All The Saints (part 4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In My Father's House (part 5)

While the teachers and others present in the Temple were being astonished at Jesus, “When His parents saw Him, they were overwhelmed” (2:48a).  Well of course they were overwhelmed, and upon locating Him, one would have to imaging that there was released a veritable flood of emotions---relief, anger, disappointment, confusion.  If the Scriptural record is correct, they had been searching for Jesus for three days.  The entire time, quite naturally, imagining that the worst possible things have happened to Him. 

Not only were there the natural fears associated with not being able to find one’s child, Mary had the additional knowledge of all that has been said to have been told to her concerning Jesus, beginning with the angel Gabriel (along with Simeon and Anna), ringing in her ears.  One is left only to wonder if Mary, in her distress, enlisted the help of as many people as possible in her search for her missing Son.  Her cries of “have you seen my boy?” might serve to elicit sympathy and assistance from the people in Jerusalem, but the addition of “He’s supposed to be the messiah” could have been quite the effective tool to gain greater attention for her plight. 

With a very human response that can be understood by anybody that has ever “misplaced” a child, whether for three minutes or for three days, “His mother said to Him, ‘Child, why have You treated us like this?  Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously’.” (2:48b)  It seems that relief from fear is not the only thing that Mary is feeling right now.  As indicated above, she also expresses a bit of anger.  It is not difficult to identify with this.  If one was to put oneself in Mary’s place, adding questions and statements like “Why did you do that?   Why did you leave the group?  Don’t ever do that again.  Your father and I were worried sick.  You could have been lying dead in a ditch somewhere.  We called the police and the hospitals.  You have no idea what you have put us through” would be more than understandable. 

It is also unlikely that Jesus was ever allowed to forget this incident.  Every time Jesus would go out of the house to play with His friends, Mary would be sure to ask Him where He was going and how long He would be gone.  Along with that, Mary would probably have given Him detailed instructions about when He needed to return to the house, with whom He could speak, and so forth.  One could even envision the scene at home with Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, as Jesus is given an assignment to fetch supplies for Joseph’s business. 

Inevitably, Jesus could have routinely heard something like, “Go right there, get what we need, and come right back.  Remember what happened that one time we went to Jerusalem.”  Indeed, at the close of the incident, Luke tells us that “He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them.  But His mother kept all these things in her heart” (2:51).  This echoes Luke’s previous statement about Mary treasuring up in her heart and pondering the events surrounding Jesus’ birth (2:19). 

Now, of course this “keeping in the heart” included the answer that Jesus gave to His parents when they found Him.  After His mother’s question to Him that was an understandable mix of relief and anger, Jesus, with what might be understood as a degree of exasperation, replied “Why were you looking for Me?  Didn’t you know that I must be in My Father’s house?” (2:49)  Though Mary is said to have known, based on Gabriel’s announcement to her, that Jesus would be called “the Son of the Most High” (1:32), and “the Son of God” (1:35), both of which were terms for Israel’s king, and though she has in fact located the missing Jesus in the Temple of that Most High God that is referenced in those titles, as would happen so many times throughout His life (especially with His disciples), “His parents did not understand the remark He made to them” (2:50). 

In My Father's House (part 3)

Moving forward then, it is learned that this trip did not go exactly according to plan, which serves to explain why Luke chooses to tell the story of twelve-year-old Jesus making what may have been the annual trip to Jerusalem, even though the pilgrimage was something that could have been customarily undertaken by the family.  While the story is learned from Luke, the larger purpose of his writing is kept in mind, and the crucifixion and the Resurrection are always very close to the surface of thought.  That said, Luke writes that “when the feast was over, as they were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.  His parents did not know it, but (because they assumed that He was in their group of travelers) they went a day’s journey.  Then they began to look for Him among their relatives and acquaintances.  When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for Him” (2:43-45).

It is not terribly difficult to imagine His mother’s mind-set at this terrible thought concerning what has happened to her son upon this visit to Jerusalem.  The first time she visited Jerusalem with Jesus, she heard and was amazed as a man named Simeon refers to her son as the “salvation” that God “prepared in the presence of all people: a light, for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to Your people Israel” (2:30-32).  Additionally, Anna had spoken of Jesus as “the redemption of Jerusalem (2:38b). 

So even though Mary is said to have been amazed, one must remember that the words of Simeon would not have been completely surprising, considering the reported visit to Mary of the angelic messenger that announced the event of conception.  Before those things were said by Simeon and Anna, Mary had heard the voice of an angel that “the child to be born will be holy; He will be called the Son of God” (1:35b).  Much of what Simeon and Anna had said can be said to have been implied in the information that the son of Mary would be called the “Son of God”.    

As if the idea that her child would be the “Son of God” was not enough, that same voice had informed her that “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.  He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will never end” (1:32-33).  Her relative Elizabeth has said to her “who am I that the mother of my Lord should come and visit me?” (1:43)  Shepherds were said to have visited her at the birth of her child, telling her what they had heard from angels, that the Savior was born in the city of David, and that He is Christ the Lord (2:11).  According to Luke, “Mary treasured up all these words, pondering in her heart what they might mean” (2:19), and one can be sure that the pondering never ceased throughout the whole of her life. 

Now, however, with all that she has heard about her Son pounding in her ears, she has lost this child.  This is tragic.  Though Jesus has most likely been to Jerusalem before, it is a big city, overflowing with people that are there to celebrate the Passover.  Mary, herself being naturally overcome with fear, could be relatively certain that her Son must be fearful as well.  In the midst of her fear, she can be forgiven to have not borne in mind Luke’s editorial insertion that between His birth and the age of twelve, “the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon Him” (2:40). 

In that moment then, it is not difficult to be quite certain that all Mary can think about is getting to her Son and making sure that He is safe.  With this, as one imagines Mary pondering the great and swelling words that had been spoken concerning Jesus, it could certainly be surmised that her and Joseph’s return to Jerusalem was frantic.  Luke tells Theophilus that it took them a few days to find Jesus.  In fact, it was “After three days they found Him in the Temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions” (2:46). 

In My Father's House (part 2)

Returning to the review of the birth narrative, following Gabriel’s visit to Mary, the reader of the Gospel learns about Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, Mary’s hymn of praise to the Lord after the blessing from Elizabeth that was said to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, the birth of John, the restoration of Zechariah’s ability to speak along with his subsequent prophecy, the birth of Jesus, the visit of the shepherds, Jesus’ presentation at the Temple, the prophecy of Simeon, and the words of the prophetess Anna. 

Near the end of the birth narrative, the aforementioned Simeon shares some potentially troubling words.  He says, “Listen carefully: This child is destined to be the cause of the falling and rising of many in Israel and to be a sign that will be rejected.  Indeed, as a result of Him the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed---and a sword will pierce your own soul as well!” (2:34b-35)  A sword will pierce her soul “as well”?  Based on her reported experience with the angelic messenger of the Creator God, Mary is said to have known that the Messiah that has been born to her was destined for glory and ultimately redemption for Israel.  So one could imagine her thinking something along the lines of “what’s the deal with all of this talk of swords and pierced souls?”  Of course, as Theophilus reads this narrative that has been compiled for him, he is in the position of being well aware that Luke is referring to the crucifixion to come, as Luke skillfully weaves this into his text. 

With this, the reader reaches the previously referenced chronological leap.  Luke, who treats Jesus’ youth in the same way as the rest of the Biblical authors (as seemingly irrelevant), quickly jumps ahead twelve years to present the story of Jesus in the Temple.  He does this before skipping over another eighteen years or so, which then marks the beginning of what has come to be called the third chapter and the longer narrative of the ministry of Jesus. 

Why the chronological divisions?  To answer that it is necessary to return to the purpose of Luke’s writing and the fact that he is always keeping the crucifixion and the Resurrection in view.  Apparently it is his desire and purpose to tell stories about Jesus that draws the attention of his reader to the event that would be referred to by the author of Hebrews as “the consummation of the ages” (9:26).  To that end, Luke has already successfully brought the mind of his reader (if that reader is aware of that consummating event) into a contemplation of the crucifixion with his birth narrative, and now, he will attempt to accomplish the same, with an inclusion of the Resurrection and Jesus’ Lordship, with the story of Jesus in the Temple. 

Thus the story of Jesus in the Temple is introduced with Luke informing his audience that “Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem every year for the feast of the Passover” (2:41).  From this it can be reasonably (though not concretely) extrapolated that this is not the first time that Jesus has gone to Jerusalem with his parents for the celebration of the Passover.  Now, is it really reasonable to think that a “carpenter,” which is the title given to Joseph, made this journey ever year?  Well, one would do well to remember that Jesus’ father, Joseph, though a member of the artisan class and therefore not a peasant, is not necessarily a “nobody” in Israel.  He is of “the house and family line of David” (2:4b).  This is not insignificant.  Therefore, one could surmise that it would not be an unusual thing for him to make the trek to Jerusalem each year.  So it could be asserted (again, with reservation) that this is not Jesus’ first trip to Jerusalem.  Yet for some reason, Luke seizes on this particular journey and the story of this journey, telling the reader that “When He (Jesus) was twelve years old, they went up according to custom” (2:42). 

Light Of The World (part 2 of 2)

As one progresses through the eighth chapter of John, the final day of the feast is reached.  It is that day on which it is said that “Jesus stood up and shouted out, ‘If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me, and let the one who believes in Me drink.  Just as the Scripture says, “From within Him will flow rivers of living water”’” (7:37b-38).  With these words, Jesus quotes prophecies (and calls to mind entire sections of the writings as they are set within Israel’s historical narrative) from Isaiah and Zechariah that would have been considered to be unmistakably messianic in nature, as they were connected to God’s redemptive actions on behalf of His people. 

Accordingly, because of the messianic overtones of the pronouncements, along with what was known about Jesus, and the generalized expectation of a long-hoped-for divine intervention on behalf of His people, “When they heard these words, some of the crowd began to say, ‘This really is the prophet!’  Others said, ‘This is the Christ!’  But still others said, ‘No, for the Christ doesn’t come from Galilee, does He?’” (7:40-41)  The record of this particular Gospel indicates that it was words like these, with their clear messianic underpinnings combined with Jesus’ seeming reluctance to conform to messianic ideals or to solicit the support of the rulers of the people, that prompted the chief priests and Pharisees to want to seize Jesus with the intention of putting Him to death.  In addition, it seems that, for them, this issue of Jesus’ place of origin was a sticking point.  With that piece of information alone, believing themselves to be fully cognizant of the full story when it came to Jesus place of birth and residence, His opponents seized on this piece of information.      

From there, the reader/hearer of the Johannine Gospel will go on to read about Nicodemus, who first made an appearance in the third chapter of John.  Nicodemus, who had obviously become a believer (probably owing to his interactions with Jesus), defends Jesus, saying “Our law doesn’t condemn a man unless it first hears from him and learns what he is doing, does it?” (7:51).  The response offered to this was “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you?  Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet comes from Galilee!” (7:52)  There was a relative certainty amongst those that were taken to be learned in these things that the Messiah would not spring from that region, which brings us to our main point, and the fact that, with the elimination of the story of the woman caught in adultery, it is immediately following these words that the author has Jesus diffusing the entire “Galilee issue” by saying, “I am the light of the world.  The one who follows Me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (8:12).  How so? 

Turning to Matthew (while acknowledging that John does not depend on Matthew, and that the two authors, or authorial communities, had different purposes for the story of Jesus that they told (though we could certainly expect the sweep of the Jesus tradition to have been in the mind of all of the authors, especially John, which is taken to have come last of the four Gospels), we find him quoting from Isaiah in regards to Jesus and the fulfillment of messianic hopes as he writes, “Galilee of the Gentiles---the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, and on those who sit in the region and shadow of death a light has dawned” (4:15b-16).  To “Galilee of the Gentiles” and the associated “great light,” could be added Simeon’s prophecy that is recorded in the second chapter of Luke, in which he calls the Messiah “a light, for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to Your people Israel” (2:32). 

Thus, considering the passage in John again, while a believer is certainly likely to confess a certain knowledge that Jesus is the light and hope of the world, Jesus’ words concerning light in this context, provided further context by talk of Galilee,  were pronounced with a clear, prophetic and historical referent.  Thus, this was not simply a spiritual saying as it is so often taken to be, and it is not to be disconnected from the very realistic situation that Jesus was addressing.  By saying what He said, Jesus should be understood to have been making it clear that He was, in fact, the Messiah.