All The Saints (part 4)

As a result of Peter’s plea, James, grasping the movement of the Creator God’s Spirit, along with a Scriptural and historical justification for that movement, says “Brothers, listen to me.  Simeon has explained how God first concerned Himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for His name.  The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written, ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord, namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be My own, says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.’” (Acts 15:13b-18)  Remarkably, it is determined that the tent of David is to include the Gentiles (resonances of Isaiah 54:2---make your tent larger???), and that this has always been the plan of the covenant-making-and-keeping Creator God of Israel.   

In Acts thirteen, Paul and Barnabas are in Pisidian Antioch.  Paul speaks to “Men of Israel, and… Gentiles who fear God” (13:16b).  During the course of his speech, as he quickly recounts the story of the Creator God’s covenanting with humanity, he goes on to say “Brothers, descendants of Abraham’s family, and those Gentiles among you who fear God, the message of this salvation has been sent to us” (13:26). 

He goes on to punctuate the remainder of his message with words of family unity, speaking of “the good news about the promise to our ancestors” (13:32b), and “to us, their children” (13:33b), climaxing with “Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through this one forgiveness of sins,” which is the language of exodus experience and covenant inclusion, “is proclaimed to you, and by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you” (13:38-39).  Here, one needs to be cognizant of the possibility that “the law of Moses” stands in for “works of the law,” which were the covenant markers that were to be practiced as the identifying, justifying marks for those who were under covenant. 

Thus, through recollection of these scenes as recorded in the book of Acts (which, though the stories would have been shared, were not available in written and standardized form to the churches of the day),observers are provided with a glimpse into the struggle.  There were doubts.  There were prejudices and ancient biases.  There was a fear that the status gains of one group (Gentile Christians) were coming at the expense of another (Jewish Christians). 

In an honor and shame culture in which honor was a limited good (one only gained honor at the expense of another’s honor), this is more than understandable.  There were church-wide conflicts.  There were intra-church (as congregation) conflicts.  There was a lack of unity on a number of issues, both within bodies and across the body.  There were stances taken by one church that would not be taken by another church.  Indeed, a review of the New Testament letters demonstrates that each congregation dealt with different problems at different times and in different ways.

All of this lays the groundwork for a look at Colossians.  In co-ordination with the title of this study, it can be said that “all” in Colossians, seems to play a strategic role.  This “all” takes on multiple forms, and when one reads the letter with the questions concerning the inclusion and acceptance of Gentiles as part of the covenant people of the Creator God, minus their adoption of the markers of that covenant, this communiqué takes on an interesting character.  Paul is very much interested in the elimination of long established, perhaps cherished barriers (in some corners), in the name of the creation of a unified, new creation, kingdom people.

Calling His Disciples (part 8)

The fact that only two of the disciples specifically called by Jesus are said to have left their father is irrelevant to the larger point that is being made.  The simple mention of leaving their father, when called by the one that is worshiped as the embodiment of the Creator God by the community that is hearing the story, creates an Abrahamic frame of reference that can be comfortably applied to the rest of the callings.  In this Abrahamic light then, one can take a moment to stretch the analogy just a bit further, calling attention to the fact that James and John are said to have taken the action to leave their father together. 

The call of Abraham, according to the Genesis narrative, was to “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household.”  However, those that know the Abraham story know that Abraham took his nephew Lot with him.  So even though these two disciples (James and John), unlike Abraham, did indeed make the difficult decision to leave their father (Zebedee), that decision was made a little bit easier, as each man did so in conjunction with his brother.  The fact that the first four called disciples are said to have been business partners, at least according to Luke, probably made the decision to leave their occupations and to follow Jesus just slightly less tenuous.

Is the call from Jesus to follow Him, combined with an account of leaving a father behind the extent of the similarities to the call of Abraham?  Of course not.  That would hardly be enough of a basis from which to build a credible argument.  Considering that the covenant God’s redemptive plan for His creation begins with Abraham, climaxes with Jesus and is to be continually carried out through His disciples through the time of the consummation of His kingdom and beyond, there must be far more points of contact between the Abrahamic covenant and the call to discipleship.  Fortunately, there are. 

Returning to Mark’s Gospel then and venturing to the third chapter, it is there found that Jesus “appointed twelve (whom He named apostles), so that they could be with Him and He could send them to preach and to have authority to cast out demons.  He appointed twelve” (3:14-16a).  The duplication of “appointed twelve” could easily be heard as an emphasizing of the re-gathering of the twelve tribes of Israel.  As the Creator God ordained Israel to be a light to the nations, so too Jesus has ordained twelve to the same end.  Naturally, any implicit references to the Creator God’s covenant with Israel also carries with it an implicit reference to the Abrahamic covenant, as there is no Israel without Abraham, and there would be no Mosaic covenant without the Abrahamic covenant. 

So in coming to understand the Abrahamic mental triggers that would be pulled by the appointment of twelve, one can  then make a rather broad analysis based on what it is that Mark says next.  If the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants are in mind when Mark writes “so they would be with Him and He could send them,” then this is yet another recapitulation of the long-standing charge to Israel, for the Creator God had promised Israel that He would dwell among them if they were faithful to the obligation to carry out His commandments.  Ultimately, this dwelling among them would be for the purpose of their revealing His glory to all peoples.  Certainly this can be seen as Israel both being with their God and being sent by their God.  If that is the case, then one is forced to revert further to that which is foundational to Israel’s relationship with their God, which is the promise to Abraham. 

Calling His Disciples (part 5)

Now restricting this study to the records of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, particular notice should be taken of yet another feature of their stories.  Though it has been mentioned in the initial review of the record of the calls of Jesus’ first four specifically called disciples, this feature, as part of the movement of this project, demands to be given its own special attention.  That feature is the mention of the father of James and John, Zebedee, and the fact that his sons leave him when Jesus makes the call. 

Now, this is not an overlooked feature by any means, though a significant aspect of this departure has been overlooked to be sure.  Long has it been the case that expositors and preachers have drawn attention to this feature of the Gospel narratives, pointing out that when Jesus calls, He expects a wholehearted devotion that transcends family ties.  This is undoubtedly true, and the earliest followers of Jesus certainly saw themselves as a fictive kinship group and a new humanity.  Of course, at the same time, it is often said that Jesus prizes family values above all else.  This event seems to fly in the face of the commandment to honor father and mother, but that is a subject for another day. 

Reviewing the record then, Mark informs his audience that “Going on a little farther, He saw James, the son of Zebedee, and John his brother in their boat mending nets.  Immediately He called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed Him” (1:19-20).  Matthew adds that “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” (4:21-22). 

Luke’s record is a little less explicit, in that there it is reported that Peter had been astonished at the haul of fish, “and so were James and John, Zebedee’s sons, who were Simon’s business partners” (5:10a).  Following that, Jesus directs words to Peter (5:10), which then flows into a report of their bringing their boats to shore, leaving everything (which would include James and John leaving their father), and following Jesus (5:11).  It should be noted that Luke does not specifically mention James and John leaving their father (the explicit mention of which apparently does not serve a purpose in particular telling of the Jesus story), but as is obvious, it is implied in the narrative.    

Why mention Zebedee at all?  Why this identification of James and John in this way?  Is it for purposes of delineation, so that there would be no confusion due to the presence of multiple men named James in the record of the earliest church?  Such is certainly possible.  Why mention the fact that they left their father?  Did Zebedee have some type of standing in the early church and used that as a way to influence these authors to include a mention of him in their stories of Jesus?  Maybe.  Is it purely to make the point that following Jesus may very well involve the sacrifice of livelihood and of family relationships?  This would be a reasonable conclusion. 

Is a reader to take from the fact that James and John are identified in this way, and that they are said to have left their father while Andrew and Simon and others are not reported to have had to leave their father behind as an indication that the call comes differently to different people---some will be called to leave their family while others will not be asked to do such things?  That could work as well.  While all of these conclusions could certainly be drawn, and while there is no need to raise a protest to any of these ideas, there is something far more basic happening here, and it is in connection with the underlying narrative, which is that of the nation of Israel. 

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. 

Hated (part 1)

You will be hated by everyone because of My name.  But the one who endures to the end will be saved. – Mark 13:13  (NET)

Jesus---the healer, the wondrous miracle worker, the good and wise man, the social revolutionary---tells His disciples that they will be hated by everyone because of His name.  He says this while in the process of answering a question posed by Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:3).  Prior to the question and the answer, one of His disciples had spoken of the Temple, making reference to its size and grandeur.  This occurs after Jesus has observed the significant offerings that were being made for the Temple, which would be used for its ongoing upkeep, adornment, and expansion. 

The amount of money that filtered through the Temple was substantial, with large offerings able to do wonderful things for the Temple that visibly represented Israel’s hopes, its dreams, and its God.  Nevertheless, Jesus focuses in on one particular woman---a poor widow, who “came and put in two small copper coins” (12:42b).  He said to His disciples, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others.  For they all gave out of their wealth.  But she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had” (12:43b-44). 

It is tempting to view the recognition of such obviously sacrificial giving as a badge of honor and praise from Jesus.  At first glance, it would appear that Jesus is singling this woman out (the imagery, of course, is always that of an older woman, but that is not necessarily the case, as it would have been common for her to have been quite young) and holding her up for praise due to her gift.  It would seem to be the case that at least one of the disciples hears these words from Jesus as praise for the woman, as He seemingly honors her very small gift above the others. 

Thus this disciple takes it upon himself to say “Look at these tremendous stones and buildings” (13:1b), as if to say “So much money has been given to erect and to maintain this Temple.  Some of those gifts have been quite large, and many were no doubt sacrificial in nature.  In addition, all of the people participate in this construction and maintenance program by their gifts.  This Temple would not be what it is today if all gave only what this widow gave, and yet you, Jesus, say that she gave more.”   

Jesus’ response to His disciple allows for consideration of the very strong possibility (probability) that His recognition of the widow’s gift was actually something of a lament.  What has actually taken place is that this woman has given all that she has to live on, when in reality, it is the Temple authorities, as they represent the covenant God of Israel that provides for His people, that should be supporting her and not allowing her to do this very thing.  Instead, the implication is that this widow is now going to suffer hunger and thirst and privation as a result of her support of a Temple (and a Temple regime) that is shortly going to come to an end. 

Emphasizing that this is the point at which He is driving, Jesus says “Do you see these great buildings?  Not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!” (13:2)  These are cataclysmic words.  These are weighty words.  The Temple will be torn down?  What do you mean the Temple will be torn down?  This is big news---the biggest!  Moreover, such words are not being spoken by some raving lunatic.  This is being said by the man recently hailed with “Hosanna!  Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!  Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!  Hosanna in the highest!” (11:9b-10) 

This is being said by the same man who had entered the Temple, and with a demonstration of a deep and abiding respect for the Temple and its purposes, along with a respect for Who and what it symbolized, drove out those who were selling and buying in the Temple courts and overturned the tables of the money changers and prevented merchandise from being carried through the Temple courts (11:15-16), saying “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’?  But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” (11:17)  First He defends its honor, and now He speaks of its destruction.

Calling Down Fire (part 2)

The followers of Jesus would also be aware of the strong possibility that if the Caesar had sent messengers ahead of himself, to prepare a city for his arrival there, and that city (or town or village) rejected him for any reason whatsoever, that the Caesar’s response would likely be to make an example of that village.  The Caesar, in a show of force that proved his power and rule, could very well take the step of killing those who did not bow the knee.  If this was done, the killing would probably be done in a fairly dramatic and attention-getting way (a crucifixion may not be out of the question), so that it would not be necessary to repeat such a thing upon reaching the next city during the course of his travels.  Though lacking the power of the Caesar, the question about calling down fire from heaven (invoking Elijah), it would seem that James and John are expressing a desire to follow the same pattern. 

One could understand the way of thinking, however misguided.  Truly, if this King is greater than Caesar, than all should be made to bow the knee.  Calling down fire from heaven to consume those that refused to show honor would be the way of insuring that such would happen.  Jesus’ response is well known and in line with His character as revealed in the Gospels.  He “turned and rebuked them” (Luke 9:55).  It is to be noted that He did not turn and rebuke the villagers that rejected Him.  Rather, He rebuked His disciples that wanted to go about commanding allegiance in the way that Caesar and all other kings had commanded allegiance, which was ultimately the threat of pain and death.  In consideration of this of course, one cannot help but think of the regular “calling down of fire”---that of death and the eternal fire of hell---that is employed to convince people to bow the knee to Jesus. 

Rather than stay in that village in an attempt to defy the rejection, “they went on to another village” (9:56).  Jesus was not going to be side-tracked in His mission to preach the Gospel of His kingdom, which is what is to be understood as that which truly carries power.  To that end, chapter ten of Luke begins by saying, “After this,” thereby connecting it with the words and events of chapter nine.  Luke writes, “After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others (possibly seventy) and sent them on ahead of Him two by two into every town and place where He Himself was about to go” (10:1).  This is quite similar to what can be seen taking place in the ninth chapter, when Jesus “sent messengers on ahead of Him… to make things ready in advance for Him” (9:52a,c).  Observing these instructions in this context, it would seem that Jesus sees Himself in the role of the world’s true Caesar, sending out evangelists to announce His coming and to prepare His subjects for an appropriate reception.   

With the sending, Jesus included instructions, saying “Do not carry a money-bag, a traveler’s bag, or sandals, and greet no one on the road”  (10:4).  This sounds like rather unusual instructions, but it is possible that Jesus wants His disciples to be distinctive from other wandering teachers in those days.  He added a demand that once they find a hospitable response from a household, that they stay in that one house, and “not move around from house to house” (10:7b).  Again, without getting too bogged down in details, suffice it to say that this practice will continue to set His disciples apart from other roving teachers of that day.  Ultimately, those that came across the representatives of Jesus are to be made to realize that the visitors are there for a single mission, which would be to “Heal the sick in that town and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come upon you!’” (10:9) 

Calling Down Fire (part 1)

Now when the days drew near for Him to be taken up, Jesus set out resolutely to go to Jerusalem.  He sent messengers on ahead of Him.  As they went along, they entered a Samaritan village to make things ready in advance for Him” – Luke 9:51-52  (NET)

This action of sending messengers ahead of Himself, so as to make things ready in advance for Him, as can be here read about in relation to the Samaritan village, is a Caesar-like action.  Undoubtedly, as the recipient of Luke’s writing (who was likely a Roman government official) is borne in mind, these words were meant to draw a contrast between the Caesar (the man that was then honored and widely worshiped as the world’s savior and son of god) and Jesus the Christ.  It is also possible that Luke’s use of “taken up” in reference to Jesus is a subtle allusion to the “apotheosis” of the Caesar, which is the recognition of Caesar’s deification as a god (making a son that would follow him on the throne the “son of god”). 

Sending a messenger ahead of himself was a common practice for the Caesar.  Those messengers, who could be referred to as “evangelists,” went out proclaiming the “good news” (evangelion) concerning Caesar, regularly going ahead of him for the purpose of preparing a town or city within his realm to welcome the Caesar with all appropriate honor.  In this role, the evangelist prepared the people in subjection to the son of god to bow the knee to the Caesar as their lord and master and the giver of all good things.  This is the likely interpretive framework within which the reader/hearer of Luke’s narrative is asked to understand Jesus’ sending of messengers on ahead of Himself---Jesus is the world’s true Savior, Son of God, King, Lord, Master, and giver of all good things. 

In the case of the particular instance reported here by Luke, though Jesus had sent these messengers to make ready things in advance for Him and presumably to prepare the people for His visit, “the villagers refused to welcome Him” (9:53a).  Luke adds what he must have thought was a necessary explanatory statement, indicating that the refusal to welcome Jesus stemmed from the fact that “He was determined to go to Jerusalem” (9:53b). 

The Samaritans, of course, were looked down upon by the Jews, though clearly, according to the record in the Gospels of His interactions with them, not by Jesus.  However, apparently owing to the ill-will between Jews and Samaritans, the Samaritans refused to honor one that had determined, within His messianic mission, to simply use their city as a stopping point on the way to Jerusalem.  Regardless of the reason or motivation behind their refusal to receive Him, the significant fact to observe is that Jesus was not welcomed. 

Because of this, Luke writes: “Now when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to call fire to come down from heaven and consume them?’” (9:54)  Why would they say such a thing?  It would seem to be clear that Luke is pointing out the fact that James and John were well aware of the very Caesar-like nature of what was Jesus had done in sending messengers ahead of Him to prepare various places to welcome Him as King. 

To go along with this, if Luke’s record is accurate, Jesus’ disciples have already repeatedly heard Him use royal titles for Himself, such as Son of Man.  In the course of the linear progression of the narrative, they have also seen him cast out demons, heal the sick, raise a man from the dead, still a storm, and feed a multitude.  They rightly interpret these things within the messianic, kingly context in which they are performed, and which Jesus had provided to them by the very words of His mouth, so the sending of an advance team, in the mold of the Caesar, is not at all surprising to them.  Human nature being what it is, it is not difficult to imagine that these followers enjoyed being a part of the chosen entourage of the King that was now traveling the path to Jerusalem. 

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.

A Mother's Gospel

And He said to her, “What do you want?”  She said to Him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at Your right hand and one at Your left, in Your Kingdom.” – Matthew 20:21  (ESV)

This request is quite telling because of what it is that immediately precedes it as the narrative unfolds.  It comes from the woman known only as “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (20:20a), that being James and John, the proverbial “sons of thunder.”  What immediately precedes it is her coming up to Jesus “with her sons, and kneeling before Him” (20:20b).  They kneel before Jesus.  The kneeling is key, and it is connected to what it is that they have just heard Jesus say. 

Now, as we look through the Gospel of Matthew, we read about people coming to Jesus on a regular basis.  In Matthew 8:19, a “scribe came up” to Jesus.  In 9:14, “the disciples of John came to Him.”  In 13:10, 13:36, and 18:1, “the disciples came” to Jesus.  In 15:1, “Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem.”  In 15:30, “great crowds came to Him.”  In 16:1, “the Pharisees and the Sadducees came…to test Him.”  In 18:21, “Peter came up” to Jesus.  In 19:3, we again see that the “Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him.”  Finally, in 19:16, we see that “a man came up to Him.” 

These, however, are not the only times that people have come to Jesus.  There are another set that we will now examine.  In Matthew 8:2, we find that “a leper came to Him.”  What did this leper do?  He “knelt before Him, saying, ‘Lord, if You will, You can make me clean’.”  Shortly thereafter, in 8:5, “a centurion came forward to Him, appealing to Him,” and said, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly” (8:6).  In 9:18, “a ruler came in and knelt before Him, saying, ‘My daughter has just died, but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live’.”  In 9:28, “blind men came to Him.”  When Jesus questioned them as to whether or not they believed He could heal them, they replied by saying, “Yes, Lord.”  In 15:25, a Canaanite woman “came and knelt before Him, saying, ‘Lord, help me’.”  In 17:14-15, “a man came up to Him and, kneeling before Him, said, ‘Lord, have mercy on my son’.”         

In the first set of people that we saw coming to Jesus, nobody was kneeling.  What do we see in the second set?  Four times, we see people coming to Jesus and kneeling before Him.  Each of those occasions is accompanied by an addressing of Jesus by use of the word “Lord.”  The two that do not recount any kneeling before Jesus, nevertheless, still show Jesus being recognized and addressed as “Lord.”  In the first set, not only did we see no kneeling, we also did not see any use of the word “Lord.”  To go along with that, we also do not see any healing.  The author appears to make the point that when Jesus is addressed as Lord, healing takes place.  When there is no kneeling, and when there is no calling Jesus “Lord,” for the most part, we only hear questions.  As we think about all of this kneeling, we make note of the fact that when the mother of the sons of Zebedee comes to Jesus, her sons are there with her.  All kneel.  This is the first time that we read about any of Jesus’ disciples kneeling before Him.    

How does this help us in looking at the actions and request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee?  Well, we have to look at what it was that came before she came and knelt before Jesus.  Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem.  Throughout His ministry, He had been feeding a growing awareness or expectations that He might very well be the Messiah of Israel.  His disciples have just heard Him say, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world (or ‘in the regeneration’), when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (19:28).  We can trust that the mother of the sons of Zebedee hear these words as well, or at the least, had them told to her by her sons.  This use of “Son of Man,” with its connection to Daniel that so permeated the air in first century Israel, was unmistakable messianic speech, as it spoke to the hope that Israel’s enemies were going to be put down by the very hand of their Creator God.  These words were being said after Jesus “went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan” (19:1).  He was working His way towards Jerusalem, “and large crowds followed Him” (19:2). 

After talking about the Son of Man and twelve thrones, Jesus goes into a dissertation about the “kingdom of heaven” and a “vineyard” (20:1).  In this, His listeners were hearing very clear statements connected with Israel, the expected activity of its God, and its Messiah.  Right in the middle of all of these grand declarations, which had to be causing great excitement among His disciples, Jesus says, “we are going up to Jerusalem.  And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death and deliver Him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and He will be raised on the third day” (20:18-19).  Now, this should have stopped them all dead in their tracks.  They should have been taken aback by this language.  According to Jewish expectation at that time, and if this Jesus was the Messiah, these things were not to happen.  Jesus should most certainly not be saying such things. 

His disciples were not deterred by these words.  Indeed, they did not seem to regard them at all.  It is directly after this that Matthew has the mother coming to Jesus, apparently still thinking about His declaration about the Son of Man and His glorious throne, and the twelve thrones for His disciples, making her request that her two sons sit on those thrones to Jesus right and left hands (positions of great honor).  Apparently, there is something of a communication that she (and presumably her sons) had missed His statements about His death and His Resurrection, and all of that wasn’t a part of Messianic expectation of the day anyway.  Honestly though, we can’t fault her too much for that, as the rest of the disciples were too busy being indignant at James and John, because of their mother’s request, to notice what Jesus had said.  Of course, had they actually heard Him, Peter would probably have just taken Jesus aside again to rebuke Him for making such statements, just like we find him doing in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew. 

Nevertheless, with all of this, let’s remember the kneeling together with the substance of the request.  In those things, we find that this woman recognized that Jesus was Lord (though it was left unsaid), that He was the promised King of Israel, that He was indeed the Messiah, and that His kingdom was going to be established.  In her kneeling and in her request, she preached the Gospel, proclaiming that Jesus is Lord.  

Conduct In Step With The Gospel (part 1 of 3)

But when He Who had set me apart before I was born, and Who called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son to me in order that I might preach Him among the Gentiles… - Galatians 1:15-16a  (ESV)

The Apostle Paul knew that He had been called to preach the Gospel of the kingdom of God and Jesus as its Lord to all nations, without restriction.  It is in the midst of this knowledge, for which he labored and suffered, that he encounters what he saw as an unthinkable situation in Antioch.  He recounts a story about Peter in Antioch, saying that “before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles” (2:12a).  Why wouldn’t he?  This table fellowship was reminiscent of what Christ Himself had done throughout the course of His ministry.  This was the picture of the Gospel in action.  This was the picture of God extending His covenant of salvation and restoration, indeed His peace and life, and doing so to all men. 

However, Paul sadly reports that “when they came he (Peter) drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party” (2:12b).  As we might imagine, with this example being provided by them to one who had an extraordinarily close relationship with the One Whom they were all now claiming as their Lord, “the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him” (2:13a), also drawing back and separating themselves from the Gentiles, re-drawing the old lines of exclusion and isolation that had done so much to bring judgment upon Israel, and which had been strenuously condemned by Christ, in word and deed.  Paul responded by opposing Peter’s actions, flatly rebuking him and declaring to him that his “conduct was not in step with the truth of the Gospel” (2:14a).  In this rebuke, we can hear Paul reminding Peter that the Gospel and its announcement of the kingdom of God made the proclamation that in Christ, “there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free: but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11). 

Continuing on in the letter to the Galatians, Paul adds to his argument and writes that “we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (2:16a).  In the context of this setting up of exclusionary table fellowship, Paul warned his hearers and his subsequent readers that withdrawing into their national boundaries is not what will show them to be righteous.  Circumcision was no longer the mark of God’s covenant, and the evidence of a man’s faithfulness to the covenant (righteousness/justification), but rather, the confession of Jesus as Lord.  God’s covenant people would be identified by the declaration of a gifted faith of belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Reinforcing his point, and almost the entirety of his message, Paul writes “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law” (2:16b).  Why does he say that?  “Because by works of the law no one will be justified” (2:16c).  Moving forward in the advance of Christ’s kingdom, the fleshly marks of a non-held-to covenant must be understood to be irrelevant in God’s plan for righteousness.  

Again, God’s people were not going to be counted righteous, justified, by the outward mark of a supposed faithfulness to a covenant and its requirements (honoring the Sabbaths, reverencing the sanctuary, keeping from idolatry) that Israel had never been able to keep.  Justification, that is, being counted righteous (or faithful to the covenant) would come through the faith gifted by the Holy Spirit, as that faith brings one into union with Christ for the purpose of believing that He is Lord and acting in accordance with the promises (salvation, redemption, eternal life, restoration, renewal, resurrection) associated with that belief.  Naturally, this would also include the proclamation and propagation of this belief (preaching and making disciples), for the purpose of the spreading of the gift of faith (Romans 10:17), so that others might experience this justification as well.        

As all of this is considered, one does not have to stretch his mind very far to come to terms with the idea that circumcision, which was being used as a dividing line for the separation of true believers and the ongoing identification of those who were truly God’s covenant people going forward, is here being seen by Paul as little more than idolatry.  In doing this, they are simply rebuilding what it was that Christ tore down”(2:18a), offering proof of Israel’s ongoing transgression of not being a light to the world, which justified God’s judgment against them, showing that Christ had to come to set things right, and that God Himself had to enter into history in order to do what His people had failed to do and to be what His people had failed to be, inaugurating His kingdom in the process.  Along with that, it could probably be said that anything that we presumptuously hold up as marks of identification that somehow mark us out from others of God’s chosen people as somehow special and distinct, this must surely appear as the building of barriers and as idols in the eyes of our Lord and God.         

Jerusalem & The Justification Of Gentiles (part 2 of 2)

After Peter spoke, “The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them” (15:12).  So here we have the repetitive theme of the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, and therefore confirmation of Gentile justification (covenant inclusion) as indicated by the reporting of miraculous signs and wonders.  Consequently we find that, “After they stopped speaking, James replied, ‘Brothers, listen to me.  Simeon has explained how God first concerned Himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for His name” (15:13-14) and “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God” (15:19). 

With this James stands in solidarity with Paul.  All that is necessary for Gentiles is that they believe the Gospel and so participate in the covenant in equal standing with those who are members of Israel (as indicated by their own covenant markers).  This belief in the Gospel corresponds with the story of Abraham, so all is well.  Unfortunately, he could not leave well-enough alone.  Apparently, the idea of Gentile inclusiveness apart from some form of outward covenant marker was untenable to James and the others in Jerusalem.

Part of Paul’s indictment of Peter in the letter to the Galatians makes mention of James, as it was “Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles” (2:12).  Luke softens this in Acts to “some men came down from Judea” (15:1a).  When we consider that the issue of table fellowship was prominent in Antioch, there is little wonder that James adds “we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood” (15:20).  We should take notice that all of this has to do with food.  We know this because the issue at Antioch sprang from the withdrawal of Jewish believers from table fellowship, with circumcision as a natural follow-on issue, though it was secondary. 

There are not three separate issues here, with two having to do with moral behavior and one having to do with food.  Thinking along such lines pulls us away from the appropriate context and the issues at hand amongst the believers.  The table was where the believing congregation gathered, and because the meal table was of paramount importance for the shaping of societies and communities in the day in which the church first came into existence, so also the church’s meal table was of paramount importance.  We must understand that.  Once we comprehend the community-shaping-and-identifying power of the meal in the Greco-Roman world, we can comfortably come to terms with Paul’s being quite exercised at the way that it being misused in Corinth, and why it is foundational for Paul’s challenge to Peter in Galatians, which sets him off on the path of writing about the nature of justification in that letter.

James is not suggesting that they “abstain from things defiled by idols” and to “abstain from sexual immorality” out of a concern that the believers be circumspect about the moral and spiritual condition of those with whom they are dining.  If that was the case, the addition of “abstain from what has been strangled and from blood” would seem wholly out of place.  Instead, we must hear this as a single directive, all of it having to do with food and the meal table.  James apparently does want the Jews and Gentiles to be able to share the same table (the divisions and problems at Antioch began at the meal table), so these particular directives are what will allow the Jewish believers to join the Gentile believers at the same table.  James wants the Gentile believers to abstain from food that has been defiled by idols, food that has been defiled by sexual immorality, food that has been defiled by strangling, and food that is defiled by the presence of the blood.  If they do this, then they will be able to join the Jewish believers (the true people of the covenant?) at their meal table.  Failing this, in his estimation, table division should not continue.

Paul, and apparently Peter before the men arrived from James arrived in Antioch, did not find it necessary to hold out such restrictions.  For Paul, and apparently Peter (the Cornelius story of the tenth chapter of Acts playing a role in this), the only thing that mattered was the belief in Jesus as Lord, with that functioning as the basis for open table fellowship between Jew and Gentile.  Paul would not insist that Jewish Christ-believers eat food that they would consider to be defiled, but he would insist that such food not be the basis for the failure for all to come together at the same table, or be the justification for separate meal tables in the church.  At the same, as evidenced by what James wants to write, there does appear to be unanimous agreement that if the meal table was divided, so too would the church be divided.  Hierarchies and divisions would develop and be exacerbated, and this would ultimately be destructive to the church and deleterious to the message of the Gospel.  James wants to put the onus on the Gentiles, insisting that they conform to Jewish custom in this matter.  Paul, on the other hand, wants love to rule the day.    

Kingdom For All (part 2 of 2)

Once the operative realm of the concept of justification is understood, and as we are able to operate more freely and comfortably with its connection to covenant inclusion, irrespective of national origin or physical descent, we find the way that it is introduced into the letter to Galatians is more than sensible.  Paul brings the issue to the table by recounting his experience with Peter in Antioch, writing “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.  Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles.  But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision” (2:11-12).  The “pro-circumcision” party are those that expected Gentile believers in Jesus to Judaize.  They expected these believers, in demonstration of their joining up with the elect people of God, to undergo circumcision.  Most likely, this would have included an expectation that they would adhere to Sabbath-keeping and food laws as well, with this presumption founded on Paul’s talk of Peter’s eating with Gentiles and his subsequent cessation of this practice. 

According to Paul, Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with the Gentiles was equivalent to agreeing with the need for Gentile believers to Judaize, thus devaluing the confession of Jesus as Lord as the sole necessary covenant marker that identified one as a participant in the covenant people, in the church, and as ambassadors of the kingdom of God that had been announced and inaugurated by Jesus.  Paul will later go on to point out that a devaluing of this confession, which is not to be separated from the crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus, is functionally equivalent to devaluing the death of Christ and making it irrelevant.  In addition, this action on the part of Peter apparently flew in the face of his own confession and that to which he had previously agreed, which was that there was no need for Gentiles to undergo the rite of circumcision in connection with their covenant-based confession, and no need for them to adopt any of the traditional covenant markers. 

As previously noted, when Paul visited Jerusalem, with Titus in tow, Titus was not “compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek” (2:3b), thus ultimately confirming the truth of Paul’s gospel (2:5).  The influential leaders of the church, in Jerusalem, as Paul said, added nothing to his message (2:6), which pronounced justification through an oath of loyalty to Jesus alone (faith alone), apart from the works of the law.  Peter had played a role in the assessment of Paul’s message, but now, by his actions, he was effectively adding to Paul’s message and even contradicting it to an extent, affirming the insistence that circumcision must take place, and treating the Gentile believers as if they were, somehow, fundamentally different and in need of making themselves look like Jews so as to participate in the covenant people (thus contradicting his experience in Acts chapter ten, which would have been well-known to all the church, and especially to Paul as the Apostle to the uncircumcised). 

For all of these reasons, Paul accuses Peter of rank hypocrisy, adding that “the rest of the Jews also joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy” (2:13).  To that, Paul adds, echoing the words of the fifth verse of this chapter, “But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the Gospel,” which finds no separation between Jew and Gentile while promoting the unity of the church of Christ under one and only one covenant marker, “I said to Cephas in front of them all, ‘If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew,’” implying that Peter himself had abandoned Sabbath-keeping and food laws, thus abandoning any pretense of the value of those in light of what God had accomplished in Christ, “’how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (2:14)  This is a stinging indictment of one who had a reputation as a pillar of the church (2:9), and no doubt caused Peter to reflect on his rooftop visions, his experience with Cornelius and his household as recorded in Acts, and now his own failure to live out and live up to the truth of the Gospel.