The Psalmist
continues, writing “For I have lived temporarily in Meshech; I have resided
among the tents of Kedar” (120:5b). Not that we mix the Gospel stories
and interpret one according to another (though John’s Gospel almost certainly
comes well after Matthew’s Jesus narrative has been established and relatively
fixed, and could thus be influenced by its telling), but recognizing that all
of the Gospels would almost certainly have drawn from and been shaped by the
traditions of the Psalms, in John’s Gospel it is written that “the Word became
flesh and took up residence among us” (1:14a). A literal translation
could read that the Word, that being Jesus for the Johannine community of believers,
“tabernacled among us.” Thus, “temporarily”
and “tents” takes on added significance.
The tabernacle, of
course, was the temporary tent in which the God of Israel took up His residence
among His people. When that God took up temporary though necessary
residence in a tent of flesh, “by looking like other men, and by sharing in human
nature” (Philippians 2:7b – a pre-Gospel composition understanding of who Jesus
was, that would have undoubtedly shaped the way that the Gospels would have
been composed, preserved, and transmitted), He would become that which He had
created in His own image. So it became understood, quite early, that the
God of Israel, the Creator God of the whole of the cosmos, temporarily took
upon Himself the form of that which was precious in His sight. This is
reflected in the use of the Hebrew word “Meshech,” which has the meaning of
“precious.” He also took flesh upon Himself and “resided among the tents
of Kedar.” “Kedar” means “dark” or “darkness.”
With all of this
said, one can now look to this particular Psalm armed with an overt understanding
that Jesus’ mindset, as a member of Israel, would have been at least partially shaped
by the Psalm-ic tradition, and hear the Lord Jesus speaking directly as it is
read, “For too long I have had to reside with those who hate peace”
(120:6). In considering this hatred of peace, one must contemplate the
recent history of Israel in the time of Jesus.
That history, leading up to, during, and following the time of the
presence of the Christ was littered with those that attempted to accomplish
God’s will through force of arms. A large part of that history shows that
Israel did not want to love their enemies, pray for those who persecuted them,
or go the second mile when the Roman soldier legally requisitioned them to carry
his pack for one mile. Peace, as Jesus
saw it and pronounced it, would have been anathema to many that would hear His
message and observe His acts.
For too many of the
people, Jesus represented little more than another chance at revolution and
overthrow. He was indeed that chance, but not in the way that so many of
His fellow citizens desired. He was there to overthrow death and to
deliver God’s people from the exile of failing to bear Him image and to be
lights for His glory, through the ushering in of the kingdom of heaven on earth. The way that He intended to bring this about,
which encompassed an act of self-sacrifice, was truly revolutionary.
One can only imagine
how many times the people, having heard the words and experienced the miracles
of Jesus, attempted to make Him king by force. To that, those that are
committed to hearing and living the words of Jesus, can regretfully hear Him
join with the Psalmist and say, with great frustration and wrenching of heart,
“I am committed to peace, but when I speak, they want to make war”
(120:7).
No comments:
Post a Comment