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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeing God (part 6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absalom (part 19)

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

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

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

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

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

Absalom (part 13)

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

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

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

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

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

Absalom (part 9)

Sometimes there is a tendency to forget that these stories in the Bible are being told about people that were very much flesh and blood individuals.  These were not idealized characters that wore black or white hats.  These were real people with which all who read this study share a common humanity.  They had thoughts that are not recorded by the Biblical authors, insecurities, and doubts about their place and role in the Creator God’s mission in the world, with these occurring right alongside all of the problems and concerns of life lived in what would have to be described as less than comfortable conditions.  So even though conditions change and mindsets change, and even though the Christ-event and its results have had a singularly massive effect on the world for the last two thousand years (as a transformative force unlike the world has ever known), human nature remains unchanged.  This fact is what allows for a sensitivity and attunement to culture and custom by those that approach the Biblical narrative, so as to be able to enter these stories and to read them for all that they are worth. 

Getting back to the light in which Absalom might be hoping that these events are seen, and remaining aware of not only the narrative structure of the Bible that constantly points to themes of exile and exodus, but also that Israel was always especially cognizant of the story of the exodus under the leadership of Moses, a fearful King David can be found saying “Go immediately, or else he will quickly overtake us and bring disaster on us and kill the city’s residents with the sword” (2 Samuel 15:14b). 

If Absalom is indeed painting David as a new Pharaoh, and if the author is mindful of that, then David’s order is quite interesting.  It returns a reader to chapter twelve of Exodus, following the plague which brought the death of the firstborn (remember, all of these events concerning Absalom are ultimately connected with the death of Amnon, David’s firstborn).  There, in fear of what might happen next to his people and his land, “Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron in the night and said, ‘Get up, get out from among my people, both you and the Israelites!  Go, serve the Lord as you have requested!  Also, take your flocks and herds, just as you have requested, and leave.  But bless me also’.” (12:31-32)  In addition, it is there reported that “The Egyptians were urging the people on, in order to send them out of the land quickly, for they were saying, ‘We are all dead!’” (12:33) 

Though they are not identical, the words of David have a strange affinity with the words of Pharaoh and the Egyptians.  Regardless of the non-identical words, they can be said to share a nature and the point would seem to be clear.  What is going to follow is an exile and an exodus.  In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, both of which build upon the foundation of the Exodus narrative, the Creator God will promise His people that the curses that will fall upon them for violating His commandments would be similar to the plagues that He brought upon Egypt.  So Egypt, by retrojection, has already experienced something like exile (though they are not the Creator God’s people). 

Furthermore, owing to what would take place at the sea, the plague of death (exile) would be further visited upon the Egyptians.  The exodus to follow, of course, would be that of Israel.  With David and Absalom, exile and exodus were also coming.  David was going to leave Jerusalem in a self-imposed exile, as it seemed that his power over the Creator God’s people had been broken in a way that was not at all unlike that of Pharaoh.  Absalom, at the head of a loyal populace, was exodus-ing his own long exile and heading for the throne, which he may very well have seen (embodying the Israel story) as his promised land.  

Absalom (part 8)

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

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

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

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

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

Absalom (part 7)

It would not be difficult to imagine that, along with the telling of his own story of what he considered to be poor treatment at the hands of his father, that Absalom also “went public” with the Bathsheba incident in order to continue the efforts towards painting his father as an oppressive ruler in the mold of a Pharaoh that needed to be defeated by Israel’s God, doing so through the agency of another Moses. 

After receiving the approval of his father to go to Hebron to offer the aforementioned sacrifice, “Absalom sent spies through all the tribes of Israel” (2 Samuel 15:10a).   Here again there is another allusion to Moses and the exodus of Israel, in that Moses sent spies into the promised land.  Yes, it has become readily apparent that Absalom wanted to be seen as a great deliverer within Israel, raised up by their God to liberate from oppression and servitude.  This sending of spies would play very well into the narrative that he was attempting to create.  Not only that, but this sending of spies might also very well cause the people to remember the other famous sending of spies, which would have been to Jericho before that city was defeated.  This, of course, would invoke thoughts of Israel’s great general Joshua, and the people’s actual entering into and conquering of the promised land under his leadership. 

Remember, Absalom has been quite patient.  It has been at least four years since his coming before the king, at least six years since his return to Jerusalem, at least nine years since his flight to Geshur, and at least eleven years since his brother raped his sister.  With such a patient demeanor on display, without a doubt he must also have been considered as an astute observer of the people and of Israel’s history. 

His time spent at the gates, as he was gaining the respect of the people, would have put him in a position to ascertain what types of symbols and symbolism would resonate with the people when the time came for him to lead another exodus of sorts.  If such was his mindset, then part of his interaction with the people---if he was indeed positioning himself as a Moses/Joshua type of leader, with his increasingly out-of-touch father as a new Pharaoh---would have been an insistence that, under David, Israel was in something of another exile (or at least heading that way), with all of the curses of exile that would be sure to follow if the people failed to rally around him and support his leadership, while encouraging others to do the same.  So the spies were sent through the land and instructed “When you hear the sound of the horn, you may assume that Absalom rules in Hebron” (15:10b). 

The breadth of Absalom’s influence is further demonstrated in that he “sent for Ahithophel the Gileonite, David’s adviser, to come from his city, Giloh” (15:12b).  Ahithophel was a highly respected adviser to David, and if he has been convinced that Absalom is the one to follow, then one can well understand the words that followed, which report that “The conspiracy was gaining momentum, and the people were starting to side with Absalom” (15:12c). 

What was it about Absalom that attracted the people to him and away from David?  Was it because “in all Israel everyone acknowledged that there was no man as handsome as Absalom,” and that “From the sole of his feet to the top of his head he was perfect in appearance” (14:25)?  While this is an “attractive” option, it is unlikely.  David himself, when first introduced into the Scriptural narrative, is said to have “attractive eyes and a handsome appearance” (1 Samuel 16:12b).  When Saul is introduced as king of Israel, he is described as standing “head and shoulders above them all” (1 Samuel 10:23b).  Further, Samuel says, “Do you see the one whom the Lord has chosen?  Indeed, there is no one like him among all the people!” (10:24b)  

Absalom (part 6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No One Knows The Hour (part 8)

The Pharisees are stunned by Jesus' answer to the loaded question in regards to taxes, departing from Him only to be replaced by some Sadducees, who have made limited appearances in the Gospel record to this point.  In fact, until now they have been rather marginal characters in the story.  They have been mentioned by John the Baptist in the third chapter and by Jesus in the sixteenth chapter, but only in pairings with the Pharisees (though the two groups had major disagreements and were far from monolithic in their worldviews).  Mark and Luke make no mention of them at all up until this same point, and they are completely absent from the Gospel of John.  They do have a presence in Acts in connection with Peter and John’s arrest at the Temple and in connection with Paul’s arrest, which also took place at the Temple (a fact that should not be lost from view when dealing with the issue of the Temple). 

These may be useful bits of information, as even though Acts was composed after Luke (and as the second part of Luke), the stories of Peter, John, and Paul’s arrest at the Temple, along with the “trials” that took place in connection with those arrests (all of which were carried out by the Temple authorities) were probably fairly well known to the early Christian community.  If this is the case, it is possible to presume that these stories that included the Sadducees would have been known to the respective audiences of the Gospels, because just as Israel defined itself by its history and the stories that they told about themselves that had the oppression of Egypt and the exodus as foundational, so too would the early Christian community seek to define itself, in strong Jewish fashion, by telling its own stories of oppression and deliverance (exile and exodus).  It is not a stretch to consider the possibility that this type of thing was already taking place in the community for which Matthew primarily composed his Gospel, especially when one is quite easily able to look through Matthew’s lens so as to see Herod as a new Pharaoh ordering the death of children, which is unique to the Matthean narrative. 

So even though this is the first time that the Sadducees are going to speak, they are a group that is known to the community.  The Gospel authors make it a point to share some basic information about this group, informing (reminding) their audiences that the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection (in reference to the belief in the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the present age).  Obviously this editorial comment carries significant weight for a post-Resurrection audience, and it would be a major point of contention for those that are claiming Jesus as their risen Lord and Messiah (King) of Isreal and by extension the entirety of the cosmos.  Clearly, there is no respect whatsoever for the Sadducees, as they are almost comically presented, asking Jesus a ridiculously framed question about marriage in the resurrection (seven brothers, all having married the same woman, and all of which died---though there may be a mild allusion to the seven brothers of the Maccabean histories, who certainly hoped for a resurrection). 

To be sure, this is something of a comical presentation, for if they did not believe in the concept of resurrection, then this question would be illogical for them to ask.  Jesus’ response indicates His (and the church community’s) opinion of the Sadducees, as He says “You are deceived, because you don’t know the Scriptures or the power of God” (22:29)  Mark adds (Matthew subtracting), “You are badly mistaken!” (12:27b)  The bottom line when considering this interaction with the Sadducees, is that they are connected to the Temple (as demonstrated by Acts) and represented some level of authority.  Silencing them, as Jesus is said to do with His answer (22:34), serves to discredit them and weaken their position, thus extending His already pronounced judgment against the Temple.    

Compassionate Brother (part 10)

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

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

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

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

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

In This Is Love (part 6)

These three men (Abraham, Isaac & Jacob), and even their nephews and brothers (Lot, Ishmael & Esau), who also benefited greatly and were apparently able to amass fortunes of their own, would only be able to point to the covenant of the Creator God as the source of blessing.  Thus, they would be that blessing to the world, causing men to turn their eyes to that God and away from idols, and in so doing diminish the power of the work of the devil, which seems to have always been (since Adam) to get men to worship and honor that which is not actually God. 

That said, it is now possible to turn attention specifically to Israel, the son of God, and another revelation of the Creator God’s love.  Is Israel rightfully considered to be the son of God?  Not only did Israel largely think of themselves in that way, thus undoubtedly causing the author of the Johannine letters to operate within this cultural and mental framework, but the whole of the Bible is infused with the idea of Israel as the son of God. 

This idea takes shape, unsurprisingly, within the book of Exodus.  It does so “unsurprisingly” because the story of the Egyptian experience and the exodus is the single most defining story of Israel’s history.  It is the exodus and the associated fulfillment of long-held expectations associated with that exodus that gave them their identity as a nation, and it is that to which they were constantly looking back, with regularity, to understand the various situations in which they would find themselves and to properly understand their God and His dealings with them. 

In the fourth chapter of Exodus, the Creator God is said to have personally instructed Moses to go to the Egyptian Pharaoh and tell him, on behalf of his God, that “Israel is My son, My firstborn… Let My son go that he may serve Me” (4:22b,23b).  Of course, there are numerous other examples littered throughout the divine record, but the example of Exodus will suffice because the portrayal of Israel is suffused with this understanding that is rooted in their experience of exodus no matter where one were to look, be it the Hebrew histories, poets, or prophets. 

Consequently, this self-understanding bleeds through to the Gospels, into Acts, and into the letters of the New Testament, which means that the whole of the Bible, with all of it written in the wake of Israel’s understanding of their being chosen out as the covenant people of God, is written within the context of Israel, the covenant people, understood as the son of God.  One must not fail to understand that the concept of covenant people as God’s children, with that as the basis for mission, is a paradigmatic construct of Scripture. 

If all of this is the case (and it would seem to be clear that it is), then Israel had been given the task of destroying the works of the devil.  This will be in response to the love and grace that their God has shown to them in bringing them into covenant with Him, and the associated response will result in showing forth their God’s love for the world (which is thematic for the Johannine writer).  Israel would be initially charged with taking possession of the land that had been promised to them through Abraham, and to do so through the extermination of the peoples that occupied the land (the record of which is loaded with hyperbole, and which they would never accomplish). 

When considered within the covenantal narrative, this would appear to be a strikingly overt call to destroy that which represented the works of the devil, along with that which defiled and defaced the land that their God had given to His son, His firstborn.  Putting aside the call for extermination, this serves as something of a microcosm of what the Creator God intended for the whole of the creation.   

Only Son (part 15)

When a teacher of Israel, be it Nicodemus or Jesus, spoke of their God’s son, such language would not be restricted to thoughts of messiah and kingship, or to Adam alone.  Speaking in such a way would also direct one’s thoughts to Israel itself.  This would be in connection with Israel’s most powerful, popular, and deterministic story---that of the Egyptian exodus, which was believed to have been personally conducted by the Creator God via the instrument of Israel’s greatest leader, that being Moses. 

In the fourth chapter of Exodus, Moses is given his instructions.  He is said to have been told by the Lord God of Israel, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put under your control.  But I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go” (4:21).  This is the pretext for the especially important statement (for purposes of this study) that follows, which is “You must say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My firstborn, and I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’”’” (4:22-23a). 

So here, quite importantly, as it relates to the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, and what it is that Jesus seems to be attempting to communicate to Nicodemus about Himself and about His place within the Creator God’s long running redemptive plan for His creation, Israel can be found being referred to as the son of God.  With this, Israel, in a sense, is picking up the narrative from where it was left off by the first being to be recognized as the son of God, that being Adam. 

The son of God that was Adam, according to the story of Israel, was exiled from the garden and dragged all of humanity and creation down with him.  Here in Exodus the reader meets up with the son of God that is Israel, as they find themselves in an exilic state of oppression and subjugation.  This son, Israel, is going to be liberated from his bondage.  Following the liberation (essentially a restoration and a resurrection), this son of God is going to be brought under a covenant and given responsibilities related to that covenant.  That covenant comes to be known as “the law”; and the responsibility with which they have been charged, in essence, is to rightly bear the divine image and reflect their God’s glory into the world in such a way that it will cause all men to seek their God, especially as they see the blessings that are enjoyed by this particular people, Israel (understood as the “only son” of the Creator God). 

Israel was to be the representative of the Creator into the world.  Like Adam, they were given a realm of dominion that they were to occupy, in which they were to have dominion, and which they were to steward as a foretaste of the renewed creation to come.  Whereas for Adam the realm of dominion was the whole of the creation, Israel’s realm of dominion was the land that had been promised to them through the Creator God’s covenant with Abraham---the firstfruits of an entire creation that was to be redeemed (a microcosm of what would eventually come to be true, again, of the entire cosmos). 

There, in that place of dominion, they were to be fruitful and multiply.  Their successful occupation of their land, and all that went with it, would be accomplished by their adherence to the basic premises of the covenant, which were to avoid idolatry, to reverence the sanctuary, and to keep the Sabbaths that their God had ordained for them.  It was understood to be the case that if they succeeded in these areas, they would be blessed.  On the other hand, if they failed they would be cursed. 

On the whole then, this was a matter of trust.  In this area, Israel (son of God) would stand alongside Adam (son of God).  Adam’s successful occupation of the land would be accomplished by adherence to the premises of the covenant that the Creator God gave to him, which was to freely eat of all the trees of the garden, save one.  Blessing or cursing would result.  Of course, the narrative record indicates that Adam chose to violate the covenant, so it would be the curse (rather than the blessing) that came upon him and the creation. 

Joseph's Release (part 2 of 2)

How would this particular experience of Joseph apply to an attempt to better understand the message of Jesus?  While the believers posits that Jesus is presently ruling as Lord of all things within the kingdom of heaven that commenced with His Resurrection and began to make its presence felt on earth through those that believe in Him and follow the serving and suffering example of Jesus, one should consider what is billed as the great dissertation on the Resurrection, as presented in the fifteenth chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, that Jesus “must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet” (15:25), and that “The last enemy to be defeated is death” (15:26). 

Quoting from the eighth chapter of the Psalms, Paul adds to that, writing “For He has put everything in subjection under His feet” (15:27a), while also going on to point out that “when it says ‘everything’ has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the One (Father) Who put everything in subjection to Him (Son)” (15:27b).  Closely echoing the story of Joseph’s imprisonment, release, and exaltation to the place of second-in-command, one can go on to read here in the Corinthian letter that “when all things are subjected to Him, the Son Himself will be subjected to the One Who subjected everything to Him, so that God may be all in all” (15:28). 

Reflecting back to Joseph then, having been given his charge and management responsibility, the Psalmist reminds the covenant people that Pharaoh also gave Joseph “authority to imprison his officials and to teach his advisers” (Psalm 105:22).  So too Jesus, having been freed from an imprisoning tomb of death, and having had a kingdom delivered over to Him, was also given authority that would be connected with teaching.  With this, one looks to the Gospel of Matthew, and latching on to the greater narrative structure that is to be found there, hears Jesus---before His death and Resurrection, but just before it is posited that “From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things… and on the third day be raised” (16:21), and so connecting His authority with His death and Resurrection---speaking to His disciples and saying, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven” (16:19). 

Clearly, Matthew has the authority of the Christ (anointed one/Messiah/King of Israel) in mind as a key component of His presentation of Jesus, and this is made quite poignant in Matthew’s record of Jesus’ farewell address to His disciples.  In it, Jesus makes an allusion to the seventh chapter of Daniel, with its kingdom and authority for the Son of Man, and says “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (28:18b).  Together with the quote from the sixteenth chapter, this dovetails quite nicely with the authority that was said to have been delivered to Joseph.  Building on this, Jesus Himself would seem to be extending and solidifying the connection between Himself and Joseph, saying “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (28:19-20a).   

Joseph's Release (part 1 of 2)

The shackles hurt his feet; his neck was placed in an iron collar, until the time of his prediction came true.  The Lord’s word proved him right. – Psalm 105:18-19  (NET)

Oftentimes, it is a relatively simple matter to find Jesus and the Gospel being spoken of in a proleptic manner in the Hebrew Scriptures  On numerous occasions, when the aforementioned Scriptures are viewed through the lends of the cross and the Christ-event, it is not at all difficult to find Jesus especially reflected in the purported accounts of the life of Joseph.  Here in the one hundred fifth Psalm, the link between Joseph and Jesus, and with it the presentation of Jesus and the message of the Gospel (Jesus is the crucified and resurrected Lord of all), seems to be one of the most explicit and direct that one will ever be able to find. 

In verses eighteen and nineteen, as the Psalmist recounts a portion of the tale of Joseph in Egypt, the reader is reminded that Joseph’s feet were in shackles, while his neck was in an iron collar.  This situation existed until he was vindicated by a prediction that he is reported to have made.  One would be hard pressed to find an analogy closer to that which would eventually be experienced by Jesus.  With these verses then, the reader is reminded of Jesus’ death, along with His being placed in a tomb, as death and the grave symbolically (and somewhat literally) take the place of the shackles and iron collar. 

As was said to have been the experience of Joseph, Jesus too was imprisoned.  This prison was a tomb.  How long did His imprisonment last?  Naturally, it is well understood that the duration of His imprisonment was three days.  On a deeper level however, one could insist that the imprisonment continued until the time of Jesus’ hopeful predictions about His Resurrection came true.  With that Resurrection, like Joseph (who experienced a veritable resurrection), He was vindicated.  To borrow the language of the Psalmist, He was proved right. 

In the verses that follow, the Psalmist provides an analysis of this release from prison.  For Joseph, it is said that “The king authorized his release” (105:20a).  Pharaoh released Joseph from his imprisonment, and the believers knows that this release by the king to be true of Jesus as well.  The Creator God---the sovereign ruler of the universe---released Jesus from the shackles of death.  Indeed, in the very first public proclamation of Jesus’ Resurrection, as recorded in the second chapter of Acts, Peter speaks about death and says that “it was not possible for Him to be held in its power” (2:24b). 

Of Joseph it is said that “the ruler of nations set him free” (105:20b).  With His being freed from death, it is more than appropriate to speak of Jesus with such words, while also finding that it is said of Joseph that Pharaoh “put him in charge of his palace, and made him manager of all his property” (105:21).  In fact, if one was to turn to the original story of Joseph, there it would be found that Joseph was made second in command over the empire of Egypt.  Only Pharaoh was greater than Joseph. 

Slavery (part 2 of 2)

This turn of events was not going to go well for Israel.  This was a blatant violation of the terms of their covenant.  Forgetting and forsaking their tradition that celebrated the deliverance from slavery, many went right back to being oppressors.  With this, there was a failure to remember Egypt and their God’s saving action.  Thus, the Creator God’s response to this is to grant His people freedom.  Yes, in the midst of this continued rebellious forsaking of covenant, together with the refusal to rightly bear the image of their God, God says “Therefore, I will grant you freedom, the freedom to die in war, or by starvation or disease.  I, the Lord, affirm it.  I will make all the kingdoms of the earth horrified at what happens to you” (34:17b).  Not only is this a summary of the Levitical and Deuteronomic curses, but this is also an effective summary of what was experienced by the Egyptians at the hands of the Creator God of Israel. 

Since Jeremiah has been speaking of Egypt, we should not then be surprised to find ourselves being reminded of Egypt and Moses and the dealings with Pharaoh as we hear these words from the Lord.  What happened in those dealings?  As we know, and as Israel would be more than aware, Pharaoh would agree to release the slaves, in essence granting them freedom in expectation; but then, he would have a “change of heart,” and turn right around, taking back the people that had been given a proclamation of freedom, forcing them to be slaves again.  Ultimately, what was Pharaoh able to earn through this?  As was just indicated, Israel’s God granted Pharaoh and Egypt the “freedom to die in war,” which we see when they attempt to re-take a freed people back into bondage.  We see that along with the freedom to experience “starvation and disease,” as they most certainly did because of the plagues that God brought upon the land, in which locusts ate up the crops, and in which the peoples were afflicted with painful boils.

Is there an application for Jesus believers in all of this?  It would certainly seem that there is, as each believer can consider himself or herself to have been a slave, earning nothing more than death, with no hope for liberation.  However, through the hearing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Lord, along with the subsequent believing and ordering of life according to the Gospel’s proclamation (Jesus is Lord of all), “He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son He loves, in Whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:13-14).  For the covenant people of the Creator God, throughout the Bible, the state of non-forgiveness of sins is equated with the state of exile (enslaved by oppressors).  As was done for Israel, that same God reaches into that state of exile and removes a people that are purposed to reflect His glory into the world and to have a hand in establishing His kingdom on earth. 

Before God exercises His saving power towards us, by grace, we share that state of exile from Him and from the blessings of His covenant, with every other person.  Now obviously, we know that some of us are delivered from exile before others.  For some reason, there is a tendency on the part of those that have already experienced their liberation, when they see others experience their deliverance from exile and slavery---when their fellow countrymen are granted freedom and enter into a covenant to that effect---to turn right around and attempt to enslave those that have been newly liberated, to traditions, creeds, subjective requirements, and supposed standards of Christian performance that somehow reflect true holiness. 

Analogously, it would seem that the Creator God’s response to this, and to those that attempt to re-enslave their fellow countrymen, to re-enslave those with whom they shared exile (just as all Israel had been slaves), is to say “I will grant you freedom, the freedom to die in war, or by starvation or disease.  I, the Lord, affirm it” (34:17b).  Let us cease and desist from playing God and becoming Pharaohs to His chosen ones.  Let us really and truly believe, perhaps for the first time, that there is a God, that there is a Holy Spirit, that the Gospel message that we purport to believe truly is the power of God unto salvation, and that “the One Who began a good work” (Philippians 1:6b) is also capable of completing the work by the same power that raised Christ from the dead, empowers His image-bearers via the preaching of the Gospel, and effects transformation into the image of the God in Christ through faith.       

Slavery (part 1 of 2)

“Every seven years each of you must free any fellow Hebrews who have sold themselves to you.  After they have served you for six years, you shall set them free.” – Jeremiah 34:14a  (NET)

This seems to be a simple enough directive, and is prefaced with Israel’s God offering a reminder to His covenant people, through Jeremiah, that “I made a covenant with your ancestors when I brought them out of Egypt where they had been slaves” (34:13b).  The text above is what follows.  Because the people of Israel had been in perpetual slavery in Egypt, with seemingly no way out of it, God wanted to be sure that His people did not perpetually enslave any of their fellow countrymen, who would most likely come into the state of slavery as a result of indebtedness.  Generally, there was a path out of debt slavery, but this would not always be the case, depending on the level of debt incurred. 

Just as their God had entered in to their situation in order to free them from their slavery to the Egyptians, having heard the groaning of His people in their condition of oppression, so their God was, in a sense, here entering in to make sure that a state of slavery among His people would not be persistent.  We can certainly imagine that the God of Israel would not want to have to hear the groaning of His own people, as they are oppressed by their fellow covenant-bearers, and therefore need to deliver the cursing of plagues upon His own people for this transgression. 

Not only was the basis for the freeing of slaves rooted in the remembrance of their Egyptian slavery and the subsequent deliverance that they experienced, but the act of freeing the slaves would be a great reminder of God’s saving power.  By freeing their own slaves, and doing so in a way that demonstrated mercy along with a willingness to sacrifice and endure hardship for the sake of their fellow citizen, the people of Israel were able to seize on the opportunity to enact and reenact the deliverance that had come their way in Egypt.  Unfortunately, we go on to hear the Creator God saying “But your ancestors did not obey Me or pay any attention to Me” (34:14b). 

What was the contingent basis for this communication from their God through Jeremiah?  During the reign of King Zedekiah there was an agreement that the people of Jerusalem were “to grant their slaves freedom” (34:8b).  It had been the case that “All the people and their leaders had agreed to this” (34:10a).  We can read that, “They originally complied with the covenant and freed them.  But later they had changed their minds.  They had taken back their male and female slaves that they had freed and forced them to be slaves again” (34:10c-11).  “That was when the Lord spoke to Jeremiah” (34:12), expressing His displeasure at this situation.  An analogy could be here adapted, in which the Israelites who freed their slaves, but then changed their minds and took them back again, are akin to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who eventually freed their slaves and attempted to take them back.  This, of course, did not go well for them. 

For a moment, by freeing their slaves, the people showed their God something quite different than what He had been consistently shown by their ancestors.  Through Jeremiah, this God reportedly says to His people that “Recently…you yourselves showed a change of heart and did what is pleasing to Me” (34:15a).  It could be said that they actually showed some trust in their God, relying upon His just decrees and trusting that things would work out just fine even if they were to suffer what might seem to be financial loss in releasing their slaves.  God says that they pleased Him in that “You granted your fellow countrymen their freedom and you made a covenant to that effect in My presence in the house that I have claimed for My own” (34:15b).  However, they quickly returned to what had come to be their historical form, as God says “But then you turned right around and showed that you did not honor Me.  Each of you took back your male and female slaves whom you had freed as they desired, and you forced them to be your slaves again” (34:16). 

Finger Of God (part 2 of 2)

The astute reader of the story of Scripture will inevitably notice that the exodus from Egypt is a constantly recurring theme throughout the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures.  Owing to this, it would make a tremendous amount of sense for the reader to be cognizant of it as a theme in Jesus’ ministry as well, especially as the exodus was the act and is a picture of God’s rescue, redemption, salvation, and deliverance of His people, all of which are said to take place according to His covenant faithfulness.  The messiah, who is presumed to be Jesus, is the one that was expect to bring these things about for Israel.  Thus, the idea of exodus would understandably weigh heavily on one that seems to present Himself as that messiah.

So is it reasonable to hear echoes of Exodus here in Jesus’ words that are recorded in the eleventh chapter of Luke?  Let us examine what follows so as to be able to find out.  Jesus says, “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his possessions are safe” (11:21).  If the remembrance of exodus is strong here, and we believe it to be so, then reflecting on Pharaoh, we could certainly understand him to be a strong man, fully armed, guarding his palace and his possessions (the enslaved Israelites).  We must always bear in mind that Jesus, as a member of the nation of Israel, would understand His life and situation and place in the world defined by the ongoing self-understanding of Israel, which was heavily influenced by the seminal event of Israel’s history, which was its exodus from out of Egypt.  With such thoughts in mind, and continuing on in Luke, Jesus says, “But when a stronger man attacks and conquers him, he takes away the first man’s armor on which the man relied and divides up his plunder” (11:22).  Could this not be read as an analogy to what took place in Egypt?  Is it reasonable to presume that Jesus’ fellow citizens could hear His words along these lines? 

Because the plagues are shown to be the result of Pharaoh’s stubbornness, the narrative shows them as being primarily directed towards him so as to influence his thought and actions, though they dramatically affected his people as well.  Clearly then, a reader is able to see Israel’s God as the stronger man attacking and conquering him.  Initially, Pharaoh had the “armor” of his magicians being able to match the displays of power, which allowed for a hardness of heart, but that armor was eventually removed.  Furthermore, when the point is reached that Israel is going to be released from its bondage, we find that “The Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, and they gave them whatever they wanted, and so they plundered Egypt” (Exodus 12:26). 

We also realize that any use of exodus language would be somewhat readily connected to thoughts about Israel’s expected messiah and the long-awaited establishment of the kingdom of God (heaven come to earth).  Just as the Creator God is said to have engaged in His creation on behalf of His people to deliver them from the oppression of Egypt and to bring them into their promised land, so there was an expectation that their messiah, that God’s representative much like Israel, would deliver the people of God from the subjugation of foreign rule, and deliver Israel’s land back to them as their own sovereign possession.  So it is with these echoes of Exodus that we can comfortably understand Jesus making a messianic claim for Himself, as He concludes His thoughts in connection with the finger of God and the kingdom of God, by saying, “Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters” (11:23).  Jesus’ hearers, if they were making the exodus connections, would likely hear Him talking about Israel’s God being the stronger man that would attack and plunder the Romans.  However, Jesus had a greater enemy in mind that would fall at the execution and demonstration of power, with that enemy being death. 

Finger Of God (part 1 of 2)

The magicians said to Pharaoh, “It is the finger of God!”  But Pharaoh’s heart remained hard, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had predicted. – Exodus 8:19  (NET)

As we read this verse, we find ourselves in the midst of the story of the plagues that are reported to have come upon the land and people of Egypt prior to Israel’s exodus.  The statement above, in regards to the finger of the Creator God of Israel, was specifically made in relation to the plague of gnats.  With this plague, we find that “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Tell Aaron, “Extend your staff and strike the dust of the ground, and it will become gnats throughout all the land of Egypt”.’  They did so” (8:16-17a).  As we would expect when reading the Scriptural narrative, this is what happened, as gnats did indeed come upon the land.  Up until that point, each time there had been a miraculous demonstration of power credited to the God of Moses and Israel, be it the turning of a staff into a serpent, the conversion of water into blood, or the bringing of frogs on the land, the reader is told that the magicians of Egypt were able to accomplish the same by their “secret arts”. 

When it came to the production of gnats upon the land, the men of Egypt attempted to follow suit.  Of course, it would be rather difficult to understand why they would want to continue doing so, as more gnats certainly wouldn’t be something desirable, but it is reasonable to imagine that there may ben an honor and shame component at work underlying the interactions and the narrative.  However, “When the magicians attempted to bring forth gnats by their secret arts, they could not” (8:18a).  Finally, a point had been reached where they could no longer go point for point against Israel’s God, and they came to realize that they were dealing with a power that was beyond them.  This is what elicited the cry of “It is the finger of God!”  However, even with these words from his magicians, the Pharaoh did not listen, thus aligning with a divine prediction that “although I will multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you” (7:3b-4a). 

The term “finger of God” is used elsewhere in Scripture.  It has a role in the New Testament, as we actually find it on the lips of Jesus in the eleventh chapter of Luke.  There, Jesus had cast out a demon, and some of the witnesses of this event attempted to explain this occurrence by saying “By the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons, He casts out demons” (11:15).  Jesus responded with an indication that this made no sense at all, saying “So if Satan too is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?” (11:18a)  It is logical to ask why in the world Satan would go about casting out Satan (himself).  Going further, Jesus says, “But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you” (11:20).

As we peruse the pages of the Bibles, we will find “finger of God” used four times, two of which we have now already seen.  The other two are Exodus 31:18, where Moses recounts that the tablets of stone that he received on Mount Sinai had been “written by the finger of God;” and in Deuteronomy 9:10, where, recounting the events first recorded in Exodus, Moses speaks again about the tablets that were “written by the very finger of God.” 

Thus, three of the usages of the term are explicitly connected with the exodus of Israel, with two of them being found in the book of Exodus itself.  Therefore, because we know that Jesus would have chosen His words quite carefully and purposefully, and because, as a Jew, Jesus would have understood Himself according to Israel’s historical/traditional narrative, it is reasonable to conclude that when Jesus uses the phrase, and when Luke reports Jesus using the phrase, also considering the fact that Jesus’ audience is Jewish (though Luke’s may not have been), that it is meant to be an implicit reminder of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, the power of the Creator God that was on display in that exodus, and the deliverance of Israel.  

Joseph & Jesus (part 3 of 3)

Returning to the book of Genesis, we find that “Joseph was thirty years old when he began serving Pharaoh” (41:46a).  Likewise, Jesus was presumed to have been about thirty years old (Luke 3:23), when He begins to make His presence felt among His people in service of the kingdom of the Creator God.  It is written that “Joseph was commissioned by Pharaoh and was in charge of all the land of Egypt” (41:46b).  When Jesus appeared, He did so with the announcement that “the kingdom of God is near” (Mark 1:15b).  To this, Jesus added that it was time to “Repent and believe the Gospel” (1:15c). 

In His day, the people would have known that word “gospel” to refer to proclamations concerning the Caesar, concerning the one who was then considered to be the ruler of the world, concerning the one called lord and savior, and concerning the one known as the son of god.  For Jesus’ people, the connection of “gospel” with the “kingdom of God” was an unmistakable reference to the time of their God’s action on behalf of His people, to restore national Israel to sovereignty and independence, and to set Israel and its messiah-king over all nations.  The call to believe the Gospel was to believe in the Lordship of the messiah, in complete trust that their God was fulfilling His covenant promises through that messiah; and that this messiah, as ruler of the people and nation that was destined to rule all peoples, had now been given charge of all the land.  A natural corollary to this was that any foreign power that happened to be ruling over Israel at that time would be defeated and cast off. 

Looking again at the life of Joseph, we see that “While the famine was over all the earth, Joseph opened the storehouses and sold grain to the Egyptians.  The famine was severe throughout the land of Egypt” (41:56).  Joseph limited the provision of grain to the land of Egypt only.  This is a story of an intra-Egypt exile (famine) turning to something like an exodus (provision for all).  Turning to Jesus, we think about the fact that even though the entire world was gripped in the famine of the effects of death (exile), and that even though all the world was clearly in need of His touch and His healing presence, in the Gospels we find Jesus confining His ministry to the area of the land of Israel (Israel alone, with minor exceptions, is able to experience the exodus to be provided by Jesus.  However, returning to Genesis, we go on to see that “People from every country came to Joseph in Egypt to buy grain because the famine was severe throughout the earth” (41:57).  Similarly, though Jesus first instructed His disciples to direct their own ministries to the house of Israel, His parting commandment was to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19a), and that they were to be His “witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth” (Acts 1:8b).

Because Egypt was the one place in the region that had food (as indicated by people from every country coming to Egypt to buy grain), Egypt would have ascended in its might and power.  Just as we are able to read that the people of Egypt sold their livestock, their lands, and even themselves in order to obtain food from Joseph’s hand, so too could we expect the people from other countries to be doing the same types of things.  Because Joseph held such great power, being a ruler of Egypt and second only to Pharaoh, when the people would come to buy grain, they would bow down to him.  We know this to be the case because, though they were sons of a wealthy and powerful man, “Joseph’s brothers came and bowed down before him with their faces to the ground” (42:6b).  Though his brothers attempted to strip him of his honor, Joseph accrued more honor than anyone could possibly have imagined. 

Not only do we see this administration of grain to many nations at the hands of Joseph as something of a fulfillment of the Creator God’s covenant to bless the families of the earth through Abraham’s family, but more importantly, we can use this so as to be pointed to Jesus, as “the bread of life” (John 6:35a).  As we can see in the case of Joseph’s brothers, throughout the duration of the famine, people had to come to Egypt multiple times to obtain their sustenance; but Jesus said “The one whom comes to Me will never go hungry” (6:35b).  Additionally, and again joining with the early Christian community in reflection on the life of Jesus, and doing so within and alongside the story of Israel (our minds shaped by that narrative tradition), we are directed to the letter to the Philippians, where it is said “that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow---in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (2:10).  Not only will they bow, but all will acknowledge His power and His rule---just as many did before Joseph in acknowledgment of the power and growing rule of Pharaoh and of Egypt---and submit to the authority of His kingdom, when all are made to hear “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (2:11).   

Moses & Jesus (part 2 of 3)

Stephen said that “He (Moses) supposed that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand, but they did not understand” (7:25).  Though Moses had grown up in Pharaoh’s house, and though “Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (7:22), he was also, quite obviously, aware of his lineage and aware of the prophecy and promises of redemption and deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, that had been made to the people of Israel (thus his desire to visit his people).  Though Moses could be said to have been acting ahead of God’s timing in attempting to take matters into his own hand and stir a revolution through his actions, he did believe that his brothers would comprehend what he was doing and would rally to his side.  However, as was said, it is reported as part of Israel’s understanding of the Moses narrative, they did not understand.    

All too unfortunately, we recognize that, according to the Gospel narratives about Him, Jesus received much the same response.  Everywhere Jesus went, and in all that He did and said, He showed His brethren, God’s people, the salvation of their God.  He showed them renewal and restoration and healing and power, demonstrating God’s return to His people and its Temple by being the place of the forgiveness of sins.  He showed them all of those things that constitute God’s promised salvation.  He consistently showed them, as He worked out His vocation and presented Himself as the Messiah, that He was the One that was fulfilling the promise of God’s covenant faithfulness to His people, which was to give them a Redeemer and to deliver them from the curse of oppression and domination by foreign rulers of all kinds, be they temporal kings, spiritual forces, or the ravages of disease and death---the corruptions of a created world afflicted with the effects of man’s rejection of the charge to bear the divine image. 

As it was said of Moses, so it can too be said of Jesus, that His people did not understand.  Not only did most not recognize Him as the prophet like Moses, but their history was littered with stories of the rejection of prophets.  Jesus laments His own rejection by His brethren, saying “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!” (Luke 13:34a).  Alas, it would seem that Jesus was well aware of the possibility that many, for one reason or another, would have eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear.    

Stephen continues on with his dissertation, staying focused on Moses and his belief that his brethren would understand that he was attempting to bring them their long-hoped-for rescue from foreign subjugation (part of salvation), he says,  “And on the following day he appeared to them as they were quarreling and tried to reconcile them, saying, ‘Men, you are brothers.  Why do you wrong each other?’” (Acts 7:26)  One of the men quickly stands up to Moses and references the act of killing the Egyptian, which Moses thought had gone un-witnessed.  The man said to Moses, “Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?  Do you want to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?” (7:27b-28) 

How does this relate to Jesus?  Where do we find this paralleled?  Well, it could easily be said that at the time of Jesus there was much quarreling taking place in Israel, brother against brother.  This, of course, is no different than the situation in which we find ourselves in our own day.  There were various factions pitted against each other in politics and religion.  There were Roman government appeasers, along with zealots who desired to throw off the Roman yoke by violent means.  There were Sadducees who argued against the Pharisees.  There were different schools for the interpretation of the law.  There were separatist groups such as the Essenes, who had retired into the desert in an isolated community.  There was much quarreling among brothers.