Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 6)

Though it’s difficult to conceive of this, Jesus was perceived as something of a corruptor of the people and a subverter of faith and practice.  Thus, those that followed Him, who believed in Him as the Messiah, and who thus began mimicking His practices---especially in the area of table fellowship with “sinners”, interaction with Gentiles, involvement with those that were ritually unclean, and general acceptance of all who were considered to be outside of the bounds of covenant---would invoke the anger of Israel’s God and delay His long-awaited entrance into history to work on behalf of His covenant people. 

As far as many were concerned, especially the Chief Priest and Pharisees, if more and more people began to disregard the works of the law (covenant markers that identified those holding to the covenant of the Creator God in thankful response) that were then in place and somewhat stridently enforced, then all that would result would be the extension of the curse of their God under which they continued to find themselves, as they were in exile from their God’s promises to them.  That exile was primarily evidenced by the fact that they were ruled by a foreign power (Rome), in accordance with the clear enunciation of curses to be found in the Torah (in both Deuteronomy and Leviticus). 

Generally, this would have been the attitude that would have been adopted by the Pharisee Saul, as before his “conversion,” he was, according to his own testimony, doing everything in his power to stamp out the pestilent heresy (the crucified man from Nazareth was resurrected and was the Messiah) that was serving to drive the people of Israel away from the keeping of the required marks of covenant (remember, these were not good works designed to earn their God’s favor so that they could be saved and go to heaven when they die), and thus delaying their God’s redeeming action (deliverance, exodus).  

Continuing on in chapter twelve of John, subsequent to the raising of Lazarus and the return to Bethany, the reader learns that “The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem” (12:12).  Part of this great crowd, of course, consisted of those that were causing great consternation amongst the chief priests and Pharisees---specifically, those that “were going away and believing in Jesus” (12:11b).  By way of reminder, they were believing in Jesus in these great numbers because of the knowledge that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. 

This belief was foundational in the growing movement towards that which was going to show forth the Creator God’s glory.  This crowd “took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him.  They began to shout, ‘Hosanna!  Blessed is the One Who comes in the Name of the Lord!  Blessed is the King of Israel!’” (12:13)  This was a large-scale messianic confession.  This was a widespread identification with Jesus’ kingdom movement.  Significantly, this was being done openly, before both Jewish leaders and Roman officials. 

As if that was not enough, “Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, ‘Do not be afraid, people of Zion; look, your King is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt!’” (12:14-15)  Why is it significant that this was being done in front of both Jewish leaders and Roman officials?  Well, in chapter eleven, following Lazarus’ raising, in acknowledgement that Jesus was “performing many miraculous signs” (11:47b), the Jewish council had already said, “If we allow Him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation” (11:48).  This reminds the reader that there had been other messianic claimants that had risen up, movements that had gained some small measure of popular support, and had been subsequently put down by the Romans. 

Measure Given, Measure Received (part 2)

The fact that there are both Jews and Gentiles in Jesus’ audience, based on geographic references, is an important point and must be taken into consideration as His words are examined.  Not only are there Gentiles present, but sight of the fact that Jesus is speaking (and his hearers are hearing, and Luke is writing) in Roman-controlled territory must never be lost.  It is Rome that is in power here.  Israel is subject to Rome.  The neighbors of Israel and any roaming Gentiles in Jesus’ audience are subject to Rome.  Luke himself is subject to Rome.  The individual to whom Luke purportedly writes (Theophilus) is quite possibly a high-ranking Roman government official, himself subject to Rome/Caesar. 

If Theophilus is part of a community of Jesus followers (those that confess that it is Jesus that is the true Savior of mankind, rather than the Caesar), then that community is also subject to Rome.  This is an altogether important consideration.  Those that read the Gospels must attempt to situate themselves alongside those that are in this situation of subjection, while also hearing Jesus according to the narrative that Luke has constructed for the hearing of these words, and the story of Israel (the covenant people).   

Consequently, for quite some time and up to that day, there was a strong under-current of revolutionary fervor against the Roman oppressors.  Naturally, this would have been widespread, but owing to Israel’s self-understanding that they were the unique covenant people of the Creator God, and their expectation that their God was going to act on their behalf, Israel’s fervor for revolution of some kind seems to have been almost always near the boiling point.  The Creator God’s people (Israel/Judah) wanted to escape from Rome’s oppression, and Rome was their enemy.  Holding that fact in mind as an attempt to examine the text is undertaken, allows more and more adding of a tremendously important historical realism to the situation, and makes the reader open and aware of the strong probability that there are most likely Roman soldiers present and within ear-shot of Jesus. 

Why would such be the case?  Well, it’s not difficult to image this being the case, as to this point in the narrative as presented by Luke, Jesus has invoked near-riots in Nazareth, has attracted crowds in Capernaum, has begun calling together a close-knit and hand-picked group of chosen followers, has managed to convince a tax collector to leave his work and follow Him, and He was regularly drawing attention from the religious leaders.  All of these things, taken together, could very well be viewed by the Romans as the beginnings of yet another messianic/revolutionary movement that was designed to come against their rule by force of arms.   

Thusly, it is quite reasonable to presume that the Roman authorities, working in conjunction with their client authority figures in Israel who would be dramatically, and from their viewpoint, negatively affected by any type of revolution, would have heard reports about this Jesus fellow.  It is reasonable to suggest that they would have had their collective eye on Him at some level.  By this time in their imperial expansion, the Romans would have had plenty of experience in identifying and dealing with those that opposed them, especially in Palestine, and would certainly be keeping a watchful eye on situations that might quickly escalate (again, in concert with those that they placed in power).  Large gatherings of a diverse group of people around a charismatic and dynamic individual could certainly be one of those situations.  So as not to give Rome a reason to move against Him, one can imagine that Jesus takes all of this into consideration and is going to be measuring His words quite carefully.     

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”.

Foolish, Weak, Low, Despised, Nothing (part 2 of 2)

Having communicated these things about those who are called to be image-bearers of the Creator God, primarily through imitation of the Christ that was shamed and despised, and asking his brothers and sisters in Corinth to reflect on their own calling, Paul appears to quickly shifts his focus away from his readers and away from himself.  He once again looks to the Lord Jesus, the Christ.  As that is said, we must remember the context that he has created for what he is writing, that being the message of the cross, its inherent foolishness, and the stumbling block of a crucified Christ (Messiah).  Keeping that in mind then, as we return to the text, we are able to clearly see that Paul speaks of Jesus (and His cross) as he goes on to write, “But God chose what the world thinks foolish to shame the wise, and God chose what the world thinks weak to shame the strong.  God chose what is low and despised in the world, what is regarded as nothing, to set aside what is regarded as something” (1:27-28). 

We are often taught to see ourselves here, making this a personal application when this should most likely not be the case.  As Christians, we regularly pull these words from out of their context and wear such things as badges of honor: speaking these words with some type of feigned humility and referring to ourselves as foolish and weak and low and despised and regarded as nothing.  This is obviously not intended.  Paul delivers his discourse on the cross in a world that does not see the cross as a charm or a trinket or a thing of beauty.  It is the cross, and the preaching of the cross as the paradoxical place of the enthronement of Jesus and of His true exaltation (when the cross is supposed to be a place of the parody of power and mock enthronement of kingly pretenders that have over-stepped their bounds), that shames “the wise,” “the strong,” and “the something.” 

Where all honor is stripped from a person, placing them within the ranks of those that are low and despised and making them “nothing,” that is where Jesus is made God’s “something,” receiving all honor.  Where the ultimate weakness of a challenger to worldly power is thought to be demonstrated, and where the powerful reassert their power and put it on display for all to see, that is where Jesus is revealed as the truly powerful.  Where it is thought that the foolishness of royal pretenders is sealed, as they hang on the cross, that is where one is to learn what true wisdom looks like, and it looks like the self-sacrificial life of the Man from Nazareth.  Yes, in these words, Paul preaches Christ crucified, and with his later suggestion of imitation, reveals just what form such a life may take. 

Of course, it is possible that we don’t really believe it when we make the application of these words personal, so ironically, they become a source of pride.  Worse, alongside Paul’s talk about “human wisdom” and the like, as it is extracted from its context, such thinking becomes an excuse for laziness, for the eschewing of the pursuit of knowledge, and for remaining in a state of ignorance.  With that said, is it not better to see these words, in the context of what we find in this first chapter of Corinthians, in full reference to Christ? 

The message of Christ’s cross was and is foolish, but it is what God chose and continues to choose to shock the world and reverse the notion of what is truly wise.  Was it not our Lord Jesus that allowed Himself to be subjected to the weakness of the torture and the suffering of the cross?  It cannot be said enough that in His day, there was nothing more despised than the cross.  Those who went to the cross were understood to be attempting to overthrow all that was good and right.  Those that hung on the cross were those that had the last nail, so to speak, driven into their backwards thinking that had them reaching to or for something that was structurally outside their grasp and their place.  As was previously said, crucifixion was not something that was mentioned in polite company.  It was an instrument of torture and terror and control.  Yes, one who hung upon its frame was the lowest of the low.  In the Roman empire, Caesar sent men to the cross to show that they were nothing, that they had no power, and that he was the locus of power---worship him.  When Jesus went to the cross, He took that very thing that Caesar used to show forth the nothingness of those who dared opposed him, turned Caesar’s own symbol of power against him, set aside the man that was himself regarded in that day as savior, lord, and son of god, and in His Resurrection that provided the final validation of His way of life, showed forth that He was the true Savior, Lord, and Son of God. 

John's Inquiry (part 2 of 3)

Are we to understand that somehow John was disappointed in Jesus?  Was John offended at the way Jesus was conducting His ministry?  Were these words of “takes no offense” directed at John?  While all of that is possible, because we don’t really have a basis upon which to determine John’s mindset as he sat in prison, the likely answer is no.  Considering the context of the words that He spoke, and the fact that His experience in Nazareth (at least according to a comparative chronology) would have come before this question from John, along with the record of Jesus going on to offer high praise and honor to John in the following verse, it is far more reasonable to presume that it is the Nazareth incident that Jesus would have in mind when He provided His answer to John and said “Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at Me.” 

Though Matthew’s story makes no reference to the attempted murder of Jesus in Nazareth as reported by Luke, because Jesus’ response to John’s disciples in Matthew contains words quite similar to those that provoked the harsh response in Luke, because the people of Nazareth certainly took offense to Jesus’ words, and even though we treat the Gospel stories differently because they have different purposes (the separate stories of John’s disciples and Jesus’ Nazareth experience are isolated to Matthew and Luke) and don’t necessarily rely on one to make sense of the other, making the connection that Jesus may have been thinking of Nazareth as He spoke the words of “take no offense” seems to be a reasonable step.

Not only did Jesus insist that a state of blessing arises from not being offended at Him (Matthew 11:6), He makes it equally clear, through the pronouncement of the terms of His ministry, that apart from dashing certain messianic expectations, there was truly no reason to take offense.  Unless, that is, somebody wants to take offense to the way that Jesus went about the business of His work of causing the blind to see, the lame to walk, lepers to be cleansed, the deaf to hear, the dead to be raised, and the poor to have the good news of the breaking in of God’s kingdom preached to them.  Jesus was not thundering down from on high, condemning people according to His checklist of “sins of the flesh,” or setting Himself up as the ruler and arbiter of the people in an attempt to exercise an overt control over their lives and actions.  He flatly rejected any and all attempts of the people to force Him into this position.  Of course, there were those that did take offense (especially the Temple authorities), but we can be reasonably certain that John the Baptist was not one of them, as “Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John” (Matthew 11:7), doing so in a very positive manner. 

After John disciples had gone away, presumably to return to John with Jesus’ response in confirmation of his inquiry, Jesus says, “What did you go out to see?  A prophet?”  (11:9a).  Here, Jesus honors John the Baptist by classing him with the prophets of old, those who did so much to call the leaders of the people to account, adding “Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet” (11:9b).  More than a prophet?  Yes, “This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look, I am sending My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way before You’.” (11:10)  With these words, Jesus has continued the subtle reinforcement of His statements about Himself that can be taken to confirm His status as Messiah.  Here, He quotes from Malachi. 

Looking to the prophectic work, we find those words followed with, “Indeed, the Lord you are seeking will suddenly come to His temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom you long for, is certainly coming” (3:1b).  These words from Malachi, in Jesus’ time (and certainly at the time of the composition of Matthew), were taken to be a clear reference to one who would precede the messiah, as well as to God’s messiah Himself.  So Jesus, in assigning this accepted role of “messenger” to John (with this concept of the one to come and the one preceding him reinforced elsewhere in the Gospels---the “who do you say that I am” question and its attendant responses), has continued to indirectly declare His own Messiah-ship.  He further reinforces this claim about John (and therefore also about Himself) by adding “And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, who is to come” (11:14).  Clearly, Jesus takes no issue with John at all, and gives no negative thoughts to his inquiry, as He will also say, “among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist” (11:11a).    

Commanded By The Lord

So I sent for you at once, and you have been kind enough to come.  Now therefore we are all here in the presence of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord. – Acts 10:33  (ESV)

It is likely that we have read these words dozens of times, yet have never taken their full measure or grasped the significance and importance of what it is that is being said here.  What is significant is not only what is said, but by whom it is being said.  These are the words of a man named Cornelius, a Roman centurion and commander of the Italian Cohort.  Cornelius speaks these words to the Apostle Peter, who has been brought to his house from Joppa, having just received a vision from the Lord in regards to things clean and unclean.

Earlier in this chapter of Acts, we read that Cornelius “saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, ‘Cornelius.’  And he stared at Him in terror and said, ‘What is it, Lord?’”  (10:3-4a)  That statement is worth noting because of the consistent, underlying message that we find in the New Testament, which sets Jesus in contrast to Caesar.  In that day, “Lord” (kurios) was a title that was reserved for Caesar.  Yet here we find this title on the lips of one of Caesar’s soldiers, as it is directed to the “angel of God.”  Then we see him using the title again in our text above. 

Now Cornelius was in Caesarea.  As a ranking military official in the land in which the events of the life and death of Christ had taken place, it would be unreasonable to think that he was unaware of the things that were being said about Jesus, or that he was unaware of the activities of the main proponents of that message.  He would have known the claims that the followers of Jesus were making for Him.  Indeed, the speech that he made in welcoming Peter to his house indicates his awareness of the message of Jesus that Peter carried, and perhaps of his growing understanding of the significance of the claim, as he says, using official, military language, that “we are all here in the presence of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.”  Clearly, Cornelius, the Roman centurion and subject of Caesar, with his use of both “God” and “Lord” and “commanded,” makes a distinction that shows us that he himself had come to think of Jesus as “Lord.”  Coming from him, as the commander of up to one thousand soldiers of Lord Caesar, this would be no light matter.

Having been encouraged by Cornelius to speak of the Lord Jesus, “Peter opened his mouth and said: ‘Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him’.” (10:34-35)  With that as a preface, Peter continues and says, “As for the word that He sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)” (10:36).  Here, before a Roman military commander, and likely, before a group of Roman government officials and probably some soldiers as well, Peter uses some startling language.  He speaks of the “good news of peace.”  This is the Gospel of peace.  For the Roman hearer, this would be the good news of the Caesar and of the peace (pax Romana) that he brings.  Peter applies it to Jesus.  Then, in the same breath, while a number of his hearers are contemplating the depth of this statement and its inherent challenge to the Lordship of their emperor, Peter extends his claim and says frankly that it is Jesus that is “Lord of all.”  A bit later, Peter adds that Jesus “is the One appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead” (10:42b).  This claim is made in stark contrast to the well-known fact that it is Caesar, the all-powerful ruler of the world, that has the power to judge, and who has the power of life and death. 

While it is said of Cornelius that he was “a devout man who feared God” (10:2a), and that he used the language of “Lord” in reference to Jesus, this would not necessarily apply to all those that were around him, so Peter is being quite bold.  Cornelius himself is being quite bold, revealing his revolutionary beliefs to the people closest to him, inviting certain scrutiny, possible persecution, and probable removal from his position.  This should tell us something about the revolutionary and resolute faith that is demonstrated by those that confess their belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior.  Just as “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” (10:38a), He does the same for all those that choose to testify of His Son.