Absalom (part 19)

To this point, the portrayal of David as being similar to Pharoah, David’s removal as being similar to Pharaoh’s loss of power over Israel, and Absalom’s exodus from his own exile as akin to Israel’s exodus from Egypt under Moses, was effective, and perhaps, knowing what is known about David, even appropriate.  However, it is at this point that Absalom, for some unknown reason, though he was receiving advice to do this, departs from the epic narrative that he has been creating for himself. 

As one thinks back to the story of Israel’s exodus, one thing that is not be found in that story is Moses taking it upon himself to raise his hand against the one from whom Israel was being delivered.  Remember, Moses had attempted to start the revolution in Egypt on behalf of Israel, with his killing of the Egyptian taskmaster.  This failed to accomplish the goal that Moses had in mind, and he was sent into his own personal exile.  When he returned, he was gifted with the ability to lead an exodus that was peaceful, at least as it related to the actions of the people.  As has been seen, Absalom has effectively mirrored this.  Though he was not, as far as the story goes, attempting to start a revolution through his killing of Amnon, it was that killing that resulted in his own exile away from Jerusalem.  It was during that time, no doubt, that the seeds of a plan to take the throne began to germinate, perhaps primarily because he was treated unjustly due to his execution of justice. 

Returning to the exodus story then, it is clear that Israel conducted no demonstrations of violence against Egypt.  The Egyptians, on the other hand, experienced the violent power of Israel’s God, which serves as a reminder of the fact that Moses left it to the God of Israel to bring judgment and destruction in the way that He saw fit.  Then, after the death of the firstborn, which saw Pharaoh finally relent from his stubborn stance and practically demand that Israel depart from Egypt, the last thing Moses was going to do was turn around and attempt to kill Pharaoh. 

In that case, the Creator God had already judged Pharaoh, so what good would that do?  What would that prove?  Even after Pharaoh came out after Moses and Israel, Moses did not send men to confront Pharaoh and his army.  Rather, he continued to trust the God that delivers to fight on behalf of His people.  Had Moses and Israel raised their hands against Egypt in any way, things might have turned out quite differently, as it would have been an indication that they did not fully trust that their covenant God was able to rescue them from their foreign subjugation. 

Absalom would have been wise to heed this example.  Instead, because he was convinced to believe that it was incumbent upon him to go out after his father, he essentially forsook the power of the Creator God to solidify his kingship and to carry out His promises to David through Absalom.  Israel did not turn back and fight against Egypt, rather, they looked forward, preparing themselves to face the enemies to come.  Absalom should have done the same, looking forward as well, in a spirit of thankfulness, rather than allowing for the entrance of a spirit that has to be described as nothing more than vengeful.  Had he not been vindicated already?  Had he not been exalted?  Had Israel’s God not fought his battles for him?  Absalom should never have turned back so as to bring further suffering on his deposed father.  It is this that would ultimately bring David vindication through suffering (with his own story of exile to exodus), while bringing suffering to Absalom in the wake of what had been his own vindication, and sending Absalom from exodus to exile.   

No One Knows The Hour (part 2)

It might be of interest to note that, in order to call Jeremiah to mind, Jesus quotes the from the eleventh verse of the seventh chapter.  He may have been able to quote from another portion of the section provided above, but He did not.  He references the portion of Jeremiah’s polemic that speaks of “robbers.”  The Greek word translated as “robber” in Matthew is “leston.”  Now this is not to be found in Matthew’s narrative, but in the Gospel of John the man named Barabbas is described as a “robber,” using a derivation of the same Greek word used by both Jesus and Jeremiah. 

Matthew merely mentions the fact that Barabbas was a “notorious prisoner.”  Presumably, the people in Jerusalem knew who and what he was.  According to Mark, Barabbas “had committed murder during an insurrection” (15:7), and Luke also mentions the insurrection and murder (23:19).  This is interesting, as the Greek term applied to Barabbas by the author of John, which is the same one that is directed to the Temple authorities by Jesus, carries with it the notion of insurrection and revolution---going well beyond simple thievery.  Little wonder then that Barabbas was, to use Matthew’s language, a notorious prisoner. 

It is appropriate to here marvel at the genius of the author, as ironically, through His triumphal entry, Jesus is stirring thoughts of an insurrection to be carried out against the Romans, whereas those that run the Temple are carrying out an insurrection against the very God that they believe is going to act to deliver them from the power of Rome.  Ultimately, as is well known, Barabbas, the one that seeks to participate in revolutionary activity that may have the effect of driving the Romans from Jerusalem and from Israel through armed conflict, is the man that is released rather than Jesus.  Also in a horrific ironic twist, eventually the people of Israel will undertake a violent resurrection against Rome that will result in the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem, so that the very place in which Jesus stands and speaks will be thrown down to the ground.      

Matthew is not the only Gospel in which Jesus words about the day and hour are reported.  Mark records these words as well.  In the thirteenth chapter Jesus is heard to say “But as for that day or hour no one knows it---neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son---except the Father” (13:32).  Without any intervening material such as that which is to be found in Matthew, Mark moves immediately to Jesus saying “Watch out!  Stay alert!  For you do not know when the time will come” (13:33). 

Luke presents a similar narrative to what is heard in both Matthew and Mark, though it has its own differences that are peculiar to Luke’s presentation of Israel’s Messiah.  Luke does not have Jesus offering an opinion on whether or not one can know the day or the hour of the coming of the Son of Man, but he does alludes to it when he writes “But be on your guard so that your hearts are not weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of the life, and that day close down upon you suddenly like a trap.  For it will overtake all who live on the face of the earth.  But stay alert at all time, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that must happen, and to stand before the Son of Man” (21:34-36). 

Hated (part 1)

You will be hated by everyone because of My name.  But the one who endures to the end will be saved. – Mark 13:13  (NET)

Jesus---the healer, the wondrous miracle worker, the good and wise man, the social revolutionary---tells His disciples that they will be hated by everyone because of His name.  He says this while in the process of answering a question posed by Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:3).  Prior to the question and the answer, one of His disciples had spoken of the Temple, making reference to its size and grandeur.  This occurs after Jesus has observed the significant offerings that were being made for the Temple, which would be used for its ongoing upkeep, adornment, and expansion. 

The amount of money that filtered through the Temple was substantial, with large offerings able to do wonderful things for the Temple that visibly represented Israel’s hopes, its dreams, and its God.  Nevertheless, Jesus focuses in on one particular woman---a poor widow, who “came and put in two small copper coins” (12:42b).  He said to His disciples, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others.  For they all gave out of their wealth.  But she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had” (12:43b-44). 

It is tempting to view the recognition of such obviously sacrificial giving as a badge of honor and praise from Jesus.  At first glance, it would appear that Jesus is singling this woman out (the imagery, of course, is always that of an older woman, but that is not necessarily the case, as it would have been common for her to have been quite young) and holding her up for praise due to her gift.  It would seem to be the case that at least one of the disciples hears these words from Jesus as praise for the woman, as He seemingly honors her very small gift above the others. 

Thus this disciple takes it upon himself to say “Look at these tremendous stones and buildings” (13:1b), as if to say “So much money has been given to erect and to maintain this Temple.  Some of those gifts have been quite large, and many were no doubt sacrificial in nature.  In addition, all of the people participate in this construction and maintenance program by their gifts.  This Temple would not be what it is today if all gave only what this widow gave, and yet you, Jesus, say that she gave more.”   

Jesus’ response to His disciple allows for consideration of the very strong possibility (probability) that His recognition of the widow’s gift was actually something of a lament.  What has actually taken place is that this woman has given all that she has to live on, when in reality, it is the Temple authorities, as they represent the covenant God of Israel that provides for His people, that should be supporting her and not allowing her to do this very thing.  Instead, the implication is that this widow is now going to suffer hunger and thirst and privation as a result of her support of a Temple (and a Temple regime) that is shortly going to come to an end. 

Emphasizing that this is the point at which He is driving, Jesus says “Do you see these great buildings?  Not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!” (13:2)  These are cataclysmic words.  These are weighty words.  The Temple will be torn down?  What do you mean the Temple will be torn down?  This is big news---the biggest!  Moreover, such words are not being spoken by some raving lunatic.  This is being said by the man recently hailed with “Hosanna!  Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!  Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!  Hosanna in the highest!” (11:9b-10) 

This is being said by the same man who had entered the Temple, and with a demonstration of a deep and abiding respect for the Temple and its purposes, along with a respect for Who and what it symbolized, drove out those who were selling and buying in the Temple courts and overturned the tables of the money changers and prevented merchandise from being carried through the Temple courts (11:15-16), saying “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’?  But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” (11:17)  First He defends its honor, and now He speaks of its destruction.

Token Of Submission (part 1 of 2)

Don’t listen to Hezekiah!  For this is what the king of Assyria says, “Send me a token of your submission and surrender to me.  Then each of you may eat from his own vine and fig tree and drink water from his own cistern.” – 2 Kings 18:31  (NET)

Hezekiah is the king of the nation of Judah (the two tribe southern kingdom after the division of the Israel into north and south following the death of King Solomon).  At this point in the Scriptural narrative, Assyria has already conquered the northern kingdom, and has now set its sights upon furthering its conquest and bringing the southern nation of Judah into submission as well.  In fact, it is reported that “King Sennacherib of Assyria marched up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them”(18:13b).  Quite understandably, this action provoked alarm on behalf of Hezekiah and the people of Judah, causing Hezekiah to respond to the emissary of the King of Assyria by saying “I have violated our treaty.  If you leave, I will do whatever you demand” (18:14b).  Upon this statement, a duty was laid upon Judah.  This duty would be a regular payment of some form, as an indication of subservience 

Subsequently, in customary fashion in these matters and in order to cement Hezekiah’s loyal service, Sennacherib sent a messenger to Hezekiah.  The purpose of the messenger was to inform Hezekiah, through his subordinates, that he was powerless to stand up to the might of Assyria.  Accordingly, continued subjection should be considered to be the best course of action for Hezekiah and his people.  In addition, Sennacherib’s messenger communicates information that could very well have had the effect of conjuring up thoughts of the promised covenant curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and the judgment of God upon His people if they failed to live up to their relatively simple covenant responsibilities, when he says, “The Lord told me, ‘March up against this land and destroy it’.” (18:25b) 

The messenger goes on, resorting to intimidation tactics and invoking the name of Israel’s God as the One Who has not only sent Assyria, but Who will not in any way be able to stem the tide of destruction if the people choose to rebel.  At this point, the messenger of Sennacherib says, “this is what the king of Assyria says, ‘Send me a token of your submission and surrender to me.  Then each of you may eat from his own vine and fig tree and drink water from his own cistern’.” (18:31)  It is the words that follow this that should give one pause, and in so doing, offer a mental transport from this scene of ancient Israel into the very present life of faith as lived by Resurrection power, which is somehow delivered through the agency of the Spirit of the Creator God. 

The Creator God makes a claim upon His divine image-bearers and their lives, trumping the claim of all other kings and principalities and powers as He, through His messengers (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor/teachers, and His Word) speaks to them and says, “Send me a token of your submission and surrender to Me.”  To what are they submitting and surrendering?  They submit and surrender, by the act of faith (manifested as confessing allegiance to Jesus and His ways in both word and deed) to the message that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah---the crucified and resurrected Lord of all (the Gospel).  What is the token of that submission and surrender?  Naturally, the token is love, which is both concrete and abstract.  However, two very real, tangible, and visible tokens of such are baptism and the communion. 

Mordecai & Jesus (part 1 of 2)

Now Mordecai went out from the king’s presence in purple and white and royal attire, with a large golden crown and a purple linen mantle. – Esther 8:15  (NET)

After all that had taken place, this was Mordecai’s vindication.  Not only that, but this represented the vindication and deliverance of the covenant people of the Creator God, as the Jews were saved from the destructive decree that had been issued by Haman, and unwittingly enforced by the king. 

The narrative of Esther informs the reader that Haman had been exalted and set above all of the officials of the kingdom of Persia (3:1).  “As a result, all of the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate were bowing and paying homage to Haman, for the king had so commanded.  However, Mordecai did not bow, nor did he pay homage…  When Haman saw that Mordecai was not bowing or paying homage to him, he was filled with rage” (3:5).  Because Mordecai would not bow to Haman, not only was he enraged at Mordecai, but “Haman sought to destroy all the Jews (that is, the people who were the kin of Mordecai) who were in all the kingdom” (3:6b).  Here, hatred directed towards Mordecai is converted into a plan to wipe out the Creator God’s covenant people.  In effect, for Haman, Mordecai stands as the representative for all of the Jews.      

So even though a decree of destruction against all the Jews was set forth, the plan is reported to have been foiled through the faithful actions of Esther, as she is urged on her Uncle Mordecai.  In a very messiah-like role, she willingly took her life in her hands and interceded on behalf of the covenant people, so as to spare their lives.  This would have the added effect of bringing punishment upon all that would present themselves as enemies to her people.  Effectively, prior to her brave intervention (again, as urged by her uncle), the Jews were as good as dead.  The covenant faithfulness of the Creator God was at stake.  “Throughout each and every province where the king’s edict and law were announced there was considerable mourning among the Jews, along with fasting, weeping, and sorrow” (4:3a).  They knew that they had been sold into death.  Mordecai himself “went out into the city, crying out in a loud and bitter voice” (4:1b).  The reader of the story can almost hear him crying, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” 

Yes, it was as if the people of Israel had gone down into the very pit of death.  Apart from the intervention of their God to deliver them from certain destruction, there was no hope.  But something happened.  Though it is well known that the God of Israel is not mentioned in the Hebrew version of the book of Esther (though the Creator God is invoked in the extended, Greek Septuagint version), it is resoundingly clear that their faithful, covenant God is on their side and working on their behalf, fulfilling His promises to them.  Clearly, the implication is that intervention is necessary for the covenant people to continue, and for their God to be vindicated as well. 

In their fasting, weeping, and sorrow, they are clearly humbling themselves and seeking God, according to God’s promise to Solomon that can be found in the second book of the Chronicles (7:14).  They are under intense persecution and they are in need of redemption and deliverance.  This is the same story that is presented in the book of Exodus (the foundational narrative for the people that would identify themselves as a people of exodus), repeatedly in the book of Judges, and also in the prophetic work of Daniel.

Fleshly Desires & Despising Authority (part 2 of 3)

Further, it is said that “in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words” (2 Peter 2:3a).  What was it for which they might be greedy?  Power?  Money?  Absolutely.  The deceptive words that Jesus was not the Messiah, coupled with a play on the emotions of people in conjunction with the promises of their God, would make it relatively easy to exploit the people to band together and to rise up to achieve the ends desired by these false teachers. 

What is said of such people who deny the Master with destructive heresies, slander the way of truth, who indulge in fleshly desires for power and human glory, who despise authority (as one considers Paul’s repeated insistence upon respecting governmental authority, while seemingly working to subvert empire at every turn), and lead God’s people into debauched lifestyles that are not in accordance with God’s intentions for His people and the kingdom model established through Jesus?  “Their condemnation pronounced long ago is not sitting idly by; their destruction is not asleep” (2:3b).      

“Those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority” (2:10a) are despising “kuriotes,” which has the root of “kurios,” or “Lord.”  This was an official title for Caesar, and would not be far from the mind of the reader if governmental authorities are actually being referenced.  They are also said to be “Brazen and insolent” (2:10b).  This insolence is demonstrated in that “they are not afraid to insult the glorious ones” (2:10c).  Other translations render these “glorious ones” as “dignitaries,” or “those in exalted positions.” 

If these translations are accurate, then placing these words in the historical setting of the ongoing desire for rebellion against Rome is not terribly far-fetched.  To this is added that “even angels, who are much more powerful, do not bring a slanderous judgment against them before the Lord” (2:11).  “Them” being the dignitaries.  Why does this occur?  What is the root of these insults?  It is the rejection and denial of Jesus as the Messiah.  It is the rejection of the Gospel’s proclamation that Jesus is Lord and King of all.  Because of this rejection, which leads to a continual desire to find and support a messiah that can fulfill the fleshly desires of the exaltation of national Israel, a great time of destruction will come.  Ironically, rejecting Jesus’ as King leads to the desire to overthrow Rome, whereas accepting Jesus as King leads to appropriate submission to human governmental power, while also acknowledging its limitations.

Moving on, one reads that “these men, like irrational animals---creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed---do not understand whom they are insulting, and consequently in their destruction they will be destroyed” (2:12).  Now, having just determined that insults were being cast against dignitaries and those of exalted position, it might be reasonable to think that this refers solely to such individuals.  It seems possible, though, that there is a double meaning here, in that while they are insulting authority that Paul has said has been established by God (with national Israel under the curse of Rome’s oppression as a result of the Creator God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises to them), they are truly insulting their God Himself, through the far more grave rejection of the One that He showed to be the Son of God (King) and Messiah (King) by raising Him from the dead.  

Fleshly Desires & Despising Authority (part 1 of 3)

…especially those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority. – 2 Peter 2:10  (NET)       

How should one go about interpreting and understanding what it is that is being communicated in this second chapter of the second epistle of Peter?  When one reads about the indulgence of fleshly desires and the despising of authority, there is most likely a temptation, owning to the almost thorough inculcation by modern-day Western Christendom, to understand this according to “spiritual” things.  In so doing, “fleshly desires” become those “sins” in which one desires to partake, while “despise authority” comes to be understood as rebellion against pastors and church leaders that are attempting to get their congregants to live “holy lives.” 

However, as one looks through this chapter, is it not possible to see traces of that first-century revolutionary fervor and messianic expectation and ongoing desire for rebellion against Rome that was so incredibly rampant?  Might it be possible to place this writing in a historical context, and thereby gain a better understanding of the message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord and King)?  Let’s find out.

The author writes, “But false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you” (2:1a).  Simple enough so far, as past is prelude to present for the author’s audience.  It is said that “These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies” (2:1b), which is what false teachers are generally in the habit of doing, “even to the point of denying the Master Who bought them” (2:1c).  Clearly, the “Master” here should be understood to be Jesus.  What is the denial of Jesus?  Naturally, it is the denial that He is the Messiah.  If one denies that Jesus is the Messiah, the natural corollary is to continue looking for and pointing to potential messianic figures that could eventually be counted on to rise up to overthrow Rome through a gathered military might.  Ongoing evidence of this way of thinking can be observed for over one hundred years after the death and Resurrection of Jesus.  By extension then, denying that Jesus is the Messiah includes the denial of His way of going about bringing in the kingdom of God.

Just as there were messianic claimants and attempted revolutions before Jesus, so too there were messianic claimants and attempted revolutions after Jesus.  The re-subjugation of Palestine between 66 and 70AD, which included the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, was the result of these continued messianic movements.  Owing to this, one could certainly speak of “destructive heresies,” with this destruction being of a very real sort.  Going on then, one indeed finds “As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves” (2:1d).  This is both prophetic and eminently practical in its application.  Because by all estimates, the four hundred ninety years of Daniel had come and gone without any discernible actions that would demonstrate that God had vindicated His people by placing Israel, under their messiah, as the head of all nations, a denial that Jesus was the Messiah would only lead to furious and fervent actions on the part of His people (Israel) to take it upon themselves to prove their God’s covenant faithfulness, doing so by taking up arms against their oppressors in the tradition of the Maccabees of old (2nd century BC).

The reader/hearer then goes on to find, “And many will follow their debauched lifestyles.  Because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be slandered” (2:2).  Remember, this false teaching is predicated on denying the Master, which includes, at the very least, the denial of Jesus’ Messianic claims, status, and ways.  Certainly, one could say that denying Jesus, which would also entail the denial of His Resurrection as His vindication, would be a slandering of the way of truth.  

Transgressions & Sins (part 2)

With this being prefaced by talk of the subjection of all to the Christ as Lord (with the employment of the Caesar rhetoric ringing in our ears), and all that would be implied by the ideas of subjection, is it possible that these were the transgressions and sins of seeking to violently expunge their pagan oppressors from their land, and in that way to establish the promised kingdom of God, with national Israel as its exalted nation and its people as its supreme rulers?  Is it possible that, drawing from the Jesus tradition, that these were the transgressions and sins, based upon hatred, spite, isolation, and exclusivism, from which John the Baptist, and Jesus in His first recorded proclamations in Mark’s Gospel, urged the people to repent?

This was not God’s method, as clearly revealed in Christ.  This was the method of “the ruler of the kingdom of the air,” the rulers and authorities and powers and dominions (earthly and spiritual), of which we read in the first chapter of this letter to the church at Ephesus.  This appears to be the continuing spirit that Paul believed to be energizing a good portion of his fellow countrymen, in ongoing disobedience to God’s plans and purposes and intentions for His people to be a light to the Gentiles.  As they were refusing to embrace Jesus’ kingdom message, Paul sensed that they were, instead, persisting in their headlong rush towards revolutionary activity that was eventually going to result in the destruction of Jerusalem and its people.

In this message, Paul does not stand separate from the Jewish populace, merely throwing accusations, but he hearkens back to his former days as a Pharisee of Pharisees.  Doing so, he lumps himself in with those that were on the same path that had violent overthrow in sight or mind.  Bearing in mind the kingdom of God context that he has created, and which permeated the air that he and his countrymen breathed, he wrote that “all of us also formerly lived out our lives in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind” (2:3a).  Here, he confesses that he too had a desire to pursue the violent route to national independence and the violent ushering in of God’s kingdom through a Davidic messiah that would run roughshod over the enemies of Israel.  This could be seen in his reaction to the kingdom message of Jesus. 

Indeed, in his violent persecution of the church, Paul was actively attempting to eliminate those that were saying that the kingdom had been ushered in through Jesus and who were encouraging their brothers and sisters to drop their nationalistic desires.  Accompanying the relinquishment of nationalistic desires, these same people were abandoning the covenant markers that set them apart from the peoples of the world (circumcision, Sabbath keeping, food laws), thus jeopardizing Israel’s future and ability to gain independence. 

From Paul’s previously held point of view, if Israel abandoned these marks of covenant, then they were abandoning their standing as the righteous people, thus giving up any hope of their God acting on their behalf, or alongside them, in any attempt to cast off their Roman subjugators.  This way of thinking must be held in mind when considering Paul’s talk of kingdom, inclusion in the covenant people, the true ruler of the world, and thoughts about “the flesh,” along with transgressions and sins.  While we don’t limit talk of transgressions and sins to this context of desires for violent revolution, it certainly seems to be appropriate to make sure that the two are attached as the message of this letters is under consideration. 

Reiterating and restating the point previously made, it is quite possible that, in Paul’s way of thinking, this acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Lord, along with its recognition of the Creator God’s entering into history to establish His kingdom through a renewed Israel that preached the Gospel of Christ, would merely lead to fewer people being willing to take up arms when the time for rebellion against Rome presented itself.  Now though, Paul looks upon such cravings and desires of the flesh and mind as serving to create a generation of his fellow Jews that were going to be “children of wrath” (2:3b), who would eventually be utterly conquered by Rome.