Naomi's Exile & Exodus (part 3)

If so, this makes Orpah’s departure understandable.  If so, this makes Ruth’s clinging to Naomi even more remarkable, while providing a glimpse into what lay behind the language of the rest of her statement to Naomi, in which she says “Wherever you die, I will die---and there I will be buried.  May the Lord punish me severely if I do not keep my promise!  Only death will be able to separate me from you!” (1:17)  So against all probability, while Naomi thinks of the return to the promised land as an exile, Ruth looks forward to the end of exile and a joining together with the people of exodus in the land of the covenant God’s promise. 

With all of this under consideration---Naomi’s trepidation in returning to the land, combined with the knowledge of the famine and subjugation that was in effect when she left with her husband, it is with a touch of apparent irony that “they arrived in Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest” (1:22b).  Immediately, in her land of exodus---which is the place of the Creator God’s mission for her---“Ruth went and gathered grain in the fields behind the harvesters” (2:3a). 

This gathering, as the reader comes to find out, took place in “the field belonging to Boaz, who was from the clan of Elimelech” (2:3c).  When Boaz speaks to Ruth, he treats her quite well, embodying the grace and kindness to resident foreigners that was demanded of Israel in the law of their God---because they too had been foreigners in Egypt.  Though the author does not speak of this, it underlies the story and the treatment, and serves as a reminder of the constant overt and subtle recalling of exodus by the various Biblical authors. 

Soon after, as Ruth gives Naomi a report of the day’s activities, as well as the favorable treatment from Boaz, “Naomi said to her, ‘This man is a close relative of ours; he is our guardian’.” (2:20b)  Later on, Ruth goes back to Boaz, proposing marriage and reminding him that he is “a guardian of the family’s interests” (3:9b).  The Hebrew word used here for “guardian” is “go’el,” which is used as both “kinsman” and “redeemer.”  This means that this is “deliverer” language, thus presenting Boaz in the mold of Moses, which places the story squarely in the center of the exile, exodus, and rescuing motif that is much of the sum and substance of the Scriptural message. 

As a guardian or a redeemer or a deliverer, Boaz agrees to Ruth’s proposal, and tells her that he will do what is necessary to become her and the family’s redeemer.  Before sending her away so that he can go and attend to this business, “he measured out about sixty pounds of barley into the shawl and put it on her shoulders” (3:15).  In this additional, favorable treatment by this redeemer (the one that was going to complete Ruth’s exodus and bring the family’s exile to an end), it could be said that Boaz went far beyond what either Ruth or Naomi would have asked or thought (Ephesians 3:20).    

As Boaz completes the transaction that will see him redeeming the estate of his kinsmen Elimelech, he says, “I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, as my wife to raise up a descendant who will inherit his property so the name of the deceased might not disappear from among his relatives and from his village” (4:10a).  In so doing, Boaz rescues the name of Elimelech from exile.  Almost immediately, the story of Ruth moves along to the fact that “The Lord enabled her to conceive and she gave birth to a son… They named him Obed.  Now he became the father of Jesse---David’s father!” (4:13b,17b) 

The marriage and the coming of a child marks the preservation of an inheritance within the land.  Because this is couched within the language of redemption (4:4-6), and because redemption is equated with exodus, all of these things serve as a reminder to both the witnesses and the later reader of this history, of the Creator God’s faithful, saving, covenant action on behalf of His people. 

Naomi's Exile & Exodus (part 2)

It would appear that the plan had been for Naomi and her two daughters-in-law to return to the land of Judah.  To that end, it is reported that “as she and her two daughters-in-law began to leave the place where she had been living to return to the land of Judah” (Ruth 1:7).  This would indicate that all three were leaving their land of exile, and that all three were about to experience an exodus to the land of the covenant promise, with this being the case even though both Ruth and Orpah were Moabites and had not previously come from the region of Israel, and were not a part of the Creator God’s covenant people.  Of course, if one was to peruse the history of the Egyptian exodus, one would come to learn that there were non-Israelites that went out of Egypt with Israel, so this represents something of a re-playing of this as Naomi and the two women leave Moab. 

For some reason there is a change of heart on Naomi’s behalf as she “said to her two daughters-in-law ‘Listen to me!  Each of you should return to your mother’s home!  May the Lord show you the same kind of devotion that you have shown to your deceased husbands and to me!  May the Lord enable each of you to find security in the home of a new husband!’” (1:8-9a)  Clearly, making this statement was difficult for Naomi, as she then “kissed them goodbye and they wept loudly” (1:9b).  However, both were determined to return with Naomi, saying “No!  We will return with you to your people” (1:10). 

Naomi speaks again and this time is far more persistent, causing Orpah to accede to her wishes and demands as she kissed her goodbye, presumably returning to her mother’s home as directed.  However, as is known, “Ruth clung tightly to her” (1:14b).  Naomi protested Ruth’s actions, but upon her doing so, Ruth famously and stubbornly declared “Stop urging me to abandon you!  For wherever you go, I will go.  Wherever you live, I will live.  Your people will become my people, and your God will become my God” (1:16).  Ruth’s dogged determination to be a part of the exodus people won out and Naomi relented, so they returned together to Judah, and more specifically, to Bethlehem. 

When they did return, Naomi uses the language of exile and exodus, but seemingly in reverse, as she says “I left here full, but the Lord has caused me to return empty-handed” (1:21a).  It is possible that her bitterness (thus, the name change to Mara, or “bitter”) here had overwhelmed her, as she adds that “the Lord has opposed me, and the Sovereign One has caused me to suffer” (1:21b).  Apparently, she has forgotten that she left with her husband and children in a time of famine, and at a time at which it can be presumed that Israel was in subjugation.  It is possible that she saw their departure to Moab as an exodus, and had begun to think of Moab as home, rather than as a place of exile.  This might very well be the reason why she was so insistent that Orpah and Ruth stay in Moab, which in her own mind had become a place of fullness. 

Based on Ruth’s response to Naomi’s land and Naomi’s God, it seems reasonable to believe that Naomi attempted to paint a not-so-flattering picture of that land and of the Lord of that land, with tales of famine and oppression and death and judgment, in an attempt to convince Orpah and Ruth of the futility of going with her and the benefits of staying there in Moab.  Correspondingly, if her departure was an exodus, then she is now viewing her return home to Bethlehem in Judah as exile.  

A Tradition Of Wells (part 10)

This study now advances to the works of the prophets.  A look at wells through the prophets will conclude the exploration and recognition of that which has provided useful background information and contextualization for the portrayal of Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well.  As this is done, one should continue to reflect on the fact that the shared historical narrative of the nation will shape the prophets’ conception of wells, providing foundation material for their own thought, while maintaining the awareness that prophetical treatment of wells will also serve to inform the significance of wells as they appear in the messianic presentations of John’s Gospel. 

Looking first to the thirty-seventh chapter of Isaiah.  As the prophecy shares material that is common to the second book of the Kings, Isaiah recounts the invasion of Judah by the Assyrian king Sennacherib, along with the response of the king, that being Hezekiah.  Hezekiah has laid Judah’s case before Israel’s God, asking for His intervention against what appears to be the seemingly unavoidable calamity that is coming upon His people.  In response, Isaiah sends a message to Hezekiah (37:21), sharing the response of the “Lord God of Israel” (37:21b). 

In the course of what is to shared with Hezekiah, Isaiah makes mention of a well, placing its mention on the lips of the arrogant king of Assyria, as the reader gets to hear what Israel’s God has effectively heard him say: “With my many chariots I climbed up the high mountains, the slopes of Lebanon.  I cut down its tall cedars and its best evergreens.  I invaded its remote regions, its thickest woods.  I dug wells and drank water.  With the soles of my feet I drip up all the rivers of Egypt” (37:24b-25). 

Naturally, any mention of Egypt by a foreign king that stands against the people of Israel, is bound to invoke memories of Israel’s Egyptian experience.  Regardless of what any king could claim to have performed against Egypt, the God of Israel could lay claim to far more astounding feats.  With talk of Egypt triggering such thoughts, one could easily retrace and rethink talk of chariots (the Egyptian army overcome by the water of the sea), the digging of wells (Abraham and Isaac), and the drinking of water (the continuous provision of water in the wilderness), and be reminded that the covenant and Creator God of Israel had more than sufficient power with which to repel the relatively impotent king of Assyria.  How this might play into the thoughts of John and Jesus, if at all, while considering the importance of Isaiah to thoughts of the messiah and to the New Testament in general, is not entirely clear, though the underlying themes of covenant faithfulness do provide a means of application.

A Tradition Of Wells (part 6)

This study now departs from Genesis and moves on to Exodus, which is the event (so much more than just the title of the book) that gives definitive shape to Israel’s self-consciousness.  Indeed, it can even be said that the understanding of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as revealed in Genesis, is shaped by the self-revelation of that same God as the God of Israel’s exodus.  This means that the God that reveals Himself as One Who works and intervenes on behalf of His people and His creation, doing so from the beginning of the Genesis narrative, is now also to be understood through the lens of the God that liberated Israel from Egypt, provided them with a covenant charge, with guidance as to how to live up to their covenant responsibilities, and guided them to their promised land. 

This holds especially true if Moses is indeed the primary author/compiler/compose of the Torah, thus making it impossible to separate the notion of exodus (rescue, deliverance, redemption, restoration, etc…) from thoughts about the Creator God of Israel.  Indeed, thinking along such lines allows us to view Genesis one and two as a divine rescue, much like Israel was divinely rescued from their Egyptian bondage. 

With such thoughts reverberating in a reader’s mind during a conscientious approach to the broad Scriptural narrative, one should be thoroughly unsurprised to see Moses, after fleeing Egypt in the wake of his murder of an Egyptian that had been mis-treating an Israelite, settling in the land of Midian and doing so by a “certain well” (Exodus 2:15b).  That level of surprise continues in its restraint when reading that “a priest of Midian had seven daughters, and they came and began to draw water and fill the troughs in order to water their father’s flock.  When some shepherds came and drove them away, Moses came up and defended them and then watered their flock” (Exodus 2:16-17). 

In this, Moses becomes very much like Jacob, watering the flock for one who will eventually come to be his wife.  As was seen with Rebekah and Rachel, there was a rush to return home so that these girls might share their story with their father (2:18-19).  In response, Moses is summoned to the home of the priest.  He “agreed to stay with the man, and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses in marriage” (2:21). 

With this third patriarchal (in the broadest sense) instance of a wife being found at a well, it shall be noted with great interest that part of Jesus’ conversation at the well with the Samaritan woman---the portion that convinces her of His status as a prophet, centers upon the subject of marriage.  It is almost as if to say that the woman, who actually lacks a husband though it is said that she has had several, has come to the well, and through this encounter with the one that can truly provide water (as did Jacob and Moses), she found herself a true and lasting husband.    

Jesus & The Finger Of God (part 4 of 4)

This display failed to make an impression on Pharaoh, with the Scriptural record informing the reader that “Pharaoh’s heart remained hard, and he did not listen to them” (8:19b).  In similar fashion, Luke goes on to point out that “As He spoke, a Pharisee invited Jesus to have a meal with him, so He went in and took His place at the table” (11:37).  So even though there is a slight change of setting, Luke wants his audience to continue to keep in mind what has been said by Jesus, which is conveyed by “As He spoke… so Jesus went in.” 

What is the conclusion of the scene at the house of the Pharisee?  Jesus certainly did not win Himself any supporters, as “When He went out from there, the experts in the law and the Pharisees began to oppose Him bitterly, and to ask Him hostile questions about many things, plotting against Him, to catch Him in something He might say” (11:53-54).  Like Pharaoh and his encounter with the finger of the covenant God, their hearts remained hard.   

How else does this story from Israel’s history fit with Jesus’ use of finger of God in Luke?  Taking another looks at what Jesus said there in immediate conjunction with the finger of God and the kingdom of God (which should probably not be allowed to be separated), He says “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his possessions are safe.  But when a stronger man attacks and conquers him, he takes away the first man’s armor on which the man relied and divides up his plunder” (11:21-22). 

Obviously, Pharaoh felt quite secure in rejecting Moses’ requests.  Why shouldn’t he?  He was strong, fully armed, with guards and a palace full of men ready to carry out his every request.  His possessions were safe.  Of course, one does not have to move much further along within the story to find that Pharaoh truly had no power, that he was not nearly as strong as he thought he was, and that he had no ability to deal with the stronger man (the Creator God of Israel) that was attacking him.  Ultimately, his armor (his army) was destroyed after he fruitlessly chased after Israel.  The completion of the thought that is encountered later in Luke, with the Pharisees and the experts in the law revealing their hardened hearts, which casts them in the role of the Pharaoh oppressing the people of the Creator God. 

To cap it off and to complete the overlay of Jesus’ words on to the situation, as Jesus surely meant to activate this particular historical remembrance (along with the others already mentioned, which must be part of Luke’s narrative plan as well), one can see that the culminating plague of the death of the firstborn, which would result in Israel’s release from Egypt (without having to lift their hands against their oppressors, it should be pointed out, and as Jesus must have wanted to convey to those listening to Him that were suffering under Roman oppression, as the sentiment of rebellion was always seething beneath the surface), and know that “The Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, and they gave them whatever they wanted, and so they plundered Egypt” (12:36).  Later, it would be the death of the one that would come to be recognized as the Creator God’s Son that would be the catalyst to a different type of exodus (the Resurrection of Jesus and of His people), in which a different type of strong man (death) would be conquered.   

Handsome Men (part 2 of 2)

Certainly, because Joseph was a powerful ruler, even if it was in Egypt, there could naturally be a desire for a ruler of Israel to be very much like Joseph.  Though it is scant, there is a growing sense that this issue of appearance is an important one when it comes to Israel’s rulers and the way the people wanted to think about their rulers.  This is quite understandable in the day of mass media, but it is not at all difficult to comprehend what would seem to be a natural human desire to have attractive leaders set over them. 

This should be kept in mind when first encountering David in the Scriptural narrative.  As is well known, the Creator God is said to have rejected Saul as king.  Samuel, the one whose failure with his sons has lead to the desire for a king, goes to anoint another man as king.  When David is brought before Samuel we learn that “he was ruddy, with attractive eyes and a handsome appearance” (16:12b).  Strangely, this is after Samuel has viewed the first of David’s brothers and was impressed by his physical appearance. 

This experience with the sons of Jesse must have reminded Samuel of when Saul first stood before him.  However, with that in mind the Lord can be heard to say “Don’t be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him” (16:7b), which serves as an explicit reminder of Saul’s having been rejected.  The Lord is reported to have gone on to say “God does not view things the way men do.  People look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (16:7c).  With this said, it is indeed strange that David’s appearance is mentioned at all, let alone mentioned in such positive terms.  One might think that it would have been the opposite when it came to David, and that Samuel was going to anoint one who was unattractive, but this was apparently not going to be the case. 

Eventually Saul dies and David takes the throne as he was anointed to do.  Frankly, he fares little better than Saul.  In many ways, he was more corrupted by the power than was Saul.  When those who hear the story of Saul, followed by the story of David (with that story naturally and appropriately including David’s adultery and murder) while considering that Saul was rejected from the throne of Israel because he had inappropriately offered a sacrifice, the hearer simply knows that Israel’s God is going to remove David from the throne as well. 

As if to confirm that this is indeed going to take place in due course, David’s son Absalom is introduced into the narrative.  During the course of Absalom’s story, adhering closely to the pattern that has been previously established and apparently as if to confirm that Absalom is indeed going to take the throne of Israel, the author reports that “in all Israel everyone acknowledged that there was no man as handsome as Absalom.  From the sole of his feet to the top of his head he was perfect in appearance” (2 Samuel 14:25). 

Unsurprisingly then, he indeed does take the throne (David is temporarily removed), and even experiences an anointing to confirm what was his justly and prophecy (calling corrupt leaders to account) confirming gained position.  However, as had been the case with both Saul and his father, he eventually engages in an action that is displeasing to the Lord of Israel and is removed from the throne, allowing David (one of the handsome men of Scripture) to regain his rule.  

Handsome Men (part 1)

There was a Benjaminite named Kish… He was a prominent person.  He had a son named Saul, a handsome young man. – 1 Samuel 9:1a,2a  (NET)

Israel is going to receive its first king.  The author reports that “the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do everything the people request of you.  For it is not you that they have rejected, but it is Me that they have rejected as their king.  Just as they have done from the day that I brought them up from Egypt until this very day, they have rejected Me and have served other gods” (8:7-8a).  One should here recognize the fact that the proximate cause of Israel’s request for a king stemmed from Samuel. 

You see, “In his old age Samuel appointed his sons as judges over Israel… But his sons did not follow his ways.  Instead, they made money dishonestly, accepted bribes, and perverted justice” (8:1,3).  It was for this reason that “all the elders of Israel gathered together and approached Samuel” and “said to him, ‘Look, you are old, and your sons don’t follow your ways.  So now appoint over us a king to lead us, just like all the other nations have” (8:4a,5). 

So some may point fingers of blame and rebellion at the people of Israel, and one can certainly understand the words on offer from the Lord to Samuel, comforting him by saying that it is the Lord of Israel that has been rejected and not him, but it must be borne in mind that it is Samuel’s sons that are the issue.  Had Samuel been a better father he might have prevented Israel from traveling the route of monarchy.  Without getting off track, this issue of being a poor father can serve to partially explain David’s affinity for Samuel.  At the same time, however, part of the covenant God’s words to Moses included an insistence that the people would indeed ask for a king, with the Creator God giving directions as to the proper response, so there was always an aura of inevitability about the whole thing.

Samuel then goes to seek out a king to set over the people of Israel.  Because the story introduces Saul immediately after “The Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do as they say and install a king over them’” (8:22a), the reader knows that, when hearing the description of Saul, that this is the one that the God of Israel has chosen to be anointed as king over His people.  It is said that Saul was “a handsome young man.  There was no one among the Israelites more handsome than he was; he stood head and shoulders above all the people” (9:2). 

Whether one realizes it or not, this is the beginning of a pattern as it relates to the monarchy.  Also, through a continued paying of careful attention, this talk of a man being handsome, when presented to a people that absolutely defines themselves by the story of exodus, with that story naturally including the story of Joseph (which explains how Israel came to be in Egypt in the first place so that there could be a resulting exodus), could very well remind the people of Joseph, who was described as being “well built and good-looking” (Genesis 39:6b). 

Absalom (part 19)

To this point, the portrayal of David as being similar to Pharoah, David’s removal as being similar to Pharaoh’s loss of power over Israel, and Absalom’s exodus from his own exile as akin to Israel’s exodus from Egypt under Moses, was effective, and perhaps, knowing what is known about David, even appropriate.  However, it is at this point that Absalom, for some unknown reason, though he was receiving advice to do this, departs from the epic narrative that he has been creating for himself. 

As one thinks back to the story of Israel’s exodus, one thing that is not be found in that story is Moses taking it upon himself to raise his hand against the one from whom Israel was being delivered.  Remember, Moses had attempted to start the revolution in Egypt on behalf of Israel, with his killing of the Egyptian taskmaster.  This failed to accomplish the goal that Moses had in mind, and he was sent into his own personal exile.  When he returned, he was gifted with the ability to lead an exodus that was peaceful, at least as it related to the actions of the people.  As has been seen, Absalom has effectively mirrored this.  Though he was not, as far as the story goes, attempting to start a revolution through his killing of Amnon, it was that killing that resulted in his own exile away from Jerusalem.  It was during that time, no doubt, that the seeds of a plan to take the throne began to germinate, perhaps primarily because he was treated unjustly due to his execution of justice. 

Returning to the exodus story then, it is clear that Israel conducted no demonstrations of violence against Egypt.  The Egyptians, on the other hand, experienced the violent power of Israel’s God, which serves as a reminder of the fact that Moses left it to the God of Israel to bring judgment and destruction in the way that He saw fit.  Then, after the death of the firstborn, which saw Pharaoh finally relent from his stubborn stance and practically demand that Israel depart from Egypt, the last thing Moses was going to do was turn around and attempt to kill Pharaoh. 

In that case, the Creator God had already judged Pharaoh, so what good would that do?  What would that prove?  Even after Pharaoh came out after Moses and Israel, Moses did not send men to confront Pharaoh and his army.  Rather, he continued to trust the God that delivers to fight on behalf of His people.  Had Moses and Israel raised their hands against Egypt in any way, things might have turned out quite differently, as it would have been an indication that they did not fully trust that their covenant God was able to rescue them from their foreign subjugation. 

Absalom would have been wise to heed this example.  Instead, because he was convinced to believe that it was incumbent upon him to go out after his father, he essentially forsook the power of the Creator God to solidify his kingship and to carry out His promises to David through Absalom.  Israel did not turn back and fight against Egypt, rather, they looked forward, preparing themselves to face the enemies to come.  Absalom should have done the same, looking forward as well, in a spirit of thankfulness, rather than allowing for the entrance of a spirit that has to be described as nothing more than vengeful.  Had he not been vindicated already?  Had he not been exalted?  Had Israel’s God not fought his battles for him?  Absalom should never have turned back so as to bring further suffering on his deposed father.  It is this that would ultimately bring David vindication through suffering (with his own story of exile to exodus), while bringing suffering to Absalom in the wake of what had been his own vindication, and sending Absalom from exodus to exile.   

Absalom (part 17)

Absalom appears to be enjoying the Creator God’s favor upon his life and his kingship.  He has suffered in exile, and now he has been vindicated from that suffering.  He has been delivered to the kingship of the covenant people of the covenant God.  Much like Israel, it could be said that he had “taken the land.”  The demonstration of that ongoing Scriptural theme of exile and exodus has been well demonstrated, and above all things, it shows that he is not only now of kinship with Moses, but also Israel itself (from Egypt to the Promised Land), of Jacob (to Haran and back to Canaan), and Abraham (from Ur to Canaan, and from Egypt to Canaan).  It cannot be emphasized enough that he can consider himself to have been vindicated by his God, with evidence of such, following his long ordeal, that he is hailed as Israel’s king.  It must be further emphasized, quite strenuously, that his ascension to the throne (the completion of his personal exodus journey) has been accomplished without resort to military operations. 

As has been previously pointed out, he has not had to raise his hand against Israel’s anointed king.  The people can freely support him in good conscience, knowing full well that David appears to have abdicated willingly.  If indeed the Bathsheba/Uriah incident has been made public knowledge, which seems like a reasonable proposition because of Absalom’s actions with David’s concubines (wives) in sight of the people, that was meant to be a demonstration of the judgment pronounced against him by the Creator God through the prophet Nathan, then David’s peaceful abdication would have seemed altogether appropriate, with Absalom’s peaceful taking of power (in this context) completely understandable. 

Then, the unraveling begins.  Absalom quickly moves from the place of apparent favor and blessing of Israel’s God, with an implicit sanction of his kingship (because of his role in delivering prophesied and embarrassing judgment for David) with David slinking quietly away into the background, into the opposite situation.  Almost immediately upon becoming secure upon the throne, Absalom begins to see his station slipping from him.  To a point, he had been growing in favor with man (and apparently) with God, but this now turns.  Absalom starts to fall into the Creator God’s disfavor, and David begins to regain in favor. 

This can’t simply be because David had been anointed by God to replace Saul and lead the covenant people, as the Creator God is free to work through Absalom (according to the promise to David) to cause His people to be a light to the nations and to reflect His glory into the world, so there must be a signal reason why this takes place.  Did Absalom have his own Bathsheba situation?  Not as far as the Scriptures report.  Did he fail to execute justice as did David in the situation with Amnon and Tamar.  Again, not as far as is known.  So what was it?  Why is the Creator God’s blessing suddenly removed from him?  What is it that causes the people to slowly begin to turn from Absalom and reinstitute their support of David? 

The answer is found in the first few verses of the seventeenth chapter of the second book of Samuel.  What does this passage say?  There it is reported that, “Ahithophel said to Absalom, ‘Let me pick out twelve thousand men.  Then I will go and pursue David this very night.  When I catch up with him he will be exhausted and worn out.  I will rout him, and the entire army that is with him will flee.  I will kill only the king and will bring the entire army back to you.  In exchange for the life of the man you are seeking, you will get back everyone’.” (17:1-3a)  What was Absalom’s response to this?  In what should be a surprise, based on how things have gone and what has been accomplished to that point, it is said that “This seemed like a good idea to Absalom and to all the leaders of Israel” (17:4).  Though Absalom would also seek out further advice and eventually act upon advice contrary to what was offered by Ahithophel, the point is that this seemed like a good idea to Absalom. 

Absalom (part 13)

The only blood that was shed throughout the entirety of the time in which the plagues of Egypt ran their course was that of the lambs that were shed on behalf of the households of Israel.  The only bloodshed that preceded deliverance and exodus was that of sacrifice.  What bloodshed can be seen in the run-up to Absalom’s insurrection?  Only that of sacrifice---when Absalom offered sacrifices in Hebron (2 Samuel 15:12).  Quite rightly, if one desires to take a step here to make a connection to Jesus, Jesus could have spoken to a people that considered themselves to be a people in exile, under oppression, and reminded them that their God delivered their nation and gave them exodus without the people having to rise up in rebellion in order to cast off that yoke.   

Following the death of the firstborn in Egypt, Pharaoh sent Israel out of the land.  Their exodus was begun through the intervention of the Creator God alone.  Israel did not have to resort to the force of arms for even a single moment.  Neither did Absalom.  David departed from Jerusalem, going into exile much like Pharaoh, his army, and the land of Egypt (which was soon to be over-run by the Amalekites), and Absalom entered into Jerusalem without having to physically raise his hand against his father (15:37). 

Absalom could use this fact to point out that yes, Israel’s God was showing favor upon him, and by extension showing favor to Israel---delivering a kingdom into his hand.  This could have been used as evidence that he had, in fact, been raised up like Moses, and that David had been deposed from the position of power, much like Pharaoh.  Beyond that, Absalom could make it very clear that he did not lift up his hand against the Lord’s anointed, following the noble example that had been set by his previously non-oppressive father, who, when given the opportunity to act otherwise, had refrained from striking out against Saul. 

Back to David and back to his exilic experience, this study meets up with him as he “reached  Bahurim” (16:5).  “There a man from Saul’s extended family named Shimei son of Gera came out, yelling curses as he approached.  He threw stones at David and all of King David’s servants, as well as all the people and the soldiers who were on his right and left.  As he yelled curses, Shimei said, “Leave!  Leave!  You  man of bloodshed, you wicked man!  The Lord has punished you for all the spilled blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you rule.  Now the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom.  Disaster has overtaken you, for you are a man of bloodshed!’” (16:5b-8) 

Those that were with David, quite understandably, did not appreciate being cursed at and having stones thrown at them.  One of them, Abishai, who was ever the loyal fellow, said “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king?  Let me go over and cut off his head!” (16:9b)  Not only did David not allow him to do this, he said “If he curses because the Lord has said to him, ‘Curse David!’, who can say to him, ‘Why have you done this?’” (16:10b)  To that David added, “Leave him alone so that he can curse, for the Lord has spoken to him.  Perhaps the Lord will notice my affliction and this day grant me good in place of his curse” (16:11b-12).  With his final remark, and its mention of affliction, the reader is offered a small glimpse of David’s insight into this exile. 

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.  

Absalom (part 10)

“So the king and all the members of his royal court set out on foot” (2 Samuel 15:16a).  This is Israel’s exodus from Egypt, but applied in reverse.  It is the oppressive king that is fleeing, rather than the people.  This is the king of Israel, who represents the people, going into exile rather than leading them to and then in their promised land.  David, whether directly or indirectly, through the situation that he created by not dealing with Amnon, and by not dealing with Absalom, is delivering the people that are loyal to him into exile.  Their march is not one of exodus, in power and glory, but rather one of fear and shame.  Not all of the members of the royal household left Jerusalem however, as “the king left behind ten concubines to attend to the palace” (15:16b).  This becomes significant later on, as this allows for the fulfillment of a “prophecy” that had previously been given to David. 

Like Israel, but again in reverse, “The king and all the people set out on foot, pausing at a spot some distance away” (15:17).  This should cause a reflection upon Israel’s flight from Egypt, in that they paused at the Red Sea, and then again at the mountain of God.  It should also serve as a contrast to what it is that is happening with the two events.  Drawing attention to the fact that he knew that he was going into exile, “the king said to Ittai the Gittie, ‘Why should you come with us?  Go back and stay with the new king, for you are a foreigner and an exile from your own country… Today should I make you wander around by going with us?’” (15:19,20b) 

David asks Ittai, who already lives in a state of exile, why he wants to continue in exile.  H then uses the language of wandering, which present thoughts of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness after their faithless response to the call to enter the land of promise.  Ittai, however, refused to leave David, saying “As surely as the Lord lives and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king is, whether dead or alive, there I will be as well!” (15:21)  Clearly, not all is lost for David.  This response from Ittai seems to boost David’s spirits a bit.  Perhaps he began to think that if this man would not forsake him, then perhaps the Lord God of Israel had not completely forsaken him either. 

One must take note of a startling fact.  That fact is that the first mention of the Lord God of Israel in relation to David’s situation and in the midst of Absalom’s insurrection, comes from this foreigner Ittai who is living in exile.  It seems that David had forgotten about his Lord.  To make the point, the author does not have David mentioning his Lord since the twenty-second verse of chapter twelve, as he does so in connection with the death of the child that was born to he and Bathsheba.  As one can be sure that these books of Samuel are both historical and theological treatises, this mention of Israel’s God by Ittai is quite striking.  It seems to jar something within David. 

After this reminder of the Lord, it is said that “All the land was weeping loudly as all these people were leaving.  As the king was crossing over the Kidron valley, all the people were leaving on the road that leads to the desert” (15:23).  This is understandable.  Jerusalem, after all, is the capital of the country.  Many that lived there would have served the king in official government positions.  With David fleeing and a new king on the way, it would not be unreasonable for these people to believe themselves, at the least, as out of a job, and at the worst as liable to be put to death by Absalom so that he can appoint his own people into government positions---people that he can trust to be loyal to him and to serve him well.  Along with that, “Zadok and all the Levites who were with him were carrying the Ark of the Covenant of God” (15:24a).  For some reason, they were taking the Ark of the Covenant with them, as if somehow it was only David that could legitimate its presence there in Jerusalem, rather than the other way around, with the Ark serving to legitimate the rule of the Creator God’s people by its presence near the throne. 

Absalom (part 8)

In the case of both Saul and David, the case could be made that both were attractive in appearance, but it was not their physical appearance that drew the people to them, but rather their leadership.  A grave injustice is done to the people of Israel in Absalom’s day when they are treated as creatures of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, who are bombarded with images of beauty on a daily basis and asked to follow the leadership (in various areas of concern) of those that are thought of as “the beautiful people”.  Absalom’s culture was not one of mass media.  Indeed, one can imagine that Absalom would have been unknown, by appearance, to the majority of the people over which he desired to rule. 

With that said, there must have been something far more substantial to Absalom’s position and to his claims that would enable him to win the allegiance of so many within Israel.  An appeal to their history, set against the possibilities of sharing in either the blessing or cursing of their God, and presented within the context of Israel’s great story of redemption from Egyptian bondage---if Absalom could successfully make the desired exile and exodus connections in the hearts and minds of the people---would have a powerful effect within the nation.  An additional benefit is that this would enable a revolution that could consist of very little bloodshed, with their God acting on behalf of them and their new leader, just as He had done against Egypt and Pharaoh.   

Moving forward then to David’s response to Absalom’s proclamation as king at Hebron, it is interesting to look at it in the light which has been created for it by Absalom, while also looking at it from the perspective of the God that had anointed David as king over His people.  Immediately after learning that the people were siding with Absalom, it is said that “a messenger came to David and reported, ‘The men of Israel are loyal to Absalom!” (2 Samuel 15:13)  What is David’s response to this news?  Does he assert that he is king?  Does he attempt to derail the coup that is taking place?  Not at all.  Rather, “David said to all his servants who were with him in Jerusalem, ‘Come on!  Let’s escape!  Otherwise no one will be delivered from Absalom!’” (15:14a)  This would play nicely into the narrative that Absalom is attempting to both build upon and create.  His father, when challenged, flees. 

This would be a clear sign to Absalom’s supporters that the protective and supporting hand of Israel’s God had been removed from David and was being transferred to Absalom, though he, unlike Saul and David (and every other previous leader of Israel since Moses) had not been anointed to the position of king.  Absalom could point to this response and make the point that exile was coming to David.  This would have been poetic justice for Absalom, in that it was he who was previously forced to flee from Jerusalem.  At the same time though, it should not be forgotten that his flight was not altogether unfortunate, as his being able to tell a story which included fleeing must have been quite important in his gaining influence and favor with the people. 

David is clearly fearful.  Perhaps he too feels that rule is being stripped from him, as the Bathsheba incident would certainly have never been far from his mind.  Indeed, if Saul had been rejected as king for not following out the Creator God’s orders and executing all of the Amalekites (along with their animals), then should David be surprised if he ultimately comes to be rejected as king because of his oppressive and high-handed actions against Uriah?  Yes, the prophet Nathan had informed David that God had forgiven him and that he would not die as a result of what he had done, but nothing had been said about his own kingship in that incident.  He had received the promise that the Lord God of Israel would build him a dynastic house (7:11), but that was before he had Uriah murdered.  Besides, Absalom was his very own son, so the Creator God could very well be faithful to His promise in that regard by showing favor to Absalom and removing David as king. 

Absalom (part 6)

David, it would seem, could not muster such feelings towards Absalom.  David was not this kind of father.  Perhaps Absalom hoped he could be so?  “When someone approached to bow before him” (2 Samuel 15:5a), he did not treat that person as his own father had rather disdainfully treated him, without acknowledging the righteous behavior of his son that had prompted the exile that had now been brought to something like exodus. 

Rather, “Absalom would extend his hand and embrace him and kiss him” (15:5b), no doubt recounting the tale of his appearance before the king, the lack of the extension of a loving and compassionate hand, and the absence of a loving embrace.  Without those things, the kiss could be positioned as little more than an insult---a customary and expected greeting that one might even offer to an enemy, if that enemy ever happened to reach the place of bowing. 

“Absalom acted this way toward everyone in Israel who came to the king for justice” (15:6a).  They were coming to the king for justice and Absalom made sure that they received so much more.  He gave them himself.  “In this way Absalom won the loyalty of the citizens of Israel” (15:6b).  They were going over to the side of the son that had been exiled simply because he had attempted to defend his sister’s honor (within an honor and shame society) by punishing an evildoer. 

Yes, Absalom was even willing to raise his hand against his own brother in the defense of righteousness and in response to shameful acts.  In the eyes of the people, that was probably to his credit.  Accordingly, he was going to be their Moses, who had been raised in the royal house of Egypt but was willing to take an Egyptian life if necessary.  Just as Moses had killed for the sake of the honor of his countrymen and was forced to flee to the wilderness, so too had Absalom acted, at least it could be seen as such in the eyes of the people that were becomingly increasingly loyal to him. 

It is possible that the people of Israel were coming to believe in his exile, Absalom had obviously met Israel’s God, and the people experienced the obvious result of his meeting of their God when they experienced his warmth, his handshake, his embrace, and his kiss.  His return to Jerusalem was a mirror of Moses’ return to Egypt, and accordingly he was there to lead the people of the Creator God.  To this end, for Absalom and his supporters, David had become the new Pharaoh---oppressing the people of God just as he had oppressed his very own son---and he was rightfully going to be removed from his place of authority. 

As before, Absalom was patient.  He had waited two years from the rape of his sister before acting on her behalf.  He had spent three years living apart from his people, in Geshur.  He had spent two years in Jerusalem, living apart from the face of the king.  “After four years” of winning the loyalty of the people “Absalom said to the king, ‘Let me go and repay my vow that I made to the Lord while I was in Hebron.  For I made this vow when I was living in Geshur in Aram: “If the Lord really does allow me to return to Jerusalem, I will serve the Lord”’” (15:7-8). 

One cannot help but notice the similarities to Moses’ encounter with Pharaoh.  Moses, upon his return to Egypt from a long time of exile (remembering that in the case of Absalom it has now been eleven years since Tamar was raped, which was the catalyst to all of these events), went to Pharaoh and spoke to him of letting Israel go into the wilderness to make a sacrifice to the Lord.  How does David respond to a similar plea from Absalom?  “The king replied to him, ‘Go in peace.’  So Absalom got up and went to Hebron” (15:9). 

Can the Moses/Pharaoh analogy be here continued?  Absolutely it can, as it was when Pharaoh’s power had been completely broken that he eventually gave the command for Israel to go up out of the land to sacrifice.  Absalom, if he was indeed positioning himself as a new Moses and casting his father in the position of Pharaoh (and ruling the Creator God’s people unjustly), would use this to further his ongoing campaign to cement the validity of his own leadership in the eyes of the people. 

He had been enduring his father’s disdainful treatment long enough.  He had spent years gaining the hearts of the people.  This has all been well-calculated.  He had built his grassroots support and his coup was effectively rooted in the grand story of Israel’s flight from Egypt and their God’s conquering of those that had become enemies of the people of the Creator God.  Yes, Absalom was attempting to lead his own exodus, and with his departure to Hebron, the place where his father had initially been crowned and ruled, that effort had now begun.   

Absalom (part 3)

Absalom returns to his home after years in banishment and under the authority of a foreign power, but he has not regained or attained to his proper position.  Similarly, even after the Egyptian exodus, Israel’s exodus is incomplete.  First, Israel wander in the wilderness for forty years.  Then, when they finally do enter the promised land, they must begin the process of subduing the land as a whole by driving out the inhabitants that their God said were defiling the land. 

This proved to be a feat that, for them, could not be accomplished, as Israel never achieved a complete consolidation of both land and power.  In a sense, then, their exodus, though very much real, and though very much a sign of their God’s blessing upon them (so that they could be a blessing) was never complete.  There was always one more battle to be fought, one more challenge to overcome, and one more temptation to resist. 

This is how the believer is able to consider his or her own exodus (salvation, redemption) as well.  Though the believer has been retrieved from exile by an operation of grace and Divine favor, that exodus---though the believer has certainly entered into the kingdom of God that was inaugurated at the Advent and confirmed by the Resurrection and Ascension (just as Israel had entered into the place that their God had for them)---will not be complete until that kingdom is finally consummated.  There will always be one more battle to fight, one more challenge to overcome, and one more temptation to resist. 

More than that, there will always be evil that needs to be pushed back, which is done through one act of the manifestation of the mysterious power of the Resurrection and the Gospel at a time (caring for orphans and widows, giving up a cup of cold water or food or clothes to those in need).  It is in this way that the believer continually works out their ongoing salvation (our exodus), with fear and trembling, here within this world, with a constant desire to see the face of their King and their God.  That said, this study returns to Absalom. 

“Absalom lived in Jerusalem for two years without seeing the king’s face” (14:28).  This was not good.  One can be sure that neither the king nor Absalom reveled in this situation.  Absalom sends for Joab and says to him “Why have I come from Geshur?  It would be better for me if I were still there” (14:32b).  This does not sound at all unlike what Israel would say to Moses on numerous occasions during the time of their incomplete exile, with the regular refrain of “wouldn’t it have been better for us to have stayed in Egypt?” 

Absalom continues and says, “Let me see now the face of the king.  If I am at fault, let him put me to death!” (14:32c)  In response to this, “The king summoned Absalom, and he came to the king.  Absalom bowed down before the king with his face toward the ground and the king kissed him” (14:33b).  Thus, having seen the face of the king and having not been put to death, Absalom’s exile was concluded, and his exodus was consummated.  Those that live in this day, presumably as sons and daughters of the King, look forward to the same.  Did Absalom feel as if his exodus was complete at this point?  It can be said that it was, but only in a sense.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 26)

While Matthew uses language identical to Mark, Luke, though presenting the apocalyptic words of Jesus with marked differences, makes things a bit more obvious for his audience.  There one finds, “And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth nations will be in distress, anxious over the roaring of the sea and the surging waves.  People will be fainting from fear and from the expectation of what is coming on the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.  Then they will see the Son of Man arriving in a cloud with power and great glory.  But when these things begin to happen, stand up and raise your heads, because you redemption is drawing near” (Luke 21:25-28).  This use of “redemption” by Luke is crucial.  Redemption, for a Jew, was equivalent to exodus.  When the Creator God delivered His people from the power of Egypt, granting them exodus, that was a redemption.  Any use of the word “redemption” would be deeply rooted in thoughts of exodus. 

When the Creator God brought the creation forth from its state of chaos, He was thought to have granted it an exodus, redeeming it from its own state of exile.  When a large contingent of the tribe of Judah was dragged off to Babylon in exile from their homeland, it was redemption for which they longed.  They looked for another exodus.  Indeed, John the Baptist built his own movement on the foundation of thoughts of exodus/redemption, as baptism in the Jordan was a re-enactment of Israel’s crossing the Jordan into their Promised Land, thus stirring thoughts of their exodus that defined a people. 

Israel in Jesus’ day, for the most part, sought redemption from Rome--- hopeful that their God would grant them another Egypt-like exodus (the Romans leaving Israel rather than Israel leaving Egypt), even though that exodus would not involve them leaving their land of promise.  A need for redemption, for exodus, implied conflict and oppression, and a situation from which the Creator God’s people needed to be delivered. 

Without going into details of the variety of situations to which Luke may have been referring, it is undeniable that the reference to Daniel, followed by mention of redemption, must be equated to the Danielic insistence that the elect holy ones of the Most High were gathered together (as Matthew and Mark have Jesus saying) to possess the kingdom, and to have a role in that kingdom that was being granted to the Son of Man.  By way of reminder, this coming to power of the Son of Man, with the gathering of the elect for redemption, takes place in concert with the fall of the Temple, which is the preface to all that Jesus has said to this point in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, the thirteenth chapter of mark, and the twenty-first chapter of Luke. 

With this said, Jesus speaks about a fig tree.  There is not a pressing need to go into any great depth of detail here about the symbolism that may be at work, though certainly the previous fig tree that has figured in the Temple-related narratives of Matthew and Mark is called to mind.  This, however, would not be the case for Luke, as he makes no mention of Jesus’ words toward the fig tree and its withering away.  Regardless, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all report this mention of the fig tree as part of Jesus’ discourse about the fall of the Temple.  Through Matthew, Jesus says “Learn this parable from the fig tree: Whenever its branch becomes tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near.  So also you, when you see all these things, know that He is near, right at the door” (24:32-33). 

What things?  Obviously, it is all the things that have been mentioned that will signal, for Matthew, the coming of Jesus (as the Son of Man) to the Ancient of Days and the end of the age (the end of the present age and the beginning of the age in which God rules through His Messiah), that would occur or be confirmed by the fall of Jerusalem’s Temple.  The “things” are messianic claims, wars, rumors of wars, nation rising against nation, famines, earthquakes, the abomination of desolation, and so on.  These things are signals that “He is near, right at the door.” 

Love On John's Terms (part 29)

So when it comes to paying attention to the wider narrative on offer by the Gospel of John, what assistance does the author provide?  He provides assistance with his record of the people saying “everything John said about this man was true!”  This forces the listener and the reader to recall what it was that was said by John the Baptist.  Just as the statements by the Baptizer form the foundation for the introduction of Jesus into the Gospel narrative (and into the long-running story of Israel itself), this recapitulation of statements forms the bedrock for the transition to the second half of this narrative. 

Therefore, it is important to know what Jesus’ cousin said about Jesus, so that these things are in mind while proceeding.  He offered: “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because He existed before me.’” (1:15)  He also said, “Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, who is coming after me.  I am not worthy to untie the strap of His sandal!” (1:26b-27).  He said “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!  This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, because He existed before me.’  I did not recognize Him, but I came baptizing with water so that He could be revealed to Israel” (1:29b-31).  This speaks quite strongly to Jesus’ first identifying Himself with John’s movement, as He underwent the exodus-themed baptism (symbolically crossing the Jordan River into a new land that reflected the Creator’s promise to His people) so that He might fit into a recognizable pattern for the covenant people of Israel. 

John also said of Jesus: “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on Him.  And I did not recognize Him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining---this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’  I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God” (1:32-34).  Finally, John saw Jesus and said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” (1:36b) 

Amazingly, this recollection of statements by John, accompanied by another mention of “miraculous signs,” is immediately followed up by the author’s presentation of that which he presents as the most significant of Jesus’ miraculous signs (outside of the Resurrection), which is the raising of Lazarus from the dead.  The raising of Lazarus, in this Gospel, is presented as the catalyst that causes Jesus’ ultimate fate to come cascading down upon Him.     

This is yet another reflection of the Moses motif that the author has seemingly gone to great lengths to create, though it is not one that is immediately obvious.  Because this study is concerned with defining love, and because Moses and the exodus appears to be a prominent feature of the background construct (as the exodus was always a crucial component of the way Israel understood themselves as a nation and of the way that they understood their relationship with their God), one must make note of the way that the story of the Creator God’s deliverance of Israel from out of Egypt effectively begins. 

In the second chapter of Exodus it is reported that “During that long period of time the king of Egypt died, and the Israelites groaned because of the slave labor.  They cried out, and their desperate cry because of their slave labor went up to God.  God heard their groaning, God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, God saw the Israelites, and God understood…” (2:23-25).  The words immediately following are “Now Moses” (3:1).  This is a very tight grouping of highly important people and concepts.  The author of John, naturally and as would be expected, has a firm grasp on the fact that the Creator God’s covenant underlies all of His activity throughout history, and as has been seen, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses (but not Isaac) are mentioned in the narrative. 

Love On John's Terms (part 28)

The uniqueness of the miraculous signs in John does not simply lie in the fact of the occurrence of the miraculous.  It could also be seen that Jesus gained a following, with people believing in Him, His message, and His movement, through the witnessing and reporting of miraculous signs.  Others before Jesus (and after Him) had and would gain substantial followings as well.  However, in contrast to Jesus, their followings often grew with reports of their rebellious and subversive activities (Jesus was shown to be subversive, but in a more subtle manner), their incitement to violence against their oppressors, or their military exploits against the vaunted Roman military machine.  Jesus’ following achieved no growth along such lines.  He certainly did not go about achieving His popular support in the usual or largely expected way. 

Though John the Baptist is reported to have been caustic in his speech (though not in John’s Gospel), what was said of his cousin (Jesus) could also be said to be true of him, as he did not gain his following along the lines of the usual or expected means.  How could he?  Had he engaged in overtly revolutionary activities, he certainly could not have heralded himself or have been heralded as preparing the path for the type of messiah that Jesus presents Himself to be, nor would Jesus have aligned Himself and identified Himself with John’s movement (the signaling of a new exodus for Israel, and through Israel for the world) by undergoing a baptism at John’s hands.

The regular references to Moses in the Gospel of John, whether those references be explicit or implicit, are both an adjunct to the mentioning of miraculous signs and a reminder of the way in which Moses went about proving that he was charged with representing the covenant God to His people.  It must be said that Moses gained a following, though the following was not gained (as he may have hoped or expected), when he raised his hand to kill an Egyptian that was abusing one of his fellow Israelites.  That action merely sent Moses into his own period of exile, possibly delaying the Creator God’s plan to deliver Israel from their Egyptian bondage. 

Initially, Moses gained his following through performing miraculous signs, which is what he was instructed to do by the Creator God when he returned to Egypt with the demand to “let My people go.”  When Moses had questioned God as to how he was going to convince Pharaoh and Israel that he spoke for the God of Israel and that he was the vessel through which that God was bringing about the deliverance of His people, Moses was provided with a series of miraculous signs to perform.  The book of Exodus records the performance of these various signs.  This point shall be taken up again shortly. 

Returning to the text then, the author seems to take pains to hammer home a point previously and repeatedly made (this would have been second nature for his audience, but not so much for members of a modern Christian culture which has a tendency to separate, divide, and pluck passages and stories from their setting and examine them in isolation), which is that the Gospel narrative must be heard as a unified presentation, rather than presented through selected portions of the narrative. 

While it is certainly possible and appropriate to elaborate on circumstances, situations, and statements, such things demand to be considered within their wider context.  Any statement by Jesus, or the author for that matter, that is pulled out of the text and examined on its own without being placed in its appropriate theological, soteriological, sociological, cultural, political, and eschatological framework (at the very least), will end up as nothing more than an ingredient in a recipe for fallacious and anachronistic exegesis.  

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. 

Compassionate Brother (part 10)

Israel had labored under Egypt’s oppression, enriching Egypt at their expense, just as Jacob had done for Laban (at least initially).  Israel yearned to be free from Egypt’s yoke, just as Jacob would eventually come to yearn to leave what had become the insufferable employ of Laban.  As Jacob is said to have received a message from his Lord to “Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives” (31:3), so too would Israel hear the voice of their God through Moses. 

When Israel left Egypt it is said that “The Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, and they gave them whatever they wanted, and so they plundered Egypt” (Exodus 12:36).  Though it comes in a slightly different order, this is not at all dissimilar to the record of Jacob becoming “extremely prosperous” (30:43), which generated the complaint from his brothers-in-law that “Jacob has taken everything that belonged to our father!  He has gotten rich at our expense!” (Genesis 31:1b)  Rachel’s taking of her father’s household gods would fit right into this milieu (while also demonstrating, in something of a correlation to the coming story of Israel’s exodus, that Laban, and therefore Egypt, was powerless to change what was happening). 

In continuing this comparison, it is worthwhile to back up to the thirtieth chapter of Genesis and find a precursor to Moses’ repeated requests to Pharaoh to free Israel, as “Jacob said to Laban, ‘Send me on my way so that I can go home to my own country.  Let me take my wives and my children whom I have acquired by working for you.  Then I’ll depart, because you know how hard I’ve worked for you.’” (30:25b-26)  Laban’s response is mildly Pharaoh-esque (remember, this narrative is part of a compilation for a post-exodus people), as he does not accede to Jacob’s request.  He sends Jacob back to the fields with a new deal (much like Israel’s work is made more difficult after Moses’ first reported encounter with Pharaoh upon his return to Egypt).  Of course, much as it would eventually be true for Israel in Egypt, it will not be long at all until Jacob has plundered all of the wealth of Laban and departs. 

As the Exodus narrative is heard, and as it is allowed to cast light on the Genesis narrative (as the Exodus narrative is likely to have been more important to Israel than the Genesis narrative, especially when it comes to their self-understanding and the interpretive model of their God’s interaction with them and with the world in the ongoing theme of exile to exodus that dominates their historical narrative), one finds that “When it was reported to the king of Egypt that the people had fled, the heart of Pharaoh and his servants was turned against the people, and the king and his servants said, ‘What in the world have we done?  For we have released the people of Israel from serving us!’  Then he prepared his chariots and took his army with him.  He took six hundred select chariots, and all the rest of the chariots of Egypt, and officers on all of them” (Exodus 14:5-7).  It is at this point that the results of the two stories of Jacob and Israel radically diverge, as the armies of Egypt are said to have been destroyed at the Lord’s hand, whereas Laban, after overtaking and confronting Jacob, ends up kissing his grandchildren and his daughters goodbye, blessing them and returning to his home (31:55).   

It is important to draw out these Scriptural connections, as past is almost always prelude to present.  The words of the prophets, when they would come, draw on a collective understanding that is structured upon the history of Israel---a history which stretches back to Abraham.  If one recognizes the importance of Israel’s foundational narrative (the Torah/Pentateuch), then one is in a position to gain deeper insights and appreciation of such things as the parables of Jesus.  Thus, as stated earlier, one gains deeper insights into the character of, and appreciation for the Creator God that chose out a people to uniquely bear His image and accomplish His purposes in and for His creation.