Absalom (part 3)

Absalom returns to his home after years in banishment and under the authority of a foreign power, but he has not regained or attained to his proper position.  Similarly, even after the Egyptian exodus, Israel’s exodus is incomplete.  First, Israel wander in the wilderness for forty years.  Then, when they finally do enter the promised land, they must begin the process of subduing the land as a whole by driving out the inhabitants that their God said were defiling the land. 

This proved to be a feat that, for them, could not be accomplished, as Israel never achieved a complete consolidation of both land and power.  In a sense, then, their exodus, though very much real, and though very much a sign of their God’s blessing upon them (so that they could be a blessing) was never complete.  There was always one more battle to be fought, one more challenge to overcome, and one more temptation to resist. 

This is how the believer is able to consider his or her own exodus (salvation, redemption) as well.  Though the believer has been retrieved from exile by an operation of grace and Divine favor, that exodus---though the believer has certainly entered into the kingdom of God that was inaugurated at the Advent and confirmed by the Resurrection and Ascension (just as Israel had entered into the place that their God had for them)---will not be complete until that kingdom is finally consummated.  There will always be one more battle to fight, one more challenge to overcome, and one more temptation to resist. 

More than that, there will always be evil that needs to be pushed back, which is done through one act of the manifestation of the mysterious power of the Resurrection and the Gospel at a time (caring for orphans and widows, giving up a cup of cold water or food or clothes to those in need).  It is in this way that the believer continually works out their ongoing salvation (our exodus), with fear and trembling, here within this world, with a constant desire to see the face of their King and their God.  That said, this study returns to Absalom. 

“Absalom lived in Jerusalem for two years without seeing the king’s face” (14:28).  This was not good.  One can be sure that neither the king nor Absalom reveled in this situation.  Absalom sends for Joab and says to him “Why have I come from Geshur?  It would be better for me if I were still there” (14:32b).  This does not sound at all unlike what Israel would say to Moses on numerous occasions during the time of their incomplete exile, with the regular refrain of “wouldn’t it have been better for us to have stayed in Egypt?” 

Absalom continues and says, “Let me see now the face of the king.  If I am at fault, let him put me to death!” (14:32c)  In response to this, “The king summoned Absalom, and he came to the king.  Absalom bowed down before the king with his face toward the ground and the king kissed him” (14:33b).  Thus, having seen the face of the king and having not been put to death, Absalom’s exile was concluded, and his exodus was consummated.  Those that live in this day, presumably as sons and daughters of the King, look forward to the same.  Did Absalom feel as if his exodus was complete at this point?  It can be said that it was, but only in a sense.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 33)

Yes, the early church clearly understood that Jesus was the true Temple.  He was the house of God.  He was the place where heaven and earth came together.  Naturally, if talk about the church as the Temple of the Holy Spirit is taken seriously (as Paul indicates), in both a communal sense and in accord with the responsibility of the individuals members that compose the body of Christ, this informs the Christian as to his or her responsibilities in association with a life lived in response to the Gospel claim that Jesus is Lord.  The Christian is to be the place where and heaven earth come together---bringing heaven to earth as a singular purpose. 

Getting back to the course of thought that Isaiah suggests, Jesus can be heard doing the same thing, though omitting the explicit reference to the earth and its foundations.  Naturally, given the nature of allusion, as Jesus intends to call to mind the broad picture being painted by Isaiah, a reference to the earth and dramatic happenings in relation to the earth to go along with the happenings with the sun, moon, stars, and the power of heaven, is implied.  Again, all of this is offered by Jesus in the context of His discourse about the Temple. 

Returning then to second Peter, one is able to read and hear him from a more enlightened perspective.  This can be done while keeping clearly in view Jesus prediction about the fall of the Temple, along with the need, amongst the followers of Jesus in the years after His death, Resurrection, and ascension, for this prediction to come true.  Having laid the groundwork the author writes “Now, dear friends, do not let this one thing escape your notice, that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day.  The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because He does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (3:8-9).  By way of reminder, this study is insisting that the promise is the judgment prophesied against the Temple, and that this will coincide with the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days, which will signal the fact of Christ’s reign. 

Continuing on then: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; when it comes, the heavens will disappear with a horrific noise, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze, and the earth and every deed done on it will be laid bare” (3:10).  There’s that heaven and earth language again, and it leads into “Since all these things are to melt away in this manner, what sort of people must we be, conducting our lives in holiness and godliness, while waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God?”  (3:11-12a)  Does one not recognize the Daniel seven reference, which then also is a reference to the oral traditions (if indeed this is written in the sixties of the first century) concerning Jesus’ speech about the Temple, to the coming of the Son of Man?  The thought is rounded out with “Because of this day, the heavens will be burned up and dissolve, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze!  But, according to His promise, we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness truly resides” (3:12b-13). 

Indeed, they were waiting for it to be made clear to all that Jesus was the true Temple, which would be demonstrated when the Temple in Jerusalem was taken out of the way just as Jesus had said would happen.  Jesus was to be recognized, by all, as the new heavens and the new earth---the place of the coming together of heaven and earth, which is part and parcel of the meaning behind His ascension.  When it comes to being the place where righteousness dwells, when righteousness is understood as the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness, which is that which was represented by the Temple, then when it is Jesus that is left standing, resurrected following His crucifixion by Rome, whereas the Temple was destroyed by Rome never to rise again, then yes, Jesus is that which represents the covenant God’s covenant faithfulness to His people and to His creation.

No One Knows The Hour (part 20)

Though it is not mentioned in Mark or Luke, the notion of Jesus’ coming, as it frames the discourse on offer by Jesus and influences the way that Matthew’s twenty-fourth chapter is read and perceived, is something with which any study of this topic also must deal.  Much as one tends to hear “end of the age” in the light of “end of the world” sensibilities, there is also a tendency to hear speech about the coming of Jesus in terms of His coming to earth from heaven.  This is a natural inclination because of reading that takes place post-ascension, and because, being inhabitants of this world whereas Jesus is off in heaven somewhere, any talk of Jesus’ coming must be talk of Him coming from heaven to earth. 

Now before even addressing the issue, as best as is possible from the mindset of a first century Jew, one must look at this issue as a matter of common sense.  When Jesus speaks in terms of not being seen until He comes, He is alive and kicking.  He is there.  He has not gone anywhere.  Remember, these things demand to be heard in their narratival context.  Though Jesus has made mention of His death and Resurrection, such as is found in the seventeenth chapter of Matthew when He says “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.  They will kill Him, and on the third day He will be raised” (17:22b-23a), this isn’t exactly something that is clearly understood by His disciples.  In fact, Matthew says “they became greatly distressed” (17:23b).  Prior to that, in the sixteenth chapter, when Jesus says something similar, “Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him” (16:22a). 

So then, returning to the realm of common sense, since Jesus is with them when He says these things---He has not been crucified or resurrected and He has not ascended into heaven (though this written record does come after all of these things have taken place), one simply cannot have the disciples presuming these things as part of their query.  Such would be absurd.  While the hearers heard it and readers read it with knowledge of these things, the narrative does not push the audience of the story to hear the disciples’ question as post-earthly-life-and-ministry of Jesus. 

Yes, this can become convoluted and confusing, but it is incumbent upon on an erstwhile reader of Scripture to best attempt to inhabit the story as it is on offer, positioning oneself to hear Jesus live and in person, as one of His disciples.  Doing that, one is then not posing a question to Jesus about His coming, and doing so from a post-ascension perspective that has Jesus coming back to earth.  That would merely gets things out of order.  At this point, as far as His disciples are concerned and from their perspective, Jesus is with them and Jesus is not going anywhere.  Thus any talk of His coming cannot be about His coming to earth.  There must be an altogether different point of reference. 

Yes, He’s talked about His coming death and resurrection, but one cannot force the disciples to have already come to terms with what those words truly meant.  In fact, this is where Luke provides a wonderful glimpse into the mindset of the disciples of Jesus through His Emmaus-road presentation in chapter twenty-four of His gospel.  There, downhearted and dejected disciples, who were clearly struggling to cope with Jesus’ death and what it meant, say “we had hoped that He was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (24:21a). 

Not only was there no expectation of a resurrection, though Jesus has been reported to have spoken in advance of His being raised, there was certainly no hope or expectation of an ascension, and there was obviously no prevailing ideology that had Jesus returning to earth from heaven after an unexpected crucifixion, unexpected resurrection, and unexpected ascension.  As far as those Emmaus road disciples knew, Jesus was dead.  So in terms of rightly dealing with Matthew’s narrative, the movement of the story does not allow for a reader or the disciples themselves injecting a hoped-for return of Jesus to earth into their question about His coming.  It simply does not fit.