In this episode, Tim and Jovan cover the topic – “Holy Water and Miracles & Gifts in the modern day.”
An evening with a ministry student part 1 or 2. Thank you for joining us, Xander!
Monkey Bread Theology is a podcast that addresses listener questions regarding faith, God, the Bible, Christianity, Jesus, and the church.
Go to our website to submit your question – www.monkeybreadtheology.com
A special thank you to the Ministry League for including us! – https://ministryleague.com
In this episode, Tim and Jovan cover the topic – “Why does God allow Pain & Suffering?”
Plus, a bit about the Mandela Effect.
Monkey Bread Theology is a podcast that addresses listener questions regarding faith, God, the Bible, Christianity, Jesus, and the church.
Go to our website to submit your question – www.monkeybreadtheology.com
A special thank you to the Ministry League for including us! – https://ministryleague.com
When I was a young man, my mom would stress her concern to me regarding the person I was becoming. As a Central American mother, she would often say to me this Spanish proverb, “Dime con quién andas y te dire quién eres,” which means, “Tell me whom you are with, and I will tell you who you are.” She had good reason for concern. I was slipping into the world of street gangs, violence, and drugs. She was attempting to make me aware that the company I kept said a lot about who I was becoming.
In church-ese, we speak of those with him we share “fellowship.”
This word is typically reserved for formal relationships, it is not a word commonly used in everyday talk. Yet, what this word means is readily accessible. The English word “fellowship” tells us who or what we shape our life around. It describes certain boundaries that shape our lives, our relationships, and even our priorities. We could say it a fellowship is a circle we draw that includes certain relationships and excludes others. To make this more complicated, we may have many overlapping fellowships.
Our English New Testaments remind us that what we fellowship is important. For example, “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Ephesians 5:11, English Standard Version). “Take no part,” this means Christians are called to be disassociated from what spiritual darkness creates. As light has no common ground with darkness (2 Corinthians 6:14), Christians have no partnership with evil except to expose it for the spiritual corruption it is (Ephesians 5:7–10). This is what light does, it shines to expose what is hiding in the dark.
Light does not allow darkness to hide its contents, and neither should Christians allow spiritual darkness of sinful corruption to hide what it is doing in the world we live in. We may live in a world surrounded by corruption, but we are called to be disassociated from it.
Additionally, the apostle John provides a “test” of sorts to help God’s people realize that our fellowship with God comes with personal responsibility: “If we say we have fellowship with him [i.e., God] while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1 John 1:6). The claim to be in fellowship with God must be supported by a life living in the light, not darkness. Otherwise, our claim is a work of pure fiction. It is this truth that makes the Christian faith so consequential. It means our fellowship with God affects our lifestyle and our priorities, for it shapes the boundaries of what we will accept and what we must reject.
More positively, John follows up his caution with another maxim, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Our fellowship with God entails the redemptive and sanctifying gifts of God provided we “walk in the light” with God.
Fellowship is a practical thing that God’s people do. Not only does it provide a boundary marker of godly living amid a corrupt world which sharpens our understanding of what a faithful life before God looks like. It also provides a clear way to share in the life of other like-minded kindred. The early church participated in “the fellowship” of those who devoted themselves to the apostle’s teaching, the breaking of bread, and praying together (Acts 2:42).
As David proclaimed in Psalm 119:63, “I am a companion of all who fear you, of those who keep your precepts.” Christianity is not a lonesome religion. In this way, it stands against the trend within Western society of individualism, which is a form of thinking of ourselves in isolation from our community, our family, and our ancestors. This problem has only worsened in our post-pandemic world in which “going to church” is as easy as hopping online and clicking on a few buttons while still in our pajamas.
The in-person “fellowship” of God’s people, once a marker of togetherness, unity, and godly accountability, as a spiritual biome where God’s redemption is lived out has become a privatized novelty. Yet, when Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers, he reminded them, “God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:9). The “you” in “you were called” is part of a plural verb. Christians experience the fellowship of the Son together as brothers and sisters, not in isolation together.
Ultimately, fellowship is a vital part of being disciples of Christ and a worshiper of God. Our fellowship with God guides us to make clear distinctions between us and corrupting evil in the world. It also has a practical communal part to it, as we join with other fellow believers in worship. The more we appreciate this, the better the language of the communal worship will penetrate our hearts: “Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Psalm 133:1).
Among the various collections of Greek writings essential to understanding early Judaism and emerging Christianity is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, commonly called the Septuagint (LXX). What is this translation? Where did it come from? What sort of books were in it? In this piece I seek to provide a short snapshot of this ancient Bible translation, surveying the origin and contents of this corpus, noting its impact on Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament, and its role in Bible transmission will be an indispensable starting point for Bible students.
The traditional “origin story” of the Septuagint is told in the Letter to Aristeas, a self-described “narrative” recounting how the Jewish Law arrived in Alexandria, Egypt, and was translated into Greek by 70–72 Judean scribes during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (282–246 BCE).[1] This translation of the Law–and Greek translations of the rest of the Old Testament–is commonly called the Septuagint, for being the translation of the alleged seventy (abbreviated LXX).[2] The historical accuracy of the account in Aristeas is heavily questioned by scholars, but a mid-third century BCE dating and an Alexandrian setting for this translation is regarded as the most likely historical scenario.[3] Additionally, the origin of the Greek translations of the rest of the Old Testament is not well understood except that they were likely present by the first century.
The LXX became the Bible for Jews living in the Hellenic world and the “first scriptures” for an emerging Christianity, but it must be remembered that the LXX was not a set corpus of books. According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch alone was translated into Greek. Later the LXX would include “all of the books of what [is called] the Hebrew Bible,” additional writings translated from Hebrew or Aramaic, and a body of Greek literature.[4] These additional books are called Apocryphal by Protestants and Deuterocanonical by Roman Catholics, 13 of these are typically found in collections together while the Greek Orthodox and Slavonic Bibles include others. The earliest “complete” Greek Christian Bibles from the fourth and fifth centuries CE (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus) do not include the same list of these books.[5] It is anachronistic, then, to treat the content of the LXX as a stable list of books that determined which books should be in the Bible.[6]
Nevertheless, its impact on Judaism and the New Testament is unmistakable. The LXX provided Greek-speaking Jews of the Hellenistic period with the word of God throughout the diaspora, but its reception was not without extremes. Some ancients (and some modern people) shared the belief, as suggested in Aristeas, that the LXX was inspired; meanwhile, other ancient believers were not persuaded and continued to produce editions of the LXX reflecting varying translation philosophies (Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus).[7] Early Christians, being Jewish, used the LXX as their “first Bible.” The New Testament books cite passages from the LXX, even revisions of passages, quotations from memory, or employ modifications.[8] As Christian use of the LXX went “mainstream” as their Bible, Bruce Metzger notes, “more and more Jews ceased using the Septuagint” by the end of the first century CE. As a result, the Greek translation became the “only source” in the church for access to the Old Testament.[9]
The LXX tradition is a vital witness to our knowledge of the state of the transmission of the “original reading of the biblical text” of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.[10] The LXX tradition contributes to Old Testament textual criticism by giving insight into the “original” biblical manuscripts the LXX translators had in front of them which no longer exist today. The study of the LXX also helps to assess the habits of both translators and scribes.[11] Sometimes, for example, these translators and scribes changed a reading believed to be discrepant; other times, they “updated” the text to fit the context of their times. Still, modern study of the LXX in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls has underscored that its translators provided, “reliably and accurately reflect what lay before them.”[12]
The influence of the Septuagint in the history of the Second Temple Period and its career for early Christianity as the Bible of God’s people continues today regardless of whether it is perceived by the average Bible reader.
Gallagher, Edmon L. Translation of the Seventy: History, Reception, and Contemporary Use of the Septuagint. Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2021. I highly recommend this excellent work by Dr. Edmon L. Gallagher, Professor of Christian Scripture at Heritage Christian University (Florance, AL).
[Note: This was a comparative historical paper for a history course exploring ancient societies. It forced me to examine ancient literature–even the Bible–as a historical source. ]
If one were to think of the most significant influences in lawmaking one who be hard-pressed to consider two greater and oldest than that the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. Even today, hanging above the gallery doors of the House Chamber in Washington, D.C., are twenty-three marble relief portraits of all those whose works have influenced the establishment of the principles of American law.
Among them are King Hammurabi and the prophet Moses (“About Relief Portrait” in SNT 36). Hammurabi’s Law ( or “Code”) is available today due to a monument relief and extant manuscript evidence (Roth 336). The Law of Moses has been preserved in the biblical manuscripts used for both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles.
In this paper, I focus on four touching points between the “Code of Hammurabi” (Roth) and the Law of Moses (Exod 19:3–24:8) by examining their similarities and suggesting some differences. These touching points are their sources of authority and their significance, the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people, the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws, and what both sources of the law reveal about their two societies.
While this is not an exhaustive evaluation, it is an attempt to understand from these literary sources insights helpful toward a historical understanding of ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Israel. The most fundamental conclusion from this comparison and contrast may be that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the differences demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.
The first touching point is their source(s) of authority and their significance. There are points of comparison between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses when it comes to their sources of authority; however, there are significant contrasts that highlight the unique trajectory of each set of laws.
On the one hand, the preamble of the Code of Hammurabi and the beginning chapters leading to the specific Laws of Moses share a similar concern with establishing the view that each law has a divine source. Lockard points to a black basalt stone in the temple of Marduk (Babylon’s patron god) which pictures Hammurabi “receiving” kingship from Shamash (sun-god and lawgiver), and this provides the divine authority for the king to enforce his code of 282 laws upon his people (SNT 37). The preamble of the Code of Hammurabi likewise enlists this motif of the kings being “called” by name to bring justice and protection for the weak a reality. The laws of Moses, very similarly, presume the call of Moses for the Hebrews to be a “treasured possession” of the “Lord God” as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6).
The very connection between man and the divine realm supports the shared worldview of theism and the order and accountability that follows from that view. Accordingly, then, such a relationship would make Hammurabi and Moses mediators of such divinely given laws rather than their chief architects.
On the other hand, the divine sources of authority are significantly distinct in their presumption of polytheism and monotheism. The first words in the “Code of Hammurabi” are, “When the exalted Anum king of the Annunaki.” Anum is the “sky god of the old Babylonian pantheon” of which the Annunaki were the “lesser Babylonian gods of heaven who served Enlil.” This demonstrates the full placement of the polytheistic belief system of Hammurabi and the Babylonian world (Roth 335). For example, Roth’s translation reads,
“When the august god Anu, king of the Anunnaku deities” (335).
The preamble affirms that both gods Anum and Enlil gave all power to the god Marduk (son of Ea) and elevated him above the “Igigu deities.” It is this pantheon, as it were, of Babylonian and Mesopotamian gods that form the authoritative source for the call of Hammurabi as mediator of his law. The inclusion of these unifying acts in the heavens would create a significant plea for unity under this law on earth.
Yet, Moses and the laws in the Exodus record are based on a monotheistic view and this is significant since it ties in with their heritage. The Hebrews are believed to be descendants of a man named Abraham who departed from the Mesopotamian city of Ur (Gen. 12–13) and abandoned polytheism and idolatry. The Laws of Moses reaffirm this belief system, for example, in Exodus:
“You shall have no other gods besides me” (20:3 NJPS)
“With Me, therefore, you shall not make any gods of silver, nor shall you make for yourselves any gods of gold” (20:23 NJPS).
The monotheistic tone set at the beginning and throughout connects the Hebrews to their heritage, the sense that the God of Abraham has overthrown the gods of Egypt, and will be their only “LORD God” even in the future in polytheistic lands (Exod 23:23–24 ESV). This law will be their guide and source of unity in such conflicting environments.
The second touching point is the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people. On the one hand, Moses is described as a servant rather than a prince. Moses dialogues with the “LORD God,” and then is said to communicate the conclusion of that dialogue to the people. As briefly noted above, Moses was called by the Lord God; however, the Exodus narrative describes Moses as one who does not always have the trust of the people. Nevertheless, it is the exodus (mass migration) out of Egypt and the procession toward the mountain of the “LORD God” that establishes the relationship for which he is known most, the servant of the “Lord God,” mediator, and law-giver (Exod. 19; 20:19-21). It is through Moses that the Hebrews agree in the community to the Laws of the Lord (Exod. 24:3). Moses does not appear as an architect or prince, but as the mediator chosen by the people and by the Lord God.
On the other hand, Hammurabi’s relationship with his empire is distinct. He comes to the throne, according to Roth, as a descendant of Sumu-abum (c. 1894-1881 B.C.E.) and consequently has an established relationship with the Mesopotamian empire (Roth 335). It is clear from the Code of Hammurabi that the king was involved in the development of the laws:
When the god Marduk commanded me to provide just ways for the people of the land (in order to attain) appropriate behavior, I established truth and justice as the declaration of the land, I enhanced the well-being of the people. (Roth 337)
Lockard describes the significant career of the king as one who stabilized, maintained, and expanded his kingdom. Consequently, Hammurabi’s relationship was far more formal than that of Moses with the Hebrews.
The third touching point is the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws. On the one hand, information in the “Code of Hammurabi” demonstrates a considerable need to regulate the treatment and care of women facing a variety of injustices. Lockard holds a similar view (SNT 36). Following Roth’s and Harper’s sectioning of the Laws, sections §131-136 demonstrate considerable regulations on how to treat an accusation of adultery.
§131 If her husband accuses his own wife (of adultery), although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall swear (to her innocence by) an oath by the god, and return to her house.
§132 If a man’s wife should have a finger pointed against her in accusation involving another male, although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall submit to the divine River Ordeal for her husband.
§133a If a man should be captured and there are sufficient provisions in his house, his wife […, she will not] enter [another’s house].
§133b If that woman does not keep herself chaste but enters another’s house, they shall charge and convict that woman and cast her into the water.
§134 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, his wife may enter another’s house; that woman will not be subject to any penalty.
§135 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, before his return his wife enters another’s house and bears children, and afterwards her husband returns and gets back to his city, that woman shall return to her first husband; the children shall inherit from their father.
§136 If a man deserts his city and flees, and after his departure his wife enters another’s house — if that man then should return and seize his wife, because he repudiated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter will not return to her husband. (Roth COS 343)
Apparently, there was such considerable mistreatment that legislation was provided to give the local judges the necessary guidelines to protect mistreated women and children.
Some of the more intriguing laws that deal with the protection of women are in the cases of abandonment and mistreatment (section 138-141).
§138 If a man intends to divorce his first-ranking wife who did not bear him children, he shall give her silver as much as was her bridewealth and restore to her the dowry that she brought from her father’s house, and he shall divorce her.
§139 If there is no bridewealth, he shall give her 60 shekels of silver as a divorce settlement.
§140 If he is a commoner, he shall give her 20 shekels of silver.
§141 If the wife of a man who is residing in the man’s house should decide to leave, and she appropriates goods, squanders her household possessions, or disparages her husband, they shall charge and convict her; and if her husband should declare his intention to divorce her, then he shall divorce her; neither her travel expenses, nor her divorce settlement, nor anything else shall be given to her. If her husband should declare his intention to not divorce her, then her husband may marry another woman and that (first) woman shall reside in her husband’s house as a slave woman. (Roth COS 343)
It is not that every law was written in the women’s favor because there appears evidence that a woman’s marital conduct can be actionable if abusive to her husband, but they implicitly suggest that these laws were needed in Hammurabi’s empire. Yet, this is only based on literary evidence. Nevertheless, it implies there was a negative treatment of women, so much so that it required legislation.
On the other hand, in Exodus 21:1–23:33 there are several sections addressing varying roles women were found in. Apparently, some fathers sold their daughters as slaves (21:7) but her potential manumission was legislated, as was legitimate marriage to the family’s son (21:7–11).
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.
8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (ESV)
There were also retributive laws of justice if a pregnant woman was hurt or killed (21:22–32).
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. 28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31 If it gores a man’s son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (ESV)
Even in the case of consensual premarital sex, the Law legislated that the male “give the bride-price” for her to legitimize the marriage (22:16–17; NJPS 22:15–16). Sociological morés of promiscuity would have rendered the woman vulnerable to social scandal and familial shame.
16 “If a man seduces [or, entices] a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. (ESV)
Widows were to be cared for and never mistreated, and if so the perpetrators would receive the sword so their wives would become widows (22:22–24; NJPS 22:21–23). The language carries a passionate emphasis:
22 You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. 23 If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, 24 and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. (ESV)
Related to the issue of adultery, there was a clear prohibition against such practices in the Law: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:14). In contrast to the wide practice of polygamy (but not polyandry) in ancient societies of the Near East, the LORD God established monogamy as the mandated ideal of marriage (Gen 2:24). Consequently, adultery was viewed as a social wrong and a violation against God’s order. There was a concession for divorce and remarriage found in the teachings of Moses (Deut 24:1–4), but it is very restrictive.
Overall, such legislation in Israel was required because there were problems with the mistreatment of widows and slave girls, and also the abuse of rejection or abandonment of women after premarital sex.
If one is careful to read between the lines, Hammurabi and the Exodus Laws seek correctives on matters of injustice and oppression. These may not meet the modern social expectations regarding what are protective laws for women, but it should be noted different social norms and morés are being addressed in the ancient world than those of today.
The fourth observation focuses on what both sources of law reveal about these two societies. The earlier society of Hammurabi appears to have considerable social unrest and a sense of injustice in the air. The sorts of laws are of such a micromanagement level that they reflect a tremendous amount of abuse in society at large. The laws do cover more than just social matters, but it cannot be ignored that Hammurabi’s Code was, as he affirms, to:
“make justice to appear in the land, to destroy evil and the wicked that the strong might not oppress the weak.”
This law reveals that retribution towards evil, the wicked, and oppression was not only viewed as a social necessity but was also a divine ruling. The gods will hold the mortals accountable for their mistreatment of others.
Likewise, in the emerging society of the Hebrews, it was expected that all previous and current expectations of justice and injustice must now be reevaluated from the perspective of the moral and religious expectation of the “LORD God.” One of the premises of the Exodus Law is their liberation from Egyptian slavery and its moral application to how a neighbor treats their neighbor. The case law nature of the Mosaic Law demonstrates this transition, especially in the Ten Commandments proper (Exod 20:1–17). The good standing in the Hebrew community was based upon how one interacted with their neighbor; consequently, it may be inferred from the law section of Exodus that Hebrew society needed much legislation to correct their conduct toward their neighbor: “…you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:18 ESV).
Initially, it may be said that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.
This is seen in the following four areas as evaluated above. First, despite sharing a concern with connecting their source(s) of authority with the divine realm (i.e., the gods/God), and thus, making Moses and Hammurabi mediators of a law that centers on moral accountability and justice, they are markedly distinct in their theism.
Second, despite there being a common motif of mediation between the gods/God and the people they led, Moses and Hammurabi held distinct relationships with their people. Moses rose to leadership and was summoned to lead by the people; whereas, Hammurabi ascended to the thorn and had an established and formal regnal relationship with his empire.
Third, although the Hammurabi handout had selected sections on what is available shows that when compared to Exodus Laws, both were concerned with correcting and abolishing, through retributive legislation, the abuse of women in their communities in areas of sexuality, honor, abandonment, and humiliation.
Finally, both sources of law reveal that human societies always deal with matters of injustice and oppression, and these tend to be focused on the mistreatment of vulnerable women and widows. The consequences of such laws demonstrate the rough and violent nature of society and its expectations.
(ESV) English Standard Version of The Holy Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.
Harper, Robert Francis. The Code of Hammurabi King of Babylon About 2250. 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1904.
(NJPS) TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures, A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia, PA: Jerusalem Publication Society, 1985.
(SNT) Lockard, Craig A. Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History. Volume I: To 1500. 3rd edition. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.
(COS) Roth, Martha. “The Laws of Hammurabi.” In volume 3 of The Context of Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. New York: Brill, 2002.
The closing words of 2 Corinthians bestow a profound wish for its Christian audience. The passage reads,
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.” (2 Corinthians 13:13)
This is more than a simple feature of Greco-Roman letter-writing etiquette; it is a call upon the full presence of God. The closing verse is also an affirmation of the biblical concept of the Trinity. Finally, we will consider the unique emphasis of “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.”
The Presence of God
As with most ancient letters of the New Testament period, 2 Corinthians ends with a cordial farewell wish. The wish is ultimately that the Christians in Corinth would bask in the triune blessings which accompany the Lord Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit.
This is emphasized by the phrase, “be with all of you”; or, in an alternative translation, “be within your company.” Paul sends forth, then, a blessing to his brethren that the church in Corinth is accompanied by grace, love, and community. God does not only gives us blessings; in truth, we live our lives under the influence of their presence.
Grace, love, and community express the ways the church experiences the presence of God, to experience what the gospel is all about. When we fail to exhibit grace, love, and community, we fail to experience the blessings Paul longed to see. The church needs to be vigilant so that it does not forget its purpose: to be a place where forgiven people help others experience God’s grace, love, and community.
The Trinity Affirmed
The apostolic testimony to the Trinity is clear and strong. Peter describes the Christians in Asia Minor as “elect exiles” in keeping with the Godhead (1 Peter 1:2):
To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood." (1 Peter 1:1–2)
In Matthew’s record of Jesus’ immersion by John (3:13–17), the narrative demonstrates the presence of God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus converging at that moment (3:16-17). Likewise, in the “great commission” (Matthew 28: 18–20), Jesus declares that disciple-making is accomplished by immersing believers “into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (19).
In 2 Corinthians 13:13, Paul not only wishes a blessing of grace, love, and community, but also that the blessings are those which are uniquely given by the Lord Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. It is not that these blessings are lacking outside the church; instead, it is their new coloring by the presence of God reframes their purpose and experience.
The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit
The biblical subject of the Holy Spirit is rich and comes with its element of complexity. There are, nevertheless, many passages that speak to the personhood of the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4, 15:28; John 14-16:15; 2 Corinthians 4:17–18, 5:5, 6:7).
Paul’s blessing of “fellowship” (“partnership, a close mutual relationship”) is associated with the Holy Spirit. Fellowship is a subject of considerable concern for Paul when he writes to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:9, 10:16; 2 Corinthians 6:14, 9:13). Instead of being a community of darkness and self-centeredness, sharing in the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit” fosters us to participate in the redemptive work of Jesus.
Ask this: “Am I being gracious, loving, and participating?” If your actions represent God’s presence, how does He look?
Hymn: Glorify Thy Name
It is a staggering idea to contemplate God choosing self-sacrifice in order to create the opportunity for reconciliation between Himself and his rebellious creation. In fact, Paul would word the matter in the following way:
“God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them.” (2 Corinthians 5:19)
The agent through whom this is accomplished is Jesus Christ. The means by which this occurs is His death, so that we (humanity – “us” 5:19) may potentially experience the reconciliation of God (2 Corinthians 5:14–21).
The Gospel of John provides a fuller detail as to how God was reconciling the world to himself. The record of John is, however, unlike Matthew’s Gospel which begins with the Hebrew genealogical table which emphasizes the Lord’s lineage from David and Abraham (Matthew 1:1–17). It is unlike Mark’s abrupt mention of “the beginning” of the gospel, which is marked by Jesus’ ministry inaugurated by the baptism by John (Mark 1:1–14).
It is even unlike Luke’s historically grounded retelling, beginning from Jesus’ birth announcements to the unfolding of the universal gospel call as seen in Luke’s second volume Acts (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–9). John begins the narration of his Gospel Account from the very beginning. In this way John stands upon unique footing.
Although not being distinct in message and general outline, John’s Gospel Account is a maverick of sorts, focusing upon the cosmic drama mentioned above which grounds the gospel message. To provide his readers the needed perspective in order to appreciate all that proceeds, John pens the first line of his account with the following words:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1–3)
This eternal “Word” is explicitly identified as the Father’s son– Jesus – who indeed “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14).
John further affirms, “and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (1:14; the term “Father,” Grk. pater, is used approximately 107 times as the name for “God” in John’s Gospel). This is a profound truth regarding Jesus’ nature and ought to inform our understanding of the Gospel message as well. Let us consider a few ideas from John 1:1, as expressed in three clauses:
(a) “In the beginning was the Word”
(b) “the Word was with God”
(c) “the Word was God”
The rich language of the first verse of John’s Gospel conveys the divine nature of “the Word” (Grk. logos), who in fact is the pre-incarnate Jesus (i.e. before he put on his human identity). Many times the “beginnings” of Jesus of Nazareth are only considered from the standpoint of his birth and baptism; however, the implications of John 1:1 demonstrate that His beginnings are from eternity (Micah 5:2).
In order to truly appreciate the gospel proclamation, it is a vital matter to understand that Jesus had an existence before he walked the rocky soil of Palestine in the 1st Century A.D. In fact, Jesus was/is an eternal divine being, namely God. This truth becomes more profound when we see that the Word abides with his people who abide in Him (John 8:31–32).
biblicalfaith.online 