All The Saints (part 16)

He says “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated with strictness under Gamaliel according to the law of our ancestors, and was zealous for God just as all of you are today” (Acts 22:3).  Talk of being a Jew, raised in Jerusalem, trained under Gamaliel, who honors ancestors, and is zealous (this is a specific term for a way of life and approach to the law and the covenant), would be quite satisfactory. 

Furthermore, Paul says “I persecuted this Way,” that being the belief in a crucified man by the name of Jesus being the Messiah, “even to the point of death, tying up both men and women and putting them in prison, as both the high priest and the council of elders can testify from me.  From them I also received letters to the brothers in Damascus, and I was on my way to make arrests there and bring the prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished” (22:4-5).  As the crowd listens, they can begin to realize that not only are these not the words of a person that would bring a Gentile into the Jerusalem Temple, but that they are not the words of somebody who “teaches everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this sanctuary” (21:28b). 

Paul’s audience remains respectful until such time as he touches what was obviously the rawest of raw nerves.  When he reports the words of the one that he now calls Lord, telling the crowds that the command of the one called Messiah, who was being worshiped as the physical embodiment of the Creator God of Israel by a small and growing group of believers that were composed of both Jew and Gentile, was that “He said to me, ‘Go, because I will send you far away to the Gentiles’” (22:21), the crowd resumes its earlier disposition. 

To that end, Luke reports that “The crowd was listening to him until he said this.  Then they raised their voices and shouted, ‘Away with this man from the earth!  For he should not be allowed to live!” (22:22)  No longer is the issue the content of Paul’s teaching nor the possible defiling of the Temple.  The lone issue is the extension of the covenant to the Gentiles, and the idea that the title of “saints of God” would no longer be reserved for national Israel and those that had adopted the covenant marks of national Israel alone.  This is representative of part of the mindset of the world into which Paul delivers letters such as the letter to the Colossians.    

Returning to Colossians then, having effectively made the point that it is highly probable that Paul had Gentiles and the Temple in mind when he pens words that refer to them as “holy, without blemish, and blameless before Him” (Colossians 1:22b), and doing so against the well-established background of difficult Jew/Gentile relations and a hesitance to grant Gentiles an unlimited and unchecked entrance upon the covenant and the language of the elect people of the Creator God,  an exploration of the inclusive language of the letter can be resumed. 

Now being more carefully attuned to the underlying concerns of the Apostle, this church, the churches of Asia Minor, and the church-at-large, it is possible to grasp the monumental scope of the kingdom project and hear it being referenced when Paul writes “This Gospel has also been preached in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become its servant” (1:23b).  The “all” of “all creation” resounds with theological and eschatological gravity!  It is with such gravitas, as he willingly, in the manner of His Lord, adopts the position of servant to the previously unwashed masses of Gentiles, that Paul writes “I became a servant of the church according to the stewardship from God---given to me for you---in order to complete the word of God, that is, the mystery that has been kept hidden from ages and generations, but has now been revealed to His saints” (1:25-26).  These “saints” now include Gentiles. 

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.   

Son Of Abraham (part 1 of 2)

Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!” – Luke 19:9  (NET)

Jesus, in a move that was likely to have been viewed as shocking by many of its witnesses, went “to be the guest of a man who is a sinner” (19:7b).  That man, of course, was Zacchaeus.  Zacchaeus was not only one of the hated tax collectors that worked in collusion with the Roman authorities and serving as a constant reminder of Israel’s continued subjection to a foreign power, but he was also tagged with the second epithet of being a “sinner” (someone who did not live up to covenant obligations).  Luke informs his audience that Zacchaeus was, in fact, a “chief tax collector” (19:2), and that commensurate with such a position, he “was rich” (19:2). 

When Jesus encounters Zacchaeus while passing through Jericho, He invited himself to the house of this rich, chief tax collector, saying “I must stay at your house today” (19:5b).  Though it is not explicit in the text, one can certainly find an implication that Jesus was going to be sharing a meal with Zacchaeus, who was going to serve as His host.  Now, this is not the first time that Jesus has made what some would consider to be a questionable choice in dining companions.  The Gospel of Luke, and indeed all of the Gospels, are littered with accusations of Jesus dining with “tax collectors and sinners,” which simply was not perceived to be comely behavior for a man that was somewhat clearly presenting Himself as a messiah figure. 

Beyond that, even when Jesus is not going to dine with those that are perceived to be the wrong people, and dines with the “right” people instead, He still comes in for criticism, be it for allowing a disreputable woman to wash His feet (chapter seven), or for not washing His hands (chapter eleven).  Seemingly, Jesus can’t quite do things properly.  Such is His burden.

Now, no record of Jesus’ interaction with Zacchaeus is provided.  Luke moves from the complaint about Jesus to reporting that “Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Lord, ‘Look, Lord, half of my possessions I now give to the poor, and if I have cheated anyone of anything, I am paying back four times as much!’” (19:8)  Why Zacchaeus does this is left for the audience to determine.  Clearly though, he is quite overwhelmed by Jesus’ presence.  Perhaps he was also a witness to Jesus’ healing of the blind beggar, which was done “As Jesus approached Jericho” (18:35a)? 

To that point, Luke write that “When all the people saw” this healing, “they…gave praise to God” (18:43b).  Obviously “all” does not mean “all,” as it is a use of hyperbole, and one should not presume that Zacchaeus was part of this group that offered praise to the Creator God as a result of the healing of the blind man, but surely, even if he did not personally witness it, the news of this healing would have come to the ears of Zacchaeus, as tax collectors were certainly attuned to the local goings-on.  Whatever the reason, the fact remains that Zacchaeus is reported to have said these things after welcoming Jesus joyfully (19:6b), and presumably after hearing the complaints of the people. 

It is Zaccheus’ expression of financial commitment that prompts Jesus’ statement of “Today salvation has come to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!” (19:9)  Though this commitment by Zacchaeus and the resulting words from Jesus were probably surprises to Jesus’ audience, it would not necessarily come as a surprise to those that have been paying attention to Luke’s narrative.  In fact, the story of Zacchaeus represents something of a summary of what has come before and is a vindication of Jesus’ teaching. 

In chapter eighteen, Luke presents a parable from Jesus about “Two men” who “went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector” (18:10).  In this parable, the tax collector “stood far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!’” (18:13)  Without need to recount it here, suffice it to say that the Pharisee’s prayer was somewhat different. 

Jesus explains that “this man went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee” (18:14).  Interestingly, if one went from the Temple to Jericho, one would be said to have “went down to his home” (to be fair, all are said to “go down” from Jerusalem) which fits nicely with the story of Zacchaeus (but Luke has also told the story of the “Good Samaritan, in which “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho” (10:30a), so it is not at all difficult to surmise that Luke wants his audience to think of the tax collector “going down” to Jericho from the Temple).  One also notices that this tax collector referred to himself as a sinner, which is also said of the tax collector Zacchaeus, which offers some additional symmetry to the accounts.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 27)

Redundancy is necessary to break through the clutter of so much ridiculous, textually irrelevant, and ultimately unhelpful “end times” speculation that has grown up around these Matthean, Markan, and Lukan passages.  In Jesus’ discourse on the fall of the Temple (as He answers His disciples’ question in regards to His statement about the stones of the Temple being cast to the ground), “He,” of course, is the Son of Man, and He is right at the door, ready to go before the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom. 

When will this appearing before the Ancient of Days and the reception of a kingdom take place, or when will all know for sure that this appearance and reception has taken place?  When the Temple falls.  That is still the context.  Even though this will happen, and even though most of Jesus’ primary audience would consider the fall of the Temple to be a horrific and cataclysmic event equivalent to the sun, moon, and stars falling from the sky and the world being rocked from its foundations, signaling the Creator God’s judgment upon Israel, it is actually to be understood as the time in which the Creator God renders His judgment against those that do battle against His people, establishing His kingdom reign through the Son of Man.  So in effect Jesus here delivers a message of hopefulness.  Helpfully, Luke again renders Jesus’ words with slight differences, there reporting Him as saying “So also you, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near” (21:31).  This statement about the kingdom of God, considering the overt Daniel seven context, is unmistakably clear in its message.     

Though Matthew and Mark have been nearly identical from their report of words concerning the gathering of the elect, to the mention of the fig tree, and on to the Son of Man being near and at the door, with Luke diverging slightly from that Matthean and Markan renderings, the three synoptic evangelists all go on to agree, word for word, with what Jesus has to say next.  Matthew reports: “I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (24:34).  This type of congruence, considering the regularity of differences that are encountered, especially when comparing Matthew and Mark to Luke, should arrest attention.  Clearly, much rested on these words, as well as those that would immediately follow, which will be observed momentarily. 

What is one to make of these words?  How would they have been heard?  How should they be heard?  Well, in all honesty, this is all rather uncomplicated.  All that has to be done to grasp the meaning of these words of Jesus with one hundred percent confidence is to reach back to what has premised all that Jesus is saying throughout this lengthy discourse which was set in motion by His triumphal entry, subsequent actions in the Temple, and all that took place in the Temple prior to His explicit leaving of the Temple.  Doing so, one once again hears Matthew reporting that “as Jesus was going out of the Temple courts and walking away, His disciples came to show Him the Temple buildings” (24:1).  Jesus says “Do you see all these things?  I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!” (24:2)  This, as is quite obvious, is what prompted the disciples to say “Tell us, when will these things happen?” (24:3b) 

Now, as He has progressed through His answer, Jesus finally informs them that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”  This is quite specific.  Jesus has said “the Temple will be torn down.”  The disciples have asked “when?”  Jesus effectively says, “Pretty soon.  In fact, this generation will see it.”  If one is willing to put the blinders to pre-conceptions, turn a deaf ear to so many fanciful interpretations that have attempted to hold sway through the years, and inhabit the narrative in order to hear Jesus speak, what one finds is that this is about as straightforward of an answer as Jesus ever gives when a question has been on offer to Him.  Frankly, there’s very little mystery here.  In addition to that, the eyes and ears are drawn to the “these things” of the first and third verses of the twenty-fourth chapter, and the “these things” of the thirty-fourth verse of the chapter.  The repetition provides a clue as to the explicit connection between the verses as part of this revealing and informative answer on the part of Jesus. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 26)

While Matthew uses language identical to Mark, Luke, though presenting the apocalyptic words of Jesus with marked differences, makes things a bit more obvious for his audience.  There one finds, “And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth nations will be in distress, anxious over the roaring of the sea and the surging waves.  People will be fainting from fear and from the expectation of what is coming on the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.  Then they will see the Son of Man arriving in a cloud with power and great glory.  But when these things begin to happen, stand up and raise your heads, because you redemption is drawing near” (Luke 21:25-28).  This use of “redemption” by Luke is crucial.  Redemption, for a Jew, was equivalent to exodus.  When the Creator God delivered His people from the power of Egypt, granting them exodus, that was a redemption.  Any use of the word “redemption” would be deeply rooted in thoughts of exodus. 

When the Creator God brought the creation forth from its state of chaos, He was thought to have granted it an exodus, redeeming it from its own state of exile.  When a large contingent of the tribe of Judah was dragged off to Babylon in exile from their homeland, it was redemption for which they longed.  They looked for another exodus.  Indeed, John the Baptist built his own movement on the foundation of thoughts of exodus/redemption, as baptism in the Jordan was a re-enactment of Israel’s crossing the Jordan into their Promised Land, thus stirring thoughts of their exodus that defined a people. 

Israel in Jesus’ day, for the most part, sought redemption from Rome--- hopeful that their God would grant them another Egypt-like exodus (the Romans leaving Israel rather than Israel leaving Egypt), even though that exodus would not involve them leaving their land of promise.  A need for redemption, for exodus, implied conflict and oppression, and a situation from which the Creator God’s people needed to be delivered. 

Without going into details of the variety of situations to which Luke may have been referring, it is undeniable that the reference to Daniel, followed by mention of redemption, must be equated to the Danielic insistence that the elect holy ones of the Most High were gathered together (as Matthew and Mark have Jesus saying) to possess the kingdom, and to have a role in that kingdom that was being granted to the Son of Man.  By way of reminder, this coming to power of the Son of Man, with the gathering of the elect for redemption, takes place in concert with the fall of the Temple, which is the preface to all that Jesus has said to this point in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, the thirteenth chapter of mark, and the twenty-first chapter of Luke. 

With this said, Jesus speaks about a fig tree.  There is not a pressing need to go into any great depth of detail here about the symbolism that may be at work, though certainly the previous fig tree that has figured in the Temple-related narratives of Matthew and Mark is called to mind.  This, however, would not be the case for Luke, as he makes no mention of Jesus’ words toward the fig tree and its withering away.  Regardless, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all report this mention of the fig tree as part of Jesus’ discourse about the fall of the Temple.  Through Matthew, Jesus says “Learn this parable from the fig tree: Whenever its branch becomes tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near.  So also you, when you see all these things, know that He is near, right at the door” (24:32-33). 

What things?  Obviously, it is all the things that have been mentioned that will signal, for Matthew, the coming of Jesus (as the Son of Man) to the Ancient of Days and the end of the age (the end of the present age and the beginning of the age in which God rules through His Messiah), that would occur or be confirmed by the fall of Jerusalem’s Temple.  The “things” are messianic claims, wars, rumors of wars, nation rising against nation, famines, earthquakes, the abomination of desolation, and so on.  These things are signals that “He is near, right at the door.” 

No One Knows The Hour (part 23)

In conjunction with these Temple-related things that Jesus says will occur, He also says “this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole inhabited earth as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come” (24:14).  The end, naturally, is the fall of the Temple.  Lest one think that the Temple is somehow not in view, Jesus then goes on to say “So when you see the abomination of desolation---spoken about by Daniel the prophet---standing in the holy place” (24:15a), thus making a distinct reference to the Temple.  To this Matthew (and Mark) appends the editorial insertion of “let the reader understand,” thus indicating that this is an event of which those that are hearing or reading this discourse should be well aware (which could also serve as information that these written works come from a time period after that of which Jesus speaks has already occurred). 

The conclusion to Jesus’ thoughts about the abomination of desolation and the holy place is “then those in Judea must flee to the mountains.  The one on the roof must not come down to take anything out of his house, and the one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.  Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing their babies in those days!” (24:16-19)  Which days are those?  That would be the days in which the Temple is going to be thrown down, with not one stone left on top of another.  Jesus, speaking to a Jewish audience that would be concerned with such things, adds “Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath” (24:20).  Mark does not make mention of the Sabbath. 

Jesus continues ominously, saying “For then there will be great suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen.  And if those days (i.e. the days in which the Temple will fall) had not been cut short, no one would be saved.  But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short” (24:21-22).  For a people and a discourse heavily influenced by the seventh chapter of Daniel, this would sound a great deal like “While I was watching, that horn began to wage war against the holy ones and was defeating them, until the Ancient of Days arrived and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of the Most High” (7:21b-22a), which was prefaced by the promise that “The Holy ones of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will take possession of the kingdom forever and ever” (7:18).     

Jesus then says “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him.  For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (24:23-24).  When will this occur?  It will occur at the time that the Temple is going to fall.  Jesus helpfully adds “Remember, I have told you ahead of time” (24:25).  He then goes on to say “So then, if someone says to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe him.  For just like the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so the coming of the Son of Man will be” (24:26-27).  With this, Jesus links the coming of the Son of Man, which is not a heaven to earth coming, but a coming of the Son of Man before the Ancient of Days (presumably an earth to heaven movement), with all of these things that will portend and be associated with the fall of the Temple.  If one is being true to the text, this fact is inescapable.   

No One Knows The Hour (part 17)

This posing of a question to Jesus in regards to the Temple seems like an odd action on the part of the disciples, especially since Jesus has been in the Temple.  Does Jesus really need to be shown the Temple buildings at this point?  These questions are answered when one hears what Jesus says next, as Matthew has drawn attention specifically to the Temple buildings so that Jesus can be clearly heard when He says to His disciples “Do you see all these things?  I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!” (24:2) 

Matthew reflects a similar maneuver by Mark, but reports a statement from the disciples that demonstrates that the disciples well understood that Jesus was speaking of the Temple itself when He speaks about Jerusalem’s house being desolate.  “One of His disciples said to Him, ‘Teacher, look at these tremendous stones and buildings!’” (13:1b)  To complete the picture, it should be noted that Luke’s rift on Mark’s record differs, stating “Now while some were speaking about the Temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and offerings” (21:5) 

So why this sudden mention of buildings?  Clearly, there is something being communicated here at an even deeper level, and it is perhaps best presented by Matthew.  It appears to reflect the post-Resurrection understanding of the nature of the Temple.  With this thought, one can think about what is said in the second chapter of John.  As Jesus, as part of the Gospel of John’s record of His actions in the Temple, is questioned about His activity, it is reported that “the Jewish leaders responded, ‘What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?’  Jesus replied, ‘Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up again.’” (2:18-19)  An editorial comment is provided, informing the audience of the Gospel that “Jesus was speaking about the Temple of His body” (2:21). 

There is also the post-Resurrection, pre-synoptic Gospel composition (reflecting the position of the earliest Christians and the stories that they told about Jesus) conception of the nature of the Temple of God, perhaps best reflected in the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, in which He writes in reference to the church community saying that “your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” (6:19a).  To this can be added thoughts from the second chapter of the Ephesian letter, where the church community (or communities) is told that “you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.  In Him the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you are also being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (2:20-22).  The language of Jesus as cornerstone borrows from the one hundred tenth Psalm, which, as has been seen, Jesus references during His time in the Temple.  What is being made quite clear by Matthew, and by the other Gospels to a slightly lesser extent, is that even though Jerusalem’s Temple will be torn down, all that is actually being torn down is a building.  The Creator God’s Temple on the other hand, in Christ, will never be torn down.  It is this tearing down of the physical Temple of Jerusalem that provides the preface and the context for what comes next.    

As tempting as it may be, an observer cannot at this point allow him or herself to be dragged out of the appropriate mindset and context when hearing Jesus speak throughout the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew.  The setting is clear.  The context is clear.  The scene has been in the process of being set since Jesus made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem and went straight to the Temple.  Moving away from the scene of the Temple at this point would be moving in the direction of extreme and extraordinary unfaithfulness to the text.  Pretending that Jesus has somehow changed His entire mode of thought, and that He is no longer speaking about the Temple, would be an indication of little more than a disjointed and confused Jesus.  Additionally, doing the same thing to Matthew’s treatment (or that of Mark or Luke) renders the Gospel treatment as incoherent and lacking in any real value or substance for their community of hearers and readers, or for the wider community of Christ-followers in the first century. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 7)

Prior to the words of the forty-third verse, and just to be sure that all understand that Jesus has the Temple in mind as He is speaking, Matthew’s Jesus rounds out His parable by saying “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.  This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (21:42)  Here, Jesus quotes from the one hundred eighteenth Psalm. 

The selection on offer from Jesus, which is to be called to mind by the section that He has quoted, begins with “Open for me the gates of the just king’s temple!  I will enter through them and give thanks to the Lord.  This is the Lord’s gate---the godly enter through it.  I will give you thanks, for you answered me, and have become my deliverer” (118:19-21).  What follows in the Psalm from that which is quoted by Jesus (though Jesus doesn’t quote it, or at least Matthew doesn’t report Jesus quoting it, would be called to mind by Jesus using the introductory words) is “This is the day the Lord has brought about.  We will be happy and rejoice in it.  Please Lord, deliver!  Please Lord, grant us success!  May the one who comes in the name of the Lord be blessed!  We will pronounce blessings on you in the Lord’s temple” (118:24-26). 

So not only is Jesus quite obviously speaking about the Temple, by using this Psalm He has actually gone back and effectively answered the question that was previously posed to Him about what He was doing and who it was that had given Him the right to do it.  He is the one who comes in the name of the Lord and He is acting in the Temple on behalf of Israel’s God.  In all of this section, when considering how to understand Jesus’ insistence that “no one knows the hour,” the Temple is the thing.      

After telling the parables of the two sons and the tenants, with Matthew having interjected Jesus’ thoughts concerning the kingdom of the covenant God, and letting his audience know that “the chief priests and the Pharisees… realized that He was speaking about them” (21:45), Jesus moves on to His next parable, which is that of the wedding banquet.  Having suggested that the kingdom of God, with its Temple-related connotations, was going to be taken from those that represented the Temple and its regime, this parable begins with “The kingdom of heaven can be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son” (22:2).  The parable, which shares similar features to the parable of the tenants, concludes with the king saying “For many are called, but few are chosen” (22:14). 

Though much can be made of this parable, and though there are obviously a great number of avenues of exploration that could be traveled (king and son and messianic understanding to say the least), because Jesus is dealing with the issue of the Temple, with the Temple consistently serving as the backdrop, suffice it to say that the connection between the kingdom of their God being taken away from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and the kingdom of heaven being limited to those that have been chosen for it, is rather obvious. 

One must be extremely careful to not exhume this statement about many being called and few being chosen from out of the ground in which it has been placed.  This is not an isolated statement nor an isolated parable from which one can construct a theology of predestination or limited atonement.  The statement should not be detached from its context and ever allowed to stand on its own.  This is a statement and a parable dealing with the Temple and those that represent that Temple, as Jesus builds on His previously enacted judgment of that Temple and those that run it.  Along with the setting and the audience, Jesus’ subject of concern remains unchanged.  This fact is obviously not lost on Jesus’ intended audience, as Matthew moves immediately to tell us that “Then the Pharisees went out and planned together to entrap Him with His own words” (22:15). 

To that end, the Pharisees proffer a question about the paying of taxes to Caesar.  The import of this question cannot be disconnected from Jesus’ triumphal entry---an event which would have stirred revolutionary notions, hopes concerning Israel’s king (messiah), the perceived illegitimacy of those that then ruled (Caesar), and the driving of the Romans from the land.  Taxes and revolution go hand in hand, and Jesus’ opinion in this area would have been used to great effect.  Also, it seems as if it is supposed to have the function of distracting Jesus from His main concern, which is the judged Temple and its judged functionaries.  However, Jesus’ answer will be heard with the Temple as a sounding board, and perhaps even as a critical rebuke of His interrogators when He says to “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (22:21b).

Calling His Disciples (part 11)

In the end, for Matthew, because he does not provide any type of report on the activity of the disciples themselves in relation to Jesus’ instructions, what is important is that Jesus went out teaching and preaching and presumably doing all of those things that He had instructed His disciples to do.  Does this mean that Matthew was unconcerned with the activity of the disciples?  Clearly, that is not the case.  In all of this, one must not forget that Matthew and His audience (like Mark and Luke) are viewing the story of Jesus through Resurrection-colored goggles as a community that recognized and worshiped Jesus as the incarnate Creator God. 

What this serves to communicate, keeping in mind the context that has been created through the way that the story is being told and the covenantal context in which the life of Jesus unfolds and in which His teaching is presented, is that it is ultimately the activity of the covenant God that is of paramount importance to those who were telling the Jesus story.  Even in Abraham’s case, it was the God of Abraham that was to be recognized through Abraham’s life and actions---not necessarily Abraham himself. 

It was the Creator God that was to be revealed through Israel---they were not to be made into a great nation (as promised to Abraham) simply to be blessed by their God and to no greater end or purpose than simply being a great nation.  Being a blessing and exemplifying divine blessing, as these disciples were being called to do and be, is meaningless if it does not derive glory for the Creator and work towards accomplishing His purposes or restoration and redemption for humanity and the creation.  Foundationally, it would be the Creator God at work, through Abraham.  It would be the Creator God at work, in and through the Christ; and it would be the Creator God at work, through the Christ’s disciples, when they carried out (and continue to carry out) His instructions. 

With much foundation laid, it is now possible to clinch the argument that Abraham and the Creator God’s covenant with him are in view as Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (to an extent) tell the stories of Jesus’ calling of His disciples, that Jesus Himself is relying upon a broad-based Abrahamic covenant-shaped worldview to inform the response to His words and deeds, and that this is functional for rounding out a proper perspective on the narrative. 

Not only that, but it should become clear, when adopting a wide angle view of what is going on if this is indeed the case, that one of the points being made is that a disciple of Jesus, then and now, is called to be for the world what Abraham (and ultimately his descendants) were called to be for the world.  Abraham and his descendants were to be the means and the mediators by and through which the Creator God enacted His plan to redeem and restore the world.  In essence, it could be said that the disciples were called to be a fresh set of Abrahams. 

It bears repeating here then, that all disciples of Jesus---those that join Him in the way that He is marking out for the enactment of the Creator God’s kingdom in and for this world---are called to be Abrahams.  Has this review and analysis been sufficient to make that point?  Most likely.  However, there is one final portion of Matthew’s narrative that can be included in this presentation to tie together all that has been seen to this point in the building of this case.  

Calling His Disciples (part 3)

Strangely, and though there is no mention of fishing in connection to their initial call, it is following the crucifixion, Resurrection, and appearance of Jesus that the Gospel of John provides the first inkling that the disciples had in fact been fishermen (though this fact was probably something that was well known to the early church community and the audience of the author of this Gospel).  In the twenty-first chapter the author writes: “After this Jesus revealed Himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias.  Now this is how He did so.  Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael (who was from Cana in Galilee), the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples of His were together” (21:1-2).  As an aside, the mention of Nathanael being from Cana in Galilee provides a clue as to why Jesus, His mother, and His disciples were at the wedding feast in Cana, the story of which is presented immediately following Jesus’ words to Nathanael at the close of the first chapter.  Returning to the text of the twenty-first chapter: “Simon Peter told them, ‘I am going fishing.’ ‘We will go with you,’ they replied.  They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing” (21:3) 

Where Mark, Matthew, and Luke have Jesus calling His first disciples in Galilee, John has them being called outside of Galilee, and there are no boats or fish anywhere in sight.  At the close of their narratives, Mark concludes with the report of the Resurrection, Luke (and Acts) has Jesus speaking to the disciples in Jerusalem, and Matthew has the disciples on a mountain in the Galilee.  John follows Matthew’s account, at least in terms of region, with the final appearance of Jesus to His disciples taking place in Galilee.  Ironically, Mark, Matthew, and Luke have the disciples fishing when Jesus first calls them, and it is an occupation to which they do not return, whereas John, which offers up a wholly different setting at the time of their calls, has the disciples off and fishing after Jesus makes His first post-Resurrection appearance to them, and it is at this time that they catch a great number of fish.      

The only other specific calling of a disciple recorded in the Gospels is that of Matthew, who is also called Levi.  Similar to the presentation of the calling of the first four, Mark reports that “Jesus went out again by the sea.  The whole crowd came to Him, and He taught them” (2:13).  Once again then, Jesus is near the sea of Galilee.  This time though, similar to Luke’s record of the calling of the first four, Jesus is in the act and process of teaching.  “As He went along, He saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the tax booth.  ‘Follow Me,’ He said to him.  And he got up and followed Him” (2:14).  Matthew says “As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax booth.  ‘Follow Me,’ He said to him.  And he got up and followed Him” (9:9).  Luke writes that “After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax booth.  ‘Follow Me,” He said to him.  And he got up and followed Him, leaving everything behind” (5:27-28). 

As can be seen, the synoptics are essentially univocal in their witness to this particular calling event.  To the contrary though, John does not present the call of Matthew.  In all three synoptic narratives, the calling of Matthew follows the healing of the paralyzed man that had been brought to Jesus by his friends.  In Matthew, there is a significant textual gap between the call of the first four disciples and the call of Matthew, but this gap is not to be found in Mark and Luke, as the call of Matthew comes quickly on the heels of the calling of Simon, Andrew, James, and John.  Not only do all three synoptic accounts of the call of Matthew follow immediately after the healing of the paralyzed man, what follows the record of the call is nearly identical in all three as well.  With the differences to be found in these Gospels, as they frequently diverge in their order of presentation, this nearly identical presentation of three events in sequence, with minor differences in detail, is quite remarkable. 

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 9)

Jesus goes on to add: “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.  Again, I tell you the truth, if two of you on earth agree about whatever you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you.  For where two or three are assembled in My name, I am there among them” (Matthew 18:18-20).  It is following these assertions by Jesus that Peter, who is clearly presented by Matthew as making the connection between what Jesus has said about treating a brother as a Gentile or tax collector, binding and releasing and agreeing together, and the need for there to be an ongoing willingness to forgive as a marker of those that are part of Jesus’ messianic movement, asks Jesus his famous question about the quantity of forgiveness that need be on offer, suggesting that surely seven charitable acts of forgiveness ought to be enough.  Of course, based on what the audience of Matthew knows about Jesus’ demeanor and His dealings with all and sundry, there would be little astonishment to hear Jesus insist that forgiveness is to be extended “Not seven times… but seventy-seven times!” (18:22b) 

Now, some translations render Jesus phrase as “seventy times seven.”  Either way, it would have been well understood that Jesus has indicated that there is to be no end to forgiveness among brethren.  However, there are some historical considerations to be made here, which may serve to underscore an actual usage of “seventy-seven” (putting aside the importance of any use of 490 in the mind of a member of the nation of Israel in the first century).  Bear in mind that this Gospel, perhaps more than all the rest, reaches back into Israel’s Scriptures in order to shed greater light on Jesus’ status and His ministry, especially as the author goes to great lengths to show Jesus forth as the new Moses. 

Along with that, it has been well-established that Jesus’ words and deeds only make sense in the light of the history of Israel, as presented in its Scriptures.  Furthermore, Jesus’ presumptive audience would have been well-versed in Israel’s history, and based on the construction of this Gospel, the same should be presumed for Matthew’s audience.  Finally, when Jesus quotes Scripture to His hearers, or when the author quotes Scripture for his hearers in order to reinforce something that Jesus has said or to shape their thinking along certain lines, those quotations are not an isolated choosing of a statement that fits a certain need, but that single quote is designed to call an entire narrative to the minds of the hearers. 

Why make these points?  It is because of the uses of “seventy-seven” that are to be found in Scripture.  If one surmises and presumes (altogether reasonably) that Jesus is careful with His use of words, that Matthew is careful with the construction of his narrative and with those words of Jesus that he includes in that narrative, and a general familiarity on the part of the two audience’s (Jesus’ and Matthew’s) with the Scriptures that tell the story of Israel (from which they derived their sense of identity), then it is worthwhile to review those uses. 

The first use is found in the foundational story of Scripture, which is Genesis.  A verse in the fourth chapter reads “You wives of Lamech, hear my words!  I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for hurting me.  If Cain is to be avenged seven times as much, then Lamech seventy-seven times!” (4:23b-24)  Surely, this use of “seventy-seven” in connection with a wrong done and vengeance (without getting into the nature or direction of that vengeance, or the motivation for his words) would have some bearing on Jesus’ use of “seventy-seven” when speaking about wrongs done and forgiveness---dissuading any desire for vengeance. 

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 8)

So even though Jesus has agreed to meet the need, the centurion offers a bit of resistance.  Likewise, the Canaanite woman, though not receiving the desired response upon her initial request, puts up her own resistance, which is seen in the disciples’ report about her continuing to cry out after them.  In this instance, they ask Jesus to “send her away,” which is a bit evocative of the centurion’s statement about the way that he commands those under him to “go,” to “come,” or to “do this.”  Additionally, the centurion’s statement that he was not worthy to have Jesus come under his roof, and presumably not worthy to have Jesus do that which he is asking, falls in line with the Canaanite woman’s statement about dogs eating the crumbs that fall from the table.  Effectively, she too acknowledges that she was not worthy to have Jesus come under her roof or to do what she is requesting.

In the eighth chapter, it is the combined statement of the centurion that produces Jesus’ statement that He had not found such faith in Israel.  Similarly, in the fifteenth chapter, it is the woman’s statement that causes Jesus to exclaim upon her great faith.  To the centurion, Jesus makes reference to the great messianic banquet in which people from all nations will feast together.  It is possible that the Canaanite woman makes an oblique reference to that same messianic banquet, potentially doing so in her mention of the table from which crumbs will fall.  Jesus spoke to the centurion and said “just as you believed, it will be done for you.”  He spoke to the Canaanite woman and said “Let what you want be done for  you.”  The stories conclude with “the servant was healed at that hour” and “her daughter was healed from that hour.” 

It must be said that it is with his inclusion of such stories, together with his ingenious construction, that this Gospel’s author continues to present his audience with an understanding of the nature of that which is His primary concern, which is the kingdom of heaven and its dramatic and surprising introduction into the world through the person of Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah.  As part of that construction, the flow of the narrative, including the subject of this study, continually points towards Jesus’ parting words to His disciples. 

This trek through Matthew, spurred on by Jesus’ statement that concluded with “treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector,” now returns to Matthew’s eighteenth chapter.  By this point, owing to Matthew’s clear presentation of Jesus’ treatment of Gentiles and tax collectors, it can be rightly and comfortably concluded that treating an at-fault brother as a Gentile or a tax collector, if he refuses to listen to the correction of an individual, to a small gathering of brothers, or to the church, does not constitute a rejection of that brother.  Quite the contrary, in fact. 

If the example presented by Jesus is of any value to those that call themselves by His name, then there should be a re-doubling of efforts towards reconciliation and fellowship, as these are the people to whom Jesus is constantly addressing Himself.  The hand of fellowship and forgiveness should be extended indefinitely.  Yes, in this there is a potential risk of taking suffering, shame, loss, and humiliation upon oneself in an attempt to reconcile and restore a broken relationship, but in the end, is that not what the Creator God did for His people and His world through His Christ and the cross? 

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 6)

Though this passage does not include a messianic reference, what is found there is reminiscent of what was already seen in the eighth chapter, in Capernaum, when the centurion (a Gentile) came to Jesus saying “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible anguish” (Matthew 8:6).  Jesus responded with a simple “I will come and heal him” (8:7b).  This study’s initial recounting of that meeting did not go into great detail---a situation that shall now be rectified.  The centurion, who must have been pleased with Jesus’ response, replied to Him by saying “Lord, I am not worthy to have You come under my roof.  Instead, just say the word and my servant will be healed” (8:8).  Jesus is shown to be somewhat dumbstruck by the response.  In fact, Matthew’s report about Jesus is that “He was amazed” (8:10a).  He was so amazed that He said “I tell you the truth, I have not found such faith in anyone in Israel!” (8:10b) 

To that, in order to benefit His Jewish hearers and to make a point about the Creator God’s kingdom and its reach, Jesus adds a reference to the messianic banquet by saying “I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (8:11).  His hearers, along with those hearing the Matthew narrative, are clearly intended to make the inference that the kingdom of the Creator God is certainly not going to be restricted to Israel alone.  Punctuating the encounter, Jesus says “Go; just as you believed,” which is that Jesus could simply command the healing, “it will be done for you” (8:13b).  Matthew’s report, in demonstration of the in-breaking of the Creator’s kingdom through the very word of the Christ, is that “the servant was healed at that hour” (8:13c). 

Certainly, this story aids in setting a tone for the remainder of Matthew’s Gospel.  So when a later point in the story is reached, and the Canaanite (Gentile) woman, who clearly recognizes Jesus’ power to heal and to rectify the situation, can be heard to say “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David!  My daughter is horribly demon-possessed!’”, the reader would expect a response from Jesus that will be similar to that which was on display in His dealings with the centurion in Capernaum.  Strangely, this is not what is to be found there.  In fact, the author reports that “He did not answer her a word” (15:23a).  Beyond that, the disciples express a bit of irritation on their part, as they are reported to have begged Jesus to “Send her away, because she keeps on crying after us” (15:23b).  Quite obviously, this woman was persistent.  On her part, it seems to express a deep-seated faith in the power of Jesus to set things right. 

Jesus eventually relents and speaks.  Based on what has been presented to this point, and even though an observer could express a bit of surprise at His not responding to her at all (especially with the situation with the centurion in Capernaum in mind---as this Gospel narrative is presented as a dramatic story in a single sitting), one would be expecting Jesus to oblige this woman.  So it is natural for an observer, along with Matthew’s audience, to be a bit perplexed when He answers her by saying “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). 

In light of Jesus’ treatment of Gentiles to this point, this just does not seem to fit.  Though it appears to fit with His previous instruction to His disciples about not going to Gentile regions or any Samaritan town (10:5), it also appears to run counter to the words of His mouth and to His mode of operations.  Indeed, the very fact that He is standing in the region of Tyre and Sidon stands in fairly stark contrast to those previously given instructions. 

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 2)

Shortly after the statements of verses fifteen through seventeen, Jesus makes His famous and popular statement of “For where two or three are assembled in My name, I am there among them” (Matthew 18:20).  So many tend to revel in this statement, while also tending to forget that it is offered in the context of conflict and what appears to be discipline.  This discipline, it shall be seen, is not necessarily the discipline of the individual in question that is being brought before groups of brothers or before the church, but rather the teachings of Jesus that are meant to provide a disciplining effect for the covenant community---guiding their actions and behaviors. 

Along with this, one does well to recognize the fact that these words on offer by Jesus, as reported by Matthew and as placed in the structure of His narrative concerning Jesus, follows immediately from the parable of the lost sheep.  That parable presents a shepherd leaving ninety-nine sheep to go after just one that is lost, and closes with Jesus saying “In the same way, your Father in heaven is not willing that one of these little ones be lost” (18:14).  This statement must be kept in mind when Jesus is heard to say “treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.” 

At the same time, the reader is forced to come to grips with the fact that Jesus, after speaking about His presence in the midst of gathered ones, is reported to have conducted a conversation with Peter, who has asked about the necessity of multiple offerings of forgiveness.  Jesus effectively informs Peter that forgiveness must be limitless.  This demands to be understood within the narrative flow of the entirety of Matthew’s Gospel, as well as the flow of the section in which it is to be found (not to mention that seventy times seven, or 490, would have a strong connection to Daniel and the end of exile), so it can be asserted that it does have bearing on the way Jesus’ insistence in regards to treatment as a Gentile or tax collector is to be understood.   

The questions that must be asked are “What would this mean to Jesus’ audience?” and “What would this mean to Matthew’s audience?”  These are interesting, provocative, and interesting questions.  Jesus’ audience would not be unaware of His activities to that point.  They would have known who it was with which Jesus surrounded himself, and they would have known things that were thought and said about Jesus by both His supporters and His detractors.  In the case of Matthew’s audience, one must never lose sight of the fact that Matthew’s written narrative---apparently drawing from Mark, perhaps some unknown written collections of Jesus’ teaching, and a community-controlled oral tradition---would have been composed for a largely oral community, and would have been designed to be orally performed in a communal setting, presented from start to finish in a single sitting. 

So what would both Jesus’ and Matthew’s audience already know when it comes to their hearing of the words recorded in the eighteenth chapter, that would inform their comprehension of Jesus’ words about Gentiles and tax collectors?  In the fourth chapter, Matthew records Jesus’ re-location from Nazareth to Capernaum (in the region of Zebulun and Naphthali).  This is picked up on as a historical actualization of words from Isaiah, which read “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphthali, the way by the sea, beyond the Jordan, 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” (4:15-16).  Though it is not possible to come anywhere close to presuming that Jesus’ audiences would have made this connection, Matthew’s audience hears this reference to a light to the Gentiles very early on in the telling of the Jesus story. 

Love On John's Terms (part 18)

Something that must be noted as these efforts progress, is that once the scene of this Gospel shifts to Judea, it is a final shift.  There will be no more changes of scene or location until after Jesus’ Resurrection.  From the fourteenth verse of John’s seventh chapter, all the way until the beginning of the twenty-first chapter, Jesus is never to be found at too great a distance from Jerusalem.  This continuity in change of settings may carry with it some mild significance, as it relates to another repetitive message in John. 

Here in the seventh chapter, after a few more words from Jesus that served to prompt what are reported to be additional private exchanges amongst the Jewish leaders, Jesus is said to have “stood up and shouted” (7:37b).  It seems clear that the author wants to emphasize the words that are to follow, and any public performance of the written presentation of this theo-drama would quite naturally follow suit, with the reader also standing and shouting along with Jesus.  Jesus’ hearers, along with the audience of this Gospel story, hear “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink” (7:37c-38a). 

Where was this first heard?  Of course, Jesus was heard saying this to the Samaritan woman at the well.  His words there were “whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life” (4:14).  An approximation of these words are said to have fallen from Jesus’ lips after the feeding of the five thousand and His walking on water, when He said “The one who comes to Me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never go thirsty” (6:35b).  Now Jesus can be heard saying “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink.”  Interestingly, the first instance of such speech is in Samaria, whereas the second instance is in Galilee, and the third instance is in Jerusalem. 

Not to unnecessarily muddy the waters with a non-Johannine reference, but this is somewhat evocative of a statement that is recorded in the first chapter of Acts, in which Jesus says to His disciples “you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth” (1:8b).  In the case of Acts and quite significantly when it comes to understanding the nature of the kingdom of heaven come to earth through Jesus and those that claim allegiance to Him as King of all, Jesus directs His followers to an ever widening geographical circle to which they are to witness to the facts about Jesus and His Gospel.  In John, the order is somewhat reversed, in that Jesus presents what the author considers to be an extremely important aspect of His message first to Gentiles, and then in an area that is a mixture of Jew and Gentile (Galilee of the Gentiles is a Scriptural refrain), and then in the Temple itself, which would presumably be a message directed almost exclusively to Jews. 

So in the case of John’s presentation of Jesus, His ministry begins with a wide geographical circle that is narrowed down as He goes along (though this is not meant to imply any narrowing in the intended reach of His message).  This is yet another piece of information by which one can deduce the nature of the audience to which the Johannine writings are directed, and the way in which Christian love, rooted in the dissemination of the Gospel message, is to be expressed 

Love On John's Terms (part 17)

Moving along to the seventh chapter and to the next use of “miraculous signs” in this Gospel narrative, one finds “Whenever the Christ comes, he won’t perform more miraculous signs than this man did, will he?” (John 7:31b)  The immediate context is provided by “Yet many of the crowd believed in Him and said…” (7:31a)  So again, “miraculous signs” is linked with “belief.”   Thus one must again consider the overall movement of this presentation of Jesus, in that the Creator God’s love for the world (John 3:16) is bound up with belief in Jesus.

By this, additional credence is lent to the link between the repetitious appearance of “miraculous signs” here in John (the only Gospel where such are to be found, save one usage in Luke), and the obvious Johannine predilection towards love, clearly rooted in the covenant God’s love for the world, as the operative Christian ethic.  The words of the thirty-first verse also forces a consideration of the wider context of the statement, which are questions about Jesus’ identity as the messiah.  As an observer situates himself within the original and intended audience for the narrative, such is done with the pre-supposition that Jesus is the Messiah (the Christ), and the development of the Gospel presentation will be heard from that position.

Whereas Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand, His walking on water, and His discourse about Himself as the bread of life took place in Galilee, these words from the seventh chapter are lifted from His being situated in Jerusalem.  Presumably then, Jesus has a new audience, differing quite significantly from the audience that He has had in the region of Galilee.  The season of the year is the Feast of Tabernacles, which is one of the fall feasts of Judaism.  The setting is presented in the fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter, where the author writes “When the feast was half over, Jesus went up to the Temple courts and began to teach.” 

A back and forth between the Jewish leaders and Jesus stems from the commencement of the aforementioned teaching.  As should be expected by now, at least according to the structure at play, Jesus brings a reference to Moses into play.  Eventually, the back and forth leads to what is reported to be an open discussion on the part of the residents of Jerusalem as to whether or not Jesus could actually be the Christ (7:25-26), which also results in some words from Jesus that lead to an unsuccessful attempt seize Jesus. 

In all of the back and forth, and in all of the reports within this Gospel about what Jesus has done since venturing back into Judea and Jerusalem, the reader does not stumble upon anything that seems like it would prompt the people of Jerusalem to mention Jesus in the same breath as “miraculous signs.”  Nevertheless, this is the very thing that is reported to have taken place.  In fact, though it can be reasonably presumed that word of the large-scale feeding has made its way around the countryside, the only miraculous signs that Jesus has performed to this point in the Johannine narrative are the turning of water into wine in Cana and the healing of the royal official’s son in Capernaum. 

The latter two of those three, which could be supplemented by the walking on water, would not be prone to massive dissemination.  To this point, the only miraculous sign that Jesus has performed in Jerusalem itself is the healing of the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda.  In this Gospel story, the remainder of Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem so far, is confined to teaching and speaking about Himself.  There is little reason to wonder, then, that the story demonstrates that there is not an outright acceptance of Jesus’ claims about Himself.  At the same time, one is left to wonder at the paucity of miraculous occurrences to be found in the very Gospel that is loaded with references to miraculous signs.  However, one must never forget the over-arching/underlying context of love and the love of the Creator God for the world as it is being expressed through Jesus, that seems to inform every aspect of this presentation of the life of Jesus.

Love On John's Terms (part 8)

Returning to the well in Samaria and to the unusual event there recorded, Jesus can be heard speaking to the aforementioned Samaritan woman and saying “Give me some water to drink” (John 4:7b).  The startling impact that this would have had upon the Samaritan woman should not be underestimated.  It is likely that she would have been completely taken aback by the fact of this Jewish man speaking to her. 

Unless an audience was familiar with the story of Jesus, and presumably John is initially composed and performed for a community or communities that were familiar with the Jesus story, this could be a bit surprising to a listener, especially if the one hearing or ready the story was from one of the Jewish communities of the diaspora.  Of course, the author provides a clue that this Gospel is composed for a mixed audience, as the author is compelled to include the fact that “Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans” (4:9c), which comes on the heels of this woman, startled by the very fact of speaking and the request that it contained, says “How can you---a Jew---ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water to drink” (4:9b).      

Jesus, undeterred by the violation of cultural norms which are also put on display with the report of His disciples’ return and the fact that they were “shocked because He was speaking with a woman” (4:27b), engages in a rather in depth conversation with the Samaritan woman.  Not only is he speaking with a woman, and not only is He speaking with a Samaritan woman, but He is effectively engaging in a conversation that takes the shape of a rabbinic debate---which has great significance in and of itself, as a rabbinic debate would only take place among and between social equals (perhaps not equal in level of honor, but equal in that both sides were able to engage in the social honor competition, which was inaccessible for women in that day).  Of course, things like this simply do not happen.  In that day, women were not considered at all worthy to be involved in such things (honor competition or rabbinic debate), but here, Jesus elevates this woman to the status of social equal. 

The encounter begins with a request for water, and then moves to a conclusion in which Jesus utters words that would appear to be confirmation of His messianic status, with this following what should be recognized as a fascinating give and take.  Most often, the focus of the story becomes the content of the conversation---the questions of the woman, the responses from Jesus, her responses to His words, and the woman’s present marital status.  These are legitimate things on which to focus, but they can also create a situation in which one misses seeing the forest because of the time spent looking at all of the trees.   

With the conversation and its content, not only is Jesus doing cross-cultural ministry, but it must be reiterated that Jesus is elevating this woman.  In this conversation, which is reported by the author of John for in obvious accord with his narrative and wider purpose, Jesus flattens out the social dynamics.  This should prompt a reflection on the developed and developing theological tradition within the church that operated on the basis that there was neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.  Is this not love at work?  Is this not an advance illustration, at least as far as the presentation of the narrative is concerned, of the power of the Gospel. 

Corinth's Communion (part 24)

Having persuaded this church to recognize the facts that they have allowed distinctions and divisions to creep in and become established, with this critique extended to the entirety of the church, as all (whether perceived as being high or low within the church ) would have to tacitly agree to participate in such arrangements, Paul promptly dissuades them from any sense that this is appropriate by delivering the words “But you should be eager for the greater gifts” (1 Corinthians 12:31a).  By making reference to the “greater gifts,” Paul has diminished all of the things about which they are boasting and are using in their spiritual honor competition and associated hierarchical arrangements based on their spiritual gifts (some of which, such as speaking in tongues, were prevalent in society at large before the advent of the church, and thus already had certain types of honor attached to their performance as part of a group). 

Before continuing on to what comes next, a reminder  to maintain the proper mindset must be observed, if one wants to be able to properly discern Paul’s message and his intent.  Yes, presuming and surmising is taking place in this study, and such things are being done in hope of being able to make educated guesses in the process.  A failure to grasp details can result in missing out on major points.  However, by attempting to become immersed in the culture, and attempting to become situated within a church community of first century hearers in the city of Corinth that is a part of and is shaped by the Greco-Roman world, rather than as private twenty-first century readers that occupy a world that is, for the most part, vastly different from the world occupied by Jesus, Paul, and the members of the Corinthian church, offers a greater chance of success in determining the problem, the message, and Paul’s intentions associated with the delivery of the message that his letter to this church communicates. 

It is upon this declaration concerning the “greater gifts,” which followed his rhetorically purposeful diminishing of the “spiritual gifts” that were prized by the congregation and being used for inappropriate stratification and spiritual honor competition, that Paul enters into what is thought of as his great soliloquy upon love.  While beautiful in and of itself, it cannot and should not be considered apart from what comes before and after, or apart from a consideration of Paul’s somewhat contentious communication to this church.  When Paul insists that “Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious” (13:4a), it is incumbent upon an observer to hear these words as would Paul’s original hearers. 

If this is accomplished, it is done with a knowledge that most believers are missing the mark in the exercise of spiritual gifts, and that what is referred to as love is actually nothing more than individual and selfish pursuit of honor and its attendant of a better position at the table, that all may bask in the performer’s glorious spirituality and ultimately come into submission to a hard-earned spiritual authority.  Re-calling attention to the possibility that this is being read at the symposium portion of the meal that would have been this church’s regular time and mode of gathering in that time and place, Paul goes on to write “Love does not brag, it is not puffed up.  It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful” (13:5).  This statement would have come as a stark contrast to Paul’s words of chapters eleven and twelve, through which the congregation would have been forced to recognize their rude and self-serving behavior.  

When one hears the words of the “chapter of love,” they are heard according to the tone of the letter as a whole.  There is much instruction taking place throughout the letter, and much of the instruction is in the form of correction.  The correction, of course, implies that there are problems that need to be corrected, indicating a need to alter an existing course of action or accepted situation.  So as Paul writes about the nature of love, which must be tied to the correction that is on offer from him, he is not simply espousing a set of free-floating ideals to be met, or thinking of words that will eventually come to be read at weddings (though there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with this), but pointing out to his audience where it is that they are falling short of the ideal that is tied to their all-important and paramount confession of Jesus as Lord. 

Corinth's Communion (part 13)

It is extremely valuable to remember and to reiterate that Paul’s letters, though thoroughly dissected and broken into smaller pieces, with theological, ecclesiastical, soteriological, and Christological premises drawn from fragments that are really not meant to be fragments at all, are intended to be viewed as a whole.  Things written and dealt with early in the letters will tend to have a bearing on what comes later, and ideas and issues presented later in the letters will generally spring from a foundation laid earlier in the letter. 

One must take all necessary precautions to avoid isolating passages and interpreting passages in isolation, without taking great pains to provide a contextual construct before doing so, especially if doing so fails to take into account the necessary historical considerations (social, political, cultural, economic, linguistic, religious, etc…).  So in proposing what appears to be a rather novel idea (to the modern observer---not so much to the original audience) of considering “the body” of verse twenty-nine of chapter eleven as a reference to the church rather than to the bread, it is possible to recognize what Paul has done earlier in the letter.     

In the sixth chapter, Paul offers a glimpse of what it is that he just might be getting at in the eleventh chapter.  There, in the midst of exhortations that are focused on the way the community of the church should ideally function (6:1-8), reflections on a primary focus of Jesus’ ministry by some always important mentions of the kingdom of God (6:8,10), and then a short digression on food, Paul writes about “the body.”  With a stunning demonstration of linguistic creativity and dexterity, Paul weaves an elaborate web of individualism and community, doing so in the context of the proper behavior of believers functioning as part of the church, as its members live and act within the world as representatives of the kingdom of Creator God. 

He writes: “The body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.  Now God indeed raise the Lord and He will raise us by His power” (6:13b-14).  Here, though there is a tendency to make a merely personal application of the words concerning the body and sexual immorality, and though there is, without a doubt, a personal ethical and moral dimension to the statement, one should not dwell on the individual application to the exclusion of the corporate vision, as Paul goes on to speak about the Lord raising “us.”  With that mindset created, it is not at all difficult (though one may not yet understand how or why) to hear a reference to the body of believers in that thirteenth verse.  Continuing on in that stream of thought, Paul writes “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” (6:15)  Here, some translations of the passage will complete what appears to be implied in the statement, reading “members of Christ’s body,” thus continuing to intertwine the personal with the communal, as this intertwining hangs upon the ever-present thread of the presence of the kingdom of Creator God. 

Building on the question that begins the fifteenth verse, Paul goes on to ask “Should I take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute?  Never!” (6:15b)  In all honesty, this seems like a strange turn, unless, that is, the larger movement of Paul’s letter is kept in mind, along with the fact that this letter from Paul was designed to be read to the gathered community, who may have been able to look around at each other and at themselves in such a way as to cause the full and stinging weight of the Apostle’s words to come crashing down upon them.  Presumably, this is what Paul may have expected. 

Corinth's Communion (part 12)

Paul first writes concerning the bread, reporting the words of Jesus that “This is My body, which is for you” (11:24).  He does this after first mentioning that Jesus had taken bread, given thanks, and broke the bread (11:24).  Then he goes on to indicate that “every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (11:26).  Continuing on to what would eventually be designed as the twenty-seventh verse of the chapter (it’s worth pointing out every once in a while that there were no chapter and verse divisions in the original letter, which serves as a reminder that the letter asks to be read as a letter, in a sing sitting), Paul again speaks of bread, with the verse closing out with “the body and blood of the Lord” (11:28b).  This calls attention to and reaffirms the symbolic nature of the bread, as it stands in for the body of Jesus.  In the twenty-ninth verse, Paul writes “the one who eats and drinks,” omitting but clearly implying the bread and the cup, “without careful regard for the body eats and drinks (the bread and the cup again implied though omitted) judgment against himself” (11:29). 

Changing gears a bit, the insistence that follows, in which Paul reasons “that is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead” (11:30), along with “if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged” (11:31), “but when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world” (11:32), the address to “my brothers and sisters” (11:33a), and the final addition of “when you come together to eat, wait for one another” (11:33b), seems to indicate a change of focus.  Paul is, it would appear, speaking to the group again. 

Taking that into consideration, a re-reading of the twenty-ninth verse, in which Paul makes two implicit references to the bread and the cup while also mentioning “the body,” should arouse some curiosity.  To which body is Paul referring?  Is he here using “body” in the same way that he used it in the twenty-fourth and twenty-eighth verses?  If so, why the multiple implied references to the bread and the cup in verse twenty-nine, with a sudden shift to the body, if “body” here is to be taken as yet another reference to the bread? 

The Greek word that is in usage has a minor variation, sharing the same root, so it is incumbent upon the hearer to tease out the subtle shift that has taken place in this verse.  It is unlikely that the original audience, immersed in the situation that is being addressed, would have missed out on this shift.  Paul’s use of “body” here has been shifted away from a reference to the bread of the communion table, and has been re-directed and used in reference to the body of believers---the church to which Paul writes.  This causes the usage to fit well with the words that began to be directed to the group, as Paul confers his attention upon the congregational body. 

At first glance, this seems like a strange conclusion, but when the larger context (the whole of the letter) into which the treatment of the subject fits is reconsidered, and when one listens to the letter in a single sitting, with those problems within the church as a whole top of mind, then what seems like a strange conclusion becomes not so strange at all.  When considering the genius in what he is doing, never forget that Paul is a thoroughly trained and gifted rhetorician.  He is highly skilled in argumentation.  He is quite capable of building a case for his teachings through a sustained narrative in which pieces function as essential building blocks.  His letter to the Romans is probably the finest example of these studiously acquired skills.  Just as Israel identified itself according to its own historical narrative, and just as Jesus saw and fit Himself within that narrative of the Creator God’s redemptive plan for the restoration of His good creation, Paul goes to great lengths to provide the recipients of his letters with a narrative structure that will aid in their coming to terms with that which he is attempting to communicate.