Heaven was rightly understood to be the realm of abode of
the Creator God, and the ongoing movement of that God that occurred through His
people was for the purpose of causing heaven and earth to come together (this
is what is understood of any temple, and the Jerusalem Temple specifically).
When it comes to the Biblical narrative, when acts in accordance with the
covenant responsibilities of the covenant people were performed, such as caring
for orphans and widows (an extraordinarily prominent theme throughout the
Hebrew Scriptures), that was when heaven and earth were over-lapping and the
Creator God’s will was being done on earth as in heaven.
The long-sought-after kingdom of heaven, among other things,
was the time when this overlap of the abode of the Creator God and the realm of
man (the creation in which the creatures made in that God’s image dwelt and
were called to steward) would finally and completely take place. When the
kingdom of heaven was fully and finally manifest, and the Creator God ruled
over His redeemed creation, it would then be said that “Death has been
swallowed up in victory,” and questions such as “Where, O death, is your
victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” (1 Corinthians 15:54b-55) could
be triumphantly posed. The Apostle Paul rightly connects the coming of
the kingdom of heaven with the resurrection of the dead, thus indicating that
this was a feature of first century Jewish thought.
Joining with the
participants of the early church to and for whom Luke wrote, it is now possible
to stand in the place of one who would have heard the story told in Luke’s
Gospel. In doing so one hears “Then someone from the crowd said to Him
(Jesus), ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.’”
(12:13) Though the parable will not be touched on here, this statement
and the words from Jesus that follow will still be resounding in the ears of an
audience well-trained to provide comprehensive attention to an
oral-performance-oriented presentation such as Luke’s narrative, when the
fifteenth chapter is reached and they hear “A man had two sons. The
younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate
that will belong to me.’” (15:12a)
The way that the
crowd will hear and understand the parable that follows that introduction will
not only be shaped by community and cultural norms and traditions, but it will
also be shaped by what is seen and heard in chapter twelve. Of course, it cannot be forgotten that any
story that begins with “a man had two sons” would immediately cause a Jew to
consider Jacob and Esau (or Isaac and Ishmael) and the foundations of their
nation.
Returning to the
request that is made of Jesus concerning the inheritance, Jesus responds by
saying “Man, who made Me a judge or arbitrator between you two?” (12:14)
Though it is not entirely relevant to this particular study, an interesting
point can be made here based on Jesus’ response. As part of Luke’s
efforts in his two part series of what came to be called the Gospel of Luke and
the Acts of the Apostles, Luke makes the effort to paint Jesus as a Moses-like
figure (as does Matthew).
This can be seen in
Peter’s speech that is recorded in the third chapter of Acts (3:22-26), where
Peter references Deuteronomy 18:15, making it clear with what follows that it
is his understanding that Jesus is the promised prophet like Moses. Based
upon this, it is not inconceivable that Jesus’ question of “who made me a judge
or arbitrator between you two,” would cause His hearers to hearken back to the
story of Moses and to his attempt to settle a dispute between two of his
countrymen. Though it is Moses that is there rebuffed with a response of
“Who made you a ruler and judge over us?” (Exodus 2:14a), Luke’s very subtle
point is made, and the notion that any attempt to understand Jesus must be
grounded in the history of Israel is reinforced.
No comments:
Post a Comment