
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


A Sermon for the Third Sunday after Easter
A Sermon for the Second Sunday after Easter
A Sermon for the First Sunday after Easter
A Sermon for Easter Day
A Sermon for Good Friday
A Sermon for Maundy Thursday
A Sermon for Palm Sunday
A Sermon for Passion Sunday
A Sermon for the Fourth Sunday in Lent
All this was exploited by Paul’s enemies in Galatia, the Judaizers or the circumcision party. Their strategy was to exalt themselves by trying to get the Gentiles to envy them - “They zealously court you, but for no good; yes, they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them.” – The verb zeloō means both to be zealous and to be jealous. Paul’s enemies are behaving like spiteful middle school girls — not like the righteous women of this church, but like the ones I knew when I was in school — trying to exclude a hated rival by social shunning, in order to magnify their own status. To stop them and shut them down, Paul needs to do more than just answer their case logically. He also needs to undermine their ethos; he needs to subvert the system of value that makes their case so plausible at first glance. They are counting on Paul’s readers sharing their value system. Paul wants to make sure his readers do not share it. It is a task that he undertakes in many of his letters. In Romans he addresses the Jews as those who
“rest on the law, and make your boast in God, and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.”
In Philippians 3, Paul gathers together all the things that he could have been proud of as a Jew:
“If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;”
That stuff that the Jews think is so valuable? Their circumcision, their membership in one of the two faithful tribes (Benjamin and Judah)? Their zeal, their lawkeeping? It's all worthless. In fact, it's so worthless that I threw it all away. I have something of real value that none of that stuff can give you.
In the book of Hebrews, Paul or someone from his circles who thought an awful lot like him has the difficult task of undermining Jewish boasting about the Temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices — a task that might seem impossible, since these things were instituted by God and everybody knew it. The temple was imposing, gleaming with gold. Paul calls it a “tent”, the sort of makeshift, flimsy structure that you go camping in, and you lie down in it, and there's nothing but a thin layer of cloth between you and the outside, and if it's too windy, the thing is in danger of collapsing; and anyway, it's that way because you're going to take it down and pack it up anyway. That's what he thinks of your fancy temple. Besides, the real temple is in heaven. Your tent is made by human hands; the only Temple worthy of the name is made by God. The priests’ ministry was observable; they were dressed in robes; everyone could see their work, and that they had been instituted by God. Paul says, “They keep on dying, which is proof that their work isn't much good. And they have to offer sacrifices for their own sins, not just the people’s.” The sacrifices were there for all to see: they had been commanded by God himself. The blood of the sacrifices flowed continually at the temple, on a daily basis. Paul says, “See how they have to do it over and over again? That's because it doesn't really work. They need Jesus. That's the only sacrifice that works, and that's why Jesus only needed to be sacrificed once.”
Yes, Paul is a genius at overthrowing his opponents’ strongest arguments. He loves to take their most powerful evidence and use it against them. He is a master of rhetorical jujitsu, throwing his opponents to the mat by using the momentum and force of their own attacks. He is like Elijah in the contest with the prophets of Baal, one man against 450, “And he put the wood in order, cut the bull in pieces, and laid it on the wood, and said, “Fill four waterpots with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on the wood.” Then he said, “Do it a second time,” and they did it a second time; and he said, “Do it a third time,” and they did it a third time. So the water ran all around the altar; and he also filled the trench with water.”
In Galatians 4, it is a terribly difficult rhetorical task that Paul faces: his opponents appear to have the Torah, the OT, on their side. It does, after all, command circumcision; it does prohibit the eating of unclean foods; it does tell the stories of Ishmael, Moab, and Ben-Ammi, the ancestors of the rival nations surrounding Israel, all of whom are deprecated as the offspring of incest, slave marriage, or concubinage. These stories account for the origins of the Gentiles around Israel. Israel itself, however, was descended from Isaac, the legitimate son and heir of Abraham. These stories underscore the chosenness of Israel, and the fact that these other nations were not chosen. “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated” was not just a statement about two sons. It was a statement about two nations: the Edomites and Israel. It says that Israel is the covenant people that God loves, and Edom is not.
So it is Paul’s opponents, not Paul, who have the easier case to make here: Jewish people are (most of them) descended from Jacob (Israel) and Gentiles are not. And they might have made this case most plainly from the story of Isaac, Abraham’s son miraculously conceived by the power of God in Abraham’s old age. This is strong rhetorical ground for the circumcision advocates in Galatia. Circumcision is commanded in the Torah for God’s people.
It is breathtakingly audacious for Paul to argue that a proper understanding of the Torah will lead you to the conclusion that circumcision doesn't matter. Paul calls the Torah a yoke of bondage. I'm not sure we appreciate how bold a move this is. The exodus was Israel’s independence day. It's when they came out of slavery in Egypt and became a free nation. Paul says that the circumcizers advocating Torah-obedience in Galatia are like those who wanted to go back to Egypt. It would be like an American saying that the Declaration of Independence is the document in American history that made everyone slaves. But that is what Paul says about the Torah, given on Mount Sinai: that covenant has led to the present state of affairs: Jerusalem that now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Now, we know from elsewhere in Paul’s letters, especially Romans, that he considered the Law a good gift of God and the reason why the Law was now leading to slavery was because Israel was using it wrongly, not because the Law was bad. The slavery results from Israel’s sinfulness, not something wrong with the Law. But here, he doesn't go into that, because he is focused not on the Law as it was given by God, but on the Law as it was used rhetorically by his opponents. You have heard the expression, “He is wrapping himself in the flag”? That is what the Judaizers in Galatia are doing with the Torah: using it as a uniform to distinguish true, Jewish Christians from second-rate, Gentile Christians. And Paul says: You think that you look cool with your bling; but it's really chains to keep you enslaved.
Above all, Paul takes the bull by the horns and uses an audacious maneuver to deal with the Judaizers’ most powerful weapon: the taunt of illegitimacy. That is the point of the Ishmael story as used by Jews: the Ishmaelites, the Arabs, are illegitimate offspring of Abraham, just as the Moabites and Ammonites were stigmatized as the offspring of Lot’s daughters after the destruction of Sodom. Only Jews were the children of Isaac; they had been called into existence by the power of YHWH himself. They were not the product of an ill-conceived attempt at surrogate pregnancy, and with a slave wife.
Be aware that the Judaizers have centuries and centuries of social and legal precedent for their view. That line that Paul quotes from Sarah — “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman” — that was a line that Paul’s opponents loved to quote. When Sarah said it to Abraham, she wasn't just being mean. The lawcodes of Ur-Nammu and Lipit-Ishtar, from around the same time as Abraham, contained rules about exactly this sort of situation, and they are formulated with exactly the same sort of phrasing:
“If a man has a wife a free woman who has born children to him, and he takes a slave wife and she also bears children to him, the children of the slave wife shall not share in the inheritance with the children of the free wife.”
Sarah is saying, “Husband, you know the law from when we lived in Ur. This is what we have to do.”
And the heretics in Galatia were taking up this two-thousand year tradition of legal and social stigma against children of slavery, and applying it to Gentile Christians. It's a powerful tool of shaming and social marginalization, and it is based on a very foundational text of the covenant: the story of the birth of Isaac. Both the Judaizers and their Galatian Gentile victims believed this text was the word of God. Both believed that the Jews were descendants of Isaac. Paul knows all this. He has chosen to fight them on their strongest ground; he gives them home field advantage. He pours water so that it fills up the trench. And then he incinerates their whole argument like Elijah.
The stigma of illegitimacy? He turns it back on the Judaizers. They are the bastards now, the “children of the flesh”; they are “in bondage” with their slave-mother. The Gentile Galatian Christians? They are “children of the promise.” And just as it was back then, the child of the slave woman is persecuting the child of the promise. The two sons are marked not by their circumcised or uncircumcised status but by the slave/free polarity that distinguishes their mothers.
Paul has to reach a little bit here. The LXX Greek translation that Paul used here doesn't actually say, “persecuting”. What the LXX says is that Sarah “saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian who had been born to Abraham playing with her son Isaac (paizonta meta Isaac tou huiou autes).” That's the most straightforward way to take it. But the word “playing” can also mean “mocking”. And that's probably how Paul took it. And then he magnifies it into the sibling rivalry from hell by glossing “mocking” as “persecuting”. Where did he get this from? It is transferred from the situation between the Judaizers and the Gentile Christians in Galatia.
By casting the rivalry as a conflict between the flesh and the promise, Paul undercuts the Judaizers’ use of the Torah. That is why he says, “These are two covenants” — the boldest piece of clever interpretation in the Bible. It is all part of his rhetorical strategy concerning the Torah that he has laid in the previous chapter, Galatians 3. The two covenants are NOT the Old and the New. They are the Torah covenant and the covenant with Abraham (which turns out to find its fulfillment in Christ). And the covenant with Abraham is more original, more foundational, more important, more primary. The law was added 430 years later. The Torah was a stop-gap measure to keep things under control until the fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham. And for Paul, Gentile Christians are that fulfillment: “in you, all the nations — the ethnê — shall be blessed.”
This aligns the Gentile Christians with the whole purpose of the Covenant with Abraham, and means that Paul can cast them as the true children of the promise. They are citizens of the only Jerusalem that counts, the “Jerusalem above”. And by citing the line of Sarah, “cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman”, Paul makes clear what the stakes are here: the Judaizers and those who trust in the Torah to be their badge of membership in the covenant are not merely mistaken. They are Ishmaels and they will not inherit. They will be cast out. The Gentile Christians — and faithful Jewish Christians who did not pressure them to get circumcized — will be counted as true members of the covenant with Abraham, and the Judaizing circumcision-pushers will not. Who are the bastards now?
Paul revels in what God has done. It is perfectly in accordance with his way of working: "He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the counsel of the cunning is brought to a quick end.” (Job 5). The Judaizers have fallen into the pit that they have dug: their taunts of illegitimacy rebound on their own heads; the glory of the title of “true children of Abraham” is wrapped around the Gentile believers whom they had stigmatized. Paul’s jujitsu victory is complete and total, because it is the victory of Christ, who led captivity captive and triumphed by being crucified.
In the end, Paul’s fierce warfare over the Galatians has to do with vindicating the honor of Christ, with proving that He has really accomplished all that Paul says he has; with showing that the covenant with Abraham is truly fulfilled in Jesus, because he is the yes and amen. To go back to the Torah is to turn the clock back and engage in historical reenactment; to live a life of live-action-role-playing instead of reality. It is a costly and foolish attempt to gain privilege and honor by denying the completeness and finality of Jesus’ work, and attempting to supplement it with another identity in terms of the Torah.
The true Exodus is via Christ, not via the Torah. That is part of the meaning of our gospel lesson this morning from John 6. Here the true bread from heaven, Jesus, works a miraculous feeding like the manna of old. But he does it not in order to cause the crowd to envy his disciples; he has no desire for his followers to act like the Judaizers, zealous courting others to provoke them envy. No, his disciples are to be the means by which the bread of life is given to the multitudes — and the two small fish, symbol of Gentiles and of fishing for men, of the fulfillment of Jeremiah 16:16: “Behold, I am sending for many fishers, declares the Lord, and they shall catch them.” In the end, the nations are to be blessed through the disobedience of Israel. Our time is short, so I will not try to prove this exhaustively, but I want you to see the pattern: Joseph’s brothers disobey and sell him into slavery, so that he is carried off to a Gentile land, Egypt, and becomes assimilated to Egyptian ways. But God works it all out so that Joseph’s imprisonment in an Egyptian prison works out for the salvation of Joseph’s brothers and all Egypt, “to save many alive.” When Jesus touches dead bodies, a woman with a 12 year flow of bleeding that made her unclean, or a leper, what happens? The usual laws of uncleanness work backward: rather than becoming unclean, Jesus makes these people clean. That is the way God has designed the exile of Israel to work: rather than the exiled members of Israel becoming lost and destroyed, they have mingled with the nations and thereby brought it about that in order to keep His promises to Israel, God will save the Gentiles as well. As a result, “In Abraham’s seed, all the nations shall be blessed.” Isn’t it funny how Satan’s schemes always backfire? He is truly the Wile E. Coyote of the Bible.
He will have his church be Israel for the sake of the world; thus we are to be true heirs of Abraham, fulfilling the purpose for which He was called.
Amen.
A Sermon for the Third Sunday in Lent
In Dante’s Inferno, the Italian poet’s lurid imagination has created a special circle of hell as a punishment for thieves: because they are sinners who did not distinguish between what was their own and what belonged to someone else, they are punished (in Dante’s imagination) by a blurring of the lines distinguishing their own bodies and nature from those of something else: monstrous lizards chase them down as they run in terror, and when they catch up with them, they jump onto them, clasp them with their four legs, and fuse their lizard bodies together with their human bodies, producing a horrific human-lizard hybrid. It is one of the creepiest and most disgusting punishments in the Inferno, and when I read it, my skin crawls.
A similar revulsion is evoked by parasites. My fellow American missionaries in the Philippines used to joke, whenever they came back to the United States and got a stomachache, that it was caused by their Philippine parasites becoming unhappy with American food. My wife has seen a pregnant woman cough up a five inch worm, still twitching. I could multiply examples, but you get the point: parasites are uniquely disgusting because they violate our bodies and live inside us against our will.
Demon-possession is like this, except that the violation is even more severe: a malevolent and powerful spiritual entity dwelling within a human being, controlling his speech and actions, his mind and body, against his will. This sort of parasitism is subtly implied in an oddity of the language in Luke 11 :14: “And he was casting out a demon, and it was mute.” Who was mute? The gender of “it” is neutered, which matches the word for demon, daimonion. Yet the very next sentence says, “So it was, when the demon had gone out, that the mute spoke.” Do you see how the properties of the demon are the properties of the man it possesses?
This should make your skin crawl. It's very evil. The sorts of frightful scenes of violence depicted in the movie The Exorcist are not actually far fetched in comparison with the actions of demon-possessed persons in the Bible: cutting themselves, breaking chains, attacking people and “prevailing against them so that they flee naked and wounded”, speaking with other voices, throwing the possessed person into fire or water.
No wonder the Jews wanted to get rid of demons. One of the marks of a great rabbi was that his teachings were authenticated by miracles, including the exorcism of demons. This was a popular piece of Jewish wonder-working. Acts chapter 19 speaks of “vagabond Jewish exorcists”. The historian Josephus tells how such people operated:
“I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a Foot of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man.”
– Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews.
By contrast with this, Jesus simply commands the unclean spirits, and they come out. There is no struggle; when demons see that Jesus has arrived, rhey normally beg for mercy before he even says anything. And it is interesting to hear the language they use. In Luke 4,
“Now in the synagogue there was a man who had a spirit of an unclean demon. And he cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are— the Holy One of God!”” (Luke 4:33-34)
and again, in Matthew 8:
“And suddenly they cried out, saying, “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”” (Matthew 8:29)
Before the time. These demons know that they are doomed (so their wickedness is also deliberate sin against knowledge), and what's more, they know there is a scheduled day in history when they are to be destroyed. What's surprising to them is to discover that that day has suddenly come forward and is upon them already in the person of Jesus. It is very much like the exchange between Martha of Bethany and Jesus when he comes to raise Lazarus in John 11:23: “Your brother will rise again.” “Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.” The expected future resurrection — that event “at the last day” — turns out to have a human face, and he is here now, in 33 AD. So with the demons: they think that they can continue to possess people until the resurrection and judgment, unaware that in the person of Jesus, the judgment is upon them now.
33 AD. Anno Domini. Jesus, from the moment of his baptism in the Jordan river, began to announce that He was himself the fulfillment of the OT’s prophecies of the coming kingdom of God. His healings and driving out demons; his parables and commandments; His baptism and transfiguration — everything spoke of His office as the Messiah, “a savior, who is Christ the Lord”. When John’s disciples ask Jesus, “Are you the coming one, or do we wait for another?”, He had no need to plead his own cause and use persuasive arguments to convince them of His messiahship. His answer is “Go and tell John the things that you see and hear: “The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them.” That is to say, His actions already matched the job description that Israel knew from the prophets, especially Isaiah. His vanquishing of demons was a sign with the same meaning as the others: behold, your King. And yet we are told by the fourth gospel that Jesus “came unto His own, and His own did not receive Him.” So we are confronted with the question: Why did they refuse to believe in him?
15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”
This is why the ascribing of Jesus’ miracles to the devil is unforgiveable — not that it is especially worse in seriousness than, say, blaspheming against the Father, but that it removes the possibility of salvation. If you mistake the fireman for a bad guy, you’re not going to let him remove you from a burning house.
16 Others, testing Him, sought from Him a sign from heaven.
These people are “testing him” – the same verb used of Satan’s temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, and indeed, their request for a “sign from heaven” is a renewal of Satan’s suggestions that Jesus should perform a gratuitous miracle to force people to believe in Him. Let’s remember that He has just cast out a demon. So they are asking for another miracle to authenticate the first miracle. What end will there be of such doubt? If miracles could compel faith, these people would have believed already.
Jesus’ reply has three parts.
His first response is to point out how illogical it is to imagine that Satan, whose goal is to oppress human beings and subject them to demonic power, would sabotage his own work by freeing anyone from demonic power.
His second argument is even more pointed, and to understand its full force we must recognize the echo of the OT and the narrative situation that echo calls up. He asks them,
“If I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if I cast out demons with the finger of God (ἐν δακτύλῳ θεοῦ), surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
This is a very direct reference to a prominent Old Testament passage, Exodus 8:17-19. It is near the beginning of the ten plagues. Already Moses has inflicted two plagues on Egypt: he has turned the water to blood, and he has brought forth frogs on the land. Amusingly enough, Pharaoh’s magicians did so with their enchantments — with the result that there was even more water turned to blood, and even more slimy frogs hopping around Egypt.
Pharaoh’s administration kept the Israelites in bondage not only by physical whips and brutal oppression, but also by projecting a spurious aura of competence and knowledge, so that they have a wise ability to control events. We see this in our own day, when the Federal Government has so thoroughly persuaded everyone that it can save us, that when a hurricane strikes a coastal city, there are people who blame the Federal disaster relief agencies and the government for not doing more; when evil people shoot schoolchildren, the government must “do something about it”; and our diets must be dictated to us with a food pyramid based on scientific research; synthetic pharmaceuticals must be prescribed for every ailment according to the wisdom of scientists. These wonder-workers are able to put a man on tbe moon; how, then, can we doubt their wisdom. Do not even imagine that there is another way, or another truth.
So it is in Egypt bedore the Exodus. As in our day, so in Egypt there was a “ fascination with wisdom, which, in addition to imitating the great regimes, represented an effort to rationalize reality, that is, to package it in manageable portions”. In our day, this wisdom is technological, statistical, scientific. In ancient Egypt it was priestly and magical. And so, even though it means more water turned to blood, and more frogs on the land, Pharaoh’s magicians must by all means show that they can replicate the miracles of Moses. The wizard’s duel is crucial to maintaining the supremacy of Pharaoh’s regime. He has the best magicians. Anything Moses can do, they can do too. But then, something happens:
Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod and struck the dust of the earth, and it became lice on man and beast…Now the magicians so worked with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not. So there were lice on man and beast. Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.”
As one writer (W. Brueggemann) comments:
“The Egyptian empire could not! The gods of Egypt could not! The scientists of the regime could not! The imperial religion was dead! The politics of oppression had failed! That is the ultimate criticism, that the assured and alleged power of the dominant culture is now shown to be fraudulent. Criticism is not carping and denouncing. It is asserting that false claims to authority and power cannot keep their promises, which they could not in the face of the free God, [the God of Moses]. It is only a matter of time until they are dead on the seashore.”
Jesus’ words, “The finger of God” call up in his listeners’ minds the contest between Moses and the magicians of Pharaoh. Jesus’ accusers are failing to recognize that He is in the position of Moses and Aaron. They and their “sons” — that is, their disciples — are in the place of the magicians of Pharaoh. By whom do they cast out demons? Oh, that's right, they don't. They cannot do what Jesus has done, so they are discredited as judges — and this in the Biblical sense of the word (think Samson, Deborah, Barak). They cannot save.
By connecting his actions to Moses’ miracles in the Exodus, Jesus is implying that He is the agent of a new Exodus; that the time of salvation has come. Those who oppose that salvation and ascribe His work to the devil are in the position of Pharaoh and Pharaoh’s magicians: not only are they powerless to do what He does, but they are actually opposing God’s salvation.
Jesus’ deliverance of the mute, demon-possessed man is actually an instance of that basic conflict, and a preliminary step to the ultimate conquest and final defeat of Satan. He compares himself to a violent house-robber who has defeated the strong man guarding the house; and he contrasts that image with the ineffectual efforts of others before him.
A friend of mine once had bats and squirrels living in his attic. By careful use of humane traps, he eventually got rid of them, and raccoons moved in. Once that happened, he decided the time for gentleness was past, and he got his .22 and a dog. Just like that, Jesus suggests that the house of Israel has been cleansed of its idolatry, but it is now suffering something far worse: nowhere in the OT do we hear of anyone possessed by a demon. But demons are seemingly lurking everywhere in the gospels. Past cleansings of Israel have been ineffective, like a situation where seven worse demons move into a man who used to have one. Jesus’ intention — for those whom he drove demons out of; for his people Israel; and ultimately for the world, is a permanent and effectual pest-removal.
But notice the scenario that Jesus describes:
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. 22 But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils. 23 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
This is the prelude to a thorough plundering of all of Satan’s dominion over this fallen world. Remember when Satan tempted Jesus? He took him up on a mountain and offered him all the kingdoms of the world if he would bow down and worship him. It is a real estate transaction: that is the significance of taking Jesus up on a mountain and showing him all the kingdoms. God does a similar thing with Abraham, telling him to look at the land of Canaan, “for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.” (Genesis 13:15) Satan was offering to trade Jesus the kingdoms of the world. Jesus refused, because he does not make bargains with Satan. His intention is to defeat him, and disarm him, and take away his dominion.
And the Bible shows us how that happened:
“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.” (Revelation 20:1-3)
The Gentiles are no longer under the domination of demons. No one is worshipping Thor or Zeus or Baal anymore. And when Satan is released one last time, it is only so that he can be thrown into the lake of fire after he shows how unrepentant he is.
So, with the house cleansed, what happens now? God has got rid of the demons, and He intends to dwell in this house Himself. Our gospel lesson closes with Jesus’ response to a woman in the crowd who calls his mother blessed: “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts which nursed you!”
Mary is certainly blessed. But that blessedness was not merely a matter of giving birth to Jesus. Remember that Mary responded to the angel, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” Mary, as a symbol of faithful Israel, submits herself to God and to His purposes. The result is that God honors her obedience by coming to dwell within her. So too with us. “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it,” for God dwells with them.
Now that raises one last issue. I have a number of different quotations I’m going to share with you concerning the relationship of obedience and bodily resurrection and our individuality.
Some of you have read CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters? They are a series of fictitious letters in which Lewis pretends that one demon, a senior demon who has a lot of experience, is writing to a junior demon all kinds advice about how to tempt a man and lead him to Hell. C.S. Lewis said this was the most difficult of all his works to write. There was something oppressive and depressing about channeling an evil voice and writing in this style for so many pages. Well, here's what Uncle Screw tape advises his junior devil Wormword about human beings:what God wants to do with human beings. He says,
“But the obedience which the Enemy demands of men is quite a different thing. One must face the fact that all the talk about His love for men, and His service being perfect freedom, is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself--creatures, whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself: the Enemy wants a world full of beings united to Him but still distinct.”
Still distinct! Remember what was so creepy about that demon possessed man in our gospel reading this morning was that he didn't seem to be himself. And the demon speaks out of him. The demon is mute, and he is mute. He's lost his distinctiveness. It's like that Dante lizard people, fused with the demon.
The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic philosopher, not a Christian. In fact, he was a persecutor of Christians, even though he has a reputation as a wise emperor. We happen to have his private journal Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, everything he was thinking about his spiritual life. Even though he's the wealthiest man in the world, the most powerful man in the world, the emperor of Rome, we can tell from reading what he writes in his meditations.
He was terrified of dying. He was not looking forward to it, and he was desperate for any philosophical help that could give him some comfort, some assurance in the face of this terrifying fact of death that seemed inevitable. His solution to the problem was to cling to the hope that his rational soul, his rationality, his sense of reason, was divine. The body, it's going to rot; it's going to disappear. It's going to become collrupt, but the soul, the rational soul, when you die, it's going to be caught up into the divine fire and become one with God. In Stoicism, they thought that the sun is God, the divine fire that everything else that's rational in the universe is a little bit of the divine fire. It's in your soul. And so when your body dies, whoosh! — Up your soul goes and joins God. If I were to take two flames and join them together, there'd be one flame. That's the way they think about it. And so Marcus Aurelius says, “That's not the person your mother gave birth to. And that divine fire is not part of your body that your mother gest stated and gave birth to. Then he asked his question, the mask slips for a minute and he says, “But what if you're inextricably linked to it through your sense of individuality” — meaning, what if you're really tied to your body by being an individual human being? What if that's what makes you an individual human being is that you have a body that is the center of your consciousness and your agency and you look out of your eyes from your body and you interact with other people and shake hands with them and embrace them and speak to them face to face and see them, and they see you because you have a body and they have a body. And that's what it means for you to be an individual. So if that's what it means for you to be you, is that you have a body, then it's not much comfort to think that your soul is going to be absorbed into the bigger fire of God. Then where are you? There's God, but where are you? So he says, “What if you're inextricably linked to the body through your sense of individuality?” And he he can't answer the question, so he immediately says, “That's not what we're talking about here.” “I don't want to think about that.” It's so scary. It really would feel like standing on the edge of a deep abyss. if when you die, you lose your individuality and you're not you more. Because you'll have body anymore, and you've been absorbed into God. That's not that different from what Screwtape was talking about: the demons would like to absorb you. Marcus Aurelius shies away from the full force of his own pantheism and from the horrible consequences that it has for individuality.
Two more quotations. In Job chapter 19, we have those famous words of Job about resurrection. He says, “I know that my Redeemer lives and that the last he will stand upon the earth, and after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold him. I, and not another! My heart faints within me.” Job says he's going to see God. Job in his individuality and his identity is going to see God because he's going to have a body and eyeballs that look at him.
One last business. On the day of Pentecost, we have some fire, but it isn't individual souls getting absorbed into God. Rather it's tongues of fire coming down from God and resting on individuals who are filled with God's Spirit, and when they are filled, do they lose their individuality? No, they start speaking, respectively, all their different languages that their hearers know from where they grew up. So when God fills us with His spirit, he doesn't rob us of our identity. He doesn't absorb us into himself, but he fills us with himself and makes us more who we are, and that is why the resurrection of the body that we confess in our creed is a great comfort because it assures us that we, each of you individually, who you are when you are raised from the dead, you “and not another” will see God and be in relationship with him.
Let's pray. Heavenly Father we thank you that you've given us victory over Satan and his demons, that you have assured us that you have called us to yourself. You have given us your spirit and you desire to dwell within us and make us into a holy temple fit for your dwelling. Help us by faith to cling to Christ in whose service is perfect freedom. We pray in his name. Amen.
From the publisher's feed