John 6:24-35

John 6:24-35 (NRSV)

²⁴ So when the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus.

²⁵ When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” ²⁶ Jesus answered them, “Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. ²⁷ Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.” ²⁸ Then they said to him, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” ²⁹ Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” ³⁰ So they said to him, “What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? ³¹ Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” ³² Then Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. ³³ For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” ³⁴ They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

³⁵ Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

John 6:24, concluding a section that began at verse 22, describe the crowd with Jesus at Passover. ²⁴ Therefore, when the crowd, clearly the same as had the meal in 6:1-15, saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, the sudden departure prompting them to the point that they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus.

           John 6:24, concluding a section that began at verse 22, describe the crowd with Jesus at Passover. ²⁴ Therefore, when the crowd, clearly the same as had the meal in 6:1-15, saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, the sudden departure prompting them to the point that they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus.

            John 6:25-34 continues with Jesus at Passover, offering the preface to the discourse on the Bread of Life. Verses 25-34 are parallel to Mark 8:11-13, where the Pharisee asks for a sign. This passage will invite us to contrast physical and spiritual food. Although that is appropriate and true, we must not forget that the mission of the people of God concerns both. The question of bread for me is a material question. The question of bread for my neighbor is a spiritual question.[1]We need to remember that some people in the world are so hungry that God cannot come to them except in the form of bread.[2]

At the center of this passage from John’s gospel is the issue of “signs” (vv. 26, 30). Modern scholarship on the Fourth Gospel has theorized that the gospel of John as we have it in the New Testament began with an earlier document containing accounts of Jesus’ miracles that they have dubbed “the Signs Gospel.” The early church would likely use this “Signs Gospel” as a kind of apologetic defense that Jesus was indeed the Messiah based on the kinds of miracles that he performed. Since the Jewish people had come to see both Moses and Elijah as models for a future Messiah (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15-18; Malachi 4:5-6), there was a particular interest in relating the miracles of Jesus to the wonders performed by these leading figures of the Jewish tradition (cf. John 1:20-21, 45).

         The text skillfully brings together two motifs that John just addressed separately. He interweaves the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1‑15) and Jesus' miraculous walk on water (6:16‑21) in ways that instruct the obstinate crowd and reveal added information to the reader.  However, it is soon evident that the crowd is following a trail of breadcrumbs, not the footsteps of the Messiah.

²⁵ When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, the generally accepted title for Jesus, when did you come here?” Although in this direct context the question recalls Jesus' early arrival on the other side of the lake by walking upon the water, there is no grammatical reason not to read into this query deeper questions of Jesus' origin and identity. Since it is Jesus' identity and the faith it should evoke that form the nucleus of this discourse, it is not unreasonable to suppose John intends the double entendre here. Where has Jesus come from? How did he come to be among the people at that time and that place? ²⁶ Jesus answered them, “Very truly, speaking with divine power, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs of the messianic work of Jesus, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Manna is the greatest of Mosaic miracles. The crowd undoubtedly recalls the Midrashic teaching: "As the first Redeemer brought down the manna . . . so will also the last Redeemer cause the manna to come down." (Midr.Qoh. 1:9). The people may have expected a prophet like Moses. Jesus has already provided bread, albeit basic barley loaves, to feed this crowd in the wilderness. Following that miracle, Jesus performed yet another Exodus‑inspired act ‑‑ walking on water. Just as Moses had been able to part the waters so that the people could cross, Jesus uses the water as a walkway to join his disciples aboard their boat. Jesus immediately confronts them with their motives: They are looking for an easy hand‑out. Jesus first scolds the voracious crowd for what he suspects as their true motive for following him -- the proverbial free lunch. At least on the surface, the statement contradicts verses 14-16, although Jesus has concern for the deeper level of meaning involved. The accusation here is that they seek Jesus due to the sign of the loaves. Verses 14-15 say the people believe Jesus was the prophet who is to come into the world. They were about to make him king. ²⁷ Do not work, in the sense of striving after, for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life. In the wilderness, they were to pursue only justice so that they could live and occupy the land the Lord is giving to them (Deuteronomy 16:20).[3] “Endure” is a favorite of John, describing the essence of the relationship between true believers and God.  In this true food, one experiences authentic faith and a fulfilled life.  It refers to the personal bearer of the divine life, to the saving gift of life that he conveys, and to the Eucharist. We see the unique distinction between work and faith in John. The crowds are looking for deliverance from physical difficulties (hunger, disease), but Jesus wants them to see beyond physical need to their spiritual needs. More than just “food that perishes,” what the Messiah brings is “the food that endures for eternal life.” The enduring food is that which the Son of Man will give you. This may suggest the Eucharist. It may suggest dualism between physical and spiritual food. The Johannine use of the term used here for work, strongly suggests working or laboring, but not at all earning.  While people who desire eternal life must actively seek it, in the end the Son of Man freely gives it. This "beyond our grasp" but not "beyond our gain,” nature of eternal life finds further emphasis by John's use of the term "Son of Man."  This text asks how the people shall work for the works of God.  Faith seeking is the work the text calls us to perform. For it is on him that God the Father has set (aorist tense) his seal.” This could refer to the “seal” of the Incarnation, baptism, or even consecration to sacrifice. It may be an explicit contrast with the desire of the crowd to make him king. In this context, we find verses 28-31 offering the solution of John to the faith and works question. Verses 28-34 are like the temptation narrative.  In Luke 4:3-4, Satan asks Jesus to turn stones into bread.  Now, it is a test through his opponents.  ²⁸ Then they said to him, offering the Christian reader a hint of hope, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” ²⁹ Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Faith is the supreme work. Faith is the only work that matters in seeking eternal life. There would seem to be two continuing problems with the crowd’s response. First, they have not yet realized that this work is not theirs to perform apart from the Messiah, which is why they must “believe in him.” Second, they still seem to be identifying the “works of God” primarily with the meeting of physical needs. Both these points are borne out by the crowd’s further reaction to Jesus. ³⁰ Therefore, they said to him, “What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? ³¹ Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” They seem to be having second thoughts about Jesus. Moses had provided their ancestors with “manna in the wilderness” for some 40 years and Jesus for only a single afternoon. Was Jesus willing to continue “performing” this miracle for them each day for decades to come? If so, then they would know that he was fulfilling the promise of the prophet like Moses. If not, they would continue to look for that prophet. Verses 32-34 show that God has fulfilled the eschatological expectation. ³² Then Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. The hunger the people in the wilderness experienced had the goal of God feeding them manna, but even that miracle had the purpose of helping them understand that they do not live by bread alone, but every word that comes out of the mouth of the Lord (Deuteronomy 8:3).[4] The Lord freely gave them manna for their mouths (Nehemiah 9:20).[5]  ³³ For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” ³⁴ They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”As we pray in the Lord’s Prayer, “Give us this day our daily bread.” 

The questions Jesus asks are part of the method of Johannine misunderstanding. Jesus presents his new interpretation, precisely following the order of the quotation. The sign they want is a supply of bread.  The crowd suggests the theme of manna as a pattern.  If they think of him as a prophet-like-Moses this would be natural.  There is evidence that Jewish hopes included the provision of manna. 

Many of us find it so tempting to satisfy our spiritual longing with crumbs that happen to drop from the table of society. We pick up little phrases, stories, or bumper stickers that satisfy the surface curiosity we have for a meaningful and happy life. As John Chrysostom put it, “People are nailed to the things of this life.” We have thoroughly grounded ourselves in this world and take pride in having done so. To be fair, we have improved our lives on this planet, and surely, God has placed us here to do that. 

Francis Bacon wrote an essay “On Studies,” in which he comments that we should just take a taste of some books, swallow others, but some are worth chewing and digesting. We need to learn the difference in our reading. Even at a political level, these matters surface. Zbigniew Brzezenski, Out of Control, says the West is offering the world a philosophy of only the satisfaction of appetite without self-control. In our spiritual life, we need to discern the difference as well.

However, and this is big “however,” do we ever experience that longing for something “higher?” Maybe Paul Tillich was right when he said that idolatry is elevating a preliminary concern to an ultimate concern. Idolatry is giving something finite an infinite significance. We grasp at things, such as materialism, pleasure, political ideology, and I am sure the reader could add more. We cling to them as if they can provide satisfaction for the longing of the human spirit. They will not satisfy. It will lead to a conflict of ultimate claims upon our lives.[6]

Maybe now is the time we reach out to God and receive the nourishment God offers. Believing in Jesus and devouring the Word will lead to the spiritual health for which I hope we long.[7]

John 6:35 begins a passage that continues to verse 50, continuing the story of Jesus at Passover, offering a discourse on the bread of life. ³⁵ Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Only now is Jesus prepared to give the manna so hotly desired by the crowd. However, notice what "manna" they get: Their nourishment takes the form of the first of Jesus' "I am" statements that run through John's gospel. Jesus offers seven such "I am" declarations throughout John's gospel ("bread of life," 6:35; "light of the world," 8:12, 9:5; "door of the sheep," 10:7,9; "good shepherd," 10:11,14; "resurrection and the life," 11:25; "the way, the truth, and the life," 14:6; "the true vine," 15:5) with each addressing what it is Christ does for humanity. The crowds have their hands out but do not have open hearts. The bread from heaven is the flesh and blood of Jesus. The work of Jesus fulfills the Old Testament. The crowd surrounding Jesus knows what it wants, knows it is in dire need, but persistently identifies wrong solutions to solve the desperate e human condition.  Jesus’ own identity is different from that of Moses, Elijah, or any of the other prophets of Israel. He is the one who can uniquely speak of God as “my Father.” Regarding the purpose of what God is doing, the bread that God provides is not simply to sustain the physical lives of some people for some period (as with Israel in the wilderness). Its purpose is to give life to the world (verse 33) and bring eternal life (verse 27). Whoever comes to me, meaning this bread is relational, will never be hungry; whoever believes in me, emphasizing the relational quality of the bread, will never be thirsty. Since this bread is relational, it will offer its benefits forever to those who relate themselves to it.

---

[1] "The question of bread for myself is a material question, but the question of bread for my neighbor is a spiritual question."  - Nikolai Berdyaev 

[2] There are people in the world so hungry that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread. --Mahatma Gandhi.

[3] Deuteronomy 16:20 Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, so that you may live and occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you. 

 

[4] Deuteronomy 8:3He humbled you by letting you hunger, then by feeding you with manna, with which neither you nor your ancestors were acquainted, in order to make you understand that one does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

[5] Nehemiah 9:20 You gave your good spirit to instruct them, and did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and gave them water for their thirst.

 

[6] "Idolatry is the elevation of a preliminary concern to ultimacy.  Something essentially finite is given infinite significance.  The conflict between the finite basis of such a concern and its infinite claim leads to a conflict of ultimates; it radically contradicts the biblical commandments." Paul Tillich, in Systematic Theology, I:13.

[7] John Wesley noted in his Journal,  At five [a.m.] I preached once more on "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."  They all devoured the Word.  Oh, may that Word give them health for their souls and marrow for strong bones!

Ephesians 4:1-16

Ephesians 4:1-16 (NRSV)

4 I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, ² with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, ³ making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ⁴ There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ⁶ one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

⁷ But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. ⁸ Therefore it is said,

“When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive;

he gave gifts to his people.”

⁹ (When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? ¹⁰ He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) ¹¹ The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, ¹² to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, ¹³ until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. ¹⁴ We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. ¹⁵ But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, ¹⁶ from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.

           

         The theme of Ephesians 4:1-16 is the purpose of the church in the cosmic plan of salvation. The focus is unity, which raises a natural suspicion about why the author has this concern. What prompted it? Within the text of Ephesians, there is no evidence that there was any issue dividing the community. Unlike most of the other Pauline letters, the author cites no adversaries. As indicated in previous parts of the letter, for instance, the relationship between Jews and Gentiles, which so exercised Paul in Galatians and Romans, seems settled and taken for granted in the unity of the church. If relations between Jews and Gentiles were not an issue, were there elements rebelling against the development of a hierarchical, institutional structure? But this again seems to be a settled issue. The language used is not as strident as that used by Ignatius of Antioch, for example, in his letters some 15 to 20 years later. He could encourage the congregation to focus on doing all things with divine harmony, stressing that the bishop stands in the place of God and the elders and deacons in the place of the apostles. As the Son was with the Father from the beginning, they are to imitate divine conduct as well as respect and love each other. They are to let nothing divide them. Rather, they are to unite with their bishop. The Son did nothing without the Father, living in unity with the Father. Nor did Jesus do anything without the apostles. They are to use that example and do nothing without the bishops and elders.[1] Therefore, some scholars have suggested that external pressures endangered the community. The text makes no mention of persecutions by political authorities but in 4:25 does encourage truth in speaking to (presumably) the non-Christian neighbor and 5:6-14 warns against deceptive but empty and vain arguments.[2] In other words, the pressures affecting the unity of the Church appear not so different than they are today: the allures of a still unconverted world.

         We would miss the point if we took the author to mean that the churches are to have unity at all costs. Some things are worth valuing high enough that you are willing to part company over it. However, this passage helps us stay away from petty matters. Our unity moves us toward Christ. Yet, what if staying together moves some of us further away from Christ? What if staying together no longer means being the church of Jesus Christ. What would happen if staying together meant baptizing the standards and ideologies of the world? As important as institutional unity is and could be, it must not become a god imposing tyrannical power over the members of the body. 

         As always, then, such matters require discernment, faithful following of Christ, prayer, and worship. 

Ephesians 4:1-3 is a preamble. ¹I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord (or even “one bound in the Lord”), identifying himself as one whom civil authorities have imprisoned for being a Christian. Yet, the image of the bound slave may also suggest a deeper relationship with Christ. Again, I beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which God has called you. The calling is to the saints and such a worthy life is toward obedience. Throughout the Pauline literature, living worthily is often expressed in the virtue of “adaptability” (see I Corinthians 9:22-23; Romans 14-15). This suggests acting in such a way as not to scandalize each other (at a minimum) and then, by emulating Christ Jesus who “did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave” (Philippians 2:6-7) to serve the human race. They will show worthiness by the kind of life they lead, ² with all humility (a negative quality before Christianity) and gentleness (not found in the virtue tradition), with patience (a social attitude), bearing with one another in love (the fellow Christian may be a burden, but bearing that load is a virtue, making love practical). What unifies the imperatives is to yield to others and to accept a subordinate place. Such fruits of the Spirit are an overlap of the Greek philosophical virtue tradition. It has parallels with the Wisdom school of the Old Testament as well. Leading such a worthy or ethical life is a privilege rather than a burden. It will lead to happiness as it harmonizes what we think, say, and do.[3] Fame is fleeting, like the steam that appears and immediately vanishes from the pot on the kettle. Popularity is often an accident. Riches can take wings and leave you as quickly as they came. People who cheer you today may curse you tomorrow. However, the one thing that will endure is character.[4] A worthy life practicing such virtues achieves an important goal in ³ making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Peace is what keeps Jew and Gentile in one church.  The Spirit has already bound them together. Their worthy lives will preserve the unity the Spirit has already given them. Ephesians 2:11-22 also had the theme of unity, emphasizing the unity of Jews and Gentiles through peace Christ brought in his preaching and in the reconciliation the cross has brought. 

Ephesians 4: 4-6 remembers the content of the confession of the church. It affirms a creed. It has Trinitarian elements, even though each element refers to the Father.[5] That which unites all Christians is the basis for the exhortation here. ⁴ There is one (used seven times) body and one Spirit, just as God has called you to the one hope of your calling, ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ⁶ one God and Father of all (used four times), who is above all and through all and in all. Some find it a little surprising that “body” is before “Spirit.” The author is not offering speculation here. The author invites us to worship grounded in the Trinity and affirming the oneness of God. The confession affirms the power of God, love, and work that transcends the church. This devotion to the unity of purpose in the church is not simply some pragmatic plea that we might all "get along." Rather, as the author rehearses, the notion of unity weds itself to the very purposes and reality of God. In this sense, a life lived in service to the unity of the church is a life lived in the Spirit of God. This passage can help us explain the affirmation of the Nicean-Constantinople creed that the church is one. This passage finds the unity in the plurality of its members, membership that corresponds to the plurality in which God has elected and reconciled them in Christ and called and endowed them by the Holy Spirit. This will mean a union of the visible and invisible church, a union of the militant and triumphant church, Israel and the Christian church are two forms and aspects, and that one can speak of churches in the plural only with reference to the geographically separated and different congregations. This suggests that the present situation of divided churches, in which churches kindly tolerate each other at best, and fight against each other at worst in mutually exclusive ways, is in conflict with both the passage and with the creed. In this way, the plurality of churches in the way we experience it means a plurality of lords, spirits, and gods. The churches deny what they theoretically profess. Even if one can think of the grounds of these divisions as justified, they remain a scandal.[6]

Ephesians 4: 7-12 shows that Christ gives diverse gifts to the church. While affirming oneness, the author now wants to highlight the diversity of the church. If churches are mission-minded, they realize that success comes from staying focused on core values, no matter what challenges arise. ⁷ However, each of us received grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Verses 8-10 offer a scripture passage and its interpretation. ⁸ Therefore, as it says in Psalm 68:18, “When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.” Verses 9-10 are a Midrash on the text. ⁹ (When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth?[7] Christ ascended to the heavenly throne, which meant that Christ had already descended from the heavenly realm.  ¹⁰ He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) The community becomes a model for the destiny of humanity and of creation. Therefore, particular election stands in the service of the comprehensive will of God to save.[8] The ascent of Christ to the heavenly throne meant that Christ could dispense gifts to the people of God. Ephesians 4: 11-13 contain a classic text on church order.[9] This passage speaks of the fitting of the Christian community for the provisional representation of the universal scope of the person and work of Jesus Christ.[10] ¹¹ The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles (delegates from Christ who went abroad to preach), some prophets (who spoke the word of God to contemporary situations), some evangelists who brought the gospel into new regions), some pastors and teachers. The conclusion is that the church has one ministry, but many ministries. After the death of the apostles, the next two or three generations of the early church had a period of uncertainty develop as to how to maintain the apostolic function. Local ministers, traveling evangelists, or teachers of the house churches, could not fulfill that function.[11] Only pastors and teachers survived from this list in the period after the apostles.[12]  Yet, the author assumes this inspired and enthusiastic ministry would always fill a need among the people of God rather than be absorbed into official offices.  The purposes of the inspired or enthusiastic ministry and the offices were ¹² to equip[13] the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.[14] Issues of continuity and development of the ideas of the church as the body of Christ come into focus. In I Corinthians 12:12-31 and Romans 12:3-8, Paul employs the metaphor of the body as a means of exhorting his churches to unity in diversity.  The body, like a church, is composed of many members that work together in different ways in a unified organism.  No one part of the body, in Paul's metaphor, carries its importance over another - all the parts in their various capacities are necessary for the proper functioning of the whole. We find a different use of the metaphor in Ephesians 4:1-16. The author casts the metaphor in the service of proclaiming the proper relation of the church to Christ and the ultimate purposes of the church in God's cosmic plan of salvation. These human instruments have the purpose of preparation in which Jesus Christ is at work, taking place with a view to the service that they are to render by their human work. Their service is the building up of the body of Christ.[15] God establishes and gives order to the church.  The ordering of the church receives a specific purpose. The ordering is useful, as it remains faithful to its purpose. The special ministries are to be servants to the whole church. The task of the church is to carry out the work of service for all who need it. In a sense, baptism was the ordination of all the saints. Yet, specific roles within the church needed filling, and Christ was the one who appointed them. We finally learn the intended goal of the ordering of the church. Each of the three identifiers of the destination of the journey focuses upon Christ. ¹³ Until all of us come to, suggests they are on the road, moving toward the goal, and thus do not experience in the present their fullness. First, they are to come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, referring to Christ's faithfulness to God and to his knowledge of the bride.  The church rests upon Christ's on-going faithfulness and personal engagement.  Second, they are to come to maturity, determined by a right relation to God.  It suggests individual and communal growth toward Christ, even if we must not think in terms of steady improvement. Third, they are to come to the measure of the full stature of Christ. The church will see its Lord. This suggests enthronement hymn and marriage ceremony. Such unity, maturity, and full stature fulfill the hopes of the saints. The inspired ministry and the established offices relate to and serve the rule of the risen Christ over the church. The exalted Christ establishes order and gives a constitution.  Gift and institution, charisma and office, are not exclusive of each other.  The church is hierarchical.  Christ appoints offices and ministries. To avoid heresy, it must grow towards Christ.  The apostle rejects the quest for personal perfection and salvation if it is at the expense of submission to Christ, the unity of the congregation, and of love as the guiding star.  This passage has exhortation and confession, unity with Christ and unity with the Saints, communal growth and gifts given to individuals, the final goal and the way in which it makes progress.  He intertwines ethics, ecclesiology, and eschatology.  One can affirm the catholicity of the church in the creed if it means the fullness of the eschatological consummation of the church that finds manifestation at any given historical moment in the openness of the actual fellowship of the church, transcending any particularity, to the fullness of Christ that will fully come only in the eschaton.[16] This suggests the provisional character of the passage, about the need to strive towards it, and therefore also about the equipment of the community. “Until all come” describe the direction of the work for which the Lord empowers the community to serve the edifying of the body of Christ. The point is the attaining of a goal that they have not yet attained. The direction is toward the eschaton, which then shapes them accordingly. The unity of faith and knowledge, maturity, and measure of the full stature of Christ describe a future that characterizes the present, the work of its ministry, and the equipment to achieve it. The work and equipment of the church directs itself toward the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God. It still reaches toward this goal. If the community is the fullness of Christ who is the fullness of the cosmos, this means that in the full measure of its compass it will embrace no more than the cosmos. The totality of the heavenly and earthly world now has no existence distinct from that of the community. It will still be the church even when everything that is will be only in it. In this form, however, the community is future, just as Christ is future to it as its completion. It now looks and moves toward itself in this future form.^[17]

Ephesians 4: 14-16 deals with the daily necessities of the migrating church.  They show how the present time determines the members.  This is what takes place while the church is en route to meet its Lord. This entire discussion is the basis for the Reformation view of the church as the communion united with Christ its head in the unity of faith and love of its members.[18] ¹⁴ We must no longer be children (babes lacking moral judgment), tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. Though the author does not offer an exhaustive dealing with the heresy involved, it may be because they knew the Colossian heresy. After the look at the destination of the church, we return to the present. We see ourselves in our present form, and therefore as a collection of people who are in great danger due to immaturity. If the community allows the world to direct it, it will be incapable of movement toward its future, for the world does not know Christ. It does not know this eschaton. If the community listens to the world, thinking in its categories and conforms to its language and standards, it makes itself incapable of its hope. Losing its goal, it also loses its direction due to the waves and wind.[19]  ¹⁵ However, speaking the truth in love, where love becomes so important that it becomes the condition for speaking truth.[20] We must grow up in every way, suggesting that the growth refers to church members, not the church itself. This growth is into him who is the head, into Christ. In this case, “head” means movement toward that which is the head. Ephesians 5:23 refers to Christ as the head of the church and in 1:20-23 he is the head of all things. God has raised Christ from the dead, set Christ at the right hand of the Father, and exalted Christ over every rulers, authority, and lord. Christ is the one who fills all things. In this heavenly form, he is future, for we do not yet see it as revealed to the community or to the universe. In fact, its own form as body and therefore the fullness of this head is still future. The community believes in Christ as its head. It looks and moves up towards Christ from the depths and distance as to the One who exists in this heavenly form. It also believes it is itself this body and therefore the fullness. The community does not yet see this. The community is still on the way to this future when God will reveal it as the body of Christ and the world as the fullness of Christ. This passage summons the church to grow up into Christ.[21] To put this directly, in reference to the history of the teaching of the Pope, the Pope is not the head of the church. We should not call the holder of such an office the head of the church or the foundation of its unit, for the New Testament uses such terms specifically and exclusively for Jesus Christ, even as we find here. Their use for the Roman bishop has always been an occasion for justifiable offense. In ecumenical discussion, it would be sufficient if his office were a sign of the unity of all Christianity, not a cause and sign of its divisions. Byzantium rightly rejected the notion of Rom on the ground that the church has no head other than Christ.[22] Therefore, in a verse difficult to translate, since Christ is the head, we know that ¹⁶ from Christ the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which Christ has equipped it, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.Christ is the one from whom the whole body, joined and knit together with that which Christ has equipped it, as each part is working properly, promoting the growth of the body in building itself up in love. The body derives its nourishment and growth from Christ.  All that the body is or has is in relation to the head.  Yet, it reinforces individuality.  Note that the sustenance of the Body is from the head.  Yet, each saint contributes to the mission and unity of the church.  The church is still engaged in the temporal process of building itself, a process far from completion. It builds itself, for it cannot build Christ, the kingdom, or a better world. The community can grow because it is already taking place apart from its actions and directs itself toward the summons. It grows from the One to whom God summons it to grow. It grows by the gifts God has given the church. What is to grow is its love.[23] Edification takes place in love, the action that characterizes the action of all Christians. Building up means integration. Integration occurs by God, by Jesus, by the apostles, and by the entire community in all its members. Without this integration and mutual adaptation, there can be no reciprocal dependence and support. Without this, the community will collapse. As it integrates itself in this way, allowing the Holy Spirit to exercise it in self-integration, it is the true church, prepared to look and move forward, to give this provisional representation. It can then offer the witness that is the meaning of its existence in world-history.[24]

         This text describes a humble and loving church eager to reach its goal.  The church is not an empire builder.  There is meekness before the Lord.  It is a migrating people moving forward to the day of redemption.  Beyond the church are God, all the people, and the ages that the church serves.  Though the word "church" is not in the passage, the whole passage refers to its life, order, and purpose.[25]  

I wonder how many people feel an incredible sense of isolation in the world today. Loneliness is something many people fear. If one finds an antidote for loneliness, one will have found a business that will last forever.[26] In a world that seems to be coming apart at the seams, what keeps us from becoming unstuck to Christ and one another and falling apart? We live in a painfully fragmented world and a fragmented church. We must not allow the forces of hate and violence to gain their victory not just in our society, but also in our hearts. Nor must we respond to hate with more hate. This is a time of coming together.[27]

I would like to see the church be an example of coming together, even as the world seems ready to come apart. It amazes me how Christianity continually makes relatives out of strangers.  Even large congregations will call themselves family. We attempt unity amid diversity.  Yet, we fight hard for what we believe.  How can we still worship together?  

For the Christian community to experience unity, it will need to be a humble and loving community of people, eager to reach its goal. The Christian community migrates together toward the day of redemption. How are the people to travel together?

An important part of the journey is that all Christians have a calling from God to lead a life worthy before God and others. Such a calling is an important way in which we join with the reconciling work of God in the world. Humility, gentleness, forbearance, and bearing the burdens of others are the attitudes that Christians are to have within the community. 

Christian community experiences unity through its common confession of faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Such communal confession of faith has its foundation in worship. 

Christian community experiences unity through the fact that behind the various gifts is one dispenser of the gifts, Christ, and behind the various ministries of the church is one common ministry for the building up of the church. The church receives these various ministries so that all the people will receive the equipping necessary to carry out the work of service in the world and the construction or fitting together of the church. Every gift serves the unity of the church and growth in knowing the Son of God. As a body, the Christian community grows and matures in unity and in the knowledge of the Son of God. The church has as its purpose helping mature in their relationship with Christ, with each other, and in its ministry in the world. The church becomes a center for spiritual discipline and maturity.

The church will see its Lord face to face. If the church is to avoid having every shift in the intellectual and moral atmosphere of the culture toss it around, it will need to keep itself firmly focused on moving toward Christ. In a world where so many remain unconvinced of Christ, the temptation in the church is to think they might be right at some level. Thus, churches will want to adopt at least some of the standards of the world, ostensibly under the banner of wanting to bring people to Christ. Yet, the church can move toward Christ as its members speak truth in love, and thus care enough for each other to do so. The church receives its nourishment from Christ. Yet, each individual member of the body contributes toward building up the unity of the church and serving God in the world. Every member shares in the responsibility of building up the church through love.

Think of it this way. One hundred pianos tuned to the same fork are also in tune with each other. They are in tune to each other because they bow to a common standard. In a similar way, if those who gather for worship look away from each other and toward Christ, they will have more possibility of practicing the unity they already have in Christ.[28]Unity comes, not as we gaze at each other, but as together, we turn our gaze toward Christ. The unity we have is because of our unity in a person, Jesus Christ. He is the one that binds us together. 

---

[1]  (see, for example, Ignatius’ Letter to the Mangesians, 6, 7.1). Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. Do all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality. As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters.

[2] (Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Epistle to the Ephesians [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991], 33-35).

[3] Happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are in harmony. --Mahatma Gandhi.

[4] Fame is a vapor, popularity an accident, riches take wings and those who cheer today may curse tomorrow. Only one thing endures -- character. --Horace Greeley.

[5] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 302.

[6] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 [62.2] 668-75.

[7] The reference to ascending suggests the one who descending to the lowest parts of the earth while the one who descended is the one who also ascended above the heavens in order to full all things. The author seems guilty of a willful distortion of the text, unless contemporary exegesis justifies his usage.  First, instead of "Thou didst ascend..."  the author has "he ascended..." Second, instead of the receipt of gifts from defeated foes, he has the giving of gifts.  Third, instead of praising God's ascent from Sinai to Zion, the author praises Christ's ascent to the heavenly throne.  Fourth, Paul's mention of an ascent depends upon on earlier descent, which is not in the text.  Early Christian tendencies were to interpret psalms relating to God's reign as descriptions of God's rule through the Messiah.  Paul's use of Psalm 68 is an extension of that tendency.  An Ethiopian, Sahidic, Bohairic, Syriac, and several Arabic translations have the term "he ascended..."  For Paul, the text refers to Christ as the source of spiritual gifts.

[8] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 457.

[9] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 385. In John Calvin, it became an important text in the consideration of church order. However, he viewed prophets and evangelists as for the apostolic age, and therefore, only pastors and teachers for the current age.

[10] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.1] 623.

[11] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 378.

[12] According to W. Lohe in Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 382-3.

[13] "To equip," comes from a verb that means, "to reconcile" political parties, "to set bones" in surgery, or more generally, "to restore, prepare, create."  The noun describes the act by which persons or things are being prepared for a specific task.

[14] There are either three distinct purposes or they are a triple definition of the one purpose that determines the gift ministries in v. 7, 8, 11.  There is the equipping of the saints, the servant work, and the construction of Christ's body.  If a comma is placed between the first two, all the saints benefit, but select ministers carry out the work of building the body.  It is aristocratic and clerical oriented.  Clergy are distinct from laity.  Laity are beneficiaries and the benefits of the clergy are primarily within the church.  However, if the nouns describe the same purpose of the ministries of v. 11, a different interpretation is possible.  Then the ministries of v. 11 are given to the church so that the saints become equipped to carry out the work of service even the construction of the body of Christ.  

[15] Barth, Church Dogmatiics IV.2 [67.1] 623.

[16] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 407

[17] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.1] 623-5. 

[18] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 103.

[19] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.1] 625-6.

[20] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [68.3] 799.

[21] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.2] 659-60.

[22] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 430, 466.

[23] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.2] 660. 

[24] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.1] 635-6.

[25] Markus Barth, Ephesians in Anchor Bible

[26] -Anita Roddick, founder and co-chair of The Body Shop, London, England, in Fast Company, September 1999, 115. There is an incredible sense of isolation in the world today. Any young person who finds an antidote to loneliness will have found a business that will last forever.

[27] -The Rev. Dr. Billy Graham, prayer service, Oklahoma City, quoted by Joanne Lynn and Joan Harrold in Handbook for Mortals: Guidance for People Facing Serious Illness (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1999), 172.

[28] A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God.

II Samuel 11:26-12:13

II Samuel 11:26 – 12:13a

²⁶ When the wife of Uriah heard that her husband was dead, she made lamentation for him. ²⁷ When the mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son.

But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord, ¹ and the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. ² The rich man had very many flocks and herds; ³ but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his meager fare, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. ⁴ Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was loath to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared that for the guest who had come to him.” ⁵ Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man. He said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; ⁶ he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

⁷ Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I rescued you from the hand of Saul; ⁸ I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added as much more. ⁹ Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. ¹⁰ Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, for you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. ¹¹ Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. ¹² For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.” ¹³ David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

II Samuel 11:26-12:13a continues the story of David and Bathsheba with its focus on the confrontation between David and Nathan. I feel a profound sense of disappointment in David.  This story allows us to explore the secretive nature of sin, how to have redemptive conversations about sin, and that the point of conversations about sin is redemption and forgiveness. 

The story of David involves the struggle he had in the most of intimate relationship he had, that of his family.

Family is such an intimate communion of minds and hearts. Within the family, we see each other at the best and worst. What we do with this knowledge will determine the quality of our family life. 

I think we see David at his worst in his family. Short phrases summarize his plight. “I am pregnant,” says Bathsheba. “You are the man,” says Nathan. “I have sinned against God,” says David. The darker side of the life of David seemed to come out in his family life. He committed the sin of coveting when he saw Bathsheba bathing. He committed the sin of adultery as he carried out his plan to have intercourse with her, even while her husband was fighting in his army. The prophet Nathan accuses David of committing the sin of stealing from one much less powerful and wealthy than he is. He committed the sin of murder as he instructed his commanders to place her husband in a situation of the heaviest fighting to kill him. His son, Amnon, rapes his daughter, Tamar, and he does nothing, a fact that arouses the anger of Absalom, who then kills his half-brother Amnon. Absalom then breaks the commandment to honor father and mother by inciting others to rebel against David. His son, Solomon, marries many foreign wives and builds idols to their gods, thereby breaking the first two commandments. My point, of course, is that the life of David, as central as it is to the story of Israel, becomes an example of how even the greatest King, David, and his family, broke several of the Ten Commandments. As much faith and loyalty as Judah had in David and his family, the family remained flawed. 

In many ways, the life of David is a reminder not to place too much trust in people, regardless of how “good” they may appear to be. They are not perfect. We must still rely upon God and look to Christ. People can point the way to Christ. Yet, at times, their light burns dimly. The life of David is also a reminder to protect and nurture one’s family. As one person wisely said, the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence. The grass is greener where you water it. 

²⁶ When the wife of Uriah heard that her husband was dead, she made lamentation for him. ²⁷ When the mourning was over, traditionally seven days, David sent and brought her to his house, moving into the palace of David, and she became his wife, and bore him a son. David then marries Bathsheba, not so much out of love, but out of a desire to protect himself from public shame. Quick marriages were the norm for David.  He married Abigail upon hearing of her husband's death (1 Samuel 25), but the case with Uriah's wife is different. She needs to become his wife before the pregnancy becomes obvious. The cover-up is successful, and David's son is born.  No one knows the sordid details - except God. It appears that David has gotten away with murder, coveting and adultery. I Chronicles 20:1-3 also tell the story of the second campaign against Ammon. However, the author tells it quickly, without the domestic troubles of the royal family.

However, explicit judgment of the actions of a character in the books of Samuel. Here, such explicit judgment comes from the Lord: the thing that David had done displeased the Lord. This statement heightens the importance of the sins because they are the result of the actions of the king. The king is under the authority of the Lord, and nothing escapes the attention of the Lord. ¹ And the Lord sent, contrasting with David sending Joab and his officers, sending someone to enquire about Bathsheba, sending for Uriah, sending a message through Uriah to Joab, sending for Bathsheba to become his wife, Nathan to David. Nathan is a prophet with the court of David. His livelihood depended upon the good favor of David. He is an insider to the government. The remarkably firm statement he will make of moral condemnation of David is uttered by one who stands who lose everything. The parable Nathan will tell presents a legal case.  The point is to get David to pass judgment upon himself without knowing he was doing so. It closely corresponds to the actual events as the narrator has described them. It stresses the social aspect of the robbery, the rich man taking the scant property of the poor man. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city. Nathan begins by using the traditional words that begin a tale (cf. the story of Hannah and Elkanah in 1 Samuel 1:1 and Job in Job 1:1). The one man was rich and the other poor (ra'sh[1]). ² The rich man had very many flocks and herds, a parallel with the many wives and concubines of David; ³ but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe (kivsah[2]) lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, it grew up with him, with his children; it used to eat of his meager fare, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. The emphasis is upon the emotional attachment of the man with the lamb. As Nathan describes the relationship of the poor man and the little ewe, he describes the same activities that David used in his attempt to entice Uriah to be his wife, and so that one could attribute Bathsheba's pregnancy to Uriah:  Eat, drink, and lie (cf. 11:11). Nathan details the intimacy between the poor man and the little ewe by saying that the little ewe would "lie in his bosom" (see NIV: "slept in his lap"). This is not merely descriptive of providing loving shelter, but also of sexual intimacy.  The author uses the same term in verse 8 as the Lord reminds David that David's master's (Saul’s) wives had been given to him. ⁴ Now, there came a traveler ('oreah[3]) to the rich man. Of course, the rich man with large flocks could have easily provided a feast for the wayfarer. Yet, he was loath (it seemed a pity to him) to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer (helekh[4]) who had come to him. The author underscores the callous disregard of the rich man for the feelings and rights of the poor man by the comparative unimportance of the visitor for whom he has the pet lamb slaughtered. He is not a visiting relative, or a person of any real importance to the rich man. He is simply a holech and an ‘oreach, a “walker” and a “person on the road.” In other words, the rich man kills his neighbor’s pet for the sake of preserving his social position through hospitality to someone for whom he does not even know or care. Likewise, David destroys Uriah’s life both figuratively and literally for the sake of a transient desire to possess Uriah’s wife. Therefore, he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared that for the guest who had come to him.” The analogy with the actual case breaks down here, for the rich man does not simply add the beloved lamb to his flock. The word "took" stirs the reader in many ways: David took Bathsheba (11:4), which is also reminiscent of the earlier warning of the prophet Samuel to the people concerning their desire for a human king, like the other nations. He warned of the dangers of self-centered kings and all that they would "take" for themselves (I Samuel 8:10-18). David has become the king of whom Samuel prophesied: He took something that was not his and treated it as his own. The king was supposed to be a defender of the poor.  Instead, he had become the taker.  An Indian chief once said, "The white man made thousands of promises, but kept only on.  He promised to take our land, and he took it."  It is easy for us to become takers. 

⁵ The story of the man greatly angered David against the man. We are again reminded eto the capacity of David for intense anger. The story Nathan tells has the characteristics of a tale, so it is a surprise when David accepts it as a report that needs his official action. The king is utterly appalled. He said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, an outburst of indignation, for Israelite law would not impose the death penalty for robbery; ⁶ he shall restore the lamb fourfold, in accord with Exodus 21:37, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity (same Hebrew word is translated as “loath) in verse 4, having pity for himself at losing a lamb from his herd but having no pity for his poor neighbor.” Accustomed to overseeing judicial proceedings, David convicts and sentences the man: Guilty! Death is appropriate; someone needs make reparations. In anger, David condemns this blatant injustice, and in so doing, he condemns himself. According to biblical law, if a person had illegally taken another's property, one must pay back fourfold (Exodus 22:1b). Nathan uses a useful type of juridical ploy for occasions when the perpetrator of a crime is also the reigning monarch, for one can find other fictive legal cases in ancient Near Eastern literature. Two very similar examples appear.  In II Samuel 14, Joab hires the “wise woman of Tekoa” to present a fictive legal case before David in order to convince him to bring Absalom back to court. His response was fitting for a king. It shows a sense of justice. The other example is in Egyptian tale of the Contendings of Horus and Seth (1189 BC to 1077 BC). Horus and Seth have competing rights to the throne. The pertinent part of the story involves a goddess who transforms herself into a beautiful woman in order to have come out of the mouth of Seth words that will reveal that Horus has the rightful claim to the throne. She tells a story that reveals the issue involved. She bore a son to him. Her husband died. A stranger set up residence in the barn and told the son the cattle belonged to the stranger. She wants Seth to offer protection for the son. Seth cannot believe that while her son is still living the stranger wants the cattle. At that point, the goddess reveals herself and tells him that he should be ashamed and his own mouth has judged him.

Verses 7-12 contain the rebuke to the king offered by Natha. The king was supposed to be a defender of the poor.  Instead, he had become the taker.  This story reminds us of the secretive nature of sin. The point of verses 7-9 is that David has been ungrateful to the Lord, who has given him everything. ⁷ Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus, Nathan pointed to David as the culprit, but only after David drew the unavoidable conclusion. Thus says the Lord, the messenger formula that makes it clear the following words are not simply Nathan speaking but offer a message from the Lord, the God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel (), and I rescued you from the hand of Saul (I Samuel 16-30).  ⁸ I gave you (in contrast to David’s behavior of taking, the Lord has graciously given to David) your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, the Bible does not record this incident, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah (II Samuel 2:1-7, II Samuel 5:1-11, I Chronicles 11:6b, 12:23-40). Further, if that had been too little, I would have added as much more. Verses 7 and 8 are ironic echoes of David's prayer of thanksgiving in 7:18b-29, a prayer in which David thanks the Lord for the many blessings bestowed upon him. Here, the Lord reminds David that he would have "given" David more, but instead, David has elected to "take" from someone else. ⁹ Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? He despised the Lord by not living the life reflected in the ten commandments. You have struck down (killed) Uriah the Hittite with the sword, even though Joab did not withdraw troops as David commanded he is still responsible for the death of the man, breaking the sixth commandment, and have taken his wife to be your wife (breaking the 10^th commandment on coveting and and the seventh commandment on adultery), and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. The Lord makes it clear that David has broken three commandments. The Lord has made him king, yet, he has despised the commandment of the Lord and done evil in the sight of the Lord. Having arrived at the summit of his life, he has forgotten the Lord who made him king and brought him to this height.^[5]Verses 10-12 offer the punishments from the Lord, corresponding to the sins of David. David used the sword to strike down Uriah. ¹⁰ Now, therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, for you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. Clearly, consequences will result from these evil acts. We now see the irony of David's earlier words to Joab, "Do not let this matter [Uriah's death] trouble you, for the sword devours now one and now another" as the Lord now issues the sentence: The sword shall never leave David or his heirs. David's dynasty will never be free from conflict, crises and destructiveness.  It becomes a fitting punishment. David did his killing by the sword (of the Ammonites), and the sword is his sentence. ¹¹ Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house. We should not lose sight of the paradox of this punishment: The founding of the great Davidic dynasty is simultaneously the tale of the fall of the house of David. Readers will quickly see the predictive curse of the Lord in the rape of Tamar (13:3-22); the murder of Ammon (13:23-29); the conspiracy of Absalom (15:1-12) and his subsequent violent death (18:1-17); and Adonijah's failed attempt to usurp his father's throne (I Kings 1). This fatal pronouncement might be the reason he is so criminally passive in the face of his children’s later violence toward each other. The Lord had promised that David's kingdom would endure forever (7:16), but in the broad daylight, David's house will now suffer. And I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. Since David took the wife of Uriah, someone else, his son Absalom, will take his wives. ¹² For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.” This happens in II Samuel 16:21-22 in another stroke of irony when David’s own son Absalom usurps his throne and sleeps with the royal harem on the rooftop of the palace — the very rooftop, in fact, from which David first sees Bathsheba and desires her (II Samuel 11:2). ^13a David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” The response is like that of Saul (I Samuel 15:24), but David does not offer excuses, such as that Bathsheba seduced him. David accepts responsibility for what he has done, which is always the first step toward righting relationships with the Lord and with others. This statement is two words in Hebrew. This is a perfect parallel to the judgment, "You are the man," and to Bathsheba's direct message, "I am pregnant." David's words are terse, direct, and very costly. His response stands in contrast to the response of Saul in I Samuel 15 where Saul shifts blame to others. In what may be David's finest moment, David recognizes who is the true King of Israel and humbles himself before him, acknowledging his sin and repenting. To his credit, David confesses his sin. David's response to Nathan's prophecy is to confess, repent and acknowledge God's justice. As punishment for adultery, both David and Bathsheba should have been executed (Leviticus 20:10). Because he is repentant, however, he does not receive the death penalty. Rather, the violence he has perpetrated on the family of the innocent Uriah will rebound upon his own family. 

One could argue that in the background of this story is the luxury to which David is now accustomed. While his soldiers are fighting, David is living a slothful life that leads to these terrible actions that break a covenant with God and the people of God. In the context of the biblical tradition regarding David, he is now closer to Saul, and in fact, one could argue that he has done worse than Saul was. This shows that the choice or election of God comes from grace and not from the moral strength of David. In one sense, this story is strange, for the context is the exploits of David after he became king. It has an intrusive element. It becomes an occasion for sin entering through sloth.^[6]  

The story of David at this point invites a conversation about sin. Sin has many dimensions to it. It may show itself as rebellion. It may also show itself as missing the mark. In essence, we are having that conversation within the church and in culture, even when we do not use the word. 

In some ways, church and culture today easily acknowledge sin. We may disagree as to what actions and thoughts are sinful, but we agree that we sin. We are sure that adultery and racism are sins, but do not generally think smoking or dancing are sins.[7]         I wonder, however, if the problem is not failure to believe in sin, but failure to envision the possibility of redemption. It gratifies me that so many Americans think of racism as a sin. For the percentage to be that high, regardless of political affiliation, racism is sinful. The president of a school expels students who posted a racist video. The president of the Black Student Association suggested the tougher path of forgiveness, fighting hate with love. Redemption is the harder path to travel, but it can lead to change of human lives.[8] The path of revenge and resentment may feel like justice in the moment, but it puts us down the path of living out of the worst part of ourselves. It turns us into the people we supposedly abhor.[9]

Now, let us step back and consider a larger issue. 

Yes, America has its faults and sins. They flow from its history of connection to Europe. Most of us can list them. Slavery and treatment of the Native American would rate high on the list. Critics will implicate Christianity and white people in these sins. Such imperfections are there. No one can erase it from the history. 

What would redemption look like?

Maybe you would have preachers throughout the country, known as abolitionists, encourage America to abolish slavery. Maybe you would fight a war at great cost in human lives to remove it, and maybe you would work tirelessly for another 100 years to remove racism from any form of respectability. An avowed racist could not receive a majority anywhere in this country. 

Yet, the path of revenge will lead to your worst self. You might become like the people you hate. It might lead to riots and violence in the streets, destroying the businesses your community needs to make progress. It might lead to harming relationships with the police, the people you need to protect you from those in the community who wish harm. 

Many Americans are quick to label almost anything a “sin,” even if they do not use the word. For some people, the only path to redemption is to agree with them. If only we could separate evil people from the rest of us and destroy them. If only we could erase the flaws that American history reveals. The problem, of course, is that the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. The same person will be close to being a devil and at times close to sainthood. Each of us is capable of greater good and greater evil than we may presently know.[10]

We need to have redemptive conversations about sin. Such conversations have the power to change our lives. Real conversation catches fire and changes people. We can have conversations that simply exchange information. Many people today simply talk at each other, telling opinions or expressing an ideology. An ideology is a closed system. You have the arrogance of believing that your ideology is morally superior to that of the one with whom you disagree. Real conversation involves humility and openness to learning from the other person. Real conversation means we talk to each other in ways that we are open to the conversation changing us. Real conversation is at the root of creativity. Such conversation will change mind-sets better than laws will.^[11] Imagine if Nathan pointed the finger at David and told him he transgressed the Ten Commandments. We can imagine David becoming defensive and commanding him to leave. Instead, Nathan invited David, who has secretly broken so many of the Ten Commandments, to consider a story. With the story, Nathan brought David to a change of mind-set and a change of life. He brought repentance. With confession and repentance, the door opened to redemption. Real conversation is a meeting of differing mind-sets. Our mind-set transforms facts in a way that allows us to draw different implications from them and engage in new trains of thought. A conversation does not just reshuffle the cards. It creates new cards. Considered from a Christian perspective, what might the new conversation look like? We may include the card of love rather than indifference, forgiveness rather than resentment, righteousness rather than self-righteousness, justice rather than despair, and humility rather than arrogance. 

Thus, the story of David holds an ambiguous and puzzling place in the massive history of Israel that we read in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, a story that connects the time of the Patriarchs and Moses on the one hand with the exile on the other hand. That history shows the disobedience of Israel, and especially its kings, as they broke their covenant with God. The height of that covenant was the Ten Commandments. The kings broke the commandments. The power of the story of David is that the most successful king militarily and politically, the king who sought direction from God, also dramatically broke covenant with God and with Israel.

---

[1] Unusual for biblical prose

[2] Unusual for biblical prose

[3] Unusual for biblical prose

[4] Unusual for biblical prose

[5] (Barth 2004, 1932-67) II.2 [35.2] 381. 

[6] (Barth 2004, 1932-67), II.2 [35.2] 381-4 and IV.2 [65.2] 464-7.

[7] A survey (http://www.greymatterresearch.com/index_files/Sin.htm) of Americans listed several possibilities and asked whether they considered them sins.

The behaviors a majority of all Americans describe as sinful are: 

· Adultery  81

· Racism  74%

· Using “hard” drugs such as cocaine, heroine, meth, LSD, etc.  65%

· Not saying anything if a cashier gives you too much change back  63%

· Having an abortion  56%

· Homosexual activity or sex  52%

· Not reporting some income on your tax returns  52% 

A number of other behaviors are considered sinful by a significant portion of all Americans, although not a majority.  These are: 

· Reading or watching pornography  50%

· Gossip  47%

· Swearing  46%

· Sex before marriage  45%

· Homosexual thoughts  44%

· Sexual thoughts about someone you are not married to  43%

· Doing things as a consumer that harm the environment  41%

· Smoking marijuana  41%

· Getting drunk  41%

· Not taking proper care of your body  35% 

Then there are behaviors that fewer than one-third of all Americans see as sinful: 

· Gambling  30%

· Telling a “little white lie” to avoid hurting someone’s feelings  29%

· Using tobacco  23%

· Not attending church or religious worship services on a regular basis  18%

· Playing the lottery  18%

· Watching an R-rated movie  18%

· Being significantly overweight  17%

· Not giving 10% of your income to a church or charity  16%

· Drinking any alcohol  14%

· Working on Sunday/the Sabbath  14%

· Spanking your child when he/she misbehaves  7%

· Making a lot of money  4%

· Dancing  4%

[8] Parker Rice and Levi Pettit were members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the University of Oklahoma. The video of their racist sing-a-long gained much press in the early part of 2015. Eventually, the President of the school expelled them, he shut down the fraternity, and the fraternity itself would go through a nationwide examination. Given the circumstances, all of this may well be the best path of action. I do not know the individuals involved, so I am not passing on evaluation of their actions.

            However, I find it striking that Isaac Hill, the president of the Black Student Association at the University told Megyn Kelly that people should forgive the students. His counsel was to fight hate with the power love. Cal Thomas, columnist, was quite right to suggest that the goal of actions by fellow students and especially by the university should have been redemption. Redemption is a harder path to travel, but the destination is to change the thinking of the students. 

[9] In her article, "The Power of Forgiveness: Why Revenge Doesn't Work," Dr. Judith Orloff writes: "...revenge reduces you to your worst self, puts you on the same level with those spiteful people we claim to abhor."

[10] If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? ... One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil. --Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (Westview Press, 1997), vol. 1, 168.

[11] Theodore Zeldin, Conversation (New York: Hidden Spring Books, 2000),