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.   

Rebuking & Rebuked (part 2 of 2)

When we hear Peter call Jesus “the Christ,” we are forced to recognize that he was answering Jesus’ question with an acknowledgment of the possibility that Jesus was indeed Israel’s Messiah.  With that report, we must understand that the narrative represents Peter as saying that he believed Jesus to be the long-awaited King of Israel, in the line of David, on which rested the hope of so many.  It is a statement with both political and religious underpinnings and overtones. 

Having said these words, Jesus’ response was probably thoroughly surprising for Peter, as Jesus “warned them not to tell anyone about Him” (Mark 8:30).  In the highly charged atmosphere of the time, in which a messiah would seek to gain as many followers as possible for the purpose of “storming the castle,” keeping such things secret would seem antithetical, at cross-purposes with messianic expectation, regardless of the type of messiah one envisioned.  Along with that, there is the social component of the accrual of honor, which would also be crucial for any would-be messiah.  Failing to spread the word, though there was a risk of alerting Roman ears to talk of another king and so running the risk of sending Jesus to the cross prematurely, would work against the hopes of the covenant people. 

So in that day and time and in Peter’s mind (along with the rest of the disciples), what Jesus just said would have made very little sense.  Apart from the risk of alerting authorities that would have wanted to keep a movement in check, why keep this quiet?  As if it was not bad enough that Jesus issued them a warning not to tell anyone about Him, contrary to every urge that they would have had to quietly spread the word and gain supporters, “Jesus began to teach them that the Son of Man (a messianic title) must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (8:31). 

What’s that, Jesus?  What is this talk of suffering, rejection, and death?  Quite rightly, the disciples would have been stunned by this.  By saying what He said, Jesus was speaking the language of failure.  Israel’s messiah was not supposed to suffer.  A suffering messiah, with that suffering taking place on a Roman cross, was a failed messiah.  On the contrary, Israel’s messiah was supposed to make Israel’s enemies suffer, and bring Israel to the place of exaltation.  It was at least partially for this reason that “Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him” (8:32b). 

Undoubtedly, this rebuke consisted of Peter informing Jesus that they needed to make Him known, to tell people that He was the Messiah, to remind the masses of the miracles that He had already performed, so that they could gather allies, start an uprising, keep all of these things that He had just mentioned from happening, and usher in the kingdom of God in which Israel was indeed exalted above all nations so as to rule the world.  Indeed, the mindset of the disciples would not have been altogether different from most people of the day.  Though there were different ideas as to what the messiah would do, and the actions he would take, it seems to be an almost universally held notion that the messiah would free Israel from its subjugators.  Yes, messianic expectations were certainly Israel-centric.  Naturally, the course of history, and Israel’s own defining narrative, suggested that the route to be taken from under oppression would involve some type of dramatic calamity befalling an oppressor. 

Even after Jesus’ crucifixion and Resurrection, we get a glimpse of what they believed His Messianic purposes to have been, when they ask, “Lord, is this the time when You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6b).  It is with all of this in mind that we can understand what follows, when “after turning and looking at His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind Me, Satan.  You are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s’.” (8:33)  Jesus’ disciples were focused on what God was going to do for Israel.  Jesus was focused on what was going to be done by God, through Him, for all peoples.   

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. 

Foolish, Weak, Low, Despised, Nothing (part 1 of 2)

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, so that no one can boast in His presence. – 1 Corinthians 1:27-29  (NET)

As an attempt is made to come to a proper understanding of what the Apostle Paul is here attempting to communicate, we need to keep in mind what it is that he has been setting forth to this point of his letter to the congregation at Corinth.  Paul has been writing about the cross, which, in and of itself, would be taken to be odd, as crucifixion (due to the profound shame associated with it, which was of paramount concern in an honor and shame culture) was most assuredly something that generally went unmentioned in polite society. 

Paul, in a nod to cultural sensibilities of the day, has called the message of the cross “foolishness to those who are perishing” (1:18).  Indeed, if one wanted to rally a movement, it would be foolish in the utmost to make consistent reference to the fact that your leader was crucified.  Paul however, clearly unconcerned about so much foolishness, and in making reference to this same cross, reports on God’s plan to “destroy the wisdom of the wise” and “thwart the cleverness of the intelligent” (1:19).  He has reminded his readers that while the “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom” (1:22), he preaches “about a crucified Christ” (1:23).  As we should be well aware, a “crucified Christ” was an absolute oxymoron.  There could be no such thing.  In his day, crucifixion, especially for a Jew, meant precisely the opposite of “anointed one” (Messiah/Christ).  For all, Gentiles included, crucifixion implied failure.  Thus, the implication of that, echoing the “foolishness” mentioned before, is that the cross is not a miraculous sign for the Jew, nor the sign or indication of wisdom to the Greeks. 

For the Jew, as it is worth reiterating ad nauseum, in light of the fact that it would be Jews that first came to believe in Jesus as the Christ, and who also would seemingly violate their strict monolatry/monotheism to worship the crucified One, it was quite contrary to the miraculous, as the cross was a sign merely that a person had failed in their messianic quest, getting him and (most likely) his followers crucified.  The Gentiles (the Greeks) would have looked at all of these attempted overthrows and revolutions, in the face of Roman power in expectation of their God acting on their behalf, as foolishness.  The dominant Greek philosophies of stoicism and Epicureanism would have spurred a general questioning of the need for all the hope and all the bother.  

In general, stoicism postulated a God that was far away and apathetic to the plight of humanity.  Broadly speaking, the epicureans said that the purpose of life is to pursue pleasure.  Clearly, their constant expectation of God’s action in Messiah and its underlying revolutionary fervor that took thousands of the Jews to their death, fit neither one of those models.  It is for these reasons, at the very least, that the message of the cross, of the crucified Christ, was “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1:23b). 

In the face of all of this, Paul continues on to write that “to those who are called” (1:24a), Christ is both “the power of God” (1:24b), thus fulfilling the Jewish requirement for a miraculous sign, and “the wisdom of God” (1:24c), thus fulfilling the Greek need for wisdom.  To this, Paul adds, “Think about the circumstances of your call, brothers and sisters.  Not many were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were born to a privileged position” (1:26).  We must notice that Paul writes “not many,” which would imply that some members of the congregation that he was addressing were wise and powerful and privileged (or perhaps desired positions of power and privilege), while also making mention of the fact that this is added shortly after Paul’s mention of “those who are called.”  In this, we are able to see that to them, because the Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, it did not matter that none but a few of the called were wise or powerful or born to positions of privilege.  

John's Inquiry (part 1 of 3)

Now when John heard in prison about the deeds Christ had done, he sent his disciples to ask a question: “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” – Matthew 11:3-4  (NET)

In light of the flurry of first-century messianic figures in Israel, the question that John asks his disciples to put to Jesus is one that is both legitimate and understandable.  Just like a great number member of the nation of Israel in that day, as Israel stood under Roman occupation, John seems to have carried, based on his message, some expectation that Israel’s God was going to break in to history through His Messiah, to go about establishing His kingdom.  To John, the deeds of Jesus, in the areas of healing sickness and disease, casting out demons and giving of sight to the blind, looked very much like the Scriptural portents that indicated what types of events would accompany the time (and the person or persons---messiah figure) through which Israel’s God would become King.  A the same time, the words that Jesus was speaking, and the way in which He was going about building a following, differed from much of the expectations of the messiah that had been created by Scriptural interpretation, Israel’s sense of itself, and the actions of the previous would-be messiahs. 

In consideration of these things, and though some do, we should find that there is absolutely no justifiable reason to chastise John for asking the question of Jesus.  Frankly, it would have been the question on the minds and on the lips of nearly everybody with whom Jesus came into contact.  Surely, John was not the only one to ask this question of Jesus’ messianic status; but Matthew, so as to be able to provide a context for further statements about John that were to come from Jesus, puts the question into the mouth of John ahead of all other questioners. 

How does Jesus respond to the question?  Does he send John’s disciples back to him with a stern rebuke?  Does Jesus say, “How dare you ask such a thing?”  No, of course He doesn’t.  Considering the subversive nature of His ministry---as He appears to be cutting across all of the religious and political movements within Israel in that day (that would seem to be at least one of the ideas to be garnered from the Gospel presentations of Jesus), and also considering the fate of every single person that had claimed the status of messiah for themselves (death on a cross at the hands of the Romans)---Jesus answers in the only way possible.  He offers a gentle answer, albeit indirect but in the affirmative, saying “Yes, I am He.”  How does He do this?  He says, “Go tell John what you hear and see: The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news proclaimed to them” (11:4b-6). 

Though we do not utilize Luke to interpret Matthew, as the authors had different intentions for their biographical offerings, looking to other portraits of Jesus does allow us to get a better sense of the way in which Jesus was understood in His own time and relatively shortly thereafter.  Of course, we also consider that Matthew and Luke had a common source (often thought to be the Gospel of Mark) that provided the underlying structure of their own works.  So if we look to the Gospel of Luke in consideration of the response of Jesus in Matthew, how do we hear and see Jesus announcing Himself?  While in the synagogue in Nazareth, he read from a scroll, saying “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (4:18-19).  He then added, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled even as you heard it being read” (4:21).  Naturally, that sounds somewhat similar to the answer given by Jesus in answer to John’s quite reasonable question.  Of course, in those words, Jesus was reading from the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah---reading the words that were possibly expected to be found in the mouth of God of Israel’s Messiah---and applying those words to Himself. 

We can presume that John, with a messiah-expectant mindset (especially in light of the new exodus movement that he was leading---an exodus is accompanied by a deliverer/redeemer), would have understood the implications of this statement reported by Matthew just as well as did the people that heard Jesus that day in Nazareth (as reported by Luke).  On that day in Nazareth, after Jesus added a few more words of explanation, and when those words that indicated the direction of His messianic program did not necessarily appeal to His group of hearers, “the people in the synagogue were filled with rage” (4:28b).  It is with that in mind that we can return to what Jesus said to John, and perhaps better understand why it is that Jesus, after providing His subtle answer in confirmation of the substance of John’s inquiry, adds “Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me” (11:6). 

Preparing For The King (part 5 of 5)

Beyond that, we read that “suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased’.” (2:13-14)  While angelic announcements are not infrequent or unknown to members of the nation of Israel, as we continue to bear in mind the recipient of the story, it is worth considering the possibility of this angelic announcement borrowing from the imagery of the Roman imperial cult, with multitudes singing the praises of the Caesar. 

Yes, while we readily understand that Jesus is the source of our peace (“shalom” in all its array of implications, especially that of the end of exile), and that He is most definitely the Prince of Peace (in contrast to the Caesar, who is thought of as the bringer of peace---the pax romana, though this is ironically achieved through military conquest), and that we are able to stand in allegiance to Him and His kingdom through the faithful proclamation of Him as our Lord, and though we indeed, in union with the Christ, have the gracious gift of the peace that passes all understanding (does it pass all understanding because of the totality of the Jesus story, including the paradoxical victory via crucifixion and relatively absurd notion of His Resurrection?), we have to continue to look at things in the context in which they are presented. 

It is perfectly legitimate to find the spiritual message that is to be found in any given passage or statement, but we should not do so at the expense of overlooking the plain, historical implications.  So we here reiterate that this multitude of angels, probably a legion of angels just for good measure (we cannot forget the famed and feared Roman legions), sang out about “peace on earth.”  Theophilus would have, almost undoubtedly understood this in light of the Augustus story and his “pax Romana”, or the “peace of Rome” that had been extended throughout the empire, owing to Rome’s formidable military might (the Roman legions) and its system of law and order and justice. 

Just as we have seen so many times before, throughout these first two chapters of Luke, this declaration of peace on earth was another challenge to the ruler and the ruling power of the day.  Rome had achieved a certain level of peace under its emperors, with the peace of the people under its rule achieved through a nearly endless series of wars.  This new King, however, was ushering in a new kingdom of peace, in which “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3b).  This peace was going to be extended, not through military conquest, but through a work of God by His Spirit, because of His faithfulness to His covenant, to bring people under willful and joyous submission to this King through the instrumentation of faith.  We find this in that statement in regards to “those with whom He is pleased,” recognizing that this is no longer exclusive to Israel, but now includes men (and women) from all nations.  This peace was going to be achieved because a people of a new kingdom of people were going to be brought to believe a true Gospel, with is that of Jesus as the Messiah and Savior, through Whom the world was going to be set right with God, redeemed from the curse of sin, death, and the grave---the true enemies of man. 

“Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon…and the Holy Spirit was upon Him” (2:25).  By the Holy Spirit, he was gifted to understand that a King was coming.  “It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ” (2:26).  When Jesus’ parents brought Him to the temple, Simeon “took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said, ‘Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to Your Word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to Your people Israel’.” (2:28-32).  Simeon sums up the hopes of Israel, of all peoples, and the whole of the creation.  He spoke of peace, of salvation, of light and glory.  He spoke in covenant language of what was to be done by Israel’s Messiah-King.  The stage had been set.  The time had arrived.  The world was prepared and now made to know that its King was present.  A new kingdom had been ushered into the world in the most surprising of ways, and of that kingdom, there will be no end.  Glory to God in the highest indeed!     

Preparing For The King (part 3)

In the world of that day, it was Caesar that was great, it was Caesar that was the son of the most high, it was Caesar that was clearly ruling over the people of the house of Jacob, it was the Roman empire that was never going to end, and it was Caesar that was called the son of god.  Clearly, this is a revolutionary and subversive message that was being proclaimed by the community that claimed allegiance to Jesus.  Is it any wonder that it was so persecuted?  It is no wonder that Rome went to war against this message of Jesus and attempted to destroy the people that would dare to proclaim that Jesus was King, not just of Israel, but of a kingdom that encompassed the entire world---a kingdom that exceeded that of the vast Roman empire.

That message continues to be reinforced as the story unfolds.  When Mary goes to visit Elizabeth, Elizabeth greets her and calls her “the mother of my Lord” (1:43).  “Lord” there is “kuriou.”  In first century context, and in the context of what has already been presented in regards to the titles bestowed upon Jesus, this is more kingly language.  As Theophilus, and anyone else who would happen to read this, would immediately be reminded that it is Caesar that is generally referred to as “kurios,” or “Lord.”  While “lord” is certainly an honorific title, used in both formal and informal pleasantries, the construct of Luke makes it very clear that references to Jesus as “Lord” indicate that he is such both like Caesar and ultimately of the Caesar. 

From there, with an apparent understanding of, and with reference to what had been told to her about her Son and His role as King by the angel, Mary goes on to speak in language reflecting the covenant that God had made with Abraham, saying “He has shown strength with His arm; He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; He has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent away empty.  He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever” (1:51-56).  Again, as we read through this, we cannot lose sight of the fact that this information has been collected and sent to a believing Roman government official who would, no doubt, be sharing this with his circle of friends and associates, perhaps even hearing it in the first time in the company of that circle.  All of the kingly language, and preparations for a people and a world to receive its King would not go un-noticed. 

A few verses later, the author has Zechariah picking up where Mary left off, continuing the reference to the covenant that God had made with Israel through Abraham, which they hoped would be fulfilled in their messiah---in their King.  It is said that Zechariah “was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying, ‘Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and redeemed His people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David, as He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant, the oath that He swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days’.” (1:68-75) 

From there, Zechariah re-directs his thoughts toward his own newly born son, saying that he “will be called the prophet of the Most High” (there’s that kingly language again), and that he “will go before the Lord (kurios) to prepare His ways” (1:76).  As we reflect on this, could we not agree that not only was John sent to prepare the way for the King, but that Theophilus was being encouraged to continue preparing the way for the King in service to that King, and that we, having “certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (1:4), also are charged with an ongoing preparation for the way of the King through the preaching (in both word and deed) of the Gospel?   

Preparing For The King (part 2)

As we read through Luke, and as it relates to a people being prepared to receive their king, we have to keep in mind that this writing had a specific purpose.  That purpose is stated in what came to be recognized as the first four verses of the work.  There, we read, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the words have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (1:1-4). 

So what we there find is that this work is directed to a man referred to as “most excellent Theophilus.”  Scholarship and archaeology have come to point out that the title “most excellent,” when used preceding a name in official communication with stated purposes not unlike what we find here in Luke, was often directed towards Roman government officials of what was called “The Equestrian Order.”  This must be borne in mind because of the language that we will find being used, beginning with the record of Gabriel informing Zechariah, that he “was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news” (1:19b). 

This use of “good news” is not to be taken lightly, and along with Luke’s purpose of presenting a global king and kingdom, it demands to be heard within its immediate cultural context so as to grasp its import and impact.  The Greek word used here for “good news” is “evangelisasthai,” which is a derivation of “evangelion,” the word that is commonly rendered as “gospel.”  Because the word that is presented as “good news” was generally and primarily reserved and used in reference to the Emperor (Caesar) or to events that enhanced the glory of the Roman empire, this would have been highly impactful to this Roman government official to whom this book was directed.    

As Theophilus continued reading (or listening as it was shared by a tradent), he would come to the story of Mary.  With Mary, the language of preparation for a King would become even stronger and more pronounced.  As the author communicates a similar experience to that of Zechariah, the angel Gabriel appears to Mary, telling her that she had “found favor with God” (Luke 1:30).  Favor, in a world defined by honor and shame, and in which the patron and client relationship was prevalent, pervasive, and determinative, would have been a crucial component of the message to Mary, and it would not have been lost on someone such as Theophilus, who, like everyone else in his world, would have been well-versed in the dynamics of the patron client relationship, and the ongoing desire to secure favor from a patron. 

It is worth digressing for just one moment to point out that Mary had not found this favor through any efforts of her own, but that God’s favor was being bestowed upon her, the evidence of which would be the fact that she was told that she would “conceive and bear a son,” and that she would “call His name Jesus” (1:31).  This was most definitely the unmerited favor of God poured out upon Mary, and she is placed in the position of client to her patron, the Creator God of Israel, now owing Him service, gratitude, and loyalty. 

This name, Jesus, which means “Jehovah Saves,” was quickly followed up by a few more titles.  The kingly language comes at us and Theophilus quite quickly, as we read that “He will be great” (1:32a), that He “will be called the Son of the Most High” (1:32b), that “the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David” (1:32c), that “He will reign over the house of Jacob forever” (1:32d), and that “of His kingdom there will be no end” (1:32e).  Is there any doubt as to the mission of Jesus and what Luke desires to make known about Him?  A bit further on we read that Jesus shall be called “the Son of God” (1:35b).  That’s quite an impressive list to read, especially in a world that is ruled by Caesar, and is the one for whom such language (especially “son of god”) is generally reserved.  

Salvation For This House (part 1 of 2)

He entered Jericho and was passing through.  And there was a man named Zacchaeus. – Luke 19:1-2a  (ESV)

The first ten verses of the nineteenth chapter of Luke tell the story of Zacchaeus.  As we go through this story of Zacchaeus, attempting to understand the truths conveyed herein, we must bear in mind to whom this Gospel of Luke has been written.  It has been written to a Roman government official, a believer, presumably a Gentile, named Theophilus.  That is important as it relates to this story.

It is said of Zacchaeus that “He was a chief tax collector and was rich” (19:2b).  In this role, he would have been quite hated by a sizable majority of the people of Israel with whom he came into contact, as he worked to collect taxes on behalf of the oppressive Roman government.  Thus, he served to perpetuate and enforce the rule that the people wished to throw off and bring to an end.  For what it’s worth, he would also have been known as a publican.  

The people of Jericho gathered to see Jesus, the one that they had heard about, and who some had come to believe might very well be the promised Messiah.  Though there were many views of the Messiah, one that was quite prevalent was one in which the Messiah was the individual that had been purposely sent by their Creator God to overthrow those who presumed to rule over God’s chosen people.  Not surprisingly, with the stir that the presence of Jesus created wherever He went, Zacchaeus wanted to see this Jesus as well. 

It is reasonable to presume that he also would have been fully aware of what was implied by messianic claims, especially as it related to his own job and his livelihood.  Normally, though he would have been the object of the scorn of the members of the family of Israel, being the chief tax collector would have afforded him a place of honor (though begrudging) when it came to significant happenings and public events, but in this case the people ignored him, which is understandable because of what was implied by all this talk of Messiah.  Of course, as is generally noted when people talk of Zacchaeus, it did not help that “he was of small stature” (19:3b). 

We all know how the story goes.  Zacchaeus, this chief tax collector for Jericho, “ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him, for He (Jesus) was about to pass that way” (19:4).  Would that not have been an odd sight for the people of Jericho?  Their hated chief tax collector, was climbing a tree so that he could get a glimpse of the Messiah, the One that was about to put him out of a job.  Not only that, but he ran.  Both of these activities were considered to be dishonorable, and a respectable man would not engage in them.  

Putting aside the potential shame of climbing a tree (hints of Jesus’ own ignoring of shame to come when He would effectively “run ahead and climb a tree”?) Zacchaeus had elevated himself so that not only was he going to be able to see Jesus, but also so that Jesus could see him.  It is likely that the people thought that Jesus, upon seeing Zacchaeus in the tree, would have some harsh words for him.  However, something quite surprising happens when Jesus encounters part of Rome’s oppressive cabal.  “When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, ‘Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.’  So he hurried and came down and received Him joyfully” (19:5-6). 

Moses & Jesus (part 3 of 3)

Now, because we see this situation around us each day, how are we supposed to see a connection between Moses and Jesus?  The most obvious is that Jesus came to reconcile.  He came to reconcile by showing that He was the Messiah that allowed God’s people to live both within and beyond the yoke of human rulers, through the Kingdom of God that He was establishing.  He reconciled religious factions and showed them that their petty differences were swallowed up by the scope of His Salvation mission. 

He provided reconciliation by becoming the end of the law for those who believe, and that their wrangling over that which brought them under a curse was useless and un-necessary, as the basis for blessing and cursing was now to be found in relation to Him and whether or not one believed upon His Name.  He reconciled by bringing the Kingdom of Heaven in amongst men and setting it up above all rulers and authorities, showing His brethren that they did not have to live separate from the world, but that through Him, and through His working through them, by faith, in the power of the Holy Spirit, that He would bring renewal and restoration and reconciliation to God’s chosen, elected, covenant people throughout the world, and to the world itself.

Beyond that, and in thinking about a specific application of this scene from Moses’ life to that of Jesus, we have to look at the question that came to Moses, which was “Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?”  In chapter twelve of Luke, we find that “Someone in the crowd said to Him,” Him being Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me” (12:13).  How did Jesus reply?  He said, “Man, who made Me a judge or arbitrator over you?” (12:14)   Moses was challenged as to who gave him the right to rule and judge.  Later on, upon God’s authority, he did become that very ruler and judge. 

Jesus, on the other hand, had every right to rule and judge and arbitrate, but did not do so.  Had He done so, this could have been seen as Jesus taking steps to set Himself up as an earthly authority, which would then have given the Roman government just cause to prosecute and probably execute Him for seditious behavior.  Moses had initially been rejected as a ruler and judge, while Jesus rejected the opportunity to take that role.  As was said, Moses would later become that very thing, as would Jesus, after being unlawfully put to death as a revolutionary leader, but then rising from the dead, as “the One appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42b). 

Continuing on, Stephen says, “This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’---this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush” (7:35).  Here, Stephen refers to the incident of Moses and the burning bush, where he heard a voice that said, “I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob” (7:32a).  This would have been a reminder, to Moses, and to Stephen’s hearers, of God’s covenantal promises toward His people.  As Moses was looked to as a ruler and redeemer, so too was the Messiah, Who was to be the embodiment and fulfiller of all of God’s promises of covenant.  Additionally, the reference of “the angel who appeared to him” must surely put us in mind of the fact that Jesus’ birth, the birth of the Ruler and Redeemer, was announced by angels both before and after its occurrence.

Of both Moses and Jesus it can be said, “This man led them out, performing signs and wonders” (7:36a).  Of both Moses and Jesus it can be said, “He received living oracles to give to us” (7:38b).  Unfortunately, of both Moses and Jesus, it can be said, “Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts turned…saying…’Make us gods who will go before us’.” (7:39-40a) 

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.  

Matthew's Centurion (part 2 of 2)

In all of the uses of “Lord” that have been encountered up to this point in Matthew’s Gospel, the Greek term that is used is “Kurie.”  We see this in Matthew 7:21, Matthew 7:22, and in Matthew 8:2, as it used four times by Jesus, and then once by the leper that Jesus heals.  Then we come to the Roman centurion in Capernaum.  He is aware of this man Jesus.  He sees the crowds following Him.  He has most likely heard of Jesus’ usage of the term “Kurie, Kurie” in reference to Himself, along with His associating that usage with entering “the kingdom of heaven” and His “Father in heaven” (7:21).  As a good, Roman soldier, loyal to Caesar, he should be casting a suspicious eye towards this fellow called Jesus, and be ready to arrest Him for His claims.

So what does the centurion do?  When Jesus enters Capernaum, the centurion “came forward to Him, appealing to Him” (8:5b).  What did he say to Jesus?  How did he greet Jesus?  He said, “Lord” (8:6a).  This is more than just a sign of respect.  What reason would this centurion have to show Jesus such respect?  This usage of “Lord” is incredibly worthy of our attention.  Why?  Because in the Roman empire, in the first century, it was Caesar who was Lord.  Caesar was “Kurie.”  Not only would this be true for the vast majority of the people under his dominion, but it would be especially true of a solider of the empire.  This solider, however, having heard about Jesus, having likely heard of the cleansing of the leper, having heard of the way that the leper approached Him by calling Jesus Lord, and recognizing the power to heal and the connection of that power to the telling of words of the kingdom that he has heard, comes to Jesus and says, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly” (8:6). 

How does Jesus respond to this Roman centurion, this Gentile?  Well, He responds the way that we have been trained to think He would respond.  He says, “I will come and heal him” (8:7).  Does He respond in that way simply because it is in Jesus’ nature to heal, or is it something deeper?  Does Jesus respond in that manner because the centurion calls Him “Lord”?  Should we equate Jesus being called “Lord” with Jesus’ own preaching of the kingdom, which is invariably connected with His performance of healing?  In essence, by calling Jesus “Lord,” this centurion preaches the Gospel, and does so in a revolutionary way, especially as we consider the context in which his statement is made, in which it is probably quite likely that the only person that this centurion had ever referred to as “Lord” up to that point, and in that way, was Caesar himself. 

Making his reply to Jesus, the centurion said, “Lord, I am not worthy to have You come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed” (8:8).  From there, he goes on to speak about authority and commands and servants.  Clearly, this centurion understood the nature of power.  In addition to that, it is becoming increasingly obvious that he knew of the cleansing of the leper, because in that instance, Jesus had spoken and the leper had been cleansed.  With this understanding of power and authority, and by his calling Jesus “Lord,” he knew that Jesus need merely speak the word for healing to take place. 

Here, it must be said that “Jesus is Lord” is the message of the Gospel.  The Gospel announcement, as Paul would say, is the power of God to salvation.  Salvation entails a rescue and a deliverance from all those things that are the effects of the failure of the divine image bearers to rightly bear that image, and sickness and disease are numbered among those effects.  Recognition of Jesus as Lord is salvation (joining with the covenant people of God so as to share in the prescribed responsibility to be a blessing).  In that moment, we can say that, rightly understood, the centurion and his servant experienced God’s salvation through Christ.  They experienced His eternal life---the renewal and restoration that Jesus brings as the in-breaking of the age of new creation to come---and they did so because the centurion called Jesus “Lord.”  It is no different for us.    

We read that “When Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who followed Him, ‘Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith’.” (8:10)  What a remarkable statement!  Jesus makes the point that the first overt recognition of Him as Lord, and of the power of His kingdom, came from a Gentile, and not from a member of the people of Israel.  By extension, this would indicate that the leper that was cleansed was a Gentile as well, which we can well understand, as Jesus was in “Galilee of the Gentiles”.  After making this crucial point, Jesus goes on to say “I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (8:11).  Almost immediately, Jesus embarks upon the usage of covenant language, referencing the covenant first given to Abraham, and then passed along to Isaac, and to Jacob, and then to Israel, that through that covenant all of the families of the earth would be blessed.  Jesus was fulfilling the covenant, according to God’s covenant faithfulness, in extending the blessings of that covenant to the Gentiles, by being the light of the world that had been God’s intention for His people Israel. 

Israel had failed in that, though all they truly had to do in order to be that light was refrain from idolatry, keep God’s Sabbaths, and reverence His sanctuary (which, in the end and according to the Scriptures, would look a great deal like caring for orphans and widows).  That had proven to be too much, so they experienced cursing and exile and dominion by foreign nations.  This was designed to get them to return to the covenant and be that light to all nations for the glory of their God.  Instead, they had ostracized the Gentiles.  They had separated and isolated themselves from the Gentiles.  They had risen up violently against their Gentile rulers, and would eventually demand that Jesus do the same if He was to have their support.  It is for this reason that Jesus follows up His invoking of the covenant and its inclusion of Gentiles, by saying “while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness.  In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (8:12).  Indeed, this is the lot and end of all that fail to live up to the terms of the covenant that Christ delivered, which is to believe the Gospel and to preach the Gospel, so that God might be glorified.

Jesus goes on to say to the centurion, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed” (8:13a).  It is written that “the servant was healed at that very moment” (8:13b).  What was it that was believed?  Why was the servant healed?  Did healing take place because the centurion believed that Jesus could heal?  Absolutely.  More importantly, it was the belief in Who Jesus was, and the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, and its associated proclamation of the kingdom of heaven, that was the more crucial aspect of belief.  That was what showed forth faith and its associated allegiance.  That was what brought the healing.    

Everyone Who Believes (part 1 of 2)

To Him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His Name. – Acts 10:43  (ESV)

Forgiveness of sins is for everyone, with the caveat to that being that it only comes to those who believe in Him, that being Jesus.  What is it that must be believed?  In its most basic form, what must be believed is that Jesus is Lord, that He is supreme above all other rulers and authorities, and that His Lordship extends to the whole of creation (human, animal, vegetable, mineral).  With the words of our text, we find that Peter is speaking here to a man named Cornelius, a Gentile, and presumably, to a group that consisted predominantly of Gentiles, consisting of “his relatives and close friends” (10:24b). 

Peter, of course, is a Jew, a member of the nation of Israel.  Cornelius was a Roman centurion who lived in Caesarea, and was said to be “an upright and God-fearing man” (10:22b).  In addition to that, he was “well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation” (10:22c).  To that, we can add that he “feared God with all his household” and “gave alms generously to the people” (10:2b).  His being well-spoken of by the whole Jewish nation is obviously hyperbole, meant to inform us that the people with whom he dealt on a regular basis were quite fond of him.  This was probably due in part to his giving of alms to the people.  Clearly, he was a shrewd man that knew how to deal with the people that were, in some sense, subject to his authority. 

Owing to all of this, it is highly likely that Cornelius was familiar with the great, national aspirations of the people of Israel, their understanding of their plight of ongoing subjection to pagan rulers, and the continued exile from the promises of their God that such subjection represented.  With that, it is reasonable to presume that he well understood the way that Israel generally looked upon Gentiles, which goes back to what had to be one of the main factors in his generous contribution of alms. 

If he did in fact understand these things, then it is also likely that he had a very basic grasp on the importance of Israel’s national symbols of circumcision, land, Torah, and Temple.  We must also hold to an idea that Cornelius would be quite surprised to be instructed to send for a Jew to come to his house, as Jews did not generally enter the house of a Gentile, and especially the house of a Roman centurion, who would represent their hated oppressors.  Not only would the instruction be a surprise, we would have to figure that Cornelius would also be surprised with the fact that Peter did in fact come into his house.  This makes the fact that upon meeting Peter, Cornelius “fell down at his feet and worshiped him” (10:25b), all the more interesting.    

Peter addresses an obvious sense of relief on the part of Cornelius when he says, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.  So when I was sent for, I came without objection” (10:28-29a).  With this, Peter is, of course, referring to the vision he had received while on the roof of the house of Simon, in Joppa.  In that vision, Peter heard God say to him, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (10:15b).  When Peter was found by the men that Cornelius had sent to bring him to Caesarea, he immediately connected the words of God with future association with Gentiles, so he did not hesitate to answer the request to come.  One has to wonder what happened to this willingness to extend the fellowship of the Gospel (Jesus’ Lordship over all nations and peoples) when we find out about his behavior in Antioch, which we learn about in the second chapter of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.     

Returning to the subject of exile, it must be pointed out that exile was one of the results of the sin of Israel, and their faithlessness to God’s covenant with them.  When we look through the books of the Hebrew Scriptures that chronicle the history of Israel, whenever we find the people in subjection to foreigners, whether in their land or outside their land, they are considered to be in a state of exile.  This exile will always be connected with sin, usually idolatry.  When the people would have the yoke of subjection and oppression broken, and are either enabled to overthrow those who ruled them in their own land, or to return to their land (in the case of the Babylonian exile and the return under the Persians), we find that it was because the people were said to have repented from their sin, receiving the forgiveness of their God.  So return from exile was equated with the forgiveness of sins.  We can surmise that Cornelius, with all that is said of him, was familiar with this idea.