No One Knows The Hour (part 20)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corinth's Communion (part 3)

Now, it must be said that what comes after the “instruction” portion of Paul’s rehearsal of the Lord’s Supper is regularly incorporated into the practice of communion.  The “words of warning,” as they are generally viewed, are usually included so as to induce introspection among potential participants at the table.  Paul writes “For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup.  For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.  That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead.  But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged.  But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world” (1 Corinthians11:27-32). 

These “words of warning” have been appended to the “instructions” for good reason.  However, the way in which they are presented and in which they are urged to be taken, removes them from their practical and objective context, as participants are usually asked to apply this warning individually, as somehow related to their personal salvation or personal spiritual status, with considerations of personal and individual judgment falling if one does not have the right mindset or status of holiness in one’s taking of the elements or the absolutely correct understanding of what the bread and the cup represent.  

Pretending that Paul has such things in mind is unsatisfactory, and it ignores the corrective action that Paul is taking, first and foremost with this church, as this body of Jesus-followers fails to follow the example of Jesus and fails to understand that Paul is criticizing this church for their failure to embody the kingdom of heaven.  In addition, the encouragement to come to these words individually and personally, as if the recipients of this letter were silently reading their Bible for themselves in their studies, rather than hearing the letter read out loud to the entire congregation, has had a hand in creating an unreasonable and Scripturally unsupportable expectation of some type of Christian perfectionism and a need for confession of personal “sins” after a personal examination of the condition of one’s heart before taking communion.

Continuing on from the “words of warning” that Paul has delivered, corrective language from Paul is encountered.  He goes on to write “So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you assemble it does not lead to judgment” (11:33-34a).  If one is allowed to jump right in to the communion at the twenty-third verse, not taking into consideration that which comes before in the same chapter, nor the building message and movement of the entire letter, then the addition of these words from Paul do not make a great deal of sense. 

Along with that, if there is a failure to take common first century meal practice into consideration when these words are read, then they are not going to make sense.  Finally, if one does not bear in mind the vision of the messianic banquet and the personal example of Jesus participating in communion in a way that goes beyond the “Last Supper” and takes in the whole of the tradition of His meal practice that has the vision of the messianic banquet standing in its background and informs the understanding of the early church as to why they are even engaging in this practice in this way, then there will be a high degree of difficulty encountered in the process of making sense of what Paul is getting at it with these final corrective instructions.  Thus it is more than likely that the reader or the exegete is going to approach and utilize the words of Paul incorrectly, missing out on the depth of the serious problem that is being addressed.

Only Son (part 5)

Before one can attempt to delve into what Nicodemus is supposed to think when he hears Jesus say “This is the way God loved the world…” (John 3:16a), it is necessary to examine other parts of the conversation, as this is a building process.  Jesus does not just make this lone statement, but gets there over the course of a relationship and a conversation (of which we have only a glimpse).  In the Gospel record, Nicodemus has already spoken to Jesus about the signs that He is doing, with an indication of an assent on his own part that Jesus “has come from God” (3:2b).  Again, it cannot be said enough that this was a time of great expectation.  Israel is expecting their God to act on their behalf.  They are expecting some type of a messiah to make his presence felt. 

A widely-held (though certainly not exclusive) understanding about the messiah was that he would somehow be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God.  When Nicodemus speaks of Jesus as coming from God, Nicodemus speaks from within this expectation.  Nicodemus seems to be making a rather subtle inquiry as to whether or not Jesus was (or at least thought He was) the messiah.  His own words about the Creator God of Israel being with Jesus would seem to indicate that he believes that this is a strong possibility. 

How does Jesus respond to what Nicodemus says?  He responds by making reference to the Jewish, messianic hope that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was certainly going to fulfill His promise and establish His kingdom.  Keeping things simple, this would entail firstly the removal of Roman oppression, and secondly the subjugation of Rome to Israel, as Israel was to be elevated above all nations, with its messiah installed and recognized as king.  Jesus, presumably, is fully aware of the Jewish hope and would have shared in that hope.  Indeed, by His own words that are to come, one can see that He believes that He is fulfilling the Jewish hope of kingdom. 

In demonstration of this awareness of the kingdom hopes harbored by Himself and by His people, Jesus says to Nicodemus: “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (3:3).  After a response from Nicodemus which serves to reveal just how truly puzzling this statement was, with its inclusion of being “born from above,” Jesus continues and says, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (3:5). 

Clearly, Nicodemus is confused by Jesus’ speech here, and one would have to imagine that he would not be alone in his confusion.  Even Jesus’ own disciples, though they are with Him all the time and had the chance to hear Him speak (and likely expound on His thoughts) on a regular basis, as He likely made similar intriguing and potentially confusing statements on that same regular basis, were routinely perplexed by what He had to say and found themselves in need of private explanations. 

Granted, as a Pharisee and an esteemed member of the Jewish ruling council, Nicodemus was no doubt part of the elite and educated citizens of Israel.  It is unlikely that he was an intellectual and theological slouch.  However, the Gospels report that Jesus routinely stumped even the most elite with His statements and His questions.  As he hears the words of Jesus, one can surely envision the confused expression that rested upon Nicodemus’ face, prompting Jesus to say “Do not be amazed” (3:7a) at these things that I have said to you. 

Only Son (part 3)

So what was it that Nicodemus was supposed to understand from these famous words of Jesus?  Almost undoubtedly, when Jesus speaks these words about the lifting up of the Son of Man, he is being self-referential.  However, two thousand years of familiarity with the story of Jesus should not be allowed to cause one to imagine that the self-referential nature of the statement was supposed to be immediately clear to Nicodemus.  To think such a thing would be an unreasonable assertion on the part of the reader. 

Additionally, to treat Nicodemus as anything less than a well-learned, well-respected individual, simply because of what seem to be odd responses on his part to the questions and statements that Jesus is reported to be putting to him, would be an unwarranted reading based on theological and doctrinal pre-suppositions (and unfortunately ill-informed prejudices), along with the tangible benefit of the theological treatise of the Gospel of John, back on to the Scriptures. 

One of the bottom lines that must here be recognized is that Nicodemus is no fool, though some want to take the path of portraying him as such.  When he is first introduced into the story, he is identified as a Pharisee.  Not only that, the reader is informed that he a “member of the Jewish ruling council” (John 3:1b).  Too often, a caricature of Nicodemus as something of a less-than-fully-aware fool in the presence of Jesus, produces a similarly unfortunate caricature of the Jewish ruling council, all of which were too dense to recognize what was slapping them in their face in the person and ministry of Jesus.  It is to be remembered, that even Jesus’ disciples are shown to have failed to grasp who and what Jesus was. 

So as a Pharisee, Nicodemus would not only have been well-versed in the history of Israel, but he would have also stood as a guardian of its covenant-related identity markers.  At the very least, he would have seen himself as a guardian.  Accordingly, he would have been very much concerned and very much looking forward to the time at, and the means by which, Israel’s God would intervene on behalf of His chosen and faithful people, delivering them from their long-running exile (foreign subjugation, which was connected to their God’s curses upon His people for their failure to obey His commands and to fulfill His purpose for them). 

As a Pharisee, and therefore as a member of the group of people that was informally charged with the maintenance of the faithfulness of the people when it came to the marks of Jewish identity (covenant markers: circumcision, food and purity laws, Sabbath-keeping), it is likely that he would have found the existing situation, with Israel suffering under the oppressive heel of Rome and its Caesar, to be an untenable and highly undesirable circumstance.  This was likely to have been the case regardless of how many benefits Rome might bring (or claim to provide), and no matter how much “freedom of religion” was offered to them by their Roman overlords.  Ultimately, anything short of total autonomy, with Israel ruling itself and determining its own place in the world, was unacceptable. 

As a member of the Jewish ruling council, Nicodemus would have been in an officially sanctioned position of religious and civil influence among the people, walking in the world of Judaism (religious) that was somewhat desperately attempting to keep the people faithful to their covenant God as they lived in a state of great expectation, while also attempting to keep those same expectant people from running afoul of Rome and its power (civil), while they awaited another exodus (with the foreign powers leaving the land of Israel this time) similar to that which Israel experienced under Moses.