A Tradition Of Wells (part 7)

In the fifteenth chapter of Exodus, following the miracle at the sea, Israel ventures on to Elim, “where there were twelve wells of water and seventy palms trees, and they camped there by the water” (15:27).  Coincidentally, their first stop following their deliverance was at a place called Marah.  It is reported that “they came to Marah, but they were not able to drink the waters of Marah, because they were bitter. (That is why its name is Marah)” (15:23).  Through Moses, the Creator God of Israel is said to have intervened in this situation, making the water safe to drink.  However, it is not until they reach Elim, the place of twelve wells (reminding the reader of the twelve sons/tribes of Jacob/Israel), following the miraculous crossing and defeat of their pursuers, that they are said to have made camp. 

In the book of Numbers one finds an interesting mention of a well.  As it is connected to Moses and to a song, while also occurring during their long exodus experience, it is not difficult to imagine this account having a special place within Israelite memory.  Reading on then: “they traveled to Beer; that is the well where the Lord spoke to Moses, ‘Gather the people and I will give them water.’  Then Israel sang this song: ‘Spring up, O well, sing to it!  The well which the princes dug, which the leaders of the people opened with their scepters and their staffs.’” (21:16-18a) 

Fresh on the heels of the song about the well, “Israel sent messengers to King Sihon of the Amorites, saying, ‘Let us pass through your land; we will not turn aside into the fields or into the vineyards, nor will we drink water from any well, but we will go along the King’s Highway until we pass your borders.’” (21:21-22)  This request was rebuffed.  Not only was there a refusal, but “he gathered all his forces together and went out against Israel in the wilderness” (21:23b).  In consequence, “the Israelites defeated him in battle and took possession of his land” (21:24a).  One could rest assured that Israel then drank from their wells and turned aside into the fields and vineyards. 

Is there any way that this particular well-story could come into play when looking at the well-story of the Gospel of John?  Certainly, otherwise why ask the question?  How does that story in the Gospel of John begin?  John reports that Jesus had “left Judea and set out once more for Galilee.  But He had to pass through Samaria” (4:3-4).  Obviously Jesus could have avoided going through Samaria, taking a different route on His return trip to Galilee, but this was the route that He chose. 

Similarly, Israel could have taken any number of routes towards their promised land, but they did not.  Just as they chose (or their God chose for them through Moses) a route that was going to take them through the land of the Amorites (specifically including the “King’s Highway”), so also Jesus chose a route that would take Him through Samaria.  On another level, it would certainly not be a reach to consider the idea that the author of John believed that any road being traveled by Jesus would be the “King’s Highway.” 

A Tradition Of Wells (part 3)

It is not at all difficult to see this idea at play in the fourth chapter of John, as Jesus said to the Samaritan woman “Give me some water to drink” (John 4:7b).  Of course, in the story of Abraham’s servant, his request is precisely met, thus a wife, Rebekah, is found for Isaac.  When the servant reveals his identity to Rebekah, “the young woman ran and told her mother’s household all about these things” (Genesis 24:28), much like the Samaritan woman runs off to tell the townspeople about her strange encounter at the well.  Rebekah’s action, in turn, prompts her brother Laban to rush out to meet the man at the spring (24:29). 

It can be said of Rebekah that she will be the vehicle through which the Creator God brings Jacob to birth, from whom will come the Creator God’s covenant people, that being the twelve tribes of Israel.  In the same light, what is seen and heard in the encounter with the woman at the well with Jesus?  Though the reader is left to guess at whether or not this woman provides Jesus with any water, such becomes a secondary issue in the wake of her conversation with Jesus.  In recounting the story of Rebekah, an allusion has just been made to the fact that “the woman left her water jar, went off into the town and said to the people, ‘Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did.  Surely He can’t be the Messiah, can He?’  So they left the town and began coming to Him” (4:28-30).  Obviously, this becomes a major divergence in the stories, though the end result will be the same. 

The action of Laban aside, Abraham’s servant is taken to Abraham’s relatives, whereas the people to whom this woman speaks come out to meet Jesus.  However, as said, the result is somewhat identical, in that the Creator God’s covenant purposes are advanced and His kingdom is broadened, “as many Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of the report of the woman who testified…So when the Samaritans came to Him, they began asking Him to stay with them” (4:39a,40a). 

Abraham’s servant experiences much the same, in that after securing the bride for Isaac, he stayed overnight (24:54).  The next morning, upon indicating his intentions to return to Abraham, he was pressed to stay “a few more days, perhaps ten” (24:55b).  The text, however, would lead the reader to believe that he left that day.  At the same time, it would not be unreasonable to presume that at least one more night was spent at that place, in preparation for the journey home (for Abraham’s servant), and the journey from home (for Rebekah and her attendants/servants).  Returning to John, Jesus, and that particular well story, it is reported that “He stayed there two days” (4:40b).  There is a reiteration of this point a few verses later, as it is reported that “After two days He departed from there to Galilee” (4:43). 

Before going any further, the reader should be reminded that this study is not merely looking for points of contact between the story of the woman at the well and stories from the Biblical tradition by which it is preceded.  Rather, this is an attempt to allow the Scriptural narrative---that which provided self-definition and cosmic understanding to the people of Israel, to Jesus, and to those that provided their remembrances of Him, to inform an approach to the Jesus of the Gospels. 

It is to be reiterated that what is being attempted with this study is not an interpretation and application of Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman and that which resulted from it, but rather an attempt to put an observer in a position to come to the well, with Jesus, with the woman, and with the disciples of Jesus, with shared sensibilities that will allow one to hear Jesus, and to better determine the purpose and movement of the kingdom of the Creator God that stands behind this encounter along with understanding the purposes of His biographer.

Seeing God (part 1)

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. – Matthew 5:8  (NET)

The fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Matthew, commonly referred to as “The Sermon On the Mount,” begin with a programmatic declaration.  Jesus, in Moses-like fashion, has taken up a position on a mountain in order to deliver news of the Creator God’s will to the people and begins with a set of statements prefaced by “Blessed are”.  By using the term “blessed” while standing on the mountain to speak to the people, Jesus has not only conjured up thoughts of Moses, but He successfully pulls Abraham into His context as well, as the Creator God was specifically going to bless Abraham and his descendants---and through them all the world would also be blessed (Genesis 12:2-3). 

Beginning with “Blessed are,” and with what follows during the course of this particular “sermon,” Jesus offers up a new set of “laws,” if you will, to govern the way in which His covenant people will interact in and for the world that His God is redeeming through Him.  If one thinks of Jesus as offering up a new set of governing principles, such will be a helpful lens through which to view His statement of “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them” (5:17).  Of course, Jesus also immediately goes on to say “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place” (5:18). 

By speaking of “these things” (5:17) along with saying “heaven and earth pass away” (5:18), Matthew lays the groundwork for the other important and extended discourse from Jesus to be found in his Gospel, which is Jesus’ speech concerning the Temple.  There, in chapters twenty-four through twenty-six of Matthew, Jesus makes repeated use of “these things” (24:2,3,8,33,34,26:1) as well as “Heaven and earth will pass away” (24:35), with the two statements linked and quite clearly connected with the fall of the Temple (“heaven and earth” was a common way of referring to the Temple---the place where heaven and earth meet).  One cannot disconnect Jesus words from chapter five with His words from chapter twenty-four.  Doing so would probably be a mistake. 

Jesus goes on to say “So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (5:19).  One must be cognizant of the fact that He is talking about that which He has said here with His initial delivery of the “laws” upon which He is about to elaborate.  In that sense then, one could even be justified in looking at the “beatitudes” as something of a new set of “Ten Commandments,” though there are not ten, and though they aren’t really commandments in the traditional sense.  The reader is also put in the position of seeing the beatitudes as the outline of the sermon, with all that follows serving as the explanation of those beatitudes. 

As is known, Jesus begins by saying “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them” (5:3).  Beginning in this manner fits perfectly with what is heard from Matthew prior to this.  First, Matthew introduces John the Baptist and his message, which is “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (3:2).  Then, the first report that is received about that message that comes from Jesus, as He insists on the need to “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (4:17b).  Matthew follows this up by informing his audience that “Jesus went throughout all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom” (4:23a).  So Jesus beginning the message in which He outlines His vision of the kingdom of heaven with a mention of the kingdom of heaven makes perfect sense.  He is quite consistent in this regard. 

Calling His Disciples (part 3)

Strangely, and though there is no mention of fishing in connection to their initial call, it is following the crucifixion, Resurrection, and appearance of Jesus that the Gospel of John provides the first inkling that the disciples had in fact been fishermen (though this fact was probably something that was well known to the early church community and the audience of the author of this Gospel).  In the twenty-first chapter the author writes: “After this Jesus revealed Himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias.  Now this is how He did so.  Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael (who was from Cana in Galilee), the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples of His were together” (21:1-2).  As an aside, the mention of Nathanael being from Cana in Galilee provides a clue as to why Jesus, His mother, and His disciples were at the wedding feast in Cana, the story of which is presented immediately following Jesus’ words to Nathanael at the close of the first chapter.  Returning to the text of the twenty-first chapter: “Simon Peter told them, ‘I am going fishing.’ ‘We will go with you,’ they replied.  They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing” (21:3) 

Where Mark, Matthew, and Luke have Jesus calling His first disciples in Galilee, John has them being called outside of Galilee, and there are no boats or fish anywhere in sight.  At the close of their narratives, Mark concludes with the report of the Resurrection, Luke (and Acts) has Jesus speaking to the disciples in Jerusalem, and Matthew has the disciples on a mountain in the Galilee.  John follows Matthew’s account, at least in terms of region, with the final appearance of Jesus to His disciples taking place in Galilee.  Ironically, Mark, Matthew, and Luke have the disciples fishing when Jesus first calls them, and it is an occupation to which they do not return, whereas John, which offers up a wholly different setting at the time of their calls, has the disciples off and fishing after Jesus makes His first post-Resurrection appearance to them, and it is at this time that they catch a great number of fish.      

The only other specific calling of a disciple recorded in the Gospels is that of Matthew, who is also called Levi.  Similar to the presentation of the calling of the first four, Mark reports that “Jesus went out again by the sea.  The whole crowd came to Him, and He taught them” (2:13).  Once again then, Jesus is near the sea of Galilee.  This time though, similar to Luke’s record of the calling of the first four, Jesus is in the act and process of teaching.  “As He went along, He saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the tax booth.  ‘Follow Me,’ He said to him.  And he got up and followed Him” (2:14).  Matthew says “As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax booth.  ‘Follow Me,’ He said to him.  And he got up and followed Him” (9:9).  Luke writes that “After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax booth.  ‘Follow Me,” He said to him.  And he got up and followed Him, leaving everything behind” (5:27-28). 

As can be seen, the synoptics are essentially univocal in their witness to this particular calling event.  To the contrary though, John does not present the call of Matthew.  In all three synoptic narratives, the calling of Matthew follows the healing of the paralyzed man that had been brought to Jesus by his friends.  In Matthew, there is a significant textual gap between the call of the first four disciples and the call of Matthew, but this gap is not to be found in Mark and Luke, as the call of Matthew comes quickly on the heels of the calling of Simon, Andrew, James, and John.  Not only do all three synoptic accounts of the call of Matthew follow immediately after the healing of the paralyzed man, what follows the record of the call is nearly identical in all three as well.  With the differences to be found in these Gospels, as they frequently diverge in their order of presentation, this nearly identical presentation of three events in sequence, with minor differences in detail, is quite remarkable. 

Calling His Disciples (part 2)

Looking at the first chapter of John then for the initial calling of disciples, an observer finds himself in the setting of the event of Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist.  On the day after the baptism, “John was standing there with two of his disciples.  Gazing at Jesus as He walked by, he said, ‘Look, the lamb of God!’  When John’s two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus” (1:35-37).  Momentarily, it is learned that one of these disciples was Andrew, though Jesus is not heard calling him to follow.  Instead, the author reports that “Jesus turned around and saw them following and said to them, ‘What do you want?’  So they said to Him, ‘Rabbi’ (which is translated Teacher), ‘where are you staying?’  Jesus answered, ‘Come and you will see.’  So they came and saw where He was staying, and they stayed with Him that day.  Now it was about four o’clock in the afternoon” (1:38-39).  The use of “they stayed with Him that day” seems to convey a double meaning, indicating that they stayed with Jesus at the place where He was staying, while also indicating the fact that they stayed with Jesus from that point forward. 

Immediately after that, one goes on to learn that “Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two disciples who heard what John said and followed Jesus.  He first found his own brother Simon and told him, ‘We have found the Messiah!’ (which is translated Christ).  Andrew brought Simon to Jesus.  Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon, the son of John.  You will be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter).  On the next day Jesus wanted to set out for Galilee” (1:40-43a).  It should be noted that in contrast to Mark, Matthew, and Luke, there is no mention whatsoever of fishing, Andrew and Simon are not together, Jesus does not explicitly call either to follow Him, and they are not even in the region of Galilee.

In Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus moves directly from calling Andrew and Simon, to calling James and John, who, according to Luke, are all partners in the fishing business.  The fishing motif is strong.  In John, the story moves from the non-call of Andrew and Simon, who are not portrayed as fishermen, to the very first overt call by Jesus, which is to Philip.  The story of this call is completely absent from the other three Gospels.  Having learned that Jesus wanted to set out for Galilee, it is reported that “He found Philip and said to him, ‘Follow me.’  (Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the town of Andrew and Peter.)  Philip found Nathanael and told him, ‘We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote about---Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’  Nathanael replied, ‘can anything good come out of Nazareth?’  Philip replied, ‘Come and see.’” (1:43b-46) 

So rather than moving from calling Andrew and Simon to calling James and John, the story of Jesus’ gaining of disciples moves to Philip and Nathanael.  Expanding on a previous notation and emphasizing that the calls of Philip and Nathanael are to be found only here in John’s Gospel, one could surmise that this probably serves as an indication that they were somehow connected to the community for which this record of Jesus is composed.  It is also worth noting that it is Philip, in fact, who is the one that calls Nathanael, rather than Jesus, which will be reinforced momentarily. 

Moving along to that instance then, “Jesus saw Nathaniel coming toward Him and exclaimed, ‘Look, a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit!’  Nathanael asked Him, ‘How do you know me?’  Jesus replied, ‘Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.’  Nathanael answered him, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel!’  Jesus said to him, ‘Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe?  You will see greater things than these.’  He continued, ‘I tell all of you the solemn truth---you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.’” (1:47-51) 

Thus ends the record, in John, of Jesus’ “calling” of disciples (“calling” is in quotes because only Philip is explicitly commanded to follow).  So not only does John not provide a record of the calling of James and John, there is no forsaking of occupation (fishing) or of family (James and John leaving their father), as is to be found in the rest of the Gospels, which simply serves as a reminder that John’s Gospel is quite unique in many ways.  

Calling His Disciples (part 1)

Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will turn you into fishers of people.”  They left their nets immediately and followed Him. – Mark 1:17-18  (NET)

With these words, Scripture offers the first report of the call and response of Jesus’ first disciples.  This occurs as Jesus “went along the Sea of Galilee,” where “He saw Simon and Andrew… casting a net into the sea (for they were fishermen)” (1:16).  Repeating the thrust text of this study then, “Jesus said to them, ‘Follow Me, and I will turn you into fishers of people.’  They left their nets immediately and followed Him” (1:17-18).  To these two are quickly added another two, as we read “Going on a little farther, He saw James, the son of Zebedee, and John his brother in their boat mending their nets” (1:19). 

This story is also told in two of the other Gospels.  In Matthew it is said that “As He was walking by the Sea of Galilee He saw two brothers, Simon (called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishermen).  He said to them, ‘Follow Me, and I will turn you into fishers of people.’  They left their nets immediately and followed Him.  Going on from there He saw two brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in a boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets.  Then He called them.  They immediately left the boat and their father and followed Him” (4:18-22).  It is unsurprising to find Matthew offering up a bit more information than what is to be found in Mark, as Matthew mentions that James and John are said to be in the boat with their father at the time of their call.  This adds an interesting dimension to the fact of their leaving to follow Jesus, as they are said to have left their father, with whom they are presumed to have been working up until that very moment. 

Luke’s treatment of the call of these particular disciples differs from that of Mark and Matthew, with far more information provided in what is really a different story.  There, Luke reports that “Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, and the crowd was pressing around Him to hear the word of God.  He saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gotten out of them and were washing their nets.  He got into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little way from the shore.  Then Jesus sat down and taught the crowds from the boat.  When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, ‘Put out into the deep water and lower your nets for a catch.’  Simon answered, ‘Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing!  But at your word I will lower the nets.’  When they had done this, they caught so many fish that their nets started to tear.  So they motioned to their partners in the other boat to come and help them.  And they came and filled both boats, so that they were about to sink.  But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying ‘Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!’  For Peter and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, and so were James and John, Zebedee’s sons, who were Simon’s business partners.  Then Jesus said to Simon, ‘Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.’  So when they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed Him” (5:1-11). 

Luke’s Gospel begins with this statement: “Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.  So it seems good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught” (1:1-4).  This would seem to imply that Luke is perhaps a bit more serious about his details, and that he wants his intricate details to be taken very seriously.  As Luke, because of his extensive two-part series (Luke & Acts), is considered to be more of a historian than the other Gospel writers (though this is probably up for debate, depending on what is meant when one seeks to define “history” or “historian”), his account of the call of Simon, Andrew, James and John becomes very interesting, as it is worthwhile to note the substantial differences and the detailed elaborations. 

In Luke’s account, which is presumed to have been built upon Mark’s account as a basis, Jesus is not merely going along or walking by the Sea of Galilee, where He sees these individuals and calls them to join Him.  Rather, the story speaks of Jesus preaching, His getting into Simon’s boat, the command to fish, the great catch, and the call to follow.  It is here that one learns that James and John were Simon’s business partners.  However, if one is surprised or put off that Luke’s presentation is different, though these differences should not cause an observer any real trouble, and if the rendition of the events that is on offer in his work is to be taken as perhaps a more accurate and expanded rendering of the events in question, then it is possible that an observer is going to be flatly shocked when he or she comes to the record of the calling of the first disciples when they come to John’s Gospel. 

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 5)

In the eleventh chapter of Matthew, the author offers up some more useful information for the premise of this study when we reporting Jesus’ criticisms of a number of cities.  He pronounces woe to cities such as Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, which were all cities of the Galilee region, for their lack of repentance (their lack of repentance was seen in the fact that they were not joining up with Jesus’ new exodus movement) though they had witnessed “many of His miracles” (11:20b).  In contrast, Jesus mentions three Gentile cities---Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom---that He seems to believe would have responded differently to His call, had they been given the same opportunity.  His statement of “For if the miracles done among you had been done in Sodom, it would have continued to this day” (11:23b), along with “But I tell you, it will be more bearable for region of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you!” (11:24) would almost certainly have weighed heavily on the minds of His hearers. 

Such pronouncements by Jesus, among His Jewish hearers, would probably have called to mind the story of Jonah and the repentance of Assyria; and indeed, one is not disappointed in that regard, finding Matthew making reference to that very story in chapter twelve of His narrative.  There, in response to the demand for a sign, Jesus references the sign of Jonah and goes on to say “The people of Nineveh,” which was the capital city of a Gentile nation that had been responsible for the oppression of Israel (thoughts of Rome and its then current oppression of Israel lurks in the background here), “will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented when Jonah preached to them” (12:41).      

Following up on the record of Jesus’ earlier statements about Tyre and Sidon, a reader is unsurprised at what is found upon reaching the fifteenth chapter of Matthew.  Unsurprisingly, based on what He had previously said, “Jesus went to the region of Tyre and Sidon” (15:21b).  This follows from Matthew’s presentation of Jesus’ opinions about that which constitutes true defilement.  In that day, dietary restrictions and ceremonial washings were quite important, and there was much concern about becoming defiled through that which was eaten.  In addition to that, and though it goes unmentioned (it would be well known by both Jesus’ and Matthew’s audiences), it was held to be a veritable certainty that a Jew would be defiled by entering the home of a Gentile or by passing through Gentile territory. 

Jesus however, in broadly addressing the issue of that which defiles, says “Listen and understand.  What defiles a person is not what goes into the mouth; it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person” (15:10b-11).  When pressed on this assertion, He adds “Don’t you understand that whatever goes into the mouth enters into the stomach and then passes out into the sewer?  But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a person.  For out of the heart come evil ideas, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.  These are the things that defile a person; it is not eating with unwashed hands that defiles a person” (15:17-20). 

Having presented these words of Jesus, Matthew gives substance to Jesus’ words about that which truly defiles by moving the Jesus story on to Gentile ground.  While there, he reports that “A Canaanite woman from that area came and cried out, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David!  My daughter is horribly demon-possessed!’” (15:22)  Amazingly, this is a Gentile woman calling out to Jesus and using a messianic title in the process.  Interestingly, these words spring from this woman’s mouth in the very wake of Jesus’ disciples asking Him “Do you know that when the Pharisees heard this saying (about what defiles) they were offended?” (15:12b)  Presumably, the Pharisees had given voice to this offense---it had come out of their collective mouth.  Thus, the presumed words of the Pharisees and the reported words of the Canaanite woman, following hard on what Jesus has said about that which defiles, present quite the provocative contrast. 

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 3)

Shortly thereafter, Matthew reports that “Jesus went throughout all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of disease and sickness among the people” (4:23).  This, again, is the region to which Matthew refers as “Galilee of the Gentiles,” which would certainly play into the statement about the covenant community treating an individual like a Gentile or tax collector.  In addition, the Matthean author adds, “So a report about Him spread throughout Syria” (4:24a), which was also a Gentile area.  Accordingly, owing to all that Jesus was doing and saying, “large crowds followed Him from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan River” (4:25).  Nearly from the outset, Jesus’ ministry, as presented by Matthew, is intimately connected with Gentiles. 

In the fifth chapter, Jesus is heard to say: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven… For if you love those who love  you, what reward do you have?  Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they?  And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do?  Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they?” (5:43-44,46-47) 

The juxtaposition of “enemy” and “those who persecute you,” with “tax collector” and “Gentile” are undeniable.  It would appear to be clear that they are to be taken as one and the same.  What is also undeniable for the purposes of this study, is that such a juxtaposition is firmly ensconced within Jesus call to love them and pray for them.  This would most definitely serve to inform an audience as to what it means to treat somebody as a Gentile or tax collector, would it not?

Moving to the eighth chapter then, it is said that “a centurion came to Him asking for help: ‘Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible anguish.’” (8:5b-6)  This centurion, a Gentile, was part of the oppressive, occupying Roman military machine.  It is likely that he would have been treated with contempt by the citizens of Israel, and a presumed Israelite messiah-figure would be expected to take up an adversarial role with such a person.  The role of the centurion Gentile, among other things, was to keep the people of Israel in submission.  How did Jesus respond?  Did He refuse the request of this Gentile oppressor of Israel?  On the contrary, “Jesus said to him, ‘I will come and heal him.’” (8:7) 

The record of chapter nine of Matthew records that Jesus “saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax booth” (9:9b).  A tax collector---a Jew that collaborates with the oppressors that are keeping Israel in exile from the promises of its covenant God---would attract a special type of scorn from his fellow countrymen.  So here is another opportunity for Jesus to shun one of these dastardly collaborators with the hated Romans.  Yet Jesus instead says “Follow Me” (9:9c).  After Jesus pulls this tax collector into His growing band of disciples, He has a meal with Him. 

Now, whenever Jesus, who is going about offering up messiah-like actions (at least in the eyes of His contemporaries), and who is clearly being portrayed as the Messiah in the stories told about Him by the early new covenant community (with this being the obvious pre-disposition of the author of this Gospel), sits down at a meal, the thoughts of “messianic banquet,” which indicated the coming of the kingdom of the Creator God (which Jesus consistently announced), would not have been trailing far behind.  Those who participated in the messianic banquet, which can only be understood with the context of the Creator God’s covenant with Israel through Abraham, were those that would rule in that God’s kingdom.  It is in that context that the author writes “As Jesus was having a meal in Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with Jesus and His disciples” (9:10).         

Love On John's Terms (part 25)

Not only does this remind the observer of the fact that the setting in which Jesus is presented as speaking is the same setting in which He has given sight and standing within the covenant community (no longer ostracized) to the man blind from birth (who was looked upon as cursed---much like a Gentile), but it also informs the same observer that the author is reaching back even further, tying this event to the events recorded in the seventh chapter of the Gospel, which is the point of commencement of this particular portion of John’s wider narrative. 

There, Jesus is reported to have said “My teaching is not from Me, but from the one who sent Me.  If anyone wants to do God’s will, He will know about My teaching, whether it is from God or whether I speak from My own authority” (7:16b-17).  This dovetails quite nicely with the Father language of the tenth chapter.  In the seventh chapter, in conjunction with His words about God, Jesus says “Hasn’t Moses given you the law?  Yet not one of you keeps the law!  Why do you want to kill me?” (7:19)  In the tenth chapter, Jesus speaks of laying down His life. 

Following His accusation that there are those that want to kill Him in chapter seven, the crowd responds by saying “You’re possessed by a demon!” (7:20b).  In chapter ten, the author presents the conclusion of a similar pattern, with the aforementioned reference to accusations that Jesus is possessed by a demon.  Back to the seventh chapter, one finds “Then some of the residents of Jerusalem began to say, ‘Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?’” (7:25), which will ultimately, within this story, culminate with Jesus’ declaration that He is willing to lay down His own life---no man takes it from Him.  From that point, an interesting exchange commences, with a back and forth between and amongst Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Jewish leaders. 

Keeping in mind the close of the scene in chapter ten, questions are raised about the geographic location from which Jesus has sprung.  Questions about His pedigree are raised because He is believed to be from Galilee, and it is said that “no prophet comes from Galilee” (7:52b).  When this is considered, one must not forget this use of “prophet” in John and its connection to Moses.  Jesus responds to this challenge by speaking of Himself as “the light of the world” (8:12b), apparently contrasting following Him with living a life of darkness.  Darkness, of course, could easily be a euphemism for blindness. 

Shortly thereafter, Jesus begins making repeated references to His “Father,” which will set the tone for its use in the tenth chapter, which forms part of this same extended story.  Also, the issue of the possibility of Jesus killing Himself is raised (8:22), which is answered by Jesus’ firm declaration in the tenth chapter that He will lay down His own life, with the ability to lay it down and take it up again.  Because of what precedes that statement, which was His referencing false messiahs, which would remind His hearers of those who had had their lives snuffed out by the enemies of the Creator God’s people, the issue of whether or not Jesus may take His own life is put to rest. 

In the forty-eighth and fifty-second verses of the eighth chapter, Jesus is once again accused of being possessed by a demon, which adequately continues the narrative flow, reminding the hearer of John’s story about what has been heard to this point.  Though He leaves the Temple area, the events of the ninth chapter, in which the man born blind is healed, informs the reader that the story begun in the seventh chapter is continuing.  The query of “A demon cannot cause the blind to see, can it?” is an overt reminder of the healing of the blind man, along with being a reminder of the exchange between Jesus and some of the Pharisees in which sight and blindness are discussed (9:39-41). 

This also serves as a reminder (along with the other things that have been pointed out in these recent paragraphs) that these several chapters are designed to hang together to form a unified treatment within a larger unified treatment, with the exaltation of the ethic of love as displayed by the Christ and by Israel’s God through His Christ (the mentions of miraculous signs come to mind) as that which is intended to predominate the inter-personal relationships of the covenant bearers, as well as their relationships with the wider world (those whom the Creator God also loves and seeks to bring in to His covenant family as part of His restoration of His once good creation). 

Love On John's Terms (part 18)

Something that must be noted as these efforts progress, is that once the scene of this Gospel shifts to Judea, it is a final shift.  There will be no more changes of scene or location until after Jesus’ Resurrection.  From the fourteenth verse of John’s seventh chapter, all the way until the beginning of the twenty-first chapter, Jesus is never to be found at too great a distance from Jerusalem.  This continuity in change of settings may carry with it some mild significance, as it relates to another repetitive message in John. 

Here in the seventh chapter, after a few more words from Jesus that served to prompt what are reported to be additional private exchanges amongst the Jewish leaders, Jesus is said to have “stood up and shouted” (7:37b).  It seems clear that the author wants to emphasize the words that are to follow, and any public performance of the written presentation of this theo-drama would quite naturally follow suit, with the reader also standing and shouting along with Jesus.  Jesus’ hearers, along with the audience of this Gospel story, hear “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink” (7:37c-38a). 

Where was this first heard?  Of course, Jesus was heard saying this to the Samaritan woman at the well.  His words there were “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 in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life” (4:14).  An approximation of these words are said to have fallen from Jesus’ lips after the feeding of the five thousand and His walking on water, when He said “The one who comes to Me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never go thirsty” (6:35b).  Now Jesus can be heard saying “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink.”  Interestingly, the first instance of such speech is in Samaria, whereas the second instance is in Galilee, and the third instance is in Jerusalem. 

Not to unnecessarily muddy the waters with a non-Johannine reference, but this is somewhat evocative of a statement that is recorded in the first chapter of Acts, in which Jesus says to His disciples “you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth” (1:8b).  In the case of Acts and quite significantly when it comes to understanding the nature of the kingdom of heaven come to earth through Jesus and those that claim allegiance to Him as King of all, Jesus directs His followers to an ever widening geographical circle to which they are to witness to the facts about Jesus and His Gospel.  In John, the order is somewhat reversed, in that Jesus presents what the author considers to be an extremely important aspect of His message first to Gentiles, and then in an area that is a mixture of Jew and Gentile (Galilee of the Gentiles is a Scriptural refrain), and then in the Temple itself, which would presumably be a message directed almost exclusively to Jews. 

So in the case of John’s presentation of Jesus, His ministry begins with a wide geographical circle that is narrowed down as He goes along (though this is not meant to imply any narrowing in the intended reach of His message).  This is yet another piece of information by which one can deduce the nature of the audience to which the Johannine writings are directed, and the way in which Christian love, rooted in the dissemination of the Gospel message, is to be expressed 

Love On John's Terms (part 17)

Moving along to the seventh chapter and to the next use of “miraculous signs” in this Gospel narrative, one finds “Whenever the Christ comes, he won’t perform more miraculous signs than this man did, will he?” (John 7:31b)  The immediate context is provided by “Yet many of the crowd believed in Him and said…” (7:31a)  So again, “miraculous signs” is linked with “belief.”   Thus one must again consider the overall movement of this presentation of Jesus, in that the Creator God’s love for the world (John 3:16) is bound up with belief in Jesus.

By this, additional credence is lent to the link between the repetitious appearance of “miraculous signs” here in John (the only Gospel where such are to be found, save one usage in Luke), and the obvious Johannine predilection towards love, clearly rooted in the covenant God’s love for the world, as the operative Christian ethic.  The words of the thirty-first verse also forces a consideration of the wider context of the statement, which are questions about Jesus’ identity as the messiah.  As an observer situates himself within the original and intended audience for the narrative, such is done with the pre-supposition that Jesus is the Messiah (the Christ), and the development of the Gospel presentation will be heard from that position.

Whereas Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand, His walking on water, and His discourse about Himself as the bread of life took place in Galilee, these words from the seventh chapter are lifted from His being situated in Jerusalem.  Presumably then, Jesus has a new audience, differing quite significantly from the audience that He has had in the region of Galilee.  The season of the year is the Feast of Tabernacles, which is one of the fall feasts of Judaism.  The setting is presented in the fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter, where the author writes “When the feast was half over, Jesus went up to the Temple courts and began to teach.” 

A back and forth between the Jewish leaders and Jesus stems from the commencement of the aforementioned teaching.  As should be expected by now, at least according to the structure at play, Jesus brings a reference to Moses into play.  Eventually, the back and forth leads to what is reported to be an open discussion on the part of the residents of Jerusalem as to whether or not Jesus could actually be the Christ (7:25-26), which also results in some words from Jesus that lead to an unsuccessful attempt seize Jesus. 

In all of the back and forth, and in all of the reports within this Gospel about what Jesus has done since venturing back into Judea and Jerusalem, the reader does not stumble upon anything that seems like it would prompt the people of Jerusalem to mention Jesus in the same breath as “miraculous signs.”  Nevertheless, this is the very thing that is reported to have taken place.  In fact, though it can be reasonably presumed that word of the large-scale feeding has made its way around the countryside, the only miraculous signs that Jesus has performed to this point in the Johannine narrative are the turning of water into wine in Cana and the healing of the royal official’s son in Capernaum. 

The latter two of those three, which could be supplemented by the walking on water, would not be prone to massive dissemination.  To this point, the only miraculous sign that Jesus has performed in Jerusalem itself is the healing of the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda.  In this Gospel story, the remainder of Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem so far, is confined to teaching and speaking about Himself.  There is little reason to wonder, then, that the story demonstrates that there is not an outright acceptance of Jesus’ claims about Himself.  At the same time, one is left to wonder at the paucity of miraculous occurrences to be found in the very Gospel that is loaded with references to miraculous signs.  However, one must never forget the over-arching/underlying context of love and the love of the Creator God for the world as it is being expressed through Jesus, that seems to inform every aspect of this presentation of the life of Jesus.

Water Into Wine (part 1)

Now on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. – John 2:1a  (NET)

At the beginning of this story, the author reports that “Jesus and His disciples” (John 2:2a) were invited to a wedding and its associated feast.  Quickly, the fact that there was a problem is encountered, which was that “the wine ran out” (2:3a).  As one might imagine, this is an issue.  For some reason, the fact that the supply of wine had been exhausted was of some concern to Jesus’ mother, so she is said to have taken it upon herself to inform Jesus that “They have no wine left” (2:3b).  Apparently, there was something about Jesus’ personality and character that caused His mother to think that Jesus would be interested in addressing this obviously pressing issue.  It would seem that Jesus’ mother was of the opinion that Jesus would take it upon Himself to fix this problem. 

However, based upon His initial response, Jesus does not sense that this is an issue in which He wants to involve Himself, saying “Woman, why are you saying this to Me?  My time has not yet come” (2:4).  Even though Jesus says this to His mother, Mary believes (with this apparently based on what she knows about her Son) that He is going to do something.  In accordance with that belief, she “told the servants, ‘Whatever He tells you, do it.’” (2:5)  Most likely, though one knows not how long, some time elapsed between the time at which Mary speaks to the servants and Jesus’ reported act of intervention in the problem at hand.  Eventually, and though the story does not set forth an overt reason for it, Jesus is spurred into action.  For some reason, though He had seemed uninterested when first told of the wine shortage, Jesus takes action to correct the situation. 

Why is the fact that there is no wine a problem?  Why is Mary concerned with this?  Why does she think Jesus will be interested in involving Himself to rectify the situation?  Why does the author of this Gospel see fit to include this story?  The answers to these questions come through an examination of the setting and the culture.  In the end, this becomes an opportunity for Jesus to provide instruction (albeit indirectly) to those in attendance.  Ultimately, it appears that the author of the Gospel of John finds it useful to include this story because it serves to provide elucidating information about the nature of Jesus’ kingdom and His mission. 

In order to understand the goings-on here in Cana, one must make an effort to understand the nature of feasts in the world occupied by Jesus.  When it came to feasts (or really any public meal in general), there were rules in place for the table.  For all practical purposes, meals were miniaturized pictures of the society in which they were taking place, and there were “rules” (unwritten though they may be) governing association and socialization in meals and other areas of life.  Importantly, the positioning of guests around a meal table was a visible demonstration of social hierarchy and political differentiation. 

What was quite common in the ancient world, and which can be safely presumed was present at this particular meal as a matter of course, was a u-shaped table known as a “triclinium.”  Banquets were organized around this table, using dining couches, with the host sitting at the center of the bottom of the “u”, with the two most prominent positions of honor to the right and to the left of the host.  This arrangement should be entirely unfamiliar, as even though there is not an ongoing overt honor and shame culture (and its associated competition for honor as a limited public good) in the western world, public occasions that include a meal in the world of today are generally arranged somewhat accordingly, with those more important to the organizer or the host or the cause seated closer to the front of the room, whereas those that are considered less important seated further away.  A major difference, of course, is that the seating does not necessarily reflect the attendees’ standing in the wider culture, and (at least in the western world) there are no hard and fast application of unwritten rules based on public perception.  

In This Is Love (part 13)

What would Jesus do on the heels of crossing the Jordan and His forty wilderness days?  Mark reports that “Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the Gospel of God.  He said, ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near.  Repent and believe the Gospel!’” (1:14b)  Jesus embarked upon His kingdom establishing mission, doing so as Israel had done, though it would take on a different appearance. 

In the book of Joshua, Rahab informs the reader that the inhabitants of the land---presented as the defiling usurpers in Israel’s promised territory (much like death was a defiling usurper in the Creator’s good creation)---feared Israel greatly, knowing that they had already destroyed great kings and gained decisive victories over other peoples during their post-Egypt wilderness sojourn.  To this reported of Rahab can be equated the fearfulness expressed by the unclean spirits with which Jesus is said to have dealt, who would cry out with words such as “Leave us alone, Jesus the Nazarene!  Have you come to destroy us?” (Mark 1:24a)  Like it had also been said of Israel (son of God), Jesus (Son of God) is even referred to by these demons as “the Holy One of God” (1:24b). 

To accomplish the purpose of His mission, Jesus first went to Galilee?  Why?  Because just like Israel, who was to be a son of God that would shine as a light of the Creator God’s glory to the world, Jesus was a Son that understood that He was tasked with doing the same.  If He was indeed the Messiah, and according to His own messianic interpretation, He had to fulfill the messianic role as understood through the words of the prophets.  Matthew assists in informing the answer as to why Jesus would do this, quoting from Isaiah from a post-Resurrection-and-Jesus-mission-comprehension-position and saying “Galilee of the Gentiles---the people who sit in darkness  have seen a great light, and on those who sit in the region of the shadow of death a light has dawned” (Matthew 4:15b-16, Isaiah 9:1-2). 

Moving along, it can be seen that the analogous relationship between Jesus and Solomon is straightforward, but at the same time requires a bit of thoughtful application.  As son of God, Solomon was a king, and this comes to be understood to be true for Jesus as well.  Certainly, the promises of the Davidic covenant, while applicable to Solomon, can almost all be seen through to Jesus.  Because the son of God was purposed to serve, like Israel, as a light to the nations and as a destroyer of the works of the devil (in its most basic manifestation of idolatry, from which so much evil springs), one of the interesting ways to make a comparison between Solomon and Jesus through the lens of Israel’s and the Scripture’s understanding and presentation of the son of God (which, as always, must be the basis for any and all right understanding), is to be found in the first book of the Kings. 

There it is reported that “People from all nations came to hear Solomon’s display of wisdom; they came from all the kings of the earth who heard about his wisdom” (1 Kings 4:34).  It is said that “Solomon was wiser than all the men of the east and all the sages of Egypt” (4:30), while helpfully going on to list four prominent wise men of his day.  Relating this then to Jesus, one need merely consider the crowds that were said to have routinely flocked to Him and followed Him, presumably because of His displays of wisdom (among other things).  In Solomonic tradition, these crowds were composed of Jesus’ fellow countrymen, and would also include Gentiles from within the borders of Israel and the surrounding nations.  As was said of Jesus, which could also be fittingly said of Solomon, “No one ever spoke like this man!” (John 7:46)    

Only Son (part 4)

As one attempts to gain a more thorough and properly rooted understanding of what Jesus means with the words that have come to be designated as John 3:16, it must be borne in mind that not only are the words offered in the context of what must be a larger discourse and long-running relationship between Jesus and Nicodemus (of which the author surely provides only a small portion), but that they are offered in a political, historical, cultural, social, and theological context as well.  So understanding the context will take quite a bit more than simply examining the verses that come before and after.  The context is far more complex than that.  Rather, the entire setting in which the words were spoken must be taken into consideration, which will allow the reader to gain an insight into the potential mindset of Nicodemus. 

This is to be done so that one can understand first what Nicodemus may have thought when Jesus spoke these words, and along with that, the things to which Jesus might be referring upon speaking these words.  Then, if this material has been traversed correctly, though relatively briefly (and certainly not exhaustively), the words will have a more correct and perhaps deeper meaning for the reader as well, as the way in which they fit into what it is that it is the great and over-arching plan of the Creator God for this world and for the beings that had been made in and as His image can now be properly grasped.

In the story as presented in this Gospel record, the very first thing that Nicodemus says to Jesus is “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God.  For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with him” (3:2b).  There is, of course, a great tradition of the giving and receiving of signs within Israel’s history.  Abraham asked for a sign from his God.  Moses asked for a sign that would demonstrate that the One speaking to him was truly the God of his forefathers.  Gideon would request and receive a sign from Israel's God.  There are numerous other instances of people asking for signs, so this was not simply limited to Jesus’ day and to the people of the time.  With his statement then, Nicodemus fits neatly into this long tradition.  First, he acknowledges that Jesus seems to be quite special, and then makes his reference to signs.  It is worth noting that, up to this point, the record of the Gospel of John does not have Jesus performing a large number of “signs.” 

What were the signs, according to what has been presented by the author, of which Nicodemus would be aware, and to which he would be making reference?  In the second chapter is the story of Jesus turning water into wine, which was not only miraculous on the surface, but was also a dramatic social and cultural statement by Jesus, centered upon meal practice, that did much to upend the honor and shame culture while also forever providing a cue to the followers of Jesus and what was to expected of them (the truly miraculous occurrence was not the transformation of liquid).  John reports that “Jesus did this as the first of His miraculous signs, in Cana of Galilee.  In this way He revealed His glory, and His disciples believed in Him” (2:11).  Following that, the Johannine narrative presents Jesus’ dramatic actions in the Temple.  It was this that drew the attention of the Jewish leaders to Jesus.  They said to Him, “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” (2:18b) 

In response, Jesus speaks about the destruction of the Temple and its being rebuilt in three days.  He offered this as a sign.  The reader then goes on to find that “while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many people believed in His name because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing” (2:23).  So it is possible to come to the conclusion that it is His activities in the Temple, together with the signs (symbols of Messiah-ship?) that He was performing during the feast, that prompts this particular conversation with Nicodemus.      

Marching Up From Gilgal (part 1 of 2)

So Joshua and his whole army, including the bravest warriors, marched up from Gilgal. – Joshua 10:7  (NET)

Gilgal was the place to which the Israelite nation first came after crossing the Jordan River and entering into their land of promise, doing so under the leadership of Joshua.  According to the Scriptural narrative as reported in the book of Joshua, it was at Gilgal that the men of Israel were circumcised, with this done in accordance with the terms of the Abrahamic covenant that has been effectively

re-confirmed and substantially expanded upon, through Moses at Mount Sinai.  With the circumcisions having been undertaken, “The Lord said to Joshua, ‘Today I have taken away the disgrace of Egypt from you’.” (5:9a)  The follow-up to that statement is that “the place is called Gilgal even to this day” (5:9b). 

The root of the word “Gilgal” is “galal,” which expresses the idea of something round, or circular, or rolling.  Because of this, the phrase “taken away” is sometimes translated or considered as “rolled away.”  The same root is to be found in the word “Galilee,” with this said to be related to the fact that the cities of the Galilee were set around the lake, in something of a circuit. 

Another word that is closely related to Gilgal is “Golgotha.”  The close relations occurs because of a shared root word.  Golgotha, of course, was the place where Jesus was crucified.  In Aramaic, the word is “Gulgoltha,” which becomes “Golgotha” in Greek.  The sharing of the root word “galal” occurs because of the occurrence of galal in the Hebrew word for “skull,” which is “gulgoluth.”  The “galal” in “gulgoluth,” presumably, is connected to the roundness of the human skull. 

Because of the close connection between Gilgal and Golgotha, together with the fact that “Joshua” or “Yeshua” is the Hebrew form of the name “Jesus,” close parallels are able to be drawn between the events that occur in connection with the place called Gilgal, and the events that occurred in connection with the place that is called Golgotha.  The natural and immediate connection to make is that just as the Creator God is said to have rolled away or taken away the disgrace of Egypt from off of His covenant people at that place, so too, within the single continuous narrative that is communicated via the Scriptures in which the ministry of Jesus and the reflections upon His ministry make sense, did He remove (roll away, take away) the disgrace of sin (failure to bear the divine image---exile from His purposes for them) from off of the new covenant people by means of the cross. 

While this should certainly be a cause for rejoicing amongst those that find themselves joining the people of the covenant through belief in Jesus as Messiah, that is not the focus of this study.  Rather, this study looks to the tenth chapter of Joshua, where “Joshua and his whole army, including the bravest warriors” (10:7a), can be found marching up from Gilgal to do battle with the five Amorite kings.

There, it is said that “The Lord told Joshua, ‘Don’t be afraid of them, for I am handing them over to you.  Not one of them can resist you’.” (10:8)  So just as Joshua marched up from Gilgal, with brave warriors in tow, so too does Jesus march up from Golgotha, with His saints, to do battle with the forces of evil.  Yes, those that have cast their allegiance with Him as King and Lord of all, go forth in the power of the Resurrection, but do so on the basis of what took place at the cross.  

In My Father's House (part 8 of 9)

Not finding Him, “they returned to Jerusalem to look for Him” (Luke 2:45b).  As an attempt is made to continue to connect the events surrounding Jesus at the age of twelve with the always-looked-to “Christ-event,” one can here begin to think of the women that came to the tomb of Jesus.  Naturally, they were not going to look for Jesus, nor were they expecting to find anything but a dead body, as there was no expectation of His Resurrection though He is said to have spoken of it many times.  Rather, they were going to anoint His body with spices, in accordance with standard burial custom and practices, so that they could later collect His bones and place them in an ossuary. 

When did the women go to the tomb?  Luke says that it was after three days.  What is known from Luke about the search conducted by Jesus’ parents?  It was “After three days they found Him in the Temple courts” (2:46a).  To this was added that He was “sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions” (2:46b).  With this, one is compelled to consider the scene at Jesus’ empty tomb, where “two men…in dazzling attire” (24:4) spoke to the women who had come there, saying “Why do you look for the living among the dead?  He is not here, but has been raised!  Remember how He told you, while He was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again” (24:5b-7). 

It would be safe to presume that the women were astonished at this turn of events.  When Jesus was lost to His parents, as they were certainly prone to a very natural fear, it is reasonable to suggest that they considered the possibility that He was dead.  This turned out to not be the case.  Not only was He not dead, and not only had no harm at all come to Him, but they found Him in the Temple courts.  Effectively then, He was raised from the dead right before their eyes. 

In those courts, it was said that “all who heard Jesus were astonished at His understanding and His answers” (2:47) and that “His parents…were overwhelmed” (2:48a).  Returning to the story of the empty tomb then, having heard the words of the two men, the women “told these things to the apostles” (24:10b).  The women were met with a rightful skepticism and incredulity, which is more than understandable.  Certainly, as had likely been the case with the women, Jesus’ disciples were astonished at this story these women were telling, reporting a Resurrection.  Because such a thing simply did not take place under normal circumstances, just like the idea of a twelve-year-old boy being allowed to speak with the teachers in the Temple courts, the understandable reaction was that “these words seemed like pure nonsense to them” (24:11a). 

Furthermore, having heard these nonsensical words, “they (the disciples) did not believe them” (24:11b).  However, “Peter got up and ran to the tomb.  He bent down and saw only the strips of linen cloth; then He went home, wondering what had happened” (24:12).  Peter found himself even more astonished, and though wondering what had happened, the way the story unfolds suggests that he was inclined to begin believing the reports of the women.  Like Jesus’ parents after the conclusion of the ordeal of their missing child, Peter, as he began to consider the possibility that Jesus was alive, might very well have been “overwhelmed.”  Because of Jesus actions in allowing Himself to be tortured and crucified, of His putting Peter in the position to deny his Lord, and causing all of His close followers to cower in fear over what was going to happen to them, Peter may very well have been wondering, again like Jesus’ parents, “why have You treated us like this?” (2:28b) 

In My Father's House (part 7)

The first time that Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, and His mother and father were not immediately able to locate Him, “they began to look for Him among their relatives and acquaintances” (Luke 2:44b).  At the times of the feasts, individuals or families would not travel by themselves from Galilee to Jerusalem and back.  They would travel in groups.  Customarily, the men would form one group and move at a quicker pace, whereas the women would form a second, more slowly-moving group (with babies and younger children), catching up with the men at the conclusion of the day’s travels. 

It would have been at the end of the first day’s travel from Jerusalem that it would have been discovered that Jesus was not with them.  Such an over-sight could have occurred relatively easily.  Jesus’ mother would have presumed that He was in the lead group with His father, while His father would have presumed that He was back in the trailing group with His mother.  So it was natural that they first look for Him among their relatives and acquaintances, as reported by Luke, before discovering that He was not with them. 

Making the connection with the second time that He stayed behind in Jerusalem (having gone to the cross and into the grave), and doing so based on the messianic movements and expectations of the day, one can reasonably assert that, once again, there was a search made among His relatives and acquaintances.  What does this mean?  There are at least two ways to think about this.  The first is that, in order to keep the “Jesus movement” going, those that were ardent in their support for Him would have looked among His relatives and close friends in order to find and choose a new leader of the movement.  Ultimately, it can be seen that this happened, but not right away, as Jesus’ brother James, who was not one of His followers during Jesus’ lifetime, came to eventually be looked to as the head of the Church in Jerusalem. 

The second way to think about this is that the Romans, as well as the Jewish leaders that were involved in putting Jesus to death, would have expected Jesus’ followers to appoint a new leader, so as to continue His movement (at least temporarily), partly in order to avoid the shame and dishonor associated with backing a fallen leader.  Of course, it would also have been a possibility that the group would disband permanently, having been shamed out of existence with the crucifixion of Jesus, and living with the abiding fear that anybody believed to have been closely associated with Jesus would come to suffer the same fate.  If standard practices were followed in the way that revolutionary or seditious groups were handled in the wake of a state sanctioned execution, these groups would have diligently searched out Jesus’ relatives and acquaintances, to have them executed as well, so as to stifle any further “problems” in association with Jesus. This would explain the disciples’ hiding and cowering in fear, behind locked doors.                

So having looked “among their relatives and acquaintances” (2:44b), “they did not find Him” (2:45a).  As it relates to Jesus’ crucifixion and Resurrection, as previously discussed, of course they did not find Him.  Jesus was not attempting to establish the kingdom of God in the expected way of a revolution by overthrow at force of arms, so a new leader of the movement was not a necessity.  Beyond that, the appointment of a new leader was not necessary, for the One that had been killed and buried, though unbeknownst to His followers, was going to be returning to life, to reign over the kingdom that was being established through His suffering and vindication.

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 12 of 12)

To this statement about authority, eternal life, and knowing the Creator God, Jesus reverts once again to speaking about the glory that will be demonstrated and accomplished by adding “I glorified You on earth by completing the work You gave Me to do.  And now, Father, glorify Me at Your side with the glory I had with You before the world was created” (17:4-5).  Here, He spoke of His work in terms of His God’s glory, while also speaking of His own glorification in terms of that same God’s glory. 

In the final use of “glory” in what has come to be called Jesus’ “high-priestly prayer”, as He presumably, looks past the grave to the new world and the new age of His established and eternal kingdom that will come into existence at what He hopes to be His Resurrection, Jesus goes on to say, “Father, I want those You have given Me to be with me where I am, so that they can see My glory that You gave Me before the creation of the world” (17:24).         

Finally, after His Resurrection that was wholly unexpected by His followers, as Jesus appears in Galilee to His disciples, dining with them and taking the opportunity to restore one that was heartbroken because of his denial of his Lord, Jesus speaks to that restored one and says, “I tell you the solemn truth, when you were young, you tied your clothes around you and went wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go” (21:18). 

The author informs the reader that “Jesus said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God” (21:19a).  This final mention of glory is the first and only time in this Gospel that the glory of the Creator God is attached to anybody but Jesus or the Father.  Of course, the glory is indirectly associated with Jesus, because Peter was only going to experience his martyrdom because of the message of the Gospel of Jesus (He is Lord of all, including Caesar and all worldly powers) that he was going to preach.  He would only preach that message because of his believing union with Christ, having been cemented into that trusting allegiance, for life or death, through the mysterious and inexplicable infusion of faith from the covenant God, via the Spirit, somehow made possible by the Resurrection. 

Yes, it seems that it can be said that the Creator God is glorified by His martyrs---His witnesses---in life or in death.  The Creator God is glorified when the Gospel is preached, and people hear a testifying witness that Jesus is King and Lord of all.  Before one is ever able to preach that message, for the Creator God’s glory, it must be heard, there must be an assent, and in a way that has the appearance of that which happened to Lazarus (though altogether different), there must be a raising from death to new life.    

Though Jesus’ communication to Peter is in reference to the death that he himself will suffer at the hands of those who oppose the message of the Christ, through it, Jesus also communicates a truth concerning His God’s ways.  For His glory, because He is a faithful God that redeems exiles to Himself for His purpose of carrying out His work through the Spirit that will animate their lives, the Creator God takes those individuals from their path of doing whatever they want, He somehow works within them to stretch out their hands to Him, to bind them to Himself, and to bring them, in some cases, to places that they may never have wanted to go.  By all appearances, He does this, raising them up for His purposes, so as to give them a life that will glorify Him.            

Christ's Peace (part 1 of 2)

Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; I do not give it to you as the world does. – John 14:37a  (NET)

In the Gospel of John, which is the only one of the Gospel records of the life and ministry of Jesus in which we hear these words, we find this statement from Jesus in the midst of what is considered to be a portion of His “parting words” to His disciples, before beginning what was going to be His arduous trek to the cross and the grave.  What would Jesus’ disciples have heard Him telling them with these words?  To what was Jesus referring to when He spoke here of “peace,” and what did He mean when He said that He would give it to them, but not “as the world does”?  Remember, Jesus Himself provides context for understanding what is meant by “peace,” as He insists that it is a “peace” that is not going to be given to His followers (those that believe Him to be the Messiah) in the same way as the world of His time commonly experiences “peace” and is made to understand the term.  

We need to be careful not to import modern or idealistic notions of “peace” into the text or the setting, thus it can be said that “peace” would not necessarily have been used here as some type of existential term, denoting a certain type of internal feeling about one’s situation in life or place in the world.  Indeed, “peace” would have had a more concrete referent.  It would have had a more substantial, robust, and true to life definition.  Most sensibly, the immediate context for its use would have been the way the word and notion was understood at that time. 

Perhaps most importantly, the “peace” of the day was the “pax romana,” or the “Roman peace.”  It was a day in which “peace and security” were much heralded.  That peace and security, however, was brought about through Rome’s military might.  It was a peace primarily achieved through violent conflict and bloodshed (though some would surrender to Rome before hostilities would take place----this only because of the knowledge of what Rome would do to those that stood against them).  Hence, this understanding of “peace” would certainly have been lurking in the background of Jesus’ words.    

There would also have been a widely held notion amongst Jesus’ fellow citizens concerning the shape that would be taken by peace.  In that day, it was the great desire of many Jews that their ancestral land be emptied of the hated Romans.  Consequently, many (but obviously not all) were looking to the miracle-worker and food-provider known as Jesus of Nazareth to lead the revolution (Jesus fit the mold in many ways---beginning in Galilee, the seedbed of revolutionary activity, announcing an agenda, and then moving on to Jerusalem), that would bring peace to their land that would materialize in the form of the expulsion of their subjugating enemies. 

To the great disappointment of many, not only would Jesus not bring this supposed form of peace to His people, saying that “I do not give it to you as the world does,” but He was intent on bringing a different type of peace, which would still have the effect of allowing all of His people---the ones that He said that the Father had given to Him---to overcome the subjugation of their greatest enemy, which was the one with which they would do constant battle.  That enemy bore the name of “death.”  Ironically, in order to bring about this different type of peace, Jesus would Himself succumb to death, apparently defeated at the hands of Rome and their means of capital punishment used against rebel groups that was designed to “keep the peace” amongst subject peoples, which would cause a great many to view Him as another failed messianic aspirant who had been overcome by the Roman “peace”.

Light Of The World (part 2 of 2)

As one progresses through the eighth chapter of John, the final day of the feast is reached.  It is that day on which it is said that “Jesus stood up and shouted out, ‘If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me, and let the one who believes in Me drink.  Just as the Scripture says, “From within Him will flow rivers of living water”’” (7:37b-38).  With these words, Jesus quotes prophecies (and calls to mind entire sections of the writings as they are set within Israel’s historical narrative) from Isaiah and Zechariah that would have been considered to be unmistakably messianic in nature, as they were connected to God’s redemptive actions on behalf of His people. 

Accordingly, because of the messianic overtones of the pronouncements, along with what was known about Jesus, and the generalized expectation of a long-hoped-for divine intervention on behalf of His people, “When they heard these words, some of the crowd began to say, ‘This really is the prophet!’  Others said, ‘This is the Christ!’  But still others said, ‘No, for the Christ doesn’t come from Galilee, does He?’” (7:40-41)  The record of this particular Gospel indicates that it was words like these, with their clear messianic underpinnings combined with Jesus’ seeming reluctance to conform to messianic ideals or to solicit the support of the rulers of the people, that prompted the chief priests and Pharisees to want to seize Jesus with the intention of putting Him to death.  In addition, it seems that, for them, this issue of Jesus’ place of origin was a sticking point.  With that piece of information alone, believing themselves to be fully cognizant of the full story when it came to Jesus place of birth and residence, His opponents seized on this piece of information.      

From there, the reader/hearer of the Johannine Gospel will go on to read about Nicodemus, who first made an appearance in the third chapter of John.  Nicodemus, who had obviously become a believer (probably owing to his interactions with Jesus), defends Jesus, saying “Our law doesn’t condemn a man unless it first hears from him and learns what he is doing, does it?” (7:51).  The response offered to this was “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you?  Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet comes from Galilee!” (7:52)  There was a relative certainty amongst those that were taken to be learned in these things that the Messiah would not spring from that region, which brings us to our main point, and the fact that, with the elimination of the story of the woman caught in adultery, it is immediately following these words that the author has Jesus diffusing the entire “Galilee issue” by saying, “I am the light of the world.  The one who follows Me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (8:12).  How so? 

Turning to Matthew (while acknowledging that John does not depend on Matthew, and that the two authors, or authorial communities, had different purposes for the story of Jesus that they told (though we could certainly expect the sweep of the Jesus tradition to have been in the mind of all of the authors, especially John, which is taken to have come last of the four Gospels), we find him quoting from Isaiah in regards to Jesus and the fulfillment of messianic hopes as he writes, “Galilee of the Gentiles---the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, and on those who sit in the region and shadow of death a light has dawned” (4:15b-16).  To “Galilee of the Gentiles” and the associated “great light,” could be added Simeon’s prophecy that is recorded in the second chapter of Luke, in which he calls the Messiah “a light, for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to Your people Israel” (2:32). 

Thus, considering the passage in John again, while a believer is certainly likely to confess a certain knowledge that Jesus is the light and hope of the world, Jesus’ words concerning light in this context, provided further context by talk of Galilee,  were pronounced with a clear, prophetic and historical referent.  Thus, this was not simply a spiritual saying as it is so often taken to be, and it is not to be disconnected from the very realistic situation that Jesus was addressing.  By saying what He said, Jesus should be understood to have been making it clear that He was, in fact, the Messiah.