Bobby Valentine, simple desert disciple, with roots in the Stone-Campbell Movement, finding a way through this present age in the hope of the New Heavens & New Earth
I am of the persuasion that God’s people must embrace the entire Story of God. Individual passages have to be read within their contexts (both historical and literary) and in light of the beginning and the end.
Sometimes I find brothers and sisters that want to discount part of the Story. They will (and we have all done this) even embrace a position that conflicts, even outright contradicts, with the Story. I find this to be the case when it comes to the matter of women. What do we do with the myriads of women who are not silent, who are not hidden, who are leaders in every sense of the word, who are teachers of God’s people, whose voices have been preserved in Scripture by the Holy Spirit and exercise authority over the entire people of God every time one is brave enough to read their words or examples.
One way of handling them is to get rid of women leaders in the Bible. This is what was done in a discussion I recently had. Just declare these women are great examples of “usurping authority!”
I was stunned by this generalization made broadly but Miriam was the immediate referent. My reply to this brother’s interesting and amazing comment.
“Are you sure that is how you want to characterize Miriam?”
I have read some interesting things from the old traditional perspective, but this one is among the best.
“You state: “I would think that Miriam better fits the poster as an example of usurping of authority, than that of a good example of leadership.” Then you state: “Numbers 12 would seem to be an indictment on her, to the extreme.”
“See brother you say you are not sexist but these claims are not only factually wrong, but both are sexist to the core because how you frame the issue. Let’s start with Numbers 12. You conveniently forget – or simply have not read – that Numbers 12 is an indictment on AARON and Miriam, that is on both a man and a woman. It is not a rebuke of a woman because a woman stepped out of her “assigned role.”
“Miriam is not swatted because she is female (this is where your sexism is blatant!). Both Aaron and Miriam were out of line. But the text does not say that God had not called both Aaron and Miriam to leadership. The issue in Numbers 12 has nothing to do with women “usurping authority” over a male. The issue is, pure and simple, the leadership of Moses. Aaron and Miriam are leaders among God’s people and both exercise authority. Why claim this text is about women when it is no more about Miriam than it is about Aaron?
“But brother, it is a fact the Holy Spirit PRAISES Miriam, very differently than you. Note what the inspired prophet asserted about Miriam, along with Moses and Aaron. “I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery, I sent you Moses to lead you, also Aaron and MIRIAM” (Micah 6.3).
“God SENT Miriam to lead Israel! Stated point blank ****. God did not send Miriam alone, nor for the record God did not send Moses alone either. God sent Moses to lead. God sent Aaron to lead. God sent Miriam to lead.
“Further you are wrong on Exodus 15. Miriam does lead the women, but the women are addressing the whole congregation of Israel which is in fact in worship. She SUMMONS (imperative) the assembly to “Sing to Yahweh” (15.21). The “them” in v.21 is a MASCULINE (emphasis, not shouting) pronoun Miriam is not singing and leading only the ladies, she is leading the MEN. Just as the Spirit testifies in Micah 6.”
Miriam, my friends, cannot simply be cast aside as a “usurper.” She saved Moses himself as a child. She was a powerful leader among God’s people. She is part of the Story along with Deborah, Huldah, the nameless women in the Psalms who proclaim God’s message, Anna, Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Euodia, Syntyche and a host of others. Her “New Testament” counterpart is known to most as “Mary” the Mother of Jesus … a pretty important person.
Thirty years ago, I had moved to Grenada, Mississippi to be closer to Memphis for graduate school. Grenada was a formative period in my life for many reasons (I have mentioned them before). It was in Grenada that one of my fundamental categories for understanding the People of God began to take shape. My understanding of God’s People – what we call “church” at times – is rooted first in the Hebrew Bible and second in the theme of “land” in the Bible.
That year, 1995, I read Walter Brueggemann’s book of that title, “The Land.” Hard to believe that could be 30 years ago. I want to quote a paragraph from page 7. Perhaps until reading this, I had not stopped to understand a fundamental biblical category of what it means to be God’s People and it speaks loudly to us in our American situation.
“They are the people of sojourn. ‘Sojourner’ is a technical word usually described as ‘resident alien.’ It means to be in a place, perhaps for an extended period of time, to live there and take some roots, but always to be an outsider, never belonging, always without rights, title, or voice in decisions that matter. Such a one is on turf, having nothing sure but trusting in words spoken that will lead to a place. The theme of ‘resident alien’ is not remote from contemporary experience. People in our time know what it means to live waiting always for the notice of transfer, or for notice of ‘urban redevelopment,’ or for any of the irresistible and unidentified forces of urban life devoted to displacement.”
That was first written in 1977. I read it almost 20 years later in 1995. And today 30 years later is, to my ears, jolting. This imagery showed up in Kingdom Come; A Gathered People and even in Embracing Creation.
God’s People, the real God’s people, are in a place, take some roots, always an outsider, never belonging, devoid of power. The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (i.e. ISRAEL!) are images of God’s people themselves.
Even when Israel enters the gift of the Land, they will always be tenants living by grace/hesed. The land is NOT Israel’s “property.” It is not actually MY land. Land granted status in the ancient world, not a bank account. To have Land was to be important, wealthy, powerful. God’s People were and are NONE of those things.
“The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers” (Leviticus 25.23).
Israel lives as ALIENS even within the promised Land. They dwell by grace/hesed in that which is not theirs.
They can use the Land. They can tend the Land. They cannot own the Land in the final analysis.
Leviticus 25 and other texts make this clear. The Land is GOD’S. Every year, God’s People come before the Lord and confess “My father was a lost/perishing refugee (אֹבֵ֣ד (‘obed) and you gave ...” (Deuteronomy 26.5-9). To state my “father” was such and such is to confess that that is what I currently AM. Deuteronomy 26 is a confession of identity.
It is not the powerful who will inherit the Land but the poor and the meek (cf. Psalm 37). Throughout the Bible, in the Torah, in the Deuteronomistic histories (Samuel-Kings), in the Prophets, in the Psalms those who are God’s People are defined by the status of Refugee, Alien, Sojourner wherever they find themselves: in Egypt, in Babylon, in the post-Exilic Persian province of Judea. This is just as true in the writings we call the New Testament as the Hebrew Bible (First Peter is essential here). “God has chosen the weak …” (1 Cor 1.27).
We sometimes hear it said before the “collection” on Sunday’s what we have is not really ours. We make this pious statement to encourage generous giving. But sometimes I wonder if we believe those words on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, etc. Do we believe them when dealing with other “aliens”?
The fundamental disposition of God’s People though is just that – IT AIN’T OURS. We did not earn it. We did not get it. We did not work for it. It isn’t my food. It is not my wine. It is not my land I till. We are graced tenants or we are starving Aramite Refugees. In fact Yahweh tells us to “never forget” it.
The “marks of the church” is not a cappella singing. It is not the easily argued about things I grew up on. The fundamental identity, the mark, of God’s People is that we are Aliens, Refugees, Sojourners … it is only then that we come to realize that every breath we take, every move we make, every second we exist as the Graced People of Yahweh who gives us literally everything.
(I actually wrote this in 2017 but posting it on my blog just now. Previously I had this on Facebook).
May 11, 2017. Everett Ferguson, The Rule of Faith.
The Rule of Faith was (and is) important in the second and third centuries of the Christian Church. In a period when the Scriptures received from Judaism were pretty much accepted though there was no exact agreement (Protestant claims notwithstanding) on the exact boundaries of the canon and the writings for the Apostles were not all recognized uniformly (the NT canon was not settled), the Rule of Faith functioned as the canon. In fact it was sometimes even called the canon.
Everett Fergson has written a timely and succinct overview of what the Rule is and the history of scholarship on it. His book was published by Cascade in the Cascade Companions series. “The Rule of Faith: A Guide” (2015). The book is small being a mere 104 pages.
The Rule of Faith is divided up into six small chapters:
1) Statements of the Rule/Canon of Truth
2) Notes on Terminology and Other Pertinent Statements
3) Interpretation of the Rule of Faith
4) Studies of the Rule of Faith
5) Functions of the Rule of Faith
6) Relevance for Today of the Rule of Faith
Ferguson reproduces numerous lengthy quotations of the Rule from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc to illustrate its content. These quotations in chapter one form the basis of discussion in the rest of the book.
In chapter 2 he notes that the Rule is identified most frequently as the “rule of faith” or “regula fidei” (in Latin). Other terms were uses like “canon of truth,” “canon” “canon of faith,” etc.
Chapter 3 is probably the most important. The Rule defines the content of the Christian faith. Ferguson notes that the Rule seems to follow the “narrative” outline noted by C. H. Dodd on the Apostolic kerygma. A brief outline may be in order.
– the Word as the one thru whom God the Father created all things,
– has become incarnate thru the virgin birth in order to restore humanity to communion with God,
– his suffering under Pontius Pilate
– his resurrection in the flesh
– his bodily ascension to the Father,
– his coming again for the general resurrection/salvation of the flesh and judgment, bringing eternal punishment to the ungodly and eternal life to the faithful (see p.38)
In other examples of the Rule it narrates creation, to prophets, to the gospel in Christ, the giving of the Spirit to resurrection of the flesh in the eschaton. The Rule is a “narrative” that reflects the preaching of the church.
In Chapter 4, Ferguson provides an overview of the history of scholarship on the Rule beginning from the mid 19th century to the early 2000’s. Here the key issues seem to be the relation of the Rule/Canon to baptismal formulas, liturgy and the emerging canon of NT scripture. As Ferguson is cautious to point out the Rule is not the same thing as Scripture but he stresses repeatedly that it is “related” to Scripture. Scripture is never defined by Ferguson but he notes that Four Gospels were a staple by the time of Irenaeus and the epistles function as much the same. Irenaeus and Origen are seemingly key figures but so is the Rule of Faith.
Chapter 5 relates the function of the Rule. It describes “what” was preached and believed. The Rule was the base from which arguments against heresy and apologetics arose. Things contrary to the Rule were to be rejected. There was not some squashing of exploration but “authors allowed multiple interpretations provided they did not transgress the BOUNDARIES set by the rule of faith” (p. 78, my emphasis). So the Rule sort of marked the circumference of the faith. The Rule provides a guide for interpreting Scripture in light of the “point” or theme of the faith. The Rule keeps you grounded in the Story of God to put it in today’s lingo.
Finally chapter 6, Ferguson discusses the relevance of the ancient Rule for today. There are a number of statements in this short chapter that could serve Restorationists well. “[T]he ruld of faith as a summary of the basic facts of the gospel” is “deeply relevant” (p.85). The Rule functions as a protection of going off on tangents, extremes, and keeps even “non-creedal churches” rooted in the “core doctrine” of Christianity. So let me quote,
“Churches, especially non-creedal churches, but others as well, often need succinct statements of their basic doctrine–in addressing inquirers or visitors, in instructing new converts, or in clarifying their core beliefs to Christians who seek to identify with them. The rule of faith can serve these purposes well.”
Leaders should look to the Rule as to “what must be embraced, taught, and handed on” in order to be Christian. The Rule “keeps the focus on Christ and His story” (p. 86). Finally, Ferguson notes that the Rule keeps us on point while reading Scripture itself. “Scripture is not ‘flat’; not all of it is of equal importance …” (p.88). The call to remember the narrative of faith God is the Creator, He has pursued redemption thru Israel and sent the Word to become completely human in order to completely same “body and soul” of humanity, Jesus died and was raised in the flesh, God gave the Spirit and will send the Son to judge the living and the dead.
This little book could be a very important one for those in Evangelical and Restoration traditions. It has important implications on what is necessary for unity and allows for diversity that does not contradict the Rule (Ferguson explicitly discusses this). The Rule forces us to major in the majors as the saying goes while granting latitude in areas that the Rule does not legislate.
Finally, the little book matters because all of us today are a product of the second century church every bit as much as the first century church. The Rule of Faith was the guide for ultimately deciding the contents of that NT canon itself in its full extent. This is an interesting conundrum for traditional pattern theology. And in integrity it needs to be wrestled with. The Old Testament canon (a term that was coined by Melito of Sardis around 180 in his sermon on Easter/Passover) was never settled until the Protestant reformation (Ferguson for his part acknowledges this) and the NT would not be for quite some time. But there was still agreed upon Scripture and the Rule was both the summary content and the interpretive guide for Scripture that focused supremely on Jesus the Messiah.
This is definitely worth reading and wrestling with. Churches of Christ as one of those “non-creedal” churches could certainly profit from a greater knowledge of the Rule. We certainly have split the Body of the Lord asunder over things that clearly are not part of the Rule of Faith.
Perhaps the biggest value of the Rule is it sort of forces us to “know our story.” The issue of the moment is, likely, not the core of Christianity … except Macionism and Gnosticism. And in light of Scripture itself this seems to be a fairly big deal.
LED IN WORSHIP BY JESUS THE PRIEST: WHAT ASSEMBLY IS ABOUT IN HEBREWS (Sort of an Outline of Assembly Theology in Hebrews)
Near the end, but not quite the end, of his sermon, the Sermonator shares that famous (or infamous to some) line about “not forsaking the assembly.”
One of the greatest problems in Bible reading is reading in “bits” and “pieces.” Reading piecemeal. Reading Hebrews in bits is literally a recipe for disaster. We need to read Hebrews beginning to end over and over. Attend to what is said (and what is NOT said). Note the foundational Exodus narrative that flows through. And recognize that the Sermonator states freely that what he says can be “hard to understand/explain” (5.11). That was true then but even more two thousand years later when most of us know virtually nothing of the Hebrew Bible, Jewish apocalyptic, and the logic of sacrifice.
But the rational for not neglecting is the ENTIRE sermon we call “Hebrews.” The fundamental arc begins in 2.11-12 and culminates in chapter 12.18ff.
The Sermonator of Hebrews is a brilliant preacher. He is infused with the Jewish world of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish apocalyptic theology. The “Exodus” is like a neon light blazing in the background. And he places a premium upon the Gathering (assembly) just as Deuteronomy and the Psalter (texts that are important in Hebrews). We have heard sermons on “not forsaking the assembly” (10.25) as some sort of “legalism” more than we care to admit. But even legalism does not begin to capture the explosive claim the Sermonator makes.
Near the beginning of the homily, the Sermonator declares that the bodily, in the flesh, resurrected Jesus has brothers and sisters and stands in the “midst of the ekklesia I will praise You” (2.11f). Jesus is depicted as preaching and praising, that is leading worship through the Psalms, in the “congregation” (church/ekklesia). Here is an anchor point for the very people hearing the Sermon itself.
Then the Sermonator sort of takes us back by explaining how this all happened. Jesus suffered through obedience but was “perfected” through the resurrection of his body. His resurrected body passes through the heavens and entered into the heavenly sanctuary of God (4.14; 9.12).
God, not Jesus, declared that the Jewish man from Nazareth would be High Priest (4.14-5.10). God declares him to be the Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek. The Sermonator tells us he not only does not but cannot serve as a priest on earth for two basic reasons. There are already priests in the temple (8.4) and he is of the tribe of Judah not Levi (7.14). But the bodily resurrected Jesus is not on earth but now in the heavenly sanctuary, the Holy Place. Every Jew knew that the “Holy Place” in the Jerusalem temple was the “place” where Heaven and Earth interlock. Heavenly sanctuary and earthly sanctuary are mirrors of one another.
But in the Holy Place, in God’s heavenly temple, Jesus the King-Priest leads worship! He is the “liturgist” (worship leader/minister) in God’s own Presence (8.1). There he mediates the kainos (renewed/new) covenant on behalf of the House of Israel and House of Judah (8.8-11).
In fact, what the bodily resurrected Jesus is doing in that sanctuary is presiding over a heavenly Yom Kippur. There he cleanses not only people but the sanctuary itself (9.23) He is there performing these liturgical/worship tasks now while we wait for him to appear in order to “save” us who wait for him (9.28).
After the presentation of the once for all sacrifice, the presentation of his resurrected body, we have a long list of heroes present in God’s house. Those listening to the Sermon are part of a great history of faith. These heroes are awaiting to be perfected through the resurrection but their spirits are gathered (11.1-40; cf. 3.5-6 tells us that Moses is in the same house that the addresses of the sermon itself).
Suddenly then the Sermonator says, “You/yall have come” (perfect tense) to
1) Mt. Zion
2) Jerusalem
3) Angels
4) “ekklesia” of the first born
5) GOD
6) spirits of the righteous (refers back to the named and unnamed saints in 11.1-40)
7) AND TO JESUS (12.22-24)
Hebrews 12.18-29 brings us to the ekklesia that Jesus is standing in among his brothers and sisters in 2.11-12. Why would one “forsake” being Gathered with Jesus’s brothers and sisters to #’s 1-7?
When we gather, we are GATHERED by the Spirit and brought into the Holy Place where Jesus is NOW. We are GATHERED (something done TO us) in the place of heavenly worship. What happens in our gathering “mirrors” what is happening in God’s presence with Jesus himself preaching, singing, mediating giving glory with us and for us. He proclaims the glorious name of God among us.
The Sermonator believes that when we gather an Exodus 19 type event takes place every time. Except it is more. We have not come to Mt Sinai (12.18) with its blazing awesomeness (and the Sermonator believes it was in fact “awesome”). We have come to something that surpasses what even faithful Moses experienced. But Moses experiences is NOW, with us. We, and all the spirits, are Gathered into that place that was shielded from human eyes, the throne room of God! Where Jesus and his blood has made the sanctuary clean.
The Sermonator knows we cannot “see” Jesus right now. That is because he is our resurrected in the body, human in the Holy Place (9.12, etc). But we do come to JESUS in the Gathering, we come to angels, Moses, Abraham, Huldah, Deborah, the Maccabean martyrs, David, Sarah, and to the GOD of Israel himself through the glorious ministry of Jesus the Priest-King of Israel.
Those who “neglect” the gathering misunderstand what takes place. The Gathered encounter GOD! Here Jesus is present with us. Here we commune with God … while we wait for the “Day” of his appearing (when he comes from behind the veil to the Holy Place). In the meantime, we “have come” to God in holy ekklesia.
“The catechism of the Jew is his calendar” (Rabbi Samuel R. Hirsch)
“The New Testament is the first Old Testament theology” (Christopher J. H. Wright)
The more I ponder Jesus the more I appreciate the impossibility of separating the so called “Old Testament” from 1) the person of Jesus, 2) the teaching of Jesus, 3) from how the story of Jesus is simply told, 4) and from anything that resembles “Christian” faith in the pages of the New Testament.
Speaking autobiographically here, I am sad at how much I miss in the NT because of how little Hebrew Bible flows in my veins (I’ve been working on correcting that for years).
But it is evident the apostles and teachers taught the “OT” to Gentile converts but many Gentiles were already attached to the synagogue and were familiar with the Bible. The fact that Paul can refer to a very technical point about Feast of Unleavened/Passover, with not even the slightest explanation in the text, clearly indicates that even the Corinthians had received clear teaching on even the liturgical calendar of Israel … or the point Paul makes in 1 Cor 5 simply would make NO SENSE to them.
The Gospel of John is a case in point. It is difficult to exaggerate the amount of “Old Testament” in the Gospel of John.
John begins Genesis and ends with Genesis. The Exodus, wilderness wanderings, the worship festivals of Israel, the Temple are simply embedded into the narrative of John that it is difficult to pull them apart. Our lack of familiarity with the story of Exodus-Numbers and the calendar of Israel greatly impair our hearing of the Gospel.
A few illustrations. Everyone knows that “signs” play a crucial role in John. John uses the word “sign” not “miracle” (contra the NIV).
The importance of “signs” comes from the Exodus/Wilderness narrative. All the plagues on Egypt are characterized as “signs” (Ex 3.12; 4.8-9; 7.3; 8.23; 10.1-2) by Moses. The signs point beyond a miracle to the presence of God.
Moses and Jesus are parallel in the Gospel beyond signs. Moses and Jesus are both agents of God and are rejected by the people. Even while doing signs. Notice how John 12.37 and Numbers 14.11 are similar in evaluating the agent of God.
Of Moses: “How long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them?”
Of Jesus: “Although he performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in him.”
Of Moses at the end of his ministry: “For all the signs and wonders that the Lord sent him to perform in the land of Egypt” (Dt 34.11)
Of Jesus at the end of his ministry: “Now Jesus performed many other signs before his disciples” (Jn 20.30)
Familiar images like “water and spirit”(3.5, etc) are rooted in the multiple texts in the “Old Testament” not least the Wilderness wanderings and the Festival of Tabernacles (which recalls the Wilderness).
John explicitly identifies the context of John 7 as the pilgrimage Feast of Tabernacles. In Tabernacles, Israel celebrates Yahweh’s grace of Dwelling with them and providing for them in the Wilderness in spite of their rebellion. Among God’s gifts of grace in the Wilderness was miraculous water. During Tabernacles, near the end of the Feast, is the “Water Ceremony.” The ceremony recalls the gracious provision of water, thru Moses, in the Wilderness (Ex 17.1-6; Num 20.2-13; 21.16-18). The “song of the well” is related in Numbers 21.
“From there they continued on to Beer; that is where the LORD said to Moses, ‘Gather the people together, and I WILL GIVE THEM WATER.’ Then Israel sang this song:
‘Spring up, O well! — Sing to it! — the well that the leaders sank, that nobles of the people dug, with the scepter, with the staff.” (21.16-18)
During the feast, as the priests would pour water onto the altar from the Pool of Siloam, Isaiah 12 was sung,
“With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation …” (12.3, see vv. 1-6).
Jesus then invites, in the context of Tabernacles, all to come to him (i.e a well!) to receive eschatological water which John identifies as the Spirit. (Jesus had already done this with the woman of Samaria too). And if we recall the story, it is in the Wilderness that Moses “wishes” that all would be given the Spirit (Numbers 11.29; see 11.16-30).
My post has grown long and we have only begun. But John cannot tell the story of Jesus apart from the Hebrew Bible. John does not even attempt to tell the story of Jesus apart from the Hebrew Bible.
The Gospel of John is sort of the narrative proof of what Paul states in a pithy statement. The Gospel is “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15.3; Romans 1.3). The “scriptures” of 1 Corinthians 15.3 are not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians but Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, the Psalms, etc.
The Gospel writers, and the Gospel preachers, of the NT find it impossible to simply tell the story of Jesus without the Hebrew Bible. If we want to grasp the Gospel of John, perhaps six months of reading the the Exodus and Wilderness narrative will be the best commentary you could ever find.
I regret not being taught the narrative of the Hebrew Bible growing up in the church. I regret the causal dismissal, and even resistance to teaching, the Old Testament with the old saw,
“that is the Old Testament, we are under the New Testament.”
The Gospel itself, beloved, is ACCORDING to the Hebrew Bible. If we believe the Gospel then we better take the Scripture it is “according to” pretty seriously. The NT authors do.
Take Hebrews. Hebrews is loaded with the Hebrew Bible (through its Greek translation, the Septuagint, LXX). Psalms is paramount. Some imagine Leviticus is supreme. These are all there. But the Sermonator preaches Jesus the Messiah/King Priest through an Exodus Story Filter. Hebrews scholar David Moffitt put it like this,
“[O]ne can see how Hebrews maps the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus onto the events of the exodus/covenant inauguration, the inauguration of the priesthood and tabernacle, and the ongoing worship and covenant maintenance the priests performed within that sacred space …” (“Exodus in Hebrews,” in The Exodus in the NT, ed, Seth M. Ehorn, p. 158).
This narrative structure in Hebrews is shaped by the Pentateuch itself and also by the liturgy of Israel itself. In the “Pilgrimage” festivals of Israel, have you ever noticed, that Israel is always in the Wilderness, they are not “in the land.”
Passover … Israel out from Egypt into the Wilderness (covenant of hesed inaugurated by God). Israel, God’s house, was to be set free so they could “worship” or “draw near” to God (that was the goal).
Weeks/Pentecost … Israel arrives at Mt. Sinai covenant ratified in the Wilderness (Covenant is broken – Golden Calf and made new, Ex 32-34)
Tabernacles/Booths … Israel is in the Wilderness because they broke the covenant AGAIN/had hard unbelieving hearts (but Yahweh in Hesed cares for and feeds even the rebellious)
In the worship, Israel is always a redeemed but pilgrim/wilderness people. They are a redeemed but a fallen short of the glory of God people. They are a redeemed but waiting for transformation people.
Israel is a Wilderness People … they have not “entered” into God’s Rest in the liturgy. The Story of those festivals is one of incredible Hesed in the face of unbelief. The Festivals tell the story (of course not every detail but the gist) of Exodus through Deuteronomy.
The Sermonator “maps” the life of Jesus ONTO this narrative. The Psalms, the kainos/renewed/covenant made new, the entry into the sanctuary Moses saw on the Mountain, and the people coming to Mt. Zion places the Sermonator’s congregation in the EXACT SAME PLACE as Israel of Old.
Israel made new (not replaced) has been liberated but we have not arrived. Jesus is the guarantee of the kainos/renewed/covenant made new through HIS perfect maintenance of it. But we still sin, we still do not know God as we should, we still do not have God’s law written on our hearts. We are on the “edge” of God’s Rest but have not entered into it, yet. Thus in a very real sense beloved the “kainos” covenant is STILL FUTURE and its effects upon us await for Jesus to appear.
The Sermonator is sort of like a Moses figure himself. Preaching covenant faithfulness to God’s rowdy bunch on the east side of the Jordan River. But the Holy Spirit is with us, just as he was with Israel in the Wilderness … where we still are. But we “see Jesus” the King of Israel who has been perfected with a resurrected body, an indestructible life, that HAS entered God’s Rest.
Yesterday, April 9, was the day in 1865, that the man who killed more American soldiers than Adolf Hitler, surrendered at Appomattox (I was unable to post yesterday so one day late.).
Treason is defined in the United States Constitution in Article III, Section 3,
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving the Aid and Comfort.”
It is difficult to deny Lee “waged war against them.” It is impossible to deny he gave “Aid and Comfort” to those making war against the United States.
Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant of the United States Army. Thus ended the war to defend white supremacy and the black slavery that was its exhibition. A month later Jefferson Davis would be captured on May 10.
Within a short period of time Edward Pollard would baptize the war and what it stood for calling it “the Lost Cause.” Albert Taylor Bledsoe and Jefferson Davis would spend the rest of their lives promoting this myth and Black inferiority would remain a central ideology. The Lost Cause would convert Lee from traitor to Patron Saint.
As always, Frederick Douglass was the voice of America’s reason and conscience. In 1870, Douglass wrote an editorial in the New National Era in response to the seepage of Lost Cause ideology into the psychology of America, Blacks would be the ones to suffer if not checked.
“Is it not about time that this bombastic laudation and nauseating flatteries of the rebel chief should cease?”
A year later Douglass was invited to give the speech for “Decoration Day,” at Arlington National Cemetery, in honor of those who were killed in the cause of liberty and defending America. With President Grant present, Douglass gave a moving tribute to the American soldiers killed by Lee. Douglass confessed he had no malice in his heart but he was not about to let the real cause for which these men died be swallowed up by Lost Cause mythology concerning Lee nor the enemy who went to war in the cause of racist ideology. He is worth quoting at length.
“When the dark and vengeful spirit of slavery, always ambitious, preferring to rule in hell than to serve in heaven, fired the Southern heart and stirred all the malign elements of discord, when our great Republic, the hope of freedom and self-government throughout the world, had reached the point of supreme peril, when the Union of these states was torn and rent asunder at the center, and the armies of a gigantic rebellion came forth with broad blades and bloody hands to destroy the very foundations of American society, the unknown braves who flung themselves into the yawning chasm, where cannon roared and bullets whistled, fought and fell. They died for their country.
“We are sometimes asked, in the name of patriotism, to forget the merits of this fearful struggle, and to remember with equal admiration those who struck at the nation’s life and those who struck to save it, those who fought for slavery and those who fought for liberty and justice.
“I am no minister of malice. I would not strike the fallen. I would not repel the repentant; but may my right hand forget her cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I forget the difference between the parties to that terrible, protracted, and bloody conflict … But we are not here to applaud manly courage, save as it has been displayed in a noble cause. We must never forget that victory to the rebellion meant death to the Republic.”
Frederick Douglass understood the truth.
Had the traitor, Robert E. Lee, won the United States would have ceased to exist.
Had the traitor Jefferson Davis won, millions of Blacks would still be enslaved, hundreds of thousands of Black women would still be raped as a matter of course for the sexual pleasure or profit of white men in the Confederacy. Tens of thousands of female offspring of those demonic masters would be sex slaves as fancy girls in brothels or concubines for their biological fathers themselves. The degrading nature of American slavery is sugar coated by Confederate apologists.
Frederick Douglass had read the Constitution of the Confederate States (unlike so many Lost Causers today!) a document that FORBADE intrusion upon or limitation in any form the enslavement of Black men, women and children for eternity as the inferior race to whites. That was the Cause for which Robert E. Lee killed more soldiers flying the American flag than any other enemy in the history of the United States. More than the Kaiser, more than Hitler, more than Saddam Hussein, more than ISIS.
When I was young, I honored the memory of Robert E. Lee. He was on my class ring in high school. I was taught Lee was a saint almost on the level of Jesus. I was fed the Lost Cause lie, I breathed the air of the Lost Cause. It is a lie. An outright lie.
I have since that time learned the truth. And while I can say that Lee was at times a brilliant military man just as I can confess that Hans Guderian or Erwin Rommel were brilliant, I would never call them great men, build an idol to them. But in fact Rommel may be a better man than Lee. When the chips were down he chose to act against Adolf Hitler and lost his life because of it. Lee never did such a thing. He never fulfilled his oath to the Constitution, to the Flag, nor did he step up and liberate. Instead he killed hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to preserve slavery. I realize that is heresy among many but it is the truth and Frederick Douglass knew it.
So I am grateful that U. S. Grant, and the United States Army, defeated Robert E. Lee and the enemy that spilled so much American blood. I am grateful that Lee surrendered on April 9, 1865. I do not want to see the Confederacy rise again. I do support the Constitution of the United States. I am grateful for Frederick Douglass reminding us what was really at stake. Thank you Brother Douglass.
It is 160 years past time for us to uncompromisingly tell the truth. If there was ever a time in America we need to emphasize this truth it is now.
Frederick Douglass is the great American, Robert E. Lee is not.
(See David W. Blight’s magnificent Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom, pp. 530-532.
Complete text of speech can be read in Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings, ed. Philip S. Foner, p. 609)
P. S. I highly recommend General Ty Seidule’s, retired head of the history department at West Point, great book “Robert E. Lee and Me.” (I make no money recommending this book). A dyed in the wool Southerner explores his own personal journey with the Lost Cause and awakening to the truth of history. I will place a link in the comment. If you love truth, read it
Members of the early Way gathered in many places. They gathered for worship in the Temple in Jerusalem through the recorded history of Acts. They met in synagogues (James simply calls it “the synagogue” James 2.2). It is possible the Way gathered at the School of Tyrannus where Paul lectured but this is not certain. From Paul’s letters we know that his converts often gathered in homes. This would have carried on the Jewish tradition itself that Jews in the Diaspora would gather for prayer, hearing the Torah and even eat shabbat meals wherever they could.
Older Protestant scholarship frequently attempted to drive a wedge between the Temple and synagogue largely because of their “distaste” for what they perceived as “ritual.” The synagogue was just one step closer to what they viewed as “spiritual” than the Temple (though the Temple was straight out of the Bible itself!). This division has fallen by the wayside in contemporary scholarship as nothing but ignorance and anti-Jewish (and at times anti-semitic) prejudice. Archeology has steadily chipped away at this prejudice and revealed the synagogue was typically viewed as an extension of the Temple itself and was considered “sacred space” (cf. Mordechai Aviam’s “Reverence for Jerusalem and the Temple in Galilean Society,” in Jesus and the Temple: Textual and Archeological Explorations, ed. James H. Charlesworth, pp. 123-144, many other studies could be cited).
Jews met in homes when they did not have the resources to have a “building.” Contrary to the stereotypes foisted upon many, Jews were more often than not poor and just as frequently slaves in the Roman Empire.
The Gatherings were in essence thought to be “little temples.” Paul clearly buys into this theology as temple imagery pervades his writings. Often unknown, or ignored, is Jews had temples outside of Jerusalem. For example the Jewish temple in Leontopolis, Egypt was fully recognized and legitimate as a place for pilgrimage and even non-animal sacrifices (my point here is that Zion was sacred space but sacred space was not limited to the physical temple in Jerusalem by Jews).
II. How Archeology of Pompeii and Ostia Sheds Light on Gatherings of the Way
Fresco in the House of Menander one of the more important houses within the city walls. Richly decorated. It may have been owned by Quintus Poppeus whose seal was found in the slave quarters. It was excavated by Maiuri in 1930-31.
The size of a house gathering of the Way was dependent upon at least three factors: 1) the number of believers/curious outsiders; 2) social make up of the community; 3) and, importantly, available space. These are not the only variables but they are crucial.
Pompeii was about the size of Philippi where Paul’s Macedonian converts lived. But Pompeii was considerably smaller than Corinth, Ephesus or Rome itself. Pompeii had an estimated population of less than twenty thousand (again like Philippi). What we learn from the physical remains of Pompeii is that wherever King Jesu’s Pharisee apostle went it was:
Crowded
Noisy
Filthy
Stinky
Shot thru with paganism
Filled with slaves and the destitute
A full third of the population was slaves. Slavery in the Roman Empire had zilch to do with skin color or racism and was not rooted in either. A freed slave could become not only rich but also powerful in the Empire. Slavery was largely economic or the result of war.
The rich elite made up about .04 percent of the population. A very tiny fraction. Villas were the places of living for the elite and tended to be outside the city walls (as at Pompeii). It is unlikely that the Way gathered in any villas of the elite. The famous House of Mysteries at Pompeii would be an example of an elite domicile.
The equally famous House of Menander (so named for the Greek poet featured in one of the frescos in the house), located about halfway between the Forum and the amphitheater, is quite large but much smaller than a villa. It takes up almost a whole insula (i.e. city block). It measures 18,000 square feet. The residence is of wealthy town person no doubt but not the elite. They still are in the top 1 percent.
The insula is like a large apartment complex all joined together. Next to the House of Menander is a craft worker’s home. It is thought, based on tools unearthed in the home, it was sort of a well to do cabinet makers home. The person’s home and means of production (making a living) is shared space.
New Testament scholar and archeologist, Peter Oakes has argued this craft workers house would be the sort of place people like Priscilla and Aquila, idendified as craftworkers (Acts18.2-3; Rom 16.3-4) would occupy. It is “House 7” in the attached image, the House of Menander I have outlined in red. It is much larger than the bartender’s home on the other side (listed as #’s 2&3). It is one house with a bar/cafe sort of place for making a living.
The craftworker’s home (it has no famous name, it is just House 7) is still a large home with 3220 square feet. Someone like Phoebe, the deacon from Cenchrea and letter carrier of Paul’s letter to the Romans, might own a place like House 7. Paul calls her a “patron” or “benefactor” in addition to her being a deacon indicating she is a person of means but not among the cultural elite (cf. Romans 16.1-2, the NIV renders “benefactor”).
III. The Gathering
House of Menander circled in red. The craftworkers house is 7 and has bold black lines. The circled 6 is a smaller house, that of a stoneworker. And on the other side of 4 – the entrance to the House of Menander – is a bartender’s house, it is labeled 2 and 3. It is outlined in bold black lines. It is larger than the stonemakers but much smaller than the craftworkers and all pale next to the House of Menander.
Oakes provides numbers from various Pompeiian sources on available space, population, economic data from a mass array of archeological studies and arrives at a Pompeii House Gathering for the Way in the craftworker’s home. The demographics might look like this
a craftworkers house with a husband, wife, children, half a dozen slaves
several other householders with dependents from a lower economic strata
a few family members whose household is not part of the house church
a couple slaves whose owner is not part of the house church
a couple free or freed dependents
a homeless couple
Oakes arrives at an estimated size of thirty to be representative of the kind of house churches of the Way in a place like Pompeii or Rome.
For my part, I do not think Paul would be opposed to a specific place for gathering … purpose built. If the economics were there. The tradition of the synagogue paved the way for buildings of the Way. But when reading Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Philippians and 1-2 Thessalonians (and even Philemon) this kind of data is helpful. Paul’s letters are not addressed to nothingness but to concrete historical realities of people living and working in specific circumstances.
Oakes takes this carefully crafted data and turns it into a historical framework to exegete Romans 12. He asks the question: How might the actual people we encounter in Pompeii/Rome hear this great text in THEIR social location?
Paul’s JEWISH Messianic ethic is quite radical. Paul completely subverts standard gentile ways of thinking and living. And he delivers a rather distinctive – and many ignore it – JEWISH view of salvation, though justice is the big issue in Romans. How does the King of Israel’s “justice” transform gatherings of the Way throughout the Empire of Caesar?
Think of Maria, a named Jewish slave trapped in sex slavery the brothel. She has no say over her body and what it does and does not do. She is forced to do the very thing she does not want to do and doesn’t do the things she aches to do. She loves the God’s law but sees ANOTHER law at work in her life. She might cry out in agony, “What a wretched person I am! Who will rescue me from this BODY that is subject to death?” Is such a woman, an enslaved believer, guilty … as in culpable? Here is a real live person, not an abstraction, justice is a major issue in her life. Think of “there is no condemnation” for those “in King Jesus.” Paul’s messianic and JEWSIH promise of her body being redeemed is shockingly good news to this Jewess named Maria (Romans 7-8).
Think of “you shouldn’t think more highly of yourself” (12.3), Paul guts the honor system which was foundational to Roman society. The “gifts” cut across social boundaries, the Way may meet in a craftworker’s house whose wealth is more than the rest of the group combined but now that person is a “servant of all!”
Family, egalitarianism, love fills Paul’s messianic Jewish ethics. I might return to these in number 4. At any rate Pompeii helps contextualize in extremely concrete ways the flesh and blood realities of Paul and the Way. Peter Oakes Reading Romans in Pompeii, Paul’s Letter at the Ground Level is excellent. Photographs, except the map, are by Bobby Valentine.
Basilica in Pompeii. All photos by Bobby Valentine.
This is our second reflection on my visit to Pompeii and Ostia Antica (you can read the first here: Paul & Pompeii #1: Did God Destroy Pompeii?). For me the sheer amount of idolatry was overwhelming. I can only imagine the visceral reaction of Paul the Pharisee apostle of King Jesus to the Greco-Roman world. What he encountered would be similar to what we find in these strangely beautiful sites. Both cities are dominated by massive temples.
Temple to Jupiter. Temple to Apollo. Temple to Athena. Temple to Isis. Temple to Bacchus. Temple to Venus. Temple to Hercules. Temple to Minerva. Temple of Jupiter Meilichios. Temple of Fortuna Augusta. And the imperial cult was in full swing in the Temple of Vespasian.
But the monumental temples are only a small part of the Ocean of Paganism. Paul is surrounded by images of Griffins, Neptune (another god), tritons, gods galore. Massive murals of scenes from Homer and scenes from the Dionysius Mysteries.
Every building also has a lararium (i.e. household shrine) filled with the personal deities of the owner. If we stop at the shop, the market, the public latrine, the bath, the bakery, the stand at the wine bar, or just walk down the street, Paul is surrounded by, what to him is utterly offensive. Even depraved. Even the ships will have the gods on them like the “Twin Brothers” which are the demigod offspring of Zeus, Castor and Pollux (cf. Acts 28.11; Wisdom 14.1).
Household lararium from Pompeii housed in the Museum in Naples.
Paul’s missional strategy has nothing whatsoever to do with pulling people from one denomination to another or pointing them to the one true church. Paul’s first task in the Greco-Roman world was profoundly Jewish. As he noted to the former pagans at Thessalonica, he aimed to get them to “turn away from idols to the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1.9). “True and living God” is standard Hebraic way of referring to the God of Israel over against the pagan deities in the ancient world. Thus Paul beings with “theology” in the truest sense of that word even before Christology (i.e. who Jesus is).
Pompeii has impressed upon me, yet again, just how Jewish the epistles of Paul actually are. Paul even calls non-Jews, “gentiles.” Those who have grown up with the Bible this very lingo has lost its significance. The word ‘gentile’ is not a Greek, Roman, Macedonian, Babylonian, etc way of talking. No Roman ever described herself or his self as a “gentile.” It is a Jewish word expressing a Jewish view of the world. The term not only means those who are non-Jewish but it means pagan. The Greeks and Romans did not think of themselves as pagans (gentiles) but as pious in fact. Paul has a ministry, his ministry is the ministry of Israel to the pagans. A light to pagans. When Paul uses the term gentile/pagan it was the Jewish evaluation that made idols the vehicle to depravity.
The lararium of the House of Menandar with household deities.
There is abundant evidence that Paul the Pharisee had studied what we call the Deuterocanonical book, Wisdom of Solomon. Wisdom was known to Paul, the Sermonator of Hebrews, and John who wrote the Gospel. Wisdom is an extremely sophisticated (and elegant) work with deep reflections on the very thing we find in Pompeii: astonishing beauty, gods fashioned by human hands, and from the Jewish perspective gross immorality. These go together says the Solomonic figure in Wisdom.
The true God, the God of Israel, is “the author of beauty” (13.3) so it is not surprising that creation is filled with wondrous things, things reflecting the beauty of the author of beauty. A line that Paul certainly echoes in Romans says,
“From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator. Yet these people are little to be blamed for perhaps they go astray while seeking God and desiring to find him” (Wisdom 13.5-6; cf. Romans 1.20f).
Creation is mesmerizing, Wisdom declares, because the Creator is in fact beauty itself. “Yet they are not to be excused” (Wisdom 13.8; cf. Romans 1.20).
They are in fact “miserable” and their “heart is ashes, their hope is cheaper than dirt” (Wisdom 15.10). The author notes that the “idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication” (14.12). He/she speculate that it all began in grief. The loss of a beloved child perhaps (note the cult of the ancestors) and the parent was “consumed with grief” (14.15) and makes an image to comfort herself/himself. Gifts began to be laid by the image and soon the transition to “worship” was made. “This became a hidden trap for humankind” (14.21). Evil just flowed from idolatry because we become what we worship.
“Whether they kill their children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs, they no longer keep their marriages pure, they deal treacherously with one another or grieve one another by adultery …” (14.21-22).
Neptune riding his chariot pulled by hippocampi. He is surrounded by tritons (mermen), and sea nymphs. Tiled floor at Ostia.
All the snakes representing the Lares (i.e. household gods) came to my mind when the author of Wisdom writes, “they worship even the most hateful of animals” (15.18). This leads into Wisdom’s description of the snakes that Yahweh used to punish Israel in the wilderness.
But creation did not ask to be perverted and forced into compliance with human ignorance. Creation is good (Yahweh said so!). It longs to serve its Creator. It will even be the Creator’s instrument of discipline. “For creation serving you who made it, exerts itself to punish unrighteousness” (Wisdom 16.24).
The Pharisee apostle shared the view of the unknown author of the Wisdom of Solomon. Two Jews moving through a world awash with idolatry. It was beautiful, at least the “art” was. The cities of the Greeks and Romans were undeniably impressive. One could, and some Jews did, decide that “way” was the true way (one only has to think of the Maccabean crises). Wisdom argued otherwise. And Paul not only echoes the author but shouts “amen.” The gentile (i.e. pagan) way was not “the Way.”
The missional task of Paul, and Wisdom of Solomon, was to witness to the God of Israel. There is only one God, “the author of beauty.” To know the truth and have “hope” that is not “cheap as dirt,” one must learn the ways of that God. Wisdom, and Paul, testify that they are brilliant. They are “without excuse.” What they call piety and even “peace” (Wisdom 14.22ff) is a sham. The death the father lamented when that precious child was lost, was real! The answer of the One true and living God was the resurrection of the dead through the King of Israel, Jesus.
The creation that serves its Creator but, through no fault of its own, shares in the fallenness of humanity will also share in the resurrection of humanity, and its glorification. Paul knows what the author of Wisdom knows, Yahweh loves HIS “stuff” and death (what tormented that father who made the image of his son/daughter) is alien to God’s good creation. God loves it.
“God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things so they may exist; the creation is wholesome, and there is no destructive poison in them, and the dominion of Hades [i.e. death] is not on earth” (Wisdom 1.13-14)
Temple of Jupiter
“For it is always in your power to show great strength, and who can withstand the might of your arm? Because the whole world is before you but a speck that tips the scales, and like a drop of morning dew that falls to the ground. But you are merciful to all, for you can do all things, for you love everything that exists; you do not despise anything you have made … You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living” (Wisdom 11.21-26).
Resurrection is the destiny of God’s good creation because the resurrection of the son of man, the Jew from Nazareth the King of the Jews, Jesus. Romans 8 brings these themes together in Paul.
The One God author of beauty is the God of Israel. The One Hope for all the World, Jews and ‘Gentiles’ and the earth itself is the “hope of Israel.” A world set free from Sin and Death displayed among the Pauline communities, little renewed Israel’s scattered among the nations to be a Light out of the darkness to the wonderful world of light and life of Yahweh. This is why Paul begins Romans by saying he was appointed as herald of the “Gospel of GOD …”
Pompeii and Ostia, I am glad I visited you.
P. S. the Wisdom of Solomon is available in numerous English translations: NRSV, CEB, ESV, NEB, TEV, NAB, the old KJV, etc. If you do not own a Bible with the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha just go to Bible Gateway and type in Wisdom of Solomon and select NRSV.
Peter Oakes book, I read in 2013, Reading Romans in Pompeii is a very helpful book. He does not deal with Wisdom of Solomon though.
“Hear, my child, your father’s instruction, and do not reject your mother’s teaching“ (Proverbs 1.8 ).
Dr. Anna Malaika Tubbs, has blessed us with a great blessing. I have read the stories of Martin, Malcolm and James numerous times from various points of view but Tubbs reframes almost a century of American history by bringing, literally, out of the shadows three mothers: Alberta King, Berdis Baldwin and Louise Little (Malcolm’s mother).
Three women born in radically diverse places within a few years of each other have profoundly shaped America. Their circumstances and opportunities differed considerably but each remarkably found ways to affirm their value as a human in the face of a world that denied they had any. Each had sons. Each lived through some of the darkest days of race relations. Each buried their sons, two to murder and one to cancer. Each has been not only overlooked but sometimes “erased.”
What Tubbs does is demonstrate the power of mothers to mold, shape and train her children. In the face of unbelievable odds – social odds, economic odds, racial odds – these women whose names are often not even remembered changed the world we live in.
I confess I found this book to be literally inspiring. And I’m not a mother. Dr. Tubbs aim is indeed to save these women from eraser but also to lift up the value and importance of Black mothers (and I would say all mothers). “[E]ach of the three teaches us that wherever we come from, outside the United States, a big city, or a small village–no matter where we live, the East Coast, the Midwest, or the South–and no matter our level of education or varying levels of access to resources, we have much to offer: each of us carries the potential to transform the world” (p. 221).
Placing Martin, Malcolm and James within a context we see clearly they are part of a whole. A whole that began long before they were born. And they said what they said and did what they did in large measure because they did not reject their mother’s teaching.
The pain these mother’s endured is almost unimaginable (Alberta lost not one but two sons; and she was murdered herself while in church. Louise, likely the product of white rape herself was so light she could pass for white but chose to remain Black and paid dearly for it, she too watched her son gunned down. Berdis lived in abject poverty defended her son from abuse of all kinds and she too would bury her son). What they did through their children – including their lost sons – is nothing short of amazing.
When I finished reading Tubbs book last night (it is a pure joy to read, she is a gifted writer), I could not help but think of two more moms. The first was my own. I have no doubt that I am the product of my mom’s teaching (though she likely shakes her head sometimes 🙂 ). The second mother was that of Jesus. She too is often overlooked or pushed to the shadows. But her influence upon Jesus was beyond calculation. And like these mothers rescued from the shadows by Dr. Tubbs, she saw her son die but he too has changed the world.
The Three Mother’s is a moving book. It is short being only 227 pages. I read it in a day. My world was expanded. I saw things in American history I had not seen. And I witnessed the power of love over hate. If you are looking for a good book then I recommend this one as your next purchase. There is an Amazon link in the title above (I make no money from this recommendation).
