Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 27)

Bringing honor back into focus, and remembering that the activity of the church is designed to ultimately increase Jesus’ honor in the court of public opinion (honoring the man that suffered what was then known as the greatest shame, which is a truly radical notion), Paul can now be heard to say “Elders who provide effective leadership must be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.  For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his pay.’” (1 Timothy 5:17-18) 

It does not seem unreasonable to propose that Paul has himself in view here in this section of the letter.  One could surmise that Paul is answering accusations that have been leveled against him, as self-defense is a semi-regular feature of the Pauline library.  Most assuredly, the quotation from the twenty-fifth chapter of Deuteronomy, in regards to the ox, is not Paul finding a proof-text in regards to being paid for his teaching, with pay becoming equivalent to “double honor,” nor should it be construed as such.  Rather, the entire section from Deuteronomy must be considered, and the context on offer is that of adjudication. 

There one reads “If controversy arises between people, they should go to court for judgment.  When the judges hear the case, they shall exonerate the innocent but condemn the guilty.  Then, if the guilty person is sentenced to be a beating, the judge shall force him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of blows his wicked behavior deserves.  The judge may sentence him to forty blows, but no more.  If he is struck with more than these, you might view your fellow Israelite with contempt.  You must not muzzle your ox when it is treading grain” (Deuteronomy 25:1-4).  So the statement about the ox is connected to controversy, judgment, exoneration, sentencing, and the carrying out of a sentence.  If Paul is indeed referencing himself as the elder who provides effective leadership, then he is also demanding the double honor of just treatment.  Why should he receive anything less?  Though he is willing to suffer for his children, he will not be subject to unfounded accusations. 

At the same time, it should be well understood that Paul does not demand honor for himself, especially considering the fact that he writes things like “I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and an arrogant man” (1:13a), while also referring to himself as the worst of sinners (1:15,16).  He is happy to shame himself, with this self-shaming serving as a functional groundwork for what is to come, but he is not about to put up with slander and attacks, which, if Paul is to be viewed as the elder, seems to be implied. 

Perfectly in line with the Deuteronomy reference, and in another Deuteronomy quotation, Paul goes on to write “Do not accept an accusation against an elder unless it can be confirmed by two or three witnesses” (5:19).   Of course, the possibility continues to exist that the elder is not, in fact, Paul referring to himself in the abstract, and that there is another problem in the church, which also runs back to the idea that this is not to be viewed firstly as words that establish church doctrine, but as words to be understood inside a historical and cultural situation that can, after appropriate processing, be applied as an operative principle for the church at large.    

A Tradition Of Wells (part 11 of 11)

The Jeremiah narrative happens upon a well on two occasions.  In the sixth chapter, as Jeremiah verbally depicts the destruction that is going to come upon Jerusalem due to its idolatry, he shares some of the Lord’s thoughts concerning the city.  The God of Israel can be heard to say “Cut down the trees around Jerusalem and build up a siege ramp against its walls.  This is the city which is to be punished.  Nothing but oppression happens in it.  As a well continually pours out fresh water so it continually pours out wicked deeds.  Sounds of violence and destruction echo throughout it.  All I see are sick and wounded people” (6:6-7). 

This is, of course, a reflection upon Israel’s covenant failures.  For this, the Creator God brings His curse against His covenant people.  Death is coming to them.  It is against this that Jesus can be heard speaking, when He says “whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become a fountain of water springing up to eternal life” (John 4:14).  This eternal life is so much more than a one-way ticket to heaven upon death.  Rather, it is an entrance into the covenant people of the Creator God, in which one shares in the covenant blessings promised by the God of Israel (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28), and presumably the resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age. 

Not long thereafter, the Samaritan woman questions Jesus about whether Jerusalem is the appropriate place to offer worship.  Might this be a reflection on what the Creator God says about Jerusalem in Jeremiah (a well that pours out wicked deeds rather than fresh water)?  Jesus responds by telling her “a time is coming… when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (4:23a).  Further on in Jeremiah, the prophet laments over that which he speaks, saying “I wish that my head were a well full of water and my eyes were a fountain full of tears!  If they were, I could cry day and night for those of my dear people who have been killed” (9:1). 

Hosea is the next prophet to be heard, as he spoke to the situation of the northern kingdom of Israel.  Referring to the judgment of the Creator God that was coming upon that portion of His people, Hosea says “Even though he flourishes like a reed plant, a scorching east wind will come, a wind from the Lord rising up from the desert.  As a result, his spring will dry up; his well will become dry.  That wind will spoil all his delightful foods in the containers in his storehouse” (13:15).  Beyond the natural fact that water is necessary for life for all peoples everywhere, wells had been a source of life for Israel, stretching back to Abraham as a place of marriage and ultimately offspring that continued their God’s covenant purposes.  Here, their God speaks of a well that would become dry.  Specifically, this is directed against Samaria (13:16), which is the setting for Jesus well meeting.  This provides added color to Jesus’ talk of “living water” (4:10) and “a fountain of water springing up to eternal life, as well as Jesus’ directing of the woman’s attention away from either Samaria or Jerusalem as the center of worship. 

In a similar instance, to round out and wrap up this study, is to be found in the prophetic work of Micah.  Here, it is possible to readily identify informative points of contact with the Johannine well story, as Micah speaks of the Creator God’s judgment that comes “because of Jacob’s rebellion and the sins of the nation of Israel” (1:15a).  Not unlike the woman’s question to Jesus about the proper place of worship, and being mindful of Jesus’ response, Micah can be heard to rhetorically inquire “How has Jacob rebelled, you ask?  Samaria epitomizes their rebellion!  Where are Judah’s pagan worship centers, you ask?  They are right in Jerusalem!” (1:15b).  As Micah goes on to describe the tribulation that will come their way, he is heard saying “Therefore you will have to say farewell to Moresheth Gath.  The residents of Achzib will be as disappointing as a dried up well to the kings of Israel” (1:14).  

Jesus & The Finger Of God (part 2)

Working backwards through the Scriptures, the “finger of God” is encountered in the book of Daniel, when “the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the royal palace wall” (5:5b), with this occurring during a great banquet being hosted by King Belshazzar of Babylon.  In an era in which the book of Daniel commanded a great deal of attention, and which was quite obviously on Jesus’ mind, owing to His constant reference to Daniel’s Son of Man, this instance of usage is quite worthy of the attention of all eager students of Jesus and Scripture. 

In the story, Daniel is called upon to interpret what the finger has written, eventually informing the king that it pronounced his doom.  Daniel informed the king that “God has numbered your kingdom’s days and brought it to an end… you are weighed on the balances and found to be lacking… your kingdom is divided and given over to the Medes and Persians” (5:26b,27b,28b). 

Now, it cannot be overlooked that at this banquet “Belshazzar issued an order to bring in the gold and silver vessels---the ones that Nebuchadnezzar his father had confiscated from the Temple in Jerusalem---so that the kings and nobles, together with his wives and concubines, could drink from them…  As they drank wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone” (5:2b,4).  The writer reports that it was “At that very moment the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote.” 

It must be noted that Belshazzar was drinking from that which had been plundered from the Temple, doing so as a strong man, fully armed, guarded in his own palace, and seemingly safe with all of his possessions.  However, it was “in that very night Belshazzar, the Babylonian king, was killed.  So Darius the Mede took control of the kingdom” (5:30-31a).  A stronger man attacked him and conquered him, surely plundering all of Belshazzar’s once safe possessions.  Might this very story have been on Jesus’ mind as He spoke of and acted out the finger of God?   

The finger of God is also referenced in conjunction with the delivery of the Ten Commandments.  In Deuteronomy, Moses reports that “The Lord gave me the two stone tablets written by the very finger of God, and on them was everything He said to you at the mountain from the midst of the fire at the time of that assembly” (9:10).  Likewise, in Exodus, it is recorded that “He gave Moses two tablets of testimony when He had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, tablets of stone written by the finger of God” (31:18).  By making mention of the finger of God in reference to Himself, Jesus brings the hoped for and ultimately inevitable comparisons to Moses into play. 

Though Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as the new Moses is quite explicit, Luke’s is more subtle.  Where Matthew has Jesus referencing a commandment by saying “you have heard that it was said, and then adding the rejoinder of “but I say unto you,” Luke’s Jesus is less forceful and less overt.  A perfect example from Matthew has Jesus saying “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy’” (5:43), before offering up His response of “But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you” (5:44).  In Luke, Jesus says “But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who mistreat you” (6:27), omitting the “you have heard that it was said.”  The “you have heard that it was said,” making reference to the Mosaic law and the interpretation of that law, is implied. 

Seeing God (part 7)

In the tenth chapter of Deuteronomy, Israel’s Creator God speaks to those that He intends to bear His image in the world, thereby communicating what is expected of them, saying “Now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you except to revere Him, to obey all His commandments, to love Him, to serve Him with all your mind and being” (10:12).  Having said this, He continues to describe Himself, while also informing those hearing these words how they are to perform in and for the world, saying that He “justly treats the orphan and the widow, and who loves resident foreigners, giving them food and clothing” (10:18). 

Of course, the theme of the need to care for the orphan and the widow, along with the resident foreigner and the poor, is a theme that is taken up on page after page of that through which the Creator God has revealed Himself.  Deuteronomy twenty-four is particularly focused in this area.  In the seventeenth verse the text reads “You must not pervert justice due to a resident foreigner or an orphan, or take a widow’s garment as security for a loan” (24:17).  Additionally, “Whenever you reap your harvest in your field and leave some unraked grain there, you must not return to get it; it should go to the resident foreigner, orphan, and widow so that the Lord your God may bless all the work you do” (24:19). 

Likewise, “When you beat your olive tree you must not repeat the procedure; the remaining olives,” treasure, if you will, “belong to the resident foreigner, orphan, and widow.  When you gather the grapes of your vineyard you must not do so a second time; they should go to the resident foreigner, orphan, and widow.  In the twenty-seventh chapter, just before God outlines His program of blessing or cursing, based upon His people’s handling of their covenant responsibilities (chapter twenty-eight), we find, along with a number of curses, “Cursed is the one who perverts justice for the resident foreigner, the orphan, and the widow” (27:19a). 

Turning to Exodus, there one finds “You must not afflict any widow or orphan.  If you afflict them in any way and they cry to me, I will surely hear their cry, and My anger will burn and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives will be widows and your children will be fatherless.  Most certainly, though it is far from purity of heart, those that do such things will see God, but clearly in a way which is less than desirable.  If we look to the prophets, such as Isaiah, we hear him speaking on behalf of God, delivering a judgmental cry and saying “Learn to do what is right!  Promote justice!  Give the oppressed reason to celebrate!  Take up the cause of the orphan!  Defend the rights of the widow!” (1:17). 

The corollary to this is “Your officials are rebels, they associate with thieves.  All of them love bribery, and look for payoffs.  They do not take up the cause of the orphan, or defend the rights of the widow” (1:23).  Ezekiel sounds a similar note, saying “They have treated father and mother with contempt within you; they have oppressed the foreigner among you; they have wronged the orphan and the widow within you” (22:7). 

Ostensibly, because the Creator God delivered His judgment against His people, as announced and explained by these prophets in connection with their idolatry, their mis-treatment of the resident foreigner, the orphan, and the widow could be said to have stemmed from their idolatry.  Had they been pure of heart, it would have been demonstrated in their care for these groups, though one should not pretend to insist that such care created a purity of heart.  Their lack of purity of heart was revealed in their treatment of the ones to whom the Creator God directs so much of His attention and concern.  Owing to this, the covenant God’s people saw Him in a way that they did not want to see Him, but that He had certainly promised.  In the big picture, Jesus’ talk of being “pure of heart” is set against idolatry, be it ever so subtle.   

Seeing God (part 6)

With this in mind, Jesus goes on to explain that “The eye is the lamp of the body” (6:22a).  The eye, of course, having primacy in the building of the desire to accumulate treasure and the recognition of the most appropriate, kingdom-minded ways to liquidate that same treasure (treasure being primarily money and possessions, though time must certainly be under consideration).  If that thought is held in mind, it is understandable to hear Jesus continue to speak about treasure and its proper place, as He goes on to say “If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light” (Matthew 6:22b). 

A healthy eye views the world through the lens of the kingdom of heaven, while the call of the Creator God’s people, historically and for all time, to a light to the nations, does not drift too far from conscientious consideration.  With these thoughts in mind, Jesus can be heard saying: “But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be full of darkness.  If then the light in your is darkness, how great is the darkness!” (6:23)

Now, how can one be sure that Jesus is connecting His thoughts as presented in verses twenty-two and twenty-three with the thoughts of treasure and the heart in verses nineteen through twenty-one?  Well, the reader can be assured of this when reaching verse twenty-four, which says that “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and money” (6:24).  Clearly, money (treasure and that which is used to acquire possessions) is an issue of the heart.  One who is pure in heart---the one who will see the God of Israel---is one that rightly uses their money in service of the Creator God’s kingdom purposes. 

Certainly the Scriptures have much to say about the use of treasure.  If Jesus’ thinking about the right use of money is influenced by Israel’s history and Israel’s Scriptures, which it obviously was, then it will be quite worthwhile to look into that history and those Scriptures in order to further illumination in regards to purity of heart and its connection to the use of treasure.  If Jesus has in fact linked being pure of heart with properly using money, then those Scriptures that seem to deal in this area will be immensely beneficial.  They will also provide a basis to return to Matthew’s Gospel in order to make a final determination as to what it would mean, being “pure of heart,” to “see God.”    

Though there are countless passages that beg to be accessed, a representative sample of passages will suffice.  Having already made mention of Deuteronomy in the course of this study, as the book is called to mind in the quite obvious presentation of Jesus as the prophet like Moses, as He delivers a new set of guidelines by which the Creator God’s people are to operate, and doing so from a mountain, one finds a veritable treasure trove of applicable statements in Deuteronomy.  These statements could be viewed as being inextricably linked with the covenant God’s expectations for His people, as they attempted to demonstrate a purity of heart that would serve in their directive to be a light to the nations. 

Deuteronomy fifteen presents key thoughts for consideration.  Because Israel’s God insists that “there should not be any poor among you” (15:4a), it is insisted that “If a fellow Israelite from one of your villages in the land that the Lord your God is giving you should be poor, you must not harden your heart,” always a not-so-subtle allusion to Pharaoh, easily recognized by a people defined by their exodus, “or be insensitive to his impoverished condition.  Instead, you must be sure to open your hand to him and generously lend him whatever he needs” (15:7-8).  

Seeing God (part 4)

Now it can certainly be said that the one that engages in adultery, whether through the actual and physical action or through the desire of which Jesus here speaks, would not be spoken of as being pure in heart.  To that one would add that this does not really take an observer any further down the path towards seeing the Creator God, which is said to be the lot of those that are pure in heart.  Again, Jesus is making some programmatic statements, which would imply that He has a program in mind.  Likewise, Matthew presents Jesus programmatically, so it behooves the reader to allow the sermon to build on its statements internally, while also looking for the way in which the sermon works itself out in application to the entirety of the narrative that is on offer in the whole of Matthew. 

Before moving on to the next “heart” statement, let it be noted that there are many uses of “heart” throughout Matthew’s Gospel, and all of them escape the lips of Jesus.  However, it is reasonable to presume that the explanation of what it means to be “pure in heart” is to be found within the sermon, as Jesus goes on to define His own terms within this bracketed context.  Here, one must also consider the possibility that Matthew has taken teachings of Jesus that were offered up in various times and places, and grouped them all together into this one “sermon,” especially if he was desirous of highlighting Jesus as a Moses-like figure, thus fulfilling the Deuteronomic insistence that another prophet would arise like Moses. 

A reinforcement of such a notion, though one could also consider that Jesus spoke what is heard from Him in Matthew on numerous occasions, including this one, comes from the fact that Luke has Jesus saying much the same thing (though quite a bit less than Matthew) on a plain, rather than from a mountain.  Along with that, if looking to the Gospel of Mark and again considering that Jesus can indeed say these things on more than one occasion (which is quite the reasonable and probable proposition), then one sees a fair number of Jesus’ pronouncements, mountain-related in Matthew, scattered throughout Mark’s narrative.  So if it is the case that Matthew has purposely grouped together these words of instruction from Jesus, remembering that they, regardless of the format in which they are presented, present Jesus’ conception of the life of the citizens of the Creator God’s kingdom, then it is all the more important to allow for an internal consistency, with terms defined by the sermon itself.  This is what is being attempted in regards to the term “pure in heart.” 

Now, having mentioned Deuteronomy in the context of Matthew’s desire to present Jesus as a lawgiver Who is like Moses but, in fact, superior to Moses (“you have heard that it was said… but I say”), it is worth going there to review what it was that was reported to have been spoken by Moses.  Now whether or not Moses actually said these things, and there is little reason to dispute this (though some do), such would not change the fact that Israel understood itself and defined itself according to its historical narrative (which included Deuteronomy), and especially that of the exodus and its attendant events (Sinai, the giving of the law, the wilderness wandering, entrance into the promised land, etc…). 

Upon arrival there one finds “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you---from your fellow Israelites; you must listen to him” (18:15).  This is then confirmed by the voice of the Lord, Who says “I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites.  I will put My words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command” (18:18).  In between the two insistences that such will take place, which Matthew must simply have in mind as he constructs his theologically-tinged biography of Jesus, Moses says “This accords with what happened at Horeb in the day of the assembly” (18:16a).  So when Moses speaks about the prophet like himself, he actually connects it to what took place on a mountain.  It is then unsurprising to hear Jesus speaking from a mountain, which makes the Moses-related point even more forcefully.

Absalom (part 22 of 22)

Having made this crossing of the Jordan (leaving the Promised Land), Absalom will never cross back.  It is not insignificant that Absalom’s crossing of the Jordan coincides with blessings beginning to come David’s way.  It is reported that “When David came to Mahanaim,” men came to him and “brought bedding, basins, and pottery utensils.  They also brought food for David and all who were with him, including wheat, barley, flour, roasted grain, beans, lentils, honey, curds, flocks, and cheese” (2 Samuel 17:27a,28-29a). 

Remarkably (or perhaps not so remarkably), this provision of food and supplies for David and the people with him sounds like what is to be found in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy.  There, along with the copious listing of curses that will come upon the covenant God’s people for failure to adhere to the terms of the covenant, one also finds the promise of blessings.  It is written: “If you indeed obey the Lord your God and are careful to observe all His commandments… the Lord your God will elevate you above all the nations of the earth.  All these blessings will come to  you in abundance if you obey the Lord your God: You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the field.  Your children will be blessed, as well as the produce of your soil, the offspring of your livestock, the calves of your herds, and the lambs of your flocks.  Your basket and your mixing bowl will be blessed.  You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out” (28:1-6).  One can almost certainly imagine David reflecting upon these promised blessings as he receives the items that are being brought to him at Mahanaim. 

If he is thinking in such ways, then it is at this point that he knows that his God has turned things in his favor, that truly he is still the anointed one of Israel, and that Absalom should not have raised his hand (or contemplated raising his hand) against him.  After contemplating the blessings related to sustenance, David could go on to consider what follows in Deuteronomy, which is “The Lord will cause your enemies who attack you to be struck down before you; they will attack you from one direction but flee from you in seven different directions… The Lord will designate you as His holy people just as He promised you… Then all the peoples of the earth will see that you belong to the Lord, and they will respect you” (28:7,9-10).  It is after he receives the gifts that, for him, could serve to indicate the return of the Creator God’s favor and to remind him of the anointing and promise of his God that had been placed upon his life and his rule, that “David assembled the army that was with him.  He appointed leaders of thousands and leaders of hundreds.  David then sent out the army” (18:1-2a). 

David knew that Israel’s God was going to be with him and that his return to the throne was now but a foregone conclusion.  With full knowledge that the change of events was instigated by Absalom’s agreement to unnecessarily raise his hand in violence against his father, when David sends out the army he says “For my sake deal gently with the young man Absalom” (18:5b).  This, of course, does not happen, as Joab, David’s general (who has no fear of reprisal from David for a variety of reasons), has Absalom executed at the first opportunity to do so, which presented itself relatively quickly.  In fact, Absalom was struck down in the very first military engagement of his kingship, which is extraordinarily telling.  As was said before, once Absalom crossed the Jordan, thus departing from his exodus and going into exile, he would never cross back.  The only thing that was waiting for him on the other side was the completion of the curses of exile, which was death---dragged into the subjugation of creation’s great and foreign power.        

Absalom (part 15)

In the Deuteronomic curses, Moses informs the Creator God’s people that one of the curses that will come upon them for their failure to obey their God’s commands (of which David was certainly guilty) would be that “You will be engaged to a woman and another man will rape her” (Deuteronomy 28:30a).  This is not strictly analogous to what Nathan has told David, or to what it has been suggested that Absalom do, as neither this God’s threat through Nathan nor Ahithophel’s suggestion to Absalom carries with it (at least on the surface) the connotation of violence or force, but it can probably be thought of as being connected closely enough to drive home the point to David that he has violated his God’s commands. 

Additionally, Ahithophel apparently sees a close enough connection in that it will play well into Absalom’s ongoing effort to show himself as a true deliverer in the mold of Moses, thereby allowing Absalom to continue co-opting the most powerful story of Israel’s history for his own purposes.  Furthermore, it adds to Absalom’s claim to be a just man and the one that is used by the covenant God to deliver justice to Israel.  This is especially and strikingly so if Absalom is the means by which the prophecy (judgment) related to cursing that had been delivered to David by Nathan is fulfilled. 

This merely cements the notion that David is no longer fit to be king, while also pointing to the fact that the story of Bathsheba and David, and the oppression and injustice that the story entails, has been made known in Israel.  If it has not, then there is no real point in Absalom engaging in sexual relations with his father’s concubines, unless it is also being used to indicate that just as David has forsaken these wives of his, that he has also forsaken his care of the people of Israel as well. 

The second part of Ahithophel’s response to the request to provide advice to Absalom is to say that “All Israel will hear that you have made yourself repulsive to your father.  Then your followers will be motivated to support you” (2 Samuel 16:21b).  Yes, Ahithophel suggests that this will be viewed by the people as Absalom being willing to be cursed by his very own father, if it indeed means justice for Israel.  This is powerful symbolism.  Absalom will be seen to be willing to bear that pain and shame on behalf of the people, with this becoming a messianic role.  In a society based upon honor and shame, this is a calculated move (though also prophetically fulfilling) to win further sympathy from the people. 

Does this aid Absalom in his desire to be seen as Moses?  Absolutely!  Moses was willing to forsake his father’s (Pharoah’s) house so as to identify himself with the people suffering under the oppression of the king.  Thinking beyond that however, this might also be an attempt to entice David to retaliate against Absalom, who up to this point has not lifted up his hand (nor asked anybody else to lift up their hand) against his father. 

David has left willfully.   He has abandoned his throne and fled from Jerusalem and Absalom has peacefully entered to take that throne.  There has been no bloodshed, violence, or loss of life (except Amnon many years prior, but that has only tangential bearing on the events at hand at that time).  If David now turns and raises sword and spear against Absalom and his supporters, then David is most certainly to be likened to Pharaoh, who allowed Israel to depart from Egypt and from his oppression peacefully, but then had a change of heart and set out to recover the Israelites (and his power) by violent means.    

Absalom (part 12)

This exile that David was experiencing had several of the marks of the curses promised in Deuteronomy.  The author reports: “As David was going up the Mount of Olives, he was weeping as he went; his head was covered and his feet were bare.  All the people who were with him also had their heads covered and were weeping as they went up” (2 Samuel 15:30).  Does this not sound like the way that slaves would be carried off by a conquering foe?  Is it possible to find this paralleled in Deuteronomy?  There one reads of “hunger, thirst, nakedness, and poverty” (28:48a). 

David, with all of his riches, was fleeing Jerusalem with nothing.  In fact, this is evidenced by the fact that shortly thereafter, “Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth… had a couple of donkeys that were saddled, and on them were two hundred loaves of bread, a hundred raisin cakes, a hundred baskets of summer fruit, and a container of wine” (16:1b), so as to provide for the king and his people during their journey into exile for lack of faithfulness to their covenant responsibilities. 

In the midst of the travel of his travail, David, having begun to recognize where his faults had been and what it was that had brought him to this horrible predicament, begins to strategize.  He has already sent the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem for good reason, and implores the Creator God to turn the advice of one of his chief advisers, Ahithophel, who was now supporting and advising Absalom, into foolishness.  In addition, he employed the priests, Zadok and Abiathar, to serve as his spies within Jerusalem. 

As David begins to remember the God of Israel and His faithfulness, he also begins to be fully cognizant of the exilic nature of what is happening to him, and vice versa.  No doubt this experience is going to serve him well, if in fact his God does restore him to the throne, which at this point was certainly not a foregone conclusion.  Remember, even if David is removed from the throne, the promise is that the God of Israel would make a dynasty of his house, which he could very well do through Absalom, who, at this point, has carried out a successful rebellion and insurrection without shedding any blood. 

In considering that, it is worth once again making note of the strategy which might very well have been being employed by Absalom.  Absalom has, quite possibly, positioned himself as a new Moses that is leading a new exodus for Israel, with a delivery from a new Pharaoh, that being David, who had become an oppressor in Israel.  Remember, Israel began to suffer oppression in Egypt when a Pharaoh came to power that did not know Joseph. 

Naturally, it was not so much that said Pharaoh did not know Joseph,  but more that he had forgotten what had been wrought on behalf of Egypt, with Egypt gaining an empire through the power and deliverance of the God of Joseph and Israel.  In making his case, Absalom could certainly point to David’s less than just actions and point out that David had forgotten the faithful, powerful, delivering, kingdom giving God of Israel---the very God that had delivered David from Saul and from his own earlier time of exile and oppression.          

Furthermore, as one examines the potential of Absalom positioning himself as a new Moses and leading a new exodus, it should be remembered that Israel’s Egyptian exodus was carried out with no bloodshed.  Moses had attempted such and failed, earning only a personal exile which eventually resulted in his calling by the covenant God.  Israel did not rise up en masse to overthrow and defeat Egypt by means of violence.  They did not have to resort to war.  Rather, their God worked for them.  The Creator God brought Egypt low through plagues and the eventual death of the firstborn.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 11)

It’s worth reviewing what happened when Jesus entered the Temple.  He “drove out all those who were selling and buying in the Temple courts, and turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves.  And He said to them, ‘It is written, “My house will be called a house of prayer,” but you are turning it into a den of robbers!’” (Matthew 21:12b-13)  Then, “The blind and the lame came to Him in the Temple courts, and He healed them” (21:14).  This forces another look at Jeremiah, from which Jesus’ words of judgment are lifted, where one can see the Levitical parallels (and stand amazed at all that is going on in Jesus’ words and Matthew’s record) when reading “Change the way you have been living and do what is right.  If you do, I will allow you to continue to live in this land” (7:3b). 

Notice the connection here made by Jeremiah between land and Temple.  By quoting and re-enacting Jeremiah, Jesus would be making the same connection.  Jeremiah goes on to say (and Jesus intends to call to mind) “Stop putting your confidence in the false belief that says, ‘We are safe!  The Temple of the Lord is here!  The Temple of the Lord is here!  The temple of the Lord is here!’  You must change the way you have been living and do what is right.  You must treat one another fairly.  Stop oppressing foreigners who live in your land, children who have lost their fathers, and women who have lost their husbands.  Stop killing innocent people in this land.  Stop paying allegiance to other gods.  That will only bring about your ruin” (7:4-6).  Here, one should note that Jeremiah’s reference to Deuteronomy flows into a concern that Israel not fall into idolatry---worshiping the gods of the people of the land to which the Lord is bringing them. 

Continuing in Jeremiah, and continuing to connect land to Temple: “If you stop doing these things, I will allow you to continue to live in this land which I gave to your ancestors as a lasting possession,” as we note the land and Temple dynamic (7:7).  Jeremiah goes on to say (and again Jesus could just as well have said) “But just look at you!  Your are putting your confidence in a false belief that will not deliver you.  You steal.  Your murder.  You commit adultery.  You lie when you swear on oath.  You sacrifice to the god Baal.  You pay allegiance to other gods whom you have not previously known.  Then you come and stand in My presence in this Temple I have claimed as My own and say, ‘We are safe!’  You think you are so safe that you go on doing all those hateful sins!  Do you think this Temple I have claimed as My own is to be a hideout for robbers?” (7:8-11a) 

So not only has Jesus made reference to the whole of this section of Jeremiah’s seventh chapter while He dramatically acts in the Temple, but situated as it is within Israel’s history, its collective and active memory, and its understanding of past exiles and current subjugation to a foreign power, He calls this to mind again along with the Leviticus passage that Jeremiah seems to also have in mind when He speaks about the demand to love neighbor as self.  To clinch the argument that Jesus’ words are not to be disconnected from His ongoing and primary concern with the Temple as demonstrated in Matthew, it is necessary to point out that this section of Leviticus basically begins with “When you sacrifice a peace offering sacrifice to the Lord, you must sacrifice it so that it is accepted for you” (19:5).  The Temple, of course, was the place of sacrifice.

No One Knows The Hour (part 10)

Jesus’ talk of the kingdom, His triumphal entry, and His dramatic and judging words and actions in the Temple that fit within Israel’s narrative history, are rooted in hopes concerning the Creator God’s promise to His people and the covenant faithfulness of that God.  Occupation and possession of that land, in which their God would build His temple and in which He would dwell amongst His people, was always the evidence of their God’s power and of the fulfillment of His promises to His people.  So when Jesus speaks in the way that He does when challenged by the expert in the law, He is not simply offering up aphorisms on how the people of the covenant God are to live.  Rather, He is building upon the edifice that is already in place, and He must be heard to be speaking in the context of promise, land, Temple, and kingdom. 

So even though it does not appear, on the surface, that this particular exchange is linked to His Temple concerns, one can affirm that it most certainly is linked to Jesus’ opinions concerning the Temple and that it continues in the narrative flow.  It is not an isolated statement or encounter, but one that absolutely demands to be understood in connection to the Temple, as has all that has been examined to this point of this study, and it builds to a conclusion concerning Jesus’ insistence that no man can know the day or the hour.

If the quotation from Deuteronomy conjures up a wider context, does Jesus other statement about loving one’s neighbor as one loves self, which is taken from Leviticus, do the same?  Based upon what has been learned to this point, it would be a surprise if it did not.  Just as there was no disappointment when turning to Deuteronomy, turning to Leviticus again disparages disappointment.  When Jesus speaks these words about the love of God and the law, He is quoting from the eighteenth verse of the nineteenth chapter.  As one examines what is to be found in the preceding verses, it is almost possible to be stunned at what can be found. 

Beginning in the eleventh verse and quoting extensively (always remembering that calling to mind a larger section of Scripture, understood within Israel’s history, is the function of an isolated quotation), the Levitical text insists that “You must not steal, you must not tell lies, and you must not deal falsely with your fellow citizen.  You must not swear falsely in My name, so that you do not profane the name of your God.  I am the Lord.  You must not oppress your neighbor or commit robbery against him.  You must not withhold the wages of the hired laborer overnight until morning” (19:11-13).  This last part, concerning the laborers, is of even greater interest if this entire section is being called to mind, taking on a more interesting dimension and revealing Jesus’ and Matthew’s theological genius, as Matthew, just before Jesus’ triumphal entry, records Jesus’ telling of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, which begins with “For the kingdom of heaven is like...” (Matthew 20:1a).   Once again the reader is reminded that land, Temple, and kingdom are inseparably bound. 

Continuing in Leviticus: “You must not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block in front of a blind person.  You must fear your God; I am the Lord.  You  must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich.  You must judge your fellow citizen fairly.  You must not go about as a slanderer among your people.  You must not stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake.  I am the Lord.  You must not hate your brother in your heart.  You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him.  You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself” (19:14-18). 

Now, it is rather simple to agree that this does in fact delineate the way in which the people of the Creator God should strive to live, and it would be wonderful to insist that Jesus was speaking in such a way so as to encourage His people (then and now) to live in such a way.  Certainly that is part of what He is doing, but considering the setting, it is obvious that it reaches beyond that.  Would this not remind the reader or listener of something that Jesus has already said?  Does this not provide a reminder of a narrative that has been called to mind by what Jesus said?  It should. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 9)

After the silencing of the Sadducees, one of the Pharisees, who was said to be “an expert in religious law” (Matthew 22:35b), posed a question to Jesus.  The language used by Matthew, which is that the purpose of the question was “to test Him” (22:36c), informs the audience that this encounter was to be understood as a rabbinic debate, which would have an honor and shame dynamic at play.  This is fitting, since one of the greatest sources of honor in that day would have been a connection to the Temple, and with His words and actions, Jesus is in the process of shaming the Temple and those connected to it.  If they are able to overcome Jesus in a rabbinic challenge, thus diminishing His honor standing in the court of public reputation and opinion, then they can also diminish the effectiveness of His words and actions against the Temple, thus recovering (on behalf of the Temple and themselves) the honor that Jesus is accruing to Himself at the expense of the Temple and its functionaries.

Thus Jesus’ opinion in regards to the greatest commandment of the law is elicited.  With His answer, Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy and from Leviticus, responding with “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (22:37), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (22:39).  Summing up His response, Jesus adds “All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments” (22:40).  The modern reader should be quite familiar with these words of Jesus, as were the respective audiences of both Jesus and Matthew.  Remembering that the Temple and His judgment upon it lies in the background of both His words and the narrative that records His words and deeds, and considering that singular quotations of Scripture are designed to call to mind large sections of the Scriptural narrative (and by extension, Israel’s history), one is forced to look at the context for Jesus’ Scriptural quotations.  In doing so, one finds that these quotes fit within the overall movement of Matthew and of this section of the story he tells. 

Prior to His triumphal entry, in multiple parables, Jesus is shown to be speaking about the kingdom of heaven (God).  Talk of the kingdom of heaven fits together with thoughts about the restoration of the promised land of Israel, which would manifest itself in the independence of people and land from the rule of foreign and pagan nations.  Jesus’ triumphal entry aligns with such talk.  Jesus’ continued speech about the kingdom of heaven, in chapters twenty-one and twenty-two following His judgment upon the Temple (which then cannot be disconnected from that which follows), fits neatly with what has been previously heard from Jesus and presented by Matthew.  So when Jesus is heard speaking about love of the Creator God with heart, soul, and mind, and His hearers have their thoughts thrust upon the pages of Deuteronomy, disappointment would be at hand if one did not find concerns within the same vein (that being the kingdom of heaven and liberation) being voiced.  Naturally, these expectations are not disappointed. 

The words quoted by Jesus are prefaced and followed by statements such as “Walk just as He has commanded you so that you may live, that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land you are going to possess” (5:33); “Now these are the commandments, statutes, and ordinances that the Lord your God has instructed me to teach you so that you may carry them out in the land where you are headed… as the Lord, God of your ancestors, said to you, you will have a land flowing with milk and honey” (6:1,3b); “Then when the Lord your God brings you the land He promised to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give you” (6:10a); “for the Lord your God, who is present among you,” which is a Temple/tabernacle reference---the place the Lord dwells, “is a jealous God and His anger will erupt against you and remove you from the land” (6:15); “Do whatever is proper and good before the Lord so that it may go well with you and that you may enter and occupy the good land that He promised to your ancestors” (6:18); “He delivered us… so that He could give us the land He had promised our ancestors” (6:23); and “When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy” (7:1a). 

No One Knows The Hour (part 3)

Returning to Matthew and to the day after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which took Him to the Temple to pronounce a symbolic judgment against it in the mode of Jeremiah (and for the same reasons), along with which He referred to the Temple authorities as robbers (for engaging in insurrection against the God of the Temple---an insurrection that will cause Israel’s God to bring upon Jerusalem and its Temple the same type of judgment that their God brought upon it by way of Babylon, which are the thoughts that Jesus’ words and actions would have stirred, therefore setting him at odds with the Temple authorities and the people, as also happened to Jeremiah), Jesus returns to Jerusalem and to the Temple, having spent the night in the nearby village of Bethany (the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus). 

On his way back to Jerusalem, Jesus is reported to have caused a fig tree to wither for not producing fruit.  This echoes Jeremiah’s repeated use of fig tree symbolism, and therefore becomes a clear allusion to the nation of Israel, which was failing in its task to be a light to the nations.  This withering of the fig tree also functions as an allusion to the well-understood curses of the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus and the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, which the Creator God (as Matthew writes from the post-Resurrection perspective of Jesus as the physical embodiment of Israel’s Creator God) promised to bring upon His unfaithful people). 

This causing of the fig tree to wither, for Matthew, appears to stem from the reaction of “the chief priests and the experts in the law” (Temple authorities) when they “saw the wonderful things he did” (21:15a).  Matthew alone, to the exclusion of Mark and Luke, reports that following Jesus’ talk of the Temple as den of robbers, “The blind and the lame came to Him in the Temple courts, and He healed them” (21:14).  In addition, there were “children crying out in the Temple courts, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David’” (21:15b).  This is said to have caused the chief priests and the experts in the law to become “indignant” (21:15c). 

Those that represented Israel before their God were unable to celebrate Jesus’ entry in the way of Solomon as pronounced by Zechariah, they refused to repent when one who had been attempting to be a Jeremiah (and more than a Jeremiah) to the people for three years called them to account, and they refused to rejoice in what was a rather obvious coming of their Messiah (in the mold of Isaiah 61) and His healing of the blind and the lame in the Temple courts.  Little wonder then that Jesus spoke to and about the fig tree in such a way.  Matthew writes that “When the disciples saw it they were amazed” (21:20a), and wondered at what they had seen.  To their amazed inquiry, Jesus replied “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen.  And whatever you ask in prayer, if you believe, you will receive” (21:21-22). 

As these words are heard, one must not lose sight of the fact that Jesus is on His way into Jerusalem.  Matthew will move immediately to add “Now after Jesus entered the Temple courts, the chief priests and elders of the people came up to Him as He was teaching and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’” (21:23).  So the story of the fig tree and the words about the mountain are bracketed by Jesus being in the Temple (Israel’s God returning to Zion and to the Temple), where the legitimacy of His presence there is challenged by the Temple authorities.  This fact shall not be allowed to casually pass.  This makes the point that it is the Temple mount that Jesus has in view when He speaks about the mountain being cast into the sea.  It must be understood that it is the Temple that is central to Matthew’s narrative (along with Mark and Luke), and one must not lose sight of that fact while working towards an appropriate understanding of Jesus’ statement about the day and the hour that no one knows.   

Love On John's Terms (part 19)

In the fourth chapter of John, Jesus’ talk of water is linked to Jacob.  The context of everything following the feeding of the five thousand, in the sixth chapter, including His talk of water, is the Moses-and-Deuteronomy-linked statement about “the Prophet who is to come into the world” (6:14b).  Here again, Jesus’ talk of water, when offered to a people that lived in expectation of a messiah and of their God’s working on their behalf to bring about another exodus, and who had a constant consciousness of their history of exile and exodus (especially their primary exodus story), is linked back to Moses.  Upon Jesus’ declaration concerning water, “some of the crowd begin to say, ‘This really is the Prophet!’” (7:40b)  For the author’s purpose, this would almost have to be directly connected to the similar words spoken in the sixth chapter, following the feeding of the multitude. 

Whereas in the sixth chapter Jesus is linked to Moses by the provision of bread, here He is linked to Moses by the provision of water.  This, of course, is connected to the remembrance of the flowing of water from a rock during Israel’s time in the wilderness.  For these people, the Creator God’s love is expressed in such ways, and Jesus is to be seen as the embodiment of that expression of love.  It becomes more and more clear, as the story progresses along, that love is expressed by means of bread and water, and that these things, being the staples of human existence as well as the points of reference by which Jesus is recognized as the Messiah, are far from being simply spiritual terms.   

In the eighth chapter of John, the author offers a very brief reminder of Jesus’ dealings with the Samaritan woman of chapter four.  In verse forty-eight of this chapter, in response to an extended monologue by Jesus, “The Judeans reply, ‘Aren’t we correct in saying that you are a Samaritan and are possessed by a demon?’”  Naturally, this mention of “Samaritan,” within a continuous narrative in which the listener or the reader will have learned about the Samaritan woman and the response of a group of Samaritans that came to believe in Jesus as Messiah, is thought-provoking.  The response from Jesus is “I am not possessed by a demon, but I honor my Father---and yet you dishonor Me” (8:49). 

With what is known at this point, it is not surprising to find Jesus completely dismissing the negative statement leveled against the Samaritans, and responding only to the accusation that He is possessed by a demon.  The Judeans are here shown to be putting Samaritans and demons on the same level, but the hearer knows that this is ridiculous.  This seems to be yet another subtle indicator of the nature of the love, modeled by Jesus through this Gospel presentation, that is to be practiced by the Johannine community and of course the wider body of believers.

From there, the story moves to Jesus’ healing of a man that had been born blind.  In that story, Jesus declares Himself to be “the light of the world” (9:5b), which builds on a concept introduced in the first chapter and built on in the eighth chapter.  With this, Jesus adds to declarations of Himself as both bread and water (evidences of love).  As it has been well-established that these statements about bread and water are Moses and exodus related statements, and acknowledging that taking a dogmatic stand in this area would not be warranted, it stands to reason that Jesus’ speaking of Himself as the light of the world might tie in to the same theme, calling to mind the pillar of fire that was said to have accompanied Israel in the wilderness.   

Love On John's Terms (part 12)

To this point, the observation of “miraculous signs” has been limited to the plural.  However, its usage in the singular must not be overlooked.  It cannot be said that the singular phrase is limited to the Gospel of John alone, as a singular use is also to be found in Luke’s Gospel.  However, as it is a single instance, it does not appear to play a role in the overall structure and movement of Luke, but this most certainly cannot be said of its role in the Gospel of John. 

Adding the uses of the singular “miraculous sign” to that of the plural, one finds an additional five instances of its role in the Gospel, thus bringing the total number of “miraculous sign” language to fourteen instances.  Clearly, it is a key component of what is being communicated by this author.  This makes sense, especially when reflecting on the fact that the pre-supposition of this Gospel is a very high Christology, operating on the premise that Jesus is the incarnation of Israel’s covenant God.  The hearers then, especially with this presupposition at play in their own community, are not going to be surprised that miraculous signs follow Him. 

“Miraculous sign” makes its first appearance in the fourth chapter, following the healing of the son of a royal official.  This is recorded as “His second miraculous sign when He returned from Judea to Galilee” (4:54).  It makes two of its five appearances in the sixth chapter, which is heavy with “sign” language.  All told, between the singular and the plural, the listener and the reader encounter this language four times in this chapter.  Considering the fact that the chapter contains the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus making His walk on the water, and His discourse related to bread (which ultimately springs from the feeding), this is unsurprising.  Does love play a role in any of this?  In this chapter that is filled with miraculous signs, and references to the same, is it possible to make any additions to an understanding of what “love” means on John’s terms?  As is almost always the case, the qualifying answer is “perhaps.” 

In the fourteenth verse the author writes “Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, ‘This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.’”  This is an allusion to a statement from the book of Deuteronomy---a key component of the Hebrew Scriptures that weighed heavily on Jewish self-understanding in the second Temple period.  In the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, as Moses continues to address Israel, he can be heard saying that “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you---from your fellow Israelites; you must listen to him” (18:15). 

Because Moses, of course, was understood as the man that the Creator God had raised up to lead Israel out from under Egyptian oppression, these words, as reported by John, must be seen and heard in that light and context.  The people were affirming Jesus as the new Moses.  Therefore, He must also be the one that is going to lead them out from under Roman oppression and occupation.  For the crowds, this Moses-like leadership is confirmed by the fact that Jesus has miraculously provided bread to a multitude of people there on the mountainside, just as Moses (though it was Israel’s God at work---one can say the same for Jesus from the perspective on offer by John) miraculously provided bread to the nation of Israel in the wilderness following their exodus.

This is not simply conjecture, because it is rather obvious that this is the way these things are meant to be understood.  To this point, later on in the sixth chapter Jesus is heard to say “I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but My Father is giving you true bread from heaven” (6:32).  This explicit mention of Moses (in the wake of the implicit mention of Moses in the fourteenth verse) in the midst of a section of the Gospel full of references to miraculous signs, calls attention to the single use of the plural “miraculous signs” that is to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures.  That use is in the one hundred fifth Psalm.  There, within a context of the Psalmist speaking about Moses and Aaron and the display of divine power that precipitated the Creator God’s delivery of Israel from Egypt, the Psalmist writes “they executed His miraculous signs among them” (105:27a).  Thus, one can surmise that John’s “miraculous sign” structure, especially here in the sixth chapter, plays on the exile and exodus motif (perishing and eternal life) that was established in the third chapter during the conversation with Nicodemus. 

Where Your Treasure Is (part 3)

Continuing on in chapter twelve of Luke, Jesus can be heard to say “Watch out and guard yourself from all types of greed, because one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (12:15).  This will be programmatic and quite significant for what comes later.  With this said, Jesus embarks upon a parable, saying “The land of a certain rich man produced an abundant crop” (12:16b).  With the mention of an abundant crop, and with the shared background of the knowledge of the Levitical/Deuteronomic blessings to be had for adherence to covenant responsibilities, Jesus’ hearers would likely and immediately take this as a sign that this man was blessed by the Creator God. 

What would or should also come to mind is the passage from Deuteronomy that says “Be sure you do not forget the Lord your God by not keeping His commandments, ordinances, and statutes that I am giving you today.  When you eat your fill, when you build and occupy good houses, when your cattle and flocks increase, when you have plenty of silver and gold and when you have abundance of everything, be sure you do not feel self-important and forget the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt, the place of slavery, and who brought you through the great, fearful desert of venomous serpents and scorpions, an arid place with no water” (8:11-15a). 

Such ideas would not be lost on a people that, though they occupied their promised land, stood under the yoke of Rome, and figuratively at least, were in the place of slavery.  Of course, this was the position of both Ezra and Nehemiah, who gave voice to a mindset that prevailed among the people through the hundreds of years following the return from Babylonian captivity and on into Jesus’ day,

(contrary to the Pharisaic claim of John 8:33 that “we are descendants of Abraham… and have never been anyone’s slaves”) as they insisted that even though the people of God had re-settled in the land, “we are slaves” (Ezra 9:9, Nehemiah 9:36).  According to what comes next in the eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, Jesus’ hearers would have expected the rich man to adhere to the proviso to “Be careful not to say, ‘My own ability and skill have gotten me this wealth’,” and to “remember the Lord your God, for He is the one who gives ability to get wealth” (8:18a).

This rich man, unfortunately, did not have the proper mindset, as “he thought to himself: ‘What should I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’” (Luke 12:17)  In answering this self-directed query, the appropriate response would have been to provide the excess to the poor of the land, as was repeatedly suggested to the covenant people in what is presumed to be their charter, but this was not the route that he chose, Jesus goes on to report that “he said, ‘I will do this; I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.  And I will say to myself, “You have plenty of goods stored up for many years; relax, eat, drink, celebrate!”’” (12:18-19) 

It would seem that this theoretical rich man also has a portion of Deuteronomy in mind, though it may have been twisted and excerpted through his own personal translation.  The crowd that is listening to Jesus could have understood that this rich man with abundant crops that are clearly productive of excess, has selected portions of the fourteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, reading for himself “When He blesses you… you may spend the money however you wish for cattle, sheep, wine, beer, or whatever you desire.  You and your household may eat… and enjoy it” (14:24a,26a,c). 

They would have known that what he should have done was use the excess in such a way that “the resident foreigners, the orphans, and the widows of your villages may come and eat their fill so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work you do” (14:29b).  Unfortunately, he did not choose this path of action, and Jesus insists that “God said to him, ‘You fool!  This very night your life will be demanded from you, but who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’” (Luke 12:20)  Jesus punctuates the parable with “So it is with the one who stores up riches for himself, but is not rich toward God” (12:21). 

Hated (part 5)

This study then returns to what Jesus said in the thirteenth chapter of Mark (and elsewhere): “You will be hated by everyone because of My name.  But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (13:13).  It is appropriate to key in on the second part of that statement, in which Jesus speaks of enduring to the end and being saved.  This use of “saved” links Jesus’ words to Israel’s Egyptian exodus, as again, “salvation” expressions, for Israel, speak of their God’s rescue from enemies or their deliverance from oppressors. 

Though it can be easily missed by the modern reader, such language would be easily picked up on by His hearers.  It would have been readily discerned by the majority of first century readers of the Gospels, as they would also have been steeped in Israel’s history.  When that is understood, and once one picks up on the exodus context for the hatred of which Jesus speaks, while at the same time discarding the idea that Jesus is talking about some ethereal, other-worldly notion of a paradise somewhere off in the sky to be enjoyed after death (a thoroughly un-Jewish notion) when He speaks of being saved, readers will find themselves better positioned to identify the reason for the hate. 

So why in the world is this connected to Israel’s exodus?  What is the reason that the Creator God gives for rescuing Israel (His covenant people through Abraham) from their Egyptian bondage?  Essentially, it is the same reason He gives for rescuing the church (His covenant people through Jesus) from their bondage?  The answer is to be found in Deuteronomy, where one finds Moses’ report that “It is not because you were more numerous than all the other peoples that the Lord favored and chose you---for in fact you were the least numerous of all peoples.  Rather it is because of His love for you and His faithfulness to the promises He solemnly vowed to your ancestors that the Lord brought you out with great power, redeeming you from the place of slavery” (7:7-8)  Just before this, Moses reminds Israel that they “are a people holy to the Lord” (7:6a), and says that “He has chosen you to be His people, prized above all others on the face of the earth” (7:6b). 

One of the Psalmists picks up on this, making it possible to catch yet another glimpse of that historical self-understanding out of and into which Jesus spoke, when the Psalmist writes (in reference to Israel in Egypt): “The Lord made His people very fruitful, and made them more numerous than their enemies.  He caused them to hate His people, and to mistreat His servants” (105:24-25).  This should provide pause to consider a question that is never asked, which is “what was Israel doing for Egypt when their God made them fruitful in that land?”  Were they being a blessing as Abraham had understood to have been?  What was it that caused Egypt to turn against Israel and to hate the covenant people of the Creator God?  Were they serving those people well by sharing their God’s blessings and revealing their God to them, or were they hoarding the blessing? 

That goes to the question of why the Abrahamic covenant existed.  Presumably, it existed so that Abraham could exemplify divine blessing (as indicated in Genesis), so that his God could be recognized and glorified as the Creator God of the cosmos.  This is the covenant under which Israel went into Egypt, and it is also the covenant that comes to be fulfilled by Jesus through His church, with the message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) as the mark of that covenant.  

Only Son (part 21)

Why did the Creator God raise up Solomon and gift him with such wisdom and wealth?  Presumably, it was so that His people Israel, along with all peoples and nations, would come to believe in Him.  Solomon, as a son of God, was yet another example of the Creator God’s love for the world, and it would appear that, as an example, he was said to be gifted in such a profound way so that He would be blessed, so that Israel would be blessed, and so that Israel would, in turn, be a blessing to all peoples of the world by being an example of unparalleled divine blessing. 

The Creator God’s design in this was to cause all peoples, through His people, to forsake their idolatry and turn in worship to the One that was their Creator, as and in Whose image they had been created.  In so doing, the tide of evil would be stemmed and the ongoing and ultimately unnecessary perishing of the peoples of the world and the creation could be restrained. 

The divine blessings (reflective of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) granted to Solomon and Israel were representative of the gifts of eternal life that the covenant God desired to grant to all peoples, restoring them to the place and status from which Adam had fallen.  Unfortunately, though Solomon had experienced his God’s power and presence (on two occasions---1 Kings 11:9), much like Adam and Israel had experienced that power and presence, he did not truly believe his God.  What was the result?  He fell into the aforementioned idolatry.  Because of that, Israel, as a unified body of people adequately representing their God to the world, effectively perished, and the blessings of their God that had been so strong upon them (eternal life) would be lost.            

While one could certainly continue moving forward from the history of Solomon, wading into and through the inter-testamental literature that sets the stage for the second Temple Judaism into which Jesus came and spoke, doing so in order to more fully develop the “son of God” theology and frame of reference, to engage in such would merely belabor the point.  Based on the examination of the clear “son of God” traditions embodied in Adam, Israel, and Solomon, it is now quite possible to understand the full import and impact of Jesus’ words when He speaks of His God’s love of the world and the sending of His one and only Son for the purpose of belief and eternal life.  The historical examples provided heretofore, stand in stark contrast to the Creator God’s expectations and intentions for the role that His son (whoever that son may be) would play in and for the world. 

Though, with reflection, one can see that Jesus is referring to Himself (as the author of the Gospel would seem to desire), it is not necessarily the case that Jesus is demanding that Nicodemus come to this conclusion.  Rather, an observer might be better served by considering that Nicodemus was to remember this conversation with Jesus, and upon His crucifixion realize that Jesus was referring to Himself with His cryptic comments that “the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14b).  This would seem to be a reasonable proposition. 

It is this believing in Jesus as the Son of Man (the Messiah-King and embodiment of Israel’s God) that then becomes equivalent to believing in the Creator God in the way that was expected of Adam and Israel and Solomon.  It is through believing in the lifted-up-Son-of-Man, with the efficaciousness of such belief equivalent to the reversing of the exilic-oriented and death-bringing curse of the serpents in the wilderness, that the blessings that the Creator God intends for His people (renewal, restoration, reconciliation, re-creation, exodus, rescue, deliverance, liberation, resurrection---eternal life) are to be enjoyed. 

Only Son (part 19)

Calling to mind the story of Abraham, and particularly the covenant and its purpose, not only brings to mind the failure of Adam, but also the story of Israel, along with its covenant and its purpose.  So with the simple use of a phrase such as “sand on the seashore,” Solomon (and his mission as the king over the Creator God’s chosen people) is intimately linked with Adam (son of God) and Israel (son of God), This link fostered by a reference to the Abrahamic covenant, which stands as the bridge between Adam and Israel, thus making sense of the covenant God referring to Solomon as His son.  If the author of the first book of the Kings is doing this, then one can reasonably suppose that Jesus is doing the same type of thing. 

Based on what one can go on to read about during the reign of Solomon, it will become apparent that Israel, during part of this time (and perhaps only during this time), is finally fulfilling its purpose of being a blessing to the nations.  It is during this period that Israel can be understood to be reflecting the glory of their God into the world, and causing all nations to seek the God of Israel because of the immense blessings that are being poured out on the nation in what it is suggested is an obvious way.  Israel under Solomon---presumably because the Creator God has gifted Solomon (upon his request) with “the ability to make wise judicial decisions” (3:11), so as to “distinguish right from wrong” (3:9) on behalf of the Creator God’s people---was approaching that which the Creator had intended for Adam, as well as what He had intended for Israel when they were called out of Egypt. 

Adam’s charge, of course, had been to secure the Creator God’s ongoing blessings for the whole of creation, with this charge also being reflected in the covenant with Abraham.  Israel’s charge had been to be and to do for their promised land what Adam was supposed to have been and done for the whole world.  Faithfulness to this charge would cause their God to enter in, and through Israel, extend His blessings to the whole of the world, as nations would look to Israel and subsequently to its God. 

It would be understood that this was occurring for Israel in the light of their knowledge of that which is reflected in records of the Levitical and Deuteronomic covenants.  So when one reads that “they had plenty to eat and drink and were happy” (1 Kings 4:20b), that “Solomon ruled all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt” (4:21a), that “these kingdoms paid tribute as Solomon’s subjects throughout his lifetime” (4:21b), and that kings and queens would come to Solomon (as representatives of the people that they ruled), these things are to be considered from within a state of reflection on the promised blessings of Leviticus twenty-six and Deuteronomy twenty-eight, with its blessings upon produce and livestock and the promise that “the peoples of the earth will see that you belong to the Lord, and they will respect you” (28:10).       

In addition, something to consider is the respective roles of Adam, of Israel, and of Solomon.  All three are referred to as the son of God, and all three are given a charge in relation to the dwelling place of the Creator God.  Adam was charged with being the Creator God’s representative throughout the whole of the creation.  If he was to properly perform in this role, the glory of his God would fill the whole of the world.  Adam failed.  Israel was then charged with being the representative of the Creator God in the land that had been promised to Abraham.  Their God is reported to have said that He desired to dwell among His people, and would do so as long as they obeyed Him and fulfilled the basic requirements of their covenant obligation.  Israel would fail at this from almost the very beginning.  Solomon was charged with building a Temple in Jerusalem that would be a dwelling place for the God of Israel.  While the Temple was constructed, and while the Lord is indeed said to have filled the Temple with His glory, in the end, though there was a time of great prosperity and blessing for Israel during his reign, Solomon would fail, falling to idolatry. 

Deceit & Judgment (part 2 of 2)

With this somewhat clear presentation of idolatry as the reason for judgment to fall upon Israel, one can then go on to make sense of reading about children that “are always thinking about their altars and their sacred poles dedicated to the goddess Asherah, set up beside green tress on the high hills and on the mountains and in the fields” (Jeremiah 17:2-3a).  Following that, the God of Israel says, “I will give your wealth and all your treasures away as plunder” (17:3b).  So here an explicit connection is made between idolatry and the material wealth of the people.  Before that point is reached here in chapter seventeen however, the reader will have stumbled across some words that should help to properly shape the conception of the true problem of idolatry that was being presented here by the people of Judah. 

In the sixteenth chapter, when the Creator God gives Jeremiah an answer to give to the people that might find themselves questioning the reason for the judgment and disaster that was going to befall them, He says to tell them, “It is because your ancestors rejected Me and paid allegiance to other gods.  They have served them and worshiped them.  But they have rejected Me and not obeyed My law” (16:11).  That sounds pretty bad, but it does not end there.  The covenant God continues His answer with “And you have acted even more wickedly than your ancestors!  Each one of you have followed the stubborn inclinations of your own wicked heart and not obeyed Me” (16:12). 

What is to be found in that statement?  Effectively, it is self-idolatry---the same old sin from the time of the garden---which always seems to get a far harsher reaction and treatment from the Creator God than the simple worshiping of wood and stone.  It is with this conception of self-idolatry that one can then move back to the Creator God’s statements about the human mind and its deceit and incurable “badness.”  Following that statement then, one finds “I, the Lord, probe into people’s minds.  I examine people’s hearts.  I deal with each person according to how he has behaved.  I give them what they deserve based on what they have done” (17:10). 

What does this have to do with idolatry or self-idolatry?  Well, connecting the thoughts concerning idolatry and wealth and treasures found just a few verses before, the reader goes on to learn in the next verse about “The person who gathers wealth by unjust means” (17:11a).  This is what follows talk of the human mind being more deceitful than anything else and incurably bad.  It could be said that the person who gathers wealth by unjust means is guilty of self-idolatry, especially in light of the statement in Deuteronomy that the Lord “is the One Who gives ability to get wealth” (8:18b). 

Surely, it can be said that a Creator God-granted ability to get wealth will see wealth accumulated by just means, and will therefore result in proper worship of the God that gave the ability, and Who therefore gave the wealth.  Wealth gained by unjust means will result in worship of what provided for the accumulation of wealth, which is the marred and falling-short-of-the-divine-image heart and mind that is said to have come about because of the desire on the part of the first humans to be like their God.  Because of this, it can be surmised that not only was idolatry, along with its companion of self-idolatry, the reason for the judgment that came upon the people of the covenant God, but one can also now understand that the gathering of wealth by unjust means, which will generally be connected with idolatry and with the extension of suffering and oppression, was a reason for that God’s judgment as well.