Carson, ed. The Gospel According to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Christian Community. New York: Harper One, 1954.

———. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: Touchstone, 1995.

Fitzgerald, John T. “Christian Friendship: John, Paul, and the Philippians.” Interpretation 61, no. 3 (July 2007): 284–96.

Frederick William Danker, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition (BDAG). The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press Academic, 1993.

Lisa M. Bowens. African American Readings of Paul: Reception, Resistance, and Transformation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020.

Michael J. Gorman. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.

Miroslav Volf. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. 2nd ed. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2019.

N.T. Wright. Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters. Harper One, 2011.

Ronald Y.K. Fung. The Epistle to the Galatians. The New International Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.

R.T. France. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.

Sweeney, Michael L. “The Pauline Collection, Church Partnerships, and the Mission of the Church in the 21st Century.” Missiology 48, no. 2 (April 2020): 142–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091829619887387.

Timothy G. Gombis. Power in Weakness: Paul’s Transformed Vision for Ministry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021.

Werntz, Myles. “The Cost of Christian Unity.” Review & Expositor 116, no. 1 (2019): 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034637318821868.

[1] N.T. Wright, Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters (Harper One, 2011). P 105

[2] Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition (BDAG) (The University of Chicago Press, 2000).

[3] Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds., Dictionary of Paul, and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Fellowship, Communion, Sharing by P.T. Osborn (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press Academic, 1993). p 293

[4] Michael L Sweeney, “The Pauline Collection, Church Partnerships, and the Mission of the Church in the 21st Century,” Missiology 48, no. 2 (April 2020): 142–53, https://doi.org/10.1177/0091829619887387.

[5] Myles Werntz, “The Cost of Christian Unity,” Review & Expositor 116, no. 1 (2019): 42–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/0034637318821868.

[6] D.A. Carson, ed., The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991). p 562-3

[7] Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.). p 350

[8] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2014). p 556

[9] John T Fitzgerald, “Christian Friendship: John, Paul, and the Philippians,” Interpretation 61, no. 3 (July 2007): 284–96.

[10] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: Touchstone, 1995). p 57

[11] Timothy G. Gombis, Power in Weakness: Paul’s Transformed Vision for Ministry (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021). p 112

[12] Lisa M. Bowens, African American Readings of Paul: Reception, Resistance, and Transformation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020). p 172

[13] R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007). p 296

[14] Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, 2nd ed. (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2019). p 47

[15] Ronald Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988). p 243

[16] Ibid. p 247

[17] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Christian Community (New York: Harper One, 1954). p 19

à la carte definition: choosing separate foods in a restaurant rather than having a complete meal: You get more choices if you order à la carte.

I love to dine out. The times when we as a family head out, let us say on a Friday night to sit down at a favorite restaurant of ours to enjoy a meal is an experience that is extremely high on my “favorite things to do list”. One of the things that I really enjoy most is ordering from an à la carte menu purely for the benefit of flexibility. It is simply efficient. Unfortunately for Christianity in America, the à la carte philosophy has been instrumental in the fashioning of a Christ that is foreign to the orthodox Jesus revealed in the Scriptures. And in the same vein, the creators of this pseudo-Christ have convinced themselves that their practice is in accord with the Divine. The belief that one can pick and choose which teachings of Jesus are worthy to adhere to stems from the deception of the self. Or the idea of manipulating that which is written in order to justify harmful and untoward behavior in the name of Jesus Christ over and against fellow image-bearers because of political diversity is peak duplicity. The target here is the Christianity of the majority culture, a large segment of White Evangelicals that have synthesized Christianity with nationality, political ideology, and culture which have given birth to a different Jesus altogether, with a Christian expression that is alien.

I mentioned this alien Christian expression in the previous sentence above. Admittedly, my inspiration is drawn from Miroslav Volf’s stated thesis in Exclusion and Embrace where he asserts, “The will to give ourselves to others and ‘welcome’ them, to readjust our identities to make space for them, is before any judgment about others, except that of identifying them in their humanity”[1]. Such a statement is Christo-centric, for it exudes from the heart of Jesus's teachings as presented in the Bible. Love as Jesus explains and expounds repeatedly throughout the Scriptures calls for unfeigned love, and genuine affection, leading to reciprocity of mutual self-giving for the betterment of each other. Also, apostle Paul bolsters this framework in his letter to the Philippians when he admonishes them to regard each other more highly than themselves (Phil. 2:3). What would our community of faith look like if we put that command into practice? We are talking about being actual “lamps on the hill”, “lights of the world”, and the “salt of the earth”. Powerful and transformational stuff! But apparently, many of us are not convinced. The hold of culture, political ideology, and nationalism has proven to be an impregnable lock. I mentioned that a byproduct of this love articulated and embodied by Jesus is self-giving. Miroslav expands this action further, “A genuinely Christian reflection…must be rooted in the self-giving love of the divine Trinity as manifested on the cross of Christ…”[2]. Reflection and cross, this is the space where our faith expression must embed. In light of our ethnic diversity, far-ranging political persuasions, and socio-economic statuses, the new family created in Jesus Christ supersedes these lesser identity markers and stands opposed to and against American Christianity.

So, as a member of the new family created by God through Jesus Christ, I wonder aloud: how do the many in White Evangelical spaces come to terms with the à la carte Christ? Simply put acknowledge the sin of idolatry, repent of the sin of idolatry, and burn the idols altogether. Taking a page from the revival examples throughout the Hebrew Bible when the prophets confronted Israel and when they responded favorably, such as in the days of Ezra. A recommitment to Jesus of the Scriptures, and an adherence to his teachings are the ways forward if we are truly going to express and live transformational faith. It is high time to consume the whole scroll, not just its selective parts.

Reference

Miroslav Volf. Exclusion and Embrace. 2nd ed. Abingdon Press, 2019.

[1] Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, 2nd ed. (Abingdon Press, 2019).

[2] Ibid. p. 15

Introduction

In the seventh chapter of the Gospel of John, the evangelist details in verses 1-9 Jesus’s hostile encounter with his brothers as they displayed skepticism and unbelief regarding his claims within the context of his ministry. This scene occurs on the hills of Jesus’ miraculous exploits which included the feeding five thousand people on a mountainside in Galilee, walking on water as the disciples travelled ahead of him into Capernaum, and arguably one of his most famous discourses with the Jewish people in which he utilizes allegory, mystery, and the Hebrew scriptures to describe his mission and relationship with his Father, the God of Israel. The Evangelist gives his readers an intimate view of the drama that not only accompanied Jesus during his public ministry but also its effects within his familial context. Nevertheless, Jesus offers the incredulous brothers an explanation that reveals aspects that delineates his status over and against the world.

Historical Context

The pericope discloses that the scene is on location within Galilee. The region is popular in all four Gospels for it served as the setting for much of Jesus’ ministry, with a population approximately between two and three hundred thousand, including an export industry that heavily relied upon wheat, olives, and wine . Galilee was understood as the entire northern region of the land of Israel, deriving possibly from the experience of the early Israelites inhabiting the interior highlands while encumbered by Canaanite city-states . Nazareth, which was located in the lower regions of Galilee, is where Jesus lived prior to his transition into public ministry.

The Evangelist records that the Feast of Booths (Feast of Tabernacles) was soon arriving, which prompted Jesus’ suspecting brothers to suggest that he present himself there in an effort to garner more publicity for his ministry. The Feast of Booths is one of Israel’s three great annual festivals during the agricultural harvest that is celebrated once a year to honor the God of Israel for His historical and present provision . Jews and God-fearing Gentiles make the annual pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem during the seventh lunar month. With this in mind, it is understood why Jesus’s brother would suggest, albeit condescendingly, that Jesus go to the festival because of the expectation of the large crowds that would be in Jerusalem, and that would allow more people to hear his message.

John 7:1-9 NRSV

1 After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him. 2 Now the Jewish festival of Booths was near. 3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; 4 for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 (For not even his brothers believed in him.) 6 Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil. 8 Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.

Outline of Passage

I. Galilee and Judea (Jerusalem)

a. Jesus chooses Galilee in order to remain out of sight of his enemies; however, his brothers attempt to goad him in traveling from Galilee to Judea to increase his popularity stemming from their unbelief. (vv. 1-5)

II. Jesus versus the World

a. Jesus answers his brothers’ contempt by explaining how he differentiated from them and the world at large. (vv. 6-9)

Detailed Analysis

1 After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him. 2 Now the Jewish festival of Booths was near. 3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; 4 for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 (For not even his brothers believed in him.)

The Evangelist begins in chapter seven immediately following a mass exodus of disciples following Jesus’ discourse with the Jews, specifically with regards to the allegorical teaching regarding the eating of flesh as bread and the drinking of Jesus’ blood. They found his teaching “difficult”, questioning who can ever accept it. It is not a surprise that the hearers would find this preposterous, even to those who might hear the echo of 2 Samuel 23:17. Even the core disciples were rattled, moving Jesus to inquire of them, “Do you also wish to go away” (see John 6:67).

John records Jesus’ location in Galilee, yet for the strategic purposes that accompanied. The religious leaders within the Judaic power structure, namely the Pharisees, were the chief enemies of Jesus during his earthly ministry and they are identified as the group that sought to end his life. It should be noted here that this is in reference also to an earlier incident (see John 5:18) where in the wake of the Sabbath controversy and Jesus’ dramatic Christological claims, the Jews sought to kill him . The Evangelist is conveying here the seriousness of the threat level that Jesus was presently living under by the way of his opponents.

The unbelief of Jesus’ brothers is the dominant theme in the selective passage of scripture. The Evangelist is explicit in verse five wherein he states that “For not even his brothers believed in him”. In other words, Jesus’ brothers chose not to be persuaded by the claims of Jesus nor positively influenced by the fame that begun to accompany him. The Greek pisteuō (to believe) means to trust, to rely on. As it pertains to Christin salvation, the Greek rendering of “faith” has little correlation with “faith” in light of our contemporary Christian context, yet very much to do with allegiance and fidelity . The disposition of the brothers’ hearts was antithetical to Peter’s response in the previous chapter when he answered Jesus’ earlier question, “We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God” (see John 6:69). To arrive at the place of confessing that “Jesus is the Messiah (or the Son of God)” results from an understanding that is not self-evident but rather from an active quest in the paradoxical nature of Jesus’ royal rule . This echoes Jesus’ words of “seek and you shall find”.

The brothers, due to their unbelief, irreverently suggested that Jesus travel southward to Judea to partake in the Feast of Booths in an effort to expand his growing ministerial fame. This is the brothers attempt to mock Jesus and convey contempt for his ministry efforts. What was foreign to them were the murderous plots against Jesus; nevertheless, one may deduce that they would have a different orientation if they were privy to those matters.

6 Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil. 8 Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.

Jesus’ response to his brothers conveys how vast is the difference in frameworks between the two sides. In ancient Judaic times, brothers were normally among one’s closest allies; kin ties were of great importance and intrafamily conflicts were considered particularly tragic . Jesus’ communication on “time” and “hate” reveals that the brothers are completely unaware of God’s agenda and the malevolent supernatural elements that were involved. They are unable to know it, respond to it, or perceive the Word incarnate who is in their midst and who serves as the agenda’s center . The world, as Jesus knows it, is the hostile arena occupied by Satan and his fallen angels. The brothers, oblivious to the world’s influence even in their own lives, are in lock-step with the world which resulted in their unbelief. Jesus, therefore, would not have his brothers’ dictating ideas and suggestions that were foreign to God’s agenda and the timetable concerning the Son’s redemptive mission.

Reflection

Conflict is inevitable. Whether we are on our jobs, with our families, worshipping alongside our church families, we are going to experience conflict. In this particular account by John, we see how conflict and hostility ought to be dealt with. Being confronted by his brothers’ unbelief, he conveyed how unaffected he was by their choice and was able to respond concisely unto them in light of their callous recommendation. It is no wonder why the author of Hebrews stated that Jesus Christ is our perfect High Priest, able to sympathize with our weakness and yet without sin (see Hebrews 4:15). Just as Jesus was maintain concentration on the agenda and timetable set before him by his Father, the hope is that we as his followers are able to do the same when confronted with uncomfortable situations and circumstances.

Works Cited

Craig S. Keener. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2014.

D.A. Carson, ed. The Gospel According to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.

Joel B. Green, ed. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Second. Nottingham, England: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2013.

John D. Barry, ed. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Bible Reference Series. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, eds. The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.

Joshua W. Jipp. The Messianic Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020.

Matthew W. Bates. Salvation By Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2017.

N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird. The New Testament In Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Century Christians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2019.

The Nicene Creed was originally the result of the Council of Nicea in 325 a.d. While there are similarities between the text of the Nicene Creed and the text of the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, according to Schaff, is “more definite and explicit than the Apostles’ Creed in the statement of the divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost.” The Nicene Creed provided the needed clarification to combat the heresies of the Nicene age, and is useful to combat those same heresies today which invariably reoccur in differing forms.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Reference: Historic Creeds AND Confessions Rick Brannan

Lexham Press, 2001

Introduction

The word contained within the fruit of the Spirit text that I will be exploring derives from Paul’s letter to the Galatian Christians is kindness (Greek: χρηστότης). Transliterated as chrēstotēs, the term is a feminine noun and is defined as kindness, goodness, and gentleness. The utilization of kindness is exclusive to the Pauline corpus in the New Testament, and highly concentrated in the Psalms. My hope is to gather a richer understanding of kindness in its employment by Paul in his letters and to comprehend what were the writers’ intent from its usage within the Old Testament, and finally unpack my findings in a concise and succinct way.

Fruit of the Spirit in Context: How does Gal 5:22-23 “fit” into Galatians as a whole?

There were some serious issues happening among the Galatian Christians which led Paul to seek out effective means to remedy the issues. The prevailing issue that Paul had to contend with were Judaizers who sought to bring the Galatian Christians into their interpretation of the Christian faith which consisted of adherence to the Mosaic Law, namely circumcision. They stressed that the new Christian communities in Galatia had to obey Torah in order to achieve both final justification and present sanctification . From Paul’s vantage point, these Judaizers were opponents of Christ, preaching a foreign Gospel and perpetrators of fleshy vices located in the fifth chapter preceding his Fruit of the Sprit discourse. He adamantly opposed the idea that newly converted Gentiles were under the obligation to become “Jews” in order to be ingrafted into God’s covenant family.

With the employment of the fruit of the Spirit and all of the accompanying virtues, Paul’s primary intention was to affect a Christo-centric spiritual formation among the Galatian Christians. According to Paul, this spiritual formation is antithetical to the vices that are situated in his conversation concerning fleshly dictates that are performed by individuals that are not positioned to inherit the kingdom of God. Furthermore, it is of great importance to note that Paul’s apostolic command to Galatians to live at the Holy Spirit’s command exempts them from subjectivity to the Law that the Judaizers hope to use as an enslavement tool. He makes a compelling connection when he identified slavery with both the flesh and the Sinaitic covenant, and those who are seeking to be justified according to the flesh are those who are proponents of the same covenant . Demonstrators of the fruit of the Spirit are opposed to those who live according to the flesh, which consequently positions flesh-workers outside of the line of promise and thus remains in the sphere of the curse, a point that Paul expounds greatly with significant force in the 21st verse of the fifth chapter . The visible evidence that results from the Galatians’ demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit indicates a new community that subscribes to a new and heavenly ethic sourced in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Chrēstotēs in Scripture

As previously stated, my key word for this study is kindness (Gr: χρηστότης), which is transliterated as chrēstotēs. According to the Step Bible, the usage of chrēstotēs is exclusive to the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament of the Septuagint and is exclusive to Paul in the New Testament. The first appearance of chrēstotēs occurs in the 14th Psalm, in verses one and three. In this context, the Psalmist’s language is polemic in nature as he judges the untoward behavior of fools. He laments the fact that their actions are consistently antagonistic in light of what he understands as goodness found in God. The second half of Psalms 14:1 reads, “…they are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does goodness (chrēstotēs)”. The fools in his eyes are deliberately choosing not to do that which is good or demonstrate kindness.

In the third verse of the 14th Psalm, the Psalmist offers a reason why the fools have chosen to do the opposite of what is deemed as goodness and/or kindness. He states that they have become corrupt as a result of turning away from what they originally understood as goodness. It would be appropriate to concluded that the Hebrew people gleaned their understanding of what it means to do goodness from their God. Therefore, the implication here is that chrēstotēs is a known virtue and not mysterious nor ambiguous among God’s covenant people. The 14th Psalm is the only place in the Old Testament of the Septuagint wherein chrēstotēs is used in the company of a negative context associated with human behavior.

Beginning in the 21st Psalm, specifically in the third verse, the usage of chrēstotēs is in the framework God effecting goodness and kindness. David the Psalmist says that God met him with “rich” blessings. This verse could be re-read as, “For you meet him with blessings of goodness and kindness…”. The majority of the remaining appearances of chrēstotēs is contextually used as a virtue that God not only possess but is able to export upon those whom He has deemed faithful. The exception to this analysis is found in Psalms 37:3 wherein the Psalmist issues an imperative, “Hope upon the Lord and execute goodness (chrēstotēs)…”.

As we move into the New Testament of the Septuagint, specifically the Pauline letters, chrēstotēs is contextualized similarly in comparison to the Old Testament. However, Paul’s employment of chrēstotēs involves emphasis on Christians participating in God’s enterprise consisting of demonstrating goodness and kindness. In 2nd letter of his letter to the Corinthians, Paul lists a string of virtues that he and his fellow coworkers in the Gospel mission practices in order to present their ministry as faultless and above reproach. “We are putting no obstacle in anyone’s way…but as servants of God we have commended ourselves in every way, through…kindness… (see 2 Cor. 6:3-6). According to Paul, chrēstotēs is one of the virtues exhibited by himself and other Gospel ministry workers that serves as evidence of their approved apostolic mission. In his Colossian letter, Paul utilizes chrēstotēs in allegorical sense in relation to the putting on of clothing. “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones…kindness (Col. 3:12). Chrēstotēs (kindness, goodness) in this context is a garment to clothe oneself with and is regarded as a duty of those who stands in the position of being chosen, holy, and loved by God. In the New Testament, same as the Old Testament, chrēstotēs has its origins in God and the expectation of God’s people is to not only recognize when chrēstotēs is happening unto them, but they are required to execute chrēstotēs in service unto God and neighbor.

Chrēstotēs in Galatians: How does the keyword relate to the whole message of Galatians?

As an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had an obligation to the spiritual welfare and development of the Christians. The Galatian churches were in a crisis as the debate of circumcision and Law keeping enraged. In the 15th chapter of Acts, it was originally believed that the Jerusalem Council had apparently settled these issues; nevertheless, side effects lingered which included questioning the validity of the Gentiles’ status as God’s covenant people . Yet for Paul, this was a non-issue due to the unveiled chrēstotēs of God. For the Galatian Christians, the kindness and goodness of God revealed in Christ Jesus nullifies the old way thinking with respect to covenant status. God saved the Galatian gentiles by making them Messiah-people, not by making them Jews; a paradox, of course, but it is precisely the paradox of the crucified and risen Messiah . The revelation and disbursement of God’s chrēstotēs leads to things that are considered good and blessed, such as the case in Romans 2:4. Paul communicates to the Romans that their repentance is a direct result of God’s chrēstotēs. For the Galatian epistle, God’s chrēstotēs trumps the old ways and the recipients of grace are obligated to demonstrate chrēstotēs as a sign of their new status as members of God’s new community.

Chrēstotēs today: Reflect on the word for life today.

We need more chrēstotēs today. One might conclude that my statement is simple and elementary, but I vehemently beg to differ. Demonstrating goodness and kindness can change the trajectory of a person’s day, week, and even life. One of the possible reasons why there appears to be a lack of chrēstotēs is that we may have lost our way in appreciating God’s chrēstotēs toward us. Naturally, we disperse what we have received. Paul says in Titus 3:4 that God’s chrēstotēs appeared unto us, although he articulated that we were foolish and disobedient children in verse three. It would be appropriate to assume that the unveiling of God’s chrēstotēs reorients the believers to now imitate this same goodness as God’s children. What would the world look like if the Church were to excel in executing chrēstotēs? I must admit that it is exciting to muse.

Works Cited

Craig S. Keener. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2014.

Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press Academic, 1993.

N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird. The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Century Christians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2019.

Rene Lopez. “Paul’s Vice List in Galatians 5:19-21.” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 no 673 (March 2012): 48–67.

Todd A. Wilson. “‘Under Law’ in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation.” Journal of Theological Studies 56, no. 2 (October 2005): 326–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/fli108.

One of the things that I have come to discover in reading the Book of Genesis this past week is the fact that Rachel was a shepherdess according to ninth verse in the 29th chapter of Genesis. Perhaps this is an innocent oversight on my part; nevertheless, it’s either I didn’t know, or I totally forgot about this. I would lean toward the latter, yet I was incredibly intrigued to become reacquainted, if you will, with the fact that she played an intricate role in an otherwise known male-dominant space. Furthermore, I will also add that part of the reason as to why I find this “rediscovery” fascinating for it lends favorably to the seemingly never-ending debate concerning women and their roles in the Church. I will not attempt to extrapolate this text to wade in the waters of gender-related topics concerning Christian leadership, but where would the Body of Christ be without women of faith? Dr. Tony Evans, renowned author and pastor lends this thought concerning the daughters of Eve and Rachel who are among the Church today, “Cultural norms and teachings have distorted many men’s view of how essential a woman’s partnership truly is, which has been one of the major contributors to the lack of advancement of kingdom men on earth” (Evans, 2012). Therefore, as you can see, learning or relearning that Rachel was a shepherdess heavily piqued my interest.

The second thing that I learned while reading the Book of Genesis is the fact that Cain left the presence of God, and not the other way around. I found this to be interesting, specifically on the account of Cain, for the original language is translated that Cain went, “out from the face of the LORD…”. This speaks to the dilemma being more personal in nature, for the set scene pictures a disgruntled son staring his father in the eyes, and then proceeds to turn his back on him for good. Clearly one of the most heartbreaking events in Scripture in my opinion.

Furthermore, on the point concerning Cain and his banishment by the LORD God for the murder of his brother Abel, it reminds me how deep and wide the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We read that the LORD gave Cain an opportunity to perform a do-over regarding his offering, and then lovingly warned him that sin had detrimental plans for him. This is incredibly impactful on so many fronts, specifically for Christians. There aren’t enough fingers in the world to count the times wherein we have been restored to fellowship with the Father after we have missed the mark. Even in our chastisements, the love of Christ hasn’t failed us. For as Dietrich Bonhoeffer states, “Reproof is unavoidable. God’s word demands it when [we] fall into open sin” (Bonhoeffer, 2009). Yet, the glorious statement of 1 John 1:9 of promised restoration after confession and repentance is a major reason as to why the Gospel is so otherworldly and incredible to the partakers of Christ.

Another event in the Book of Genesis that I found incredibly compelling was the separation of Abram and Lot and their respective camps. Abram’s demeanor in the scenario speaks volumes, for it conveys his meekness of spirit and the genuine love he had for his nephew while he sought to resolve matter, “…since we are relatives” (see Genesis 13:8). However, the very next verse conveys what I arguably like the most about Abram. He offers his nephew the first choice in direction for himself and his camp. How amazing is that? In telling his nephew to survey the land from all directions first and then choose is a gesture that is not so replicated throughout the totality of Scripture and, quite frankly, not so much in our modern times. Additionally, to hold such an attitude as Abram did speaks to how wildly confident, he was in the LORD. Yet, it makes sense for the LORD made the incredible promise in Genesis 12 to him, not his nephew Lot. I am greatly encouraged by this. We too, children of Abraham by faith, can also demonstrate a similar meekness as he did while simultaneously looking out for the interests before ourselves. As a matter of fact, this is part of our generic calls as disciples of Christ, a portion of our reasonable way of worshipping Him.

References

Bonhoeffer, D. (2009). Life Together - The Classic Exploration of Christian Community. New York City: Harper Collins Publishers.

Evans, D. T. (2012). Kingdom Man. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers.

In the 17^th chapter of the Gospel of John, the Evangelist records what many scholars and theologians have deemed the “Priestly Prayer”. The office of Priest is one of the three functions that Jesus Christ occupies (with the other two being Prophet and King). Once a year, the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (see Hebrews 9:7). This prayer is a section of the Lord Jesus’ farewell discourse as he comes to the end of his earthly life and ministry. He lifts his eyes to his Father in heaven and begins to pray for his disciples, covering a manifold of subjects including eternal life, glorification, and sanctification.

On glorification, Jesus says:

⁴ I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. ⁵ So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed^[1].

On eternal life, Jesus says:

² since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. ³ And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.^[2]

On sanctification, Jesus says:

¹⁷ Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. ¹⁸ As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. ¹⁹ And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.^[3]

However, the section of the prayer that is of interest involves the protection/guarding language in verses 11-12,15. In the middle of his prayer, Jesus pivots his concerns towards his disciples’ protection as he prepares for his inevitable departure back to the Father. It is safe to say that Jesus anticipated physical, emotional, and spiritual threats would be levied toward his disciples after his exit from the present world. Let us look at the verses below:

¹¹ And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. ¹² While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.^{[4] 15} I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one.^[5]

The hopeful outcome of Jesus’ intercession is protection concerning his disciples is oneness and unity, “…Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one” (verse 11b). He hopes for singularity and uniformity among them just as he is with the Father. This does not equate to drone-like behavior wherein personalities are indistinguishable among Christ's followers. We are unique in creation. No, the oneness language speaks to a uniform status among the disciples they are moving in harmony with each other led by the soon-to-come Holy Spirit (cf. John 14:15-31). Oneness in the Triune God is the call of all believers. Jesus acknowledges that divine protection is in his Father’s hand, the same protection that he has been privy to for the duration of his life. Think of his flight to Egypt when he was a baby as King Herod slaughtered baby boys to nullify any threats to his throne (See Matthew 2:13-23). In John 17:12, he declares to the Father that he protected and guarded the disciples that were afforded unto him by the Father, and he was faithful in his charge. He did exactly unto them what his Father demonstrated unto him. The Good Shepherd on earth imitates the Good Shepherd in heaven.

The triune God watches over us. We are commanded to rest from the anxieties and worries that the evil one and what this present world perpetuates. The Father hears the Son, so when he asks, “…protect them from the evil one”, the Father will answer the Son’s petition. This is the work of our Christ our High Priest. His prayers are always heard! It should be noted that Christians will suffer persecution, which may result in physical harm and emotional distress. However, our souls are under lock and key by the order of heaven! Do not fear man who can only kill the body, but fear God who can kill the body and the soul (See Matthew 10:28). Herein lies our confidence to move forward in our discipleship to the Lord Jesus: we are forever protected.

^[1] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Jn 17:4–5.

^[2] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Jn 17:2–3.

^[3] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Jn 17:17–19.

^[4] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Jn 17:11–12.

^[5] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Jn 17:15.