Tales of the God-men

I am still ruminating on this, but I need to hash it out a little bit in order to fully process it.

At the church we've attended the last two weeks, I have appreciated the approach of pastor Dave White when laying out his lessons from Philippians. He has offered historical context to his exegesis, and that is always refreshing while trying to study the scriptures.

This last Sunday, while studying Paul's exhortation to humility in Phil. ch 2, Dave reminded us that in the ancient world Christianity's call to think of others before ourselves was in fact a radical proposition. In a world whose seminal work was the Iliad, one's honor is worth dying for, one's glory the only lasting thing you might have in this world.

It was for glory that brilliant Achilles traded his life, greatest of all the Achaean's, and most to be pitied. He had two natures, for he was a god-man; a goddess for a mother, but a man for a father, because Zeus feared the prophecy telling him that Thetis' son would be his undoing. Blessed more than any other man, nearly completely invulnerable, still Achilles was doomed to die, and so he desired the only eternal thing he win for himself; glory from the field of battle.

It was Agamemnon's unjust denial of Achilles' honor that nearly poisoned the Greek campaign for Achilles would withdraw, to the ruin of the Greeks, until the field was set for his most glorious victory, the slaying of Hector, breaker of horses. Unfortunately for Achilles, this great victory would only come after he had lost more than he would have willingly sacrificed, and Achilles himself doesn't last much longer.

Achilles influence on history is significant; apart from being the hero of the most formational work of literature in the Western tradition, he was is inspiration for the first brilliant hero of Western Civilization, Alexander the Great. Alexander, claiming Achilles as both inspiration and ancestor, aspired to god-hood, and set the bar for every great leader that followed him. Julius Caesar, striving to over-take Alexander's legend, also made claims of divinity, as did Augustus after him. Soon, to be Caesar was to be a god...men carrying the mantle of the original god-man, Achilles, hoping to grasp at immortality through their own glory and honor.

Of course, this is common knowledge...but as I reflected on what we know about one of the two most influential God-men in our history, the differences were stark and illuminating. Christ preaches humility of self, and love for those around us as a motivation for our actions. Just how radically different from the lengendary Achilles is the second God-man to change the world.

"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing tobe grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

Liberty and Jonathan

In Romans 14, Paul speaks to us about living with each other in liberty. The restrictions Christians voluntarily place upon themselves is something that people on the outside looking in frequently don't understand. Why deny yourself? Why make life so much more difficult? Why be different? Paul knew that there were and would always be struggles between those with greater liberties, and lesser liberties. As a pharisee of pharisees, it is easy to guess at some of the challenges that faced Paul in his own ministry to the gentiles.


Still, Paul makes it clear: in Christ, the old concerns about "unclean" do not need to be an issue. Our litmus test is not Levitical Law, but Christ. Philippians 4 is a good summation of our self-imposed standard:


"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."


This is deceptively simple. It fools many into the belief that Christianity involves no judgement, no standards by which we evaluate right and wrong; in an effort to make up for overly judgemental Christians of former generations, my generation tends to embrace acceptance on all levels, as if those labels meant nothing at all. As with Christ's message, while the gospel frees us from the Levitical code, it does not make our task easier. To honor God, you must obey in your heart, not merely your deeds. The weight of the law is revealed to be greater than any man could ever bear, save one. Paul's words in Romans, in this light, tell us that while all things, in Christ, are good, not all things are good for us.

It is our responsibility to test those things we would take in, to see if they are pleasing to the Lord. It is our task to pro-actively seek God's will, rather than passively allow others to tell us what the Lord wants for us in our lives.

Which brings me to Jonathan. In my Bible/History class, we're deep into I Samuel. The story or David has always been one of my favorites. David is a flawed man, but maintains a heart that turns to the Lord earnestly and consistently. Jonathan, the son of King Saul, is the rightful heir to the throne that David has been promised. In a drama of Homeric proportions, these two men become closest friends, and Jonathan betrays his father (and his own interests) to warn David when Saul would take his life.

The dilemma of Regicide has been something I have been thinking about a lot recently. I am also reading the Iliad in my Literature class, and Agamemnon's behavior begs the question: when is it acceptable to kill the king? Agamemnon pushes Achilles out of the Achean ranks, thereby bringing down ruin upon his own people, until Achilles is roused to action by the death of Patroclus. Why doesn't Achilles end Agamemnon? Or Diomede, Ajax, or any of the myriad of others that seem to be better warriors than the Lord of Men Agamemnon? Its something about the sacred office of the kingship, established by the gods...its something about the polis...ultimately, I am not sure where the line is. Hector shows us that, at least for him, there is no line; he will uphold the king even to the ruin of his entire world. We see in Aeschylus's Orestia Agamemnon's final downfall, and the ruin that it brings...the poet showing us the dilemma of trying to judge the sins of the king. What man can make this decision?

I realize my thoughts are scattered...hold on now, I'm bringing them all together...

Jonathan sides with the annointed one of the Lord, David, over his father, the king. He is active, making a choice to do what be actively believed was right, even at a cost to him and his family. If there is a lesson to pull from all of my scattered thoughts, I think this is it: in our lives, we are allowed to enjoy liberties that challenge all conventional wisdom from religious scholars throughout the ages. Its the freedom of life in Christ. But with that freedom comes a responsibility that we neglect far to often as we embrace that freedom. It demands that we participate in our actions consciously, that we evaluate and measure our steps appropriately, in accordance to what we believe the Lord has allowed for us. The only way to know what the Lord has allowed us to do is to seek His will, earnestly. It may bring us to decisions that upset the norm, that shake the foundations of the establishment...and there may be a price to be paid.

Still, I think when all is said and done, Jonathan shows us clearly that the active responsibility of liberty provides us with opportunities to show love in ways that seem entirely unlikely.

Clinging to what we know to be true

Gal. 1:6-9: I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

We started a family study of Galatians this morning. It was refreshing, and I appreciated my wife's encouragement to do it together. We read the whole first chapter and I couldn't help but wonder at this exhortation from Paul to the church, especially given what others have said regarding the nature of schism in the church. It caused me to reflect throughout the day on the state of our church, divided and at odds over certain beliefs, and at times ignoring cancerous growths in the very heart of the church itself.

God's truth is worth fighting for. May we never be so foolish as to believe the message of the Gospel requires us; but that should likewise not lull us into the stupor of a mundane faith.