“A Vision of the Christ” a Sermon based on Revelation 1:9-20

Revelation 1:9-20
“A Vision of the Christ”

Revelation 1:9–20 9I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.” 12I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” {13 Daniel 7:13} dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. 17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. 19″Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. 20The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels {20 Or messengers} of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

In this section, we see a bit of what motivates John to write, we get a sense of his “prophetic” call. John clearly understands this letter not as his, but as a command from the living Christ. One of the additional features of this letter is the assertion that the Living Christ is still involved with his church, that he is not remote or disconnected but rather intimately involved.
This text also raises questions for us as to why we have not had such experiences, and such visions. While the biblical record is clearly filled with many similar accounts, there is no sense that this is considered the normal experience for every believer. If it were we would have a great deal more of such letters in the New Testament.
We also see a limited bit of information about worship in the early church, when the gathered and how they spoke of those times of worship. While the language that John is using here is somewhat difficult for us, it is by no means so clouded that we cannot understand nor draw from it any significant meaning. Remember that this is a specific type of literature, with its specific forms and language, just like a epistle or a gospel has its unique features, so does the revelation.

Prayer
I. John’s vision of Jesus the Risen Christ
a. Verse 9 serves as the beginning of an explanation of what is coming in the letter, and the authority for this letter. John writes, 9I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
i. John starts with a greeting that suggests some rather important understanding of the early church.
1. “Your brother and companion” John does not assume a relationship of superiority to those he is writing to, he does not claim the status of an older brother, simply a brother.
2. You see similar concepts in Paul when he writes of there being no difference between male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave and free in Christ
3. Brother and companion picks up that same sense of equality in Christ, and deemphasizes the cultural constructs of power, prestige and importance.
ii. There are three points where we see the equality of all believers
1. On is in suffering. It seems clear that there is a persecution of Christians taking place, it may be localized to Asia Minor, and thus to these seven churches, or it may be much broader in its focus, such issues will depend on when you date the authorship of the letter.
2. The next two points of equality exist in Christ,
a. The first is the Kingdom. In Christ Jesus we become part of the Kingdom of God, we are therefore no longer citizens of this culture, but we belong to God completely
b. The second is patient endurance. Patient endurance may seem to have more to do with suffering, but it is separated form suffering by the Kingdom. This inclines me to consider it as a benefit of life in Christ and one that is essential to living in the world. The kingdom to which we belong is not yet fully revealed, and while it may well be close at hand, it is not yet realized. So patient endurance is needed as we wait for the full revelation of Christ Jesus and his kingdom.
iii. The next portion of this verse is helpful as well. 9I, John . . . was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
1. John was on the island of Patmos when he received this vision, this revelation. Why was he there? John states because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
a. We could understand this as a preaching mission, an evangelistic effort. However, there is record of any Christians on the Island of Patmos, beside John at this point. So, if there is no church, and no church materializes, what was John doing there?
b. Christian tradition tells us that John was exiled there.
i. Why would John be exiled? Why not execute him? Peter was crucified, Paul was beheaded because he was a Roman citizen, what would be there reason for not executing John?
1. There is a tradition that the Romans attempted to execute John but were unable to kill him.
2. There is also another reason, and this has to do with the Roman legal system. If you were from the upper class and you did something requiring capital punishment, you would be exiled, deported or relegated to an island, rather than being killed.
ii. It seems that John may well have come from a rather wealthy family, likely one that had Roman Citizenship and was accorded the privileges of the Roman upper classes.
iii. What did John do to deserve death, the same things as Peter and Paul, they preached and taught a faith in Jesus that was expressly forbidden in the Roman world. In the words of John, he was there because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
iv. Now John tells us when this happened, 10On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,
1. The Lord’s Day may be read in a few different ways. There is no reason to read this as the Sabbath day, it is likely a reference to the churches practice of worshiping not on the last day of the week, Saturday, but on the first day of the week, Sunday.
2. There is a distinct possibility that this is Easter Sunday. There is a great deal of discussion about when the first day of the week became the known as the Lord’s Day. Some scholars make the argument that the first reference to the Lord’s day is Easter and that Sunday tradition develops form that.
3. John could be saying this occurred on the anniversary of the resurrection of Jesus, and it would make a fitting time for such a revelation.
v. The next thing that John mentions is that he is “in the Spirit.” This is a phrase that can be understood in several ways, one would be much like Paul uses the spirit, in the sense of living in a fashion that is consistent with our profession of faith, being spiritual.
1. That does not seem to work well in this setting. We would assume that John live a life that was consistent with his profession of faith on a daily basis not only on Easter Sunday.
2. So, what is he saying? It would appear that John was in a trance, a prophetic trance to be specific. How he arrived at this state is not mentioned nor if it were a common experience for him.
vi. While in this state, John heard behind him a loud voice like a shofar.
1. Often times in the OT and the Intertestimental Literature, this would include the Apocrypha, and other Jewish and Christian literature, a loud voice heard from behind, is often a way of indicating that one has heard the voice of God.
a. To strengthen this notion, one only needs to look as far as the trumpet, or better yet the Shofar, the horn used in the Worship of God at the Tabernacle and latter at the Temple.
i. The voice like a shofar, from behind, unseen, suggests an experience with the Lord
ii. Now this is also state that John was in the Spirit, a prophetic trance, on the Lord’s Day.
b. The specific language that John is using here has a tradition in Jewish Apocalyptic literature as well as the OT. These forms and this language is specific to this type of literature.
b. In verse 11 we see John’s call as a prophet, his commissioning if you will. It takes the form of a command, 11which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
i. John is called to write this “revelation” on a scroll and send it to seven specific churches, all located in Asia Minor.
ii. It is important not to think of seven church buildings in these seven cities, but of the church as al of the Christians in these seven cities, because they are the church.
II. Now, John encounters the one speaking to him. It begins like this, 12I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” {13 Daniel 7:13} dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.
a. John turned around to see the voice. One cannot see sound, but if you look in the OT, you will find on several occasions, people see the voice of God.
i. One commentator suggests that this is a reference to the Holy Spirit, but it does not make a great deal of sense.
ii. It seems the best understanding is that this is God, and looking to see the voice behind you is an expectation of encountering the Living God.
b. When John turns he does not see the voice, but rather lampstands. We know that John saw seven lampstands, he may have seen one lamp stand with seven branches, a menorah, or he may have seen seven menorahs, or may have seen seven individual lamps.
i. My first thought was that he was seeing a seven branched menorah.
ii. I am inclined to say presently that he is seeing seven menorahs. The primary reason is what comes next.
c. John saw Jesus standing among the seven lampstands. John quotes Daniel 7:13, “like a son of man” to identify Jesus. The image we see here does not begin with John, but it finds its origin in Daniel. Jesus is dressed in a long robe that reaches down to his feet, with a golden sash around his chest.
i. This is not Priestly garb of Israel, but there is a some common cultural icons present here. So what are we seeing? It may be a tradition about divine persons in the ancient world additionally, it may be something unique to John.
ii. There is no doubt about who we are seeing, it is the risen Christ.
d. John’s description of Jesus does not stop here, he goes on to say, 14His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.
i. There is an odd grammatical construction for contemporary English, his head and hair were white like wool. Yet, what you see is an ancient way of moving from the general to the specific. If we say a person is a red head, do we mean to say that they have a red head or do we mean that they have red hair? We mean red hair, of course.
ii. We see that type of usage here, a white head, specifically, white hair.
1. Now, why would we see Jesus with white hair? There is an expression, the Ancient of Days, a name for God.
a. If you would be to describe someone who is advanced in years, to the point of calling them ancient, what color would there hair be? White?
b. Why depict Jesus as Old, one this is not an upstart religion, Jesus is not innovative. In the ancient world innovation was not highly prized, the ancient was honored.
i. Old people were held in esteem, they were respected and honored
ii. All of this is a way of saying several things about Jesus. He is not an innovation, wisdom resides in him, he is to be respected and honored
iii. He is also from the beginning, remember John 1:1, In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. This is a way of saying, Jesus is the Ancient of Days.
2. Why does Jesus have no shoes on? Why can we see his feet? Do you remember when Moses encounter God at the burning bush, God told him to take off his shoes. If you look in Exodus at the priestly garments made for Aaron and the priests, you will find no mention of shoes. Additionally, most ancient statues of gods in the Greek and Roman traditions depict their gods with no shoes.
3. Jesus feet seem to be glowing, like bronze in the furnace. This is an odd comment, and as to the metal in question, bronze, brass or some suggest zinc, but the important point is that Jesus does not have feet of clay.
iii. White hair, bronze skin and red eyes, but is that what John is saying, red eyes? A fire is often associated with red, but the flames are often orange, yellow and there is a great deal of jumping and the flame seems to dance and shift and jump. In the first century world, dull eyes, eyes that didn’t sparkle and flash were assumed to be bad, the person was not regarded as being well. Eyes that are sparkling, suggest a person of vitality and intelligence, are the eyes of flame or are the eyes dancing and vibrant. I’m inclined to go in this direction. Otherwise we are left with Jesus looking somewhat like an albino and I don’t think that is at all what John hand intended.
iv. The last thing that John mentions here in this description is his voice, like the sound of many rushing waters. Like a waterfall, think Niagara. Commanding, powerful, authoritative and clearly in charge. The voice of the king of the universe.
e. The next few descriptions are also rather vivid. John writes, 16In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
i. What are the seven stars. Later, Jesus tells John that the seven stars are the seven angels of the seven churches. Is this the only image to de drawn from this vision.
ii. An additional image that would have come to the minds of first century people would be the seven visible planets, including the earth, the sun and the moon. It creates a image of Jesus holding the universe in the palm of his hand, which furthers the image of potency and power.
iii. We also find the sharp double-edged sword coming out of his mouth. The word of God is referred to in several places in the NT as a double edged sword that can cut and separate between soul and spirit, joint and marrow.
1. It may be best to consider this as the power of the speech of Jesus.
2. The biblical creation story has God speaking the world into existence, the voice of God, the word of God is a powerful thing.
iv. If you recall from reading the OT, Moses ends up wearing a veil over his face because it glowed, because he had spent so much time in the presence of God. Here we have the face of Jesus glowing, shinning with all the brilliance of the sun, it speaks to issues of holiness and intimacy with the Father.
III. This passage is full of images of power and danger, splendor and being in the presence of God. John behave appropriately in such a situation, he tells us, . 17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
a. When John sees Jesus, he falls at his feet as if he were dead, a sign of respect and humility, of respect and honor.
i. John may well know who he is talking to, but Jesus introduces himself again, his name is not used, but rather a series of titles.
ii. The First and the Last, the Living One, both beginning with I Am, part of the name of God given to Abraham, I am who I am.
1. Then Jesus says, “I was dead, but behold I am alive forever and ever.”
2. He does not say, “I am Jesus” but with such an explanation there can be no doubt of who we are talking about, a resurrection and living forever.
3. This also again speaks against those who would say that Jesus was only a spirit, he was dead, but is not alive.
iii. Jesus offers this bit of information, that he holds the keys of both death and Hades
1. As Paul insists Jesus conquered both death and Hades, here we find John saying that Jesus is in control of both.
2. For those who are bound in Hades, they are no longer subject to Hades, but to Jesus.
IV. These things are not intended to be a mystery, this is a revelation, and a revelation reveals. Jesus then tells John the meaning of the stars and the lampstands, he says, . 19″Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. 20The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels {20 Or messengers} of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
a. John is instructed to write these things down, what he has seen and what he will see, and what is to take place.
i. The seven stars are the seven angels of the seven churches
ii. The seven lampstands are the seven churches.
1. Jesus subtly tells us that the church is to be about in the world, a source of light and life.
2. Remember in Matthew 5, Jesus said that “You are the light of the world.” Not to an individual, but to the church. Same idea different image, here it is the holy lamp stand from the temple, in the very presence of the Living God.

“Loosing your Head” a Sermon based on Mark 6:14-29

July 1, 2012
First Church of the Brethren
H. Kevin Derr
“Loosing Your Head”
Mark 6:14-29

Mark 6:14-29 14King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” 15 Others said, “He is Elijah.” And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.” 16 But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, the man I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!” 17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him. 21 Finally the opportune time came. On his birthday Herod gave a banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. 22 When the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests. The king said to the girl, “Ask me for anything you want, and I’ll give it to you.” 23 And he promised her with an oath, “Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom.” 24 She went out and said to her mother, “What shall I ask for?” “The head of John the Baptist,” she answered. 25 At once the girl hurried in to the king with the request: “I want you to give me right now the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” 26 The king was greatly distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her. 27 So he immediately sent an executioner with orders to bring John’s head. The man went, beheaded John in the prison, 28 and brought back his head on a platter. He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother. 29 On hearing of this, John’s disciples came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.

I don’t know what it would be like to be a rich, powerful, dynastic ruler. I have no idea. I do however a decent imagination that could be helpful in this case had. Regardless, one of the main concerns was keeping power, influence and extending power and influence. Herod the Great tied his fortunes to that of Rome. While he built greatly in Jerusalem, he also built many Roman cities. In some ways scholars suggest that his family had become more Roman than Jewish, if in fact they ever really were practicing the faith of Judaism. Out text today is filled with the fears of a political figure attempting to keep and control his domain. We see this yet today, from third world countries to the behavior of individuals in our own governments. The posturing following the Supreme Courts recent rulings by people on both sides of the decision are examples of this same behavior.

Prayer:
I. Our passage begins today with the political fallout of the mission of Jesus’ disciples. This group of men out preaching repentance, healing the sick and performing exorcisms, had been noticed by those in power.
a. Mark relates the account like this, 14King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” 15 Others said, “He is Elijah.” And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”
i. King Herod heard about this, now it is important to remember that this is not Herod the Great who had been King when Jesus was born, this is his son who is not King as his Father had been, but he is a Tetrarch, he actually rules over parts of his Father’s Kingdom, but he does so at Rome’s pleasure.
1. He rules over Galilee and the area where John the Baptist had been active in ministry.
2. This is Herod Antipas, the Son of Herod.
ii. Herod has heard about Jesus, he heard about his disciples being out and doing the things that Jesus did, preaching, teaching, healing, performing exorcism.
1. Now if you remember what Jesus talked about, the Kingdom of God, if you are a political ruler, who is responsible to Rome, and you hear someone talking about another Kingdom, other than yours. You would get nervous too.
2. I have no doubt that Jesus and his disciples are making things a bit uncomfortable for Herod.
iii. What underlies this is the basic question that the Gospel of Mark is attempting to get us to answer, “Who is Jesus of Nazareth?”
1. In this case, the rumor mill that Herod is monitoring is saying many things:
a. Some say Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead.
b. Other say he is Elijah returned.
c. Still others were saying that he is like one of the prophets of old.
2. What does it say if John has been raised from the dead?
a. God was not happy that he had been killed; this does not bode well for those who killed him.
3. In a similar fashion if Elijah has returned, this is not good for the status quo either. It means that God is bringing judgment on the earth.
4. A Prophet of Old, probably does not bode well for Herod either, they tended to hold political leaders accountable to what God wanted.
5. None of this sounds practically helpful for Herod Antipas.
b. So what did Herod thing was going on? Mark tells us, 16 But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, the man I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”
i. Herod thinks that John has been raised from the dead. I suspect this did not make him happy. John had been beheaded by Herod, and not for the reasons of justice, but because of a marriage that according to Jewish law should not have happened.
II. Mark gives us the back story here. Herod is no doubt troubled by this, a but uncomfortable to say the least. 17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.
a. Some of this sounds like insider information, but we do find some confirmation in the writings of Josephus, the Jewish Historian who writes for Rome. So the information here is reported in some other places, not in the same form, but with some of the same basic information.
i. The history is clear; Herod Antipas did marry his brother Phillip’s ex-wife. Such a thing must have made for difficult family meals.
ii. John the Baptist in good prophetic fashion calls the political elite of Israel to account for moral failures.
1. In this case, it was not lawful for Herod to marry the ex-wife of his brother.
2. The wife, Herodias, did not like this and it is said she wanted John dead.
a. Herodias may have been a dynastic name, and it would suggest that she was a cousin closely related enough to merit the female version of Herod the Greats name.
iii. Now the account continues that Herod liked to listen to John preach, he was puzzled by what John said, but like to listen to him, and counted his as a holy man, a righteous man, a man of God.
1. Even though Herod’s wife Herodias wanted John dead, Herod protected him, but kept him in prison too.
2. Now, when Josephus speaks of John the Baptist he talks of him as a leader of sedition. That gives you a sense of how the political and military elite saw preachers like John, and by extension Jesus.
iv. Herod is caught in this tension, a political/religious leader that many view as a prophet, and yet he sees as a threat to his own political stability, add into this his wife’s animosity toward John, but in the midst of all this Herod finds himself enjoying to listen to John, even if it leaves him with more questions that he had to begin with.
b. Often we create our own problems, and Herod was no different than the rest of us in this case. It was his birthday, so Herod threw himself a party. 21 Finally the opportune time came. On his birthday Herod gave a banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. 22 When the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests. The king said to the girl, “Ask me for anything you want, and I’ll give it to you.” 23 And he promised her with an oath, “Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom.”
i. Herod has a banquet on to celebrate his birthday, and invites the political, military and social elite to come.
1. During the party, the daughter of Herodias dances for the men at the party.
a. What kind of dance she does is not mentioned neither is her name. Traditionally, this has been understood to be Salome, but in some cases it is understood to be Herodias’ daughter Herodias, regardless of who this is we know it is Phillip’s daughter not Herod’s.
b. This may have had erotic overtones, it may have been very chaste, the text never says, all that it indicates is that it pleased Herod and his guests.
2. Had this been a traditional Jewish family such a thing would have been unthinkable, but Herod the great had tied his and his families futures to Rome, and this would suggest that his family is culturally more Roman than Jewish.
ii. Regardless of whether we are speaking of Jewish or Roman rulers of the time, one of the ways to show that you had money was to give very expensive gifts to your friends, and people of lesser status.
1. Herod likely gave his guest that night gifts for coming to his party, and since this step daughter pleased he and his quests, he offers to give her anything she wants, with an oath in front of his guests. So he is bound by his own actions.
a. There is no way out of this without loosing face.
2. the Girl does not make her request immediately, she waits to confer with her mother.
a. This does raise some questions about her age, the word used to describe here applies equally well to a child up to a woman of marital age.
b. So is she a pre-teen or an early teen, or a young adult?
c. Mark continues the account, 24 She went out and said to her mother, “What shall I ask for?” “The head of John the Baptist,” she answered. 25 At once the girl hurried in to the king with the request: “I want you to give me right now the head of John the Baptist on a platter.”
i. This girl is not acting on her own, at least not in securing her prize, she is asking for her mother’s advice, direction on what to do here.
ii. Which raises the question did her mother put her up to dancing, in other words is her mother just using her to get what she wants, or did she do this on her own and then offer her mother the prize?
1. I am inclined to see girl acting on her mother’s direction.
2. I also will say that to use a child like this is reprehensible.
a. Yet, such things are common even today, think if you will the way that two parents, especially after divorce will play the child against the other parent to get what they want.
iii. She could have asked for just about anything, but what she asks for is, the head of John the Baptist on a platter.
1. I would be a bit disturbed if a child ask for such a thing, let alone an adult asking for this.
2. It tells us of Herodias that she would use her child like this to get what she wanted. She was no less a skilled politician than her husband.
III. The account goes on to show us the people involved, 26 The king was greatly distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her. 27 So he immediately sent an executioner with orders to bring John’s head. The man went, beheaded John in the prison, 28 and brought back his head on a platter. He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother.
a. Herod is bound by his oath, but more so by the presence of his guests. Does he violate his conscience and not give her the request, or does he honor his commitment and keep face in front of his quests.
i. Herod decides that his public image is worth more than his conscience. He gives her the request.
ii. He sends an executioner to the prison to behead John
b. The girl gets her request, and immediately gives it to her mother.
i. No one seems to be a person that you would want to spend time with, or to have as your ruler.
1. A man who values his pride and public image over doing what is right
2. A woman who will manipulate her daughter to have a man killed
3. And people who witness this even and ask no questions or raise no concerns.
c. Finally we are left with John’s disciples, 29 On hearing of this, John’s disciples came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.
i. There are some interesting parallels with Jesus death. Herod suspected that Jesus was John resurrected. Jesus would be killed by a Roman Jewish decision, just as John was.
1. Jesus’ disciples came and got his body after his death
2. Here a woman orchestrates John’s death in Jesus’ death a woman (Pilate’s wife) warns her husband to have nothing to do with him.
IV. Clearly this account tells us at least in a sense of what will happen to Jesus and it also projects his resurrection as well. Mark tells us where this story is going if we are willing to listen.

The Soul: Part 2

If you read my earlier post on the Soul, it is clear that the Hebrew nephesh does not mean soul as we would use it in contemporary usage.  While for the modern person this typically means some immaterial portion of your personhood, nephesh was about someone being a living being.

At what point does a person become a living being?  Is that at conception, at birth, at sometime child is born?  What does this have to do with the question of the soul?  What signifies life, was it the point when God breathed into the first adam the breath of life?  So, does that then correlate with when a child draws its first breath independently of the mother?  Is it at some point along the line of fetal development when God implants the soul?  I would suspect that not many of you will be shocked by the revelation that theologians have developed specific terminology for such things.

In an article in the Anglican Theological Review L. Disney and L. Poston describe three ways Christians have understood the idea of ensoulment.  The first position is Pre-existentianism and is defined as, “Pre-existentianism is the belief that souls are préexistent entities who await bodies to enter. According to this concept, the body is essentially “accidental” and relatively unimportant; a human being is complete without a physical body”(92:2 P. 275).  The second position is Traducianism; it is defined in the following: The doctrine of Traducianism teaches that the “soul” is present in both the sperm and the egg when they unite. The combination forms a new “soul” automatically and immediately”(Ibid. P. 276).   The final position is Creationism.  This position is delineated in the following: “The doctrine of Creationism maintains that the “soul” is created and introduced into a fetus by God at a point of his choosing, either at the time of a fetus’s first breath, as was the case with Adam in Genesis 2:7, or when God in his sovereignty knows that a fetus is not going to be spontaneously (meaning “naturally”) or intentionally aborted”(Ibid. P. 277).

L. Disney and L. Poston do a very nice job of delineating the three tradition positions on ensoulment, and sketch some of the implications for these understandings on the abortion debate in contemporaryNorth America, and that was their goal.  However, it is a rather interesting realization that while they detail a brief differentiation of life as opposed to ensoulment; they never bother to detail what a soul is, and what it is not.  One can easily extrapolate the implications for the abortion debate from the three definitions; there remains the unanswered question of what a soul is.

Most people will assume that they have a soul, rather than being a soul.  If you assume the first you likely are relying on a platonic understanding of the soul.  Plato introduces us to the tripartite soul, with appetites, spirits and reason.  Plato depicts reason as a charioteer driving a chariot pulled by two horses, the appetites and the spirits.  The appetites and the spirits are more closely related to the body.  The appetites would include things like hunger, thirst, and the more base desires of the body.  The spirits however, are still not intellect, but rather emotions, like courage, bravery, and such.  The spirits Plato suggested could be seen in the animals, like the lion and the horse.  The final element was more detached from the body, it is reason.  Reason ruled the lesser elements of the soul.  Now, in many ways the body was not relevant to the discussion of the soul.  It was accidental at best and imprisonment for the soul at the worse.  Plato was not a dualist, he was ultimately a monist, he did not suggest that there was a mind/body dichotomy he assumed that the physical world was not real, since it was corruptible it did not matter, and it did not exist.  The result is that there is no conflict between the spiritual and the physical.  Platonism would develop and embrace a spiritual/physical dualism, this is true, but not of Plato himself.

Elections and Oppression

Depending on which side of the American political divide you fall, you were either happy or sad about the outcome of yesterday’s recall election in Wisconsin.  It is true that we pin a great deal on the outcome of elections, and in reality there are good and bad people serving in public office.  Though for Christians to become so embattled in the process, and to hang so much on the outcome of elections, it does make one wonder what role the Kingdom of God plays in their life.

The culture wars have been raging for most of my adult life, it all depends on where you see them starting, but that aside, I have seen little worth while come from them.  I know many will begin to cite examples of the good that has come from them, but I have to ask, how many of these would have come about regardless.  While I don’t know, I do have to ask the question.

Clearly the church needs to be about issues of justice, especially for those who are defenseless, regardless of their gender, age or ethnicity.  It is not an option, it is part of the mandate that God has given his people.  It is written all over the pages of the prophets and wisdom literature in the Old Testament, it is clearly seen in the actions and teaching of Jesus as well.  The church is also to be about the mission of the proclamation of the good news, the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This massage is multi-faceted, and is it includes both the care for those identified as the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger, it is seen in the Gospel of Mark as Jesus releases those who are oppressed, and in doing so expands the list of those needing justice to include the demon possessed, the sick and the injured.  This proclamation of the good news also includes those who are oppressed by sin, and while it may not seem so at first glance, all of the previous persons seeking justice are in need because of sin.

At times I an inclined to think that our definition of the gospel is much to narrow and short sighted.  When we restrict the proclamation of the gospel to only address one individual’s personal sin, and not see the larger web of sin, we miss the forest for the trees.   The oppression of sin is massive, and invasive and almost invisible, because we don’t see it, and regardless of how much effort we put into a recall election, or any other election for that matter, it will not change the reality of the oppression of sin.  Jesus has clearly made a difference, and has revealed the totality of this insidious oppression via his death; he has also announced the victory over sin/death in his resurrection.

Until we, as the church, address the totality of sin, and its effects, we are only enabling people to continuing living in oppression.  It is imperative that we see the bigger picture and not only talk about salvation, but embrace the gospel message of freedom from oppression.  Consider if you will, Jesus did not attempt to reform the Roman empire, but rather reformed the world via a renewed

Mitt Romney, Faith and the Office of Presiedent

Today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has an interesting article about Mitt Romney, a candidate for the Republican Nomination for the President of the United States. The article entitled “Romney says religion won’t affect decisions” where he states that his religion will not influence any policy decisions if he would become the next president of the United States. He is quoted as saying, “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions,” and “Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.”

While it seems like a good thing to hear, especially since I am convinced that I don’t really want Mormonism defining the office of the president, it does however leave me asking the question, “How serious can this man be about his faith?” In a similar line of thinking, I would not want a Roman Catholic President to serve as a puppet of the Vatican either. However, I would hope that a Roman Catholic President would clearly reflect the values of the Roman Catholic Church. I would not want an Evangelical president to be a puppet for Billy Graham or an Anglican to be a puppet for the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. Yet, it seems to me that if the President is serious about his or her faith that there is no way that faith, their values, their world view shaped and formed by their religious tradition should not show up in the policy that they promote and develop. Otherwise, there is little reason for them to mention their faith, because if it does not shape and form their lives, it is nothing be a thinly veiled pretense that is only worn to court voters, and as such is blasphemous.

As an Anabaptist I am a fully convinced that the separation of Church and State needs to be complete. I don’t lobby for a return to prayer in school or bible reading either. In truth, I do not want public educators, who may or may not be believers instructing my child in matters of faith. This is a properly done by the family and the church.

Yet, I am convinced that if a believer, a follower of Jesus is in public office that his or her faith should be evident, it should appear in his or her speech, policy and practice. So, I find in the end, that if Mitt Romney is a believer, his faith should be influencing his policy. Let me clarify, not creating a theocracy, but clearly the core values of his faith should be reflected in his policy. If his faith places an emphesis on care for the poor, so should his policy. If there is an emphesis on integrity is should then be seen in his Administration. Faith should influence and form our action. Otherwise, it is empty, and blasphemous.