|
This parable provides diverse narratives of neighborhoods that have each
gathered with an identity representing God’s people. Since the
beginning of this story, these diverse neighborhoods have used, modified
or disregarded the guidelines (including parameters and borders)
provided for God’s kingdom. Even when the guidelines were used, those
neighborhoods tended to operate merely with a Rule of Law, which only
quantified God’s Law in a code of ethics and morality. And such
a code was variably observed as markers for their identity. This
neighborhood practice, however, despite even rigid obedience outwardly
to the Law, in reality reduced the terms that God constituted (not
instituted), the terms of which composed the tune of the covenant for
relationship together between God and God’s people.
Therefore, it is imperative to understand that the only terms given by
God to God’s people voiced relational terms; these nonnegotiable terms
encompass covenant relationship to define their identity and to
determine their function—not a covenant based on a Rule of Law tuned to
a code of ethics and morality.
What are
the relational terms that God constituted for the covenant relationship
of God’s people, which definitively determine how God’s people
live daily as God’s kingdom? Until we grasp this tune and live
according to its frequency, our identity and function will always be
something less or some substitute for the experiential truth and
relational reality of God’s kingdom. By countering that outcome and
resounding this tune, the parable helps us distinguish the
kingdom from merely a kingdom.
The Faith of Covenant Relationship
The sound amplified most in neighborhoods identified as God’s people is
in the tune of faith. This tune is voiced by the language of faith,
which would be expected to be voiced in a neutral language common to all
these neighborhoods. Yet, when the voices are not in harmony with the
tune of faith voiced by God, the language of faith becomes biased to
render it in different frequencies that are not neutral. Consequently,
the language used to voice what sounds like the same melody in reality
is voicing biases that reduce the meaning of faith and/or renegotiate
its function and practice.
Consider the following bias in the language of faith and how it affects
the practice of faith among God’s people. The story involves the
chapter that instituted God’s neighborhood.
The people of God received the Law voiced by God in direct communication
with them. At that point in history, however, the covenant was already
constituted by God to build up God’s people in the harmony of God’s
kingdom. God’s Law signified further terms for the covenant, which God
voiced to guide them in their daily faith in God in order to fulfill the
covenant relationship between them. The Law, then, was only given as
relational terms for the primary purpose of growing in their
relationship together. Their daily faith revolved on their ongoing
involvement directly in the primacy of this relationship that the Law
helped guide them to grow in. Thus, merely observing the Law does not
constitute their faith.
Unfortunately, God’s relational terms voiced in relational language
became transposed to referential language, language which merely
transmitted the information of the Law to observe for their faith.
Thereby, their faith came to indicate their belief in God and God’s Law
in the following ways: (1) God was reduced to merely the Object of their
belief and not the Subject in relationship together, and (2) the Law
merely informed them of how their faith should be practiced
behaviorally, not relationally.
This transposed process from relational language to referential language
increasingly prevailed to redefine faith from qualitative relational
terms to quantitative referential terms. Having faith and observing the
Law, in other words, became an end in itself—faith reverberated to the
tune of “Have faith, have faith…!”—rather than as the means for ongoing
involvement in relationship together. Moreover, this often subtle
process created a bias among God’s people to retune their faith,
reverberate its practice and change how to relate to others. This has
become the prevailing tune of faith voiced by most of God’s people to
institute the covenant for a kingdom. And just having faith regardless
of situations and circumstances has become the badge of honor throughout
these neighborhoods past or present.
In contrast, whenever God voiced the faith of God’s people to believe,
that belief was never an end in itself. Furthermore, faith voiced in
referential language is cerebral and merely engaged the mind. Not only
in contrast but also in conflict, faith in relational language always
communicated to “believe Me”—not as the Object of your faith but
as the Subject directly involved with you in relationship together. The
reciprocal relational response and involvement from us is not merely to
believe but to more deeply entrust our person to God in this
relationship. Faith in relational language requires the heart of the
person (along with the mind) to enact faith as trust with the
whole person.
Therefore, entrusting our whole person in a relationship requires us to
make our hearts vulnerable to the other person by trusting them for the
relational outcome of our relational involvement with them. This
relational outcome always has uncertainty unless you have the unbiased
assurance that you can count on the other person for the relational
outcome. This unbiased assurance cannot emerge from any other basis
except the integrity of that other person. Accordingly, such trust
cannot unfold from merely instituting faith, but it is only constituted
as a relational reality by the covenant relationship enacted by the
vulnerable presence and relational involvement of righteous God—whose
righteous integrity can be counted on in relationship together.
In these essential relational terms and process, the faith of relational
trust is enacted in direct response to the integrity of God ongoingly
involved in covenant relationship for the kingdom. Anything less
and any substitutes for this entrusting faith keep relational distance
from God to prevent our faith from having the relational connection,
involvement and outcome promised by God for covenant relationship
together. This relational distance has been a pervasive issue among
God’s people, the condition of which simply reflects, reinforces or even
sustains the human condition. Even with good intentions, whenever faith
is mainly cerebral and does not primarily involve the heart, such faith
is always voiced out of tune by a reduced or fragmented person.
Therefore, nothing less and no substitutes for a person’s heart
encompasses the depth of the whole person from inner out necessary for
their vulnerable involvement directly in relationship together with
God. This whole person’s vulnerable relational involvement enacts the
faith essential to “believe Me” in covenant relationship. And covenant
relationship is enacted integrally with this faith by two relational
terms, terms voiced by God which are irreducible and nonnegotiable to
fulfill the covenant of God’s kingdom.
Covenant of Love
When God voiced the Law for the kingdom, its tune was summarized for
God’s people. They embraced the melody transmitted by the tune but
didn’t listen to its harmony. Thus, the summary was heard merely as the
Book of Law (cf. Dt). Their tradition clearly stated (cf. Shema) that
they were to listen to these terms from God: “Love the Lord your God
with all your heart…with your whole person” (Dt 6:4-5). But they didn’t
listen to the whole tune of God’s relational terms composed by
relational language, because they only heard the melody of the Law in
referential language. Consequently, they didn’t pay attention to the
harmony attuned to the relational language that voiced the summary not
as the Book of Law but the Book of Love.
In the tune of God’s voice, this Book is a love story; it unfolds the
harmony of the relational terms for relationship together in wholeness
(cf. Dt 4:37; 7:8; 10:15; 23:5; 33:3). In addition, the Messiah
summarized the Law to clarify the view of an expert of the Law. He
brought into clear focus that observing the Law necessitated the
relational involvement of love: (1) first, in relational response to
God, and (2) in all other relationships (cf. Dt 22:37-40). He thereby
corrected any reduction of God’s Law to a code of ethics & morality.
The harmony of God’s voice constituted the kingdom’s covenant as the
covenant of love, the tune of which transmits a frequency not
clearly heard in the neighborhoods of God’s people. How so?
Love is a common melody widely heard among God’s people, often to the
tune of affection or some related emotion. The harmony of the
covenant’s love, however, eludes the tune voicing a popular language of
love—a language quantifying the activity of what does, even in service
or sacrifice for the benefit of others. This language elevates love to
an ideal, whose esteem tends to be shaped by the surrounding context.
Such love functions at best only to simulate the relational terms in the
covenant of love. Yet, this is the kind of love used to idealize the
identity and function of God’s people.
Quantifying our identity and function based on the measure of what we do
and accomplish is the prevailing approach to the practice of faith and
gaining God’s favor. In contrast and even in conflict, this is what God
voiced directly to God’s people as the only basis for having covenant
relationship together: “I did not open my heart and choose you to be my
people because of the quantity of what you did and possessed. Rather I
vulnerably involved myself intimately with you on the basis of my love
in order to constitute the harmony of our relationship together with the
covenant of love, therefore on the basis of nothing less and no
substitutes for my vulnerable relational involvement of love” (cf. Dt
7:7-9).
Listen carefully and pay attention completely, God’s people! God’s love
is not defined by what God does, nor determined by what God gives you.
First and foremost, God enacts love to us by vulnerably opening the
depth of God’s heart, and, on this irreducible basis, involves the
wholeness of God’s being intimately with us heart to heart for
relationship together in God’s very own kingdom. Furthermore, Jesus
embodied the vulnerable involvement of this love, not by enacting his
sacrifice but by enacting his presence with us heart to heart and his
intimate relational involvement with us directly face to face. His love
resounded to constitute the full significance of why he washed his
followers’ feet (Jn 13:1-17). Therefore, Jesus made it imperative that
the harmony of his followers can and would only be constituted when we
“love one another, just as I have loved you, you also need to love one
another” (Jn 13:34).
Accordingly, on this unmistakable and irrefutable basis, the permanent
constitution for God’s kingdom is composed solely by the irreducible and
nonnegotiable relational terms of Jesus’ vulnerably intimate response
and ongoing relational involvement with his followers. This
constitution is neither a symbol nor optional but the relational terms
essential to harmonize the covenant of love in the primacy of
relationship together in wholeness. As his followers resound his
relational terms for love in his relational likeness (“just as I…”), the
harmony resonated will witness to all others in the world that they
truly are his followers who belong to him in his kingdom. Thus, the
constitution Jesus enacted for his kingdom remains today to define the
identity and to determine the function of his kingdom followers,
harmonized by the covenant of love in his qualitative image and
relational likeness.
Given the irrevocable constitution for God’s kingdom, are God’s people
going through a constitutional crisis by voicing the tune of a
kingdom?
The ongoing constitutional issues for this reciprocal relational
involvement of love remains focused on our relational response of love
reciprocating in his relational likeness. God covenanted in the
qualitative relational involvement of his vulnerable heart, which God
will never terminate (cf. Jn 14:23; 15:9-10; 17:25-26; Rom 8:35-39). On
this unmistakable and irrefutable basis, then, the covenant of love is
irrevocable for God’s kingdom. Now the question remains open for the
quality of our relational involvement of love to fulfill our part of
love’s relational work, in order for the covenant of love to be
reciprocated in the harmony resounded by those belonging in God’s
kingdom.
Is the love you experience or witness in the neighborhoods of God’s
people in tune with the covenant of love constituted in Jesus’
relational likeness?
Jesus continues to be vulnerably present and relationally involved with
us together with the Spirit. Their harmony resounds the wholeness of
God, whose tune clarifies and corrects any reduction or renegotiation of
the relational terms constituting the covenant of love for our wholeness
in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the triune God.
Covenant of Peace (Wholeness)
The parable further resounds the relational terms integrated for
covenant relationship. The tune of relational terms was further
constituted by God with the covenant of peace (cf. Nu 25:12; Isa 54:10;
Eze 34:25; 37:26; Mal 2:5). This was necessary, so that God’s kingdom
is whole without any fragmentation in order for the neighborhoods of
God’s people to live in wholeness. The tune for peace, however, has
commonly been heard by God’s people in a frequency merely amplifying the
absence of any conflict or unrest. While the absence of conflict is
certainly a positive condition that would be desired and hoped for by
most anyone, this is not the condition God constituted with the covenant
of peace.
The language God voiced for peace (Heb, shalom) always denotes to
be complete, whole, in wholeness. Wholeness is the complete condition
that God’s people are constituted in with the covenant of peace. This
fine-tune harmony voiced solely by God for peace extended the relational
terms of the covenant of love, the integral harmony of which together
resounded the condition for God’s kingdom.
The relational terms for the covenant of peace/wholeness are
distinguished in the definitive blessing God enacts in direct
relationship with God’s people (cf. Nu 6:24-26). This blessing has
become a tradition that God’s people have simply reduced to a
benediction for their gatherings. In contrast and conflict, God voices
the definitive blessing illuminating the forefront of God’s vulnerable
presence with us (v.25), plus the relational reality of God’s direct
face-to-face involvement with us (v.26). The relational outcome from
God’s unwarranted relational involvement (i.e. grace) centers on the
language of “give,” which signifies to bring change to relationship so
that God’s people will be whole, in wholeness, and not merely have a
semblance of peace as the absence of conflict.
God’s covenant of peace clarifies and corrects the reduced language of
common peace variably voiced in the surrounding contexts of human life,
which invariably distinguishes the irreducible condition of uncommon
peace (cf. Mt 10:34). Jesus unmistakably voiced the language of
uncommon peace for his followers, in order that they will experience the
harmony of the covenant of peace no matter what conflicts they face in
everyday life (cf. Jn 14:27). Our wholeness is secure from the
fragmentation of daily situations and circumstances, that is, is assured
if we make “the peace of Christ the sole determinant for the depth of
our whole person from inner out, who belongs together in one whole
neighborhood” (cf. Col 3:15). Furthermore, as we incorporate the
covenant of peace with the covenant of love, we will ongoingly
experience the resounding integral harmony of God’s uncommon chosen
people in the wholeness of God’s kingdom (cf. Col 3:12-14).
This is the wholeness God created in the beginning for humanity; and
then God reconstituted in covenant relationship for God’s people to be
in the wholeness of relationship together, so that they will be and
function in harmony with the relational likeness of God’s wholeness.
The relational terms for this relational process and outcome voiced by
God are nonnegotiable—namely by the renegotiation to our terms that
shape relationship together with something les or some substitute for
wholeness. The condition of anything less and any substitutes is
pervasive among God’s people in neighborhoods assumed to represent God’s
kingdom.
The
parable echoes God’s relational terms to expose those out of tune with
God’s covenant, and amplifies the human condition reflected in their
condition. This will make possible for God’s people to be freed from
reinforcing and sustaining the human condition dissonant with the
qualitative image and relational likeness of the irreducible whole of
God. God is only present and involved by nonnegotiable wholeness in
order to reconstitute God’s people in covenant relationship together as
the new creation of God’s kingdom (cf. 2 Cor 3:18; 5:17; Eph
2:14-17). This relational outcome is the redemptive change God gives in
the definitive blessing (Nu 6:26).
Therefore, the peace/wholeness of and from God is never optional for
God’s people. Rather the uncommon peace Jesus gives is to define our
identity and determine our function (cf. Jn 16:33; Rom 12:18; 14:19).
Moreso, God’s relational terms for the covenant make imperative that our
whole persons from inner out are by necessity of our new nature to be
vulnerably involved in our relationships with others in relational
likeness of Jesus’ love for us. While the simulations and related
illusions of love and peace may reverberate in neighborhoods of God’s
people, God will never do relationship with them according to their
terms to form a covenant of anything less and any substitutes. Thus,
the parable of the kingdom keeps amplifying any dissonance and
resounding the consonance with the tune voiced by God.
Who among God’s people will listen carefully and pay attention
completely, and thereby respond uncommonly with their whole person from
inner out?
The voice of God’s feedback continues to be present and involved:
“Wake
up! I have not found your faith and ministry to be whole according to
God’s perspective” (Rev 3:1-2).
“You have
become relationally distant from the love you first experienced” (Rev
2:2-4).
“Then all
the neighborhoods in my name will know that I search and examine the
whole person from inner out and will respond to them reciprocally” (Rev
2:23).
Even for
those neighborhoods with a passive tune or a sound of silence:
“In my
love, my tough love, I pursue them for the relational connection
essential to turn their condition around in order to experience the
relational reality of the resounding integral harmony of covenant
relationship together” (Rev 3:19-20)
The parable closes this chapter by placing directly on us the
responsibility of which kingdom unfolds from here. Nothing less and no
substitutes for the kingdom is now dependent on our volition
choosing the right tune in the correct frequency. Otherwise, a
kingdom of anything less and any substitutes is a burden we have to bear
for making the wrong choice, even by default.
®
Chapter 4
© 2025 T. Dave Matsuo
back to top
home
|