In Numbers chapter 1, we follow the same format that has persisted in the end of Exodus through Leviticus, which is Yahweh speaking to Moses at Mt. Sinai. The instructions are for a census to be taken. But the goal isn’t just to know how many folks are around these days, the count is specifically targeting males twenty years and older, those who can go to war. It sets the stage for what is to come, God to deliver the land He promised Abraham through his descendants. The lead man from each tribe of Israel is responsible to do the count and return the number to Moses.
Notice here that the list of the tribes of Israel are not a full count of the sons of Israel. In place of Joseph, we see his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, treated in the same way Israel’s actual sons are (a promise kept from back in Genesis 48). Also, the Levites are not listed as, we will see later, they won’t be allocated any specific land and are not part of the “army” that is being counted. So the count is still 12, but it includes no Joseph and no Levi, but the addition of Joseph’s sons Manasseh and Ephraim.
All in all, everyone gets counted and there’s over 600,000 fellas. That’s a large group of people, and a sure sign that Yahweh has been faithful in His other promise to Abraham, that his offspring would be of a great number.
The chapter ends with the instructions about the tribe of Levi. One, they are not counted, because they will not be expected to fight. Instead, they are responsible for the protection and moving of the tabernacle and all the items associated with it. This includes surrounding it while the camp is settled and packing it up and hauling it when the camp is moving. Why is this necessary? The instructions tell them it is to keep folks from coming to death and avoiding Yahweh’s wrath upon the congregation. It’s a matter of creating a hospitable environment for a holy God to live among them. The Levites protection of the tabernacle ensures that the holiness of God’s dwelling among them isn’t intentionally or unintentionally violated by someone, thereby resulting in both a personal and corporate impact.
The people obey, a solid step of faithfulness and an affirmation that they intend to cooperate with this execution of God’s promise.
The narrative coming out of Exodus continues and the Lord calls to Moses from the tabernacle (the new tent of meeting) and begins to tell him how various aspects of the worship related to the tabernacle should be undertaken. First up, the burnt offering.
Now, as we start to read and try to understand the offerings, we’ll often find that we don’t have as much information as we want. Some of these instructions have an assumed level of understanding or pre-existing communal knowledge that isn’t included in the text because everyone already kind of gets it. As such, we’re going to do our best to call out what we believe to be true according to the information we have and then be cautious and prudent with any speculation outside of that.
The first two things we learn about the burnt offering is that it is on behalf of an individual (vs. the whole group) and that what is being offered must come from the owner’s own herd or flock. This is interesting in that it means that the offering must cost the person something, you can’t just go snare a wild beast and bring him to the Lord as an offering. We see David echo this thought in 2 Samuel 24:24: “I will not offer a burnt offering to the Lord my God which cost me nothing.”
Further, the offering must be a male without blemish. Again, we’re speaking to something costly, as the males were more prized and it couldn’t be some kind of limp, bedraggled character that you’d be happy to be rid of anyway. Only the best is good enough for God. The Lord calls out Israel in Malachi for trying to get away with shifty behavior in this area, “‘You sniff at me,’ says the Lord of Hosts; ‘You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering. Shall I accept that from your hand?’ says the Lord”.
By the way, just so we don’t miss it, this expensive. It’d be something to sacrifice an entire young cow today, let alone in OT times when meat was a rare luxury for all but the very rich. Yes, the offering accommodates the variations of what people can afford (could be bull, sheep/goats, or birds), but it’s costly either way.
So, the animal is brought to the entrance of the tabernacle (tent of meeting), and the owner places his hand on the head of the burnt offering (and prays, those things are connected in Scripture) and it is accepted to make atonement (Hebrew word kipper – said “kip-air”, meaning “to cover” or “ransom”) for him. The guilt is acknowledged here, this situation is a consequence of action taken by the animal’s owner. Then he kills the animal, washes the dirty parts, cuts it all into pieces so it can be burnt on the altar. Note that the owner of the beast does all of this, it is handed off to the priests only to tend the fire that it will burn on (and also keep the skin of the animal).
A couple things. First, we want the sacrifice to be accepted because the general goal of it is peace with God (or right relationship). It is to be a “soothing aroma” to God, it is done in worship as something that pleases Him. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this, recall that Noah makes a burnt offering to God after the flood and God reacts to it saying that it is a soothing aroma and promises to never flood the earth again (Genesis 8).
Further, the clearest identification of the purpose of the sacrifice comes from the word atonement. Although it debated among folks whether to consider it this way, I think this clearly is an offering in reaction to sin (with some differences from the upcoming purification and sin offerings). This is an atonement, an action taken as a “cover” or “ransom” for sin that created a lack of peace between a person and God. In this situation, God has agreed to accept this sacrifice, where the sin is seemingly passed through to the animal on behalf of the owner, and then killed and entirely consumed by the fire. Why does this work? Well, the basic answer is because God said it does. Perhaps more specifically, Leviticus 17:11 tells us that the blood of the animal represents its life and God is willing to accept its blood instead of yours. (Yes, we should certainly see Jesus in this, this is exactly what he does completely and finally on our behalf).
The one thing that should jump out clearly here, fellas, is that in a reality where Jesus has already come and died for us, we run the risk of not recognizing the cost of our sin. If you were an Israelite at the time of Moses, you didn’t forget because you had to haul one of your beasts up there in the presence of sin in your life and it died on your behalf (in fact, you did the killing). Folk saw you bring it up, it took a decent effort to kill, clean and cut it up, and you had to do it all over again the next time.
Conceptually, the same thing happens with Jesus, we just don’t have to live it out physically. He dies because God wants peace with us and He provides a sacrifice so that it can be (as noted in the introduction, the absence of this concept either denies that broken relationships are actually broken or creates a world where we can never have peace with God). Your sin put the nails in His hands, the crown on His head, and the spear in His side. But you weren’t physically there. Your sin is bundled with millions of others into that crown and into those nails and your part doesn’t get re-enacted over and over again. That is an amazing mercy, let us not forget it by treating are sin with nonchalance.
Dig on this tune, which has relevance to what we were just talking about:
Chapter 1 continues with how to handle the burnt sacrifices for either sheep/goats or birds, reflecting what people actually have available to them to sacrifice. Nothing significantly differs in the process for the other animals, just enough to accommodate distinctions that inherently exist in differences between say birds and bulls.
It’s worth noting that burnt offerings do not appear to be exclusive to atonement. Primarily, it brought reconciliation between God and man but also expressed faith in God and obedience to his law and could be offered in fulfillment of a vow. Either way, of all the sacrifices, this one is all encompassing; the entire animal is consumed in the fire and none is shared or left for either the original owner or the priests (again, except the skin).
Exodus opens with the names of the sons of the man Israel. This is important for both historical and literary reasons. To history, we’ll come to find out that it’s been a few hundred years since this family first came to settle in Goshen, within the territory of the Egyptian pharaoh. They had now spent many years in pagan surroundings. During that time, we get a sense that many of them have given up on the thought of a God that cares for them. As that iterates through subsequent generations, it’s quite possible that they know very little of the promises God has made through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From a literary perspective, it reminds us, just like them, that this story isn’t in isolation.
The names of Israel’s sons are listed in birth order. We’re told the whole family is 70 strong, same figure given in Genesis 46, and that Joseph was already there. These are important to set the scene as both have relevance to the problems that are to come. We will go from an invited Israelite family who aren’t very big to an exceedingly strong nation that has been fruitful and greatly increasing (if we remember from Genesis, this is blessing language). The situation has changed.
As is prone to happen, Egypt eventually has a different leader than the one who was in charge and permitted Joseph’s family to settle there. It’s not super clear who this new pharaoh is, but it’s likely a native Egyptian who deposed the last of the Hyksos pharaohs. The Hyksos were, for all practical purposes, invaders from Asia who had settled in Egypt and taken the throne by force. After a couple of hundred years they are chased out. If this happens to be the right scenario, it’s easier to understand the threat that the new pharaoh potentially sees from the Israelites in Goshen. This is compounded by the general fear/mistrust Egyptians had of foreign peoples (driven likely by a sense of superiority).
The rendering of the pharaoh’s concern in v. 10, though, doesn’t make a ton of sense. The way it reads it sounds like he is concerned that the Israelites may get in league with an invading army and escape. Given that they don’t particularly care for this group that is blessed and massive within their borders, the fact that they might leave doesn’t seem like a problem. In fact, it’s probably a good thing in their eyes. A similar phrase is used in Hosea 1:11 and the NRSV recognizes it as “…and they shall take possession of the land, for great shall…”. That same type of rendering makes the most sense here as well. So, the concern is likely that Israel will join with an invading army and take over the land, not flee from it.
To combat this, the pharaoh decides to put heavy burdens on the Israelites. This is about population reduction, so the labor must be hard enough to kill the weak, weaken the strong, and likely reduce the amount of free time they have for the types of activities that produce more Israelites. This fails, and not just out of happenstance. The blessing that God shows here in multiplying the Israelites is proportionate to how much they were oppressed. This is in a sense difficult because it’s these blessings of God that actually lead them into further trouble with the Egyptians. We shouldn’t be surprised that there will be conflict when powerful humans try to exert control to suppress those things that God has designed for blessing.
Since the initial attempt at degrading their status and reducing their population didn’t work, pharaoh takes the next step and tries to enlist the Hebrew midwives to kill the male children as they are born and let the female children live. Obviously, things have escalated, now we’re talking straight up genocide. The fact that the midwives are named in the text is a strong testament to their bravery. They not only ignore pharaoh’s instructions but straight up sass him when asked why they aren’t doing it (Hebrew ladies don’t mess, they get the job done, unlike Egyptian ladies who seem to take their sweet time.) This was talking to a man who has commanded genocide. Who knows why he let them live (perhaps it’s implied God intervenes here), but they serve God above men, even in the face of danger. God blesses them in return.
Given that he can’t trust the midwives to enact his demands at the time of birth, Pharaoh changes the decree to not killing at birth but to throwing the male babies in the Nile after they are born. This is not only kind of a clean way (and one that can’t be argued with for access, even today 90% of Egypt’s population live within 5 miles of the Nile. Also, with the belief in the Nile as one of the gods, if the child is “received” by the water, it is more seen as a judgment of the gods than a blame on the person who put the child in there.) The stage is also set for the introduction of one of those babies who will somehow yet live as God continues to intervene for His people of promise.
The opening chapter will bounce back and forth between narration and then commentary by the city of Jerusalem herself, who bemoans the state she has fallen into after the Babylonian siege. Obviously, we have to be careful with the language. It’s emotionally heightened, meaning it’s often exaggerating reality but is rightly communicating how that reality feels. Also, cities don’t talk 4 realz so we need to accept the use of personification (giving human thoughts/characteristics to something that isn’t human).
The narrator starts describing the city of Jerusalem (commentary won’t be extensive here, these are just images to digest). These are not happy pictures. A once vibrant city is now empty, like a widow, she is abandoned. The city has fallen greatly and weeps in her loneliness. No one came to her aid during the attack, in fact later we’ll learn that it feels as though the surrounding friends were glad at the downfall of Jerusalem.
We’re told that Judah (southern kingdom, Jerusalem is in Judah) was exiled so they could be forced to do hard labor (hmm, ring any bells, Israel??? God brings you out of slavery, gives you a sweet land, and you’ve landed yourselves right back in the same position for all the reasons our friend Amos laid out.) In this slavery, they find no rest (something that God promises them back in Deuteronomy and that Jesus promises to his Kingdom folk now). Now, again, this language is a bit exaggerated in that not everyone had to do hard labor. And eventually they acclimate to the society and some choose to stay there even when the approval is given to go back to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.
v.5 gives the first glimpse of acknowledging how this happened – Jerusalem is afflicted for the multitude of her transgressions (it’ll come back in v.8 and continue to become more consistently mentioned as the chapters go on). But we quickly jump off this point and back into the woes and such. We get a couple references to Zion (this is the mount upon which the temples are built). v.6 shows how the royalty have been brought low, unable to find food and having to flee without strength. Jerusalem remembers all the good she had before this happened and now how her enemies mock her now that she has fallen.
In v.9, the “…uncleanness in her skirts” means it’s caught up on her, stuck to her, yet she didn’t expect this trouble (which is foolish, God had been warning them over and over about this outcome. They weren’t listening). Also, we get the first commentary from Jerusalem “O Lord, behold my affliction, for the enemy has triumphed”. She will speak again in v.11, “Look, O Lord, and see for I am despised…” and it will continue to be her talking, not the narrator, through v.16.
You’ll notice that although the narrator had stated that it was the sins of the city (the people, obviously) that caused all of this, when Jerusalem speaks she is much more dodgy on the subject. Her lament in v.11-16 describes these troubles as having been, “…brought upon me, which the Lord inflicted on the day of his fierce anger.” Although true, she seems to dodge the blame here, she paints God as a persistent menace (sending fire, tripping her up, leaving her disoriented, etc.) From her perspective, God loads up all of her sins and binds them to her, leaving her weighed down and burdened, unable to fight against those who came to attack. And those who could defend Jerusalem (her mighty men) were unable to do so. God has put them through the ringer, winepress style. (It is interesting how many of the descriptions of Jerusalem here carry on and are applied to the judgment of Babylon in Revelation.)
One thing not to miss is in v.12 where it talks about the, “…day of his fierce anger”. We should understand this as being a valid reference of “the day of Lord”, a popular phrase among the minor prophets and beyond. It’s not one specific day, however it does refer to a distinct time when God will act and his justice will be carried out. It happened when Assyria took Israel into exile, it happened when Babylon ransacked Judah and exiled them, it happened in Jesus time, and will happen again (and finally, I’d presume) at Christ’s return.
In v.18 we finally get Jerusalem to admit her part in this: “The Lord is in the right, for I have rebelled against his word.” And this is to be a warning to all those who surround her. As the weight of her responsibility sits upon her, she cries out in v.20. And yet those who surround her won’t help, they are glad God has done what He has done. These nations were false friends and were only using Jerusalem (again, much like those who do not mourn Babylon’s downfall in Revelation except that they may be next). Which, interestingly enough, is what Jerusalem asks for here. God has brought justice to Jerusalem, now Jerusalem asks for equal treatment to the evil nations that surround her; for God to deal with them as He has dealt with her.
Malachi starts off with an argument. God says he loves Israel, they aren’t buying it. God responds by reminding them that they are His chosen people, descendants of Jacob, as compared to Esau and his descendants. One thing to clear up, this Jacob I loved and Esau I hated business shouldn’t be read as God’s affection toward either one, it’s an indication of choice. God chose Jacob and his children to be the light to the world and the lineage through which the Messiah would come. They would be the people who would persist and bear the example of God’s dealings with humanity. He makes no such promises to Esau and his descendants, the Edomites.
In fact, God’s response to Israel is to show them that nations rise and fall on his sovereignty. The heritage of God will continue through Israel and as a people they will persist. However, where God does not build them up or sustain them, any other nation will fall. Edom will eventually be destroyed never to return. The Lord is angry with them forever. I got stuck on that for a bit but then, if you remember how God has Amos referring to His own people, it’s less of a thing. God’s anger exists for all who spurn and reject him, it’s just that because God has chosen Israel in the way he has, they will persist through times of rejection and repentance. Edom, however, wasn’t chosen to be used in that way so as a people they will ultimately be destroyed (bearing the mark of God’s anger forever.)
Now that God has rebutted the assertion that He doesn’t love Israel, he will now call into question whether Israel actually loves God. These themes aren’t completely foreign, the notion of false or shallow worship was littered through our study of Amos. They call him father and master but give him no honor. And the priests, those who are dedicated to God service, are called onto the carpet.
The accusations and rebuttal show up again. (There’s a chiasm in here, if you have an ESV study bible they outline it for you. Any time you see repeated or parallel phrases there might be a chiasm happening). Anyway, God says the priests despise His name, they protest, and God lets them have it. The people are being shallow and ridiculous, bringing in lame, blind or otherwise worthless animals in to sacrifice and the priests are permitting it. Is that not evil? he asks (that’s a rhetorical question). Either they think God is fooled (which is dumb) or they don’t honor God and don’t mind bringing these low-rent sacrifices to him. And they entreat the favor of God? Come on. Now we start to get a glimpse of the discprency between these promises coming out of exile and what is actually going on in Judah. These people are going through the motions, phoning it in. And God is not having it.
I love the protest, here. Would not one priest, just one, shut the doors and stop this nonsense? You can’t be a man of God, especially a priest, and have no stones (that’s convicting, crapola.) God is rejecting these offerings. He re-brings in the point of view of the nations around them, almost shaming His people in that He will be acknowledged and praised beyond Judah’s borders because His name is great and feared while amongst the Jews they treat him so flippantly. Sick animals, complaints, lying (promising to bring in the prime male from the flock and instead hobbling in some elderly miscreant sheep.)
John is a bit of a meandering, fanciful character. If you’re going to read along on this one I’d recommend taking it slow and re-reading a few times.
The first part really spends time laying out the reality of Jesus coming and being among His creation. John says multiple times that they heard him, looked upon him, touched him, saw him, etc. Of course, he’s tied this earthly Jesus to the “word of life” and “that which was from the beginning”, which has a lofty, Greek feel to it. Broad point is that something, eternal, major and awesome has come into the world and John and the boys saw it and they be telling everyone.
The reasons John gives for telling everyone is so that they can have fellowship with John and the other Jesus folk which then leads to the whole party having fellowship with Jesus and God the Father. And everyone gets joy. Seems like a plan.
Also sounds a lot like following Jesus and taking someone with you, but I kind of have a thing for that phrase so pardon if I overstep the application.
In the second half of the first chapter, John relays that one of the things Jesus wanted made known is that “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” Best to think of this as God being pure and altogether good. So if someone proclaims that they have fellowship with God but that person doesn’t reflect the characteristics of God, they lie, they aren’t walking with God.
But as we walk with God, reflect his characteristics to the world, we get fellowship with one another and Jesus’ sacrifice clears up where we fall short. That’s Kingdom living. We fellowship with one another under the identity, relationship, and mission Jesus died for.
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Just like James, John ties together our freedom with Jesus and ability to walk in his ways with confession, truth telling. It’s just a thing, fellas. Truthy truth truthburger. Gotta do it. Hiding things isn’t protecting how you live, it’s picking how to die.
We get a sense of the audience by the opening, where the author refers to the prophets as “our fathers”. So by Hebrews we should be thinking Jewish Christians. This will make more and more sense as the letter progresses as one of the core points in here is how Jesus is superior to that which came before him, and the only group who particularly cares about that distinction are Jews. Note the point of the opening is making a case for the shift; God once spoke through the process, now he communicates to his people through Jesus. These arguments that will be made are arguments of both contrast but also continuance and fulfillment. God has always talked to His people, however the method has changed.
The communication aspect of this is interesting, because you have God speaking to the fathers by the prophets where the Hebrews (and us) receive communication through the Word (John 1), his Son, Jesus. The life of Jesus has the force of prophecy, He is the ultimate word from God, not just through what he says but what he does. God is communicating to His people through the example of Jesus as well as the words. He is the new law, the fulfilled identity, the heir of all things, the revelation of the Glory of God. (Holy cats, our calling is to follow and imitate the revelation of the Glory of God! Time to step up your game and put on some clean drawers, that’s a high calling).
Now enters the first foil: angels. We don’t have angel issues (we barely get the Holy Spirit, let alone getting caught up in the thoughts of the powers and influence of angels. Except that part in Jude when the archangel is tussling over Moses’ body, I still dig on that.) However, the persistence of the argument seems to imply that the Hebrews might be willing to think that perhaps Jesus is on par with them (or maybe was one? Seems possible given how much the author makes a case to persuade them from thinking so.) But he can’t be on par with the angels, because unlike them Jesus has “inherited” (is the imprint of) the very nature (name, essence) of God (because he is God!). The language here around Jesus is not without controversy as it leaves room for belief that he was created (inherited a name, imprint of God’s nature, later described as “firstborn”), all of this has a connotation of God acting upon Jesus vs. being around the whole time. But let’s let the letter breathe and see if that gets resolved. The trinitarian concept is a tough one, anyway, and I suppose it might have been even more difficult to get for Jewish Christians.
The argument continues. God did not call the angels “Son”, as in the quoted reference from Psalm 2 (read the whole Psalm, it’s certainly talking of a Messiah, not David’s earthly son, Solomon, who doesn’t consistently act in the way the Psalm describes this “son”.) “I will be to him a father…” is a quote from 2 Samuel 7. I struggle with this being applied to Jesus as 2 Samuel 7: 14 says [14] I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, (ESV). What’s with the iniquity? I’ve not found this resolved in a way I’m confident in yet so it remains a question as to how we should apply this to Jesus given the context of the original verse.
Even though the goal is to show how superior Jesus is to the angels, it’s not angels aren’t cool. They were created cool and glorious, but since Jesus the creator they are inherently reflecting more of Jesus’ awesomeness. And look at the rebuttal, the description attributed to the Son is directed to God (ok, we get that connection we were missing earlier). And then the next reference “You, Lord, laid the foundation…”is from Psalm 102, which reinforces the eternality of Jesus, His role in creation. These are big things the author is trying to communicate and it’s a bit of a heady argument, but it seems necessary if there is any doubt now that these folks are 30 years out of Jesus’ death and resurrection and likely facing persecution. They need the big picture to sustain their identities being fully committed and formed by Jesus instead of the remnants of the Jewish culture.
Ultimately, the angels are ministering spirits to those who have benefited from the work that Jesus has done. Without the work of Jesus (think both creation and securing of salvation), the work of the angels either doesn’t exist or means nothing. There’s a point to all this, and the author will start getting to it in chapter 2.
Like a standard NT epistle, we open with the authors. It’s represented as coming from Paul, Timothy and Silvanus (Silas) and generally uses “we” instead of “I” throughout the letter. That said, the language is pretty consistent with other letters Paul has written so he’s likely the primary author.
As Paul and the bros pray for the Thessalonican church, they retell the cool stuff that has gone on tied to the faith of this church. They know God was working to reach this group of folks by how the good news demonstrated itself to them through Paul and the bros, not just through word but also in some ways through clear demonstrations of power, presence of the Holy Spirit and how it all impacted those who witnessed this good news. And, Paul et al. obviously conducted themselves with integrity and as good examples for the sake of the Thessalonican church (because what you do matters and influences how people hear your words. Still applies today.)
v.6 hits a favorite theme of mine as the Thessalonians followed them as they followed Christ. We should be careful when we attempt humility by cutting our opportunity off as only proclaimers in word of the good news when Paul seems to think it’s completely acceptable to have people trying to imitate him and the bros. Paul, elsewhere, will proclaim himself the chief of all sinners, however that doesn’t stop him from being comfortable with people imitating him as he pursues Jesus (and as they both try to imitate Jesus). And it’s working, the Thessalonicans took that example and have influenced people in the rest of Macedonia and in Achaia and are reaching even beyond that. Other places the bros go are telling stories about the Thessalonican church.
And it sounds like their story is an interesting one, involving turning from idols (implied false and dead) to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven who will deliver us from the wrath to come. This wait thing is important as we’ll see later in the letter that the Thessalonicans may be getting a wee impatient and worried about the yet-to-return Jesus.
2 Thessalonians opens as most letters do, the who from and who to stuff and a general good tidings of grace and peace. There is good news on the outset, as the Thessalonians are growing in faith and love for one another, things that Paul asked them to focus on previously. In fact, the bros share about the Thess. church to the other churches they go to, specifically because of their steadfastness in the face of persecution and affliction (which, of course, Paul is familiar with as well.)
v.6 reads a bit odd so it’s important to keep it in context. Basically Paul is saying that their steadfastness if evidence that God has judged rightly in saving them and granting them citizenship in the Kingdom (obviously facilitated by Jesus). This is known with certainty, their actions are evidence of their faith, as they are doing what Jesus did, persisting through persecution for the glory of God and the benefit of others. On the opposite side, those who are doing the afflicting will ultimately receive just punishment as they both reject the work of Jesus and persecute those who continue it.
Ultimately, all will be set right when “the Lord is revealed from heaven with his might angels in flaming fire inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” A few things to be careful of here. For starters, there are hints here of Isaiah 64 and 66 so it’s likely these are big, final claims as opposed to something to be happening directly. Also, the word for “revealed” is apokalypsis, where we get the word apocalypse, also used in Revelation 1. It means to be uncovered (think “shown”) so we shouldn’t think of “revealed from heaven” as a directional thing, more of “when what has previously been hidden is now revealed” type of thing. Also, 2 Samuel 22 and the Psalms describe God as the one who avenges his people from their enemies.
Those on the outside will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord. This is a pretty simple principle, really. Folks who reject Jesus and do not want to submit to God will ultimately get what they want, eternal separation from Him. It’s a terrible decision, but it is their decision. On the other hand, Jesus and his glory is ultimately revealed through, to and by his people. And that is what Paul and the bros are praying for, that God will provide the means and ways to fulfill the calling He has given them that their actions may reveal their worthiness. And it is indeed a high calling, to be worthy of having people know Jesus through you, his glory revealed in the work He has you up to.
This is a common theme here but it applies to us as well. As Christians (literally “little Christs”), Jesus is revealed to the world through his people. That’s us. That’s a high calling and it extends to each one of us. You matter, God has Kingdom work for you to do, get up each morning with a mind and heart to do it.
Paul’s opening shows a very close connection with Timothy, that of a father to a son. It’s kind of a joke in the church to seek for/to be a Timothy to someone’s Paul. That’s cheesy and frankly our modern discipleship does not mirror closely the work these fellas were doing (although it should, something to aspire to).
Timothy remains in Ephesus guarding against false teachers. The nature of these false teachings seem to include a number of things. The details really are speculative, but either way it involves people chasing things that are untrue. My guess is that this is similar to the modern day folks who chase end times information by connecting weird dots to create a false picture that they want to see or those who elevate past figures that we know very little about to make them appear as though they are more important than they are/were.
Why are they doing this? Selfish reasons. It is to give them power over others, a source of pride, a way to make themselves important. It is false, of course, as Paul says the aim of their charge (and implicitly any church authority) is to love from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith. These other fellas are in it for themselves with speculative information. But because it is largely untrue, others don’t know it, and having knowledge others don’t brings prominence with it if you can convince people that what you know is important. Obviously, we are not immune from this today. Test for false teachers. If they know things the church hasn’t known for the last 2,000 years and there is not evidence of a pure heart, good conscience and sincere faith, give them no time or interest.
It seems that saying that the law is not good may also be part of what these folks are teaching. I won’t rehash the list, but the broad point is that the law is good insomuch as it is “…in accordance with the gospel of the blessed God which which I have been entrusted.” This must be the good news of Jesus and His Kingdom, which means where the good news coincides with the law, it is good. Where it does not, it is no longer necessary. This is still a matter of debate today by smart people who love Jesus.
Paul reminds Timothy next of where he has come from, more specifically, what Jesus has rescued him from. In Paul, the extensive depth of the mercy of God is shown. Paul was indeed the foremost of sinners, speaking specifically against Jesus, calling him a liar, and persecuting His church. However, Jesus came into the world to save sinners, Paul included, so that we might get a glimpse of the extreme nature of the patience and mercy of Jesus. This is not hyperbole and should be something at the forefront of our minds and discussions with those who believe they are too far gone for the love and grace of Jesus to reach them. That is a lie, and Paul’s life is here to prove it.
In this we are to rightly understand God, not only for his mercy and love, but for his power. He is the King of ages, immortal, invisible who deserves all honor and glory forever.
Paul ends this section with what he started with, false teachers, reiterating that Timothy’s good work should rest in holding faith and keeping a good conscience. For those who have given up these things for their own gain, H and A here have been blaspheming as well. Paul says he turned them over to Satan. This is most likely to mean that they were kicked out of the church, noting that Paul expects them to “learn not to…” speak against Jesus. This is the same action Jesus recommends when things can’t be resolved with someone. So, seems harsh but otherwise right.
