Acts, Jealousy & Honor (part 5 of 5)

Peter has no qualms about making reference to the presumed shameful cursing undergone by Jesus because of the honor that came to be bestowed upon Him, which is indicated by what comes next, which is that “God exalted Him to His right hand as Leader and Savior” (Acts 5:31a).  These terms, “Leader” and “Savior,” were terms applied to Caesar, with this serving as yet another reminder that these leaders of the people that were currently addressing the disciples of the Christ had colluded with the Roman authorities, even going so far as (at least according to portions of the Jesus tradition) to have claimed that to not execute Jesus as a traitor was itself an act of treason against Caesar, while simultaneously stirring up the crowds to claim that they had no king but Caesar.  Cunningly and boldly, Peter co-opts these titles and applies them to Jesus.

Having been reminded of their guilt, “they became furious and wanted to execute them” (5:33b), but a man named Gamaliel interjected, reminding the council of previous instances of revolutionary activities (which serves as a reminder that the Jesus movement was more than just a religious movement, and that it encompassed all of life---social, political, economic, etc…) that had sparked, flamed, and burnt out in time.  With a wider scope of vision suggested, Gamaliel insists that “in this case… stay away from these men and leave them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking originates with people, it will come to nothing, but if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them, or you may even be found fighting against God” (5:38-39a).  It is said that by these words, “He convinced them” (5:39b). 

The disciples, having been temporarily removed from the presence of the council during the course of deliberations, were then re-summoned.  Though the members of the council been convinced to not fight against the disciples, they were still concerned about their public honor and its associated power.  Always mindful of that, and seeking to rob the disciples of any honor that may have accrued to them, while simultaneously attempting to shame them further, they “had them beaten” (5:40b). 

Beyond that, and desirous of protecting their own public reputations, “they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and released them” (5:40c).  The disciples, who were no longer concerned with their own honor or shame, being concerned only with increasing the public honor of Jesus through embracing what was supposed to have been the source of greatest shame---His crucifixion (especially at the expense of those who had attempted to shame Him and who were still attempting to shame Him), “left the council rejoicing because,” like Jesus and His cross, “they had been considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name” (5:41). 

In complete disregard of the council, attending only to gaining Jesus the honor that was due to him, and completely unconcerned with the jealousy of those that sought to preserve their own honor and power, “every day both in the Temple courts,” which had been the place of their arrest and of Jesus’ most significant public activity, “and from house to house, they did not stop teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus was the Christ” (5:42).    

Why Scripture? (part 1)

…useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16b-17  (NET)

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments exist for the purpose of representing the Creator God to His covenant people.  Though there is a tendency to look to Scripture to grab a verse or a story in order to find an application to a situation in which one may find himself, doing so may be a matter of getting things out of order.  The traditions of the covenant people of the Creator God, the prophetic utterances, the wisdom literature, and the theologizing about the meaning of the Resurrection that helped to shape the church community in the years following the Christ-event, do not exist primarily to serve man and to inform man how to live; but rather, they exist primarily to reveal the covenant God, and in that revealing, to cause His people to take steps to bring Him glory. 

This revelation for the purpose of knowing the Creator God is given so that those who are supposed to bear His image might be able to do so rightly.  This, of course, is why believers undertake and so highly value theology, for one cannot serve the Creator God, with a knowledge of His purposes, if He is not known primarily as revealed through that which is recorded in the book to which is ascribed the influence and inspiration of His life-giving Spirit. 

Believers do not approach the Scriptures so as to first learn about themselves, to gain encouragement for themselves, or to find out what the Creator God has in store for them.  All of these things take place as secondary results.  The believer approaches the Scriptures in order to learn about the covenant God.  Because humans are made in His image, it is in learning about the covenant God that they are able to learn about themselves.  This is encouraging because it is possible to learn that the Creator God has a purpose for His image-bearers, and the Scriptures provide believers with the hope that He is at work, quite faithfully, to bring about those purposes in his image-bearers, for His image-bearers, and through His image-bearers. 

If one was ever take a moment to consider why it is that believers gather together as Christians, in what is referred to as “church” or “worship” services, it is in this realization that the answer is to be found.  The author of the letter to the Hebrews is adamant about the regular gathering together of those that call Jesus Lord, as he writes “And let us take thought of how to spur one another on to love and good works, not abandoning our own meetings…encouraging each other” (10:24-25a). 

When looked at on the surface and from the outside, by those that do not yet call Jesus Lord, one would have to be compelled to admit that these regular (predominantly Sunday) gatherings as individual bodies in representation of the reality of the existing and coming kingdom of the Creator God, is quite the peculiar practice.  Naturally, it is as peculiar as the very message upon which the church is built, which is that of an eminently shameful and ghastly crucifixion, the extraordinarily ridiculous notion of a man’s resurrection from the dead, and the somewhat ludicrous idea that those two things, taken together and then punctuated by an ascension, prove that the crucified man was the very embodiment of the Creator God and is the sovereign and ruling Lord of all in a kingdom that has been inaugurated on earth and awaits its final consummation in the coming together of the Creator God’s realm of existence (heaven) and man’s realm of existence (earth). 

Seeing God (part 2)

Jesus continues on to say “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.  Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.  Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied” (5:4-6).  His use of “righteousness” helps to mark a transition.  “Righteousness” is best understood as “covenant faithfulness.”  This, of course, is what the Creator God has always expected from His people---faithfulness to their covenant responsibilities to represent Him and to be a light to the nations for the purpose of His glory.  Understandably then, almost immediately after finishing His “outline,” Jesus reminds those that want to participate in the kingdom of heaven (come to earth) that they are to be “the light of the world” (5:14a).   

Though this should not be done too often (as it is paramount to let the Gospel narratives speak for themselves, as they are informed by the history of Israel and the implications of Jesus’ Resurrection), when considering the idea that “righteousness” is to be equated with “covenant faithfulness,” it is useful to look to one of Paul’s letters.  Naturally, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that Paul’s theological outworking of the meaning behind the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus had a role in shaping the theology that stands behind Matthew and the other Gospels, and therefore also played a part in giving shape to the narrative form that would be taken by the Gospels.  Additionally, looking to Paul, while also looking back into the history of Israel, one can get a sense of the thinking in the time of Jesus concerning this important subject. 

In his second letter to the Corinthian church, Paul insists that at least one of the purposes of the covenant God’s redeeming activity is that “in Him,” that being Jesus (“in Him” as a shorthand way of saying that it is through calling Jesus Lord, in a pledged oath of loyalty, that all are enabled to enter into the grouping of the Creator God’s covenant people), “we would become the righteousness of God” (5:21b). 

In short then, Paul says that the Creator God desires that His people be the ones to carry out that which represents His covenant faithfulness, as “ambassadors,” with “God making His plea through us” (5:20), having given over to His covenant bearers (obviously, through the working of the Holy Spirit), His “ministry of reconciliation” (5:18)---the covenant God’s reconciling His people and His divine image-bearers to Himself as part of His redemptive plan for His world that Paul refers to as “new creation” (5:17).  This happens, of course, because “the love of Christ,” which was demonstrated by His willing and self-sacrificial death, and by which He gave proof to the conviction behind His kingdom plans and principles, and which believers should seek to imitate in principle if not in form, “controls us” (5:14a). 

Returning to Matthew then, and considering Jesus’ introduction of “righteousness” or “covenant faithfulness” into the sermon, one can see that Jesus proceeds to give at least a partial summary of the form that will be taken by that execution of righteousness (covenant faithfulness).  Jesus says “Blessed are the merciful…  Blessed are the pure in heart…  Blessed are the peacemakers” (5:7a,8a,9a).  Those that demonstrate these characteristics will “be shown mercy… will see God… will be called the children of God” (5:7b,8b,9b). 

Amazingly enough, however, Jesus indicates that those that live in such ways, rather than being universally praised and lauded for their fine demonstration of their alignment and agreement with the principles of the kingdom of heaven, will be “persecuted for righteousness” (5:10a)---persecuted for the way that they demonstrate their faithfulness to the covenant and the way that they insist upon people entering into the covenant.  In fact, those that insist upon this way of bringing in, establishing, and expanding the Creator God’s kingdom will have an altogether unexpected experience, as they will be insulted and persecuted, whilst people speak evil of them on account of their loyalty to Jesus. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 35)

This line of thinking becomes especially poignant when one considers that Jesus’ dealings with and in the Temple are a central feature of the Gospel accounts, and that all three make it more than clear that it is this ongoing clash with the Temple authorities, culminating in Jesus’ enacted judgment (in the mold of Jeremiah) against the Temple that ultimately resulted in the collusion with the Roman authorities that was productive of His death by crucifixion. 

While this can be said, it is more than possible that Mark did in fact write His Gospel before the Temple had come to its end, as is often posited.  Mark’s Gospel lacks the embellishments (in the sense of a more rounded-out presentation) on Jesus’ life that are to be found in Matthew and Luke, with this lack of embellishment being quite understandable.  If Mark writes before the Temple’s fall, whereas Matthew and Luke write after the fall and because of that fall, then it is understandable that Mark’s account would be more direct and straightforward, lacking the material details and stories to be found in the narratives on offer in Matthew and Luke.  Understandably, composing their accounts of Jesus in a post-Temple-fall world, Matthew and Luke could be far more comfortable relating more of Jesus’ life story, as preserved and transmitted via the oral tradition. 

Together with these important realizations, if one also holds to the idea that the early church, having rightly comprehended what Jesus meant by His fall-of-the-Temple-focused discourse (as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21), tightly connected the fall of the Temple with the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days in order to receive His kingdom, then the heavy inclusion of all of the Son of Man language throughout the Gospels makes even greater sense.  While this study will not take the time to offer an in-depth review of all of the mentions of the Son of Man, it is worth taking a bit of time to review and to draw out some conclusions and inferences that would have been obvious to Jesus’ original audience. 

In a superficial review, one cannot help but notice that John has the fewest uses of “Son of Man.”  Mark clocks in with the next fewest, while both Matthew and Luke are replete with its usage (Luke nearly doubling Mark’s count, while Matthew more than doubles Mark’s usage).  While John obviously pursues its agenda on a different path than do the synoptics, Mark’s relative restraint in using the term is understandable if it is, in fact, cautiously and expectantly composed before the fall of the Temple.  If Jesus presents Himself as the Danielic Son of Man, while tying the expected reign of the Son of Man to the fall of the Temple, it would not be odd to see a pre-Temple-fall composition being a bit more judicious in the use of the term.  If both Matthew and Luke are composed and disseminated post-Temple-fall, then all things considered, it would make far more sense to include far more Son of Man language. 

Of course, one does not simply assert that a lack of details in indicative of a pre-fall composition, as Mark could certainly have been just as precise and non-verbose, as opposed to his evangelistic counterparts, while writing after the Temple’s fall.  Once a position has been achieved in which it possible to correctly and contextually hear Jesus’ Son of Man language within His crystal clear, prophetical, and predictive speech about the coming fall of the Temple, doing so in the light of Daniel’s seventh chapter, it would be a tremendous dis-service to fail to reflect on a few of its appearances prior to the Temple speech in which Jesus connects the Temple’s fall with the Son of Man’s arrival and kingdom acquisition.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 29)

This makes a great deal of sense.  Jesus was painting Himself into a corner, relying on Israel’s prophetic tradition and demanding that He be judged in the same way that all prophets were judged---based on the verifiability of their predictions.  In His actions in the Temple, Jesus presents Himself in the mold of Jeremiah, and does so by making reference to His very words.  Had his words of the Creator God’s judgment against the Temple not come to pass, Jeremiah would have lambasted as a false prophet and held up to scorn rather than honor. 

However, Jeremiah’s words did come to pass, the Temple fell, and even though His words were not exactly grand proclamations for Israel, he is held up as a great prophet of Israel (a prophet being one who calls corrupt powers to account, not necessarily one who makes predictions about the future).  The same standard would have applied of Jesus.  Would anybody listen to Him, or have any use for Him, if the singular distant prediction that He made, which was well understood to be a prediction about the demise of the Temple within the lifetimes of many of His hearers, did not occur?  One would think that the answer to that question would be in the negative. 

Certainly, the Resurrection was and is vital as a witness to Jesus.  However, those that witnessed and interacted with the risen Jesus following His Resurrection were limited in number.  Accordingly, skepticism towards such a claim would be natural and completely understandable, as people simply did not come back to life, especially after undergoing a Roman crucifixion.  While Jesus obviously staked a great deal of validation on His Resurrection, He also appears to have staked a great deal on the fall of the Temple as well (and His biographers seem to have staked much on this claim as well).  

If Jesus staked much on this claim, then His church could do no less.  Not only did He claim that the Temple would fall, but perhaps more importantly, as it concerns the church that would follow Him, He claimed that when the Temple fell, He, as the Son of Man, would go (or have gone) before the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom, power, and authority (or this event would be confirmation that this had in fact already occurred).  Is this not important? 

Now, to get a taste of where this idea might be headed, it could be said that one gets a sense of this way of thinking in the first chapter of Romans, as Paul declares that Jesus “was appointed Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the Resurrection from the dead” (1:4a).  The letter to the Romans, of course, was written between the Resurrection of Jesus and the fall of the Temple.  If the early Christians knew that Jesus had staked His claim on the fall of the Temple, explicitly linking its fall with His receiving of His kingdom, then one can easily hear this as Paul speaking about this appointment as an appointment-in-waiting, expecting the validation to come.  One can also imagine Him being quite confident that the validation would come, especially considering the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to Paul, which was the basis for Paul’s dramatic transformation from persecutor of the church to its chief proponent and the originator of Christian theology/philosophy, and the complete re-orientation of his life around the claims of Jesus.

It is quite likely that, as the message of Jesus went forth, and as the church presented itself, through and in union with their risen Lord, as the new Temple, that Jesus’ words about the fall of the Temple that was to take place relatively soon had an important place in talk of Him.  Why would this not be the case?  Indeed, it would be odd if this was not the situation at hand.  Why can such a thing be said?  Well, one would have to consider the question in accordance with the fact that the issue of Jesus, as Messiah, was a primarily a Jewish issue. 

Salvation for the world was to be through the Jews, and any proper understanding of the role of the Messiah cannot be divorced from the history of Israel and the Creator God’s role for His chosen people.  Why would the Jews, especially, whose lives were oriented around the Temple, shift their allegiance from the Temple (and therefore the God represented by the Temple) to Jesus?  It is a legitimate question.  If they had the Temple, then why would they need to seek their God in some other place or person?  It was the lack of the Temple, during the period of the Babylonian exile, that forced the Creator God’s people to seek Him.   

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.

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. 

Love On John's Terms (part 27)

The author of John provides an excellent example of the necessity of hearing the story as a whole in what follows from the presentation of Jesus as the good shepherd.  In the twenty-second verse of the chapter, there is a change of scenery in Jerusalem, as the author writes “Then came the feast of the Dedication in Jerusalem.  It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the Temple area in Solomon’s portico” (John 10:22-23).  Clearly, this represents a substantial shift in timing, because all that has been heard from the seventh chapter up to this point has occurred in conjunction with the Feast of Tabernacles, which does not take place in the winter. 

The temptation, then, is to pick up right here with these verses and treat this story separately.  To do so would be foolish, as when Jesus is heard to say “My sheep listen to My voice and I know them, and they follow Me.  I give them eternal life, and they will never perish” (10:27-28a), it can only be heard correctly in the context provided by all that has come before in the narrative, which is also dependent on a knowledge of Israel’s history along with then current understanding of Jewish hopes that would have informed Jesus’ use of eternal life (otherwise, Jesus could not expect to be understood).  As stated, the narrative continues to build, demanding to be heard as a whole. 

Again, the concepts as presented, and especially ideas concerning what is meant by love, demand to be heard on their own terms.  So to understand John’s notion of love, which is prefaced by the description of the way that the Creator God loved the world, and to do so without retrojecting preconceived notions about its definition, it is entirely necessary to take this step by step journey through the Johannine text, so as to come to grips with this author’s theology and its accompaniments (Christology, soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc…) that will define the ethic. 

A fair amount of space in this study has been spent on the issue of “miraculous signs” in this Gospel, with nine such appearances in the text having already been reviewed.  The phrase has not been encountered since the seventh chapter, but it reappears at the close of the tenth chapter, where the author reports that “Many came to Him and began to say, ‘John performed no miraculous sign, but everything John said about this man was true!’  And many believed in Jesus there” (10:41-42).  This is prefaced by a reference to the fact that “Jesus,” following his time spent specifically in Jerusalem, where He has His dealings in the time periods of the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication, “went back across the Jordan River again to the place where John had been baptizing at an earlier time and He stayed there” (10:40).  This mention of John at the close of the tenth chapter is mildly intriguing, as it obviously calls attention to the words and work of John the Baptist.  It takes the step of re-identifying Jesus with John and the exodus-themed movement that John had begun at a place not terribly distant from Jerusalem. 

By making mention that it was being said that “John performed no miraculous sign,” it seems that the author wants to hang a substantial amount of weight on the miraculous signs performed by Jesus, as reported in his Gospel.  It would appear to be the case that the miraculous signs are what, in the author’s mind, set Jesus apart from all those that had come before Him.  With the Resurrection from the dead following His crucifixion being the ultimate miraculous sign, it could be said that the church was fully agreed that Jesus was quite unique.  

Love On John's Terms (part 24)

As it relates to Jesus, the scattering of the sheep under the false shepherd can be understood as another reference to the words of Zechariah (13:7), while also serving to make the point that Jesus, though with the path that He was traveling, certainly had an inkling as to what was in store for Him in His pending crucifixion, was not going to flee from the wolf (the Romans and their cross) and leave His sheep unguarded.  No, He was going to be the shepherd that cared for His sheep, faithfully seeing His role through to the very end for their salvation and life in His kingdom.  Driving this point home, He reiterates that He is “the good shepherd” (John 10:14a), and says “I lay down My life for the sheep” (10:15b).     

Expanding upon this thought in a way that plays into the sensibilities towards Gentiles that have been created throughout the Johannine narrative, and doing so in a way that would have been readily identifiable by the respective audiences (that of both Jesus and John), Jesus says “I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold.  I must bring them too, and they will listen to My voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd” (10:16).  Without spending too much additional time with this story or attempting to unpack the final words of Jesus, it is abundantly clear that it is the willful laying down of His life, especially in a way that is quite contrary to what would be expected of a presumed Messiah that is ushering in the kingdom of the Creator God, that is to be taken as a supreme manifestation of love.  This, among other things of course, is what sets Jesus apart from previous messianic claimants. 

Now this is not to say that previous messianic claimants did not act out of a love for the covenant God and His people, but it does indicate that there was a limiting factor with which Jesus does away, in that His love and His willingness to lay down His life due to that love was not limited to Israel.  This would speak quite loudly to Jesus’ audience and to John’s community, while also speaking quite loudly (when its context and referents are well understood) to all that would come to encounter this love-rooted narrative.  For the Johannine writings, which reflect the ongoing understanding of Jesus amongst the growing and persecuted Christian community, the fact that Jesus is believed to be the Creator God-manifest, and that He is willing to lay down His life for His sheep (encompassing all nations) in a humble self-sacrifice that would brand Him with unspeakable shame in an honor and shame culture, speaks untold volumes about that which is expected from those that strive to rightly bear the image of the Creator God. 

With that understood, and before offering up a change of scenery within Jerusalem, the Johannine audience finds itself ushered out of this story with “Another sharp division took place among the Jewish people because of these words” (10:19).  “These words” were, presumably, His words about sheep, sheepfolds, laying down His life, and His taking that life back up again (10:17-18), along with His speaking about “the Father” (10:17) being “My Father” (10:18).  Not only had Jesus effectively castigated many of the revolutionaries that had come before Him, who were often looked upon as heroic champions of the Jewish people (which presents its own set of problems for Him), the “Father” language that He was employing could have been quite troubling for His hearers. 

Though those that hear this Gospel tale are not going to be troubled by such usage, they would have more than well-understood the reaction recorded within the story, which had “Many of them saying, ‘He is possessed by a demon and has lost his mind!  Why do you listen to him?’” (10:20)  Naturally, this response was not universal, as “Others said, ‘These are not the words of someone possessed by a demon.  A demon cannot cause the blind to see, can it?’” (10:21)  This last statement stands as a reminder of the larger movement (the healing of the man blind from birth) in which the author presents this discourse in which Jesus casts Himself as the good shepherd.  

Love On John's Terms (part 23)

As Jesus speaks in a way in which He appears to present Himself as the Messiah that came to do the will of His Father, He said “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10b).  When Jesus speaks of this giving of life in abundance, is that gift to be thought of as being directed to Israel?  Naturally, that answer is yes.  However, the giving of life abundant cannot be disconnected from the statements about the stealing, killing, and destroying that had been employed by the thieves and robbers that had come before Him (and after Him, as was likely to have been quite well known to John’s audience). 

It must be understood that Jesus is also offering that gift of life abundant to the Gentiles that were then in possession of the land---the gift of the blessings of the covenant God of Israel---in His establishment of the kingdom of God.  This would have been contrary to a good portion of the then-current ways of thinking by a large percentage of the populace.  Quite a significant number of the people wanted their Messiah to steal from and kill and destroy the oppressors (those would not necessarily have been considered stealing, but liberation), but Jesus intended the opposite, desiring to establish the kingdom through acts that were the extension of the love of the Creator for His world.  Yes, Jesus intended that the hated Romans and all Gentile nations were to have the blessings of abundant life as well.  This was a component of the love of the Creator God that was first referenced in the third chapter (3:16), put into action for the world.      

Making what would then seem to be a point about the nature of His kingdom and His role as Israel’s Messiah, Jesus adds to this and says “I am the good shepherd” (10:11a).  This use of “good shepherd,” owing to its usage in the Hebrew Scriptures (the book of Zechariah most especially), as well as being something of a reference to Moses (the prophet that was to come into the world and Isreal’s great shepherd), was another way of speaking about the Messiah.  In this capacity Jesus says “The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (10:11b).  In its utterance (and quite obviously in retrospect), this was designed to begin preparing the covenant people for the fact that their Messiah was going to be killed at the hands of the very ones that so many of the people thought He would forcefully overthrow, which also answered the criticisms of those that stood opposed to the ongoing Jesus movement post-crucifixion and Resurrection, who would have pointed to the fact that Jesus had been crucified by the Romans and therefore could not possibly have been the Messiah. 

It had always been the case that when a potential messiah arose to do battle against the enemies of the Creator God’s people, the evidence that the person in question was obviously not the messiah was his eventual death at the hands of those same enemies.  Execution or death at arms was the clear signal of another failed messiah, but this was not going be the case for Jesus.  This pattern of potential revolution leading to death and destruction had been repeated numerous times both before and after Jesus, so these words of Jesus not only take on a prophetic role when directed to His hearers, but also an apologetic role when constructed in this way for the community as they learned to tell the story of Jesus.   

Elaborating on this thought, Jesus presents a short analogy in reference to would-be messiahs that had risen before Him (thieves and robbers), saying “He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.  He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep” (10:12-13).  How many men before Him had risen up to lead the people in revolution?  How many, when the pressure came and death threatened, ran away, leaving those whom he had previously led to suffer gruesome deaths?  

Proclaim The Lord's Death (part 2 of 2)

In the second chapter of the first letter to the Corinthian congregation, Paul reports that he “decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (2:2), while also mentioning that if the rulers of the age truly understood the message of Jesus, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (2:8b).  Though thoughts of the resurrected Christ naturally permeate the entire background of the letter, as there would be no church apart from a resurrected Messiah, and though there is a reference to the raising of Jesus in the fourteenth verse of the sixth chapter, the movement of this letter suggests Paul’s desire that the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) be closely (and foolishly, as he will point out) associated with the crucifixion, and therefore the cross.

Why should this be the case?  Why is it that Paul apparently believes that it is the crucifixion, rather than the Resurrection, that should be the locus of attention and proclamation when the church comes together to take up the bread and the cup (share an egalitarian meal)?  Is it because the cross, rather than being looked upon as a thing of beauty and as an object of grace, was considered to be the lowest place of ultimate suffering and complete shame?  Might this be a reflection on the traditions then in circulation in which Jesus is understood to have instructed His disciples to take up their cross and follow Him---willfully going to the places of suffering and shame, because Jesus is Lord, as the means by which the kingdom of the Creator God is made manifest, established, and advanced? 

Putting aside the fact that it was rather obvious that there were individuals in the church at Corinth that needed to be reminded of the willingness to endure suffering and shame that is demanded of those that proclaim loyalty to Jesus, which is made clear by the language that precedes Paul’s recitation of the tradition of the Lord’s Supper, the focus on the death of the Christ situates those who sit together at the meal table at the foot of the cross, as they are become identified with their crucified Lord, and are branded as He was, as foolish and shameful---as failures according to the way the world has always looked at such things.

What will it mean to be identified with a crucified Christ?  As the new age, signaled by the Resurrection, looms large in the background, what will it mean to truly proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes?  Paul provides his hearers with a guide in the fourth chapter of the letter.  As the believer listens and considers the communion in which he or she gratefully participate, this guide is indelibly stamped by Jesus’ crucifixion as Paul writes “For, I think God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, as men condemned to die, because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to people. We are fools for Christ… We are weak… we are dishonored!  To the present hour we are hungry and thirsty, poorly clothed, brutally treated, and without a roof over our heads.  We do hard work, toiling with our own hands.  When we are verbally abused, we respond with a blessing, when persecuted, we endure, when people lie about us, we answer in a friendly manner.  We are the world’s dirt and scum, even now” (4:9-13). 

May the believer indeed be empowered to be the spectacle of the cross to an on-looking world, proclaiming the Lord’s death at His table and in the world in which He reigns---demonstrating that reign by living as part of a community that embodies the cross (suffering and self-sacrificial love).  Let not the members of the congregation of those that proclaim allegiance to Jesus as Lord take up the bread and the cup alone to signal their union with the Christ, but indeed, let there be a commitment to taking up that vile instrument of death and of the power that attempts to stand against the purpose of the Creator, gladly enduring its foolishness, its suffering, and its shame so that the Lord and God, Jesus the Christ, might be glorified and His kingdom might be extended.  When sharing in the cup, let it be done as a sincere and faithful attempt to always and forever remain the humble tradents, adherents, and servants of the crucified King and the cruciform kingdom.                

Experts In The Law (part 6)

In light of all that has been said and done in the moments leading up to this statement on the lips of these people (Jesus welcomes sinners and eats with them---sinners broadly defined as those that stand outside the group of covenant members), one cannot help but imagine that those hearing the telling of this Gospel would find themselves laughing.  It is almost as if this statement demands to be read as a punch-line, in which the Pharisees and the experts in the law are presented as unfortunate dupes.  Indeed, it almost seems as if Luke wants his audience to reach the conclusion that there is a group that is not quite getting it, even though Jesus is attempting to make things as obvious as He possibly can. 

This most definitely serves to de-legitimate the role of these men.  Not only could they not answer Jesus’ simple questions, but now, even though Jesus has made things as simple as possible---offering a parable about a banquet, a directive about banquets, and then another parable about a banquet, Luke demonstrates that the point has been completely missed by these men, as they go right back to what was presented as one of their earliest accusatory attempts at discrediting Jesus. 

If can be recalled that, in the fifth chapter, Luke employs his second use of the phrase “experts in the law” (5:30), which accompanied their complaint that Jesus was eating with tax collectors and sinners (5:30).  That, of course, was at a banquet given for Jesus (5:29).  When one is carefully attuned to the fact that this is an ongoing narrative, and that there is a certain structure and flow to Luke’s presentation (which makes sense in light of the fact that it is a dramatic presentation designed to be consumed in a single sitting), it would probably not be a mistake to surmise that Luke’s words of the fifteenth chapter are intended to cause a recall of scene of chapter five. 

Considering this then, it should be noted that the fourteenth chapter began with a mention of experts in the law and Pharisees (Temple representatives), moved on to a question posed by Jesus, and concludes (in terms of the chapter divisions) with a healing.  The movement of the fourteenth chapter actually concludes with the fifteenth chapter’s opening complaint that “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”  In chapter five, Jesus forgives sins (a Temple function), the audience learns about hostile thoughts and questioning on the part of the experts in the law and the Pharisees (a question), and then comes a healing by Jesus.  From there, Luke moves to the complaint about with whom Jesus is eating.  Within a culture that is accustomed to listening to stories, holding ideas together over extended tellings, and processing information accordingly, this bracketing structure would not be lost on Luke’s audience.        

This complaint about Jesus’ table companions comes to be voiced on a regular basis.  It is a relatively prominent feature of the Gospel portraits of Jesus.  Considering the importance of the meal table in that day and time, this fact should go a long, long way towards informing an observer about a major thrust of Jesus’ ministry (table fellowship), along with informing that same observer about a major focal point of the early church and the oral traditions about Jesus (table fellowship), with these given considerable weight by His crucifixion and Resurrection, as those oral traditions are eventually codified as the Gospels.  In consideration of this, it is important to not overlook an instance of the use of “experts in the law” leading up to its use in the twentieth chapter, which could lead to overlooking a usage that will serve to provide enlightenment as the way in which Luke is pushing his hearers to react and respond to such usage. 

In This Is Love (part 15)

Though Jesus was not one hundred percent unique to the point that He would not be recognized and understood by anybody, He was obviously and distinctively set apart from anybody that came before or that would come after in a number of ways.  It is not necessary to here go very deeply into this point, but it is almost needless to say that the crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the ascension, combined with the portended effects and meanings of those three things in the messianic context provided them by Jesus and the expectations and hopes of the culture in general, position Jesus as the unique Son of God in a way that greatly distinguishes Him from the entities to be found and readily understood within the long son of God tradition recognized by Israel.  Though the acts were unique, the purpose remained the same, as it can be wholeheartedly agreed upon that Jesus was revealed---put forth as the Son of God in and for the world---to destroy the works of the devil. 

Jesus announced His mission in a synagogue in Nazareth by quoting from a familiar passage in Isaiah.  There, He is said to have informed His hearers that He had been “anointed to proclaim good news to the poor… to proclaim release to the captives…the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18b).  Later on, when John the Baptist would make an inquiry about Jesus and His mission, Jesus instructs John’s disciples to tell him that “The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news proclaimed to them” (Luke 7:22).  To this list can be added the casting out of demons.  Does this not sound very much like the destruction of the works of the devil? 

Jesus is set forth as one who went about engaging in workings that served the purpose of eliminating that which was marring the Creator God’s image bearers.  When He touched and when He spoke, doing so in the authoritative context of the declaration of the kingdom of God, He was revealing the Creator God to men.  He was forcing humanity to center their attention upon Himself, and in so doing, away from all else that could claim its allegiance.  This, in the most basic sense, could be understood to be that which destroyed the works of the devil.  That which was out of joint and out of place was set to rights when the men and women to whom He came were able to set their gaze upon the one that was revealing the Creator God through His person and His work.

That destruction of the devil’s works, which, big picture, had long been the delivery of death to humanity and to the world, would be accomplished in its totality by means of the crucifixion and the Resurrection.  In His crucifixion, Jesus would be visited by that which was the common fate of all of mankind.  With His Resurrection, that fate would be overcome and conquered in His person, as He would be raised to a new physical life, mysteriously and completely animated by the Spirit of the Creator God, as Jesus was present in a world that was now beginning to be altered (as was believed by those that would begin announcing the Gospel message that Jesus, the crucified and resurrected Messiah, is Lord of all) by the presence of the very power that had accomplished that Resurrection.  To this was attached the hopeful promise that as it had been done for Jesus, so too it would it be done for all those that believed in Him and claimed Him as Lord. 

The power of the Resurrection, as confirmed by His ascension, is thought to have inaugurated the kingdom of God on earth, with Jesus as its Lord and King.  Though this kingdom is now present with power, it is also still to come; and its ongoing purpose, which would be accomplished through the verbal and physical witness to Jesus’ Lordship that is made by His church, is to continue that which Jesus and the sons of God before Him had been commissioned to do---the destruction of the works of the devil.  If this is the task that has now been given to the church, then the Christ’s church, as His body---His hands and feet in the world---must now be understood, like Israel before it, as the son of God.  Much follows from this realization.  

Recognition (part 2 of 2)

So when the reader of Scripture comes across something like “Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him,” he or she is swiftly transported to the twenty-fourth chapter of Luke, where there is met two people that are identified as disciples of Jesus (as there were many more than just twelve) that are traveling from Jerusalem on the road to Emmaus.  These disciples “were talking to each other about all the things that had happened” (24:14), which was the crucifixion of Jesus, along with the report of His tomb being discovered to be empty.  Luke writes that “While they were talking and debating these things, Jesus Himself approached and began to accompany them (but their eyes were kept from recognizing Him)” (24:16).  Like Joseph with his brothers, who had come to believe that Joseph was dead, Jesus would have recognized these individuals as two of His disciples, though they did not recognize Him. 

In Genesis, after the moment of recognition, Joseph goes on to accuse the men of being spies.  In Luke, Jesus says “You foolish people---how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (24:25)  Joseph’s brothers, taken aback at the accusation, vehemently deny the accusation and declare their innocence of this charge, saying “Your servants are from a family of twelve brothers.  We are the sons of one man in the land of Canaan.  The youngest is with our father at this time, and one is no longer alive” (42:13). 

It is not difficult to imagine the response of these disciples of Jesus to His words, not knowing Who it was that spoke to them.  They would have protested in much the same way as Joseph’s brothers, thinking and saying something like “No, we followed Him because we did believe the prophets!  In fact, we just came from Jerusalem, where we were with our brethren, His chosen disciples.  He had twelve of them.  One of them, however, is no longer alive.”  

Later on, Joseph would reveal himself to his brothers at a shared feast that he had prepared for them, just as Jesus would reveal Himself to these two disciples, opening their eyes to see Him when “He took the bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them” (24:30b).  Genesis records that Joseph’s brothers would quickly return to their homeland to inform their father Jacob that Joseph was still alive---a veritable resurrection!  The Emmaus road disciples are said to have been hardly able to contain their own excitement at their experience, as Luke’s Gospel reports that their first inclination was to go and speak of the risen Lord (24:34), as they immediately returned to Jerusalem to recount these things to His gathered disciples. 

Reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of the Resurrection of the Righteous One, just as Israel read their Scriptures in the light of their expectation of the covenant God’s historical intervention on their behalf which would bring about the resurrection of the righteous dead, is the means by which the Scriptures, both “Old” and “New,” gain the fullness of their meaning.  By this, the reader and the believer gains a fuller and far more complete recognition of Jesus---eyes wide open.  Apart from this manner of reading, it may be well nigh impossible to recognize Him.

Stephen's Trial & Death (part 2)

Sure there was a pernicious and damaging rumor making its rounds that Jesus had been raised from the dead; and though this was of some concern to the council in Jerusalem (which is demonstrated by the fact that Stephen was brought before the council in the first place), the leaders of the people remained quite confident that Jesus had not been the “Righteous One” of whom Stephen spoke.  This position was reinforced by the fact that He had been crucified by the Romans (rather than overthrowing and driving out the Romans), with things in Israel continuing as they had for quite some time. 

Now, one such as Stephen could have certainly argued that Jesus did not have the opportunity to drive out the Romans (though this had clearly not been His goal) because He had been sent to His death by the very men who would now claim that He could not have been the messiah because He was crucified by the Romans, dying at their hands rather than driving them out.  Such an argument, however, would be viewed as somewhat beside the point of the proceedings, and rejected out of hand. 

Had this Jesus truly been the messiah---the long awaited Righteous One and embodiment of Israel’s God---He would not have allowed Himself to be crucified, so the fact that He was, regardless of who instigated the proceedings that resulted in crucifixion, clearly demonstrated that He was not the messiah.  Even if He had been raised from the dead, the thinking would go, His death by crucifixion and the fact that Rome was still in power over the land and people of the Creator God would trump that fact, and thus readily continuing to prove that He was, in fact, not the messiah.  Yes, such thinking could very well have been much self-delusion, as an ongoing attempt to justify themselves and excuse their having brought about the death of the man that might very well have been the messiah, but at this point, there could be no back-tracking. 

Yet with all that under consideration, the anger was there and it was real and it resulted in Stephen’s death.  Indeed, this was not the first time that somebody had spoken to the council in such a way, and it was not the first time that such speaking had resulted in the speaker’s death, as shall be seen.    

Who was that other person to have spoken words to the council that resulted in death?  Well it was Jesus, of course.  In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus is placed before the Sanhedrin and there was an attempt “to find false testimony against Jesus so that they could put Him to death” (26:59b), Jesus was instructed to “under oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (26:63b).  Jesus replied by saying, “You have said it yourself.  But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (26:64).  When pressed by the council, Stephen, echoing the words of Jesus, said “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:56) 

Upon hearing the words from Jesus, it is said that “the high priest tore his clothes and declared, ‘He has blasphemed!... Now you have heard His blasphemy!  What is your verdict?’” (26:65a,c,66a)  The council answered with “He is guilty and deserves death” (26:66b).  Mark and Luke both provide a similar record, though Luke omits the high priest’s tearing of his clothes.  The beastly response that Stephen’s words received has already been noted, so it does not need to be rehearsed here, but it will suffice to say that it was also determined that he had blasphemed and was deserving of death.  Both Jesus and Stephen, according to the record of Scripture, were ultimately driven outside of the city, whereupon the prescribed sentence was set upon them. 

Den Of Lions (part 11)

When all efforts at recourse had been attempted and spent, Darius was forced to relent.  “So the king gave the order, and Daniel was brought and thrown into a den of lions” (Daniel 6:16a).  Surely, this was going to be a horrible fate.  Though the Persians engaged in the practice of crucifixion, it was not of the type that was practiced by the Romans.  This manner of punishment could well be considered to be the crucifixion of the day.  It was certainly a dramatic method of shaming, as was crucifixion.   

Before being delivered over to what was understood to be his certain death, “The king consoled Daniel by saying, ‘Your God whom you continually serve will rescue you!’” (6:16b)  It is quite interesting that Darius, a Persian king, would say such a thing before throwing this Jewish prophet into a den of lions.  Why would he say this?  Was he familiar with the Psalms?  Had Daniel, before that point, made reference to the twenty-second Psalm?  If he had, and if this was part of the larger story of Daniel that was passed through the centuries and told even at Jesus’ day, then it makes for an even tighter analogy between Daniel and Jesus, as one considers the situation in which the one that is crying out to the Creator God finds himself. 

Naturally, when the Psalmist references “a roaring lion that rips its prey” (22:13a), pleads that his God will “Rescue me from the mouth of the lion” (22:21a), and speaks of “a gang of evil men” that “crowd around me,” and “like a lion they pin my hands and feet” (22:16b), the tighter connection goes beyond the simple reference to lions in this Psalm,  Though this is quite the shining example of a connection between the ordeals of Daniel and Jesus, that is not the limit of the link.  When Jesus cries out on the cross, “My God, my God, why have You abandoned Me?” (22:1a), He is not merely quoting a single verse, but rather, in the established rabbinic tradition, and in the tradition of the teachers of Israel, He is drawing attention and calling to mind an entire narrative.  Jesus, again in strong rabbinic tradition, together with the Gospel author, wants the entire Psalm, as well as any particular stories that are linked to that Psalm, told with reference to that Psalm and given context by that Psalm. 

The story of Daniel would be one of those stories that would likely have come to be inextricably linked with this Psalm.  So when the people, and especially the leaders of the people that bear the responsibility for His death, hear this cry from Jesus, they will recall the whole of the Psalm.  They will consider the Psalmist’s reference to lions, and the story of Daniel in the lion’s den (with Daniel so popular and well known in the day) will immediately come to mind.  Jesus would be here be linking His plight with that of Daniel, making His previous references to the seventh chapter of Daniel, and His reference to the Son of Man (and by extension the beast that is doing battle against the saints of the Most High, and the Ancient of Days, and the kingdom given to the Son of Man, and the four hundred ninety year period of Daniel’s prophecy) as He stood before the High Priest, even more telling. 

The words of this Psalm can easily be put into the mouths of both Daniel and Jesus.  Both groaned in prayer (22:1b), cried out to God (22:2a), relied upon the promises given to Israel and its ancestors, (22:4), trusted upon their God’s power to perform according to those promises (22:5), were insulted and despised by their adversaries (22:6), experienced taunting and mocking (22:7), given up to the salvation of their God as a test of His power and their truthfulness (22:8), hemmed in by the powerful (22:12), devoured with words (22:13a), set in the dust of death (22:15b), and experienced the gloating of their enemies (22:17b). 

Den Of Lions (part 10)

Moving on, again, to the Gospel of John, the picture here painted is even more fascinatingly interesting than that which is found in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).  As was seen with Daniel, and as was able to be seen a bit more explicitly with Luke, an even more poignant reference to kingly power is found here in John.  After reading here about Pilate’s attempts to release Jesus, the voices of the Jewish leaders are heard shouting “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar!  Everyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar!” (19:12b)  This represents quite an interesting turn of events.  It is unlikely that Pilate has ever heard such words escape the lips of a leader of the Jews, and almost certainly not as a means to justify the putting to death of one of their own people. 

Surely, by this point Pilate had been able to gather more information about Jesus.  If this had been the case, he would have learned that Jesus had been hailed as a teacher and a healer and a worker of miracles.  He may have even now been made aware of the raising of Lazarus and the crowds that had gathered to see Jesus (and Lazarus---this story is recorded only in the Gospel of John) when He had entered Jerusalem riding the back of a donkey, to what had been the approving shouts of acclimation from the assembled masses.  Learning these things, Pilate would then be left to wonder to where those crowds had disappeared, as he now only hears the fellow countrymen of the accused---this one who had done such marvelous things for so many people---pressing theirs and Pilate’s loyalty to Caesar and to his rule as grounds for enacting the dishonorable death by crucifixion. 

It stands to reason that Pilate, with his experience of governing Judea and the constant subversive undercurrent that flowed among his subjects, would have to have been perplexed by this appeal to Rome’s rule, especially when the initial shouts of “Crucify Him!  Crucify Him!” (19:6) were accompanied by an appeal to a different basis for execution, when it was said that “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He claimed to be the Son of God!” (19:7)  When the appeal to their own law was ineffective in swaying Pilate, they changed course and appealed to Pilate’s desire to have security in his position (“friend of Caesar”), adding an appeal to Roman law and that which was required for those who attempt to usurp Caesar’s absolute power. 

This would not be lost on Pilate.  Seeing that he could do nothing to change the minds of these people and that he would be unable to secure Jesus’ release (which was odd to say the least---a Roman governor attempting to free a wonder-working Jewish holy man, but unable to do so because releasing Him to His own people would start a riot, thereby jeopardizing his own position within Rome’s power structure, as he would be seen as incapable of ruling this small province), Pilate seized on this opportunity to bring these leaders of the people in line and humiliate them because of what they were doing.  He would do this with their very own words, as after hearing them speak of being a friend of Caesar and about opposition to Caesar, Pilate set the prisoner before the people and said “Look, here is your king!” (19:14b)  To this assertion, the ultimate reply made by the Jewish leaders was “We have no king but Caesar!” (19:15b).  This would have been an amazing turn of events indeed. 

The cry of these people, for years on end as they looked for a king in the line of David who would usher in the glorious kingdom of their God, free Israel from its oppressors, and end the long night of subjection to one foreign ruler after another---had been “No king but God!”  Lives had been lain down for this claim.  Their history was replete with the stories of men and women and children that had been brutally and mercilessly tortured because of this claim.  Now, the very one that claimed to be their king and to be the one for which they had been waiting, as their God had finally entered into history, once again, to act on behalf of His people and to establish His kingdom and who embodied the claim of “No king but God!”, was going to be sent to a brutal torture and a merciless cross.  This would take place in the falling echoes of His people’s claim that they had “no king except Caesar!”    

Den Of Lions (part 9)

When one moves on to Luke, and as one considers that which clinched the argument for Daniel’s foes (“Recall, O king…), the chief priests and elders can be found making a more explicit reference to Jesus’ challenge to the power of the king.  Remember, Luke reports Jesus’ foes saying that Jesus was forbidding the people to pay the tribute tax to Caesar and claiming kingship for Himself (Luke 23:1-2), which carries an implicit claim that Caesar’s rule is irrelevant.  To this they added that “He incites the people by teaching throughout all Judea” (23:5a). 

This “inciting” of the people, in the ears of the Roman governor, would have caused him to make an inference in the area of “revolution”.  Knowing the history and expectations of these people over which he ruled, such words would have been quite troubling, as it was a charge that was taken seriously by Rome’s provincial rulers.  It was at this point that Pilate sends Jesus to Herod, who then returns Jesus to Pilate, which subsequently finds Pilate desirous of securing Jesus’ release after a flogging. 

The implications are that there was nothing to the charges being leveled against Jesus.  The people, however, who are actually being incited by those that sought to bring about the death of Jesus (asserting themselves in a way that was an ironic rejection of Caesar’s rule), reject Pilate’s proposal.  Pilate, undaunted, “addressed them once again because he wanted to release Jesus” (23:20).  Interestingly, it is the continued pursuit of Jesus’ execution as a state criminal, with this after neither Pilate nor Herod could find substantiation for such the claims being made against Him, serve to make Caesar’s rule irrelevant.   

At this, the Gospel author reports that the shouts of the crowd had begun to include an insistence to “Crucify, crucify Him!” (23:21b)  Pilate had already reasoned that crucifixion---that horrible and ignominious death that is reserved for recalcitrant slaves and openly rebellious subjects---was not something that was deserved by this Jesus, who, apart from affirming that He was the king of the Jews (with no obvious evidence to support this claim---no circumstantial evidence, nor any followers attempting to intervene on His behalf, whether through violent or non-violent means), had not entered into actions that would make it incumbent upon Pilate to pass such a sentence. 

So Pilate, in an exasperated plea that must be somewhat reminiscent of King Darius, says “Why?  What wrong has He done?  I have found Him guilty of no crime deserving death.  I will therefore flog Him and release Him” (23:22).  As it was for Jesus, so it had been for Daniel.  Darius clearly had no desire to see Daniel suffer the horrific punishment of a state criminal---being put to death in the den of lions, and Pilate had no desire to see this come upon Jesus either.  He wanted this to be clear to all, so returning briefly to Matthew (viewing the story through the lenses of the collected Gospel records, as it is likely that all of the authors had been heavily influenced by the Daniel story), as he saw that “a riot was starting, he took some water, washed his hands before the crowd and said, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood.  You take care of it yourselves!’” (27:24b) 

Den Of Lions (part 7)

Both Darius and Pilate share a common approbation within the Scriptural narrative, in that they diligently sought for a way to release the men whose lives and fates were placed in their power, with both unable to find good reason why the accused should be sent to their deaths.  As was said, their efforts ultimately proved to be futile.  After Darius failed to stumble upon a reasonable solution, the presumed jealousy and bloodlust of Daniel’s adversaries made itself manifest, as “those men came by collusion to the king and said to him, ‘Recall, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no edict or decree that the king issues can be changed.’” (Daniel 6:15)  Yet again, the congruence of this event with that which was experienced by Jesus is striking. 

Bearing in mind the accusation of ignoring the king and his edicts that had been effectively leveled against both Daniel and Jesus (by their respective accusers), and therefore the creation of a dynamic which has both Daniel and Jesus positioning themselves as somehow not subject to the rule and authority of the king, the observer can turn to Matthew’s record of the encounter between ruler and ruled and find Pilate ironically asking Jesus “Are you the king of the Jews?” (27:11b) 

If Jesus was to answer in an obvious affirmative, then Pilate would have then had an undeniable (and for Pilate’s purposes, unfortunate) reason to send Him to His death as a rebellious subject that had brought the punishment for sedition and treason upon Himself.  A “yes” would mean that Jesus was challenging the legitimate rule of Rome, which, combined with the fact of the crowds and the accusations themselves, would have been highly charged rhetoric in the Israel of Jesus’ day, and it would have demanded a crucifixion-shaped response. 

Thinking of Darius’ situation and the words of “Recall, O king…” in reference to his laws, can these men be heard basically asking Darius, albeit with great subtlety, “So are you king or are you not the king”?  Pilate, of course, stands as proxy for Rome and for the Caesar, and the question he puts to Jesus is stirred by those seeking to put Jesus to death.  Without their efforts, it is unlikely that Jesus would have caught the attention of the governor.  For all practical purposes, as the stories of Daniel and Jesus are compared (and it is difficult to overstate how much influence the Daniel narrative had in that day) Jesus’ enemies have come to Pilate, who is the representative of the power of Rome, and said “Recall, O king, that it is a law that anyone who claims kingship, in defiance of Caesar, must be handed over to death.” 

To Pilate’s query, Jesus responded, “You say so” (27:11c).  This was not Jesus simply being evasive.  Rather, this stands as an affirmation, as this was a common way of saying “yes.”  Normally, this would have been sufficient to warrant crucifixion, but under normal circumstances a man would not be standing before Pilate, with such vehement accusations being flung against him, without some type of revolutionary, blood-shedding event precipitating the encounter.  Not only would the accused be on trial before Pilate, but there would more than likely be dead Roman soldiers and wounded citizens, along with dead followers of the one on trial, with more of his followers also in custody and waiting to learn the fate of their leader whose fate they would share.  

Only Son (part 17)

In Acts, which contains the records of the first preached sermons proclaiming Jesus as the Christ (Messiah), there is an ongoing appeal to the history of Israel and to their God’s ongoing dealings with humanity and His creation through the vehicle of Israel, with this appeal offered in confirmation of Jesus’ messianic status.  The New Testament letters make almost constant reference to Israel’s history, which is an eminently reasonable thing to do, for if one is proclaiming Jesus as Messiah, one must appeal to history, for it would be absolutely and completely impossible to understand the nature or role of the messiah apart from a thorough grounding in that history. 

If Jesus is detached or removed from His thoroughly Jewish roots and from the thoroughly Jewish hopes within which He was operating and proclaimed Himself to be properly fulfilling, with this done without a concerted effort to come to terms with who He was and what He did for Israel, then He is removed and detached from all meaning, from all legitimacy, and from all relevance to those that believe in Him or to the world at large.  If Jesus does not have that anchor, then He was just another itinerant preacher, who said some nice things and might have done some nice things, but in the end was crucified for challenging the existing power structures of His day. 

If one does not understand the way in which Jesus first fulfilled the hope of Israel through His crucifixion and His Resurrection, and following that, understand what that meant for the wider world, for creation as a whole, and for the ongoing mission of those that believe in Him (as the church of Jesus Christ that proclaims a King and a kingdom) in the world that mirrors the mission of Israel, which mirrored the mission of Adam, then it does not matter one single bit if or why He was raised up from the grave.  He might as well have just laid there in that lifeless condition, and the Creator God could have saved Himself all of the trouble of taking up the tent of human flesh and enduring the pains of humanity and mortality. 

However, it is His attachment first to the providential and covenantal history of Israel, and secondly to the providential and covenantal history of the whole of the world (as it relates to the covenant God’s original intention for man and for His creation), that provides meaning for His life, His death, His life after death, and His presumed living through His church (life after life after death) that provides His chosen people with their hope of life after life after death.  It is for that reason (among others) that every effort must be made to understand His words in the light of what had gone before, and in the way in which His hearers would have understood them.  That is the purpose for this exercise in regards to His statements concerning the Creator God’s “one and only son.” 

So, returning to this important conversation, when Jesus speaks of the one and only Son of God, Nicodemus is not only going to consider Jesus’ statement in the light of Adam, and he is not only going to consider Jesus’ statement in the light of Israel and the exodus, but he is also going to consider Jesus’ statement in the light of Solomon.  Yes, Solomon, the son of David.  Solomon, who is remembered as the great and wise and powerful king of Israel.  Solomon, the type of king (owing to the scope of the territory of his kingdom, his riches, his fame, Israel’s great prosperity, the tribute paid to him by other nations, and the peace Israel enjoyed under his reign) that Israel truly wanted to see rise to power in Jesus’ day, as evidenced by the fact that the messiah is not referred to as a “king like David,” but rather, as the “son of David.”