The Image in the Temple [Genesis 1] (8 July 2012)

Sermon Recording
          ________________________________________________________________

Today, we are beginning a series of sermons on the first few chapters of Genesis and the first chapter of the Gospel according to John. We are calling the sermon series ‘Beginnings.’ As many of you probably know, the series on Romans was supposed to conclude two Sundays back and this series was supposed to start last Sunday. I am glad though that it is starting today because something happened this past week.

You may have read in the newspapers that scientists at the CERN Supercollider have discovered the Higgs Boson, one of the fundamental particles predicted almost half a century ago.

Why am I glad? Well, for three reasons. First, I have been following the research at CERN ever since the Supercollider went operational, hoping for the discovery of new particles, especially the Higgs Boson.

Second, I was hoping that in the wake of its discovery, the prominent scientists would disavow connection to the popular term ‘God particle’ that is used for the boson. Both these hopes have now been realized.

Third, I will be giving the same message today that I would have were the boson not discovered. Hence, speaking after its discovery, I can assure you that, profound though the discovery was, it has not affected my beliefs, nor indeed the manner in which I interpret today’s text.

So to today’s text. The text starts with the words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” When you hear the word “created” in this context, what comes to mind? Probably something like the big bang? God bringing something into existence out of nothing. 

What about when you hear the sentence “He created a piece of art”? Surely not a one-time explosive big bang, but a possibly long process. And we know that the artist would not have started with nothing, but with a canvas, brushes, easel, paints, etc. 

What about when you read 1 Samuel 2.29? “Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?” 

What? What relevance does this have? The word translated as ‘fattening yourselves’ is the same that is translated as ‘created’ in Genesis 1.1. The Hebrew word is בָּרָא. 

If we do a word study of this word in the Old Testament we will find the following. First, when the verb takes a direct object, God is always the subject. Second, when the verb is reflexive as in 1 Samuel 2.29, the subject is a human. 

Third, most often, the focus of the verb is not on the material aspects. This is seen in Psalm 51.1, where David sings, “Create in me a clean heart.” He is not asking God to unclog his arteries or to wash the blood pump with soap! We know what he means, and it is not material in nature. 

If we go through all the uses of בָּרָא we will see that the common thread is not that of making something out of nothing, but filling something that already exists with meaning and purpose. 

Mind you, I am not saying that God did not create the material universe from scratch. What I am saying is that the focus of Genesis 1 is not on material creation from scratch, but on God’s giving creation meaning and purpose. It is a wonderful meaning and a powerful purpose, so stick with me. 

Apart from the study of the word בָּרָא, we have some intriguing clues, things that call out for recognition and understanding. 

First, in v. 2 we read, “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” We see that, prior to the happenings of v. 3 itself, the earth existed, the darkness existed and the waters existed. So when we read about darkness in vv. 4-5 and about waters in vv. 6-7, the text is not speaking of their being physically brought into existence out of nothing. Rather, the focus is somewhere else. 

Second, why does God call the light, day? Does that not strike you as odd. Why did he not call the light, light? It is like saying, “I will call this group of pages, a book.” Not all groups of pages are books. But all books are groups of pages – even if it is in digital format on your iPad or Kindle. Similarly, not all light is day. But all day it is light. Similarly, it is dark at night, but not all darkness is night. 

Third, v. 4 is inexplicable. There we read that God separated the light from the darkness. But we know and the ancients knew that darkness and light are immiscible! Where one exists, the other is excluded. Darkness is precisely the absence of light. 

It is best to think of the light spoken of in v. 5 not as light in its essence, but as a duration or period of light. Does it not make sense that after reading about darkness covering the earth, that God designated a period of light, which he named “day”? And God designated a period of darkness, which he called “night.” This makes more sense than naming light itself “day”. 

Fourth, if we concentrate on the first three days, we will see that the idea that binds them together is that of separation. On day 1, God separates a period of light from a period of darkness. On day 2, God separates the waters below, that is, on the face of the earth, from the water above, that is, in the sky. 

Now we know that there is no such physical barrier that controls the rains. But that is what the ancients believed. They believed the earth is flat and that there was a canopy that contained the waters in the sky and that from time to time the canopy was drawn back to bring rain. 

On day 3 God separates the land from the seas, bringing dry ground into the picture, where there had been only waters. 

What have these three days accomplished? Day 1 set in motion the diurnal cycle of alternating day and night, without which nothing could exist. Day 2 set in motion the cycle of seasons, which for the ancients was mainly about control of rain, without which nothing could grow and flourish. Day 3 provided the space within which the two cycles could function to bring food into being, here vegetation which depends on both the diurnal and seasonal cycles. 

Isaiah 45.18 captures these three days succinctly when God says, “This is what the Lord says... he who fashioned and made the earth; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited.” The earth has a function and that function is for it to be inhabited. And the first three days of Genesis 1 tell us how God set up the overarching mechanisms as a consequence of which the earth could become habitable. 

So now to the next three days. If the first three days set up the mechanisms or functions for habitation, the second three days describe the entities through which the functions are fulfilled. 

Day and night are brought to the earth by the operation of the sun and the moon. These are mentioned on the fourth day. On the fifth day, the places not inhabitable by humans, namely, water and air, are filled with those who can inhabit them because God wants this earth to be bursting with life. And on the sixth day, the land itself is populated with all sorts of creatures. 

We have now reached v. 25. And the text is still probably quite opaque to us. It is opaque to us because it was not written to us. It was certainly written for us, but not to us. It was written to the Israelites many millennia ago. And in order to make the text transparent, we must ask ourselves, “What would have crossed an ancient Israelite’s mind when he or she read this?” 

The bible is not written in a vacuum. And the Israelites did not live isolated from the people around them. They would have known the writings of their neighbors – the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Sumerians, etc. And the Israelites would have recognized Genesis 1 as being similar at points to yet markedly different from the temple texts of their neighbors. 

A temple text, as the name might suggest, described the building and installation of a temple. The common pattern was three stanzas that described the timings of the offerings, the festival calendar and the acceptable offerings. You will immediately see a parallel between this and the first three days of Genesis. 

After this, in a temple text, comes another three stanzas, which describe the who’s-who of the temple. This is a description of their priesthood. Who is responsible for the daily offerings, who is responsible for the various festivals in the year and who is responsible for the temple itself. 

The parallels here with days four to six of Genesis 1 are not evident. But if you see this text as a parody of the other temple texts it makes sense. There is no specific human priesthood in Genesis 1. This is because all of inanimate creation and animate creation are already accepted by the real true God. There is no need for a priest because God has already declared everything good. 

And if you are not yet convinced, let me ask you, “What do I hold in my hand?” A ring. Any specific ring? It is my wedding ring. When the goldsmith made it, he did not make it to be a wedding ring. He would not have known who would have bought it and for what purpose. When it was bought the purpose was known. However, knowing the purpose and fulfilling it are two quite different things. The ring fulfilled its purpose when it was put on my hand. 

In much the same way, a temple text describes the installation of a temple. But it is incomplete without the final element. This is because a temple cannot function without that final element. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what that element might be? 

A temple is incomplete without the installation of the idol of the deity. And now we can see the importance and relevance of vv. 26-27. This is not some random strange thought propping up suddenly. 

Genesis 1 is telling its readers that creation itself is the temple of the living God. As scripture says elsewhere, heaven is his throne and the earth his footstool. And elsewhere, the whole earth is full of the glory of God. 

But if creation is the temple of the living God, where is the idol? And Genesis 1 answers that God has created human beings to be that image, that idol. They are the representation of the true God to the rest of creation. 

We can learn many things from this wonderful chapter. Most I cannot even mention because I have not laid the groundwork for them. Indeed, to speak of each of these aspects, we would need many months of messages. But here are a few things we can conclude. 

First, all of creation is God’s temple. The bible warns us about desecrating God’s temple. And so we must be careful about how we treat this creation, all of creation, for there is no separate sacred space. 

Second, the prohibition against making idols must be viewed in light of this passage. If God himself has placed idols, images, icons of his design in this temple of his, who are we to attempt to replace them? To make an idol, at the very least, is to say that God did not know what he was doing when he decided to be represented by humans. To make an idol, at its worst, is to reject God’s designation of humans as his image bearers. It is to say, “I cannot bear his image. Let this lifeless lump of clay do it.” 

Third, every human has been called to bear God’s image to the rest of creation. This is not restricted to a group of priests or a set of rulers. Divine representation is the prerogative of every human, male and female, and any attempt to deny this to any human is an affront to God. 

The very first chapter of the bible insists on an order of equality, rather than a hierarchical one, an order of justice, rather than a lopsided one. It tells us about a marvellous purpose extending to the entire universe. And it tells us about a glorious purpose given to humans. How can we not be in awe of the God who did this?

Evidence for Faith [Romans 10.1-13] (1 July 2012)

Today we bring to a close our series of messages on Paul’s letter to the Christians at Rome. We are dealing with a portion of chapter 10, which along with chapters 9 and 11 show us Paul’s immense anguish about one overarching issue: Israel’s Messiah had come, but most of the people of Israel were still waiting for their Messiah.

Twenty centuries later, a few Jews still wait for their Messiah to be revealed. But for the most part the Jews have stopped waiting. Not because they believe their Messiah has come. Rather, they have given up any hope of his coming. Paul would be completely distraught today.

But in Paul’s day, they were still waiting. And Paul had to face the burning issue of whether the revelation in Jesus was not enough. Why were only a few Jews convinced that Jesus was and is their Messiah?

We who are separated by twenty centuries of time and thousands of miles need some information that was readily available to the people to whom Paul wrote this letter. 

Romans was probably written around AD 55. In AD 49, the emperor Gaius had the Jews expelled from Rome, as recorded in Acts 18.2 and confirmed by non-biblical sources. Paul spent more than a year at Corinth, during which he came in contact with many Jews who had fled Rome as a consequence of Claudius’ edict. 

When Nero came to power in AD 54, he rescinded the edict and allowed the Jews to return to Rome. Many of the people Paul was writing this letter to were these who had returned. But they were those who had left Rome as Jews, but who had returned as Christians. They knew what had happened to Paul while both they and he were at Corinth.

We need a refresher. In Acts 18.12 and 13 we read that Paul was taken before the proconsul Gallio. The Jews charged him with persuading people to worship God contrary to the Jewish law.

Remembering that they always went first to the Jews as even in Acts 18, we should ask ourselves, “What was so offensive about Paul’s preaching that the Jews hauled him before the proconsul?”

Paul knew the answer. He had been a sworn enemy of the church some years before. He knew the Jews were a zealous people because he himself was zealous. But as he says here, zeal without knowledge is worthless. He looked back at his former worldview and remembered why he had persecuted those who believed Jesus was the Messiah.

Well, for one thing, a dead Messiah is no Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to drive the enemies away from Israel, not end up being crucified by the enemies. A person who ended on a cross could only be cursed by God. And so such a person could never be the Messiah.

He is shaken from such a view on his way to Damascus, when Jesus has an encounter with him. And he has three days of blindness in which he is finally able to see the truth. On the road he asks, “Who are you , Lord?” and he begins to realize that the answer to that question is, “Jesus is Lord.”

Is! Such a small word. Such a powerful word in this context. Not Jesus was Lord. Not Jesus will be Lord. Rather Jesus is Lord. Right then. Right now. Paul realizes that this could only mean that something wholly unanticipated had happened, that in the midst of time, rather than at the end of it, Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Mind you, most Jews of that time believed that God would raise the faithful from the dead at the end of time. The issue that most Jews would have had with the preached gospel was that the Christians said that Jesus had been raised while their mundane lives went on as usual. That was not supposed to happen. 

Resurrection was supposed to be one of the final acts of God when he brought everything to its culmination. But here was this bunch of people who claimed that it had already happened to one person – just one person, and that too in the midst of this era. 

From a conventional Jewish perspective, this was just unintelligible. We can recall the response of the apostle Thomas. We call him doubting Thomas, but really this was the reaction of all the disciples. Even the women who first witnessed the empty tomb did not conclude that Jesus had risen from the dead. Their conclusion was that perhaps someone was playing a cruel joke on them by stealing Jesus’ body.

Most Jews that Paul would have encountered during his preaching of the gospel would have been like Thomas, asking for proof. Some may have said, “If Jesus is really alive, let him come down from heaven and show himself to me, just as he did to you, Paul.” Or “If Jesus is really risen, let me see the place of the dead and confirm that he has been taken from there already.”

People asking for proof of the events of the gospel is nothing new. Paul must have encountered such demands on a daily basis. “Why you? Why not me?” would have been the unsettling question he would have faced.

And Paul knows that proof and faith cannot go hand in hand. Just as he said in chapter 8 that no one hopes for what he already has, so also he could have said here that no one believes what has already been proved to him. Faith and proof are mutually exclusive. Where one exists, the other cannot.

Mind you, I am not saying that we must have blind faith. Far from it. God has given us our minds and our ability to reason. And he expects us to use those abilities. But he also expects us to be humble enough to know when we have reached the end of our abilities.

Here in Romans 10, Paul writes, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The book of Acts records the preaching of the early church. And from Peter and John to Stephen and Paul the preaching centers around two points: Jesus is Lord and Jesus has been raised. The exaltation of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus formed the hinges of their proclamation.

Twenty centuries later, we read these words and are hardly fazed by them. We have accepted these two hinges and so we are unable to appreciate how ground breaking the gospel is.

As we have seen, resurrection was something the Jews believed would happen. But it would happen at the end of time, when God recreated his marred creation. Resurrection was something that belonged not to this fallen order of things, but to the renewed order that God had promised to bring about, when he would finally come and live with his people.

The resurrection of Jesus in the middle of this old order means but one thing: God has decided to allow the new order to press in upon the old. Without doing away with the old order, God has inaugurated his new order.

Christians are caught in the middle of this invasion of the new creation. On the one hand we experience the Holy Spirit indwelling us. But on the other hand, we still are limited by our sinfulness. Paul has written about these aspects of the Christian life earlier in Romans.

Here he is addressing those who had accepted the proclamation of Jesus’ exaltation and resurrection and we can count ourselves in that group.

The Christians at Rome, who had left Rome as Jews and had returned as Christians, would have returned with others who we still not-Christians. And those Jews would have ridiculed the Christian faith, just as Paul once had. They would have demanded proof of Jesus’ exaltation and resurrection.

But what Paul is telling those Christians and us twenty centuries later is to avoid the temptation of thinking that if one is only more fervent in one’s faith or more vocal with one’s words, one will be able to get a glimpse of Jesus.

The Christian faith is not one of flamboyance. There are few, if any, fireworks. God is not some genie, existing to provide blinding proof of Jesus’ exaltation and resurrection by doing this miracle or providing that sign.

We would like God to simply show himself. We are confident that if Jesus simply revealed himself, people would believe the gospel. But the problem is that you cannot believe what you see. Sight precludes faith. The reason God is hidden is that only his hidden-ness leaves space for faith.

Once again, God does not ask for blind faith. Rather, he provides us with evidence, through scripture, through the voice of the Spirit in us and through the voices of other Christians around us. And as these voices rise in a crescendo around us, we confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead.

Conquering Sufferers [Romans 8.31-39] (24 June 2012)

Many of us, I suspect, view God as some sort of Sugar Daddy, who exists mainly to make life easier, to remove difficulties and obstacles from our path, to support us through everything. And quite a few of us might find justification for such a view from our passage for today. 

Let me ask a question. Without opening your bibles, can you tell me how the text for today begins?

[Respond to their answers.]

Paul begins today’s passage with a question: “What then shall we say in response to these things?” Quite naturally, we should be thinking, “What things is Paul talking about?” 

He is talking about everything he has mentioned from the start of the letter. In today’s passage, he is drawing to a close the first big part of the letter, which he began way back in chapter one itself. He began by introducing himself as an apostle of the gospel. And it takes him almost eight chapters to spell out what the gospel is and what it means.

So now he asks, “What then shall we say in response to these things?” And he proceeds to ask a few more questions?

“If God is for us who can be against us?” he asks. God’s being for us is the gospel in a nutshell. But we should not think that what this means is that God endorses and supports our every undertaking. The gospel does not tell us that God will smile on our every endeavor. 

Rather, as we saw in the text we dealt with last week, God has predestined us to be conformed to the image of Jesus. God’s being for us must be viewed in light of this predetermination to Christ-likeness. In other words, God is for us means that he will do what it takes to ensure that we become like his Son.

And then Paul asks, “Who can be against us?” Paul does not answer the questions directly and not right after asking it. But the answer is not “No one and nothing can be against us.” 

Paul knew that there are forces which work against our becoming like Jesus. And if God’s agenda for us is for us to become like Jesus, then anything and anyone that works against that agenda is against us.

Then Paul asks, “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?” We can easily see this as an argument from something that is greater, in this case God’s Son, to something that is lesser, in this case all things.

But what does “all things” refer to? All too often we might think that “all things” actually means “all things that we consider good” or even “all things that are inherently good.” 

So we might think that God has given us the new job we applied for, but not conclude that he has also given us the letter indicating we have been laid off.

Or we might think that God has given us healing from some terrible disease, but not conclude that he had also given us the illness in the first place.

Or we might think that God has given us a wonderful baby, but not that he has given us a baby with a disability.

We have a tendency in the Christian church of refusing to – for want of a better word – blame God for the bad things that happen to us, for the things that happen that make us uncomfortable.

But Paul will have nothing of this kind of thinking. God is in control. And so whatever befalls us is directly or indirectly God’s doing. Everything that comes to us is given to us by God.

And Paul is speaking about especially the kind of things that unsettle us. Otherwise this passage makes little sense. When are facing some difficulty for a long time, we will experience the accusations. Not necessarily audibly. But the accusations will be there, just as they were for Job. 

“You must have sinned for this to happen to you.” “You must not have obeyed God completely if this is happening to you.” “It is evident that you lack faith.” “You do not truly trust God.” And we can go on with the charges that Christians have used over the centuries to abuse other Christians with.

And when those accusations – audible or merely in our minds – hit us, we will wonder who is behind those charges. Is it God? And Paul answers, “God is the one who justifies us.” Yes we have sinned. Yes we still sin. And yes we will sin tomorrow. But God has chosen to accept the righteousness of Jesus as being ours. That is the gospel. If he has decided to accept Jesus’ righteousness, then he has also decided that our shortcomings are not reason for any accusations.

But sometimes the trouble does not stop with just the accusations. No! Sometimes it moves on to the consequences of the charges. 

“If that is what you believe, then you are not truly a Christian.” “If you have not been baptized with the Holy Spirit, you are not a part of the church of God.” And once again, unfortunately, we can go on with all the different ways we Christians have found to condemn other Christians.

But Paul asks, “Who then is the one who condemns?” In other words, what is the source of these condemnations? Remember, he started chapter eight with “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Here we reach a point in the passage that makes many of us envision a very strange thing that goes against the grain of the passage. When Paul says that Jesus is interceding for us, who is his intercession directed to? We often imagine that Jesus is interceding on our behalf with God the Father. But that goes against what Paul has just said. God is the one who justifies sinners. God is not blind. He justifies only those who are in Christ Jesus, knowing full well that these humans are sinful.

So if Jesus intercedes with God for us, it either makes God look like some absent minded person bent on condemning people or it makes Jesus’ intercession ridiculous. Do we really imagine that every time I sin Jesus says to the Father, “But remember, he is mine” and that the Father says, “Oh yeah! Thanks for the reminder. I was just going to blast him to smithereens”? Or that the Father says, “Remember? I am God! I do not forget who belongs to you”?

Just because Paul says that Jesus is at the right hand of God does not mean that Jesus is interceding with God. So who is Jesus interceding with? He is interceding with those who have brought the charges against us and those who have condemned us. When someone brings a charge against a Christian, Jesus pleads with that person to see the truth. Whenever a Christian faces an accusation or condemnation, it gives Jesus the opportunity to intercede with the accuser in order that the accuser might understand the true nature of the gospel.

And so Paul goes on to ask, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” The accusations and condemnations aim to undermine our belief that we belong to Jesus. They tell us that we are not truly a part of him. And they might lead us to believe that they are signs of our being separated from Jesus.

We hear this often among those who preach prosperity. I will not dignify that kind of teaching by using the often used phrase “prosperity gospel” for it is not the gospel. You hear there that you have a grave illness because you have some secret sin. Or that you have financial difficulties because you did not contribute enough to that particular ministry. Or that you are being persecuted because you are not a true believer.

The prosperity thinking is a dualistic thinking in which only what makes me feel good is from God and what makes me feel bad is from the forces of evil that have a hold on me on account of some sin in my life.

But Paul will have nothing of that. For him the underlying premise is that God wants us to become like Jesus. And Jesus himself did not have a cushy life. His was not a bed of roses. And he faced accusations and was condemned to death.

And so for Paul, the accusations and condemnations that come the way of the Christian are not signs of backsliding or sin, but precisely the evidence of Jesus’ embrace. 

That is why Paul can quote from Psalm 44. “For your sake we face death all day long.” There are two sides to this. The difficulties come to a Christian precisely because Jesus loves the Christian and because God has predetermined the Christian to become like Jesus. But also, the Christian faces these with confidence and without becoming discouraged because he or she loves Jesus. 

We have the opportunity to face accusations and condemnations because God is for us and because Jesus loves us. And we face them with joy because we love Jesus and trust God to do right by us.

And so when Paul uses the words “we are more than conquerors” we should not forget that he preceded them with the words “in all these things.” God does not spare us pain and suffering. He does not provide his people with a comfortable life. To the contrary following Jesus brings difficulties. And God brings his people through those difficulties. And in the midst of those difficulties we are not discouraged, we are not disheartened, because we understand that these things are happening to us precisely because Jesus loves us. And we go through these things because we in turn love him.

“More than conquerors” does not mean that I will say a prayer and my difficulties will vanish. That may happen at times, but that is not guaranteed. 

“More than conquerors” does not mean that I can simply name something I want and believe strongly that it will happen and then it will. That may happen at times but it is not guaranteed.

What is guaranteed is that nothing can separate us from God’s love toward us, the love put on display in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, the love made real in our lives through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Divine Conspiracy of Predestined Conformity [Romans 8.28-30] (17 June 2012)

We are currently hearing messages on key passages from Paul’s letter to the Christians at Rome. Last week we saw how creation itself will be redeemed when the children of God are finally redeemed. We saw that God is not concerned only about humans, but about every part of his good and beautiful creation, which God himself has now subjected so that humans may learn obedience.

Today, we have a short passage, but one so rich, a whole series of messages could be given on them. I cannot do full justice to the richness of the text. But what I wish to do is reveal a conspiracy. It is contained in this passage. And it is one orchestrated by God. So let’s get to it.

Having spoken about creation groaning for its redemption and having told us how the Spirit helps us when we ourselves groan, Paul continues with the startling words, “We know.” We know. Not we believe. Not we think it might be so. Not it is highly likely that. Not the forecast is. 

No! Rather, we know! 

The Spirit living in the Christian gives such supreme confidence in the reality that Paul is about to describe that only the words, “We know” could capture it.

But what is it that we know? “All things work together for good toward those who love God.” What in the world does this mean? What does “all things” refer to? The majority view is that this refers to the circumstances of a Christian’s life, that everything that happens, whether good or bad, works in favor of the Christian. Another view, reflected in the NIV, is that God works in everything that happens in a Christian’s life so as to produce good through it. 

But if we consider the flow of the passage, and the fact that Paul has only just devoted quite bit of space to the groaning of creation, we will be led to understanding that “all things” refers to creation itself.

The Spirit helps us when we don’t know how to pray or what to pray for with regard to the redemption of creation. But because creation realizes that a Christian is someone who will be bodily redeemed, someone who loves God, someone for whom Jesus died, someone indwelt by the Spirit, creation itself is favorably inclined toward the Christian. Every part of creation works in tandem with every other part for the benefit of those who love God. We will shortly see what that benefit is.

Mind you, I am not saying that this does not happen in the context of the circumstances of our lives. To say that would be absurd, for we are benefited only through the circumstances of our lives. 

What I am saying is that it is not the case that creation is somehow working against us and that God is somehow turning the bad things that creation hurls at us into things that benefit us.

Rather, the bad things are hurled at us by the forces of evil and the humans who willfully or helplessly assist those forces. And God lifts the curse on creation for the sake of those who love him. Creation is now able to join God in benefiting those who love him and, in doing so, oppose the forces of evil. What the benefit is we will see shortly.

Now Paul moves on to one of the most controversial pair of verses. Paul mentions this string of ideas – foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. 

The last three, namely calling, justification and glorification, can easily be seen as a temporal sequence. One first receives the call to believe the gospel and trust Jesus, whether over time in the context of a Christian home or over time in the witness of a Christian friend or even as a onetime invitation in say a crusade such a conducted by Billy Graham or by receiving a tract, etc.

Then, if one believes the gospel and trusts Jesus, one is justified and becomes a part of the people of God. And finally, as Paul wrote in the passage we discussed last week, we wait in hope for our glorification.

Because these three ideas easily fit into a temporal sequence, many Christians have tried to see the first two also as fitting the same sequence. So, it is claimed that a person would not even receive the invitation to believe the gospel and trust Jesus were it not for the fact that that person were predestined by God. 

And that person would have been predestined by God because God had foreknowledge that that person would come to faith in Jesus.

But that is nonsensical. It is illogical. It is circular reasoning. It makes no sense to say that God saw into the future, obtained the knowledge that I would come to faith in Jesus, and so predestined, called, justified and glorified me. 

It is like saying, “I saw that you would return the book I lent you and so I predestined you to receive the invitation to borrow the book, subsequent to which you accepted the invitation, borrowed the book, read it and then returned it.”

The issuing of the invitation cannot be made contingent on its being accepted, which is how this view sees it.

Many Christians would readily see the logical failure of this argument. And they would propose that when Paul speaks of God’s foreknowledge, he is speaking of God’s foreknowledge not of the person’s accepting the invitation to believe the gospel, but of the foreknowledge that God himself would predestine certain people to be called, to believe, and to be eventually glorified.

But this too is ridiculous! It is like saying, “I saw that I would have bacon for breakfast. And so I predestined myself to go to the nice little breakfast joint, called our my order, received the order and ate it with glorious gusto!

Both these views are hugely popular. A staunch Calvinist would endorse the second view, making everything the decision of God. A semi-Pelagian would endorse the first view, making God’s initial act contingent on human response. And both views are illogical.

But both these views fail because they have been taken out of the context within which they appear. They are easily seen as illogical or inconsistent because they are trying to do with the text something that Paul did not intend. If you try hammering nails with a screwdriver or cutting paper with a power drill, don’t complain that it appears to be laughable.

The key here is the clause that is the most important and which is conveniently ignored by both views. Paul writes, “Those whom he foreknew, he also predestined – and here it is – to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.”

Paul is not talking about predestination to salvation. He is linking our present sufferings with which he began the passage we looked at last week to the glory which we anticipate.

Earlier in the letter Paul wrote, “We also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.”

Here Paul makes it more specific. The character that will be developed in a Christian by virtue of the sufferings he or she endures will be the character of Jesus. Paul is saying that every Christian is predestined to become like Jesus. And just as Jesus himself had to endure suffering, so also a Christian will endure suffering.

We make a category error when we view these verses as being directly spoken to individuals. Then we get into the logical inconsistencies of the semi-Pelagian and Calvinist views, either on the one had that God predestines to salvation those whom he foreknows will be saved or that God predestines to salvation those whom he foreknows he will save.

Rather, what Paul is saying here is that we Christians are not spared from sufferings. We endure every kind of suffering. We do so not because God predestined us to suffer or because God predestined our salvation. Rather we suffer because God has predestined, that is, decided beforehand, that everyone who is saved should become like Jesus. And the book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus learnt obedience through his sufferings.

Those whom God foreknows will come to faith in Jesus, he has predestined to remain not mere believers, but to become Christlike.

And now we can see what v. 28 means and what I meant when I spoke of the idea that creation is working for our benefit.

Creation is groaning. We saw that last week. And it groans because it awaits its own redemption, which is contingent on our redemption. And so creation colludes with God. All things, every part of creation, works together as a unit, a team, to benefit those who love God. 

But how does it do this? It does this by providing for us the environment within which our present sufferings will enable us to be conformed to the image of God’s Son because that is the goal set by God for those who love him, who have been called according to his purposes.

So what we see till now in chapter 8 is not an ivory tower description of the process of salvation. Rather we are given a glimpse into the creativeness of God. Outside the Christian life suffering is meaningless. But in the Christian life, suffering is the means by which we become more like the one we love. This is the Divine Conspiracy.

A Creative Redemption [Romans 8.18-27] (10 June 2012)

Humans are strange creatures. We are prone to focusing on our own condition to the exclusion of any others. We often ask, “Why me?” when faced with difficulty. But we do not ask, “Why them?” when we see others suffer. Mind you, I am not saying that asking, “Why me?” is bad. Rather such questions reveal that we anticipate a better place.

However, this narrow focus on ourselves blinds us often to what scripture has to say. We focus on the trees and lose sight of the forest. As an example, consider John 3.16. Almost any evangelical Christian would be able to quote this verse from memory. And often when we witness to non-believers we may use this verse. We proclaim individual salvation because it says, “whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” 

But perhaps we forget the big picture, which is at the start of the verse. “God loved the world in this manner.” Somehow eternal life to the one who believes is a result of God’s love for the world. And we easily ignore this because it does not directly concern us.

As many of you already know, we are studying the last book of the bible in our weekly Wednesday bible studies. Quite naturally, as I prepare for these studies, I encounter people writing about how things will end. Phrases like ‘the last days’ or ‘the great tribulation’ or ‘the battle of Armageddon’ appear from time to time. And one finds oneself drawn willy-nilly into speculations about how things will end.

The movie industry mints millions by fanning the paranoia and fear that lives in the hearts of humans. All they need to do is present a larger than life source of evil and odds that would make a hardened war veteran cry.

I think of movies like Star Wars for one cannot get more evil than a Sith Lord such as Senator Palpatine. I think of The Matrix for to fight against the illusions one was brought up with is certainly a tougher battle than any. 

But movies aren’t the only medium to strike this chord with people. You can think of books like The Lord of the Rings or the Harry Potter series. Immense evil, unthinkable odds and only a handful on the side of good. That just plucks at the heartstrings!

So what is it really that these movies or books are getting at? In my opinion, strange though it may seem, these stories are simply a symptom of what Paul writes about in our passage for today. So let us turn to our text.

Paul opens with a statement about suffering. Neither were the Christians at Rome who first heard this letter nor are we today unaware of suffering. It is something that pervades our lives. Loved ones are taken from us through illness or violence. Colleagues go behind our backs and make the workplace a tedious one to put up with. We read of murder and suicide, natural disasters and disasters created by humans. And students targeting exams in 2013 are aware of the suffering inflicted on them by Kapil Sibal.

And Paul encompasses all of this with his words ‘our present sufferings.’ But these, according to him, no matter how severe they may be, are insignificant compared to the glory we await, the glory that will be put on display in us when we ourselves are put on display as children of God.

But, lest we run amuck with this vision, he abruptly brings us back to the reality of the big picture. This glory that we await is something for which creation itself awaits. It is a strange thing for him to say. Why should creation wait for the glory to be revealed in us?

And Paul tells us, this is because creation itself is in a frustrating situation. Not by its own choice it finds its efforts yielding little fruit. In order to enable humans to truly obey God, God decided to place creation in this frustrating situation where everything is ruled by the sting of death.

I am reminded of the story The Little Prince. In the story we hear of the prince’s love for a flower on his little planet. But our experience is that a flower blooms and withers in a matter of days at most – not nearly long enough to love it. We may love the plant that produces the flowers and we may enjoy a particular flower when it blooms. But we do not grieve when it withers like we do when someone we love passes on. 

In the current state of affairs, creation is unloved. Unloved by humans who were created to tend to it and love it. And like anything created to be loved, it is in anguish because it is not loved.

And so creation waits for our glorification because that would mean we would once again be rendered able to care for it as we ought to.

Paul is setting our sufferings in the proper perspective, not the individual one, but the cosmic one. Our sufferings are a sign that something is very wrong with the way things are. And so we are not the only creatures who groan. We are not the only creatures who suffer. All of creation groans.

In our discussion of the doctrine of salvation and redemption, we hardly spare a breath for non-human entities. And that itself is a sign of how bad things are. It would be like parents not being worried if their child were starving. We jokingly talk about dog heaven and cat heaven without bothering to ask the question of what God’s responsibility toward them is.

Paul is ridding us of our anthropocentrism. He is telling us, “Yes, we suffer. But we suffer not apart from creation, but rather as a part of creation. Do not think that God is only concerned about humans, for all creation is groaning.”

Then Paul focuses on Christians. We groan because we are waiting for the redemption of our bodies. We have this hope not because we have actually seen someone with a redeemed body, but because the Spirit unsettles us.

We should avoid merging this image that Paul uses here with the image in John’s Gospel where the Spirit is more of a comforting, reassuring, strengthening presence. Here, we are brought to a state of dissatisfaction with the way things are as a direct result of the presence of the Spirit in our lives. 

Most people, even – perhaps especially – non-Christians, know that something is wrong. That is why we all, at some point or the other, say, “Why me?” Paul says, “All humans suffer.” We experience life, at many times, as though someone were playing a bizarre joke on us.

But Christians know something else as a result of the Spirit’s presence. We know that there is something far better to look forward to. 

But this knowledge is unsettling for we cannot escape the present condition of creation. Knowledge does not provide an escape. Knowledge only fuels a burning desire for things to be set right. We groan because we know that God intends for things to be set right, but that things are not set right yet.

And so we pray. Paul is not talking about praying for our daily needs or for God to heal someone who is sick or for God to give a couple a healthy baby. Those are necessary and important prayers. And we do know how to pray and what to pray for in these circumstances. 

But Paul is not focusing on the individual. His focus is cosmic. This is prayer for the redemption of all creation. It is prayer that would help bring about the cessation of groaning.

That is why he says that we do not know what to pray for. Our limited knowledge of God’s overarching plan is our weakness. And only God himself, by his Spirit, can lead us to those prayers that would bring about the end of groaning on the part of creation.

There have been historically two main ways of dealing with the world around us. The predominant way has been to deny that there is any intrinsic goodness in the world and to insist that our true destiny lies elsewhere. According to this view, the aim of human existence is to shake off the shackles of creation and exit to a realm of bliss and joy. Creation is seen as something that cannot be redeemed, but that must be destroyed. 

And unfortunately, this is how many of us Christians view creation. We believe that God will have to utterly do away with the world and universe as we know it. We see this kind of a majority view in The Chronicles of Narnia, where, in The Final Battle, Aslan destroys Narnia and takes the children and faithful Narnians away from that world.

But have we forgotten how our scriptures begin? God, after creating various things, declares that creation is good. If God is capable of redeeming the very humans who were the cause of creation’s groaning, is he so powerless that he cannot redeem creation itself?

Is he able to redeem those who willfully rebelled against him but can do nothing about the rest of creation which is in its current state because he made it so? The logical inconsistency is mind-boggling. 

We must remember that creation is not a display of God’s power. Rather it is an expression of his love. And love does not so easily part with the beloved. Love would rather die than see its beloved perish. We believe that easily about Jesus’ work as applicable to humans. But we stop there.

Paul, however, insists that creation is groaning because it waits for its own redemption. Creation waits in hope that God, who subjected it to futility, will not utterly forget and destroy it. 

And so we have a second, minority way of viewing creation. This is a holistic way, not an anthropocentric way. It insists that God is God not just of humans, but also of every part of creation and that God is deeply desirous of redeeming creation as well.

This is why the Harry Potter books struck a chord with so many young people. After taking them through seven books, after Voldemort is finally vanquished, J.K. Rowling ends with the simple words, “All was well.” Things were as they should be.

And this is why The Lord of the Rings strikes a chord. The Hobbits battle the forces of evil, not so that they can escape, but so that they can go back to the Shire they love. The story tells us that it is not okay for creation to become collateral damage in the process of our redemption. 

No! Rather, as Paul writes, “Creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.”

The Unifying Theme, The Faithfulness of Jesus [Romans 3.21-31] (15 April 2012)

I remember when I was in seminary, and we were interpreting John 16.33, the professor said that when Jesus says, “I have overcome the world” he clearly meant “I have overcome Satan.” After class, a classmate of mine was livid. He said, “So John 3.16 should mean God so loved Satan.”

In his “Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans”, Martin Luther, the great German reformer, wrote:

“This letter is truly the most important piece in the New Testament. It is purest Gospel. It is well worth a Christian’s while not only to memorize it word for word but also to occupy himself with it daily, as though it were the daily bread of the soul. It is impossible to read or to meditate on this letter too much or too well. The more one deals with it, the more precious it becomes and the better it tastes.”

After such a lofty beginning to the preface, Luther continues by telling the reader what various common words in the letter mean – words like law, sin, grace, etc. But the problem is that, like my classmate, Luther understood all these words in one-dimensional ways. To Luther, the word ‘law’ meant ‘Old Testament Law’ no matter what. And similarly with the other words.

So great was Luther’s influence on the later Christians, that his interpretation of Romans was taken as – pardon the pun – gospel truth till the middle of the 20th century when the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls made scholars look anew at these critical words. Unfortunately, this has not affected our translations.

So to begin with, I am going to ask you to close your bibles. You may open them later. But for now, as I read my translation of the passage, I request you to close you bibles and open your minds and hearts.

"But now, separate from legislation, the righteousness of God has been openly declared, being witnessed to by the Law and the Prophets, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ toward all who believe. For there is no distinction and given that all have sinned and are rendered deficient with respect to the glory of God, they are being declared righteous freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God exhibited for himself as the place of reconciliation through the faithfulness of his blood in order to declare his righteousness through the tolerance of previously committed sins. That time of the tolerance of God was an indication of his righteousness so that in the present he could be righteous and the one who declares righteous those who exist through the faithfulness of Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded! By what sort of principle? Of works? No! Rather by the principle of faithfulness for we assert that a person is declared righteous by faith separate from legislation. Or is God only of the Jews and not of the Gentiles? Indeed also of the Gentiles! And since God is one he will declare righteous the circumcised because of faithfulness and the uncircumcised through faithfulness. Do we annul the Law through faithfulness? Ridiculous! Rather, we uphold the Law."

You may open your bibles!

Over the next few weeks, we will be going through key passages from Paul’s letter to the Romans. Some, if not many, of you will perhaps be familiar with what Evangelical Christians call ‘The Romans Road’ – a set of verses from this letter that walks one through the whole doctrine of salvation – who needs it and why, who provides it, how and on what terms, etc.

It is my task today to speak on a passage that contains the first verse of the Romans Road. Can anyone cite it for me?

In order to understand these letters, we normally have to answer many questions: When was it written? By whom? Under what circumstances? What is the social and cultural background of the recipients? And many more. But we do not have the time for all of that today.

But let us ask some questions about opinions: First, what according to you is the central concern of the letter? Second, how well organized is Paul’s presentation of his central concern?

On the issue of the second question, many Christians hold the view that Romans is as close to a systematic theology as Paul ever wrote. However, Romans is by far the most difficult of Paul’s letters to interpret. In fact, new Testament scholar, N.T. Wright has this to say about the letter:

"Romans is neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul's lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece. It dwarfs most of his other writings, an Alpine peak towering over hills and villages. Not all onlookers have viewed it in the same light or from the same angle, and their snapshots and paintings of it are sometimes remarkably unalike. Not all climbers have taken the same route up its sheer sides, and there is frequent disagreement on the best approach. What nobody doubts is that we are here dealing with a work of massive substance, presenting a formidable intellectual challenge while offering a breathtaking theological and spiritual vision."

Among the possible answers to the first question, the one about the central concern of the letter, are ‘justification by faith’ or ‘the doctrine of salvation’ or ‘life in the Spirit’. This cuts across denominations and traditions. Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Pentecostal Christians would agree about these views.

So it might surprise you to hear me say that these are concerns that have arisen much later. For example, we might see ‘justification by faith’ as central only because for Martin Luther and John Calvin it was central. Or we might see ‘life in the Spirit’ as central only because for Charles Finney it was. But these are not the central concerns of the letter or of Paul.

What then is the central concern of Paul? Why, in other words, did he bother to write such a long letter? We do not have the time to discuss this thoroughly. But we can get a little glimmer if we look at the immediate context of the cherished verse from the Romans Road.

Did you catch those words when I read then? “Toward all who believe, for there is no distinction and given that all have sinned and are rendered deficient with respect to the glory of God, they are being declared righteous freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”

Paul is saying, “Just because the Law was given to the Jews, does not mean that only the Jews have sinned. No! Jews and Gentiles have sinned. But God must have one way by which he will declare sinful humans righteous because God is one. And so all must be declared righteous by his grace through Jesus.”

This makes sense of the latter part of our passage where Paul explicitly mentions Jews and Gentiles. If it were not for the central concern that I will soon mention, the entire passage is disjointed, first speaking of all having sinned and ending with some random comments about Jews and Gentiles and the oneness of God.

But you see Paul was answering a deeper, more important question: Is God to be trusted? What do I mean? For most of the last twenty centuries, the Church has claimed that all the blessings given to Israel have been transferred to the Church. Towering figures like Augustine, Ambrose, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Moody, Hodge, Spurgeon, Clarke and others have held to this view.

And many of us have followed suit. To counter this, there has been the view that God made two covenants – one with Israel and one with the Church – and that a Jew benefits from one of them and a Christian from the other.

But neither of these views is what Paul espouses. Paul is in a quandary. If God is to be trusted, what happens to the promises made to Israel before Jesus showed up? We Christians tend to spiritualize them and apply them to Jesus or the Church in almost an ad hoc manner. But if our approach is right, then how can we trust God to not apply promises we think are for us to some other group? If he could simply annul promises to the Jews, then on what basis can we trust him not to annul promises made to us? So Paul must conclude that the promises made to Israel must still be valid. 

What happens then to the redemption that is in Jesus? Is it only for Gentiles? This would support the two covenant approach. 

But Paul would have none of this. He says that because God is one, his plan must have a unifying theme to it. And the unifying theme is – mind you – not faith in Jesus, but as I have translated, the faithfulness of Jesus.

We have a unique problem. Before I open that can of worms, let me mention something you have probably heard before. The Greek language had four words that are translated as ‘love’. Three of these appear in the New Testament. These are ‘storge’, ‘philia’ and ‘agape’. The fourth word, ‘eros’, does not appear in the New Testament. 

When we read our English bibles, we are unable to determine what word lies behind each occurrence of the word ‘love’. And some of us have probably heard a sermon or two on the interaction between Jesus and Peter by the sea after the resurrection, where Jesus asks Peter, “Do you love me?” using both ‘agape’ and ‘philia’.

And as I said, we have a problem. Hebrew has many words that are translated with the Greek word ‘pistis’. The more common ones are ‘aman’, ‘batah’, ‘mibtah’ and ‘yahal’. Key here is that ‘aman’ refers to ‘belief’ whereas the form ‘emunah’ refers to ‘faithfulness’. But both are translated with the word ‘pistis’.

So how do we know what is intended? Just as Hebrew modified ‘aman’ to ‘emunah’ and English modifies ‘faith’ to ‘faithfulness’, Greek also does something similar. And it is here that Christians, notably Martin Luther and his spiritual descendants, have not been careful.

Romans 1.17, which is a quote from Habakkuk 2.4 where the word ‘emunah’ is used, should be translated ‘the righteous by faithfulness shall live’. And this tells us that when Paul uses a particular construct – for those of you who love grammar, a genitive construct – he intends to use the word ‘pistis’ to mean ‘faithfulness’. 

And he does so in our passage seven times – in vv. 22, 25, 26, 27, twice in v. 30 and finally in v. 31. He uses another construct once in v. 28. 

Once we realize how all encompassing the idea of Jesus’ faithfulness is in this passage, we are able to make sense of v. 25, where Paul writes, “Whom God exhibited for himself as the covering of the ark of the covenant through the faithfulness of his blood.” Most translations use the phrase ‘mercy seat’ or ‘propitiation’ or ‘sacrifice of atonement’ to translate the Greek word ‘hilasterion’. 

However, ‘hilasterion’ referred to the lid that was placed on the ark of the covenant. But no sacrifice was offered on the ark! The altar of sacrifice in fact was not in the holy of holies. It was outside. We do injustice, and have done so since Martin Luther used the German word ‘Gnadenstuhl’ to translate ‘hilasterion’. The phrase ‘mercy seat’ is simply a cop out for it raises more questions than it answers. The ideas of sacrifice miss the point because as we have seen no sacrifice was ever linked to the ark of the covenant.

Rather, the ark of the covenant was where the tablets of the Law were kept. And God promised Moses that he would meet him between the seraphs on the lid. In a hugely metaphorical way, but hugely powerful way, Paul is saying that Jesus is now the locus of interaction between God and humans – both Jew and Gentile. Because of Jesus’ faithfulness humans and God are reconciled.

So now we are in a position to understand what Paul is writing in this passage. God is one. So his plan regarding Jews and Gentiles must have a unifying theme. And we know that Jews and Gentiles have sinned. Both are in need of God’s intervention. And because God is God of both Jews and Gentiles, he must be concerned about both and have a plan that includes both. God’s plan cannot be such that it accords preferential treatment to anyone. In other words, it cannot depend on any human or divine piece of legislation.

And so God redeems people on the basis of the faithfulness of Jesus and not on the basis of the works of Jews or Gentiles. Both Jews and Gentiles can only depend on the faithfulness of Jesus for through his death God has shown all humans the place where we are reconciled to God. This reconciliation is effected by the faithfulness of Jesus and is embraced and made real by an act of faith by both Jew and Gentile.

A Different Messiah [Matthew 22.41-46] (25 March 2012)

During the last three Sundays we have dealt with passages in which Jesus was questioned by different groups. First was the issue of paying the census tax to Caesar. Then was the issue of the resurrection. And finally last week was the matter of the greatest commandment. Today we have Jesus initiating a dialogue with the Pharisees.

The problem with today’s passage is not that Jesus deals with an Old Testament passage here. Rather, the force of what Jesus has done while dealing with this passage has all but obliterated what was done with the passage before Jesus came along. This came to mind when I was preparing for today’s message. 

And so we have a few things to ask ourselves. Why did Jesus choose this passage from the Old Testament? How was this passage interpreted among the Jews at that point? What is Jesus’ interpretation of the passage? And what is it about Jesus’ interpretation that actually silenced the groups that were trying to trap him? 

Before proceeding to answer these questions, we must set in order a couple of things. First, while Jesus probably knew and spoke Greek, given that he was a carpenter in Galilee, it is most likely that he spoke Aramaic while in Jerusalem. Also, while quoting from the Old Testament, he would have quoted from the Hebrew text rather than from the Greek Septuagint.

Second, we must avoid the view that, since Jesus stumped the various groups of interlocutors, these people must have been not very smart. Rather, we must realize that Jesus stumped these teachers of the Torah because he was exceptionally smart. In other words, he is like the good teacher who brings out treasures both old and new depending on whether the wineskins can accommodate the teaching or not.

So what does the Hebrew text say? 

Na-um YHWH la-Adoni: 
shev limini ad-asheet ow-beka ha-dom la-regleka

The poetic nature of the passage is evident in both the rhyme and rhythm. Let me repeat.

Na-um YHWH la-Adoni: 
shev limini ad-asheet ow-beka ha-dom la-regleka

In English we would translate the verse: 

The word of Yahweh to my Lord: 
Sit at my right till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

But we still have interpretation problems. And you may ask, “Why in the world is this important?” Why did Jesus bother with this passage? Remember, he is the one who brings it up.

In the 2nd century BC, angered when the Seleucid ruler Antiochus Epiphanes IV sacrificed a pig on the altar of the Temple at Jerusalem, the Jews revolted under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers. When the Jews evicted the Seleucids from Jerusalem and its vicinity, the Maccabees set themselves up as rulers. But the Maccabees were priests in the Temple and had to justify their rule since they were not descended from David.

They found support in Psalm 110, which Jesus quotes here in our passage for today. Psalm 110.4 says, “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.’” This allowed the Maccabees to say that Yahweh’s plan was to have a priestly ruler.

The Jews accepted this for two reasons. First, they were honest with their scriptures. While speaking about Solomon in 2 Samuel 7, God promises that God will establish Solomon’s throne forever. But the Jews knew that something had gone wrong. Solomon’s throne, David’s throne, had not lasted more than a few centuries. Wave after wave of foreign invasions had finally resulted in the deportation of the last Davidic king to Babylon. And since that time there had been no throne of David, no throne of Solomon.

Second, Psalm 110 was an obscure scripture that no one knew what to do with until the Maccabees came to the picture. We find this hard to believe given that Psalm 110.1 is the most quoted Old Testament verse in the New Testament. But before the Maccabees, this psalm was an obscure one. So when the Maccabees interpreted the scripture in a certain way, the Jews were just glad to have an interpretation!

So how did they interpret it? They interpreted it as a regular prophecy one might find in any of the prophetic books. So they interpreted it this way:

The oracle of Yahweh: To my lord, (that is to Yahweh’s king,)

sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.

According to this view the words “my lord” refers to anyone whom Yahweh installs as king. Then apart from the fact that the psalm was written by David, there is no further need to keep David in the picture. 

According to the Maccabean view, the verse is not talking about a king descended from David, but any Jewish king who ruled from Jerusalem. And so the Maccabean rulers are also included in the interpretation.

When the Maccabean rulers soon became corrupt in just over a decade and themselves profaned the worship in the Temple, the Jews now had no way of critiquing their rule because they had already accepted the Maccabean interpretation of Psalm 110.1. Eventually, the Maccabees were removed from power by the Roman General Pompey in 63 BC, just a century after the Seleucids were driven out.

So for a period of about 150 years the Jews had no way of critiquing rulers like the Maccabees. And then came Jesus. What he did was twofold. First, he reinterpreted the Psalm. Second, he indicated the single most important factor about the reign of the true Messiah. And on both counts he excludes the Maccabean rulers. But he also critiques the then – and now – prevalent view of the reign of the Messiah.

So let us see how Jesus reinterpreted the psalm. Prior to the Maccabees, the psalm was ignored. Then for about 150 years the psalm was interpreted according to the template provided by the Maccabean rulers. Then Jesus reinterpreted the psalm and the interpretation he offered for this psalm is the interpretation it has held ever since. Even the Jews subsequently accepted this interpretation that they learnt from the Church even though they rejected Jesus as their Messiah. And this is why uncovering the earlier interpretation of the Maccabees is extremely difficult.

Jesus said that we should interpret the psalm not as a regular prophecy, but as a poem that is presenting a mystery. “Yahweh said to my lord, that is David’s lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” According to this view, the words “my lord” refers to the Messiah, who alone could qualify as David’s lord. But this immediately presents a mystery in the first century, how can the Messiah be David’s son?

But the mystery is also unraveled if we listen carefully to Jesus. What Jesus is doing is saying, “We know that the Messiah is David’s descendant But this psalm indicates that David calls the Messiah ‘Lord’. Let us interpret the difficult passage – Psalm 110 – in light of the easier passage – 2 Samuel 7.”

So what does 2 Samuel 7 say? In that passage Yahweh promises David, “I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son.”

In other words, while the Messiah was expected to be David’s son, at a deeper level the Messiah would have a relationship with God so special that he would be God’s son.

This is much like the saying where Jesus says that those who do not hate their father and mother are not worthy of entering the kingdom of God. We know what he means there. He is telling us that our love for him must be so great, so intense, so all-encompassing that in comparison the love for our parents would seem to be completely missing.

In the same way, while the Messiah is David’s descendant, his son-ship to God is of such a nature that it would seem as though his son-ship to David were lacking.

While not discounting the importance of the biological descent of the Messiah, Jesus insists that the spiritual descent is more important. The Messiah is first and foremost God’s son as revealed in the promise to David. Indeed, if we look at the practices then prevalent in the Middle East we would realize that at the right hand of the king was where the crown prince sat.

It is because his son-ship to God takes precedence over his son-ship to David that the Messiah is asked to sit at God’s right hand. But more than this, it means that there is something inherently different between someone who is primarily David’s son and someone who is primarily God’s son.

And this brings us to the most important factor about the Messiah’s reign, something we so easily skip. After Jesus’ reinterpretation of Psalm 110 as a Messianic Psalm, we forget what the Psalm says. So let us go back to the Psalm and see what Jesus quotes: “Yahweh said to my lord” That was the riddle or mystery, which we have solved to indicate that Yahweh spoke to David’s lord, the Messiah. And Jesus continues, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”

This is a critique of all views that insist that the Messiah is a military conqueror. Yahweh tells the Messiah, “Sit!” He does not say, “Fight at my right hand and both of us will make your enemies your footstool!” He says, “Sit!”

Jesus tells his audience and us that the true Messiah is asked to be passive while God orchestrates history to the point where all the enemies of the Messiah acknowledge his authority over them.

What Jesus has done is provided his audience with an interpretive tool by which they can critique any messianic claimant. If they follow Jesus’ scheme of things they will be able to see that Judas Maccabeus and his brothers did not fulfill Psalm 110 for two reasons. First, they were not descended from David. Second, and more importantly, they did not “sit at God’s right hand”. In the same way they could have dismissed every single of their messianic claimants because every one of them wanted to fight. In other words, Jesus is saying, “If your view of the Messiah includes a battle waged by him then you are expecting a false messiah.”

This critique holds true for us Christians too. As I prepare for the studies on the Revelation of Jesus Christ, I come across so many interpretations that are gory and reveal the thirst for blood that many Christians have. Jesus, according to many of these interpretations, will return and wage war against his enemies and the Antichrist and destroy them.

But according to Psalm 110 the Messiah does nothing to make his enemies submit. That is done by God and we don’t know how he will do it. In other words, Jesus will not return until God has brought Jesus’ enemies to the point where they will acknowledge his authority over them.

Do not conclude that I am saying that Jesus cannot return today. Neither you nor I know whether Jesus’ enemies are ready to submit to him or not. All I am saying is that he will return when God has brought his enemies to the point where they are ready to submit. That may be today. It may be many years from now. 

The chronological time is not the crucial issue – unlike so many people trying to predict the date when he will return. Rather, it is the momentous time that is crucial. He will return when God has fulfilled Psalm 110.1.

Our major creeds tell us that Jesus is right now seated at the right hand of God the Father. And that when he returns, it will be to judge rather than to fight. This current age is the time captured by the word ‘until’ in Psalm 110.1. Jesus is seated at the right hand of God and will continue doing that ‘until’ God has brought Jesus’ enemies to the point where they will acknowledge his supremacy.

Jesus will return when the time is ripe. His enemies will submit then. But he will not come to wage a conquest over his enemies. Indeed, in about 12 days we will observe the solemn day on which he was victorious over his enemies. If we are looking for a conquering Jesus to return, we are looking for a figment of our imagination and we then need to repent. The only Jesus who will return is the one who has already won when he hung on the cross.