Chapter  7

Jesus and Culture, Ethics, Mission

            Our discussion narrows its focus on vital issues of ongoing life and practice—issues in our surrounding contexts which necessitate the convergence of sanctified life and practice to be whole and salvific life and practice to make whole. These issues engage culture, ethics and mission.

            When God’s thematic action in response to the human condition made a strategic shift with the incarnation, the Father sent the Son “into the world.” The relational clarity of God’s communicative action in the Word made flesh was direct (not mediated), vulnerable (openly disclosed) and embodied (accessible to all). This addressed three major issues for all practice: (1) the significance of the person presented to others, (2) the quality of this person’s communication, and (3) the depth level of relationship this person engages.

            The truth of the incarnation has significance only in relationship as the experiential truth, which Jesus wholly embodied into the surrounding contexts of the world. Basically, this process is about making functional the theology of God loving the world and sending his Son into the world to love it. Making John 3:16 operational was neither a mere evangelistic program nor a gospel of words; moreover, this was not merely about what Jesus did to signify the propositional truth of salvation. This is about how Jesus lived and functioned in the world because of who he was and whose he was. That is to say, his life and practice operationalized God loving the world by being fully embodied to be vulnerably present and intimately involved with those in it to make it whole.

             The relational significance of God’s communicative action in the vulnerably embodied whole of Jesus was only for the intimate involvement in relationship—relationship together in the whole of God. The Father sent the Son into the world to make it whole (sozo, Jn 3:17), that is, in congruence with the relational significance of the whole of Jesus and compatible with the qualitative distinction of the whole and holy God.

            The process of being sent is a relational dynamic involving the irreducible qualitative action of God’s communication and the nonnegotiable terms of God’s relational work of grace. This dynamic further signifies wholeness: the whole of the Word disclosing the whole of God and fulfilling the whole of God’s thematic relational action. The implication of this relational dynamic underlying God’s strategic shift is that who and what was sent was nothing less and no substitute than the whole and holy God, that nothing less and no substitute could be sent to fulfill this relational dynamic and thus to fulfill God’s thematic action. This is the significance of the incarnation, the qualitative function of which Jesus vulnerably embodied to be intimately involved with others in culture, ethics and mission.

            The process of being sent into the world is the functional outworking of this relational dynamic. For Jesus, only the ongoing function of his whole person embodied his incarnation into the world; and only the ongoing relational involvement of his whole person fulfilled his purpose and function in the world to make whole. Nothing less and no substitutes would be sufficient either to be whole or to make whole. Thus, how Jesus was in the world—whether in word or deed, his teachings or example—cannot be wholly understood apart from the function of who and what he was. To disengage how Jesus was from the full identity of who and what he was embodied in function is to essentially disembody Jesus; this has the relational consequence to reduce God’s communication and renegotiate God’s grace, which creates relational distance with the whole of God’s vulnerable presence and intimate involvement.

            “Sent” involves a relationship-specific dynamic, and “sent into the world” involves a relationship-specific function. We need to grasp these about Jesus’ life and practice—notably in culture, ethics and mission—in order to understand our place and function in the world. This chapter essentially involves how Jesus lived and practiced because of who he was and whose he was, and thus how we need to live and practice because of who we are and whose we are. Throughout our discussion, Jesus will make evident the ongoing reality: How a person lives emerges from who and what the person is in full identity, the functional separation of which renders how a person lives to reductionism.

            Jesus always embodied this process in the integrity of the whole, which necessitated ongoing function in his sanctified identity: that is, his full identity (the relational posture as the whole of God) conjoined with his minority identity (the functional posture as qualitative distinction from the common’s function “in the world”) for sanctified life and practice. The function of Jesus’ sanctified identity in life and practice established the greater context of his person (who and whose he was), whatever his situations and circumstances. This provided the framework for his sanctified life and practice to ongoingly address the issue of how the person presented in the surrounding contexts of the world is defined and what determines how this person functions. For Jesus to be whole, this functionally necessitated both (1) engaging the human contexts of the world without losing his primary identity of who he is and whose he is, and (2) participating, involving, partaking in situations and relationships without losing his priorities of what he is and thus by nature how he is sent to be.

            Jesus embodied this process in the ongoing relational dynamic between his full identity and his minority identity, which is the conjoint function of the qualitative significance of his sanctified identity (discussed in chapter five). As the embodiment of the whole and holy God, Jesus’ identity functioned in congruence with the relational context and process of the Trinity—his ongoing relational posture; this signifies the source of his ontology, out of which his full identity is derived and to which he belongs (Jn 17:14,16). Since his embodied full identity did not function in a vacuum but was sent into the world to function “in the world’s” surrounding context (Jn 17:13)—while “of” the context to which he belongs—this also involved the functional posture of his minority identity. Thus, this points to the dynamic interaction of his full identity with his minority identity that is necessary for the functional significance of his sanctified identity in the world. Clearly then, the person Jesus presented throughout the incarnation was the function only of his whole person because he maintained in sanctified life and practice the integrity of who, what and how he is—without reduction or redefinition. The clarity and depth of his sanctified identity provided the qualitative distinction necessary to function “not of the world” in order to be whole and to make whole “in the world.” These dynamics will become evident in our discussion to follow.

            It is vital to grasp the sanctified identity Jesus embodied in sanctified life and practice for the experiential truth of our identity to be in his likeness and our ontology to be in the image of the whole of God (as Jesus asked his Father in his formative family prayer). Without the function of his full identity there is no truth and function of his minority identity in the world; and without the functional truth of his minority identity there is no experiential truth of his full identity for relationship together. This interaction of identities is a function of relationship, not doctrine or ethics; it is a function of a relational process, not a missional paradigm. As the focus of our discussion shifts “into the world,” we need to understand that the functional posture “in the world” of his minority identity is beyond mere ethics and is more than merely mission—even, dare I say, beyond conventional Christian character and conduct.

            Receiving and embracing the whole of Jesus, and thus following him in his full identity, will always involve not only being associated with his minority identity but also being constituted in it. Sanctified identity is the relational outcome of this ongoing relational dynamic between his full and minority identities, the function of which is the ontology of the whole and holy God embodied in Jesus and extended in likeness in his followers by the Spirit to love the world. This necessitates congruence of his followers’ whole person with the relational posture of Jesus’ full identity and the functional posture of his minority identity. This congruence is necessary for Jesus’ followers to have the clarity of his minority identity and the depth of his full identity—the clarity and depth necessary to function in the qualitative distinction, and thus significance, of the whole and holy God “in the world” while “not of the world,” just as his Father sent him (Jn 17:18). And Jesus’ involvement “into the world” by its relational nature fully engages culture and practices ethics in vulnerable fulfillment of his (com)mission to love the world to make it whole.

            This chapter proceeds with this relational purpose for this relational outcome.

Illuminating Deeper into the Surrounding Context

             Jesus’ sanctified identity functioned in the relational context and process of God’s communicative action. As communicative action, his words and deeds in sanctified life and practice did not demonstrate a separatist function isolated or relationally detached from the world, nor did his teachings illustrate ideals unattainable for function in the world. While “sanctified” (hagios) denotes, on the one hand, to be separated from ordinary or common usage, on the other, it is devoted to the whole of God and God’s action—namely, the God who sent him into the world. In other words, sanctified identity in life and practice is the qualitative distinction from the common’s function while in the common’s context, and thus it only has functional significance by relational involvement in the common’s context (koinos) “in the world.” This is the nature of Jesus’ minority identity, which is associated with his identity as “the light of the world” (summarized in John’s Gospel, partly as an “I am” statement, Jn 1:4,9; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36,46).

            The clarity of Jesus’ identity as the light “in the world” functioned vulnerably in the narrative of Lazarus’ death and raising (see Jn 11:1-44). Jesus stated that Lazarus’ sickness would not conclude in death (v.4, not that he would not die, vv.11,14). It is important to distinguish between the relationship with Lazarus (along with his sisters, whom Jesus loved, vv.3,5) and the surrounding context of the relationship. Jesus was vulnerably involved in both the relationship and the surrounding context for the same purpose, yet the functional dynamic involved was different for each. I previously discussed the relationship, and here I focus on the surrounding context.

            Jesus defined the situation as having the purpose to highlight  the vulnerable presence and involvement of the whole of God signified in the identity of the Son (as “glory” points to, vv.4,40). By its nature as communicative action, this could only be fulfilled by direct involvement of Jesus’ whole person in the surrounding context, not separated from it nor relationally uninvolved in it—in other words, nothing less and no substitute. His disciples raised an incredulous voice to his action to return to that hostile surrounding context trying to kill him (v.8). Jesus responded from his identity as the light (vv.9-10). His action to return was based on what he was as “the light of the world” (Jn 8:12; 9:5), and whose he was who sent him (Jn 12:45-46); therefore, how he functioned cannot be defined and determined by the surrounding context—even if it was receptive, as demonstrated by Jesus’ timing to wait two days before responding to Lazarus, his family and extended community (v.6). How he functioned emerged from his minority identity as the light in interaction with his full identity as the whole of God who sent him (vv.41-42). Thus, as the light he “must by its nature (dei, not from obligation or compulsion) do the work of him who sent me” (Jn 9:4).

            Jesus’ sanctified identity, defining who and what he was, determined how he was, and that always involved going deeper into the surrounding context. Identity as the light of the world only has significance when it is relationally involved in those contexts. While putting oneself in harm’s way may seem misguided, or beyond the practice of many (consider Thomas’ remark, v.16), that was not Jesus’ purpose in this situation; later, he deliberately avoided contexts to kill him (Jn 11:53-54), which was an earlier reason he stayed out of Judea to extend his Galilean ministry (Jn 7:1). The issue about engaging the surrounding context was not about the extent of hostility or receptivity, but about relational congruence with the whole of God who sent him into the contexts of the world—just as he told his biological brothers who challenged him to go to Judea (Jn 7:3-6), and as he defined for his disciples in their identity together as the light (Jn 9:4, cf. 12:36).

            Jesus made definitive: “When I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (Jn 9:5). This defined two vital aspects of the light. First, the light only has functional significance in the contexts of the world (“When I am in the world”); and the identity of the light can only have clarity when it functions in those contexts (“When I…I am the light,” cf. Jn 1:5a). Secondly, the light is not some static attribute of Jesus, nor a quantitative deed, to be observed. Jesus was definitive that “I am” the light (emphatically stated, ego emi, in Jn 8:12). In this “I am” statement, the ontology of the whole of Jesus is signified. In presenting  the bigger picture, John’s Gospel identifies the light as the life (zoe) in the Word (Jn 1:4). Thus, the light is the dynamic function of the zoe of Jesus, not some attribute (cf. character) or deed (cf. conduct). Furthermore, the light is the dynamic function of the zoe of Jesus’ whole person, that is, conjointly the whole of God, the zoe of the Trinity. Therefore, the light is the dynamic relational function of the relational ontology of the Trinity, which Jesus embodied as vulnerable communicative function in the trinitarian relational context and process for relationship together.

            With the bigger picture, John’s Gospel helps us further understand the function of the light. The zoe in the Word, who functioned as the light, had been in eternal existence and functioned as Creator before his incarnation (Jn 1:1-3). This definitive statement not only established the source of Jesus’ identity in the divine context; it also pointed to the function of Jesus’ identity in the context of the world. John’s Gospel is unveiling God’s thematic action since creation, and how the embodied Word coheres with creation. The whole of the Word as Creator becoming flesh involves two vital functions for us to grasp in the contexts of the world:

1. Jesus vulnerably embodied the whole of God, including as Creator, in whose very image we were created, and he also functionally embodied that image. This implies that Jesus’ whole person in sanctified life and practice constitutes both the hermeneutical key to the ontology of the whole of God (Jn 12:45; 14:9, cf. 2 Cor 4:4-6); and, in addition, his person and function constitute the experiential truth of the ontology of the human person (whom the Word created in his image and now also vulnerably embodies in the function as the light) for us to understand in function and thus experience as a whole person. This experience signifies our function also in who, what and how we are in the image of the whole of God. In other words, the light functions to give clarity to the human ontology created in his image, and apart from the vulnerable embodiment of the whole of Jesus, the identity of the human person struggles for who, what and how to be (cf. Jn 8:12).
2. Jesus also intimately embodied the relational ontology of the Trinity (as discussed previously, notably with the Father), thus constituting the trinitarian relational context of family and the trinitarian relational process of family love, by which he engaged the contexts of the world and was vulnerably involved with persons in those contexts. This implies that the whole of Jesus’ functional relational involvement constitutes both the functional key to how the relationships in the Trinity are; and, in addition, his relational involvement constitutes the experiential truth of the human relational ontology (whom the Word created in his image to be whole and not “to be apart,” and now also intimately embodies in the function as the light) of persons in the relationships together necessary to be whole in likeness of the Trinity. Jesus constitutes his followers together in the experiential truth of human persons who were designed and created in likeness of the relational ontology of the Trinity. The light functions to give clarity to the relational nature of human life, the qualitative significance of relationships, and the relationships together necessary to make whole the human condition—apart from whose illumination humanity struggles for well-being and wholeness (cf. Jn 1:5).

Jesus’ intimate function in this relational ontology by family love with various persons (discussed throughout this study) clearly spoke to the relationships necessary to be whole for us to understand, as well as called us to participate in reciprocal relationship together with him to be made whole. This reciprocal relational involvement gives us the experiential truth of the relationships together necessary to be the whole of God’s family constituted by the Trinity; and this further gives us the experiential basis to live whole by extending family love to others in the contexts of the world with the clarity of the function of the light to make whole the human condition (cf. Mt 5:16).

            Conjoined with creation to fulfill God’s thematic action, Jesus vulnerably and intimately embodied the function of the light as the hermeneutical key to zoe, both the zoe of the whole of God and the zoe of the whole human person created in his image. In addition, his embodiment of the light was also the functional key to the relationships together necessary for the whole of zoe, both the zoe of the Trinity and the zoe of human persons together created in likeness of the Trinity. This relational process of direct communicative action functioned only in the surrounding contexts of the world—relationally involved deeper and deeper in these contexts, and only relationally involved to be whole and to make whole (Jn 12:46). And as the embodied Word cohered with creation, our grasp of theological anthropology emerges as it coheres with the embodied Light.

            Moreover, merely life and practice “in the world” and merely engaging the surrounding contexts are insufficient to function as the light of the world. The clarity of the light is not about having doctrinal purity, goes beyond having the proper character and conduct, and practicing the right ethics, as well as goes deeper than merely articulating the gospel message. The light embodies these in the whole of our zoe, not as characteristic or deed but in relational congruence with the zoe of Jesus’ whole person. Thus, the identity of the light has clarity only as a function of sanctified identity, which is the relational outcome of the ontology of the whole and holy God embodied in Jesus transforming (creating) his followers in his likeness as the light of the world. Sanctified identity is the qualitative distinction from the common’s function necessary to be neither defined nor determined by the common’s contexts of the world (cf. the indictment in Eze 22:26). This is an ongoing tension with the common’s function that comes with involvement in the common’s contexts, from which we need qualitative distinction to be whole and to make whole. As Jesus made evident in his sanctified identity, this necessitates the relational congruence of his followers’ whole person with the relational posture of his full identity and the functional posture of his minority identity. In other words, the qualitative distinction of sanctified identity is relational congruence with the whole of Jesus, who sends us into the same contexts of the world just as (kathos, in congruence with) his Father sent him (Jn 17:18).

            This is the purpose Jesus had for his disciples when he exhorted them to go with him to Lazarus deeper into that context (Jn 11:15). And the first aspect of the common’s function all his followers encounter going deeper into the surrounding contexts of the world is culture. How did Jesus engage culture?

  

Jesus and Culture in the Surrounding Context

             Culture is present in every human context, however culture is defined and whatever is the shape of a human context. Culture also has a particular identity, and, depending on your definition of culture, culture promotes an identity for the participants (active or passive) in that context (either belonging to or by association). When culture generates the identity of its participants, this becomes an ongoing issue—particularly as contexts intersect, which is the norm in human life and practice.

            I define culture as inseparable from identity and use the following working definition in our discussion:

Culture is the life and practice (in its various expressions) of a collective group (formal or informal, large or small) of persons which relatively both defines who and what they are and determines how they function, thereby being a primary source of their identity. Culture is not about an individual person but a social dynamic of persons who belong and/or identify in a context together.

At its earliest stages of development, culture emerges from the life and practice of those persons gathered together, thus culture was defined and determined by them. As that culture was established, its shape remains consistent or firm, with ongoing minor modifications. In the subsequent process of its life and practice, culture essentially takes on a functional “life” of its own to shape its participants; that is to say, those persons become defined by their culture, and thus how they function is also determined by their culture. To be contrary is to go against the norms of culture, or, in other words, be counter-cultural.

            Moreover, since we all participate in some type of collective group, we are all part of a particular culture which defines our person and determines how we function—relatively speaking, of course. To this extent we are never free of culture and always apply our culture to our activities, even in biblical interpretation and in studying Jesus and culture. This influence emerges as the significant issue of Jesus’ engagement with culture, which we will discuss with the need to understand the particular cultural lens we bring to this discussion.

His Purpose:  Shedding Light on Reductionism and the Whole of Creation

             How Jesus engaged a culture in a particular context was always first with his own culture. That is to say, Jesus always looked at culture theologically because that was his identity: who, what and how he was in the context and process of the whole of God. As noted above, engaging another culture from one’s own culture is an assumption by which all persons engage a different culture. Thus, these are presuppositions of our own which we have to understand and account for, even as we seek to further understand and more deeply engage Jesus (along with his culture).

            To say that Jesus looked at culture theologically should not be separated from the function of his identity. Foremost, his theological lens was not about doctrine, propositions of static truth or systems of beliefs and values; though his lens was certainly theologically orthodox (not in a gospel-speak, salvation-speak sense), it was always in conjoint function with orthopraxy (i.e., sanctified life and practice) in the trinitarian relational context and process for relationship together. Jesus functionally engaged culture not only in orthodoxy but with orthopraxy, with the latter at times appearing to contradict the former, which was an ongoing source of controversy in many of his interactions—notably in a so-called orthodox religious context since it was perceived often as counter-cultural. Yet, Jesus’ theological engagement of culture was not for the end result of orthodoxy, or even orthopraxy, but only for the outcome of relationship together and being whole; thus, his engagement was always as communicative action of God’s thematic relational response to make whole the human condition (cf. Jn 12:46-47). In other words, he saw culture through the lens of God’s perception and desires, and this defined and determined his response.

            As the embodiment of God’s communicative action in the contexts of the world, Jesus did not engage culture “to condemn” (krino, to discriminate between good and evil) the identity it generates “but to make whole” (sozo, Jn 3:17) its life and practice influenced by reductionism. By the nature of its source, reductionism has always functioned against the whole since creation in the primordial garden. The reductionism in culture specifically involved the ontology of the whole person created in the image of the whole of God for the relationships together created in likeness of the relational ontology of the Trinity, thus which are necessary in conjoint function to be whole.

            Along with his identity as the light, Jesus’ full humanity as the Son of man also fully affirms this creation. By the earthly human life of Jesus, human life is sanctified in a qualitative distinct practice which is imperative for all his followers to live and experience to be whole as God’s family (as he prayed, Jn 17:19). Furthermore, their sanctified life and practice is necessary to be able to live whole in the surrounding cultural context for the world to “believe” (trust) and “know” (experience) the whole of God extended to them to be part of, and thus no longer “to be apart” from (as he further prayed, Jn 17:21-23).

            Any reduction in life and practice of the whole person and those persons’ relationships together need to be made whole to fulfill who, what and how they are as God’s creation. Thus, the reduction of what defines human persons (e.g., in a comparative process to stratify human worth or value) needs to be redefined for persons to be made whole. Likewise, the reduction of human relationships from qualitative function and significance (e.g., by diminishing intimate relational involvement or promoting barriers to relational belonging) needs to be transformed for the relationships together necessary to be whole.

            The whole of Jesus, therefore, functioned to engage culture in the surrounding context to: (1) redefine its influence from reductionism, (2) transform its counter-relational work of reductionism, and (3) make whole the human relational condition “to be apart” from God’s whole.  

His Approach:  Three Qualifying Issues

             Jesus’ engagement of culture for his purpose to be and make whole involved a relational process; conjointly, this relational process was specific to the relational context of his identity and ontology in the whole of God. The dynamic involvement of this relational process cannot be categorized by typologies of the relation of Jesus and culture. The classic typology of Niebuhr, for example, is of initial interest, yet this is a static framework insufficient to account for Jesus’ engagement of culture.[1] This includes variations or refinements of his typology.[2] The dynamic relational involvement of Jesus in the surrounding contexts of the world was an ongoing process of engaging culture both to be whole and to make whole.

            I suggest a different framework to account for the variable nature of this process and to understand the whole of Jesus’ various actions engaging culture. This involves three issues which Jesus ongoingly addressed to help us define why and how he engaged culture and aspects of it. Basic to his approach, Jesus involved his whole person in the life and practice of a culture to function to be whole and to make whole; thus the integrating theme “to be whole” defined his actions engaging culture, which were contingent on one or more of three qualifying issues involving a culture’s life and practice:

1. Compatibility, or congruence, “to be whole”—thus, there is no tension or conflict with the life and practice of a culture, and further relational involvement is for deeper development of the whole.
2. Partial overlapping areas “to be whole”—some areas and/or practices in a culture are affirmed as part of God’s general revelation and common grace, and what is basic to humanity as God’s creation; thus this acceptance allows room for flexibility in some differences to cultivate and nurture the whole, though other areas and practices are in tension or conflict “to be whole” and still need to be redefined, transformed and made whole.
3. Incompatibility “to be whole”—thus, there is conflict, not merely tension, with no room for flexibility in differences; the situation/condition is nonnegotiable and needs to be redeemed to be made whole.

            A culture may involve more than one of these qualifying issues, and engaging various aspects of a culture’s life and practice tends to involve an interaction of these qualifying issues. Culture then cannot be responded to in its surrounding context with a predetermined set of behavioral responses—only predisposed with the relational involvement to be whole and to make whole. This is how Jesus engaged culture and why.

       In the process of cultural engagement, Jesus in full identity appears to transcend culture (cf. Niebuhr’s  categories, “Christ against culture”), yet while relationally involved in the surrounding cultural context (cf. “Christ in paradox” or “Christ of culture”) with his minority identity (cf. “Christ above culture”) to make it whole (cf. “Christ the transformer of culture”). The relational interaction of his full identity with his minority identity (signifying his sanctified identity) constitutes the qualitative distinction necessary to be whole in the surrounding cultural context, without which there is no basis to make whole culture’s life and practice.

            The ongoing process of engaging culture both to be whole and to make whole involves this process of relational involvement embodied by Jesus. This was made evident in his various encounters.

His Practice:  Triangulation and Reciprocating Contextualization

             Our first glimpse of Jesus engaging culture in the surrounding context during his public ministry was at a wedding in Cana (Jn 2:2-11, discussed previously in chapter one). Revisiting that situation in terms of culture, Jesus made evident the practice of his whole person (who, what and how he is). This demonstrated how he functioned in the surrounding human contexts and in those public social interactions.

            In this particular human context, Jesus was involved in three interrelated areas: (1) relationship with Mary, (2) the sociocultural context, and (3) relationship with his Father. The consequence of these areas of involvement helps us understand how Jesus engaged culture: first, “to be whole” in the identity of his own culture, then “to make whole” in response to some aspect of the human condition apart from the whole. He quickly established distinction from his cultural identity defined with Mary by simply addressing her as “woman” (gyne, general term for woman with no other significance). This distinction is specific to the relational context which defined his whole person. Thus, Jesus redefined the nature of his involvement with Mary from the human cultural context to the trinitarian relational context of family.

            While Jesus had tension with Mary’s human cultural context of family earlier at age twelve (Lk 2:11-52), he still affirmed its life and practice (v.51) since it was compatible or overlapped with him “to be whole.” As he began his public ministry, however, further qualitative distinction was necessary for the clarity of his identity to be whole in the surrounding context. This distinction fully progressed when Jesus publicly made definitive his family in the trinitarian relational context (Mt 12:46-50)—which no doubt created “culture shock” for both his biological family and the surrounding Jewish context by redefining a basic foundation of their culture based on birth and descent.

            Jesus further clarified the function of his whole person with his question to Mary: “Dear woman, why do you involve me?” which is rendered more clearly “what is that to you and to me?” What defined Jesus was always in tension with efforts in the surrounding context to redefine him by reducing his whole person. Mary merely acted in who and what she is defined by in that context for participation in its extended family-community identity. Jesus’ tension with Mary was not about her cultural practice (room for flexibility) but about her attempt to redefine him in her terms. By adding “My time has not yet come,” Jesus wanted Mary to know that what his priorities were, and what and who defined him, were determined by his Father. In other words, “what is that to me” cannot be defined and determined by “what is that to you.” This is somewhat a functional paradigm by which Jesus engaged culture in the surrounding context.

            This is a necessary function in order to be whole and not to be reduced in identity and ontology by a culture in the surrounding context. Jesus maintained the whole of who, what and how he is by ongoing relational involvement with his Father, with the whole of God. His ongoing relational involvement with his Father served as the reference point for his involvement in sociocultural contexts (like the wedding culture and the necessity of wine, see previous discussion) and with relationships in those contexts (like with Mary). This can be considered the triangulation process (cf. to navigation): Jesus used his reference point in the Father to define and determine his engagement with culture and his involvement in the surrounding contexts of the world, so that he can be whole in order to make whole. Triangulation served to give clarity to his identity as the light of the world and relational significance to “his glory” (as in Jn 2:11) vulnerably disclosed in the world in response to the human condition for the outcome only of relationship together in God’s whole.

            This relational process of triangulated engagement of culture is further evident as Jesus was involved with a pluralized identity of Judaism in Jerusalem. When Jesus addressed the identity of his followers in the Sermon on the Mount (discussed earlier in chapter four), he made it imperative that who, what and how they are needs to function beyond the reductionists and their practice of reductionism (Mt 5:20). Those particular reductionists were various teachers of the law (scribes) and Pharisees, not all of them nor the sum of Judaism. Thus, as the above three qualifying issues involving Judaism’s complex life and practice emerged and interacted, Jesus accordingly engaged their “pluralistic” culture in Jerusalem. Yet, tension and conflict with reductionism was notable, which will always happen in the presence and function of the whole. And Jesus’ function in sanctified identity demonstrated this life and practice as he engaged those reductionists in the culture of their surrounding context.

            The Judaism Jesus would engage lacked a united identity. Some focused mainly on a religious identity, others more so on an ethnic identity, neither being mutually exclusive and both interrelated with social and economic factors. While Israel’s national identity was underlying (even a source of national pride), this tended to fragment or pluralize identity in Judaism (e.g., Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots).[3] Thus, life and practices in the cultural context of Judaism lacked wholeness—namely specific to its historic roots in the whole of the covenant. Rather than a monolithic Judaism, its variable condition was the shape of the context Jesus engaged with the whole of his person, in which he vulnerably involved the whole of God to make it whole.

            Jewish culture obviously was not foreign to Jesus, yet his engagement of Judaism’s life and practices was a unique intersection as if it were. Thus, the three qualifying issues are the suggested basis for Jesus’ various actions as he engaged Judaism in Jerusalem. John’s Gospel provides most of the narratives of these encounters in Jesus’ later Judean ministry, which seems to suggest their importance in the big picture of the whole of God’s thematic action both in covenant fulfillment to Israel and in relational response to the human condition to make them whole.

            Jesus was in congruence with covenant life and practice in Judaism which notably observed the major pilgrimages to the Jerusalem temple. That is, congruent with covenant relationship and its compatible relational function to come before the Lord—not as obligatory religious code but in response to covenant relationship together, namely in the covenant of love. This was its culture’s life and practice “to be whole,” which Jesus both affirmed and participated in, as we find him going to Jerusalem to observe Passover (and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, revisiting our earlier discussion of Jn 2:12-25). The practice he saw at the temple was not an isolated incident, yet needs to be seen in its full context.

            The current system of sacrifice had become an economic enterprise reflecting the prevailing priestly leadership, though not the sum of Judaism—and should not be used to stereotype Judaism and discriminate against it. On the one hand, Jesus’ involvement in the temple signified the compatible nature of Judaism’s covenant practice. What emerged at the temple, however, was incompatible practice with religious, social and economic repercussions: access to God was restricted, a social system of stratification created inequitable participation, those with less economic resources were marginalized, and even denied access. This was incompatible with the whole, thus in conflict with Jesus, and had to be responded to with no room for flexibility or negotiation; it was a condition not only apart from God’s whole but countering “to be whole,” which had to be redeemed.

            Thus, on the other hand, Jesus’ action in the temple constituted his involvement necessary to redeem it (Jn 2:14-17) to make the house of God’s dwelling whole for covenant relationship together for all persons without false distinctions (par. Mk 11:17). At the same time, he remained in ongoing tension with certain segments of Judaism (the reductionists) who challenged the source of his identity, thus the validity of his action (Jn 2:18). Their demand, I suggest, had some merit given the radical extent of Jesus’ action; yet, the main issue focused only on what was perceived to be counter-cultural—even that apparent contradiction with orthodoxy noted earlier. Moreover, his further engagement in this context, and relational involvement to make whole, was also in tension with those receptive to him because of their reductionism; thus, Jesus did not allow his person to be defined and determined by them (Jn 2:23-25).

            This temple encounter demonstrated Jesus’ engagement of the cultural context of Judaism with various actions based on one or more particular qualifying issues, and how these issues interact to preclude a predetermined set of behavioral responses—only to constitute predisposed relational involvement to be whole and to make whole. This provides us with a working understanding of Jesus’ relation to culture, and further helps us grasp the significance of his subsequent engagement with Judaism.

            In the next encounter sometime later, Jesus returned to Jerusalem for another feast of the Jews (unspecified, possibly Feast of Tabernacles, Jn 5:1-47). Once again, his involvement reflected the compatible covenant practice of Judaism. Yet, they needed to understand further and grasp more deeply that covenant practice is not an end in itself but only for covenant relationship together to be whole. As an assumption in any engagement of a culture, Jesus engaged their culture with his own culture, that is, with his sanctified identity (the conjoint function of his full and minority identity). Consequently, his practice to make whole by healing (hygies, vv.6-9) appeared to contradict orthodox life and practice in Judaism, and this became a major controversy among certain Jews since he practiced wholeness on the Sabbath (vv.10-16).

            For the reductionists, it was clearly simple: Jesus broke the law basic to the cultural life and practice of Judaism. In a sense of the letter of the law, they had a valid point to raise but insufficient basis for their position. God’s law was the terms for covenant relationship together to be whole and should not be reduced to a code for national identity, self-determination or justification. Yet, in terms of Jesus’ engagement of their cultural life and practice, unlike the temple cleansing earlier, there was partial overlap present “to be whole” allowing room for flexibility to at least discuss the significance of the Sabbath to be whole (see his polemic about the same issue, Jn 7:23). For the current situation, Jesus vulnerably responded to their attacks by making definitive his own culture and sanctified identity: to make whole is his Father’s thematic action and his also (Jn 5:17); he disclosed the source of his identity and ontology (5:19-23) and the significance of his salvific work (5:24-30); and he clearly delineated the alternatives for their life and practice to the choice between the whole of God or reductionism (5:31-47, note again v.39 discussed in the last chapter). Any variation of the whole, even well-intentioned or inadvertently, is a form of reductionism. With that being said, he gave them the responsibility to decide.

            After ministry in Galilee purposely to create space from the reductionists in Judea, Jesus returned to Jerusalem for the specific Jewish Feast of Tabernacles (associated with the period in the wilderness living in tents, Jn 7:1-38). His return, however, was not determined by his biological brothers’ misguided challenge; his involvement in the surrounding context was always defined and determined by the triangulation process with his Father (7:2-9). Partial overlap continued to allow room for flexibility to extend his dialogue with Judaism, even as the tension grows in this cultural context. Yet, his purpose and function to make whole appears more directed and urgent. As his Father determined for him, his involvement in this compatible covenant practice did not emerge until mid-week of the week-long Feast (7:10,14). While this has the appearance of caution, triangulation suggests guidance only by his Father’s purpose (“who sent me,” 7:16,28-29) to make whole. This involved God’s communicative action, which also necessitated intensifying his engagement with this context of partially overlapping Judaic life and practices—namely with the aspects of life and practice needing to be made whole.

            This engagement of Judaism’s “pluralized” culture (i.e. among themselves) involved God’s communicative action in Jesus’ teaching. Yet, Jesus taught not for the issue of orthodoxy but for the relationship to be whole (7:15-19). He clarified the Torah as only God’s terms for covenant relationship together to be God’s whole (7:21-23) and made definitive his basis to disclose this relationship together necessary to be whole (7:27-29). And this dialogue in Jesus’ engagement of Judaism further precipitated  the growing tension between reductionism and God’s whole: “How…such learning without having studied” (v.15); “you are demon-possessed” (v.20); “we know where this man is from, when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from” (v.27)—all of which are juxtaposed to Jesus’ imperative “Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment” (v.24, cf. Jn 8:15).

            As this dialogue continued and the tension escalated, Jesus impressed on them the urgency of their choice between reductionism and the whole of God (7:30-38). On the last day of the Feast, Jesus deepened his involvement to vulnerably make his person accessible directly to them for the intimate relationship to be whole (7:37-38)—pointing to the fulfillment of God’s covenant promise for relationship together and the living water associated with this Feast to end the wandering in the wilderness of reductionism (Zech 14:8,16-21). In God’s communicative action, the whole of God was vulnerably present and intimately involved.

            Jesus engaged culture in his identity and function to be whole, and thus in his purpose to make whole. By the nature of his function and purpose, notably as the light, it was inevitable that the heightened tension with reductionism would result in conflict with the dogmatic reductionists. This was the fluid condition of Jesus’ engagement with Judaism, which nevertheless neither defined nor determined who, what and how he was in this cultural context. His further engagement with Judaism even intensified his identity and function as the light of the world.

            When Jesus engaged them again at another time, there was still room for dialogue in this fluid condition of Judaism’s partial overlap toward the whole (Jn 8:12-59). In his involvement Jesus openly shared in dialogue: his identity and function as the light (8:12), thus engaging this context in his sanctified identity—which certain Pharisees challenged him about his life and practice (8:13); this then necessitated identifying the source of his life and practice (8:14-18)—thus they challenged the source of his cultural identity and ontology (8:19a,25a); to which his identity and ontology were vulnerably disclosed (8:19b,23,25b-26) and the purpose of his life and practice (in word and deed) made clearly evident (8:27-29). This room for flexibility by Jesus to dialogue nurtured some in that context for the relational outcome to be whole (8:30). To them, and any receptive reductionists, he made definitive the need to be redeemed to be made whole (8:31-32). This further precipitated the relational consequence of the clear distinction and dynamic between the two alternatives: the whole intrinsic to God or the reductionism inherent of Satan, and thus their incompatibility and conflict (8:33-59); and any variation from the whole always signified a form of reductionism.

            Even under difficult conditions, the light continued to engage the cultural context of Judaism to be whole and to make whole (see Jn 9:1-7,35-39; 10:22-39) for covenant relationship together in the whole of God’s family (fulfilling the covenant of love, Dt 7:9)—engagement even to the dismay and misperception of his disciples (Jn 11:7-16). This relational outcome, or even relational consequence, is the effect on reductionism in a culture’s life and practice which the identity and function as the light of the world has. Whatever the qualifying issues may be about a culture, this is ongoingly the light’s identity to be whole and its function to make whole; and the identity of the light has clarity only as a function of sanctified identity triangulating with his Father to determine his involvement—nothing less and no substitutes, just as his Father sent him into the world.

           This is the bigger picture into which John’s Gospel contextualizes the narratives of Jesus’ relational involvement with the life and practice of culture as the embodied whole of the Word of God’s communicative action. As the embodied Word, Jesus engaged culture not merely by contextualizing his involvement in a culture’s life and practice, but more importantly he contextualized a culture in his relational context of the Trinity and in his context’s relational process of intimate relationship together in family love—the relational significance of his culture. This is what I call the process of reciprocating contextualization, which needs to inform the current missiological practice of contextualization.

            It is vital to understand the dynamic of reciprocating contextualization, and to grasp this as a relational process in necessary conjoint function with triangulation. This integrated relational process is necessary for the qualitative distinction in the surrounding common’s context in order not to be defined or determined by the common’s function. In addition, this relational process converges with the three qualifying issues for the functional involvement necessary both to be whole and to make whole in a culture’s life and practice.

            Therefore, Jesus’ engagement of culture in the surrounding context was always in congruence with, and thus the definitive extension of, the whole of God’s thematic relational response to the human condition to make whole his creation. This is the irreducible and nonnegotiable function of the whole of God’s relational work of grace only for new covenant relationship together in love.

 

Jesus and Ethics
Both in the Kingdom & the Surrounding Context

            Sociology correctly helps each of us understand that we are all part of a larger context and a life and practice greater than our individual self. This rightly points to the relational design of humanity and the need for certain character qualities and conduct to optimize function of human persons together. Contextualization, however, cannot stop in sociology, as tends to happen in various biblical studies (e.g., new Paul perspectives) and missions. While this provides useful descriptive information of collective behavior, this is insufficient to understand the significance of humanity’s relational design, and thus inadequate to explain what is necessary for relationships together to be optimal. We need a theological anthropology to take us deeper. Theology in general, and Christology in particular, makes definitive the specific relational design, purpose and function of the human person in relationships together. This relational understanding was vulnerably disclosed by the whole of Jesus’ sanctified life and practice, which was the embodied function of his sanctified identity. When we become relationally connected and involved with the whole of Jesus, he involves us conjointly in an even greater context than the human social context. This is his relational context and process of the whole of God.

            The dynamic of reciprocating contextualization is critical for our understanding of life and practice in the surrounding contexts, whether for Jesus’ life and practice or ours. With reciprocating contextualization Jesus connects us to an even greater context and an even deeper process of life and practice beyond the limits of sociology, that is, to the theological anthropology which coheres with the embodied light. As the light, Jesus functioned to embody the relational design and purpose of the human person created in the image of (and his relational context in) the whole of God, and he embodied the function of the relational ontology of human persons together created in likeness of (and his relational process with) the Trinity. This involves going further than moral ideals, values and virtues, and deeper than ethical character and conduct, to engage human persons together not only for optimal function but for the ongoing relationships in everyday life and practice necessary together to be whole, God’s whole.

            Jesus’ involvement in the surrounding context cannot be separated from his identity as the light, which is the zoe of the whole of Jesus, the Word (Jn 1:4). His involvement cannot be reduced to quantitative aspects of bios, and thus merely to certain character qualities and conduct. By the nature of zoe, his involvement was constituted by the function of his sanctified identity in the relational process of triangulation with his Father. This ongoing life and practice in qualitative distinction was neither a static framework for engagement nor a program of ethical involvement. This was a process of the vulnerable presence and relational involvement of the zoe of the embodied whole of the Word as communicative action of the whole of God. Thus, involvement in his relational context necessitates more than character, and function in his relational process necessitates more than conduct—that is, as character and conduct are commonly perceived in ethical studies.

The Nature of Jesus’ Ethics

            Ethics in general involves a moral philosophy of how persons should live in a certain context and/or in the presence of others, thus establishing a system or code of moral values, standards and principles for character and conduct. This tends not to be directly associated with identity, yet in function ethical practice (or its absence) does indeed relatively define who, what and how persons are. Christian (biblical) ethics should signify Christian identity and, moreover, needs to be constituted by the identity which is both relationally compatible and congruent with the whole of Jesus.

            Jesus’ sanctified life and practice in his kingdom and the surrounding context, and in relation to persons in those contexts, went beyond a system of ethics and a predetermined code of conduct. This is not to say that situations determined his ethical practice (as in situation ethics, situationalism), nor to only emphasize principles (as in principalism). Ethics, in specific practice, require a forensic framework which is applicable for all situations and circumstances, or else ethics become merely situational. The three qualifying issues involved in his engagement of a culture continue to inform us of his ethical practice. His sanctified life and practice, in both his kingdom-family and the surrounding context, was a predisposed relational involvement of his whole person guided by triangulation with the Trinity to fulfill his purpose and function in the relationships to be whole and necessary to make whole. This is the integrating theme of Christian ethics, to which practice coheres. This relational context and process are only on God’s terms, which defined and determined Jesus’ identity and function—thus foremost defining and determining his ethical practice.

            Jesus was sent into the world by his Father in congruence with God’s terms for the relational context and process to be whole and to make whole. This purpose of living and making whole in the new covenant relationship together as God’s family is the end (telos in Greek) of this relational process—the teleological focus guiding all life and practice in his kingdom-family and the surrounding context. Yet, this telos does not justify the use of any means to this end or disregard the nature of all means used, even if compatible with existing ethical practice. Any means from reductionism is incompatible to be whole or to make whole. This telos by its nature necessitates congruence of its means, thus the telos to be God’s whole also constitutes what means are compatible for this end.

            The focus of means to balance a teleological focus in ethical studies is defined as the obligatory (deon in Greek) means necessary to an end, or refraining from the wrong means—known as a deontological focus.[4] Yet, the issue for ethics in terms of character and conduct is when ethical practice becomes the primary focus. That is, as ethical means become separated or blurred from their particular end, ethical practice is problematic in clearly understanding its significance to that end, tending to become an end in itself, at least in function if not also in purpose. This also reduces the significance of such character and conduct, whose attribute and right behavior tend to become the end revolved around subtly for oneself.

            Deontological ethics (based on the obligation and duty to do what is right) is synonymous with the biblical term opheilo: morally obligated to (e.g., do something) or by virtue of personal obligation. Opheilo in the practice of God’s law easily becomes the fulfillment of covenant obligation rather than the response to God on God’s terms for covenant relationship together. In contrast to opheilo, Jesus consistently made a matter definitive and/or imperative (as discussed throughout this study) with the term dei: must, necessary by the nature of things. Yet, for Jesus, a matter was necessary not by the nature of some principle, value or virtue; that would be reductionism, notably of the whole of God. For Jesus, dei involved only by the nature of who and what he is in relationship together with the whole of God (e.g., Mk 8:31), thus defining and determining the nature of how he functioned (e.g., Lk 19:5).

            In relational compatibility with Jesus, Christian (biblical) ethics implies a transition from opheilo to dei, the nature of which necessarily involves a transformation to dei by redemptive change from reductionism to be made whole with Jesus in new covenant relationship together. In relational congruence with Jesus, this process of forming Christian ethics is following Jesus in the relational progression to the Father (1) which defines and determines who and what we are in relationship together with the whole of God, and (2) which thus defines and determines the new nature of how we function. Being relationally compatible and congruent with Jesus will then by its nature reconstitute deontological emphasis and refine teleological significance. While Christian ethics may still be considered a teleological type, it is foremost functionally significant as the relational process to wholeness on God’s terms. Therefore, the practice of Christian ethics can be summed up as: the process of living in relationships to be whole only on God’s terms. 

Definitive Terms for Identity & Function: the Sermon on the Mount

            How Jesus lived and practiced emerged ongoingly from the who and what of his identity and function to be whole and to make whole—only on God’s terms defining  and determining identity, function and practice. The forensic framework—required for ethics to go beyond being merely situational—emerges from God’s terms, which Christian ethics must have as its basis to constitute the integrity and significance necessary to be compelling in all human life and practice. This is the sum of Christian ethics Jesus embodied, and the definitive terms of his embodied ethics he vulnerably disclosed as the communicative action of the whole and holy God and God’s thematic relational work of grace. These terms, only for relationship together to be whole, constitute the specific relational involvement necessary in his kingdom-family to be whole and in the surrounding context to make whole. To grasp the terms for ongoing relational life and practice Jesus disclosed by communicative action, we have to correctly understand both his words and his actions, that is, his whole person in his relational context and process.

            As Jesus declared in the Sermon on the Mount (discussed initially in chapter four), his coming adhered to and cohered with the collective word of God in the OT, not to abolish but to fulfill (Mt 5:17-20). The Sermon on the Mount is framed in the larger context of the OT and thus in the full context of God’s thematic action. What his embodiment adhered to and cohered with, however, was not a mere list of demands of the law, nor a system of ethics and moral obligations (opheilo). The law is God’s desires and terms for covenant relationship together. In his relational context and process, Jesus paid attention not merely to the oral and written word of God but to those words from God—that is, the communication from God. Unlike much of human communication, God’s communicative action is not merely informative for a cognitive purpose, nor was it to announce terms for ethics. God’s communication has distinct authorial intention (as communicator/author) to which Jesus’ embodiment adhered and cohered: God’s thematic relational action in response to the human condition for the purpose only to be whole in relationship together. His incarnation was indeed Emmanuel, God vulnerably present and intimately involved with us for relationship together.

            By the nature necessary (dei, not opheilo) of his identity, all of Jesus’ words and action cohered with God’s thematic relational action. Thus, Jesus’ teachings (didache) need to be understood in coherence with the whole of God’s communicative and thematic action, and the terms he disclosed should not be separated from this action. Conjointly, Jesus’ life and practice (including, yet beyond, character and conduct) was both in relational congruence with God’s action in the trinitarian relational context, as well as ongoingly relationally compatible fully to the dynamic grace and love of God’s action by the trinitarian relational process. This relational involvement goes further than character and conduct, and deeper than doing the right ethic or fulfilling moral obligation. Without this relational congruence and relational compatibility, there is no functional coherence with God’s thematic action, and thus with God’s terms for conjoint function to be whole in new covenant relationship together in his kingdom-family and to make whole in relationships together necessary in the surrounding context. And the only alternative to the function of God’s whole is anything less or any substitute of the whole from reductionism, which the study of Christian ethics urgently needs to examine.

            As we focus on the definitive terms for Christian ethics Jesus disclosed, we need to pay attention to the whole of his relational context and process—namely, that Jesus’ teaching was communicative action, and that he used relational language to disclose (not merely apokalypto but phaneroo, signifying relational context and process) God’s desires and terms for the function of relationships together to be whole. To grasp his relational language is to receive the whole of Jesus, which necessitates relational involvement and further engaging him in the relational process of discipleship.

            As we began our discussion in chapter four, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) was Jesus’ summary discourse of what we are and who we become, and thus how we live and function—whether in his kingdom-family or the surrounding context—because of whose we are. This directly addressed the issue of human ontology and the determination of the person and wholeness in human practice. The issue here, as is consistently evident throughout the narratives of Jesus, was the tension/conflict between God’s whole and reductionism. Jesus’ conflict with a segment of Judaism was with the reductionist who defined and determined life and practice based on the ontology of the person from the outside in, not from the inside out. Thus, Jesus made imperative for his followers that their righteousness—the integrity and quality of functional involvement which others can expect in relationships—must by the nature of their identity go beyond reductionism (Mt 5:20). That is, this goes beyond merely displaying character traits and practicing the right ethic to the authentic righteousness which functions in likeness to what, who and how God is in relationship.

            Righteousness is the process (not attribute) that makes functional our identity as Jesus’ followers and whose we are; and identity formation (as he defined in the beatitudes) is integrated with the process to be righteous (the growth characteristic of the fourth beatitude, 5:6), the extent and depth of which is constituted by the righteous God in relationship together. Identity and righteousness are conjoined to present whole persons in congruence with who, what and how they truly are, namely those constituted with Jesus in his trinitarian relational context and process. Righteousness is necessary so that his followers, by the nature of their identity, can be counted on to be those authentic persons in relationships—both in his kingdom-family and in the surrounding context, nothing less and no substitutes. His summary discourse makes deeply evident this qualitative relational process signifying God’s whole and God’s irreducible and nonnegotiable terms for them to function in relationship together to be whole and to make whole.

            The definitive terms Jesus disclosed for the integrity and quality of their functional involvement in relationships (“righteousness” ethics if you wish) are also a necessary function of his followers’ identity based on the ontology of the person from the inside out. This ontology of the person underlies his summary discourse and points to the integrating theme of God’s terms: the function of whole persons (constituted by the involvement of the heart, yet not in dualism) in relationships together (signified by the primacy of intimate involvement) necessary to be whole and to make whole, the function of whom are defined and determined only by the whole of God.

            The ontology of the person is a key variable in understanding God’s terms disclosed in this discourse. The lens through which we perceive the person, thus define human identity and determine human function, is ongoingly challenged or influenced by reductionism. This then urgently addresses our perceptual-interpretive framework and holds us accountable for two basic issues: one, how we define our person, and as a result, two, how we do relationships. God’s terms will have either more significance or less depending on our assumptions. Revisit the first part of this discourse as necessary.

            As we discussed in chapter four, Jesus clearly defined the process of identity formation for his followers (Mt 5:3-12) and the identity issues of clarity and depth necessary to have qualitative distinction from the common’s function of reductionism, and to distinguish who, what and how we are with others in the surrounding context (5:13-16). This necessitates by its nature (dei, not opheilo) the ontology of the whole person created in the image of God and those persons in relationship together created to be whole in likeness of the relational ontology of the Trinity; moreover, this is the theological anthropology which coheres with the light. This constitutes the relational compatibility and congruence necessary to function as whose we are. Thus, the remaining sections of Jesus’ summary teachings (a primer for discipleship) for all his followers (5:21-7:27) make evident the function of this new identity conjoined with relational righteousness and the ontology of the whole.

            Two common issues about the Sermon on the Mount need brief attention. If God’s terms for the whole of relationship together were disclosed by Jesus essentially for the future life in his kingdom, then present life and practice is negotiable or reducible to our terms. On the other hand, if God’s terms are only high ideals incapable for realistic life and practice, then these terms need to be negotiated or reduced to terms shaped by our prevailing function. Neither future-life interpretation allowing us to ignore his discourse nor high-ideals perception causing us to evade the Sermon on the Mount are correct or an acceptable perceptual-interpretive framework for Jesus’ summary teaching. When the Father made it imperative to “Listen to my Son,” he wants us to pay attention to every word for the whole of relationship together made clearly evident, vulnerably accessible and intimately experienced with the embodied whole of the Word. His terms for necessary (dei) life and practice in the present, therefore, are nonnegotiable and irreducible, and they are to be understood in the incarnation principle of embodiment of the whole: nothing less and no substitutes.

            Moreover, along with his relational context and process, Jesus’ summary teachings need to be framed throughout his discourse in the three major interrelated issues for all practice (introduced from the beginning of this study):

1. the significance of the person presented to others,  including
2. the integrity and quality of this person’s communication and
3. the depth level of relationship this person engages with others.

As Jesus seeks to constitute his followers in relationships beyond reductionism to the whole of God, his terms need to be understood as directly involving these interrelated issues—which directly also involves the above two basic issues of how we define ourselves and do relationships, and thus, of course, implies how we practice church.

            In addition, Jesus’ summary teachings further cohere throughout with the progression and interaction of three critical concerns: (1) self-autonomy, (2) self-determination, and (3) self-justification. It may seem incorrect to say Jesus was addressing something self-oriented in a non-individualistic setting. Yet, in this collective-oriented sociocultural context, self-autonomy was not the modern self-autonomy of individualism in the West but rather the self-autonomy of persons (individually or collectively) who determined function in relationships together “to be apart” from the whole—for example, by the absence of significant involvement while in relationship together, or by merely keeping relational distance in those contexts (cf. Martha and Mary). This pervasively happens in a collective context as well (even in churches in the East and global South), though due to ontological simulation and epistemological illusion it is less obvious than in the individualism of the modern West. The subtlety of self-autonomy (as an individual or a collective) involves the work of reductionism, which signifies its influence. Jesus disclosed the terms to be whole, and thus ongoingly confronted human life and practice reducing the whole in each of these terms. In the process, he broadens and deepens our understanding of sin, and its functional implications and relational repercussions. Therefore, these three concerns evidence the general applicable character of the Sermon on the Mount and the need in particular for all his followers to respond in the present to his summary teaching. 

Matthew 5:21-48

            In this section, Jesus began to define specific terms for the function of the new identity formed by the interdependent process of the beatitudes—the new identity redefining the person and transforming persons to be whole. Since he already disclosed his complete (pleroo) compatibility with the Torah (5:17-18), his focus remained on the law of the covenant with the issue being: either essentially reducing (lyo) these commandments (entole) or acting on (poieo) them (5:19). This issue precipitated Jesus’ definitive statement to his followers about the nature of their new identity (righteousness, what and who they are) determining how they function, thus acting on the relational righteousness necessary to go beyond the reductionists (5:20). This involved the interrelated issues outlined above.

            The commandments (entole) Jesus focused on was not a specific list of demands, code of behavior, system of obligations or rules of ethics—all denoted by the term entalma, a synonym for commandment. While entalma points directly to its content and stresses what to do, entole stresses the authority of what is commanded, that is, its qualitative relational significance. In other words, with entole Jesus focused on the law beyond merely as the charter for the covenant, but he went further to the whole of God’s desires for covenant relationship together in love (cf. Ex 20:6, Dt 7:9) and deeper to God’s necessary terms for relationship together to be whole in likeness of the Trinity (signified by his emphasis on the Father). Jesus’ teaching engaged this communicative action.

            This is not to say that Jesus did away with the entalma of the law. Jewish ceremonial law, for example, served to maintain purity, and thus to have clear distinction as God’s people. Sanctified life and practice serves this same purpose to have qualitative distinction from the common’s function and to be defined only by God as God’s—that is, who they are and whose they are. Yet, Jewish practice (post-exilic Judaism in particular) of the law often fell into ethnocentricism and national protectionism—maintaining the law was a symbol of this—thus essentially reducing God’s terms for covenant relationship and making their collective self-determination an end in itself—that is, merely for themselves rather than as “the light to the nations” for the whole of God and the relationships necessary to be whole. This is how the practice of the law deteriorates when seen only as entalma.

            When entalma is the dominant focus, the qualitative relational significance of the law is diminished by this misguided priority, creating an imbalanced emphasis on what to do. Consequently, the law’s purpose for relationship together is made secondary, ignored or even forgotten—pointing to concerns about self-autonomy, self-determination and self-justification. When the law is reduced, the primacy of this relationship is lost and thus also its priority. The practice of the law then becomes a code of behavior to adhere to, not about the terms for involvement in the covenant relationship together God desires. Moreover, this signifies that the person presented has been redefined by an outer-in human ontology focused on what one does; and this reduction of the person raises the issue of the quality of one’s communication, while at the same time reducing the level of relationship that person engaged, if at all.

            Such reductions have relational consequences both with God and with others, the counter-relational implications of which Jesus contrasted with God’s terms to be whole and to make whole in new covenant relationship together. This is the ongoing tension/conflict between reductionism (and its counter-relational work) and God’s whole (and the relationships necessary to be whole) that Jesus addressed in his summary teaching by juxtaposing the following six examples of the law (or its tradition) with God’s desires. These six examples should not be seen separate from each other but seen together.

            When Jesus juxtaposed God’s desires by declaring “But I tell you” (5:22,28,32,34,39,44), he made evident the substantive meaning of the law and the prophets. The focus of entalma on the letter of the law was a prevailing norm in his day. That practice, however, operated essentially as a system of constraints to prevent negative acts, without any responsibility for further action: “Do not murder” (v.21), “Do not commit adultery” (v.27). Based on the ontology of the person from the outside in, which is defined primarily by what one does, this kind of system invariably focused on outward behavior as the main indicator of adherence to the law. No physical murder and adultery meant fulfilling those demands of the law, without consideration of the significance of that behavior. This opened the way for God’s law to be reduced and its function to be shaped by self-autonomy, self-determination or even self-justification. To formulate practice based only on the letter of the law is to reduce the integrity of human ontology in the divine image and to redefine the significance of human identity based on merely the quantitative aspects of what we do. Furthermore, this self-definition also determined how others are perceived and how relationships are done.

            For Jesus, this was an inadequate human ontology and an insufficient response to God’s intent for the law. More specifically, it was contrary to both. In contrast, he disclosed the spirit of the law for which to be responsible, thus deepening the involvement necessary on God’s terms. This must by its nature (dei, not opheilo) involve the conjoint function of both: (1) the ontology of the whole person from inner out, thus the words (vv.22,37), thoughts and feelings (v.28) as well as the overt behavior constitute actions; and (2) based on this ontology of the whole, other persons also need to be defined and thus engaged for the relationships together to make and to be whole (vv.23-25,32,34-36,39-42,44-48). By embodying involvement in the spirit of the law, Jesus essentially restores the person and their relationships to their created ontology of God’s whole. Conjointly, the spirit of the law restores the primacy of covenant relationship together and makes definitive its priority in life and practice.

            The law signifies God’s desires and terms for covenant relationship together. This is neither about merely avoiding the wrong behavior nor about a code of merely the right thing to do, neither about not making mistakes nor about trying to be right—that is, about mere ethics. This action becomes legalistic and its preoccupation is legalism. Rather these are terms for relationship together and how to be involved, thus the positive action to live whole necessary to make relationships whole. Yet, even the specific prescriptions Jesus presented to these six examples should not be taken as an end-practice for ethics; they are only provisional steps in the relational process to wholeness. For example, merely clearing up something someone has against you is not the sum of reconciliation—nor all that peace involves—yet is a provisional step to that end to be whole. When Christian ethics stops at provisional steps, its practice will not function to be whole and make whole but only as a reductionist substitute.

            Jesus clearly countered the underlying concern of the reductionists about doing the “right” thing by the letter, which did not serve to lead them to this positive action. While refraining from negative behavior certainly has some value, the absence of positive action is of greater importance to God—evidencing the deeper significance of God’s design and purpose for those relational terms involving murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, an eye for an eye, and love for enemies. As the counterpart to legalism, even moralism is not the righteousness God expects and Jesus constitutes in his followers. Moralists and legalists are misguided in thinking that such conformity is congruent with, and even compatible to, God’s desires and who, what and how God is. Conversely, we should not be thinking in the limits of mere conformity to God’s terms, which would tend to become merely about doing the right thing.

            On the other hand, since the law signifies God’s terms for relationship together, this certainly makes the practice of God’s law the function only of our whole person, thus making practice vulnerable (vv.44,46-47), threatening (vv.39-42), if not even demanding (vv.29-30) for us. Yet, the further responsibility of God’s desires in the spirit of the law is not given to burden or constrain human persons. It was disclosed only for relationships together to be whole; and the various terms of this deeper responsibility signify positive relational opportunities to grow in the new identity of our whole person to make relationships together whole. The interrelated focus and conjoint function between the whole person and relationships together always emerges in the whole of Jesus’ words and action because they embody the essential relational ontology of who, what and how the triune God is. In his summary teaching, Jesus is giving us understanding of the heart of God’s desires for human persons and the integrating purpose for God’s terms vital for his followers together. As we reflect on these six examples together juxtaposed in this section, they clearly disclose the loving purpose God has: to relationally belong in the relationships together as the whole of God’s family.

            Without the spirit of the law, we have no grasp of God’s law and God’s thematic intent for the law in response to the human condition “to be apart” from God’s whole. Without the spirit of the law, Christian ethics has no basis to constitute the integrity and significance necessary to be compelling for even Christian life and practice, much less for all human life and practice. In his summary teaching, Jesus conjoins the spirit of the law to the law to qualify the application of the letter of the law. Yet, Jesus disclosed that this forensic interpretive framework is constituted further in the qualitative relational context, and deeper by the intimate relational process of the whole of God. This signifies the relational language by which his teaching needs to be received in order to be understood, and constitutes how it must by its nature (dei) be responded to in order to be experienced.

            The relational dynamic underlying the spirit of the law goes beyond merely a greater flexibility (than legalism) and application (than moralism) of God’s law. Its whole function is to lead persons into involvement in their relationships with others—namely, to care for and to love persons not merely in their situations and circumstances but foremost in relationship together. Jesus is taking us to a further and deeper level of relationships, beyond our prevailing ways of doing relationships. With the spirit of the law he made evident: (1) what it means to love, (2) the intimate relational process of love, and (3) the integrity and dignity of the persons involved in this process. This necessitates the inner-out human ontology signified conjointly by the importance of the heart and the primacy of relationships in which hearts open and engage others for relationship together. This practice is qualitatively different than the letter of the law; the spirit of the law defines and determines the relational involvement necessary to be whole in the whole of God, with the whole of God and for the whole of God.

            The function of this human ontology and its qualitative relational process, however, are ongoingly challenged by reductionism and its counter-relational work. Each of the six examples represents a situation or circumstance which can: either redefine our person and let that determine how we function in that relationship; or, instead, be an opportunity to grow in being our whole person and to function in that relationship to live whole and make whole. The former alternative involves a contrary dynamic. For these situations and circumstances to redefine who and what we are, and to determine how we function, implies that we react to other persons in these contexts essentially out of a concern for self-autonomy. We are reduced to merely reactors by pursuits in self-autonomy, thus ironically indicating an absence of freedom, rather than being free to function as respondors by the relational involvement of love for the sake of God’s whole.

            This self-autonomy emerges in the priority or dominance given progressively to: (1) self-interests, for example, signified in acting on anger or sexual desires (involving issues of how the person is defined and relationships are done); (2) self-concerns, for example, signified by unwarranted divorce (overlapping in self-interest), or depending on oaths for validation (involving issues of the significance of the person presented, integrity of one’s communication and level of relationship engaged); and (3) self-centeredness, for example, signified by seeking restitution/revenge (overlapping with self-concern), or keeping relational distance with those who contest you, are different or are simply not in your social network (involving issues of how the person is defined and level of relationship engaged). The concern for self-autonomy overlaps into self-determination and interacts with the major and basic issues outlined above.

            Each of these six expressions of self-autonomy can find some justification, yet at the expense of reducing human ontology and reinforcing reductionism’s counter-relational work “to be apart” from the whole of relationships together. The persons involved are reduced to less than whole persons, and relationships become self-oriented instead of relationships together—even in a collective context. This is the contrary dynamic Jesus confronted by juxtaposing the qualitative relational significance of the whole of God’s terms necessary for relationships together to be whole, and to be made whole as needed. In the process, he deepens our understanding of sin by introducing us to the functional workings of the sin of reductionism. His summary teaching exposes the sin of countering (knowingly or inadvertently) God’s desires, as well as God’s created relational design and purpose, by reducing one’s own person and then reducing other persons to reinforce the human condition “to be apart.”

            The terms Jesus made definitive in this discipleship primer restores this fragmentation, and thus functions for his followers as the definitive call to be whole. Even his apparent severe injunction in 5:29-30 serves this purpose. This is not a mere injunction to prevent sexual sin, thus not about self-mutilation—which in effect would be reductionism. (Remember, Jesus used relational language in his teaching.) This action was about decisively not letting one part of our body or human make-up (viz. “eliminating” its use to) redefine and determine our whole person (cf. 1 Sam 11:2, dishonor persons), and likewise not looking at other persons in only certain parts of their body or make-up as a consequence of fragmenting their person. His strong prescription paradoxically is about restoring such fragmentation to be whole and to engage others to live whole—involving the issue of the depth level of relationship engaged based on the issue of how the person is defined.

            The only alternative to function in anything less or any substitute of our whole person is to function in nothing less and no substitute of who, what and how we are in our new identity formed through the beatitudes in relational involvement with Jesus as his followers together. Following Jesus in his relational context and process involves us in the relational progression to his Father for relationship together in the whole of God’s family, thus constituting us as his very own daughters and sons by the redemptive process of adoption (as discussed previously). The function of this relationship together in this new identity (sanctified identity) is only on the whole of God’s terms Jesus made definitive in his summary teaching. Therefore, these terms for function are irreducible to any alternative or substitute—notably to human ontology and relationships together—and are nonnegotiable for all self-autonomy, self-determination and self-justification.

            To provide clarity and depth of function for this new identity on God’s terms, Jesus concluded this section with the functional key ( the first of three for the entire discourse) to which the six examples converge and sanctified identity’s life and practice coheres.

First Functional Key: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48).

Jesus directed this to those who have been adopted by his Father into God’s family. Moments earlier he said essentially “Love others (even those against you) to be the whole of your identity, that you may begin to function (ginomai, begin to be) as the sons and daughters of your Father in heaven” (5:44-45a). It was a recognized responsibility in the ancient Mediterranean world for adopted children to represent their new Father and to extend his name. Jesus defined this responsibility here but qualified it essentially with this key: “You are to be involved with others as your heavenly Father is involved with others, notably with you.”  This is the relational significance of agape love, which Jesus embodied to fulfill God’s thematic action to make us whole in relationship together. Now he calls his followers to embody this love in relationships together to be the whole of God’s family and to make whole for God’s family—to embody, however, not merely as his followers but further and deeper as their Father’s very own sons and daughters. The seventh beatitude (5:9) coheres with this key to give depth of meaning to the practice of peace (wholeness).

            Once again, Jesus’ emphasis here is not on what to do but on how to be involved with others. Yet, certainly, we cannot be involved with others to the extent in quantity or quality as God is involved. That was not what he stressed in this key. Quantity, like ethical or moral quantity, is not the goal of “be perfect.” Jesus’ intent is focused on involvement with others by “how” (hos) God is involved; this is not an unrealistic ideal since God created us “to be” (eimi, verb of existence) in the image and likeness of the Trinity, to which the identity as the light points. While “perfect” can never be the outcome of what we do and how we do it, “perfect” (teleios, describing persons who have reached their purpose, telos, thus are full-grown, mature) can indeed “be” (eimi) the growing function (viz. ginomai in v.45) of who, what and how we are as the very daughters and sons of the whole of God’s family.

            Thus, the first functional key becomes: “Live to be (eimi) whole and then make whole as your Father is whole in the Trinity and is vulnerably present and intimately involved to make us whole in relationship together as his family.”

            Jesus does not want his followers “to become” reduced to mere reactors to that situation or circumstance and to those persons; that would be counter-relational work. He calls us “to be” persons who live in relationships to be whole and function to make relationships whole, thus free to be respondors in love. His call and its function are ongoingly challenged to be redefined and determined by reductionism, not