Posted on

Slaughtering the Canaanites, Part III: not God’s ideal

(Continued from Part II; see also Part I)  Why didn’t more Canaanites join with Israel, as did Rahab and, in a sense, the Gibeonites? Most people understood their gods as ethnic gods, gods of their peoples. Becoming part of another people, especially the enemies of one’s people, was viewed as being a traitor. Although foreigners did find refuge in Israel in various periods (e.g., Ruth 1:16; 1 Sam 26:6; 2 Sam 6:11; 8:18; 12:9-10; 15:18; 18:21; 20:7, 23; 23:39; 24:16, 18; Jer 39:16-18), there were cultural barriers that made full integration difficult (cf. Gen 23:4; Exod 2:22; Ruth 2:10) and, on a corporate level, usually unthinkable. Again, the one example of this, in Gen 34, was aborted by betrayal from the Israelite side. It was not that God did not have a better purpose, but that the world was not ready for it. Crossing those cultural boundaries happened much more often in the later Jewish Diaspora, and particularly (moving past the covenant requirement of physical circumcision) in the Diaspora mission recounted in Acts.

Israel conquered peoples who fought against Israel instead of surrendered. Under the circumstances, this conquest may have been the best available means to procure a land for a nation to flourish as a vehicle for God’s plan in history. But even if it was the best available means, as followers of Jesus we recognize that it was never God’s ideal.

Jesus noted that some statements in the law were divine concessions to human weakness (e.g., Mark 10:5)—God sometimes accommodated people at their level of understanding. That does not mean that God was not active among them, but that he also communicated in ways that were intelligible to them culturally, stretching them toward his ideal without usually stretching them to the breaking point.

Jesus tells us God’s ideal: Love even your enemies (Matt 5:43-44; Luke 6:27, 35). Loving our enemies is not a “technique” that always makes them like us. Sometimes those who love their enemies, or at least choose not to harm them, get killed. That happened to Gandhi. That happened to Martin Luther King, Jr. And most relevantly here (and not irrelevant to models used by Gandhi and King), that happened to our Lord.

Jesus proved this new way of peace by how he loved his enemies—when we were his enemies: “God proves his love for us this way: while we were sinners, Christ died for us. How much more now, having been made right in God’s sight through Jesus’s sacrificial blood, we shall be saved from God’s anger through him. For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were put in right relationship with him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been put in right relationship, shall we be saved through his life” (Rom 5:8-10). Jesus announced a different kind of kingdom established a different way—not only confronting, but loving, our enemies. Like our Lord Jesus, we must trust our heavenly Father, who raises the dead, to bring his own plan to fruition.

(Also of interest: Slaughtering the Benjamites, part 1 and part 2)

Posted on

Slaughtering the Canaanites, Part II: Switching sides

(Continued from Part 1)

Reading through Joshua in Hebrew several years ago I had to keep putting it down. As a follower of Jesus, the prince of peace, I could not stomach the slaughter I was again encountering afresh. Revulsion is an appropriate response for those who understand God’s loving heart for people; as God said later, “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezek 18:23, NIV).

But my most recent read through the Hebrew text of Joshua has been different, and also appropriate in another way. Jericho’s walls collapsed, and Israel won battle after battle. Yet other peoples in Canaan continue desperately gathering armies against them. As I kept reading, I found myself repeatedly thinking, “Why are these kings so stupid? Don’t they realize that they cannot war against Israel’s God? Why don’t they switch sides?” (I have to confess, that though I should read from the standpoint of the history of God’s people, I sometimes find myself as a person of non-Israelite descent wishing that more Gentiles in the Old Testament turned to the true God.) These peoples knew the stories about this powerful God fighting for Israel (Josh 2:10-11; 9:24; cf. later 1 Sam 4:7-8; 6:6)!

I found this way of reading Joshua confirmed when I reached Joshua 11:20 (NIV): “For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally …” God hardening hearts is another question that provokes discussion, but note here the point that God was destroying them through Israel because they waged war against Israel. These enemies had an alternative: they could have changed sides and been welcomed.

How do we know that? Because a few people did just that. To survive, the Gibeonites came over to Israel’s side. Nevertheless, they chose to do it deceptively, and thus ended up with a servile status only somewhat better than typical ancient prisoners of war. But Israel defended them as allies against the other peoples (Josh 10:6-8); later, God himself avenged them when an Israelite king broke the treaty with some of them (2 Sam 21:1-6).

Another approach, however, would have been better: had they embraced Israel’s God, they would have been welcomed among God’s people, as the law commanded (Exod 12:48-49; Num 9:14; 15:15-16), and as the Book of Joshua recognized (Josh 20:9). (See discussion of Rahab, below.)

By giving up condemned practices and proclaiming allegiance to the true, powerful God doing miracles for Israel, they could have lived and should have even found welcome. Israel was forbidden to mistreat a foreigner among them (Exod 22:21; 23:9; Lev 19:33; Deut 24:14; 27:19). Because most foreigners were displaced from their homelands in an agrarian society based on land ownership, their condition was vulnerable. Thus God would watch out for them as for others in need (Deut 10:18), and he commanded his people to do the same (Lev 19:10; 23:22; 25:35; Deut 24:19, 21; 26:12-13). Indeed, Israelites were to love a foreigner among them like a fellow Israelite (Lev 19:34)—i.e., as one of the neighbors they should love like themselves (19:18; cf. Luke 10:27-29, 33).

Justice was to be the same for both foreigner and descendant of Israel (Exod 12:49; Num 9:14; 15:16; Deut 1:16); indeed, Israelites themselves had some foreign blood (cf. e.g., Gen 41:50; Exod 2:21-22). Thus, for example, when a son of mixed parentage was to be executed for a crime (Lev 24:10-14), the LORD made explicit that the same punishment was to apply regardless of one’s parentage (Lev 24:15-16).

The chief example of this strategy in Joshua is the action of Rahab. The Israelite Achan betrayed Israel’s God, hid some of Jericho’s loot under his tent, and brought death on himself and his family (Josh 7:1, 21-26). (Because the family would have known that he hid the loot under the tent, their silence showed their complicity and hope to profit.) By contrast, from fear of the LORD (2:9, 12) Rahab betrayed Jericho, hid Israel’s spies on her roof, and brought deliverance for herself and her family (2:4-6; 6:17, 25). Her descendants continued to live safely in Israel after that time (6:25), and Matthew’s Gospel lists her as an ancestor of King David and of the Messiah (Matt 1:5). Like some of their Jewish contemporaries, early Christians cited Rahab as an example of faith (Heb 11:31; James 2:25).(Some betrayed their people to save their own lives but chose to relocate; cf. Judg 1:24-26.) (Some betrayed their people to save their own lives but chose to relocate; cf. Judg 1:24-26.)

Centuries earlier one people had wanted to unite with the Israelites and intermarry with them. Jacob’s sons posed one condition on this people, the people of Shechem: they had to accept circumcision. Painful as this was for adults, this city agreed. Simeon and Levi, however, betrayed their covenant and butchered the city’s men, to avenge the rape of their sister Dinah and to prevent any counterattack (Gen 34). Jacob, meanwhile, was furious with these young men, his rash sons (34:30), and even cursed them for this years later when giving out his blessings (49:5-7). If the Canaanites knew this story, it might deter them from conversion. This time there had been no rape, however, and Israel’s defense of Gibeon should have made clear that they would now stand by their allies.

(Continued in part 3)

Posted on

Slaughtering the Canaanites, Part I: Limiting factors

The conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua was supposed to be the sequel to the exodus: an oppressed people, now liberated, overcome insurmountable odds to make a home for themselves in a hostile country. Today, however, many criticize the book as a blueprint for genocide. Still more troubling, some people in history have actually taken the book as a model for carrying out holy war. (The slaughter of the Canaanites never set well with most non-Israelites, however; in the first century, some Jewish writers with audiences outside the holy land avoided the topic or transformed its focus.)

How we read and apply the book, then, makes a life-and-death difference. In reading it, however, several factors should be taken into account. The most important factor for Christians I reserve for the end (in part III).

First, Old Testament scholars now emphasize the genre of Joshua’s conquest accounts. Ancient conquest lists functioned as triumph boasts, but they were understood to communicate only part of a story. Thus Egyptian records could say, “We subdued these cities”—and Egypt’s army had to march into those cities the next spring for a new offensive. Sometimes they declared, we “utterly annihilated” peoples, but the peoples continued to exist; the boast simply means they defeated their warriors. Likewise the Israelites sometimes defeated enemies “completely”—and then some of the enemies escaped (Josh 10:20). As in some other ancient conquest lists, Israel reportedly took all the land (10:40; 11:11, 16, 19)—yet much land in fact remained to be taken (13:1-7). Only a minority of cities were actually destroyed (11:13), cities defeated at one point often had to be retaken (cf. 8:17, 22, 24; 12:16; Judg 1:22-25), and Israel settled mostly in the hill country. Both the Book of Judges and archaeological evidence (if we have in view the right period) show us that Joshua’s conquest lists, like others of the era, summarized victories in glowing terms not always intended completely literally.

Second, God did not allow Israel to take the land until “the sin of the Amorites” living there “has … reached its full measure” (Gen 15:16, NIV). That is, God was executing judgment on the Canaanites through the invasion. If God could destroy most of humanity in a flood or could destroy Sodom and Gomorrah through fire, he could also send judgment through other means that he chose, including invasions. For example, God later judged Israel and Judah through Assyria and Babylon, although the agents of his judgment intended the violence only for their own purposes and would in turn be judged for their sin (Isa 10:5-14).

Whether we like it or not, God has the right to judge humanity; whether we like it or not, every one of us will sooner or later face death in one way or another, and must answer to him for our choices. Once Canaan’s sin “reached its full measure,” God had the right to execute capital punishment on the society, and chose to do it through Israel. This is why God’s orders clearly restricted this punishment to the land in question. “Holy war” and devoting things to deities for destruction were concepts understood in cultures surrounding Israel. But Israel could fight such a war only under God’s direct orders (though we also see a “just war” in Gen 14:14-16 to free slaves; cf. 2 Sam 30:7-8, 18-20).

Third, God knew what would happen to Israel if they shared the land with the Canaanites—what did in fact happen later. At this time Israel was virtually alone among surrounding cultures in being monotheistic and aniconic (no deity-images). Israel would be very susceptible to “progressive” outside influences from apparently stronger cultures. Based on thousands of remains of cremated babies at Carthage (a Phoenician settlement elsewhere) and other evidence many scholars speak of Canaan’s special depravity. Many Canaanite towns’ annual revolts against Egypt, once Egyptian armies were no longer in sight, also suggest that nothing less than total war would subdue them firmly.

Fourth, most of the peoples in the land chose to fight Israel, ensuring these peoples’ destruction (Josh 11:20). Pacifism has much to be said for it as an expression of sacrificial Christian devotion, but ancient Israel did not yet have the foundations for such an approach. Had Israel sought to settle in the land without fighting, their enemies would have annihilated them. God does perform miracles, but often through what is already at hand (e.g., Exod 14:21); in this case, God promised Israel victory but also summoned them to do their part and fight for it.

Nevertheless, if there is any continuity at all in the biblical picture of God, the slaughter of the Canaanites cannot ever have been God’s ideal. (This discussion is continued in Part II and Part III. One may also consult works such as a recent book by Paul Copan: http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751)

Posted on

David’s judgment—2 Samuel 12:11

David’s sin regarding Bathsheba and Uriah undermined the testimony of David’s past devotion to God. He had dishonored God’s name, and now God, who had graciously blessed him beyond measure, publicly shamed David. Because David was a leader in God’s household, his behavior affected many others and required strict judgment (12:14); God takes sin very seriously, especially when it leads others to misunderstand his holiness.

David would experience God’s mercy, but not before he had experienced great anguish. Sometimes we think that David’s punishment ended with his unnamed son’s death (12:18). But David would lose two or three more sons afterward, many of his followers would die, and one of his daughters would be terribly abused. He had set the example by sexually exploiting one subject and killing another. Sexual exploitation and murder were soon to devastate his own household.

In 12:11, Nathan prophesies against David judgment from within his household, including the rape of some his wives (as he committed immorality with another man’s wife) by a friend of his, in public. This prophecy provides almost an outline for the rest of 2 Samuel.

The Bible is clear that suffering is not always judgment; sometimes even when it is judgment, it is judgment on a group, not on the specific person who suffers. In chapter 13, David’s son Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar. It is important to remember that Tamar is innocent in this narrative. Yet, although David was angry (13:21), he apparently does not even punish Amnon! Whether that is because he recognizes that Amnon has simply carried his own example of sexual exploitation further, or because he was reluctant to discipline (as later with Absalom), he leaves a matter of justice unsettled.

Before the end of chapter 13, Tamar’s full brother Absalom avenges his sister’s honor by killing Amnon. Perhaps more than coincidentally, Amnon also happens to be the brother immediately Absalom’s elder, meaning that—if Chileab is uninvolved in politics (he is nowhere mentioned)—Absalom is also next in line for the throne by birthright (2 Sam 3:2-3).

Eventually Absalom returns from exile through the help of Joab, who knows that the king longs for Absalom’s return anyway (ch. 14). (Absalom later burns Joab’s field to get his attention, in 14:31. It works, but we are not too surprised when Joab later is unfriendly toward the spoiled prince, ensuring that he is quite dead in 18:14.) Absalom eventually leads a revolt that nearly destroyed David and his allies (chs. 15—18)—and broke his father’s heart. Absalom slept with his father’s concubines in the sight of Israel (16:21), despite the fact that this was against the law (Lev 20:11).

Once this revolt was quelled and David returned to Jerusalem in peace (ch. 19), he had to deal with another revolt in the wake of the previous one, by a Benjamite usurper (ch. 20). By the opening of 1 Kings, the son immediately younger than Absalom is plotting to seize the throne (1 Kgs 1). Though forgiven by God and restored to his throne, David suffered the consequences of his pattern of sin for the rest of his life.

This story provides a harsh warning for spiritual leaders today who forget their responsibility to live holy lives. It is true that we all have areas of weakness and failure and we cannot afford to throw stones at those who fall. Any of us can live holy lives only by God’s grace, who takes us through the dark times and teaches us deeper dependence on him. May we learn to draw close to him, and encourage one another in doing so. Not only for our own sake, but also for that of others, and for the Lord’s honor.

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

A personal note

I’m grateful to all of you who are regular readers of this blog. My friend Brian Stewart set up the blog with my approval and has made many of the posts from my earlier Bible studies (earlier posts can be accessed by Scripture reference or other tabs on one of the blog’s sidebars). More recently, I have also contributed a number of new ones, when I have some moments of free time between official writing commitments.

I’ve tried to focus here on the timeless truths of the Bible, my regular area of study; I make exceptions only occasionally, where I have enough direct knowledge about some subject (such as, recently, a situation in Nigeria, or my wife’s or my personal experiences) to speak competently on it.

Even though this blog is usually not tied to current events, films, books, my personal hygiene (!), and other matters that people often blog about, many of you follow it regularly. This is just a brief note to express my appreciation to all of you.

Blessings,
Craig

Posted on

“As he thinketh in his heart, so is he”—Proverbs 23:7

People sometimes quote Prov 23:7 to say that the real person is the person inside, the way a person thinks. This is a real principle—Jesus said that by their fruits you will know them (Matt 7:16-20) and that a person’s behavior issues from the heart (Matt 15:17-20). Getting it from this verse in Proverbs is more problematic.

The first issue is how to translate this line. The NASB quotes the line similarly to the KJV here: “as he thinks within himself, so he is.” The NIV, however, renders it: “for he is the kind of person who is always thinking about the cost” (which fits the context); the NRSV even translates it, “for like hair in the throat, so are they.” If I were following the Greek translation, I would agree with the NRSV here, but the traditional Hebrew text seems more easily translated like we have it in the NASB or the KJV.

The second issue is the point in the context. The context is a selfish man urging you to eat the food he sets before you, but his heart is not really with you. If you eat too much of the food he shares, you will be sorry, because he really does not want to share much with you. His real attitude is what’s in his heart.

In the ancient world, sharing food obligated people to loyalty to one another. But Proverbs warns that you cannot trust your host if he is selfish; he may encourage you to eat as much as you like, but you will be sorry if you trust him. What matters is not what he says to you, but what he really thinks in his heart (23:6-8). In the same way, when you dine before a ruler and are tempted to eat the lavish meal prepared before you, put a knife to your throat (figuratively speaking) to keep yourself from eating too much (23:2).

You have to know the character of your host. When my wife cooks something, she really wants to share it as much as possible. I try to use resources more sparingly, to spread them around, so I eat and share food more sparingly. But when you don’t know someone well enough to trust their intentions, it may be wise to see how generous they really wish to be before imposing on them.

The point is not a general illustration about thinking in the heart (although it might illustrate that) but about keeping yourself and your appetite under control when your host may be more concerned about the cost of the food than about entertaining you. My Western culture has less sense of obligation to invite people for meals, but we still need to be sensitive to whether someone really wants to help us in given ways or we will be seen as a drain on their time and resources. In other words, choose your friends and allies wisely, and do not let your hair down (for those who still have hair!) in front of just anyone. Not everyone has the same intention.

Posted on

Interview with Craig on Asbury’s website

Asbury’s website interviewed Craig here:

http://asburyseminary.edu/academics/faculty/interviews/craig-keener/

Questions included the following:

What’s your favorite scripture and why?

My favorite biblical books (right now) are Acts and Revelation–though I wouldn’t want to do without any of the books of the Bible! In recent years I have been deeper and deeper in Acts, and feel increasingly at home in the mission and the power of the Spirit that Acts depicts. Revelation gives a stark, spiritual view of reality, always summoning us beyond our sufferings to a heavenly perspective on reality, and to worship God and the lamb, who have brought about our salvation.

What’s the most amazing miracle you’ve ever witnessed and where did it happen? …

What 3 books do you think everyone should read? …

What does being Kingdom-focused or Kingdom-minded mean to you? How does that play out in real-life? …
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.