No One Knows The Hour (part 21)

What must be done when one hears the disciples ask about Jesus’ coming, is hearing them ask that question as first-century Jews whose mindsets were thoroughly influenced by the imagery on offer in the extraordinarily popular and influential work of Daniel.  In the seventh chapter of Daniel, a vision is reported in which “with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching.  He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before Him.  To Him was given ruing authority, honor, and sovereignty.  All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him.  His authority is eternal and will not pass away.  His kingdom will not be destroyed” (7:13b-14).  In this vision, one like a son of man came to Ancient of Days.  Presumably this movement is from earth to heaven.  This is the coming to which the disciples make reference, and to which Jesus will make reference in His answer as reported by Matthew. 

Is this a leap of logic and an unsupported assertion?  Well, the issue of common sense has already been addresses, demonstrating that the disciples could not possibly have been asking Jesus about a coming to earth when He was already there, as there is nothing in the Gospel narratives to that point that would suggest that such a question would be appropriate or that such thinking would be warranted.  As supported by the Gospel narratives and the general disposition of the vast majority of the members of the nation of Israel, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to die, let alone be raised from the dead, nor ascend to heaven following a resurrection or return to earth from heaven at some point in the future. 

To go along with that, the prevalence and popularity of Daniel in that time and culture compels the reader to hear talk of “coming” along the lines that it suggests, which was a coming before the Creator God (the Ancient of Days) of that one that represented Israel, that Israel might be delivered from those under which it suffered oppression.  That, of course, was one of the primary concerns of the day.  In any consideration of Jesus’ presumptive messianic activity or mission, the deliverance of Israel was paramount. 

Matthew underscores the fact that Daniel is in mind and that it was an instructive work in that day, as later on, as Jesus answers the disciples’ question, He makes reference to Daniel, saying “So when you see the abomination of desolation---spoken about by Daniel the prophet” (24:15a).  It is fascinating to make note of the fact that it is Matthew alone that has Jesus specifically naming the book of Daniel as part of His responsive discourse, informing his audience that Daniel was a major influence of his worldview and is one of the primary lenses through to which to view his Jesus story, especially when it is Matthew’s report of Jesus’ “end times” vision that is so often mis-interpreted. 

Though Mark makes reference to it by mention of the abomination of desolation, there is no specific mention of Daniel.  In Mark, it is the mention of the abomination of desolation that first calls Daniel to the mind of the hearer or reader, whereas the one hearing Matthew’s tale has already had Daniel called to mind by the mention of the signs of Jesus’ coming.  It therefore makes sense that Matthew’s Jesus makes mention of Daniel, whilst Mark’s Jesus merely makes a reference.  Both build on the crucial reference.  For Matthew’s purposes, Jesus’ coming (not to earth but to the Ancient of Days) is what marks the end of the age (of Israel being oppressed, among other things) and is emphatically linked to the destruction of the Temple.  He makes that explicit in the foreground, with his framing of the disciples’ question.  This link is also found in Mark and Luke, but as has been shown, they do not have the disciples marking their query with a concern for the end of the age, so the connection between the two comes later in Jesus’ response to the question. 

Love On John's Terms (part 28)

The uniqueness of the miraculous signs in John does not simply lie in the fact of the occurrence of the miraculous.  It could also be seen that Jesus gained a following, with people believing in Him, His message, and His movement, through the witnessing and reporting of miraculous signs.  Others before Jesus (and after Him) had and would gain substantial followings as well.  However, in contrast to Jesus, their followings often grew with reports of their rebellious and subversive activities (Jesus was shown to be subversive, but in a more subtle manner), their incitement to violence against their oppressors, or their military exploits against the vaunted Roman military machine.  Jesus’ following achieved no growth along such lines.  He certainly did not go about achieving His popular support in the usual or largely expected way. 

Though John the Baptist is reported to have been caustic in his speech (though not in John’s Gospel), what was said of his cousin (Jesus) could also be said to be true of him, as he did not gain his following along the lines of the usual or expected means.  How could he?  Had he engaged in overtly revolutionary activities, he certainly could not have heralded himself or have been heralded as preparing the path for the type of messiah that Jesus presents Himself to be, nor would Jesus have aligned Himself and identified Himself with John’s movement (the signaling of a new exodus for Israel, and through Israel for the world) by undergoing a baptism at John’s hands.

The regular references to Moses in the Gospel of John, whether those references be explicit or implicit, are both an adjunct to the mentioning of miraculous signs and a reminder of the way in which Moses went about proving that he was charged with representing the covenant God to His people.  It must be said that Moses gained a following, though the following was not gained (as he may have hoped or expected), when he raised his hand to kill an Egyptian that was abusing one of his fellow Israelites.  That action merely sent Moses into his own period of exile, possibly delaying the Creator God’s plan to deliver Israel from their Egyptian bondage. 

Initially, Moses gained his following through performing miraculous signs, which is what he was instructed to do by the Creator God when he returned to Egypt with the demand to “let My people go.”  When Moses had questioned God as to how he was going to convince Pharaoh and Israel that he spoke for the God of Israel and that he was the vessel through which that God was bringing about the deliverance of His people, Moses was provided with a series of miraculous signs to perform.  The book of Exodus records the performance of these various signs.  This point shall be taken up again shortly. 

Returning to the text then, the author seems to take pains to hammer home a point previously and repeatedly made (this would have been second nature for his audience, but not so much for members of a modern Christian culture which has a tendency to separate, divide, and pluck passages and stories from their setting and examine them in isolation), which is that the Gospel narrative must be heard as a unified presentation, rather than presented through selected portions of the narrative. 

While it is certainly possible and appropriate to elaborate on circumstances, situations, and statements, such things demand to be considered within their wider context.  Any statement by Jesus, or the author for that matter, that is pulled out of the text and examined on its own without being placed in its appropriate theological, soteriological, sociological, cultural, political, and eschatological framework (at the very least), will end up as nothing more than an ingredient in a recipe for fallacious and anachronistic exegesis.  

Hated (part 5)

This study then returns to what Jesus said in the thirteenth chapter of Mark (and elsewhere): “You will be hated by everyone because of My name.  But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (13:13).  It is appropriate to key in on the second part of that statement, in which Jesus speaks of enduring to the end and being saved.  This use of “saved” links Jesus’ words to Israel’s Egyptian exodus, as again, “salvation” expressions, for Israel, speak of their God’s rescue from enemies or their deliverance from oppressors. 

Though it can be easily missed by the modern reader, such language would be easily picked up on by His hearers.  It would have been readily discerned by the majority of first century readers of the Gospels, as they would also have been steeped in Israel’s history.  When that is understood, and once one picks up on the exodus context for the hatred of which Jesus speaks, while at the same time discarding the idea that Jesus is talking about some ethereal, other-worldly notion of a paradise somewhere off in the sky to be enjoyed after death (a thoroughly un-Jewish notion) when He speaks of being saved, readers will find themselves better positioned to identify the reason for the hate. 

So why in the world is this connected to Israel’s exodus?  What is the reason that the Creator God gives for rescuing Israel (His covenant people through Abraham) from their Egyptian bondage?  Essentially, it is the same reason He gives for rescuing the church (His covenant people through Jesus) from their bondage?  The answer is to be found in Deuteronomy, where one finds Moses’ report that “It is not because you were more numerous than all the other peoples that the Lord favored and chose you---for in fact you were the least numerous of all peoples.  Rather it is because of His love for you and His faithfulness to the promises He solemnly vowed to your ancestors that the Lord brought you out with great power, redeeming you from the place of slavery” (7:7-8)  Just before this, Moses reminds Israel that they “are a people holy to the Lord” (7:6a), and says that “He has chosen you to be His people, prized above all others on the face of the earth” (7:6b). 

One of the Psalmists picks up on this, making it possible to catch yet another glimpse of that historical self-understanding out of and into which Jesus spoke, when the Psalmist writes (in reference to Israel in Egypt): “The Lord made His people very fruitful, and made them more numerous than their enemies.  He caused them to hate His people, and to mistreat His servants” (105:24-25).  This should provide pause to consider a question that is never asked, which is “what was Israel doing for Egypt when their God made them fruitful in that land?”  Were they being a blessing as Abraham had understood to have been?  What was it that caused Egypt to turn against Israel and to hate the covenant people of the Creator God?  Were they serving those people well by sharing their God’s blessings and revealing their God to them, or were they hoarding the blessing? 

That goes to the question of why the Abrahamic covenant existed.  Presumably, it existed so that Abraham could exemplify divine blessing (as indicated in Genesis), so that his God could be recognized and glorified as the Creator God of the cosmos.  This is the covenant under which Israel went into Egypt, and it is also the covenant that comes to be fulfilled by Jesus through His church, with the message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) as the mark of that covenant.  

Recognition (part 1 of 2)

Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him. – Genesis 42:8  (NET)

Delving into the life of Joseph will almost invariably produce a comparative analogy to the life of Jesus, and with what is transpiring in association with this particular verse, the statement proves to be true.  The reader of Scripture can never be allowed to forget that the way in which Israel thought about itself, the way the disciples would have heard and understood the words and ministry of Jesus, and even the way that Jesus thought of and presented Himself to Israel, would all have been couched in the regularly told history of Israel, as grounded in the Abrahamic covenant and in the history of the Egyptian exodus. 

To that end, not only was every Passover an explicit reminder of their exodus experience and that their God was the God of exodus, but the long subjugation to various empires---the latest of which was Rome---was productive of a general (though not exclusive) mindset of a people in an exile from the full manifestation of their God’s promises to them.  Thus, among many, there was a consistent longing for a new exodus led by a new deliverer. 

Owing to that the groaning desire of freedom from Rome’s yoke (not unlike the groaning of Israel in Egypt, as recorded in Exodus), one can be assured that thoughts of the Creator God’s miraculous deliverance of His people from the power of Egypt would never have been too far from their minds.  Quite naturally, the story of Joseph, which was so closely connected to the story of Israel’s arrival in Egypt (which was itself part of the God of Israel’s confirmation of His promise to Abraham), and which was itself a poignant story of vindication and exaltation after an ordeal of wrongful suffering, would have been a popular story in Israel. 

Because it offers a tight analogy to that which was experienced by Jesus (suffering, vindication, exaltation), stories of Joseph, especially following the Resurrection of Jesus, would have been fertile ground for gaining an even greater understanding of Jesus and His mission, of the covenant God that raised Him from the dead, and of the redeeming, rescuing movement of that same God throughout all of history---with comprehension of that work, enacted primarily through His covenant people, given shape by the Abrahamic covenant and its associated pointers and promises that are rehearsed and recorded throughout the written history (including the poets and prophets) of Israel.  

Now, some misguided souls might be tempted to look at these analogies from a resurrection-denying perspective and draw the conclusion that followers of Jesus, subsequent to His unexpected and defeating death and seeking to keep alive the cult that had grown around Him, simply searched the Scriptures so as to pull together bits and pieces by which it was possible to build a better foundation for their ongoing worship and subsequent proclamation of Him as the embodiment of Israel’s God. 

However, reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of God’s redemptive plan that was commenced through Abraham, carried on through Israel, climaxed in Jesus, and continually out-worked through the Church of Christ, becomes an exercise in learning about the Creator God and His purposes, so that one might gain a greater measure of trust through what is somehow understood to be the out-spiring work of the Holy Spirit. 

Thus, believers come to be able to identify the places that connect them to the culminating event in the history of the entire cosmos, which was the Christ-event.  This operation is undertaken, presumably, so that those that confess Jesus as Lord and who seek to live according to that proclamation, might be able to more effectively operate by the mysterious power of the Resurrection, that they might be the means by which the Creator God applies that transformative power, by the Spirit, through that Gospel proclamation of Jesus as Lord. 

Den Of Lions (part 2)

When it came to Daniel and those that are reported to be his adversaries, with jealousy presumed to be the reason for their ugly and unjust disposition towards him, “they were unable to find any such damaging evidence, because he was trustworthy and guilty of no negligence or corruption” (6:4b).  As this is found to be true of Daniel, so it is found to be true of Jesus as well.  Though this analysis need not get too far ahead itself, one only need consider the witnesses at the “trial” of Jesus, who attempted to bring forth condemning accusations and testimony. 

Ultimately, as had been the case with Daniel, their testimony was found to be lacking, though ultimately those adversaries (in both cases) would be successful in that the objects of their respective accusations would be sentenced to death.  In the case of Jesus, plans were hatched and attempts were made to get Him to speak against the Temple, or against the Roman government, or against the Mosaic Law, but all proved futile.  Indeed, Jesus was trustworthy, and could not be found to be guilty of negligence or corruption by which he could be challenged or damaged in any way. 

Having failed to gather any credible evidence against Daniel, “these men concluded, ‘We won’t find any pretext against this man Daniel unless it is in connection with the law of his God.’” (6:5)  Ultimately, this would be the path traveled in the plot to take down Jesus, with the accusation of blasphemy against Israel’s God.  Jesus would be said to have made Himself equal with the Creator God, and would thereby be subject to the attendant demand for death associated with a conviction related to that charge.  However, those that sought to bring death to Jesus were not in a position to carry out that death penalty, so a case had to be made to those who could do so (the Romans).  To that end, Jesus was taken before Pilate. 

Before going any further, it needs to be said that the value in constructs such as the one here being made is that Jesus, as He (as it would be imagined) diligently searched the Scriptures and pondered the ultimate validity of the method that He would employ to bring in the kingdom of God---that being suffering to vindication (exile to exodus), may have found stories with that theme highly instructive for the purpose of what He seemed to have believed was His mission.  Stories such as Daniel could very well have provided Him with guidance, strength, and sustenance for the path that He believed lay ahead of Him.  In this way, He could develop the trust that the God that had been the God of deliverance for a faithful Israelite such as Daniel, would also be the God of deliverance for Him as well. 

Continuing to explore this story of Daniel, one finds that “these supervisors and satraps came by collusion to the king and said to him, ‘O King Darius, live forever!’” (6:6).  After this bit of customary flattery, they continued on and said “To all the supervisors of the kingdom, the prefects, satraps, counselors, and governors it seemed like a good idea for a royal edict to be issued and an interdict to be enforced.  For the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or human other than you, O king, should be thrown into a den of lions” (6:7).  Finally, to this was added, “Now let the king issue a written interdict so that it cannot be altered, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be changed” (6:8). 

Quite understandably, as these individuals had successfully appealed to human vanity, “King Darius issued the written interdict” (6:9).  With this, he has ironically and unwittingly put in jeopardy the life of the very one that he had intended to appoint over the entire kingdom (a classic hero tale). 

Vindication For Joy & Rejoicing (part 1)

May those who desire my vindication shout for joy and rejoice! – Psalm 35:27a  (NET)

The thirty-fifth Psalm begins with “O Lord, fight those who fight with me!  Attack those who attack me!  …Rise up to help me!  …Assure me with these words: I am your deliverer!” (35:1,2b,3b)  As these words are read in the light of the knowledge of the Savior, of His crucifixion at the hands of the Romans at the behest of the Temple authorities, and His unexpected Resurrection from the grave and its signal that death had ultimately been defeated, it would seem to be quite natural to want to place them on the lips of Jesus as He endured what would come to be understood as His saving ordeal. 

However, because Jesus did not speak against His accusers, nor is He said to have spoken against those that carried out the sentence of death that was passed against Him, it is actually not appropriate to have Him asking His God to fight and attack those that were responsible for His death.  Instead, what is recorded is that Jesus asked the one He called Father to readily forgive them for their actions that He believed to have been performed in ignorance.  So if these words are, in fact, to be somehow ascribed to Jesus, with a direction in mind (which does seem like a reasonable proposition), their direction needs to be properly understood. 

Ultimately, who was it that could be said to have fought with Jesus?  Who was it that attacked Him?  Who was His great enemy?  From whom did He desire deliverance?  The answer to these questions is “death.”  If one was to peruse the New Testament writings that reflected on the life and ministry of Jesus, with many of these writings pre-dating the final composition of the Gospels (though oral narratives that would certainly have taken a shape not unlike that which would eventually be written were in circulation), it would be a relatively easy matter to see that some of the earliest believers thought this to be the case.

It would seem then that it was the battle with death into which Jesus asked His Father to enter, to fight on His behalf, to rise up to attack.  Because Jesus entered the battle as well, and did not ask His Father to deliver Him in a way that allowed Him to stand absent from the pain of death, Jesus appeared to know that the cross must be endured.  Owing to that, and if such words could have crossed His mind and His lips, Jesus could be here considered to be asking for an assurance that He would be delivered up from the power of death, after willingly allowing Himself to be overcome by His great enemy.  It must be borne in mind that Jesus did not go into the ordeal of the crucifixion with a knowledge that He would indeed be raised.  He did so with a hope that He would be vindicated and redeemed from the exile into which He was flinging Himself.  

The Resurrection that followed is said to have stripped death of its power.  From that point on, though it would continue to be very real and very present, death would ultimately be a toothless foe in the face of the promise of the power of resurrection and new life for the people of the Creator God.  Death had held sway from the time of the fall, but with the Resurrection, what could be seen as a further request of Jesus, of “May those who seek my life be embarrassed and humiliated!  May those who plan to harm be turned back and ashamed!” (35:4) was answered in the affirmative.  

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 7)

These revolutionary movements that had been previously put down by the Romans had obviously been localized uprisings, dealt with rather easily, without widespread impact for the whole of the country.  It seems clear at this point in John’s tale that Jesus had gained country-wide support and popularity, at what appears to be a level far beyond what had been realized by messianic claimants that had come before Him. 

Naturally, the reports of miracle-working would have played a role in this, but perhaps had much to do with Jesus’ inclusive practices, inviting all and sundry to join with Him in His movement.  Because of this, a response by Rome commensurate with the breadth of the movement would have to be far more severe.  Rather than Jesus being dealt with locally, in the way that Rome had dealt with those had come before, Rome’s inevitable response to this far more popular rival to Caesar, as imagined by the current political leadership of the nation, would be to “come and take away our sanctuary and our nation” (11:48b). 

In addition to that, the Romans were not unaware of the history of the peoples that they ruled.  Jesus, some seem to forget, was not the first man to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, with this riding accompanied by shouts of “Hosanna.”  Appealing to the sensibilities of the Jewish people, this would have been taken to be a conscious re-enactment of Solomon’s crowning.  Not only was this a re-enactment of a previous coronation, this riding into Jerusalem in such a manner was something that had also occurred again within the two hundred years prior to Jesus, as a great Jewish military hero was feted in this way (donkey and shouts of Hosanna). 

It should be well nigh impossible to believe that the Romans would have not have been aware of this, and therefore, when coupled together with the larger-than-usual population of Jerusalem due to Passover and the possibility of igniting the passion for exodus and deliverance from oppressors that could easily be sparked by Passover celebrations, they would probably have been on even higher alert than usual.   

The Johannine author adds a parenthetical statement after writing about the king’s coming on a donkey’s colt, attuning those that would hear or read his story to the previously referenced (mentioned by Jesus) subject matter of God’s glory.  He writes, “His disciples did not understand these things when they first happened, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about Him and that these things had happened to Him” (12:16).  Continuing to connect Lazarus’ raising with the Creator God’s glory, though not in the way that some are inclined to consider it, he would go on to write that “the crowd who had been with Him when He called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead were continuing to testify about it” (12:17).  So here the author writes of glory, while quickly going to mention Lazarus.   

Obviously, the testimony of the witnesses to the Lazarus raising continued to produce an ever-growing number of believers, enlarging the size of the crowd that “went out to meet Him” (12:18b), welcoming the One they seemed to be coming to regard as their Messiah King.  Moving the observer closer to understanding where the Creator God’s glory is to be found in all of these things, the Pharisees’ response to the entirety of this situation that had been greatly spurred on by the situation with Lazarus, was “Look, the world has run off after Him!” (12:19b)   

Justified By Faithfulness (part 6)

As the covenant people, responsible for bringing the blessings of the Creator God to bear in and for all of the creation, the Jews were not looking to escape from this earth so as to enjoy a blissful existence apart from the world.  As Greek thought, such desires were more at home in the realm and hopes of pagan religion.  Rather, they were looking for the establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth (the overlap of their God’s realm of existence with the realm of existence created for divine image-bearers), when the Creator God would embody His messiah and bring about the vindication, salvation, and deliverance of His covenant people, doing this together with the restoration of all things and the physical resurrection of the righteous dead (those that died in a state of positive covenant standing). 

As popularly (though not exclusively) imagined, this would occur through the messiah’s setting up of His kingdom, as Israel’s King, Who would be the King of all the earth (the Creator God becoming King), with all peoples coming to bow before Him, as was pictured and to which seemed to be pointed throughout the Psalms and the writings of the Hebrew prophets. 

The establishment of this kingdom, as was held to by a large number of people in the time of Jesus and Paul, would involve the overthrow of the Romans (the perceived enemy of God’s people, though they really only stood for the greater enemy to which was pointed by popular apocalyptic literature---think Daniel and Revelation), and their being driven from the land.  In this, the promised land would be returned to the Creator God’s people, and those people would finally live free from any and all types of foreign dominion (be it world powers or that which animated them---evil and death). 

Among other things, this would signify the blessing of the covenant God finally returning to His people.  By the people’s estimation, with this widely held conception being reinforced by the leaders of the people, maintaining the covenant markers---according to was to be understood from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, coupled with an understanding of the history of their people when they rejected their God by rejecting His covenant markers and thus demonstrating a disbelieving faithlessness---is the thing that would secure their God’s blessing. 

Thus, with a steadfast adherence to these works of the law, the presume covenant people would maintain a positive covenant standing with their God.  Accordingly, they would be justified, and in a position to enjoy His covenant blessings of land and kingdom and prosperity, according to what He had promised to them.  So the works of the law and the keeping of the works of the law were, in fact, rooted in a profound belief in the righteousness (covenant faithfulness) and power of God.  Yes, faith stood behind adherence to the covenant markers.  This had always been the case.   

By and large, prior to his well-documented “conversion,” this had been the Apostle Paul’s position.  H had been a Pharisee of Pharisees, by his own testimony.  He had been zealous for the law.  He had been zealous for these works of the law---looking to them as that which signaled one’s justification before the Creator God (righteous standing/positive covenant status).  This was rooted in His belief in the faithfulness of his God.  He called himself a Hebrew of Hebrews.  He held vociferously to these covenant markers and persecuted, attempting to destroy and stamp out the movement that, beginning with Jesus, was actively encouraging the Creator God’s very own covenant people to set these markers aside. 

Preaching & Believing (part 2)

Before going further, it is worthwhile to examine what it is that Paul most likely means when he speaks of “being saved.”  As a Jew, raised in the context of a deep-rooted understanding of covenant, the Scriptural narrative, and the context of exodus and exile, when Paul uses this term he has a specific point of reference and definition.  For the covenant people of Israel, the Creator God’s salvation would have been widely construed as being delivered from foreign bondage and exile, which represented their God’s curse upon them for covenant failures. 

Therefore, being “saved” implies a deliverance from cursing and exile, with a concordant rescue from foreign subjugation.  When the covenant God delivered Israel from their bondage in Egypt and brought them into the land of promise, they would have understood themselves as having been saved.  Most decidedly, they experienced the salvation of their God.  When their God repeatedly delivered them from oppression in the days of the Judges and made them to regain control of their promised land, each time, they would think of themselves as being saved.  When Judah was spared from Assyria, maintaining an albeit temporary self-rule under their God’s anointed kings, they would have thought of themselves as being saved.  These were all acts of salvation. 

Whenever the Creator God entered in to defeat Israel’s enemies, ending cursing (as outlined in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) or staving off exile, that deliverance is spoken of as salvation.  When the Creator God would save Israel, it would be related to being saved from the curses that are set forth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which set for the culminating curse of exile from their land and subjection to foreign destruction and domination. 

It must be remembered that Paul’s Jewish readers would have this in mind when considering his words and his overall message.  This would have been the air that they breathed, and the hearing of the message of the Gospel and its salvation would have been inseparable from the mindset fostered by their shared and defining history.  Yes, Jewish hearers would have in mind the entire narrative of their Scriptures, and therefore, when hearing about salvation, would also take into consideration the cursing of all mankind that began with Adam.  Early non-Jewish believers would have been educated into the Jewish narrative, so as to be able to comprehend the Creator God of Israel and make sense of the Christ-event.   

Though Paul would say that Israel’s history was instructive, especially in learning about the faithful God that would become embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, Paul would not necessarily want his Gentile readers to take Israel’s Deuteronomic curses into consideration when they considered their own cursing and exile.  Those curses were specific to Israel, as they were associated with the covenant established with Israel at Sinai.  Paul would want Gentile hearers and believers to understand that a better covenant had been enacted at Calvary, and that the covenant was more in line with the Abrahamic covenant and its directive towards all peoples, not just Israel. 

So Paul, in his message that was geared towards all peoples, would utilize mankind’s curse, along with the curse on all of the creation that was understood to have begun with Adam, as the point of reference for that from which they were being saved.  Under the covenant of Jesus, salvation, for all mankind, Jew and Gentile, would involve being delivered from the curse of death, along with the end of exile from the Creator God’s fellowship, under which man was not truly able to rightly bear the divine image in which he had been created. 

Psalm Of The King (part 4 of 5)

Additionally, one can rest fairly assured that part of Jesus’ prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, before He was made to embark upon the ordeal of the cross, was that His life be sustained; and that when He went down into death, taking the Creator God’s cursing and going into exile on behalf of all God’s people (because He is demonstrated to have understood Himself to be Israel’s Messiah, with all of the implications of unending rule and kingship associated with that position), that He be granted the redemption of physical resurrection to new life---the deliverance from exile---that was the great hope and expectation of Israel.  In union with Him, that same hope that animated much of Israel belongs to all believers as well.  

Moving on to the fifth verse of this Psalm, Jesus and others would find “Your deliverance brings him great honor” (21:5a).  Similar to the way in which “blessings” would have carried a specific connotation for the Psalmist, for Jesus, and for the people of Israel, the use of “deliverance” would have a deliberate reference attached to it as well.  “Deliverance,” when used by the people of Israel (and most likely the Psalmist as well), pointed to exodus---to redemption.  Again, these words are not to approached apart from their own terms, and they are certainly not to be informed by twenty-first century mindsets.  The modern observer must take the contextual approach that goes beyond the use of language, making every attempt to understand the terminology in its historical, philosophical, theological, political, cultural and social setting as well, with no disconnect between any of those things. 

For Israel, “deliverance” was deliverance from exile, and along with the memory of the Babylonian and Assyrian experiences, as highlighted in the historical narrative of Israel and in the prophets, the Deuteronomic description of exile would have loomed large in the popular imagination.  In the area of deliverance, Israel’s story includes the story of their covenant God delivering His chosen people from Egypt.  Their God is then reported to have delivered His people from a variety of oppressors through the time of the Judges. 

Enhancing the understanding of exile and deliverance (or exodus), the record of Judges demonstrates that exile entailed much more than simply Israel being away from its land.  The idea of exile included the Creator God’s people not ruling themselves in their own land.  Because of that, this concept can be carried forward into His own day, as Jesus would have done, building on Ezra and Nehemiah’s declarations that the exile was continuing even though the Creator God’s people had returned to their land, and it can be verified that the people of Israel (by and large) still saw themselves as a people in exile.  This ongoing conception of exile from God’s blessings, among other things, was a major impetus behind the attempts at revolution in the centuries leading up to, and the century following Jesus’ life, death, and Resurrection. 

Part of the anticipation for their messiah, which was connected with the vision of Daniel and the four hundred ninety years attached to that vision that would culminate with the coming of the messiah (regardless of when Daniel was composed), was that the messiah, their king (Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David---all kingly terms that would eventually be vested with divine significance because of the post-Resurrection realization, by His disciples, that Jesus had been the physical embodiment of God in His saving action on behalf of His chosen people) would bring Israel’s long exile to an end once and for all.  

Psalm Of The King (part 1)

O Lord, the king rejoices in the strength You give; he takes great delight in the deliverance You provide. – Psalm 21:1  (NET)

The first seven verses of the twenty-first Psalm is an amazing passage of Scripture that can serve to point directly to Jesus, the Lord of all  While it is the twenty-second Psalm generally gets far more attention for its part in directing readers to the cross of Christ, from its opening cry of “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” (22:1a), through the remainder of the Psalm that seems to point quite explicitly to the ordeal of the cross to which Jesus would be subjected, the twenty-first Psalm deserves similar consideration. 

If Jesus could look upon the twenty-second Psalm, seeing Himself and His messianic vocation in that Psalm in order to gain insight into what it was that potentially awaited Him at the end of His human journey and His revolutionary movement, then surely He could have looked at the twenty-first Psalm as that which could have served to strengthen Him for the purpose of taking on that mission.

Because the record of the Gospel narratives has Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of God and the Son of Man, which were both messianic titles that spoke, in general, of Israel, and more specifically, of Israel’s king, it can be surmised that Jesus understood Himself to be the long-awaited Messiah for Israel.  Naturally, it would be after the event of Resurrection that His disciples also came to understand that Jesus was the Messiah, making sense of His previously questionable statements about Himself, while also reversing the natural conclusions that would have been drawn following His crucifixion, which was that He had failed in His purpose and cause.  

Because of the messianic (kingly) sensibility, Psalms which spoke of the king of Israel could naturally and understandably be a great source of direction, comfort, strength, and encouragement for Jesus.  As He looked forward to what it was that He would be and do for Israel, Jesus could quite easily insert Himself into this Psalm, trusting implicitly in the covenant God of Israel and say, “O Lord, the king rejoices in the strength You give” (21:1a).  To willingly endure the Roman cross, which was the direction that Jesus would have known that His life and work were taking Him, would take a great deal of strength. 

With a confident assurance in the faithfulness of the Creator God, as informed by Israel’s history as recorded in Scripture, Jesus could stand in confident assurance in the deliverance that His God would provide (21:1b).  What would be the appearance to be taken by that deliverance?  The deliverance in which Jesus would be able to take great delight was the assurance of the deliverance from death.  Jesus trusted that, as He took Israel’s curse upon Himself, as Israel’s King and representative, and entered into death (exile from life), that the covenant God of Israel, the One who promised and demonstrated faithfulness to His people whether good or evil (depending on their response to Him), would be faithful to deliver Him, to redeem Him from that exile by granting Him a renewed life on the other side of the grave and of the ghastly and highly demonstrative and definitive means that took Him there. 

Of course, because the Creator God’s Messiah was not only Israel’s King, but a King for all nations and all peoples, when Jesus, as the Messiah, entered into death on behalf of Israel, it could also be said that He entered into death (curse, exile) on behalf of all mankind.  If that is true, then when He was delivered from death and its curse, so too was all mankind delivered as well, with the proof and seal of that deliverance predicated on the response which causes an individual to believe in Him as Lord of all.  From then on, all that would come to be in union with Christ (believing Him to be the crucified and Resurrected Lord of all), would have gained the ultimate victory over death and its corruption. 

Mordecai & Jesus (part 2 of 2)

Though in the grip of certain death, deliverance comes to the covenant people.  Figuratively, because of Esther’s actions, the Creator God’s people were resurrected from the dead.  Fitting quite well with the controlling narrative and presentation of the covenant God’s plan of redemption, as it presents itself throughout Scripture, this figurative resurrection shares echoes with the story of Abraham’s call to sacrifice Isaac. 

In that story, Abraham considered Isaac to be dead, but trusted that his God would raise him because of the promises that had been made to Abraham.  Isaac, figuratively, went through death, and  (again) figuratively, was raised from the dead.  Returning then to Esther one reads that “Contrary to expectations, the Jews gained power over their enemies” (9:1b).  Yes, the Creaor God’s covenant people triumphed, just as they would one day be made to triumph over the final enemy, that being death, through and because of the Resurrection of Jesus and their believing union with Him, with belief in the Lordship and Kingship of Jesus being the mark of the Creator God’s new covenant people and the way in which they are made to share in His Resurrection, prefiguring and pointing to their own (and that of the entire creation).    

Tying in the title of this study, one of those people of the covenant, that being Mordecai, is not only resurrected, but he is exalted, ultimately coming to represent in himself the complete vindication of the people of the covenant God.  As the story goes, Mordecai is exalted to a royal position, adorned “in purple and white and royal attire, with a large golden crown and a purple linen mantle” (8:15b), symbolizing that royalty and its association vindication.  Yes, one man becomes the representative of the Creator God’s chosen people.  With his (and his people’s) passing through persecution and suffering and a figurative death, he comes out on the other side, effectively crowned as a king, as “Mordecai the Jew was second only to King Ahasuerus” (10:3a).  This was what would eventually come to be be experienced by Jesus the Christ as well, who would be exalted as King by His Resurrection, though in submission (second only as He would insist) to the Father. 

Indeed, all that will be said here of Mordecai would, could, and certainly should invoke thoughts of the Lord Jesus, who was persecuted, went into death, experienced a Resurrection, and was shown forth as King.  It is said of Mordecai that “He was the highest-ranking Jew” (10:3a), which is another way in which one could be justified in thinking of Jesus.  It is said of Mordecai that “He was admired by his numerous relatives” (10:3b), which would also eventually become true of Jesus following His Resurrection.  Of Mordecai, it is said that “He worked enthusiastically for the good of his people and was an advocate for the welfare of all his descendants” (10:3c).  This too can most definitely be said of Jesus, the one mediator between God and man. 

Prior to such things being said of Mordecai, the reader (and the hopeful Jew undergoing persecution under the heel of an oppressor) learns that “Mordecai was of high rank in the king’s palace, and word about him was spreading throughout all the provinces.  His influence continued to become greater and greater” (9:4).  As it was for the figuratively resurrected Mordecai, so it was for the physically resurrected Jesus.  Jesus, as it comes to be said of Him, is given the name above all names and set above all rulers and powers.  The Gospel of His Kingdom (He is Lord) spread throughout all lands and His influence grew, with that influence, as planned, spreading and growing to this day.      

Hezekiah's Prayer (part 3 of 3)

Hezekiah goes on to exclaim, “Look, the grief I experienced was for my benefit.  You delivered me from the Pit of oblivion.  For You removed all my sins from Your sight” (38:17).  Apparently, Hezekiah was made to be thankful for both the sickness and the deliverance.  Not only that, but by connecting his sickness with sin (failure to rightly bear the divine image), Hezekiah demonstrated that he understood that the sickness that he carried resulted from his violations of the divine covenant.  Not only was sickness understood to be a curse that entered into the world with man’s fall, but sickness was also associated with Israel’s failure to keep covenant with their God.  The Creator God had promised sickness to His people , while also promising that if they repented from their failure to keep covenant, He would remove the associated curses. 

As it applied to the whole of God’s covenant people, so it also applied to the king.  Hezekiah, as the representative of the people, linked the removal of his sickness with the removal of sins.  Furthermore, because being conquered by a foreign people was part of the Creator God’s curse that would be directed toward His people if they were to completely disregard His covenant, and as this recovery from sickness and its attendant prayer follows closely on the heels of the expulsion of Assyria from Judah when it looked as if they were about to suffer the same fate as the northern kingdom of Israel, the removal of his sins (forgiveness), as evidenced by his healing, is also closely linked to the covenant God’s removal of the sins of His people (forgiveness), as evidenced by God Himself by the narrative that presents their God Himself intervening and defeating the Assyrians and sending them away.

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the kings of Israel and Judah were the representatives of God’s people.  When David numbered the people, though this was his action alone, the people suffered.  When Manasseh brought Judah to the pinnacle of its idolatry, it was in conjunction with this that their God declared, with no reversal (though the judgment would be briefly stayed), that Judah would be conquered and sent into captivity (the promised curse would come).  In addition, Israel also held to the idea of a vicarious sacrifice for the removal of sins, which can be seen in the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement.  One sees the representative principle at work here with Hezekiah, and it is in this narrative context that the prayer of Hezekiah can be heard on the lips of Jesus in the garden prior to His passion. 

Jesus could quite easily say that “the grief (or illness) I experienced was for My benefit,” as He could reflect on the suffering servant prophecy of Isaiah fifty-three, fully convinced that His suffering would benefit not only His people, but Himself as well.  Though He knew Himself to be walking the path of death (not only in the time leading up to the crucifixion, but throughout His revolutionary ministry), it is quite easy to hear Jesus say, with a faith like that which was exhibited by Abraham when he confidently declared that both he and Isaac would return from the mountain of sacrifice, that “You delivered Me from the Pit of oblivion.” 

However, it would only be as Israel’s King---as Israel’s representative and as the representative of all of those that would come to call Him King, in substitution for His people, that Jesus could say “You removed all My sins from Your sight.”  This could only occur through God’s King bearing God’s cursing on behalf of God’s people, though Jesus Himself is understood to have never failed to rightly bear the divine image (thus, without sin).  It is because of this execution of faithfulness that Hezekiah could say, “The living person, the living person, he gives you thanks, as I do today” (38:19a).  Those that share in the blessed and vital union with the Christ join with him in such a prayer.  

Noah & Abraham (part 1 of 2)

By faith Noah, when he was warned about things not yet seen, with reverent regard constructed an ark for the deliverance of his family.  Through faith he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. – Hebrews 11:7  (NET)

Such an interesting character, this Noah fellow.  The story of him and his ark is one that people have loved to tell.  It is a fascinating tale of the Creator God’s judgment upon wickedness through the flooding of the world, along with the miraculous preservation of the pairs of animals, as the animals, along with Noah and his family, rested safely in the ark.  Here in the epistle to the Hebrews, as indicated by our text, the reader comes to learn something quite interesting about Noah.  It is learned that “he was warned about things not yet seen.” 

Essentially, in this, though these “things not yet seen” was an alert concerning a coming event that was ultimately a negative event, a promise about something to come was shared with Noah.  Having received this warning, Noah, “with reverent regard constructed an ark for the deliverance of his family.”  So Noah, though he could not look out and see what his God had promised, as the writer of the Hebrews letter indicates (thus sharing the common perception of the Noah story in that day), responded in faith to the promise by building an ark for the purpose of delivering his family.  We can also hear the author speaking according to the over-arching exile and exodus motif that seems to pervade the understanding of those that would compose Scripture, as an exile of judgment (flood) was at hand, but the Creator God provides an exodus (deliverance via the ark). 

According to this writer, what was the result of this response of faith from Noah?  Reflecting what can be understood to be a then-prevalent interpretation of the Noah tradition, the reader is informed that “he,” that being Noah, “condemned the world,” but more importantly for our purposes here, through this response of faith to what was understood to be the unseen promise of his God, Noah “became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”

Because Scripture must be read with the entire narrative in mind, and because a purported recipient of the epistle to the Hebrews would hear the text with a mind shaped by the story of Israel (as should be the case for any that confess Jesus as Lord), this statement about Noah would (and should) immediately call someone to mind.  Of whom is the hearer/reader reminded?  Naturally, the reader quickly realizes that this statement about Noah make him sound a lot like Abraham. 

That said, if one was to look into the fourth chapter of Romans, and thus see a first century reckoning (through the lens of the Christ-event) of how the story of Abraham was then perceived (not necessarily using Romans as a vehicle for the interpretation of Hebrews), what is it that could be found there in regards to Abraham?  One would read “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (4:3b).  With this, of course, the Apostle Paul is quoting from the fifteenth chapter of the book of Genesis, which would function to call to mind the entirety of that chapter, and indeed the entire Abraham story, as said chapter plays a crucial role in that story. 

Before one can look to that particular portion of Genesis, however, there is a need to know why this is said of Abraham.  In chapter of twelve of Genesis, the Creator God is reported to have spoken to the man that was then named Abram, saying “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you.  Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing” (12:1b-2).  Here, and though the story of Noah chronologically and Scripturally precedes the story of Abraham, because knowledge of the story of Noah is contingent on knowledge of the story of Abraham, and because the story of Noah, for the covenant people of God, can be interpreted through the story of Abraham, one could safely pause and say that Noah, in the salvation that God offered to him, most assuredly exemplified divine blessing. 

Splendor & Amazing Deeds (part 2 of 2)

We see this all-nations emphasis in the first verse, which exclaims to “Sing to the Lord, all the earth!” (96:1b).  Why was all the earth to sing?  Why should the earth, the nations, do so?   This was to occur because Israel would tell of what their God had done for them, in demonstration of His strength, His power, His grace, and His worthiness to receive praise.  As the covenant people of the covenant God, their charge was to “Announce every day how He delivers! (96:2b) 

“Deliverance” is always a key word, and should be specially recognized whenever it is seen.  Any talk of deliverance must, of necessity, be connected to exile, subjection, imprisonment, and enslavement, in a reflection on the Egyptian experience that was such a formative part of Israel’s experience.  The language of deliverance is exodus language.  It is almost a shorthand way of recalling their exodus (and all that goes along with it).  Thus, through telling their story of their deliverance from Egypt, their God would be glorified. 

Quite understandably then, this was to be a major component of their praises.  For Israel, what could be more splendid and amazing than what their God had performed for them in fulfilling His ancient promise to rescue His people from Egypt?  Naturally, because of the annual celebration of Passover as the quintessential defining moment of this people of the Creator God, the exodus story would always be fresh in their memories and ready to be told.

We can then go on to see what the Creator God intended for the whole of the world (all its peoples) when we read, “Ascribe to the Lord, O families of the nations, ascribe to the Lord splendor and strength!  Ascribe to the Lord the splendor He deserves!” (96:7-8a).  This could only take place if that God’s people are telling “the nations about His splendor,” and informing “all the nations about His amazing deeds” (96:3).  Clearly, there is an application here for believers; and of course, the “splendor” and the “amazing deeds” are undoubtedly summed upon the Gospel’s declaration (Jesus is Lord).  Unfortunately, like Israel, who, by and large (as the Scriptures indicated) turned inward upon themselves and were more concerned about their place and their land and their blessings, the covenant God’s people still turn inward, becoming focused on themselves, and with making personal, individualistic spiritual experiences the end of the Gospel. 

When the message becomes what believers need to do or be or avoid (or what they are against) in order to be good and holy people, then it also becomes nearly impossible to tell about the splendor and the amazing deeds of the God of deliverance.  If such things are not happening, then the people of the world that are eagerly groaning in anticipation of hearing the Gospel (and seeing it performed), will likely never come to the point at which they are able to do anything that remotely resembles the ascribing glory to the Lord, as the evidence that they too have become people of His covenant, sharing in eternal life (the life of the age to come, the working of the Spirit), as they “bring an offering and enter His courts!” (96:8b) 

In the telling of His splendor and deeds, all the earth would “Tremble before Him” (96:9b).  It is only as it is proclaimed that “The Lord reigns!” (96:10b), which is the Gospel, will it in fact be confessed that “The Lord reigns!”  The question presents itself at all times: are believers announcing their God, and telling about Him, and therefore doing that which generates and brings Him praise and allegiance?  Or do believers primarily go on speaking of themselves?      

Slavery (part 1 of 2)

“Every seven years each of you must free any fellow Hebrews who have sold themselves to you.  After they have served you for six years, you shall set them free.” – Jeremiah 34:14a  (NET)

This seems to be a simple enough directive, and is prefaced with Israel’s God offering a reminder to His covenant people, through Jeremiah, that “I made a covenant with your ancestors when I brought them out of Egypt where they had been slaves” (34:13b).  The text above is what follows.  Because the people of Israel had been in perpetual slavery in Egypt, with seemingly no way out of it, God wanted to be sure that His people did not perpetually enslave any of their fellow countrymen, who would most likely come into the state of slavery as a result of indebtedness.  Generally, there was a path out of debt slavery, but this would not always be the case, depending on the level of debt incurred. 

Just as their God had entered in to their situation in order to free them from their slavery to the Egyptians, having heard the groaning of His people in their condition of oppression, so their God was, in a sense, here entering in to make sure that a state of slavery among His people would not be persistent.  We can certainly imagine that the God of Israel would not want to have to hear the groaning of His own people, as they are oppressed by their fellow covenant-bearers, and therefore need to deliver the cursing of plagues upon His own people for this transgression. 

Not only was the basis for the freeing of slaves rooted in the remembrance of their Egyptian slavery and the subsequent deliverance that they experienced, but the act of freeing the slaves would be a great reminder of God’s saving power.  By freeing their own slaves, and doing so in a way that demonstrated mercy along with a willingness to sacrifice and endure hardship for the sake of their fellow citizen, the people of Israel were able to seize on the opportunity to enact and reenact the deliverance that had come their way in Egypt.  Unfortunately, we go on to hear the Creator God saying “But your ancestors did not obey Me or pay any attention to Me” (34:14b). 

What was the contingent basis for this communication from their God through Jeremiah?  During the reign of King Zedekiah there was an agreement that the people of Jerusalem were “to grant their slaves freedom” (34:8b).  It had been the case that “All the people and their leaders had agreed to this” (34:10a).  We can read that, “They originally complied with the covenant and freed them.  But later they had changed their minds.  They had taken back their male and female slaves that they had freed and forced them to be slaves again” (34:10c-11).  “That was when the Lord spoke to Jeremiah” (34:12), expressing His displeasure at this situation.  An analogy could be here adapted, in which the Israelites who freed their slaves, but then changed their minds and took them back again, are akin to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who eventually freed their slaves and attempted to take them back.  This, of course, did not go well for them. 

For a moment, by freeing their slaves, the people showed their God something quite different than what He had been consistently shown by their ancestors.  Through Jeremiah, this God reportedly says to His people that “Recently…you yourselves showed a change of heart and did what is pleasing to Me” (34:15a).  It could be said that they actually showed some trust in their God, relying upon His just decrees and trusting that things would work out just fine even if they were to suffer what might seem to be financial loss in releasing their slaves.  God says that they pleased Him in that “You granted your fellow countrymen their freedom and you made a covenant to that effect in My presence in the house that I have claimed for My own” (34:15b).  However, they quickly returned to what had come to be their historical form, as God says “But then you turned right around and showed that you did not honor Me.  Each of you took back your male and female slaves whom you had freed as they desired, and you forced them to be your slaves again” (34:16). 

Finger Of God (part 2 of 2)

The astute reader of the story of Scripture will inevitably notice that the exodus from Egypt is a constantly recurring theme throughout the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures.  Owing to this, it would make a tremendous amount of sense for the reader to be cognizant of it as a theme in Jesus’ ministry as well, especially as the exodus was the act and is a picture of God’s rescue, redemption, salvation, and deliverance of His people, all of which are said to take place according to His covenant faithfulness.  The messiah, who is presumed to be Jesus, is the one that was expect to bring these things about for Israel.  Thus, the idea of exodus would understandably weigh heavily on one that seems to present Himself as that messiah.

So is it reasonable to hear echoes of Exodus here in Jesus’ words that are recorded in the eleventh chapter of Luke?  Let us examine what follows so as to be able to find out.  Jesus says, “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his possessions are safe” (11:21).  If the remembrance of exodus is strong here, and we believe it to be so, then reflecting on Pharaoh, we could certainly understand him to be a strong man, fully armed, guarding his palace and his possessions (the enslaved Israelites).  We must always bear in mind that Jesus, as a member of the nation of Israel, would understand His life and situation and place in the world defined by the ongoing self-understanding of Israel, which was heavily influenced by the seminal event of Israel’s history, which was its exodus from out of Egypt.  With such thoughts in mind, and continuing on in Luke, Jesus says, “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” (11:22).  Could this not be read as an analogy to what took place in Egypt?  Is it reasonable to presume that Jesus’ fellow citizens could hear His words along these lines? 

Because the plagues are shown to be the result of Pharaoh’s stubbornness, the narrative shows them as being primarily directed towards him so as to influence his thought and actions, though they dramatically affected his people as well.  Clearly then, a reader is able to see Israel’s God as the stronger man attacking and conquering him.  Initially, Pharaoh had the “armor” of his magicians being able to match the displays of power, which allowed for a hardness of heart, but that armor was eventually removed.  Furthermore, when the point is reached that Israel is going to be released from its bondage, we find 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” (Exodus 12:26). 

We also realize that any use of exodus language would be somewhat readily connected to thoughts about Israel’s expected messiah and the long-awaited establishment of the kingdom of God (heaven come to earth).  Just as the Creator God is said to have engaged in His creation on behalf of His people to deliver them from the oppression of Egypt and to bring them into their promised land, so there was an expectation that their messiah, that God’s representative much like Israel, would deliver the people of God from the subjugation of foreign rule, and deliver Israel’s land back to them as their own sovereign possession.  So it is with these echoes of Exodus that we can comfortably understand Jesus making a messianic claim for Himself, as He concludes His thoughts in connection with the finger of God and the kingdom of God, by saying, “Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters” (11:23).  Jesus’ hearers, if they were making the exodus connections, would likely hear Him talking about Israel’s God being the stronger man that would attack and plunder the Romans.  However, Jesus had a greater enemy in mind that would fall at the execution and demonstration of power, with that enemy being death. 

Finger Of God (part 1 of 2)

The magicians said to Pharaoh, “It is the finger of God!”  But Pharaoh’s heart remained hard, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had predicted. – Exodus 8:19  (NET)

As we read this verse, we find ourselves in the midst of the story of the plagues that are reported to have come upon the land and people of Egypt prior to Israel’s exodus.  The statement above, in regards to the finger of the Creator God of Israel, was specifically made in relation to the plague of gnats.  With this plague, we find that “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Tell Aaron, “Extend your staff and strike the dust of the ground, and it will become gnats throughout all the land of Egypt”.’  They did so” (8:16-17a).  As we would expect when reading the Scriptural narrative, this is what happened, as gnats did indeed come upon the land.  Up until that point, each time there had been a miraculous demonstration of power credited to the God of Moses and Israel, be it the turning of a staff into a serpent, the conversion of water into blood, or the bringing of frogs on the land, the reader is told that the magicians of Egypt were able to accomplish the same by their “secret arts”. 

When it came to the production of gnats upon the land, the men of Egypt attempted to follow suit.  Of course, it would be rather difficult to understand why they would want to continue doing so, as more gnats certainly wouldn’t be something desirable, but it is reasonable to imagine that there may ben an honor and shame component at work underlying the interactions and the narrative.  However, “When the magicians attempted to bring forth gnats by their secret arts, they could not” (8:18a).  Finally, a point had been reached where they could no longer go point for point against Israel’s God, and they came to realize that they were dealing with a power that was beyond them.  This is what elicited the cry of “It is the finger of God!”  However, even with these words from his magicians, the Pharaoh did not listen, thus aligning with a divine prediction that “although I will multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you” (7:3b-4a). 

The term “finger of God” is used elsewhere in Scripture.  It has a role in the New Testament, as we actually find it on the lips of Jesus in the eleventh chapter of Luke.  There, Jesus had cast out a demon, and some of the witnesses of this event attempted to explain this occurrence by saying “By the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons, He casts out demons” (11:15).  Jesus responded with an indication that this made no sense at all, saying “So if Satan too is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?” (11:18a)  It is logical to ask why in the world Satan would go about casting out Satan (himself).  Going further, Jesus says, “But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you” (11:20).

As we peruse the pages of the Bibles, we will find “finger of God” used four times, two of which we have now already seen.  The other two are Exodus 31:18, where Moses recounts that the tablets of stone that he received on Mount Sinai had been “written by the finger of God;” and in Deuteronomy 9:10, where, recounting the events first recorded in Exodus, Moses speaks again about the tablets that were “written by the very finger of God.” 

Thus, three of the usages of the term are explicitly connected with the exodus of Israel, with two of them being found in the book of Exodus itself.  Therefore, because we know that Jesus would have chosen His words quite carefully and purposefully, and because, as a Jew, Jesus would have understood Himself according to Israel’s historical/traditional narrative, it is reasonable to conclude that when Jesus uses the phrase, and when Luke reports Jesus using the phrase, also considering the fact that Jesus’ audience is Jewish (though Luke’s may not have been), that it is meant to be an implicit reminder of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, the power of the Creator God that was on display in that exodus, and the deliverance of Israel.  

Immediately (part 3 of 4)

Creating an undoubtedly great stir, Jesus will go on to feed what is referred to as “the five thousand.”  Rather than staying to bask in the glory that this would bring, “Immediately He made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side” (6:45a) of the lake, as He went up on the mountain to pray.  From that vantage point, Jesus was able to see His disciples struggling against the wind.  He was going to pass by them, walking on the water, but changed His mind when they saw that His presence terrified them greatly.  Sensing this, “immediately He spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart; it is I.  Do not be afraid’.” (6:50b)  Surely, this is more of the immediate message of the Gospel. 

Over and over, as the Gospel stories proceed apace, through Jesus, with His words and actions, the author tells us “Your King is here.  All has been put under my feet.  I have conquered death and disease.  I have promised and delivered to you complete salvation (a joining with the Creator God by joining with the covenant people through belief in Jesus as King), redeeming you from the cursed corruption of this world through your faithful proclamation of me as Lord and subsequent allegiance to Me.  By the power of the long-hoped for resurrection of the dead that in-breaks the world here and now, I share with you the life of the age to come.  What need you fear?”  Just as Jesus got into the boat with His disciples, we join with Him (union) through the believing proclamation of the Gospel in both word and deed.  Jesus was now with them when they reached the other side of the lake, and “the people immediately recognized Him and ran about the whole region and began to bring the sick people on their beds to wherever they heard He was” (6:54b-55).  Yes, the very presence of Jesus, which now is manifested through the preaching of His Gospel and action according to it, communicates the same power.

Jesus went to the region of Tyre and Sidon, to the house of a Syrophoenician woman.  He did not want anyone to know that He was there, but this was an untenable desire.  “Immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of Him and came and fell down at His feet” (7:25).  Because this Gentile woman showed no delay, neither did Jesus.  Her daughter was relieved of demon oppression.  Jesus returned from the region of Tyre, making His way back to the Decapolis.  Here, he conducts His famous feeding of the four thousand.  Upon its completion, as before, He did not remain with the people, to bask in the adulation of the masses, but “immediately He got into the boat with His disciples and went to the district of Dalmanutha (or Magadan/Magdala)” (8:10).  There was always more to be done.  Yes, in the power of the eternal life in which we share by the faithful allegiance to the Gospel (Jesus is Lord), there is always more to be done in His service, as the Christ works through us to extend redemption and covenant participation to His people and His creation. 

Jesus would be transfigured, and seen on the mountain with Moses and Elijah.  He came down from the mountain to find a crowd with some of His disciples.  “Immediately, all the crowd, when they saw Him, were greatly amazed and ran up to Him and greeted Him” (9:15).  A boy with an unclean spirit was brought before Him, “and immediately it convulsed the boy” (9:20b).  Upon this, Jesus makes mention of the requirement of belief upon Him for healing to take place.  “Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, ‘I believe; help my unbelief!’” (9:24)  With confession of unbelief that included a revelation of the belief of the father, Jesus responded with deliverance, immediately. 

In time, Jesus would encounter a blind man, who asked for the recovery of his sight.  With his request, the blind man revealed his understanding of Who Jesus was, having called him the “Son of David” (10:48), recognizing Him as King of Israel.  This was the very manifestation of saving faith (faith that binds a man to the covenant God, people, and purpose) and Jesus responds to this gifting, saying “Go your way; your faith has made you well” (10:52a).  “And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way” (10:52b).  This formerly blind man, demonstrating the faith to believe the Gospel, desired nothing more than to follow his Lord and Master, his King.  Such is the inherent power of the message of the Gospel.  It is the power of God unto salvation.