CHURCH HISTORY: AD 300 thru AD 500

NB: For readers who missed it, I suggest going back to review my setup to this section on church history to know about my disclaimers. For the graphics used in this post, the timelines are not to scale, and the dates represented are not intended to be exact. They are meant to be visual aids for understanding the larger conversation.

The tension between this growing movement and the empire of Rome continued until just after AD 300. Persecutions would intensify and subside at different points along this curve, usually in response to political necessity and upheaval. The early Christian movement happened to be the second fastest growing religion in the Roman empire for two centuries. The fastest growing religious movement was that of Mithra (a Roman offshoot of what is typically called “Zoroastrianism”). Emperors were sometimes known to claim to be Mithra incarnate, and the last emperor who made such a claim was Chlorus, the father of Constantine. His birthday happened to be December 25, and the Constantinian Dynasty (started by Chlorus) enacted an imperial Advent celebrating his birth — but I digress.

Most people familiar with this period of history will know that Chlorus’s son Constantine changed the course of Christian history. While the story is generally understood, the details are quite muddy depending on exactly who is telling the story and what their ultimate goal is. Constantine found himself battling over a strategic bridge; should this bridge be captured, many said the fall of Rome would be imminent. As history tells the story, Constantine seemed to be backed up against enormous odds. According to his testimony, as Constantine considered the possibilities of retreat, surrender, or certain death, he had a vision where the Christian God showed him a shield with the Greek letters “chi” (Χ) and “rho” (Ρ) on it. He understood the meaning of these inscriptions to be, “In Christ you will conquer.”

The stories differ (one record is from Lactantius and the other is from Eusebius), but it seems that Constantine was “converted” that day, before the battle. He put this new chi rho symbol on the soldiers’ shields and they went on to victory. Constantine would credit this great Roman victory to the Christian God who delivered him from certain death.

Historians are all over the map on the truth of Constantine’s testimony. Many think the story is completely legitimate. Some say Constantine was a political genius and knew the writing was on the wall as Christianity continued to take a toll on the crumbling Roman empire, with now more than 80% of the empire being Christian. According to this theory (which happens to be my own opinion), Constantine took an opportunity to seize the momentum of popular opinion and attempted to synchronize the paganism of his father’s Mithra worship and the growing Christian momentum. Others claim there is some truth in the middle, that Constantine had some experience, maybe even misinterpreting the vision, and then later struggled to figure out what this change in worldview meant politically for an already divided Roman empire.

Nevertheless, this moment in Roman history changes the course of the Church forever — and as I see it, certainly not for the better. Many folks will flippantly state that Constantine made Christianity the state religion; this is simply not true. Constantine made it legal in the Roman empire to be a Christian. There were no more penalties and persecutions for Christians. It wasn’t until much later in the century that Theodosius would enact new legislation to give incentives to those who claimed the Christian faith (practically making Christianity the “imperial religion”).

This newfound freedom meant Christians didn’t have to run for their lives anymore. Great, right? Maybe. The problem was that ever since the breakup of Jews and Gentiles, the Christians had fallen prey to that pesky Gnostic Crisis. While they struggled to stay alive, these larger theological issues stayed on the back burner. But now that folks were free to return to lives of “normalcy,” these issues took center stage. The different effects of Gnosticism drove the Christians in this almost-completely-Gentile movement to argue about the nature of Jesus. Was he man? Was he God? Was he somehow both? As they struggled to find answers to questions the Bible wasn’t asking, they needed to make a decision on what we would later call “orthodoxy” before the movement completely splintered.

This led to almost two centuries of councils — church meetings where the movement sought to make decisions on how to move forward. While this medium had worked before (think Jerusalem Council), I think it was set up for a rougher road now that the movement was divorced from the Jewish backbone of truth and Text. While there were seven major councils in all, there are four that seem to stand out historically. I will attempt to close this era of history by simplifying (and oversimplifying) them and their major decisions here.

COUNCIL OF NICAEA (AD 325): The divinity of Christ. Ordered by Constantine himself, this council convened to deal with the teaching of Arianism (among other topics). Arianism is the belief that Christ is separate from God the Father. Out of this council, they drafted the Nicene Creed, which declares Christ is of one substance with the Father.

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (AD 381): The humanity of Christ. Ordered by Theodosius I (mentioned above), this council convened mostly to deal with the teaching of Apollinarism, the belief that Christ was not truly human. They eventually expanded the Nicene Creed, making adjustments that expounded on their previous ideas. They added Apollinarism to their small, but growing, list of heresies.

COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (AD 431): The singularity of Christ’s personhood. Theodosius II called this council to deal with the teaching of Nestorius, who taught (although history is divided on whether or not it was him) that Christ was actually two distinct ‘persons,’ existing as God in one and man in the other. The council declared that Christ was in fact one person at all times; they also declared no one was allowed to publish any teachings rivaling that of the orthodoxy declared in these councils. Furthermore, they discussed the teaching of Pelagianism, which rejected the idea of original sin and complete human depravity (taught in Augustinian theology). The Church sided with Augustine and rejected Pelagianism.

COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (AD 451): The fullness of divinity AND humanity in Christ. Convoked by Marcian, this council dealt with the teaching of Eutychian heresy, declaring that Christ, while being one person, was not completely God and completely man simultaneously. Known as the “Hypostatic Union,” the council’s declaration spoke to the fact that Christ was both 100% God and 100% man simultaneously.

If all of this sounds just a bit ridiculous, as if we’ve lost the plot of the story, I would say yes and no. These theological issues are actually very significant. However, it does seem as though we’ve lost the plot of God’s great narrative entirely. This might not have been necessary if — again — we hadn’t lost touch with our Text and the methodology of relationship with God (as we’d understood it for 1000 years prior through Judaism), and if we hadn’t let Gnostic ideas invade our faith. This is the beginning of a downhill slide I’m not sure we’ve ever recovered from. (But I have hope!)

It’s not long after this when Rome falls. This was not a surprise; the original strength of the empire had disappeared even before Constantine. The Romans were in constant flux and political instability. Eventually the Roman empire loses the vastness of its reach and becomes what history knows as the Byzantine Empire.

REVELATION: Mother and Dragons

We are now prepared to get into the twelfth chapter of Revelation, so let’s dive right in:

And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.

Now that we realize John is consistently and constantly placing Text into context, we want to think of the Hebrew Scriptures and ask the pressing question, Who is this woman? The answers to this question don’t tend to be quite as futuristic and far-fetched. Most Christian interpretation will sit solidly on this being a direct reference to Jesus. I don’t believe that is incorrect, but let’s make sure we are keeping the larger picture in mind and exhausting the possibilities; as we’ve seen, this will help us catch more of the depth of John’s point.

The woman could be a reference to Mary and Jesus. There appears to be an element of this meant to employ a more literal picture in the apocalyptic imagery. She gives birth to a child who is snatched up to heaven and to his throne. Then she escapes into the wilderness. At that point, the image seems to break down if we continue to hold to Mary as a more literal character in this story.

The woman could be the nation of Israel. As we’ve noted before, Israel is very often referred to as a bride. The people of God will be the ones who give birth to the Messiah. We might think of that famous passage about a branch coming from Jesse’s stump. This would make more sense in that she wears a crown of twelve stars and gives brith to a child who will shepherd the goyim (Gentiles).

The woman could, in a very similar fashion, be the early Church (both Jew and Gentile). This would also make sense with the reference of twelve stars, and both this and the previous option would make much more sense in regards to fleeing into the wilderness. This particular option is not as clean of a connection when it comes to giving birth to the child.

There are other options, as well — even the idea that the woman is Eve. This would also make great sense; the picture becomes more and more metaphorical, but it seems to allude to Genesis 3 and the declaration that the woman’s seed will defeat the serpent. Of course, this prophecy would be in the mind of Jews for all of the aforementioned options.

Next, who is the dragon? If we stay true to our hermeneutic, this is an easy question. Our hermeneutic (the only one I believe makes sense) says these are not vague references to the unknown future, but instead — in keeping with the apocalyptic genre — well known images that help communicate the point into the current context. The dragon represents the empire of Rome. Or, to go back to our earlier language, the dragon represents Empire.

Finally, the woman is on the run and in hiding for a season. This is the same reference to 1,260 we saw before — an apocalyptic way of saying a significant amount of time, but it won’t last forever.

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”

Now, some may say, “Ah ha! The dragon is Satan! Why are you picking on Rome?” But as we’ve seen in our study of Pergamum, John has no problem connecting and equating the devil and the empire of Rome. John understands that Rome (in general) is the personification of evil and the main agent doing the work of what they would call “Satan.” This is not unique to Revelation and can be found in many other apocalyptic writings in the period of Roman oppression.

It should also be noted that these references continue to be full of links to the Hebrew prophets. The reference to the dragon being thrown down to earth would make any Jewish reader think of Isaiah and Ezekiel, who prophesied about the king of Tyre and Babylon, two other world powers of their day that relied on their pride and arrogance. These would be fitting connections to make to Rome. Again, we have Text to context.

And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with a flood. But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.

We see more Text to context in that the woman is given two wings of an eagle (“Remember how I carried you on eagles’ wings,” in reference to their deliverance from Egypt [another world power]) and flown into the desert (God said through Jeremiah that He remembers how Israel “followed me through the desert like a bride”). When the dragon pours forth a river like a flood, what do we think of? Noah? The Exodus? Both?

And as the dragon goes to make war against her “offspring,” one cannot help but remember the same passage in Genesis 3 and the declaration that we know how this story is going to end. The chapter (in Revelation) ends right in the middle of the contest between the dragon and God’s people, but the message from Pastor John is clear: “We are in a great spiritual battle. We must stand our ground and continue to walk in righteousness. We’ve been here before and we know how this story ends! Persevere. Overcome.”

JAMES: Mitzvoth

So then we come to the book of James. In a lot of ways, we’ve done all the intro work for James back in Galatians. While I’m not going to spend all my time trying to parse the different perspectives and details on exactly who the author is — by that I mean which James wrote the book — I am going to work off of the generally accepted view that the author of James is one of the members of the triumvirate — Peter, James, and John — who followed Jesus around. As we mentioned in the Galatians series, I believe this is also the “brother” of Jesus.

James was the leader of what is sometimes called the “Jewish church” in Jerusalem. As Peter had charge over the entire Christian movement, church history tells us (also corroborated by the Text) James stayed to oversee the church in Jerusalem. This is where the early church had its beginning — and a very Jewish beginning it was. As the church got pushed out, relocated its “headquarters” to Antioch, and as Paul began to spread this movement into the Greco-Asian world of the Greeks (which would eventually be led by John, thus giving us the roles of the “three pillars,” Peter, James, and John), James took up the mantle of leading this very Jewish church centered in Jerusalem.

As we mentioned before, most progressive scholarship is going to say there was massive disagreement (even evident in the New Testament) between James and Paul. In fact, many will say they were enemies and there were two different “churches” — the Jewish church in Jerusalem (led by James) and the Gentile church in Asia and Asia Minor (led by Paul). I disagree with this assessment based on the witness of Luke in the book of Acts (and Paul in Galatians). I do believe James probably leaned a different direction than Paul, but I also believe the early church led them to a union that preserved the church of the New Testament.

So why bother you with all these details? Because this is essential to understanding the context of the letter from James.

People have, for centuries, tried to bring synergy to what appear to be opposing arguments from Paul and James about the role of obedience and faith. While some claim no contradiction exists, it certainly seems like James is trying to “correct” Paul’s arguments about justification by faith.

However, realizing James is playing a role as the leader of the Jewish church in Jerusalem is incredibly helpful. Consider the opening to the letter:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:Greetings.

James writes to “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations.” This is clearly a reference to a strictly Jewish audience in the world of Asia and Asia Minor. It appears to me that James is wanting to speak as the Jewish leader of a Jewish church to the Jewish participants in a rapidly changing world. James is not trying to usurp Paul’s authority; James it trying to be who God has called him to be and let Paul do what God has called him to do.

James is writing to Jews about what it means to live in a Gentile culture and follow Jesus.

This matters, because when James talks about “works” or “deeds” (also known as the mitzvoth to Jews), he is not talking about miqsat ma’asay haTorah like Paul was. When Paul talked to a Gentile church about “works of the law,” he was referring to the parts of the law that make you Jewish. But for Jews, this part of the law was never up for debate. In the New Testament, the Jews never argue about whether Jews should follow the Law. This is never a question! What they argue about was whether or not Gentiles would follow the Law.

What this means is when James talks about “works” and “deeds,” James is talking about obedience.

The letter of James is written to plead with a Jewish presence in Asia and Asia Minor not to lose their distinctiveness amidst a bunch of Gentiles who live with a freedom that Jews are not called to — at least not in the same way Gentiles are. Consider how this would affect the way the audience reads the central passage of James:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? 

Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Considering the difference between Paul and James when it comes to their definition of “works/deeds” is critical to wrestling with James’s message. I also find the reference to Rahab (a Gentile prostitute) at the end of this passage to be interesting. I believe James is insinuating that this truth is true for all of them — Jew and Gentile alike.

While I don’t believe James is usurping Paul’s message of faith and justification, I do believe James is offering his Jewish perspective to the conversation to make sure this early church doesn’t lose its distinctiveness.

As we consider this letter, may we also be moved to remember that words mean very little unless they are incarnated in our actions. May this be true in all of us — Jew and Gentile

ROMANS: Therefore

Paul has spent the last eleven chapters of Romans arguing for unity in this blended family struggling with the full and free inclusion of the Gentiles. He opened with a theological treatise which explained that all of humanity struggles with the same essential condition. The good news (pun intended) is that this means it is the same faith that justifies us all. If we are all justified, by the same faith and the same gift of grace, then there is no reason for division or exclusion of any group.

Although this is hard to swallow when you are a part of the group on the “inside,” Paul reminds his Jewish readers that God is the potter and He gets to decide what He does with His vessels. So if He decides He wants to shower grace on ‘vessels prepared for destruction,’ He gets to. Paul moved on to explain this is all part of God’s plan and always has been; they’ve made their share of mistakes in the past and learned this lesson before. We Jews need to seize our calling to be a light to the Gentiles and welcome them in the family of faith — the children of Abraham.

But it’s not all fun and games for those Gentiles, either. They have to guard themselves against conceit and arrogance, reminding themselves of the kindness and sternness of God. They must remember that — if not for the grace of God — they are a wild olive tree which doesn’t belong.

In light of this larger argument, Paul turns his attention to the application of this truth. With a great “Therefore” statement to begin Romans 12, Paul calls God’s people to love:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

In view of this incredible mercy we described in the paragraphs above, the only logical response would be to let ourselves be shaped by this Potter. How would God shape these new vessels for His divine use?

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

If this is what God is up to in the world, neither one of these groups must think of themselves as better than any other group. (That should remind you of the opening chapters to the letter, right?) Instead, we ought to realize God designed each of us — Jew and Gentile alike — to serve others in the world. We all have something to give. Some of us are teachers and others are administrators. Some of us are prophets, while others encourage. We ought to offer our bodies as living sacrifices and lay ourselves down as an act of service to others around us.

The great Potter is shaping His vessels to be instruments of love.

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

This is what it means to partner with God in His project of redemption. We become His instruments of love and hospitality. We give ourselves as living sacrifices to bless others. Whether these “others” are fellow believers in the Body of Christ or our very enemies matters not. We love and we serve. We bless and we do not curse.

NOTE: While it is a tangential thought and outside the scope of this thematic study of Romans, many people have been confused by the “burning coals on his head” reference. Needless to say, as we’ve learned time and time before, the answer is in the Text. Our initial observation is that this line comes from Proverbs 25. What is often harder to see is that the reference to “burning coals” in the Hebrew is always connected to the presence of God. In Tanakh, whenever you see burning coals, you will also find God nearby. As a quick side note (far too quick), this reference in Romans is not inviting us to “torture our enemies with good deeds,” as if we are taking our vengeance on them in some passive-aggressive form of righteousness. Instead, the author is inviting us to bring the presence of God into their lives by not returning evil for evil. Respond to evil with good — and God will show up.

Might we all be inspired to offer ourselves as living sacrifices. May we offer ourselves to others in love and hospitality. Might we lay our lives down in acts of service, doing the very things God designed us to do for the good of others. May we not shrink back at the sight of evil, but overcome evil with good.

ROMANS: Grafted (part two)

In our last discussion, Paul had turned his attention to the Gentiles and invited them to consider and not lose sight of the mystery of their inclusion. He painted the picture of a cultivated olive tree, pruned by the Gardener who also grafted in branches that didn’t belong — branches from a wild olive tree! These branches represented the Gentiles who had been included in the covenant community of God’s family. Paul had asked his Gentile readers to keep themselves from arrogance, thinking that the story was all about them and forgetting that it was they who had been scandalously included on the basis of faith.

Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Paul asks the Gentiles to keep in mind the kindness and sternness of God. The kindness of God is seen in His radical inclusion and faithful mercy shown to all people, and He wishes to hold a stern standard to His own people, a kingdom of priests, who represent Him to the world around them. Having already warned them that they too would face the same dangers of the pruning process, he now reminds them again. But this time, Paul couples it with a positive observation: If God would not hesitate to prune the grafted branches as well as the natural, it only stands to reason that this same God would love to graft the natural branches back in. Realizing that this metaphor breaks down (what kinds of branches bear fruit after being chopped off?!), Paul insists that their repentance is still a good possibility.

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:

“The deliverer will come from Zion;    he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.And this is my covenant with them    when I take away their sins.”

Again, Paul calls this inclusion of the Gentiles a “mystery.” For the Jewish people, this idea is a scandal; it is hard to accept and even Paul says he doesn’t understand it in its fullness. But Paul reiterates: he wants to make this known so the Gentiles won’t become conceited. This struggle and stumbling on Israel’s part has taken place so they (the Gentiles) could be adopted into the family of God.

And again, in some of the older translations we have an issue that has led to much confusion and the horrible spread of “replacement theology.” Replacement Theology espouses the idea that God abandoned Israel as the chosen people of covenant and began working with the “Church” in the New Testament. It encourages the idea that God started a “new thing” and now all people are invited into that new thing.

Please note, this is clearly not what Paul is arguing. Paul did not say God planted a new tree. Paul said God pruned the original, cultivated tree, is constantly tending it and giving it life, and decided to graft into that same original tree some wild olive tree branches. Paul states this more than once so the Gentiles would understand this clearly and not become conceited or arrogant. Replacement Theology is the fulfillment of that conceited arrogance Paul warned against.

In some older translations, it read: “until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and so all Israel will be saved.” This rendering is not only inaccurate to the Greek, but it reads incorrectly in the English, giving the impression there is a ‘new Israel’ being saved through the Gentiles. As the translation we saw earlier renders appropriately, the passage should read “in this way (or in this manner) all Israel will be saved,” preserving a reading that maintains God’s original story, original plan, original people, and original promises — let alone Paul’s clear argument.

The inclusion of the Gentiles is intended to provoke God’s people to repentance, remembering their story and mission in the world. In this manner, all of God’s people will find salvation.

And if there were any doubt about the above argument, they should be put to rest after a reading of Paul’s next statement.

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Indeed this God is out to redeem all nations. His promises, His gifts, and His call are irrevocable, and He has incredible ways of using our brokenness and mistakes to help bring redemption to others — if we will only be humble enough to remember where we come from. I find Paul’s doxology at the end of chapter eleven to be a fitting conclusion to our discussion today:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

    How unsearchable his judgments,

    and his paths beyond tracing out!

“Who has known the mind of the Lord?

    Or who has been his counselor?”

“Who has ever given to God,

    that God should repay them?”

For from him and through him and for him are all things.

    To him be the glory forever! Amen.

ROMANS: Grafted (part one)

We left off as Paul was concluding his warning to his Jewish audience about the ways they had missed God’s mission in the past. Paul has already mentioned that this certainly does not mean the Israelites were cast off or forsaken by God; he now takes the time to say it again:

Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

Paul expresses great optimism in the people of God and their ability to learn from the path God has them on to correct their trajectory. Only this God who is in the business of redeeming broken things could take their mistakes and turn them into glory. Paul points out that God used their stumbling to bring the Gentiles into the family. If this is true, how much more could — no, not “could,” Paul says “will” — their repentance bring? When the people of God see His goodness and His plan and decide to partner with what God’s doing in the world, just imagine all the things that could be accomplished with that group of people!

NOTE: I hate the translation of “inclusion” here. The NIV84 used to translate it “fullness,” as does the KJV. The translation of “inclusion” only heightens the misconceptions of replacement theology, since the “they” in the passage is clearly the Jews. The Jews aren’t being “included” in anything; it’s their story to begin with. It is the Gentiles who are being included and that very inclusion is what drives the writing of Romans. But indeed, that’s where the passage heads next.

Paul now shifts his attention to the Gentiles and is kind enough to let all of his readers know:

I am talking to you Gentiles. In as much as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

Paul says a large part of his ministry is done in the hope that his own brethren would see the story of God correctly and join him in blessing all nations. Paul isn’t just in this for the Gentiles — he’s in it for his own Jewish family, as well. He wants all people to understand the story of God and His plan to restore all of humanity. The phrase “arouse my own people to envy” in the Greek definitely carries the idea of provocation. It is Paul’s desire to prod and provoke his fellow Jews to do the right thing in the way they interact with the Gentiles in their world.

Paul also reminds his readers that God’s story is a Jewish story. If God has chosen to work through the Jewish people, then this Jewish story must be the right one and it must be enough. If this story is based on the right ideas — if the lump of dough is holy and if the root of the story is holy — then the rest of the story is going to share in that goodness.

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

Paul tells his Gentile readers to make sure they check their arrogance at the door, because a proper understanding of the story they are part of will lead them to speechless humility. Paul points out that if Israel was a cultivated olive tree (a common image in the Scriptures for Israel), then the Gentiles were a wild, uncultivated olive tree. To the ancient world of the Middle East, the contrast would be a stunning one. A cultivated olive tree is a beautiful sight to behold; with light green leaves and big beautiful olives, the cultivated olive tree is incredibly pleasing to the eye. The olive tree gone wild, on the other hand, is stunted in its growth, producing pitiful leaves and virtually no fruit. It is not very attractive to look at and useless for production.

Wild olive branch on left; cultivated on right

Yet Paul says the story of God works in such a way that when the people of God stumbled, He pruned His cultivated olive tree, chopping off some of the branches that didn’t bear any fruit and preparing it for new growth. God then took wild olive tree branches and grafted them into His cultivated tree. Now, I’m no botanist, but I did have one tell me once that such an idea would be craziness. The wild olive tree branches would have a negative effect on the purity of the cultivated olive tree once the grafting process was complete. As wild branches drew off of the nourishing sap of the main tree, the rest of the trees’ productivity would be drawn back.

And yet, Paul says this is what God does. 

God’s gospel is foolishness. God’s love is scandalous. God’s forgiveness is complete.

As this lesson gets longer and longer, I can see that we’ll need to break it into two parts. So this is a good place to stop. We have much to consider. Most of my readers will be Gentiles and Paul gives them all a lot to ponder about the story of God and how He’s been at work. God has been at work for thousands of years trying to bless all nations. Way back in the beginnings of Genesis, God selected a partner and built a nation He desired to put at the “crossroads of the earth” and help Him restore the world — a kingdom of priests who would show the world what God is like.

But God’s people (Jew and Gentile alike) have often lost the plot of the story. We forget the scandalous nature of the God we claim to serve and worship and we begin to serve self. Throughout this story, God has always corrected, sometimes gently and sometimes with great discipline. God has pruned his tree when necessary and invited His children to new levels of fruitfulness.

And somewhere along the way, the Great Gardener decided in His infinite wisdom that it was time to graft into this cultivated tree some of those wild olive branches He loves so much. He decided it was time to display the beauty of inclusion in this tree that is His people. God’s tree has become His masterpiece.

You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

ROMANS: Beautiful Feet

This message from Paul about a Potter and His clay is tough to wrestle with when you find yourself sitting on “the inside” of the conversation. But Paul also wants to be crystal clear that this is not some wholesale rejection of God’s partners who struggle with the purposes and intentions of God — far from it. Paul longs for God’s people to fully understand what God has been up to from the beginning.

Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Paul says the Jewish people have an incredible zeal for God and a tenacious commitment to follow after Him. It is actually this zeal that has the tendency to provide distraction, for while they attempt to follow God so passionately, they can find themselves trying to establish a righteousness of their own — something Paul spoke about in the opening chapters of Romans. Paul reminds the readers that Jesus is the culmination of the law — he is the very fulfillment of the law, and he shows us that this righteousness from God is for anyone who is willing to have faith.

Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

People who live by the Law (please note, not “under the law”) find life when they walk in obedience to God’s commands. (The exact same point was made by Paul in Galatians, as you might remember.) However, Paul uses Deuteronomy to remind them not to be deceived into thinking that righteousness is this complicated thing that must be parsed and explained and assisted. No, it is something we have on our lips and written in our hearts.

But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Paul says this message is already in our mouths and hearts. Paul then rips off a first-century imperial propaganda slogan to express the message of the gospel. Rome had a saying for whenever Caesar was about to go on one of his bread and circus stunts. “Bread and circus” was a public relations effort by the Empire to build allegiance to Caesar and his throne. Caesar would go throughout the empire and with great public pomp (aka circus) and would give away bread and blessing to the people of Rome. The saying would be circulated throughout the empire: “If you proclaim with your mouth that Caesar is Lord, you will be saved.” The message was clear: If you give your allegiance to Rome, you will benefit from Caesar’s kingdom; if you do not… well, all bets are off.

Paul says we have a message we proclaim about God’s Kingdom. If we declare with our mouth that “Jesus is Lord!” and believe in our heart the truth and promises of resurrection, then we will be saved. Paul says this message is not complicated, but something we understand. Paul then makes a distinction between the heart and the mouth. While the mouth is obviously about proclamation, the “heart,” in a Jewish sense, is about our will and obedience. Paul says this message is about the union of our statements and behavior.

As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Still working off of the remez mentioned previously, Paul says this same belief/faith/trust is available for any person — Jew or Gentile. If they have this authentic belief, they will respond with their own professions and obedience. Their salvation will not be denied them.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

However, how will they ever make sense of this faith unless those who are rich in faith are sent to tell them? Paul calls on his Jewish brethren to take ownership of the story to which they are ambassadors. He calls them to take hold of God’s amazing grace and glorious plan and become heralds of this good news to the Gentiles — to go and invite them in! And just for some Textual icing on the cake, Paul then quotes Isaiah 52, a passage which speaks about Israel learning her lesson in captivity and hearing about the goodness and greatness of their God. (It’s incredibly fitting!) The Isaiah passage ends with a description of “all the nations” seeing the salvation of God and His plan being laid bare to the “ends of the earth.” Brilliant!

The takeaway is that it is crucial for God’s people to accept the story God wants to tell and not the version of the story they hope He tells. It is important that we understand God is not simply working with a chosen and redeemed group of people so they would be “more right” than everybody else. No, instead, God has put this awareness in the hearts of all of mankind and it is His people’s privilege, honor, and calling to go and spread the word — to make His mercy known to the very ends of the earth!

But sometimes it is hard to go and spread the Good News that we long to keep for ourselves.

ROMANS: A Potter and His Clay (part two)

In the first part of our conversation, I stated that I believe we miss the entire point of Paul’s larger argument in this section of Romans because we immediately get hung up on theological projections that weren’t within the original conversation (e.g., God’s sovereignty/election, etc.). Paul’s larger conversation is about God’s willingness to show mercy. He is trying to speak to his Jewish listeners and tell them God has always been in the business of showering mercy and grace on people who don’t belong. The word of God has not failed them; rather, it has born witness to this truth throughout the ages.

This inclusion of the Gentiles into the fullness of God’s story and family is far from unfair; it is the very nature of who God is and always has been!

So we pick up where we left off:

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ”

When we read this passage in its previous light, we hear it talking about blame and our election or salvation. But I think the context of this conversation shows us that Paul’s imaginary rebuttal is asking a far deeper question. This Jewish audience is going to respond to God’s sovereign show of mercy to the Gentiles with this (reworded) rebuttal: “Then why does God ask us to follow Him and partner with Him and then hold us accountable to our actions … if He’s just going to throw open the floodgates of acceptance anyway? If God is going to pursue all men and all nations, then He’s ultimately going to have His way and our part in this story means nothing!”

But Paul tells this projected audience to remember their place. He is the Potter, and they are His clay. He knows why He makes vessels. He knows how He intends to use them and how He will accomplish His purposes with each vessel He creates.

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

Paul reminds the reader that God has the right to use the same lump of clay to make vessels He will use as fine china, but also other vessels to store last night’s leftovers. He’s the Potter and He understands His own intentions.

Then Paul makes a startling statement I believe we have a tendency to misread because of the theology we project onto our interpretations. Paul says, “What if…? What if God chose to make some vessels that were prepared for destruction?” What if God chose to make vessels out of the clay, and we are sure they will be doomed to the garbage heap? Cracked and beaten up. Good for nothing. Worthless. What if God did this on purpose? These vessels Paul refers to are obviously a reference to the pagan Gentiles (“vessels prepared for destruction”).

But Paul says God wanted to “show his wrath and make his power known” and so He created those vessels and then “bore with great patience” those vessels prepared for destruction.

What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

What if God did all of this on purpose in order to show us His glory and His mercy? What if God did all of this to show us (Jews and people on the “inside”), the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory — what if He did all of this to show us His incredible plan and the riches of His glory, to shower mercy and acceptance onto those “objects prepared for destruction”?

Scandalous.

Paul then quotes two major prophets who are announcing Israel’s failure to live according to God’s plan. Paul reminds them that they too have experienced what it means to be “objects prepared for destruction.” And they too know what it means to have God bear with great patience and shower His mercy on them. The story of Hosea is not a pretty one and the woes of Isaiah did not bear great tidings.

As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;    and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”

and,

“In the very place where it was said to them,    ‘You are not my people,’    there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’ ”

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,    only the remnant will be saved.For the Lord will carry out    his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”

It is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty    had left us descendants,we would have become like Sodom,    we would have been like Gomorrah.”

Paul will then begin to shift gears by pointing out this is the same trajectory the nations have been on with God. Those Gentile believers who worship in Rome have the same faith and have experienced the same acceptance of the same “good news” from God.

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble    and a rock that makes them fall,    and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Paul closes with an unbelievably brilliant gezerah shevah where he ties two different passages from Isaiah (8:14 and 28:16) using the theme of “stone” to do so. By creating this Isaiah quotation, Paul sets up the condemnation of Isaiah 8 — which says God has placed a stone that the people of Jerusalem will stumble over as a trap and snare — and he combines it with a prophecy that says those who trust in that stone will be saved. By making this “stone” Jesus, Paul is issuing an invitation to his Jewish audience not to be tripped up by this hard teaching of inclusion for the Gentiles, but to trust in Jesus. At the same time, Paul is alluding to the fact that these Gentiles are already trusting in Jesus and finding freedom and salvation. It’s a stunning textual move by Paul.

Indeed this will be a hard truth. For most of my readers, this is good news for them as Gentiles! And yet, for those Gentiles who call themselves believers and have found themselves in the community of faith for some time, there is a real opportunity for us to open our ears and consider whether we have swapped out some of the labels and the details for others things in our day and age.

Is God still the Potter? Does God still get to choose who He wants to shower mercy on? Even today, is the point we ought to be making to people not about a morality code, but about the person of Jesus? Are we really inviting people to put their trust in Him and find a justification by faith alone? Or do we too struggle with the “stone of stumbling” — the scandalous grace of Jesus? Do we too seek to make people pursue a righteousness that comes from behavior, rather than a righteousness that comes from God?

What if God is showering His grace on all of “those people” in our lives, just to remind us of what He’s up to? Forgiveness. Mercy. Acceptance.

A Potter is making His vessels.