Category Archives: New Testament

Posted on

Who really speaks for God?—1 Thessalonians 5:21

Paul closes his first letter to the Thessalonians with a series of exhortations. Paul no doubt designed these exhortations particularly for the believers in Thessalonica, but they relevant for us today also. (Ancient writers sometimes listed a series of exhortations; in this case, Paul is adding some concise advice after finishing the main part of his letter.) I will focus especially on Paul’s exhortations concerning prophecy, in their wider ancient Christian context, but many of these principles also apply when we evaluate teachings.

Paul’s exhortations in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-22

Paul’s closing exhortations include supporting and heeding God’s workers among them (5:12-13a), remaining in unity (5:13b), giving each member of the body what they need (admonition, encouragement, or help, 5:14) and being patient and kind with everyone (5:14b-15).

Paul then lists a trio of exhortations related to a worshipful heart: always rejoice, continue in prayer, and give thanks in every situation (5:16-18). Such an approach to life demonstrates faith in God who guides our lives. Of course, these are general summaries, not meaning that a person is never sad. Elsewhere Paul does value grieving with those who grieve (Rom 12:15) and himself grieves whenever he thinks of the fallen state of his people (Rom 9:2-3). He feared for a friend’s safety (2 Cor 7:5) and was deeply concerned for the churches (2 Cor 11:28-29; 1 Thess 3:5). Nevertheless, joy is characteristic of life in the Spirit (Gal 5:22) and of much worship (e.g., Ps 9:2; 27:6; 32:11; 33:3).

Then Paul turns to what might be another trio of exhortations, the third of which might raise two related issues. We must not “quench” the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19); we must not despise prophecies (5:20); we must evaluate them (5:21), embracing what is good and rejecting what is evil (5:21-22).

The verb that Paul uses to warn against “quenching” the Spirit originally (and usually still) referred to putting out a fire. This suggests to us that the Spirit sometimes moves God’s people in astonishingly dramatic ways; even more clearly, it warns us that our resistance can hinder the Spirit’s work. We can do this in ways such as preferring our old patterns of doing things to what God is now doing, or by deliberate disobedience.

Discerning prophecies (1 Thess 5:20-22)

The next exhortation likely suggests one of the Spirit’s key ways of working: “Do not despise prophecies” (5:20). As we see in 1 Corinthians 14 and in light of the Old Testament, God moved some of those listening to him to deliver his message to others. Whereas this may have sometimes been practiced in small groups of prophets in the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Sam 10:5-6, 10), God had now poured out the prophetic Spirit so widely starting at Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18) that such prophecy was widespread among the early churches (compare 1 Cor 14:1, 5, 26-31).

The verb translated “despise” implies contemptuously looking down on something as being too insignificant, or beneath one’s dignity, to consider. The Old Testament and Jewish tradition often associated the Spirit with prophetic inspiration, so “quenching the Spirit” (1 Thess 5:19) may be expressed here especially by demeaning prophecy (5:20). Probably the Thessalonian Christians were not the only ones tempted to ignore prophecies; Paul warns the Corinthian Christians to zealously seek to prophesy, as well as not to forbid tongues (1 Cor 14:39). (See further http://wp.me/p1MUNd-l9.)

Nevertheless, not all prophecies or messages supposedly from God really were (cf. 2 Thess 2:2). Moreover, we may hear something from God yet fallibly misunderstand and/or miscommunicate it: we know and prophesy only in part (1 Cor 13:9; cf. 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 15-16; Matt 11:3; Acts 21:4).

One must therefore “test all things” (1 Thess 5:21). Paul elsewhere speaks of evaluating everything, so we may discern God’s will (Rom 12:2; Phil 1:9-10); he urges us to evaluate especially ourselves (1 Cor 11:28; 2 Cor 13:5; Gal 6:4). He also exhorts prophets in local congregations to corporately evaluate the prophecies they have given (1 Cor 14:29), and may speak of a special gift of such discernment (12:10).

Having evaluated messages, we should embrace what is good and reject what is evil (5:21-22). These final warnings may apply specifically to prophecy. But even if these last two warnings are more general rather than referring specifically to prophecy, in this context the principle would certainly apply to prophecy also.

Often in the Old Testament, senior prophets such as Samuel or Elijah and Elisha mentored groups of younger prophets, helping them grow in discernment (cf. 1 Sam 19:20; 2 Kgs 4:38; 6:1-3). Here, however, Paul addresses a congregation of believers that is only several years old; the “safety net” for prophecy in this case thus involves not the discernment of senior prophets but rather a sort of peer review. Here those most sensitive to the Spirit’s voice listen together for God’s leading (1 Cor 14:29). The corporate hearing of all the churches was also valuable (1 Cor 14:36). Paul could function in the senior prophet role himself (14:37-38), but was not with them to supervise everything, and sometimes these young believers needed correction. Today we still need to practice discernment about whatever message claims to be from God, whether it is with prophecies or teachings.

Discerning prophets in Scripture

First John, concerned about false teachers who have left the community of believers, warns that believers must “test” the spirits to discern false prophets (1 John 4:1). Whereas Paul’s instructions to churches required evaluating genuine believers’ prophecies, this passage addresses full-fledged false prophets from the spirit of “antichrist” (4:1-6). First John offers various means of discernment, both doctrinal (Jesus is the Christ, 2:22-23; Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, 4:2-3; Jesus is God’s Son, 4:15; fidelity to the apostolic witness to Jesus, 4:5-6) and moral (continued fellowship with God’s people, 2:19; keeping his commandments [2:3-6], especially by loving other believers, 2:9-11; 3:10; 4:7-8, 20). Articulating the right view about Christ and faithfully loving one another are both signs of being true followers of Christ; wrong views about Christ, or failure to truly love one’s fellow believers, are signs of a false prophet.

Of course, John was addressing a specific situation. We also read of false prophets who deliberately make up falsehoods to exploit God’s people financially or sexually (2 Pet 2:1-3). Others prophesy in Jesus’s name, apparently believing in what they are doing (Matt 7:22), but are damned because they do not bear the good fruit of obedience to Jesus’s teachings (7:16-23). A person can even prophesy genuinely by the Spirit and yet not be a godly person, simply moved because the Spirit is strong in the ministry setting where they find themselves (1 Sam 19:20-24). What matters most before God—and how we will know who is from God—is not a person’s gifts but his or her fruit.

A very early Christian document that is not in the New Testament gives even more detailed advice. Chapter 11 of the Didache urges Christians to initially welcome visiting apostles and prophets. If, however, an alleged apostle or prophet does not live by the Lord’s ways, for example by seeking for money or gifts for oneself, that person is a false prophet.

Ultimately, in distinguishing a true message from God from a false one (or at least one distorted by human misinterpretation), any given message must be evaluated by a larger context of what God has said. God’s word did not start with any of us nor come to us alone (1 Cor 14:36). God will not contradict what he has already spoken, so everything may be safely tested by Scripture. Further, as noted above, others who listen to God should also be able to recognize whether something is truly from God or not.

Discerning messages today

Because not everyone understands Scripture the same way, careful interpretation is important (see e.g., http://www.craigkeener.org/why-it-is-important-to-study-the-bible-in-context/; “The Bible in its Context” free at http://www.craigkeener.org/free-resources/).

A difficulty sometimes harder to resolve by “objective” means is how we recognize who else is truly listening to the Spirit to help evaluate messages. In settings where falsehood has become widespread, the true prophetic voice may be in the minority whereas those who all speak the same message may be false prophets (1 Kgs 22:6-25; Jer 5:13, 31; 14:13-15; 20:6; 23:9-31; 26:7-8, 11, 16; 27:9, 14-18; 28; 29:8, 31; 32:32; 37:19; Ezek 13:2-9). Nevertheless, even here the true prophetic voice stands in continuity with earlier prophetic voices (Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 28:8; 29:19; 35:15).

Even though some regarded prophecies of judgment against God’s people as blasphemous (Jer 26:11), the burden of proof rested with those who told people what they wanted to hear (28:8-9). “Prophets” can get popular telling people what they want to hear, such as that judgment is not coming (Jer 6:13-14; 8:10-11; 14:13-16; Ezek 13:16; Mic 3:5), or that God does not mind their sexual behavior or popular idolatry (Jude 4; Rev 2:14, 20).

To give an example, a few decades ago prosperity teacher Charles Capps declared that judgment would not come on America, since it had 100 million Christians who spoke in tongues. During the same period, Pentecostal preacher David Wilkerson was warning that judgment was coming on the United States. Which one was more accurately hearing what the Spirit was saying?

Certainly we know what people in the United States want to hear and want they do not want to hear, whether it comes from the political right or the political left. People were incensed when Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, from the political right, pronounced judgment on the United States for sexual sin; people were no less incensed when Jeremiah Wright, President Obama’s former pastor, pronounced judgment on this country for exploiting others. One reason for the public outcry in both cases was that the speakers apparently pronounced judgment after the fact (even if they had also been doing it beforehand); another may have been that it was felt insensitive to the many innocent people who suffered when the tragic events came.

Nevertheless, it also seems clear that it is easier to become popular by preaching what satisfies people’s “itching ears” (2 Tim 4:3). Is it possible that preachers who promote extravagance, or preach a god who does not care about injustice, or promise that believers will not suffer, and so forth, gain followers by satisfying what people want to hear? Is it possible that God’s heart is grieved, as in Jeremiah’s day, by the proliferation of false messages in his name?

Posted on

The Spirit-baptized life: a model–Mark 1:8-13

What does the Spirit-baptized life look like? Jesus is the model, and Mark presents him as such in his opening verses.

The Gospel of Mark mentions God’s Spirit explicitly only six times, but half of them appear in Mark’s introduction (1:8-13), where he introduces some of his central themes. (That is what ancient introductions often did.) Mark’s other uses emphasize the Spirit’s work in empowering Jesus for exorcism (Mk 3:29-30), Old Testament prophets to speak God’s message (12:26) or Jesus’ witnesses to speak his message (13:11).

In the introduction, John the Baptist announces the mighty one who will baptize others in the Holy Spirit (1:8); this Spirit-baptizer is Jesus of Nazareth. Immediately after this announcement, we see Jesus baptized and the Spirit coming on him (1:9-10). The Spirit-baptizer thus gives us a model of what the Spirit-baptized life will look like, for he himself receives the Spirit first. That is why what the Spirit does next appears all the more stunning: the Spirit thrusts Jesus into the wilderness for conflict with the devil (1:12-13). The Spirit-filled life is not a life of ease and comfort, but of conflict with the devil’s forces!

The rest of the Gospel of Mark continues this pattern. Shortly after Jesus emerges from the wilderness, he must confront an evil spirit in a religious gathering (1:21-27). Throughout the rest of the Gospel, Jesus continues to defeat the devil by healing the sick and driving out demons (cf. 3:27), while the devil continues to strike at Jesus through the devil’s religious and political agents. In the end, the devil manages to get Jesus killed–but Jesus triumphs by rising from the dead.

In the same way, Jesus expects his disciples to heal the sick and drive out demons (3:14-15; 4:40; 6:13; 9:19, 28-29; 11:22-24), and also to join him in suffering (8:34-38; 10:29-31, 38-40; 13:9-13). His disciples seemed more happy to share his triumphs than his sufferings, but the Gospel of Mark emphasizes that we cannot share his glory without also sharing his suffering. That lesson remains as relevant for modern disciples as for ancient ones!

Of course, Jesus is different from us. In light of the Old Testament, where only God can pour out God’s Spirit, Jesus’s role of Spirit-baptizer identifies him as divine. That is why John the Baptist feels himself unworthy to carry even his sandals—to take the posture of a servant–though the Old Testament prophets were called “servants of the Lord.” Nevertheless, Jesus also identifies with us fully in our humanity, and Mark shows that he depended on the Spirit’s power. Jesus both empowers us and shows us what a Spirit-empowered life can look like.

–For other posts about the Spirit and life in the Spirit, see http://wp.me/p1MUNd-eN (The fruit of the Spirit — Galatians 5:22-23); http://wp.me/p1MUNd-3N (How can we hear the Holy Spirit accurately?); http://wp.me/p1MUNd-fD (In God’s presence—John 14—16); http://wp.me/p1MUNd-fq (As the Father sent me, I send you—John 20:21); http://wp.me/p1MUNd-fO (“The down payment”); and other posts in the file marked “Holy Spirit”
For Craig’s video lectures about the Spirit, see (for short ones): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U2sk-POYC4 (Pentecost); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdcwx18dIWw (Water Imagery in the Gospel of John)
For a longer one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9FzsR6rY6w (Luke’s Theology of Mission in Acts)

Posted on

Grafted into the heritage of God’s people–Romans 11

The publisher has graciously given permission to post my article on Romans from the multi-authored, popular-level book UNITY: Awakening the One New Man, which especially addresses the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus. Feel free click on the link to read my chapter on Romans, which addresses how Gentile followers of Jesus have been grafted into the heritage of God’s people and also how they are called to honor the Jewish people.

Link: http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=2026c32b-68b6-4e17-a887-ca18a0420b68&c=c40802f0-2987-11e3-b570-d4ae529a848a&ch=c443fa80-2987-11e3-b5a5-d4ae529a848a

Posted on

Left Behind?

As new Left Behind movie hits the screens on October 3. If it gets people thinking about our Lord and about being ready for his coming, that is a very good thing. Nevertheless, there is a theological premise behind the Left Behind series that is problematic biblically. It is a premise that I was taught soon after my conversion, but as I read the supporting verses in context I quickly became convinced that every one of them was being used out of context. (Apologies to my dear friends who still hold this view.)

This is a doctrine widely held today, yet not a single text explicitly supports it, and no one in history articulated this view before 1830. I comment on this problem briefly in the blog post I wrote for a wider audience at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-s-keener/left-behind_2_b_5883062.html

In addition, Huffington Post’s religion editor also interviewed me, along with two other scholars from varying perspectives, regarding this issue in the audio postcast (27 minutes) at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/all-together-left-behind-_n_5926750.html

Dr. Michael Brown and I also discussed the issue on his Line of Fire broadcast (http://www.lineoffireradio.com/) on Oct. 8, 2014.

Posted on

Loyal to the death—John 13:34-35

When Jesus commands us to love one another as he has loved us, why does he call this a “new” commandment (13:34)? Did not God command all believers to love one another already in the Old Testament (Lev 19:18). What makes this commandment a new commandment is the new example set by the Lord Jesus.

The immediate context makes this example clearer. Jesus takes the role of a humble servant by washing his disciples’ feet (13:1-11)—a role normally performed by servants or those adopting their posture. Then Jesus calls on his disciples to imitate his servanthood (13:12-17). In the same context, we understand the degree to which he became a servant for us by noting what he would suffer: Jesus and the narrator keep talking about Jesus’ impending betrayal (13:11, 18-30). Jesus explains that he is being “glorified” (13:31-32), i.e., killed (12:23-24); he is about to leave the disciples (13:33), and Peter is not yet spiritually prepared to follow Jesus in martyrdom (13:36-38).

This is the context of loving one another “as” Jesus loved us. We are called to sacrifice even our lives for one another! As 1 John 3:16 puts it explicitly (my paraphrase), “This is how we recognize love: He laid down his life on our behalf. [In the same way], we also owe it to him to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters in Christ.” The next verse (1 John 3:17) suggests that if we can lay down our lives for one another, certainly we can seek to meet one another’s needs in less demanding ways.

The rest of the Gospel of John illustrates more fully Jesus’ example of love and servanthood, which culminate in the cross.

In many places in the world our brothers and sisters are suffering. Indeed, many even near us may be hurting. What would Jesus do? Now that his Spirit is active within us (John 14:23), what would he have us do?

Posted on

The banquets of two kingdoms—Matthew 14:1-21

Matthew’s narratives often concretely illustrate his teachings elsewhere. In Matthew 14:1-12, Herod Antipas executes John the Baptist. In so doing, he also violates at least four of Jesus’s six specific examples of sins in Matthew 5:21-48! (Herod Antipas was a son of Herod the Great, who tried to kill Jesus as a baby in Matthew chapter 2; unlike his father, however, Antipas ruled only Galilee and Perea.)

Herod Antipas had arrested John because John’s criticism of Antipas’s behavior embarrassed Antipas. Antipas had concluded an affair with his brother’s wife by marrying her, and Herodias, his new wife, wanted to get rid of John for criticizing them. In addition to the embarrassment, John’s preaching risked political complications for Antipas, though John’s own interest was primarily moral. To marry Herodias, Antipas had to agree to divorce his first wife—but she was a Nabatean princess, and Antipas’s action made him an enemy of Aretas, the Nabatean king. Many ethnic Nabateans lived in Antipas’s territory of Perea, and the last thing Antipas thought he needed was a prophet running around there criticizing Antipas’s behavior.

It was politically dangerous to execute someone the people considered a prophet, yet it was also too dangerous to let him keep publicly denouncing Antipas’s behavior. Thus Antipas took John out of public circulation by imprisoning him in his Perean palace of Machaerus. This imprisonment was not enough for Herodias, however; she wanted him silenced for good. At Antipas’s birthday banquet, she used Antipas’s lust for her own very young daughter Salome to get John out of the way.

Driven by lust, Antipas swore to Salome that she could have whatever she asked; she asked for John’s head on a platter. Think of Jesus’s examples in Matthew 5:21-48: Whoever wants to kill is like a murderer (5:21-22); whoever wants to sleep with another woman is like an adulterer (5:27-28), as is whoever divorces a faithful wife (5:31-32). Jesus also warns against swearing oaths (5:33-37) and Jesus demands loving and serving one’s enemies and oppressors (5:38-48). Antipas treats John as an enemy whom he wants to kill (14:5); Antipas further betrays his wife and becomes a prisoner to his own lust and oaths.

History tells us that Herod Antipas’s choices cost him the very honor and kingdom he tried to preserve. Remember Antipas’s concern about the Nabateans? The Nabatean king, Aretas, defeated Antipas in battle and would have taken his territory from him had Rome not intervened. Galileans murmured that this humiliating defeat was God’s judgment on Antipas for executing John, shaming Antipas even more.

Nor was that defeat the only trouble that Antipas’s marriage to Herodias cost him. In Mark, a drunken and lustful Antipas offered to give away his kingdom cheaply; in the end, his lust did historically cost him his kingdom. Herodias not only insisted on John’s death; she also insisted that her husband petition Rome for the official title of “king.” (Although the Bible sometimes loosely calls him a king, his role as far as most Galileans were concerned, his official title was merely “tetrarch,” as in 14:1.) Finally Antipas petitioned for the title, and the emperor deemed that request treason. Herod Antipas and Herodias lost their rule and spent the rest of their lives in exile.

This narrative about Antipas’s deadly banquet opened with Antipas hearing about Jesus and comparing him with John (14:1-2)—a comparison that warns the reader of the hostility that awaits Jesus. The next narrative, by contrast, opens with Jesus hearing what Antipas has done (14:13), and thus withdrawing further from Antipas’s domain. But whereas Antipas’s banquet led to the murder of a prophet, Jesus offers a different sort of banquet in 14:14-21. Jesus feeds far more people at his banquet than Antipas had—indeed, more than five thousand. Eating with others was like an act of covenant that brought people into a permanent relationship (that was why many religious people criticized Jesus for eating with “sinners” and collaborators with the occupying kingdom; cf. 9:10-11). Antipas’s guests were of high status and he had food (and a head) served on platters; by contrast, Jesus reached out to whoever was willing to become part of his kingdom (cf. 22:9-10).

Jesus fed his followers through a miraculous act like manna in the wilderness or like Elijah or especially Elisha multiplying food. In so doing, Jesus offered a foretaste of a different kingdom, one nothing like Antipas’s. All who hunger and thirst for that kingdom will ultimately be satisfied (5:6).

When we eat and drink together in memory of Jesus’s final meal with his first disciples, we remember that he promised to drink with us again in his Father’s kingdom (26:29). We also remember how much that promised kingdom cost him: “This is my body,” and “This is my blood of the covenant” (26:28). Lustful Antipas abused power at his banquet, killed a man of God, and lost his kingdom. By contrast, our Lord came to serve and to give his life on behalf of others (20:28)—and he will reign forever.

Craig Keener is professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary and author of The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (revised edition, InterVarsity, 2014).

Posted on

How the Book of James fits together

Some people, reading the letter of James, have thought that it collects miscellaneous exhortations that do not fit together very well. When one examines it carefully, however, it becomes clear that it does fit together around some common themes. Some scholars argue that others helped James arrange his teachings, especially when they were circulated for an audience outside Judea. This would not be surprising, since speakers commonly depended on scribes to put their teaching into writing. Scholars also debate whether it is a letter essay or simply an essay with a letter greeting (for convenience we will use “letter”). The important point here is that his teachings fit together.

In another post (http://www.craigkeener.org/resist-the-devil-—-james-47-and-other-verses/), I ask how James wants us to resist the devil (4:7). There I suggest that in context he especially is emphasizing resisting the world’s values, such as envy and conflict. This is a valid general principle, but were there any specific conflicts that James was especially concerned about among his readers? Most likely, there were.

In the introduction to the work James introduces several themes which recur through the rest of the letter. By tracing these themes, we get a simple outline of the basic issues the letter addresses. (When I preach on James, I often like to preach from the introduction of the letter, which allows me to preach most of the letter using just one or two paragraphs as my outline.)

First of all, we see the problem James confronts: his readers encounter various trials (1:2). As one reads through the letter, one gathers that many of his readers are poor people who are being oppressed by the rich (1:9-11; 2:2-6; 5:1-6). (Background sheds even more light on this situation, which was very common in James’s day: many wealthy landlords owned estates worked by peasants, and sometimes owned rickety tenements in cities as well. But for now I will continue to focus on whole-book context—how the work fits together.) Some of James’ readers appear tempted to deal with their problem of various trials in the wrong way: with a violent (whether verbally or physically) response (1:19-20; 2:11; 3:9; 4:2).

So James offers a solution demanding from them three virtues: endurance (1:3-4), wisdom (1:5), and faith (1:6-8). They need God’s wisdom to properly endure, and they need faith when they pray to God for this wisdom. James returns to each of these virtues later in his letter, explaining them in further detail. Thus he deals with endurance more fully near the end of his letter, using Job and the prophets as biblical examples of such endurance (5:7-11).

He also demands sincere rather than merely passing faith (2:14-26). What he says about faith here is instructive. Some of the poor were tempted to lash out against their oppressors, and might think God would still be on their side so long as they had not committed sins like adultery. But James reminds them (or perhaps their oppressors) that murder is sin even if they do not commit adultery (2:11). The basic confession of Jewish faith was the oneness of God, but James reminds his friends that even demons have “faith” that God is one, but this knowledge does not save them (2:19). Genuine faith means faith that is demonstrated by obedience (2:14-18). Thus if we pray “in faith” for wisdom, we must pray in the genuine faith that is willing to obey whatever wisdom God gives us! We must not be “double-minded” (1:8), which means trying to embrace both the world’s perspective and God’s at the same time (4:8).

James especially treats in more detail the matter of wisdom. He is concerned about inflammatory rhetoric—the sort of speech that stirs people to anger against others (1:19-20; 3:1-12). (At the risk of becoming a lightning rod, I may note with sadness that in some countries, such as my own, even some Christians engage in inflammatory rhetoric around election time.) This does not mean that James remains silent toward oppressors; he prophesies God’s judgment against them (5:1-6)! But he does not approve of stirring people to violence against them.

James notes that there are two kinds of wisdom. One kind involves strife and selfishness and is worldly and demonic (3:14); this is the sort of view and attitude that tempts his readers. James instead advocates God’s way of wisdom, which is gentle (3:13); it is pure—unmixed with the other kind of “wisdom”—and peaceable, gentle, ready to yield, full of mercy and the fruit of righteousness that is sown in peace (3:17-18). In other words, it has a lot to do with seeking peace. Especially in Judea, many were tempted to use violence (4:2) and desire the world’s way of doing things (4:4). But rather than taking matters into their own hands, they should submit to God (4:7).

James denounced the oppressors who killed the innocent (5:6), and was himself executed unjustly by a high priest. He was so beloved by the poor and Jewish people who observed the law, however, that the high priest was soon deposed for the action against him and others. Nevertheless, most people did not heed his warnings. (Compare how Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke up for peace, and many young people felt he was not radical enough. When he was assassinated, however, they erupted in protests. Even if they disagreed with his strategy, they knew that he stood for them.) Within a few years of James’s execution, Judea slid into war with Rome. Within three and a half years, the temple lay in smoldering ruins, with Jerusalem’s people enslaved or dead.

James is calling us to keep peace with one another. And if he calls the oppressed not to seek to harm their oppressors, how much more does he summon all of us to love and remain gentle toward those closest to us, even when they are unkind to us? “Resisting the devil” may involve more work than some people think.

Afternote: For the purpose of clarifying what I am not addressing: pacifists and just-war theorists will differ on where to draw the line when oppression becomes intolerable, and the guidance James offers is not specific enough to resolve the issue by itself. It should be noted that the level of oppression that James addresses was far below that involved in genocide or enslavement, but it was higher, for example, than that experienced by the U.S. Thirteen Colonies before the American Revolution. One cannot then securely apply James to protest force when needed to stop lethal violence (e.g., police intervening to stop a killing rampage or armed peace-keeping forces preventing genocide). But given the concerns of most of my readership, my point in this post is less about international relations than about interpersonal relationships.

Posted on

Racial reconciliation in Romans

Why did Paul have to spend so much time in Romans arguing from the Old Testament that salvation was by grace through faith? Were there any real Christians who doubted this? Reading Romans as an entire book explains the reason for each passage within that book, and each passage in turn helps us understand the letter as a whole. At least one central issue is that Paul addresses a controversy over Jewish and Gentile practices.

Paul begins Romans by emphasizing that the Gentiles are lost (Rom 1:18-32); just as some Jewish Christian listeners might be applauding, Paul points out that religious people are also lost (Rom 2), and summarizes that everyone is lost (Rom 3). Paul establishes that all humanity is equally lost to remind us that all of us have to come to God on the same terms; none of us can boast against others.

But most Jewish people believed that they were chosen for salvation in Abraham; therefore Paul reminds his fellow Jewish believers in Jesus that it is spiritual rather than ethnic descent from Abraham that matters for salvation (Rom 4). Lest any Jewish hearers continue to stress their genetic descent, he reminds them that all people—including themselves—descend from the same human sinner (5:12-21).

Most Jewish people believed that most Jews kept the Bible’s many laws (at least most of the time), whereas most Gentiles did not even keep the few commandments (often numbered as seven) that many Jews believed God gave to Noah. So Paul argues that while the law is good, trying to keep it never saved its practitioners, including Paul (Rom 7); only Jesus Christ can save us! And lest Paul’s fellow Jewish believers continue to appeal to their chosenness in Abraham, Paul reminds them that not all Abraham’s physical descendants were chosen with respect to the promise, even in the first two generations (Rom 9:6-13). God was so sovereign that he was not bound to choosing people on the basis of their ethnicity (9:18-24). He could choose people on the basis of their faith in Christ.

But lest the Gentile Christians look down on their Jewish siblings, Paul also reminds them that the heritage into which they had been grafted was, after all, Israel’s (Rom 11). God had a Jewish remnant, and would one day turn the majority of Jewish people to faith in Christ (11:25-26).

At this point Paul gets very practical. Christians must serve one another (Rom 12); the heart of God’s law is actually loving one another (13:8-10). Ancient literature shows that Roman Gentiles made fun of Roman Jews especially for their food laws and holy days; Paul argues that we should not look down on one another because of such minor differences of practice (Rom 14).

Paul then provides examples of ethnic reconciliation: Jesus though Jewish ministered to the Gentiles (15:7-12), as he shows lavishly through Scripture. Moreover, Paul himself was bringing an offering from Gentile churches for the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, to whom Gentile believers owed the message of salvation (15:25-31). In the midst of his closing greetings, Paul offers one final exhortation: Beware of those who cause division (16:17). One division that was central in the Roman church seems to be a division over Jewish and Gentile practices.

Getting the whole picture of Romans provides us a clearer understanding of the function of each particular passage in the work as a whole. It also suggests the sort of situation that the letter addresses. What we know of the “background” sheds more light on this situation: Rome earlier expelled the Jewish Christians (Acts 18:1-3), but now they have returned (Rom 16:3). This suggests that the Roman house churches, which had consisted completely of Gentile believers for many years, now face conflict with some of the Jewish believers who had different cultural ways of doing things.

I first noticed wider implications of this picture when I became a white associate minister in an African-American church in the U.S. South about a quarter of a century ago. I already understood the importance of Jewish-Gentile issues in Romans; it was one key element that tied most of the letter together. Nevertheless, it was when I began grappling with where the Bible addressed ethnic reconciliation that I turned to Romans and other passages. I quickly realized that early Christians’ struggles to bring Jewish and Gentile (or Samaritan) believers together had tremendous implications for us today.

If God summons us to surmount a barrier that he himself had established in Scripture (the barrier separating Israel from Gentiles), how much more does he summon us to surmount every other barrier that has been established merely by human sinfulness? Racism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, sexism and many other -isms are just human selfishness taken to a group level—preferring our group above others. Jesus is the answer for sin, and he wants to deliver us from both selfishness for ourselves and our groups.

Paul’s letter to the Romans summons Christians to ethnic, cultural, tribal reconciliation with one another by reminding us that all of us must come to God on the same terms, through Jesus Christ and what he has done for us.

(Craig also authored a commentary on Romans, here.)

Posted on

Who are Christ’s ambassadors?—2 Corinthians 5:20

Who are Christ’s ambassadors in 2 Cor 5:20? When Paul says “we are ambassadors for Christ,” does he refer to all believers, or only to himself?

In every or almost every instance of “we” in the preceding chapters, Paul refers to himself and his ministry colleagues. Probably in 5:20, then, Paul also refers not to all Christians as ambassadors, but only to those who are bringing God’s message of reconciliation. After all, those he is entreating to be reconciled to God are the Christians in Corinth, who are not ambassadors but those who are in need ambassadors to them. That is why he urges them to be reconciled to God (5:20; 6:1-2, 17-18)!

Perhaps ideally all Christians should be bringing God’s message of reconciliation, but in practice most of the Christians in Corinth weren’t. The Corinthian Christians were acting like non-Christians, so Paul and his colleagues act as representatives for Christ’s righteousness to them, just as Christ represented our sin for us on the cross (5:21). Paul may be using hyperbole, a figure of speech in which one rhetorically overstates something to graphically emphasize a point. The Corinthians may not be unconverted, but they are acting that way, so Paul urges them to be converted.

The Corinthians should recognize that they themselves attest Paul’s ministry (3:1-3), a ministry of God’s new covenant in Christ by the Spirit (3:4-18). Paul and his colleagues have suffered to bring others the gospel (4:7-12, 16), including for the sake of the believers in Corinth (4:12, 15; 5:12-13). The division between “us” and “you” has been sustained through most of the preceding context.

This section of 2 Corinthians is primarily a defense of Paul’s apostolic ministry; Paul summons the Corinthians to recognize his role and to reject his critics.

Nevertheless, Paul and his colleagues do offer us an example. Those who are reconciled to God may in some way carry the message of reconciliation (5:18), as Paul did. Anyone who is in Christ is a new creation (5:17), and thus has the Spirit that guarantees our future with Christ (5:4-5), the trust on the basis of which Paul is ready to suffer and die for the gospel. Not only Paul, but all of us for whom Christ died should no longer live for ourselves but for Christ (5:15). Like Paul, we who fear the Lord must seek to persuade others (5:11). Paul elsewhere presented himself as a model for the Corinthians (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1). We may not all be apostles like Paul, but all of us can live and speak like ambassadors, representing Christ’s name to others.

Posted on

All these things will be added to you—Matthew 6:33

What does Matthew 6:33 mean when it says, “all these things shall be added to you” (NASB) or “all these things will be given to you” (NIV, NRSV)? The context indicates that it refers to basic necessities—food and covering.

Jewish people sometimes used Gentiles—non-Jews, who were usually what they would have regarded as “pagans”—as examples of what upright Jews should avoid. The rest of the world seeks food, drink, and clothing, Jesus says, but you should not seek these things (6:31-32). Instead, Jesus’s followers should seek his kingdom, and these other things—the basic necessities of life—will be taken care of (6:33).

It is probably not a coincidence that Jesus had just taught his disciples to pray first for the agendas of God’s kingdom (6:9-10) and only after that for their own basic needs (6:11-13). In Greek, in fact, “your” is emphatic in the first three lines: “Hallowed be your name, may your kingdom come, may your will be done.” Only after that do we pray for our daily bread, forgiveness, and protection from temptation.

This does not mean that we should not eat. When Jesus’s disciples were going through a grainfield, he defended their biblical right to pluck grain even though it was the sabbath (Matt 12:1-8). When people condemned them for not fasting more, he defended them (9:14-17). When not enough food was available for the crowds that followed him, he multiplied it (14:15-21; 15:29-38). The key issue in all these cases is that people were following him, seeking the kingdom; by the end of Matthew’s Gospel, it is clear to all who follow him that Jesus is the king (28:18).

If we hunger and thirst for righteousness (5:6), we will put God and his work before our own needs. We indeed pray for our daily bread, but we pray even before that for the coming of his reign. Rather than storing up earthly treasures (6:19-21), we store up heavenly ones by meeting the needs of other people about whom God also cares (19:21). God is well able to supply our needs, especially if we are willing to live with the basic things he provides rather than competing with others for status symbols (6:28-32).

Most of the stories we read about God supplying the needs of his people miraculously come in settings like this—where in faith we put God’s work first and sacrifice. George Müller, Pandita Ramabai, Heidi Baker and others trusted God to help them care for orphans; Hudson Taylor, Isaac Pelendo and many Majority World missionaries today have trusted God to help them spread his message. Similarly, Paul and many others have been willing to labor manually in the places where God sent them, even though they could have profited financially more elsewhere; one may think also of businesspeople, physicians and others who bridge barriers for the gospel in various ways that sometimes require sacrifice. Mission is the context of some of God’s provision in Matthew’s Gospel, although the provision may be basic and is often through others (cf. 10:9-11, 40-42).

Jesus himself modeled this lifestyle for us—for the sake of the kingdom he had nowhere to lay his head (8:19-20), as he was often traveling to announce the kingdom and to meet people’s needs. In the end, he was ready to lay down everything for us—trusting his Father to raise him up. Let us put God first and see what he will do.