Acts, Jealousy & Honor (part 4)

This leads into the report that “Now the high priest rose up, and all those with him (that is, the religious party of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy” (Acts 5:17).  Why were they filled with jealousy?  Was it the performance of miraculous signs and wonders?  No.  Was it the growing crowds and the people gathering from all over?  Not directly.  So what was it?  It was the “high honor” being accorded to the disciples, which was evidenced by the behavior of the people.  Public honor was a limited good.  The growth of the honor of one necessarily led to the diminishing of the honor of another.  Yes, they still had their power, but they were losing their honor.  If enough honor slipped from their hands, their power would ultimately go with it. 

Though it comes from John’s Gospel (composed after Acts), the eleventh chapter contains a story that sheds light on this way of thinking: “So the chief priests and the Pharisees called the council together and said, ‘What are we doing?  For this man is performing many miraculous signs.  If we allow Him to go on this way, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.’” (John 11:47-48)  As seen in Acts, these are concerns about honor and power, and they are prefaced with mention of miraculous signs and a growing number of followers.

What was the response of the high priest and his cohorts in Acts?  “They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail” (5:18).  They attempted to shame and humiliate the apostles, doing so publicly in an attempt to diminish their public honor and increase their public shame.  Consequently, the high priest would not suffer the further loss of honor.  This backfires on the council, as the disciples are honored, with Luke indicating that the honoring is accomplished by the Creator God Himself (somewhat indirectly), as “during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison, led them out, and said, ‘Go and stand in the Temple courts,’” the place that symbolized the public honor of those who had jailed them, “and proclaim to the people all the words of this life.’” (5:19-20).  “This life” would have been the life of the way of the kingdom of the Creator God.  “This life” would have the been the resurrected life of Jesus.  “This life” would have been the promise of the general resurrection to come.

The response of the opposition is predictable.  The disciples, who have done precisely what the angel has instructed them to do, are re-arrested and taken before the council.  “When they had brought them, they stood them before the council, and the high priest questioned them, saying ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name.  Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood on us!’” (5:27-28)  Proclaiming Jesus would be an indirect challenge to the high priest and associates, as they, having delivered up Jesus to the provincial government, were complicit in the execution of Jesus as a state criminal.  Thus, via these continued challenges and the associated accusations that they had acted unjustly based upon the verdict of Israel’s God as indicated by the Resurrection and the reversal of that shaming, shame continues to come their way. 

In response, Peter piles on, saying “We must obey God rather than people” (5:29a).  This, in itself, is an interesting public-honor-diminishing statement, as the high priest was presumed to speak for the covenant God.  Peter makes it clear that the high priest and the council do not in fact speak for Israel’s God, with the primary evidence of that fact being the stand that they had taken against Jesus (the personal revelation of their God).  He continues: “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree” (5:30). 

No One Knows The Hour (part 39 of 39)

It was in response to these direct and specific questions that “Jesus answered them” (Matthew 24:4a).  Jesus did not set about answering an unasked question about the end of time.  No, He answered the question that He was asked.  No, one does not always expect this from Jesus, but then again, He is not answering a challenge from the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, or experts in the law.  He is answering His disciples, and as usual, when it comes to them, He is speaking plainly.  Yes, to the crowds He speaks in mysterious language, but He gives answers to His disciples.  So Jesus answers them.  His answer begins in verse five of chapter twenty-four, and it runs to the end of chapter twenty-five. 

The entire time, the focus of the answer remains unchanged, though He does provide interesting information in the process---unexpected information (unexpected in terms of Mark and Luke’s presentation of the disciples’ question, but anticipated in the question from the disciples as presented by Matthew) about the connection of the fall of the Temple to the time of the Son of Man’s coming to the Ancient of Days.  He even reinforces the connection, speaking about the Son of Man beyond the thrust text of this study, repeating the term three times in rapid succession, from verse thirty-seven to verse forty-four.  In all three cases, the Son of Man comes to receive His kingdom at an unexpected time---no one knows the hour. 

Throughout the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew (as well as Mark thirteen and Luke twenty-one), Jesus gives His disciples a great deal of information, clueing them in so that they will have a decent idea as to when the Temple is going to fall.  However, He could not be more clear that they will not know the exact moment that events will coalesce and conspire to bring down the Temple.  When it comes to that, “as for that day and hour, no one knows it---not even the angels,” the ones that will be sent out to gather His elect (24:31) and that accompany the Son of Man when He comes in His glory (25:31), “except the Father alone.” 

With the repeated mentions of the Son of Man, which seems to override the importance of fall of the Temple and truly becomes the point of the discourse, one gets the sense that Jesus’ words, though initially prompted by the question about the Temple, becomes less about them knowing the exact time of the Temple’s collapse, and more about them knowing that when it happens, and when Jesus’ prediction comes true, that they can then know that He, the Son of Man, has had His universal dominion confirmed and that He indeed rules as King and Lord of all. 

Had one been in the position to hear Jesus speak, that one may not have been able to know the hour that the Temple was going to come crashing down.  However, that same one could be certain that, according to His words, when it did, it would be possible to be supremely confident that He ruled as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  Indeed, it is appropriate to look to the place where the Temple once stood, see that it stands there no longer, and know that Jesus spoke truly, that He rules His kingdom, and that He demands participation in that kingdom along the lines outlined in the narrative found in Matthew.  Is it not that knowledge that should animate the lives of believers in this day?             

No One Knows The Hour (part 12)

Looking through the synoptic Gospels and comparing the records that follow Jesus’ actions in the Temple and His being questioned as a result of those actions, one is forced to notice similarities and differences.  As has been seen, Matthew reports the parable of the two sons, the parable of the tenants, the parable of the wedding banquet, the challenge concerning Caesar and taxes, the question from the Sadducees about marriage the resurrection, and the rabbinic challenge concerning the greatest commandment.  From there, Matthew has Jesus proceed to offering up the “seven woes” that comprise the twenty-third chapter of his Gospel.  Matthew built on Mark’s account and traveled a longer path in the story of Jesus that he presented, and it must be said that Matthew’s account is the busiest of the three.   

Mark, which is generally understood to have provided the basis for both Matthew and Luke, does not have a parable of the two sons, narrates the parable of the tenants, lacks a parable of the wedding banquet, recounts the conversation about the paying of taxes, reports the question by the Sadducees, and offers up a memory of the question about the greatest of the commandments.  In something of an anomaly, Mark’s presentation of the exchange concerning commandments is actually longer than that which is reported by Matthew.  Matthew and Mark differ in their account of Jesus’ words, with Matthew’s Jesus saying “All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments” (22:40).  In Mark, Jesus does not say this. 

In addition, “The expert in the law said to Him, ‘That is true, Teacher; you are right to say that He is one, and there is no one else beside Him.’” (Mark 12:32b)  Here, the expert in the law quotes back to Jesus what has been said, which also informs the reader that Mark has another statement that is omitted by Matthew, in that Jesus here says, to begin His response to this man, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’” (12:29)  This is the preface to the specific quotation from Deuteronomy in regards to loving the Lord with heart, soul, mind, and strength.  This is also a reminder that in Matthew, Jesus is not reported to have mentioned “strength.”  The man continued, conflating Jesus’ answers and the quotations together, saying “And to love Him with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices” (12:33). 

Just in case it may be thought that this study was reaching a bit by calling attention to the fact that the section being called to mind with the neighbor quotation from Leviticus begins with mention of the peace offering sacrifice, and that this serves as yet another reminder of the setting---that being the Temple and that which takes place in the Temple, this response confirms that such was not a reach at all.  Beyond that, just to reconfirm the intimate ties between the Temple, the importance of the promised land, and concepts concerning the kingdom of God, Mark reports that “When Jesus saw that he had answered thoughtfully, He said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’” (12:34a) 

This final statement is also part of a fuller account (in this particular pericope) than that which is on offer from Matthew.  Luke omits this exchange concerning the commandments entirely, which is not surprising.  One remembers that Luke made no mention of the withered fig tree in conjunction with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, so it apparently does not fit with Luke’s overall purpose.  Following his report about Jesus’ actions in the Temple and the questioning from the authorities that He underwent there, Luke follows Mark by not presenting a parable of the two sons, and moving right along to the parable of the tenants.  There is no parable of the wedding banquet as part of Luke’s Temple narrative, though Luke does present a great banquet, with similar features, in his fourteenth chapter.  Following the parable of the tenants, Luke moves to the discussion about taxes, and then to the question about marriage and the resurrection.

No One Knows The Hour (part 9)

After the silencing of the Sadducees, one of the Pharisees, who was said to be “an expert in religious law” (Matthew 22:35b), posed a question to Jesus.  The language used by Matthew, which is that the purpose of the question was “to test Him” (22:36c), informs the audience that this encounter was to be understood as a rabbinic debate, which would have an honor and shame dynamic at play.  This is fitting, since one of the greatest sources of honor in that day would have been a connection to the Temple, and with His words and actions, Jesus is in the process of shaming the Temple and those connected to it.  If they are able to overcome Jesus in a rabbinic challenge, thus diminishing His honor standing in the court of public reputation and opinion, then they can also diminish the effectiveness of His words and actions against the Temple, thus recovering (on behalf of the Temple and themselves) the honor that Jesus is accruing to Himself at the expense of the Temple and its functionaries.

Thus Jesus’ opinion in regards to the greatest commandment of the law is elicited.  With His answer, Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy and from Leviticus, responding with “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (22:37), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (22:39).  Summing up His response, Jesus adds “All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments” (22:40).  The modern reader should be quite familiar with these words of Jesus, as were the respective audiences of both Jesus and Matthew.  Remembering that the Temple and His judgment upon it lies in the background of both His words and the narrative that records His words and deeds, and considering that singular quotations of Scripture are designed to call to mind large sections of the Scriptural narrative (and by extension, Israel’s history), one is forced to look at the context for Jesus’ Scriptural quotations.  In doing so, one finds that these quotes fit within the overall movement of Matthew and of this section of the story he tells. 

Prior to His triumphal entry, in multiple parables, Jesus is shown to be speaking about the kingdom of heaven (God).  Talk of the kingdom of heaven fits together with thoughts about the restoration of the promised land of Israel, which would manifest itself in the independence of people and land from the rule of foreign and pagan nations.  Jesus’ triumphal entry aligns with such talk.  Jesus’ continued speech about the kingdom of heaven, in chapters twenty-one and twenty-two following His judgment upon the Temple (which then cannot be disconnected from that which follows), fits neatly with what has been previously heard from Jesus and presented by Matthew.  So when Jesus is heard speaking about love of the Creator God with heart, soul, and mind, and His hearers have their thoughts thrust upon the pages of Deuteronomy, disappointment would be at hand if one did not find concerns within the same vein (that being the kingdom of heaven and liberation) being voiced.  Naturally, these expectations are not disappointed. 

The words quoted by Jesus are prefaced and followed by statements such as “Walk just as He has commanded you so that you may live, that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land you are going to possess” (5:33); “Now these are the commandments, statutes, and ordinances that the Lord your God has instructed me to teach you so that you may carry them out in the land where you are headed… as the Lord, God of your ancestors, said to you, you will have a land flowing with milk and honey” (6:1,3b); “Then when the Lord your God brings you the land He promised to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give you” (6:10a); “for the Lord your God, who is present among you,” which is a Temple/tabernacle reference---the place the Lord dwells, “is a jealous God and His anger will erupt against you and remove you from the land” (6:15); “Do whatever is proper and good before the Lord so that it may go well with you and that you may enter and occupy the good land that He promised to your ancestors” (6:18); “He delivered us… so that He could give us the land He had promised our ancestors” (6:23); and “When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy” (7:1a). 

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.    

Experts In The Law (part 10)

For good measure, before reaching a seminal usage of the phrase, Luke once again makes a point to call attention to what he insists is the nefarious desire of the experts in the law, as in the nineteenth verse of chapter twenty, after Jesus has delivered yet another parable that is deemed to be yet another scathing rebuke of these antagonistic characters, Luke reports: “Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest Him that very hour, because they realized He had told this parable against them” (20:19a).  After this, Luke presents the story of Jesus being questioned about paying taxes to Caesar (20:20-26).  This is followed by a strange bit of questioning from the Sadducees in regards to marriage and the resurrection (20:27-40). 

It can be here noted, with great interest, that the Sadducees now make their lone appearance in Luke’s Gospel.  This occurs after the Pharisees have dropped out of view.  Looking to Acts, where Luke reports that some members of the Pharisees have joined with the Christian community, there one finds conflict between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the twenty-third chapter (in relation to Paul’s trial), in which the Pharisees (believers in the resurrection of the dead) are pitted against the Sadducees (“who contend that there is no resurrection” (20:27) – repeated in Acts 23:8).  In addition to the fact that Luke, in the second portion of his narrative, cannot simply have the Sadducees appearing out of nowhere but needs to have them in conflict with Jesus, the previous excursus and possible conclusion in regards to the situation with the Pharisees and their disappearance from Luke’s narrative may also serve to explain Luke’s cursory mention of the Sadducees.

Moving along then, Jesus then goes into a dissertation, with this followed by a question, about the Messiah being both King David’s son and Lord (20:41-44).  This is followed by Jesus’ warning to “Beware of the experts in the law” (20:46a).  This comes on the heels of what looked like it could have been a paradigm shift in Luke’s presentation of the experts in the law.  After Jesus had answered the questioning of the Sadducees, flatly rebuking their resurrection-denying position in the process, Luke reports that “some of the experts in the law answered, ‘Teacher, you have spoken well!’” (20:39).  Luke also reports that “they did not dare any longer to ask Him anything” (20:40), though this could easily apply equally to both the Sadducees and the experts in the law. 

Those who comprise the initial and ongoing audience of this story, who are presumably at least somewhat familiar with the Jesus traditions, already know what is soon to happen.  Indeed, those that may be unfamiliar with Jesus, who are hearing or reading this presentation for the first time, owing to the heightening sense of conflict that is sparked by Jesus’ actions in the Temple (the tremendous importance of which would be readily recognized by any denizen of the first century---or any century in almost any place for that matter), will more than realize that this story is building to a grand finale. 

Throughout the story, lines of demarcation are being drawn.  By this point, it is quite clear as to who it is that is going to ultimately be playing the role of villain in this story.  Any reasonable person knows that the experts in the law have been positioned as the chief villains, and it merely remains to be seen how Luke’s telling of the Jesus story will play out.  The potential paradigm shift comes with this report about the words of the experts in the law.  It provides something of a ray of hope for them.  This, along with the fact that the Pharisees are no longer the consistent companions of the experts in the law, with their role having been almost completely taken up by the chief priests, might cause one to think that the experts in the law are going to change their position concerning Jesus.  Accordingly, perhaps Jesus will change His position concerning them. 

Of course this is not to be.  After a glimmer of hope appears for them, that light is quickly extinguished as Jesus warns the people away from them.  This should not be unexpected.  Not only have they been well-positioned as the villains of Luke’s narrative, as one can easily imagine boos and hisses from the crowd whenever they make their appearance on the stage of the story, but after all of the potential villainy that has been seen and heard, Jesus adds that “They like walking around in long robes, and they love elaborate greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets” (20:46).  

Experts In The Law (part 9)

It has already been noted that Jesus was “proclaiming the Gospel” (20:1) in the Temple courts, thus provoking the challenge as to His rightful authority to do and say what He was doing and saying.  What was the Gospel? 

The recipient of Luke’s narrative, as well as those that would be the primary audience for his record of the life and ministry of Jesus, would have already understood that the Gospel message was that Jesus is the Lord of all (in a world where the regularly pronounced and well understood gospel message was that Caesar is lord of all).  Backing up into the nineteenth chapter to find support for the idea that this was part of Jesus’ Gospel pronouncement (as He was now openly challenging the Temple authorities, and doing so in a way that would provoke a response by the civil authorities as well), one reads about Jesus’ “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem, in which it was pronounced “with a loud voice” (19:37), “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!  Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” (19:38) 

To that, Luke adds that “some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, ‘Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.’  He answered, ‘I tell you, if they keep silent, the very stones will cry out!’” (19:39-40)  Here, Jesus allows Himself to be voiced as the king.  By His own words (using rather obvious hyperbole about the ability of stones to make a point---perhaps an ironic point about the stones of the Temple itself, which Jesus will soon say will be “thrown down”?---stones are a recurring theme here in the latter part of Luke), Jesus indicates that this pronouncement of His Gospel will never cease.    

Quite interestingly, though the Pharisees (along with the experts in the law) have composed one half of the chief antagonists to this point in Luke’s telling, they drop out of sight after this statement.  From this point on, the antagonists are only going to be the chief priests and the experts in the law, with an appearance by the Sadducees coming later in the twentieth chapter.  What is it that accounts for this turn of events?  How is it that the Pharisees, according to Luke’s presentation, have no hand in the events of the twentieth through twenty-fourth chapters of Luke? 

While the Gospels of Matthew and John have the Pharisees involved, at some level, in Jesus’ arrest and execution and the plot to counter the story of the Resurrection, Luke does not.  Neither, for that matter, does Mark.  Though one cannot know precisely why the Pharisees drop out of Mark at a point that is roughly equivalent to the time that they drop out of Luke (apart from the fact that Luke is said to rely heavily on Mark in the construction of his narrative), one can confidently surmise as to the reason why the Pharisees, who have been the constant companion of the experts in the law, drop out of Luke precisely as the events that will lead to Jesus arrest and crucifixion begin to unfold. 

It is possible that this has to do with a number of Pharisees, following the Resurrection and in the formative years of the church, being won to the claims of the Gospel and joining the growing community of adherents to the covenant rooted in the confession of Jesus as Lord of all.  As it relates to Luke’s work, evidence of this can be seen in the book of Acts.  In the fifteenth chapter of Acts, it is reported that the Pharisees have a role in the church community, as Luke there records that “some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.’” (15:5).  Though the opinion that would be rendered by the church council would come to weigh against that opinion, it does demonstrate that some Pharisees had joined the Jesus movement.  This may serve to explain why Luke withdraws the Pharisees from his narrative at the point of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. 

Den Of Lions (part 6)

Undoubtedly, Darius would have been surprised to hear accusations of subversion concerning Daniel, and would have been likely to respond with some measure of incredulity.  Similarly, if this were true of Jesus, Pilate, in his collusion with the temple authorities (particularly the Sadducees), would probably have heard something along these lines (a person claiming to be king, instructing people to not pay taxes to Rome) prior to this point.  So it could safely be said that Pilate regarded the accusation against Jesus with a measure of incredulity as well.  Things of this nature, which would require the attention of the governor, didn’t just happen overnight or occur under a rock.  They build over time and eventually reach a boiling point that would require some type of intervention by Rome. 

If this issue with Jesus was now at the point of Roman intervention, then it stands to reason that Pilate is going to have some familiarity with the charges that are being brought against Jesus.  Contrary to this expectation, the cumulative Gospel record paints a picture of a governor that is fully unaware of the man that is being placed before him, and the subversion of which He is being accused.  To this end, the Gospel of John has these men saying, about Jesus, in response to Pilate’s question of “What accusation to you bring against this man?” (18:29b), “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you” (18:30b). 

When it came to Daniel, “When the king heard about this, he was very upset and began thinking about how he might rescue Daniel.  Until late afternoon he was struggling to find a way to rescue him” (6:14).  This is a regular echo of the Gospel accounts.  In Matthew, it is reported that Pilate’s “wife sent a message to him: ‘Have nothing to do with that innocent man…’” (27:19b)  In Luke, “Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, ‘I find no basis for an accusation against this man.’” (23:4b) 

Pilate, as he plays a Darius-like role, would even send Jesus to King Herod in order to see if Rome’s puppet-king would intervene on behalf of Jesus so as to spare Pilate from having to take further action.  The Gospels acquit Pilate to an extent, reporting that after Jesus returns from Herod, “Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, and said to them, ‘You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people.  When I examined Him before you, I did not find this man guilty of anything you accused Him of doing.  Neither did Herod, for he sent Him back to us.  Look, He has done nothing deserving death.’” (23:13-15) 

Going on to the Gospel of John, Pilate’s actions are there also reported to be quite similar to those of King Darius, looking for a way to spare the accused, as he questions Jesus and eventually says “I find no basis for an accusation against Him” (18:38b).  He repeats these words (“I find no reason for an accusation against Him” – 19:4b) after having Jesus flogged, seemingly hoping that this will satisfy those who have brought Jesus before him.  Again, a third time, against the protests of the chief priests, as they stirred up the crowds, Pilate says “Certainly I find no reason for an accusation against Him” (19:6b). 

The Gospel writer appears to be emphatic (perhaps owing to the charges of overt sedition that were regularly leveled against Christians in the late first century when the Gospel of John is thought to have been composed), insisting on demonstrating that “Pilate tried to release Him” (19:12), exploring every possible option that was available to him, much like Darius struggled to find a way to rescue Daniel from the fate of the den of lions.  Their efforts, of course, were to no avail.     

Only Son (part 10)

How so?  What thoughts would Nicodemus have had upon Jesus’ use of these words?  Well, reference has already been made to the long-standing Jewish hopes of the kingdom of God, the resurrection of the righteous dead, and their God’s restoration of the fallen creation, but there is more.  It has been made quite clear that eternal life, as Jesus uses it (as a first century Jew) and as Nicodemus understands it (as a first century Jew), has nothing to do with the idea of escaping the physical world so as to enjoy eternity in a state of dis-embodied bliss that could only be enjoyed by soul and spirit.  No, that was Greek thought.  That was pagan thought.  To whichever culture such thinking is assigned, and though Jesus and Nicodemus (and the author of John) could certainly have been aware of that worldview, Jews were highly resistant to such ideas, and in general were fervently opposed allowing such ideas to creep into their particular worldviews.   

The dominant Jewish worldview affirmed the absolute goodness of their God’s perfectly created (though fallen) physical world, whereas the other dominant worldviews of the day (Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Buddhism, etc…) largely held the physical world to be sub-standard and second rate.  Judaism, in large part (though there were groups like the Sadducees that denied this worldview, though their denial may not have been completely legitimate and deeply held, perhaps owing to the fact that they were in collusion with the Roman powers---this is significant because they were partially charged with keeping peace and tranquility in Israel, whereas the hope of resurrection and restoration was very much a motivating factor for Israel in their long-running opposition, both passive and active, to foreign dominance) stood against “other-worldliness,” and embraced a “this-world” view. 

It could be insisted upon with a great degree of certainty then, that when Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God and eternal life, He is decidedly not speaking to Nicodemus about going to heaven.  In that same light then, the author would most certainly not be asking his readers to consider the possibility that Jesus is speaking about going to heaven, and thereby promoting an escape from this world---an idea rooted in so much anti-Jewish, anti-Biblical thought. 

How can this be known?  It can be known because “eternal life” is the language of exodus.  Exodus meant more than simply leaving Egypt.  Exodus, for Nicodemus (and for all who count themselves among the covenant people) meant rescue, deliverance, liberation, redemption, salvation, resurrection, restoration and more.  Eternal life as exodus was a powerful notion.  Exodus meant that Israel’s God was establishing His kingdom, through and for His chosen people, for the purpose of accomplishing His purposes for the world, through and for them.  Exodus meant that Israel’s God was not only rescuing, delivering, liberating, redeeming, saving, resurrecting, and restoring the beings that had been created to bear the image of the Creator and reflect His glory into His world, but it meant that He was doing the same thing for the whole of His world (and by extension the cosmos) as well. 

Therefore, it must be insisted upon that all of these things, for a first century Jew, when spoken and heard inside a long-running narrative by which a people defined and understood themselves and their place in the world, had a decidedly this-worldly reference.  Thus, when Jesus said these words, and when Nicodemus heard these words, the entire scope of the Creator God’s plan of salvation (exodus) was brought into the picture.  This plan did not begin with Jesus, but rather, with Adam.    

This Man's Blood (part 1 of 2)

Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this Man’s blood upon us! – Acts 5:28b  (NET)

As the book of Acts tells it, the statement above was ostensibly provoked by the fact that “many miraculous signs and wonders came about among the people through the hands of the apostles” (5:12).  In the very city in which Jesus was crucified, in which there would have been hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses to the fact of His crucifixion, “More and more believers in the Lord were added to their number, crowds of both men and women” (5:14).  This is remarkable indeed!  The man that had been crucified, which was always the sure sign of failure when it came to messianic hopes, continued to have those that came to believe in Him as the Messiah.  Accordingly then, there must have been some type of tremendous and monumental evidence at hand to account for the fact that Jews in great numbers were coming to believe this thing, especially in light of the fact that, as Israel’s history repeatedly showed, the mark of a failed and illegitimate messiah was death at the hands of the enemies of the people of the Creator God. 

Consequently, this seems to clearly point in the direction of the fact that there had been a Resurrection from the dead; and thus, though it was well known that Jesus had been condemned by both the Jewish authorities (for the blasphemy that accompanied His messianic claims) as well as the Roman authorities (for confessing Himself as a King and therefore as a rival to Caesar and potential threat to the pax Romana), and had been executed as a result of the sentence of condemnation passed by both parties, the Resurrection served as His vindication.  Among other things, the Resurrection demonstrated that the God of Israel, by raising Him from the dead, had reversed the judicial decrees that had come down against Him. 

The reasonable conclusion to be made, therefore, was that since Jesus had openly confessed these things concerning His Messiah-ship and His King-ship, it was not a matter of Him being cleared from the guilt of the charges that had been leveled against Him.  Quite the opposite, in fact, as the Resurrection seems to have proven that what He had said about Himself was true.  According to Acts, it was the preaching of the Resurrection (following the ignoble crucifixion) that brought about the belief in Jesus, as the disciples of Christ “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the Word of God courageously” (4:31b).  The preaching of the Gospel---declaring that Jesus was the crucified and resurrected Messiah of Israel and Lord of the world---by the Holy Spirit, was and is the showing forth of the very power of God that manifests itself in faith’s confession of allegiance to Jesus and belief in His claims and way of bringing about the kingdom of God.

The apostles were jailed for making these claims.  Previously, they had been warned “not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus” (4:18b).  Interestingly, we find that “the high priest rose up, and all those with him (that is, the religious party of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy.  They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail” (5:17-18).  There is a depth of detail that asked to be noticed here, in that the apostles were obviously preaching the Resurrection of the dead, and it was the Sadducees “who say there is no resurrection” (Matthew 22:23b), that had them jailed. 

In stark contrast to their being placed in jail for preaching Jesus and His Resurrection (for without a Resurrection, His teaching did not matter, as He would have been just another failed messianic pretender in a long line of failed messianic hopefuls), “during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison, led them out, and said, ‘Go and stand in the temple courts and proclaim to the people all the words of this life’.” (5:19-20)  They were specifically instructed to preach the words of this life, meaning, in all contextual probability, the fact that Jesus was alive, though the way of life presented by Jesus could certainly be indicated here as well.  They were not instructed to go and tell people about living a “Christian life,” but to preach the Gospel (Jesus is Lord), which is rooted and given its substance in the Resurrection of Jesus.          

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. 

A Mother's Gospel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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