Theological Response to Feminist Theology - Sexism and God-Talk and Battered Love

Introduction
I belong to a culture that is well known for its chauvinism and sexism. Women, even though they play an important role in society, are still under the auspices of men. As in many other Western societies, women are repeatedly treated unequally and despite the continual growth in awareness and inclusiveness of the sexes, they have not yet arrived where men today still stand alone.
With this being said, I look at feminist theology with respect. However, as I approach it, I bring with me the weight of a culture that praises male dominance, especially in church environments. This is my background; this is the way I was raised, and unfortunately, this will eventually become apparent in this paper, not in the form of sexism, but in the form of spontaneous reaction to a different paradigm[1]. However, my intention is not to perpetuate the wrongness of my culture, but to be challenged, transformed for the better, and as the result, be an agent of awareness and transformation regarding sexual equality.
I personally do not see women as being different from men in their humanity and capacity. I also recognize that I do not have trouble seeing men and women playing the same roles in society. For me, men and women are equally capable to execute the same jobs and have the same positions in any area of society. I affirm the same regarding public offices. Thus, for me, men and women can occupy any governmental position regardless of whether it is city, state or national. I disagree when I am aware that women normally are paid less for doing the same job as men. I feel bad every time I hear or see on TV domestic violence where usually the men beat or morally damage the women, or when I am aware of any violence (rape, torture, battery, etc.) against women practiced by men.
My struggle, though, arises when I try to equalize the roles of men and women in the religious sphere. In this case, my personal inclinations toward an equality of roles and my deep sympathies toward women’s leadership are seriously compromised. The simple reason for this dichotomy does not lie in my culture (although my culture ratifies this approach), but in my understanding of the Bible.

Sexism and God-Talk – Rosemary Radford Ruether

As any other oppressed group, women also redefined theology in such a way to rescue their voices and their importance among those who are considered oppressors. I appreciate the principle of feminist theology. However, I cannot totally agree with Ruether when she says that “[T]heologically speaking, whatever diminishes or denies the full humanity of women must be presumed not to reflect the divine or an authentic relation to the divine, or to reflect the authentic nature of things, or to be the message or work of an authentic redeemer or a community of redemption” (19). This statement is extremely profound as Ruether excludes anyone who denies the full humanity of women from their imago dei, reason, salvation and church (without mentioning its proper names). It sounds as if Ruether is considering this sin (which is horrible and must be completely avoided) as unforgivable. Not that she is stating this, but this is how it sounds to me. Furthermore, in her attempt to recognize the values of different beings, Ruether ends up negating humanity (both male and female) as the crown of creation. Thus, while I can see Ruether’s attempt to recover the full image of women in Scripture, I also see her denial or even complete rejection of basic truths in the Bible.
On the other hand, I believe that Ruether is completely right in her description of women as the oppressed of the oppressed. Thus, feminist theology in this regard, becomes more effective than other liberation theologies. Liberation theology in a sense seems to be blind to the particular struggle of oppressed women in their communities or in a sexist society. So, feminist theology goes deeper in the rescue of the oppressed women, calling oppressor the very person who in a larger scale is the oppressed (poor men in general).
Another characteristic of Ruether’s theology that I do not appreciate is her embrace of other religious texts (Gnostics and even texts of other religions) as an attempt to “clean” her theology from patriarchal influences. Personally, I find this problematic, especially considering the Bible’s own claims of the use of such texts. Apparently, many of the false teachings and teachers exposed in the New Testament were of Gnostics. The apostle John wrote an entire letter warning the church about false teachings. The short letter of Jude also talks about the influence of Gnosticism in the early church. Thus, Ruether’s use or appreciation of texts that are not canonical represents a problem in her theology. It seems that Ruether is trying to use the Bible texts to prove that it is permeated with sexism, and therefore, that it must be reinterpreted using alternate texts to form a feminist theology. In other words, she is using the Bible against itself to produce a new theology from extra biblical writings. Even though I disagree with the patriarchal worldview of both Old and New Testaments, I do not think that creating a new feminist non-patriarchal theology is the remedy to sexism and chauvinism. There must be another way of bringing equality of sexes from an orthodox view point (am I being too unrealistic?). Regarding Ruether’s term to express the fullness of the divine she wants to picture in her book, I do not see any problem with it. The term God/ess is really clever and according to Ruether it covers both male and female characteristic of God. However, when Ruether (rightly) suggests that “God/ess-language cannot validate roles of men or women in stereotypical ways that justify male dominance and female subordination” (69), I find it difficult to accept. As I said, the term is clever and appropriate and she is right in point this out, but nevertheless, it does not erase the patriarchal tendency found in the Bible or do justice to the larger amount of references to God as male. I know that the God I see in the Bible is a patriarchal-chauvinist God for Ruether, however, the God/ess of Ruether is a fake god. Let me try to explain my point. Ruether’s God/ess is the imagination of a God not found in the Bible. I know that in Jesus Christ we find the perfect revelation of God and that Jesus identified himself with the poor and the oppressed. I also know that since Jesus is our greatest model, we too must act like him toward the poor and oppressed. We must identify ourselves with the poor, the weak and the oppressed, no matter what their race or gender. Acting like that, we will sympathize with them and we will not act as oppressors. However, God the Father and the glorified Jesus are not like Ruether’s God/ess. We find in Ruether’s deity an only immanent God, whereas the biblical God is both immanent and mainly transcendent. He is as Barth extensively writes about, totally other. He is from a different category, so to speak. We must learn from the pages of the Bible and accept the patterns which are proposed there. Ruether’s God/ess is an idol or a fake god not because of its sympathy with women, but mainly because of its denial of the real God of Scripture. The problem I see here is that for Ruether every theology, every biblical and church tradition, every Scripture passage is corrupted by “patriarchal alienation.”
While reading Ruether’s book, I came across conceptions that I have never heard about. For example, Ruether, referring to churchmen’s ideas throughout the history of the church, writes “[A]s an ‘inferior mix,’ woman can never as fully represent the image of God as man” (94). She also states that “[W]ithin history, woman’s subjugation is both the reflection of her inferior nature and the punishment for her responsibility for sin” (95). These are only two examples from several stated in the book. I wish I could argue against these statements and say that Ruether was wrong. But unfortunately Ruether proves her case by showing in the writings of prominent theologians that in fact what she wrote was right, and by right I mean that the theologians indeed wrote about women in the terms quoted above. Augustine, the first theologian mentioned, did not consider the women apart from men as bearing the image of God. Aquinas talks about women in Aristotelian terms considering them inferior to men. These pre-reformation views of women, I confess, were entirely new to me. However, the views presented by Ruether after the Reformation I have heard about, and I am more sympathetic towards them. Basically, Luther considers the position of women as a punishment from her sin and Calvin considers the place of women as the divine created social order which has nothing to do with her sin. So, according to Calvin, before God created the world, He ordained that men would rule and women would follow men’s rule.
Following the patriarchal anthropology, Ruether brings the feminist egalitarian anthropologies into the discussion: eschatological feminism, liberal feminism, and romantic feminism. What these feminist anthropologies try to do is essentially rescue the value of women from patriarchal views of them. Ruether’s argument can be summarized in her own words: “[W]omen, through the opening of equal education and political rights, have indeed demonstrated their ability to exercise the ‘same’ capacities as men” (109). Thus, Ruether’s point is that the theologians were wrong and that even some feminist anthropologies were wrong. Instead, men and women are totally equal in every aspect if they receive the same education and opportunities in life. Furthermore, Ruether argues that as humans, male and female have a “full and equivalent human nature and personhood” (111). I personally find it difficult to argue against Ruether’s point in this matter. I read in Genesis where God seems to have punished Eve with submission to her husband, but what I see in our world is this passage being taken so mistakenly that I do not know if that is what God intended for women. I totally agree with Ruether that male and female are different because of the work of culture and socialization. But again, I must ask myself, who do I have to obey or follow, God or my own tendencies? One thing I know, Augustine and Aquinas completely missed the point on their observation of woman. I definitely disagree with them; however, Luther and Calvin’s views are tempting to me.
I now want to turn my attention to Weems’ book Battered Love. In this book Weems analyzes the metaphorical language of husband/wife found in the book of the prophets Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Battered Love – Renita J. Weems

Weems’ book is an excellent study on the figurative language used by the prophets in order to convey a message that is effective in a patriarchal society. She uses the prophetic speeches of Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, concentrating on their use of metaphorical language. However, even though Weems recognizes the several types of metaphors used by these particular prophets, what she is more concerned with is specifically the husband/wife metaphor. In fact, the husband/wife metaphor has for the Old Testament society a deeper meaning. Weems says that “the metaphor of the promiscuous wife is the kind of metaphor Hebrew men shared with other Hebrew men, in that it was a metaphor that absolved them of guilt in battering their wives, a metaphor that absolved them of serving lore about women and women’s bodies, and a metaphor that justified the control and punishment of women” (42). Thus, Weems touches on the central nerve of ancient Hebrew society. She brings to the surface difficult to understand parallels between an unfaithful woman and an unfaithful society. She also exposes the prophet’s skills to provide a message that is greatly effective from men’s point of view, but at the same time, extremely biased towards women in general. Towards the end of the book, Weems brings the metaphor of husband/wife to the present, questioning what we are going to do with it. Is there a place in our post-modern society where we can continue to use the same type of language without promoting violence and sexism toward women? Is male violence justifiable in today’s society regardless of women’s behavior? These are the type of questions we need to respond to after reading Weems.
I really appreciated Weems’ approach to the matter of violence, sex and marriage in the Hebrew prophets. She does not try to move away from the biblical text, but she recognizes it and even understands the prophet’s use of such vivid and heavy language. She writes from the stand point of the oppressed (as an African American woman); however, we do not find any bitterness in her writings. I also think that she is right to be concerned about the reaction of the modern reader of such texts, especially women. For some people, it is hard to separate violence towards women from God’s ways of dealing with the unfaithful Israel.
However, in my personal experience, I have met several Christian women that would agree with God’s way of dealing with unfaithfulness. These women would say that God is not punishing women in general, but only those who are unfaithful. They would also say that the metaphor is not used for women only but for men as well, since the idea of the metaphor is not violence against women but punishment against unfaithfulness from either men or women. Another argument that these women use is that since God is male, he could not consider Israel as another male but only female, so, gender is not an issue in the metaphors but it is the only way to characterize the relationship between a male God and His people. Finally, these women agree that unfaithfulness in a marriage relationship is wrong and that it does not have a place among both Christian women and men. Now, whether these women agree that the means of gang rape and mutilation as described in Hosea 23 is God’s way to punish unfaithfulness, I do not know the answer. I assume that as followers of Christ they would also consider any type of violence against the spirit of the Gospel.
So, what makes these women accept the use of violence against women in the Old Testament and not accept the same type of violence today? My best answer for this question would be that today we are under a new covenant. The ways God dealt with His people in the past are not the ways Jesus relates to us today. Thus, they accept this type of language the same way males and females accept God’s command to slaughter the Canaanites or the Baal prophets. It was “okay” back then, it is wrong today.
Conclusion
Ruether and Weems are necessary voices in our society. I believe that our seminaries and religious institutions need to hear more attentively what feminist theology has to say. There must be more conversation and less debate. History has shown that women are not the weak vessels as mentioned in the Bible, and that they have their place in all areas of society. If we completely shut our ears from hearing the voice of courageous women such as Ruether, Weems, and many others, we are not only showing our prejudice towards them, but also, we are showing our ignorance and our fear of losing power. Hearing them, however, does not mean that we must accept all their claims and speculations. But it definitely means that we all, men and women alike, are still struggling to understand what the will of God on this matter is.

[1] I point this out not to say that I am completely influenced by my culture to the point that I agree with the position in which women are usually placed in society. I point this out as a way of positioning myself against this cultural trend but at the same time inescapably influenced by it.

Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao

Brief Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Birmingham Letter

Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) was born in 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 15. His family was deep rooted in the African American Baptist church tradition in Atlanta. His maternal grandfather was a Baptist pastor as well as his father. Both (grandfather and father) served their community at Ebenezer Baptist Church, the same church where later on MLK would become the associate pastor. MLK soon learned about the social problems that African Americans faced in the United States. As Clayborne Carson states, “[K]ing’s formative experiences not only immersed him in the affairs of Ebenezer but also introduced him to the African American social gospel tradition exemplified by his father and grandfather, both of whom were of the Atlanta branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.”[1]
In 1944, at the age of fifteen, MLK entered Morehouse College, and three years later he was ordained to the gospel ministry at his father’s church.[2] In college, MLK not only struggled to make good grades, but also, to choose the right career to follow. MLK knew about his parents’ desire for him to follow his father’s career. However, MLK was skeptical about religion during his years of college. As Haskins says, “It seemed to him [MLK] that black religion, which was all he knew, concentrated too much on heaven and the rewards of the next life and not enough on the trials of this life. He also felt that religion appealed to the emotions more than to the intellect.”[3] During this period of doubt, MLK had Law or Medicine in mind rather than Religion. He ended up majoring in sociology, thinking about having a career in Law. However, instead of going to the Law school, MLK entered seminary after graduation. He went to Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. In seminary, MLK was introduced to liberal and neo-orthodox theologies. MLK was very sympathetic with Niebuhr’s theology “which emphasized the intractability of social evil.”[4]
In 1951, MLK graduated from seminary and decided to further his education on religion. Thus, he began his PhD studies in theology at Boston University. In Boston, MLK met Coretta Scott, who later would become Coretta Scott King. MLK and Coretta were married in 1953 at Coretta’s father’s lawn in Heiberger, Alabama.[5] In 1954, MLK accepted the invitation to become pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, and a year later, he completed his doctoral studies.
Up to this point, MLK was neither a well known person nor a preeminent leader of the civil rights movement, but rather, a well educated Baptist minister in the southern United States. However, things were about to change in MLK’s life after he accepted the invitation to represent a group of black leaders at the newly formed Montgomery Improvement Association. This association was formed to protest against the arrest of Rosa Parks for her refusal to give her seat to a white male in a bus. MLK along with other black leaders of the city organized a yearlong bus boycott in the city of Montgomery. This boycott led the Supreme Court to order the desegregation of buses in 1956.
The successful achievements in Montgomery led MLK and other leaders to create, in 1957, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). According to Haskins, “the purpose of the […] (SCLC) was to urge the federal government to pass civil rights laws and to promote the movement for black equality in the South.”[6] In 1959, MLK moved back to Atlanta to become co-pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church.[7]
In 1960, MLK began working with a new protest group called the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Initially, this group was closely connected with MLK; however, differences in their tactics (confrontation) became evident during the protest in Albany, Georgia.[8] MLK was arrested twice in Albany, and he left the city without achieving victory.

Birmingham
With the defeat in Albany, MLK learned precious lessons that would later be applied in Birmingham. However, Birmingham was not the most receptive city for African Americans. It was considered the most segregated city in Alabama. The city was bombed so many times that it gained the nickname of “Bombingham.”[9] The Federal Government and the local authorities were informed about the campaign that was planned for the Easter of 1963.
The campaign orchestrated in Birmingham by MLK was made by direct action, sit ins and marches. This course of action was an attempt to push the local government to review and change the laws that supported segregation in the city.
Aware of the arrival of MLK to the city, eight clergymen of the city wrote a note in the local newspaper saying among other things that MLK’s coming was “unwise and untimely.” However, despite the critical approach of the white clergy in the city, the campaign was completed thoroughly. On Good Friday, MLK allowed himself to be intentionally arrested hoping “that by going to jail himself he would encourage other black ministers, noticeably absent from the campaign, to join. But they did not.”[10] MLK also wanted to achieve a national impact and push the “Kennedy administration to intervene in the escalating protests.”[11]
While in prison, MLK began writing a response to the arguments of the eight clergymen’s note. His original nineteen page long letter known as the “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” became widely quoted around the world and is still considered “one of the most famous essays on human rights ever written.”[12]
During the time that MLK was in jail, the city of Birmingham was the stage for one of the most hateful demonstrations of segregation. Under the command of Mr. Connor, the “[C]ity firemen went after them [children of the city] with their powerful fire hoses, shooting streams of water that slammed them against the buildings and sent them flying in all directions.”[13] All the violence was televised and the news ran nationally and internationally prompting the Federal Government to release a major law to guarantee the rights of all people.
In 1963, MLK was named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, and in December 1964 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.[14] In August of 1963 MLK delivered his greatest speech, “I have a dream,” to a crowd of more the two hundred thousand people in the capital of the United States.
MLK also fought for justice in the North. In 1966 he went to Chicago where racism existed as strong as in the South. During the time MLK spent in Chicago, he campaigned against “job discrimination, poor schools and slum housing.”[15] Before his assassination, MLK also denounced the Vietnam War and demanded the withdrawal of the American troops from Vietnam. MLK was assassinated in April 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee.

Theology
MLK was an educated man. During his time in school, he came across the writings of several theologians and philosophers that shaped his understanding of God, humanity, and history. However, what most influenced MLK during his time in school was the African American spirituality and religious experience.[16] Some of the theologians that influenced MLK’s life and theology will be discussed below.
Walter Rauschenbusch – MLK was drawn to Rauschenbusch’s social gospel while he was still in seminary. Hak J. Lee points out that “[I]n Rauschenbusch, King found a theological framework that affirmed his ministry of social reform against racism and classism.”[17] In MLK’s particular case, he used the concepts of the social gospel to spread his message against racism. Lee also stresses that MLK’s socially oriented ministry was deeply inspired by Rauschenbusch’s social gospel.
Reinhold Niebuhr – What attracted MLK to Niebuhr’s theology was Niebuhr’s realism in reflecting the social reality. In this regard, MLK could see the reality of what was beneath segregation and racism, egoism.[18] Lee points out that this attraction was natural in MLK’s case due to his political orientation as an African American and his experience witnessing the white egoism of slavery. However, not everything in Niebuhr was appreciated by MLK. MLK often criticized Niebuhr’s pessimistic doctrine of human nature and sin, presenting his own perspective on the issue, instead. For MLK, “such acceptance of the total depravity and corruption of humanity meant a complete surrender to cynicism and pessimism.”[19]
Anders Nygren – MLK’s concept of agape love was shaped by the writings of Nygren.[20] However, as with most of other theological and philosophical concepts, MLK’s understanding of love is highly filtered by his African American tradition. MLK believes that “[A]gape is love seeking to preserve and create community. It is insistence on community even when one seeks to break it [...]”[21] The entire idea of love in light of community is what is distinctive in MLK’s theology of agape love.
G. W. F. Hegel – MLK was greatly influenced by Hegel’s philosophy. Scholars argue that MLK’s approach to racial problems as well as his ability for synthesis and dialectics had its root in Hegel. Others will argue that these abilities came long before MLK had contact with Hegel’s writings and is rooted in his African American heritage. Holism is the key word when we come to MLK’s dialect and synthesis. This idea of holism is totally in agreement with African American tradition. For Lee, MLK was attracted to Hegel especially because Hegelian holism agrees with African American holistic spirituality.[22] The holistic understanding of things either theologically or philosophically was good for MLK in order that he could see beyond what was presented to him.
Gandhi ­– Gandhi was the greatest icon of nonviolence resistance for MLK. MLK had his first contact with Gandhi’s ideas during his time at Crozer Seminary. In fact, Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence resistance was the answer MLK was looking for while he attempted to reconcile Christian love and political social change.[23] The widely spread idea that Jesus’ love was only applied to individuals was somewhat frustrating to MLK, since in African American tradition, community played an important role in the individual life. In Gandhi’s nonviolence resistance philosophy, MLK saw the ethics of Jesus in a more pragmatic way.
In combining all of these influences, MLK would not be considered a disciple of any particular theologian or philosopher, but would extract what he considered to be their major strengths. Lee puts this way, MLK “appropriated the strengths of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy without falling into their respective shortcomings of naïve optimism and pessimism.”[24]

Letter from a Birmingham Jail
The letter written by MLK in response to the eight clergymen in the city of Birmingham became widely known as the “Letter.” The importance of this document for the history of the civil rights movement around the world is difficult to measure. The content of this letter goes beyond the limits of time in history. Thus, in response to a limited local and historic event, MLK wrote a timeless document that is not bound to any culture or period in history; rather, it can be applied to humanity in general at any time.
The letter was a response to the note written by the clergy. In this, MLK counter argue several of the clergy’s contentions including: 1) that his (MLK) and his group (SCLC) activities were “unwise and untimely;” 2) that they were “outsiders;” 3) that while their actions were peaceful, they precipitated violence; 4) that their activities were extreme; and 5) that they (clergymen) commended the police to keep the order.
MLK responded carefully to each of the points above. He had a threefold purpose in mind while responding. First, he wanted to respond to the clergy’s use of religious language. Second, he wanted to respond to the national media and public in general. Third, he also wanted to reach the Federal Government and get their support. This is why MLK was so eclectic and holistic in his answer.
In order to achieve this goal and reach the several groups that would read this letter, MLK used a great variety of sources to support his points. Thus, he quoted several great figures from the fields of theology, philosophy and history. In addition to this, MLK made extensive use of the Bible, both the Old Testament and New Testament. In the theological field, MLK quoted Reinhold Niebuhr to explain that groups of people have the tendency to be more immoral than an individual person. He also quoted Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to support his argument of just and unjust laws. Then, MLK quoted Paul Tillich’s definition of sin. Schleiermacher, even though was not quoted directly, he was quoted indirectly when MLK referred to Jesus as having “unique God-consciousness.” When MLK developed his idea of being extremist, he quoted several biblical characters as well as theologians and historical figures. The theologians quoted were Martin Luther and John Bunyan. Among the philosophers, MLK quoted Socrates and Martin Buber. The historical figures quoted by MLK were Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson.
MLK used many biblical references in this letter. He quoted Paul, Jesus and Amos. Plus, he mentioned the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and their refusal to obey the law of Nebuchadnezzar. He mentioned Paul’s willingness to go to all the places in the Empire carrying the message of the Gospel. He also mentioned Jesus’ crucifixion.
MLK ended his letter making it relevant to the people by quoting a contemporary poet T.S. Eliot, the 1948 Nobel Literature Prize winner. The variety of sources used in the letter shows MLK’s skills for synthesis and dialectics as well as his ability to use the English language.
Martha S. Watson article on MLK’s letter shows five characteristics that help one better understand this important document.[25] First of all, she emphasizes the length of the letter. MLK’s letter is lengthy if compared with the clergy’s newspaper note. The length of the letter is what made it so effective. Secondly, Watson points out that the simple fact that MLK had chosen to respond to the note in a letter format was extremely important. Watson also mentions the influence of the apostle Paul and his letters on MLK. The letter format was also important to allow MLK to engage in a dialogue with the clergy. Watson puts it this way, “[H]is [MLK] personal letter to the clergy, then, helps to create the allusion at least of dialogue and exchange. By personalizing his response to the clergy, King in effect engages them in a theological and philosophical discussion.”[26] Thirdly, while the clergy had a local problem in mind, MLK’s response pushed the argument to a “superior level.” Watson writes, “King moves the discussion from the pragmatics of what should or should not be done in Birmingham to a larger context of what is just or unjust and what is the appropriate response to injustice.”[27] Watson’s fourth characteristic of the letter is that MLK’s response was not restricted to the here and now but aims at a greater “historical and philosophical”[28] context. Lastly, Watson explains that MLK’s entire focus was justice. She asserts, “[T]he relative weight they give to justice and peace as values for a civil society is a stark contrast between King and the clergy.”[29] Indeed the focus of justice and the consequent lack thereof permeates the entire letter. As MLK said in the beginning of the letter, “[…] I am here in Birmingham because injustice is here.”

Relevance for ministry
As ministers we will all deal with issues of racism, injustice and oppression. Perhaps these issues are not so evident today as they were in the 50’s and 60’s, however, they are still here. Segregation is not legal today; however, we still see unofficial segregation everyday in our society. The best example for this is Sunday mornings, the most segregated time in America. Racism can be seen in all directions nowadays. It is not only among Blacks and Whites anymore, but also among Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans. Other forms of racisms are developing, and the most common one is “economic racism.” People who are economic racists will not look at the color of one’s skin, but at their economic situation or position in society. In this case, poor people are the target of racism no matter whether they are white, black, yellow or brown; what will determine their acceptance will be their wealth. This kind of racism is common in the countries of Latin America, especially in Brazil. Furthermore, our society is still witnessing oppression on a large scale. Employers, in their attempt to make more profit, are constantly oppressing their employees. The rich oppress the poor; the more educated oppress the less educated and so forth. This problem becomes even more complicated in countries with totalitarian governments. In such cases, the entire population is under to the oppression of the State.
When we look at our broken and fallen world without the lens of hypocrisy, we will find in MLK’s life and work a great example of a man who understood that in order to transform the evil system one has to fight against the status quo. We will understand that the only way to transform our society is through the spreading of love and of the Gospel. We will understand that whoever loves God hates the world and its evil systems (including the religious system). However, first and foremost, we will understand that whoever tries to change the evil system, even using nonviolent methods, might pay with his/her own life.


References

Gates, Henry Louis and Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham. The African American National Biography. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. .
Haskins, James and Martin Luther King Jr. I have a Dream : The Life and Words of Martin Luther King, Jr. Brookfield, Conn: Millbrook Press, 1992. .
Lee, Hak Joon. We Will Get to the Promised Land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Communal-Political Spirituality. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2006. .
Lowery, Charles D., John F. Marszalek and Thomas Adams Upchurch. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of African American Civil Rights : From Emancipation to the Twenty-First Century. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2003. .
Watson, Martha 1. "The Issue is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy." Rhetoric & Public Affairs 7 (2004): 1-22.

[1] Henry L. Gates and Evelyn B. Higginbotham, The African American national biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 103.
[2] Charles D. Lowery, et al, The Greenwood encyclopedia of African American civil rights : from emancipation to the twenty-first century (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2003), 289.
[3] James Haskins and Martin L. King Jr, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Brookfield, Conn: Millbrook Press, 1992), 25.
[4] Gates and Higginbotham, The African American national biography 103.
[5] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 30.
[6] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 49.
[7] Lowery, et al, The Greenwood encyclopedia of African American civil rights : from emancipation to the twenty-first century 289.
[8] Gates and Higginbotham, The African American national biography 104.
[9] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 61.
[10] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 62.
[11] Gates and Higginbotham, The African American national biography 104.
[12] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 62.
[13] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 69.
[14] Gates and Higginbotham, The African American national biography 104.
[15] Lowery, et al, The Greenwood encyclopedia of African American civil rights : from emancipation to the twenty-first century 290.
[16] Hak J. Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2006), 73.
[17] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 76.
[18] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 76.
[19] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 77.
[20] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 78.
[21] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 79.
[22] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 80.
[23] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 81.
[24] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 81.
[25] Martha 1. Watson, "The Issue Is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy," RHETORIC & PUBLIC AFFAIRS 7 (2004): 14-17.
[26] Watson, The Issue Is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy 14.
[27] Watson, The Issue Is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy 15.
[28] Watson, The Issue Is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy 16.
[29] Watson, The Issue Is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy 16.

Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao

Exegesis Revelation 2:1-7

Τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον·
Τάδε λέγει
ὁ κρατῶν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ,
ὁ περιπατῶν ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἑπτὰ λυχνιῶν τῶν χρυσῶν·
οἶδα
τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ
τὸν κόπον καὶ
τὴν ὑπομονήν σου καὶ
ὅτι οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι κακούς,
καὶ ἐπείρασας τοὺς λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν καὶ εὖρες αὐτοὺς ψευδεῖς,
καὶ
ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις καὶ
ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου καὶ
οὐ κεκοπίακες.
ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ
ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες.
μνημόνευε οὖν
πόθεν πέπτωκας καὶ
μετανόησον καὶ τὰ πρῶτα ἔργα ποίησον·
εἰ δὲ μή,
ἔρχομαί σοι
καὶ κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν σου ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῆς,
ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς.
ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ἔχεις,
ὅτι μισεῖς τὰ ἔργα τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν ἃ κἀγὼ μισῶ.
Ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις.
Τῷ νικῶντι δώσω
αὐτῷ φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς,
ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ.(NA27 Int.)

Revelation 2:1: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this:”

Verse as a whole –
The verse introduces the prophecy reminding the church that Jesus is the only one with the supremacy authority over all and that the church’s behavior must be submitted to him. There must not have place for pride on the part of the church because only him can hold the seven stars and can walk among the seven golden lampstands, not the church.

Angel –
The angel is the messenger of the Lord responsible to deliver His message to the church in the city of Ephesus. “This is in keeping with 1:1-2, in which the Apocalypse is sent from God through Christ to an angel and then to John to give to the churches” (Osborne).

Church in Ephesus –
Many reasons can be given to explain why Ephesus was addressed first. Among the reasons one find the importance of Ephesus as a leading city in the beginning of Christianity in the gentile world (Beale). The city was the home of two temples devoted to the worship of the emperor (Beasley-Murray), and the home of the temple of Artemis, which in its second version became one of the seven wonders of the ancient world (Osborne). The importance of Ephesus can also be stated in regard to its role as the administrative center of the province of Asia, under the authority of the Roman Republic only (Aune). Ephesus was also the center of Paul’s missionary endeavor and later the residence of John (Beale).

τάδε λέγει –
A demonstrative pronoun followed by the Greek verb lego, forming an uncommon way of prophetic introduction in the New Testament. However, in the LXX this formula is used more than 250 times (Aune). It happens twenty one times in the Minor Prophets (twelve times only in Zechariah), sixty five times in Ezekiel, thirty times in Jeremiah and eight in Amos. By implication, τάδε λέγει calls attention to Christ assuming the role of Yahweh in addressing the churches (Beale, Osborne).

Who walks –
Here may be an allusion to Christ’s presence among the seven congregations (Aune), or perhaps, it relates to the idea of Christ watching over the churches (Osborne). One may also recall the passage in the book of Daniel where the one like a son of God walked with the three in the furnace (Sweet).

Revelation 2:2: “I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false”

Verse as a whole –
“The Lord praised the Ephesian Christians for their deeds, perseverance, and endurance. Toil and patience characterized their overall lifestyle. They were doctrinally sound and had exposed false teachers (cf. Matt. 7:15; Acts 20:29).”[1]

οἶδα τὰ ἔργα σου –
The absolute knowledge of Christ regarding the spiritual walk of the believers (Osborne). ἔργον happens twenty times in Revelation, however, twelve only in chapters two and three (Aune). Oιδα happens twelve times in Revelation but extremely concentrated in chapters two (five times) and three (four times). Oιδα is also found introducing the body of letters, providing models for letters of repentance and in edicts, such as the edict of Claudius (Aune). In this context works is related to toil or labor in keeping the faith sound and endurance to not quit the task (Beasley-Murray).

Those who are evil, […] those who call themselves apostles and are not –
The Ephesian church tested (ἐπείρασας) these apostles and found out that they were impostors (Aune). These men were Gnostics and their evilness was more for their lack of morality than for their unorthodox beliefs (Beasley-Murray). Paul several times admonished the first generation of Christians in Ephesus against false teachings (cf. 1 Tim 1:3-11; 4:1-8; 6:2-7, 20-21; 2 Tim 3:1-17) (Beale).
Are the evil apostles the Nicolaitans of verse six?
Beasley-Murray argues that “the evil men are the Nicolaitans of verse 6, whose works were hateful not only to the Ephesian believers but also to Christ” (author’s emphasis).
Aune explains that the verb in verse two is in the aorist tense (past in translation) showing that the issue with the “so-called apostles” was an event that happened in the past in the life of the church. However, in verse six, the Nicolaitans are described in present tense verbs, emphasizing their continuing threat to the church.
Sweet points out that the Nicolaitans are only mentioned as a “preparation for the assault in the third letter.”
Beale considers the Nicolaitans as a different group that must be disciplined by the church of Ephesus, however, the evil apostles’ teachings “was probably not too different from that of the Nicolaitans […].”

Revelation 2:3: “and you have perseverance and have endured for My name’s sake, and have not grown weary.”

Verse as a whole –
The church in Ephesus is also commended by Christ for its perseverance and endurance of several difficulties. The church’s suffering is due to their love for Christ.

καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες -
This is a polysyndetic sentence consisting of three short clauses (introduced by και) with finite verbs. The first verb is in the present tense showing the churches actual condition. The second verb is in the aorist indicating what the church had done and the third verb is in the perfect demonstrating their faithfulness up to the present (Aune). While enduring trials for Christ’s sake the church could not endure evil apostles (Aune).

ὑπομονὴν –
It refers to patient perseverance and to a life of trust in the midst of trials (Osborne).

διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου –
It refers to an objective type of faith (Beale). For the cause (or name) of Jesus, the church stood up for Christ in the midst of persecution and false teachings (Osborne).

οὐ κεκοπίακες –
The church have not only stood firm against false teachings but have also triumphed over the false teachers (Osborne).

Revelation 2:4: “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love”

Verse as a whole –
“Yet all that the Ephesian Christians are doing right is not sufficient to excuse what they are doing wrong” (Keener). This verse is the turning point of Jesus’ approval speech. The first accusation against the church of Ephesus is that they left their first love.

ἀλλὰ –
Adversative conjunction contrasting the words of the immediate clause (words of approval) from the one preceding it (words of disapproval). This type of conjunction is very common in Hellenistic Greek literature but not so common in Revelation appearing only thirteen times (eight in chapters two and three) (Aune).

ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ -
This is a common formula in the seven letters and it describes spiritual and moral problems in the church. It shows divine discontentment along with warns of probable future judgment (Osborne).

that you have left your first love –
Theologians are divided on the matter. Towards whom has the Ephesian church left their first love? For Beasley-Murray, the love Christ is talking about here is “love for fellow men.” Beale defends the idea that the Ephesians lost their love “for Jesus by witnessing to him in the world” (author’s emphasis). Beale supports his argument mentioning the introductory words of Jesus “walks among the seven golden lampstands,” in this chapter by saying that Jesus intention was to remind the readers that they should be as a light, witnessing to the outside world. Sweet supports Beasley-Murray’s idea of love towards men, however, his emphasis is that this lack of love is a mark of the end of times (cf. Matt 24:12). Osborne contribution is that love for men and love for Christ are difficult to separate. The combination of both types of love is exactly what Jesus asks his followers to do in Mark 12:29-31: “Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Osborne concludes that the Ephesians loved the correct doctrine (orthodoxy) more than they loved God or one another.

Revelation 2:5: “Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent.”

Verse as a whole –
The entire congregation is exhorted to remember, repent and do their first deeds; otherwise, Christ himself would come to them to execute judgment. However, the punishment is conditional to the change that might or might not happen. A return to the cross, a submission to the risen Lord, and a rejection of all self-righteousness is what Jesus demands from the Ephesian church (Beasley-Murray).

Μνημόνευε –
“Remember (μνημονευε [mnēmoneue]). Present active imperative of μνημονευω [mnēmoneuō], ‘continue mindful’ (from μνημων [mnēmōn]).”[2]
The present imperative is usually used for required conduct. This case follows the same pattern of “knowing” terms, which is to bring it to mind and act upon it (Osborne). This verb is used twice only in Revelation two and three and in both passages it refers to moral and spiritual state that once was enjoyed but now has departed (Aune). Aune also explains that this statement seems to imply a lengthy intimacy between the author (Christ) and the congregations (Ephesus and Sardis). “The present tense of the imperative Remember stresses a continuous state of mind: ‘Keep on remembering,’ ‘Keep on thinking about,’ or ‘Never forget.’ The command is that they keep in mind what they used to be when they became Christians.”[3]

from where you have fallen –
The author particularizes the object of remembrance. The Ephesians had to remember πόθεν πέπτωκας. Some theologians have considered this passage to be in accordance with the “fallen angels.” Sweet says “[T]he angel addressed is a star (1:20): ‘How art thou fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the morning!’ (Isa. 14:12); […] the surprise is in applying this symbolism to the gleaming orthodoxy of Ephesus, but Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14).” Osborne disagrees with this interpretation; however, he sees “echoes” of Isaiah in the passage. “All of this is to highlight their past love and their present condition […] of coldness,” concludes Osborne.

καὶ μετανόησον –
The previous present imperative word “remember” is followed by two aorist imperatives “repent” and “do” (Osborne). The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament provides the correct perspective of the word repentance in the book of Revelation.
In Revelation, μετανοέω belongs to the fixed vocabulary of the circular letter to the seven churches, inasmuch as these churches are presented with the threat of judgment (2:5 bis, 16, 21f.; 3:3, 19). The call to repentance appears to make up part of a fixed penance exhortation (U. B. Müller, Prophetie und Predigt im NT [1975] 57–92). Unlike its predominant meaning elsewhere in the NT, the word here does not refer to repentance but to the return of Christians to their original deeds (2:4f.; cf. 3:15f.; for the connection with ἔργα, cf. further 2:22f.; 3:2f.; 9:20; 16:11), which correspond with the received teaching that was to be preserved (3:3; cf. 2:10, 25; 3:8, 10f.).[4]

καὶ τὰ πρῶτα ἔργα ποίησον –
This is not referring to good deeds, but rather, works out of love. This work must be towards men and God. The church must go back to act accordingly to their high calling and do what they used to do in the past. Being consistent for the right doctrine is not enough for Christ. Osborne summarizes saying, “orthodoxy without orthopraxy is a false religion.”

ἔρχομαί σοι καὶ κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν σου ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῆς, ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς –
This is not Jesus’ second coming (parousia), although some theologians, such as Sweet, consider this coming of Christ as the parousia. Sweet says, “[I]n any case for John the parousia is not simply a final future event, […]” (Sweet). Beale sees this passage as a support to the theory that “first love” refers to the Ephesian’s lack of witnessing. He says, “[T]hat the concern is primarily for witness is shown by the warning that, if the church does not repent, Christ ‘will come and remove [their] lampstand from its place’ (present ἔρχομαί [‘I come’], followed by future κινήσω [‘I will remove’], is a futuristic present).” For Osborne, there is a dual judgment (present and future) in Jesus’ words. Osborne states that “Christ’s displeasure will be felt both in the present and at the final judgment.”
Some have suggested that the removal of the church lampstand from its place is an allusion to the “silt deposits of the Cayster River, which eventually forced the literal relocation of the city.” (Keener). Sweet seems to agree with this position when he says that, “[R]amsay saw an allusion to Ephesus’ location at the mouth of the Cayster which was always silting up […], and took it as a threat not of physical destruction but of being made to begin again anew.” Another interpretation is that the threat is a reference to 1 Kings 11:36 where the term lamp is used as a metaphor for the tribe of Benjamin which will always belong to Judah. (Aune) In this case John is alluding to the Old Testament imagery to make his assertion. However, the most probable interpretation is the one that considers the removal of the church’s place and lampstand as a warning that they may cease to be a church (Osborne).

Revelation 2:6: “Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”

Verse as a whole –
The Ephesian church position towards the Nicolaitans parallels God’s own position, namely both hate their deeds.

Hate vs. love –
Apparently, this verse contradicts the previous verse 4, where God says that the church had forgotten their first love. However, as Osborne says, love for God and fellow man (believers) do not require an acceptance of their evil deeds. Neither God nor the Ephesians hate the Nicolaitans but their works or deeds.

Νικολαϊτῶν –
Several interpretations have been suggested to explain who the Nicolaitans are. Considering that they are not the evil apostles of verse 2 (see above “Are the evil apostles the Nicolaitans of verse six?”), let see a few positions regarding the origin of this group.
Irenaeus identified them with the second-century biblical Nicolas (Acts 6:5), whereas Hippolytus associated them with antinomian Gnosticism (Keener).
Osborne, argues that the Nicolaitans fall in the same category of those of the cults of Balaam (Rev. 2:14) and Jezebel (Rev. 2:20-23). He further argues that their practices were idoloatry, immorality and syncretism (Osborn).
Aune recognizes that the Nicolaitans may be a minority group within the Christian community trying to receive more recognition from the Ephesians; however he does not exclude the possibility of the Nicolaitans being a symbolic figure rather than historic. The reason for this would be the nature of Revelation (apocalyptic literature) that avoids actual names (Aune).

Revelation 2:7: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.”

Verse as a whole –
Beasley-Murray summarizes this verse this way: “The Spirit calls on every congregation to show vigilance towards evil men and their deeds, and at the same time to keep ablaze an ardent love which expresses itself in loving deeds, for without such love the church of Christ is spurious.”
This verse concludes the exhortation to the Ephesian church with a promise that is the main objective of the letter. Eating from the tree of life “is a picture of forgiveness and consequent experience of God’s intimate presence” (Beale).

He who has ear –
Common ending formula repeated in all letters in Revelation two and three. It has a dual function. First, it assumes that it will be addressed to believers and unbelievers, but only accepted by the chosen believers. Second, it gives Christ and the Spirit the same words, representing that Christ resides in the church through the Spirit (Beale). Other theologians have come with two other functions for Ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω. First, one finds the esoteric function. This function assumes that what has been said has a deeper and hidden meaning. The second function is the parenetic function, which simply is the assumption that the hearer or reader has to hear and obey what was said or read (Aune).

let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches –
It is rooted in the Jesus tradition. This phrase occurs not only in the New Testament, but also in non-canonical literature. In the New Testament, it occurs seven times in the synoptic Gospels and six other times as variant readings (Aune).
Osborne gives his interpretation of this verse saying that a better translation would be “Let the one who is willing to hear, listen.” Osborne’s emphasis is on human freedom and responsibility. He ends saying that in both Testaments, “to hear” is “to obey” (Osborne).

Τῷ νικῶντι –
This is a key word in Revelation’s Christology and understanding of Christian life. (Boring). Sweet brings the idea which conquer has in the New Testament. It can be a reference to war (literal or spiritual), to athletic games, to lawsuit and to Christ’s death and resurrection (Sweet). However, the ultimate conqueror is not man but God and only Him. Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God is the final conqueror (cf. Revelation 17:14: “They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful”) (Osborne).

I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God –
The ending words of the letter to the church of Ephesus have a very strong Jewish tone, but not exclusively. Ramsay makes reference to the pagan concept of the tree to the Ephesian as part of their Asian culture. He states, “[T]he tree of life in the Revelation was in the mind of the Ephesians a Christianization of the sacred tree in the pagan religion and folklore.” Beale in reference to this pagan concept of the tree says, “[W]hat paganism promised only Christianity as the fulfillment of the OT hopes could deliver” (Beale). On the other hand, some consider the terms “tree of life” and “paradise of God,” as a straight reference to Genesis two and three. In Genesis account, Adam and Eve are prohibited to eat from the tree. In Revelation though, the one who conquer will be awarded with the eating of the tree. Aune gives several insights on the tree of life and paradise of God terms. First, he mentions that this vocabulary is common in Jewish eschatological concepts. Second, he refers to the act of eating from the tree as a metaphor for salvation (both Jewish and Christian literature). Third, the tree of life is usually associated with paradise. Finally, he mentions that the tree of life “represents the sacrality of the world in terms of its creation, fertility, and continuation and, therefore, is a tree of immortality” (Aune). Osborne captures the idea of immortality in Christ through His cross. Thus, the tree of life is connected to the cross of Christ producing life and making the inheritance of the “paradise of God” possible. (Osborne). Also in Judaism, the tree of life speech can be portrayed as the “righteous (Ps. Sol. 14:3-4), God Himself (4 Macc. 18:16), edifying speech (Prov. 11:30; 15:4), and most frequently among teachers of the law, God’s law (Sifre Deut. 47:3.2; b. Ab. 6:7)” (Keener).

τῷ παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ -
“The word ‘Paradise’ occurs only thrice in the New Testament (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 12:4). It is of Persian origin, and signified a park or pleasure-ground. In the New Testament it seems to mean the resting-place of departed saints.”[5]
Osborne mentions that the tree of life being located in the paradise “shows that while the “tree” is anchored in the past (the cross), it will actually be experienced in the future glory of eternity” (Osborne)

References

(Beale) Beale,G.K.. The book of Revelation: a commentary on the Greek text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich; Carlisle.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1999.

(Beasley-Murray) Beasley-Murray,George Raymond. The Book of Revelation: based on the Revised Standard Version. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1981.

(Boring) Boring,M.Eugene. Revelation. Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for teaching and preaching. Lousville.: John Knox, 1989.

(Aune) Aune, David E.. Word Biblical Commentary. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco.: Word Books, 1982.

(Keener) Keener,Craig S.. Revelation. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000.

(Osborne) Osborne,Grant R.. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academics, 2002.

(Ramsay) Ramsay,William Mitchell. The Letters to the Seven Churches. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.

(Sweet) Sweet,J.P.M.. Revelation. Westminster Pelican Commentaries. Philadelphia.: Westminster, 1979.

[1]Hughes, R. B., & Laney, J. C. (2001). Tyndale concise Bible commentary. Rev. ed. of: New Bible companion. 1990.; Includes index. The Tyndale reference library (736). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
[2]Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Re 2:5). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
[3]Bratcher, R. G., & Hatton, H. (1993). A handbook on the Revelation to John. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (42). New York: United Bible Societies.
[4]Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-c1993). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (2:418-419). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
[5]The Pulpit Commentary: Revelation. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (59). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao

A look at Lloyd-Jones’ sermon

DML-J’s sermons are precious pieces of literature and are, as Brencher notes, “warmly awaited.”[1] Brencher also says that “[O]ver 1,600 cassette recordings are currently available through the Recordings Trust and an estimated fifty to seventy-five other sermons are in private circulation or are distributed through Christian bookshops.”[2] The wide circulation of DML-J’s sermons and its world-wide reach and acceptance shows the rich content and the sound theology upon which DML-J built his sermons. In this part of the paper, I want to look closely at one of DML-J’s sermon on Isaiah 40. I want to point out and discuss the evangelistic tone of DML-J’s sermons that led the congregations which he pastored to experience a great numerical growth. It is true that not all DML-J’s sermons were evangelistic. He preached verse-by-verse on the book of Romans for thirteen years and on the book of Ephesians for eight years. This method of preaching was not for non-Christians or new converts, but for the mature Christians of his congregation. He preached on Romans every Friday night and on Ephesians every Sunday morning. However, on Sundays evening, DML-J switched his focus and deliberately preached evangelistic sermons. No wonder Sunday nights were when Westminster Chapel reached its greatest attendance. Robert Strivens mentions an attendance of around two-thousand people.[3] Thus, more than a preacher, DML-J saw himself as an evangelist. He perceived the importance to preach not only to feed Christians but first and foremost to rescue non-Christians from eternal damnation. Here are DML-J’s words on the importance of evangelism and evangelistic sermons, quoted from Strivens: ‘“the work of evangelism is to be done regularly by the local church and not by sporadic efforts and campaigns,’ ‘[W]hen the local church has a spirit of evangelism, members tell others about Christ, and through personal contact among friends, acquaintances and business associates bring many into the church.”[4] Preaching from John 17, he just said, “we must recognize that the plain and clear teaching of Scripture is that every single Christian person is an evangelist.”[5] These words reveal the passion of DML-J for evangelism and evangelistic sermons. For the sake of illustrating this point, it is important to show how the evangelistic tone of DML-J’s sermons functioned.

Now, let us turn our attention to a sermon he wrote on Isaiah 40: 3-5 entitled “The Only Way,”[1] which was recently published (2005) by The Banner of Truth Trust along with eight other sermons on Isaiah 40. This sermon was published in a book entitled The All Sufficient God, Sermons on Isaiah 40.

The Only Way (Isaiah 40: 3-5)

Introduction:

DML-J’s introduction reminds his hearers that all humanity is sinful and has prejudice. However, part of this prejudice comes from the devil’s work towards humans. He blames the devil for filling people’s minds with prejudice against God, against the Lord Jesus and against the Christian Faith. The devil is responsible for deceiving Christians regarding the content of Christian message.
Since this sermon was preached as a series of sermons on Isaiah 40, this introduction reminds DML-J’s hearers about verses one and two of Isaiah 40, preached previously. Here we see the benefits of sermon series preached to the same congregation. It provides a better understanding of the book in its larger context.

Application:

He connects his introduction about the devil deceiving people and about what Christianity really is by saying that “the message of Christianity is the great announcement that the warfare is ended, that our iniquity is pardoned and, above all, that there are great blessings for us, double blessings, infinitely more than all the guilt of our sin and all the punishment that we so richly deserve.”[2]

First movement:

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO RECEIVE THE PARDON AND BLESSINGS OF GOD?

Since:
· People are tired of the warfare (referring to World War II), exhausted, and disappointed. They are missing the hope of a better future.
· People are also desperate to receive God ‘s forgiveness , but usually do not know how to find it.

Application:

“Do you desire this blessing from God? Or do you think you have had the blessing of salvation? Do you regard yourself as a Christian?
DML-J, after asking a series of rhetorical questions, interacts with his listeners through what one may call the “Christian test.” He asks how important Jesus is in their lives and if Jesus is their Savior. He acknowledges that many people rely only upon the love of God without ever mentioning Jesus Christ.

Present Active Indicative (PAI) statement:

“…but they [blessings and assurance of salvation] only come in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no salvation apart from him.”

Explanation of the text:

He quotes the first part of verse three in the text of Isaiah 40: “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness.” He then says, “That is how salvation will come. The Lord will come and without this Lord there is no blessing.” DML-J connects the Old Testament with the New Testament and links Isaiah’s prophecy with the promised Messiah revealed in the new covenant.

Lived experience:

He mentions the great philosophers, religious leaders and teachers that the world has produced. He mentions Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Buddha, and Confucius. He points out the value of their teachings such as utopias, good living, and idealism. He ends up showing that this is common to all religions. Christians, however, have something unique. Christians’ uniqueness is the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.

Explanation of the text:

Here, DML-J explains the last part of verse three. His emphasis is on God who is coming to earth with a great mission.

Illustration:

Usually kings, when traveling from one place to another, sent people before them to prepare their way. People were sent to repair damaged roads or even to build new ones. He connects this illustration directly to the words of Isaiah 40.3.

Cross-reference:

The idea that the Bible explains the Bible is present in this sermon. DML-J quotes several New Testament passages that characterize what Christianity is and relate them to the first coming of Jesus. The passages used at this point of the sermon are Galatians 4:4-5 and John 3:16.

DML-J spends a relatively long part of his sermon trying to correct the wrong views on what Christianity is all about. He addresses it mainly to people that do not know about Jesus’ first coming and are waiting for his second. His goal is to make people realize that Jesus is the only way and means for salvation. DML-J makes very clear that there is no salvation apart from him. He emphasizes, “Jesus is central; Jesus is essential. It is entirely in him.”[3]

Second movement:

WHAT IS ESSENTIAL BEFORE THE BLESSINGS OF GOD COME TO YOU AND TO ME?

At this point, DML-J narrates the entire nativity story, linking it to Isaiah’s words, “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed.”

PAI statement:

“You cannot be blessed, you cannot be forgiven, there is no redemption, no new life, for you unless you see that God sent his only Son into the world.”[4]

Application:

“He [Jesus] is the new highway along which alone God’s blessing can come. And it is essential to believe that. You and I must believe that before we can receive this blessing.”[5]

Second PAI statement in this movement:

“…this new way is also equally essential before the Son of God can come into your heart and into your life and mine.”

Explanation of the text:

DML-J is getting close to the end of his sermon, and now his emphasis is on repentance. He will quote and explain several New Testament texts that focus on repentance, beginning with John the Baptist who is the one to whom Isaiah directly prophesied.

Application:

“You must repent, said John. You must realize that you are sinners in the sight of a holy God. You must give up making any excuse for yourself and give up relying upon any goodness that belongs to you or to anybody else. You must realize that, face to face with God, you are a miserable, wretched, vile sinner, deserving hell and nothing else. And you must admit and confess that to God, and then, and then only, will you be ready to receive him.”[6]

Conclusion:

DML-J’s conclusion is an attempt to bring upon all his hearers potential repentance. He tries to bring all his audience to realize their necessity of a Savior. He talks in general terms, not making distinction of who is or who is not Christian; for him, all the assembly needs to repent. For DML-J everyone needs a new heart given by Jesus. Morality and religiosity do not save, but only deceive. He ends this way: “Are you a child of God? The only condition is the utter, absolute recognition of your desperate, helpless need, and of what he has done and what he can do for you and in you – what he will do if you but ask him to do it. Ask him now.[7]

[1] David M. Lloyd-Jones, The all-sufficient God : sermons on Isaiah 40 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), 19-32.
[2] Lloyd-Jones, The all-sufficient God : sermons on Isaiah 40 20.
[3] Lloyd-Jones, The all-sufficient God : sermons on Isaiah 40 26.
[4] Lloyd-Jones, The all-sufficient God : sermons on Isaiah 40 28-29.
[5] Lloyd-Jones, The all-sufficient God : sermons on Isaiah 40 29.
[6] Lloyd-Jones, The all-sufficient God : sermons on Isaiah 40 31.
[7] Lloyd-Jones, The all-sufficient God : sermons on Isaiah 40 32.
[1] Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism 233.
[2] Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism 233.
[3] Robert Strivens, "The Evangelistic Preaching of Martyn Lloyd-Jones : Lessons for Today," FOUNDATIONS (0144378X)(2007): 5.
[4] Strivens, The Evangelistic Preaching of Martyn Lloyd-Jones : Lessons for Today 6.
[5] Strivens, The Evangelistic Preaching of Martyn Lloyd-Jones : Lessons for Today 6.

Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao

A Summary of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ life

David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899 – 1981)
“Preaching is theology coming through a man who is on fire”[1]

David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (DML-J) was the second child born to Henry and Magdalene Lloyd-Jones and became world famous for his emphasis on the expository preaching of the gospel. He lived a long life of servitude to the gospel and to the church until he died of cancer[2] on March 1, 1981 in his own house while sleeping.
DML-J was born on December 20, 1899, in the city of Cardiff, South Wales. He was a bright child and in 1911 he won (second place in the examinations[3]) a scholarship to study at Tregaron Grammar School.[4] The school was four miles away from Llangeitho – a small Welsh-speaking community that his family had moved to in 1906. However, the Lloyd-Jones family did not stay at Llangeitho for too long. In 1914, after his father’s business had bankrupted, they moved to London, subsequent to an attempt to move to Canada.[5] In London, DML-J passed the examination and interview for admission at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital and in 1916 he became a medical student. His admission to the medical school at the age of sixteen gained the attention of a Welsh newspaper that “under the heading ‘Llangeitho,’ announced that ‘an old Llangeitho boy, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, at the London University Senior School examination, passed in seven subjects and gained distinction in five.’”[6] By the age of twenty three years old DML-J earned his MD researching on “subacute bacterial endocarditis.”[7] In 1923 DML-J began to work for Lord Horder as Chief Clinical Assistant. As John Peters says, “in his twenties he was academically successful, with excellent prospects.”[8] He continued working for Lord Horder until 1927 when he resigned his position in order to become a minister of the gospel.

During his time with Lord Horder, he began attending a Presbyterian church. While attending this church, DML-J met Dr. Tom Phillips who would become his father-in-law. At some point in this period, DML-J had a conversion experience. Brencher puts his experience this way: “Some time in 1923, the exact date is not known, he [DML-J] reached an evangelical experience of the gospel when the ‘Holy Spirit quickened me and awakened me to the realization of certain profound and vital truths taught in the Bible.’”[9] However, this quickening of the Holy Spirit in DML-J’s life was not what caused him to enter the ministry. The real cause is not clearly known[10] despite an article from The People in 1939 where DML-J says, “I felt called to the ministry. In deference to my father’s wishes, however, I took up medicine instead. But the first chance I had I went back to my first love.”[11] On the other hand, Murray mentions that DML-J went through a deep struggle over the issue of abandoning medicine. In Preaching and Preachers, DML-J writes extensively about the call to preach. For him, the role of delivering a message cannot be executed by any Christian who decides to preach by his own will. The preacher must receive a call to preach, however, he states “[T]his whole question of the call is not an easy matter; and all ministers have struggled with it because it is so vitally important for us.”[12] In this regard, DML-J’s struggle to enter the ministry led him to lose over twenty pounds in eighteen months.

In the same year that he left his career as a physician to become a minister, he got engaged to Bethan Phillips, daughter of Dr. Tom Phillips. On January 8th, 1927 DML-J and Bethan got married at Charing Cross Chapel in London. After their honeymoon, DML-J and his wife moved to Aberavon, where he became the leader of the Forward Movement Mission at Sandfields.[13] When DML-J arrived in Aberavon, the congregation had no more than ninety-three members. However, due to the evangelistic tone of DML-J’s sermons, the congregation grew to “530 with an attendance of about 850.”[14] During the time that DML-J preached in Sandfields, the doors of the church had to be opened two hours before the service began. Brencher quotes Rhys Davies saying that he had “never seen a building so unhygienically packed. The ground floor and extensive gallery steamed with bodies that were piled up to the walls in a warmth that was stifling.”[15]

Even though the church was experiencing a revival, DML-J’s position in this regard was very sober and revealed a profound dependence on God as the one who creates revivals. In a sermon preached in 1930 DML-J said regarding revivals, “[P]ray for revival? Yes, go on, but do not try to create it, do not attempt to produce it, it is only given by Christ himself. The last church to be visited by a revival is the church trying to make it.”[16] For him, man-made “revivals” are not genuine and the church that continuously pray for revivals does not know its mission. Furthermore, to fall on this kind of mistake is not a minor problem. DML-J regarded as a great error the attempt to convert people by men’s efforts. Perhaps part of DML-J’s view on this matter is due to his deep Calvinistic side and Reformed tradition. The results of DML-J’s preaching were not only felt in his congregation. Very early in his ministry, other churches and denominations began to invite him to preach. Commenting on his time in Aberavon in his book Preaching and Preachers DML-J says: “I have always traveled a great deal between the Sundays and preached elsewhere. While in South Wales I generally preached twice on Tuesdays and Thursdays [...].”[17] Murray gives a list of places that DML-J visited to preach in his first year of ministry alone. The list includes:
Ammanford, Aberdare, Aberkenfig, Aberystwyth, Abergavenny, Briton Ferry, Blackwood, Barry, Bridgend, Bethany, Brynamman, Brecon, Blaenavon, Carmel (Aberavon), Cardiff (Cathedral Road), Cardiff (Memorial Hall), Cardiff (University C.U.), Cwmavon, Cross Hands, Crickhowell, Caerphilly, Cwmbwrla, Kenfig Hill, Ferndale, Glyn Neath, Gilfachgoch, Haverfordwest, Llantrisant, Laleston, Llangeitho, Llanharan, Morriston (F.M.), Maestêag, Neath (F.M.), Newcastle Emlyn, Pyle, Pontrhydyfen, Porthcawl, Penclawdd, Pwllheli, Porth, Pencoed, Resolven, Swansea (Argyle), Swansea (Rhyddings), Swansea (Baptist), Skewen, Tonypandy, Taibach (Wes.), Treorchy, Treharris, Tonyrefail, Tonpentre, Ystradgynlais.[18]
In 1932, DML-J visited North America (Canada and United States) for the first time. In Canada, he preached during nine weeks (on Sundays) at Sherbourne Street Presbyterian Church. According to Brencher, the congregation during DML-J’s visit grew to such an extent that people were sitting at the pulpit stairs. In the United States, DML-J was invited to preach at the Chautauqua conference. This conference was not for evangelicals only and DML-J was not among the famous speakers at the conference; however, by the end of the conference, DML-J preached to almost six thousand people.[19] DML-J’s fame was ascending faster than anyone could imagine. Brencher makes reference to the article published in 1935 by The Christian and re-published in 1980 by Christianity Today about DML-J’s continually growing fame. The article mentions that DML-J was the closing speaker “at a Great Demonstration at the Royal Albert Hall, London, under the auspices of the Bible Testimony Fellowship in which he was introduced by George Gordon, second Marquess of Aberdeen, as one of Christ’s physicians.”[20]
Before DML-J stood up to preach at the Albert Hall, Dr. G. Campbell Morgan (pastor of Westminster Chapel – one of the largest nonconformist churches in London) came to him and said “I’ll tell you in the presence of my Maker that no one and nothing would have made me come out on a night like this but you.”[21] The very next day, DML-J received a letter from Dr. Morgan inviting him to preach at Westminster Chapel. In 1938, DML-J was invited to become the associate pastor at Westminster, a position that he held until 1943. In 1943, Dr. Morgan retired from his position as the senior pastor at Westminster Chapel, leaving DML-J as the only pastor of the church. Murray points out that the transition from Dr. Morgan to DML-J was not smooth. Some influential members did not like the former physician’s style of preaching. There was even a particular group of liberals within the church that tried to expel him.[22] However, none of these groups succeeded, and DML-J led Westminster Chapel to a great numerical growth. In 1950, Westminster Chapel reached its peak in number under DML-J. On special occasions the church had an attendance of 2,500 people, and during regular Sundays the attendance was more than 1,500.

In 1968 DML-J retired from Westminster Chapel to dedicate himself to writing. Murray recalls DML-J’s words about his decision to retire: “What really drove me to retire from Westminster was not so much my illness as the fact that I had been there for 30 years and that I have felt increasingly that I must put into book form more of the material that I have accumulated – for example, I am anxious to print what I have tried to do on the Epistle to the Romans among others.”[23]

The year after DML-J announced his retirement, he gave his last series of lectures in the United States at the Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. The result of these lectures became a book entitled Preaching and Preachers published in 1972.
In 1981, Dr. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones died in his residence while sleeping. His death was, for many, the end of an era of great preachers. He is considered one of the greatest preachers of the twentieth century. Brencher notes that “[A]bout fifty Lloyd-Jones titles are currently in print in Britain from around seven different publishers.”[24] He also says “Marty Lloyd-Jones is not a man to be dismissed.”[25]

Endnotes:
[1] David M. Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and preachers (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), 97.
[2] John Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism (STUDIES IN EVANGELICAL HISTORY AND THOUGHT; Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K. ; Waynesboro, Ga: Paternoster Press, 2002), 6.
[3] John Peters, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, preacher (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986), 15.
[4] Robert L. Penny, "An examination of the principles of expository preaching of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones [microform]" (D.Min., Harding Graduate School of Religion, 1980), 16.
[5] DML-J’s father briefly visited Canada, but concluded that he was too old to move to the New World. Penny, An examination of the principles of expository preaching of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones [microform] 17.
[6] Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones : the first forty years, 1899-1939 (Edinburgh ; Carlisle, Pa: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 39.
[7] Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism 9.
[8] Peters, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, preacher 16.
[9] Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism 11.
[10] Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism 11.
[11] Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism 11.
[12] Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and preachers 104.
[13] Penny, An examination of the principles of expository preaching of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones [microform] 18.
[14] Penny, An examination of the principles of expository preaching of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones [microform] 19.
[15] Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism 15.
[16] Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones : the first forty years, 1899-1939 204.
[17] Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and preachers 3.
[18] Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones : the first forty years, 1899-1939 183.
[19] Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism 17.
[20] Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism 17.
[21] Penny, An examination of the principles of expository preaching of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones [microform] 20.
[22] Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones : the fight of faith 1939-1981 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1990), 100.
[23] Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones : the fight of faith 1939-1981 599-600.
[24] Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism 233.
[25] Brencher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century evangelicalism 233.


Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao