All The Saints (part 8)

The use of “strangers” and “enemies” seems to be directed towards Gentiles, as they were looked upon as being strangers to the covenant.  “Strangers” could easily be heard as “foreigners” or “aliens.”  Here it is quite useful to call upon the letter to the Ephesians, as it can provide a helpful expansion (not a proof-texting), verbalizing what may have been already (likely) understood by the Jesus-as-God-and-Lord-worshiping Colossian congregation that was probably composed of Jews, Judaizing Gentiles, and Gentiles. 

In the second chapter of Ephesians, following a few verses that could easily fit alongside and even substitute for the creedal expression of verses fifteen through twenty of Colossians one, Paul writes “Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh---who are called ‘uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘circumcision’ that is performed on the body by human hands---that you were at that time without the Messiah, alienated from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Colossians 2:11-12).  One would be hard-pressed to hear talk of “strangers and enemies” in Colossians in a way any different from the more explicit presentation here in the Ephesian letter.  The situation of Gentiles and their inclusion is very much at hand. 

Continuing in Ephesians then, which provides a more well-rounded understanding of the movement in Colossians (and if one considers the extreme likelihood that Ephesians was originally a circular letter, designed to be heard by a number of churches, possibly even those of Colossae, then understanding is even more greatly enhanced), Paul writes “But now in Christ Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (2:13).  It is possible to transport the “far away” and “brought near” into a Colossian context, with knowledge of the Gentile association of those words, so as to increase sensitivity to the subject matter at issue. 

Employing the same type of inclusive language in Ephesians, Paul continues, writing “For He is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, when He nullified in His flesh the law of commandments in decrees.  He did this to create in Himself one new man out of two, thus making peace, and to reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, by which the hostility has been killed” (2:14-16).  Paul insists that there is no longer any division between Jew and Gentile.  They are not to be held apart.  There is to be nothing that divides them. 

More than anything, this allows for glimpsing the mindset of Paul, even if such things that are explicitly mentioned in Ephesians go unsaid to the church at Colossae.  It should be impossible to separate this type of thinking from an assessment of Colossians, as the Jew/Gentile, appropriate covenant marker conflict (the law of commandments in decrees), colors in the landscape in which the church of Christ in Colossae and the letter directed to them is set. 

Visiting again the “strangers and enemies” reference in Colossians, and understanding that it is said in Ephesians in the context of bridging the divide between Jews and Gentiles, one could easily find Paul employing words such as “And He came and preached peace to you who were far off,” Gentiles, “and peace to those who were near,” Jews, “so that through Him we both,” that being Jews and Gentiles equally, “have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Ephesians 2:17-18). 

Rounding out his words to those that were considered to be strangers and enemies in need of reconciliation and redemptive inclusion into the assembly of God’s covenant people that sprang into existence with Abraham, Paul writes “So then you are no longer foreigners and noncitizens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.  In Him the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you are also being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (2:19-22).  This fits quite nicely with the Temple language that is subtly employed in verse twenty-two of Colossians one.  

David & The Gibeonites (part 2 of 2)

Putting aside a tendency to paint a rosy picture of King David, one should not overlook the calculated measures that are here taking place.  According to the history presented here in this book, David had recently experienced Absalom’s rebellion (with his own temporary deposition from power).  Together with that, there were other potential problems and rebellions with which to be dealt, and the most natural direction from which those problems would come would be the family of Saul.  Indeed, there is ample evidence of David being inclined to think in such ways. 

Looking back to his flight from Jerusalem, when he was met by Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth (the son of Jonathan to whom David had extended grace and seated at his table, treating him as one of his own sons---2 Samuel 8), when David sees that Ziba alone has come to him, without Mephibosheth, bringing him bread, raisin cakes, summer fruit, and wine (16:1), he says, “Where is your master’s grandson?” (16:3a).  Ziba replies by saying, “He remains in Jerusalem, for he said, ‘Today the house of Israel will give back to me my grandfather’s kingdom” (16:3b). 

Though this makes no sense at all, as it was Absalom, David’s son, that was supported by the people and taking the throne, one here sees David’s willingness to believe such a thing and the ongoing threat of reprisal from Saul’s family implied thereby, as he says “Everything that was Mephibosheth’s now belongs to you” (16:4a).  Now, with the famine and the appearance of the Gibeonites, the presence of Saul’s old enemies provide the means to end this always looming threat once and for all. 

So it is reported that “The king had mercy on Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, in light of the Lord’s oath that had been taken between David and Jonathan son of Saul” (21:7), though before he had been willing to quickly write off Mephibosheth and toss him aside as a traitor and conspirator.  Additionally, because Mephibosheth was crippled in his feet, not only would he not be able to rise up to lead an army, but David would also have been confident that the people of Israel would certainly not support one such as him as king. 

Sparing Mephibosheth, the king took seven sons and grandsons of Saul and “turned them over to the Gibeonites, and they executed them on a hill before the Lord.  The seven of them died together” (21:9a).  To go along with that, the Gibeonites left those men there to rot.  For David, problem solved.  Potential rivals to the throne have been eliminated.  However, drawing attention to what could truly have been viewed by the people as a rather despicable, unjust, unjustifiable, and clearly politically calculated action on David’s part, a woman named Rizpah, the mother of the sons of Saul that had been executed, “took sackcloth and spread it out for herself on a rock.  From the beginning of the harvest until the rain fell on them, she did not allow the birds of the air to feed on them by day, not the wild animals by night” (21:10). 

This was an unforeseen nuisance, and when David is told that this was taking place, he ordered their bodies to be taken, along with the bones of Saul and Jonathan, and to be buried in the tomb of Saul’s father in the land of Benjamin.  Thus, David can then seen to be honoring these men, when such could not have been further from his mind.  Most likely, keeping in mind the fact that David has just perpetrated a despicable act, he does this so that he will not be viewed as being responsible for the execution of the sons of Saul, though they had in fact done no wrong.  Of course, this must also be considered in light of the fact that the Creator God’s law clearly stated that a son was not to be put to death because of the actions of his father, though this was precisely what David allowed to take place because it was a furtherance of his own ends.   

No One Knows The Hour (part 39 of 39)

It was in response to these direct and specific questions that “Jesus answered them” (Matthew 24:4a).  Jesus did not set about answering an unasked question about the end of time.  No, He answered the question that He was asked.  No, one does not always expect this from Jesus, but then again, He is not answering a challenge from the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, or experts in the law.  He is answering His disciples, and as usual, when it comes to them, He is speaking plainly.  Yes, to the crowds He speaks in mysterious language, but He gives answers to His disciples.  So Jesus answers them.  His answer begins in verse five of chapter twenty-four, and it runs to the end of chapter twenty-five. 

The entire time, the focus of the answer remains unchanged, though He does provide interesting information in the process---unexpected information (unexpected in terms of Mark and Luke’s presentation of the disciples’ question, but anticipated in the question from the disciples as presented by Matthew) about the connection of the fall of the Temple to the time of the Son of Man’s coming to the Ancient of Days.  He even reinforces the connection, speaking about the Son of Man beyond the thrust text of this study, repeating the term three times in rapid succession, from verse thirty-seven to verse forty-four.  In all three cases, the Son of Man comes to receive His kingdom at an unexpected time---no one knows the hour. 

Throughout the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew (as well as Mark thirteen and Luke twenty-one), Jesus gives His disciples a great deal of information, clueing them in so that they will have a decent idea as to when the Temple is going to fall.  However, He could not be more clear that they will not know the exact moment that events will coalesce and conspire to bring down the Temple.  When it comes to that, “as for that day and hour, no one knows it---not even the angels,” the ones that will be sent out to gather His elect (24:31) and that accompany the Son of Man when He comes in His glory (25:31), “except the Father alone.” 

With the repeated mentions of the Son of Man, which seems to override the importance of fall of the Temple and truly becomes the point of the discourse, one gets the sense that Jesus’ words, though initially prompted by the question about the Temple, becomes less about them knowing the exact time of the Temple’s collapse, and more about them knowing that when it happens, and when Jesus’ prediction comes true, that they can then know that He, the Son of Man, has had His universal dominion confirmed and that He indeed rules as King and Lord of all. 

Had one been in the position to hear Jesus speak, that one may not have been able to know the hour that the Temple was going to come crashing down.  However, that same one could be certain that, according to His words, when it did, it would be possible to be supremely confident that He ruled as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  Indeed, it is appropriate to look to the place where the Temple once stood, see that it stands there no longer, and know that Jesus spoke truly, that He rules His kingdom, and that He demands participation in that kingdom along the lines outlined in the narrative found in Matthew.  Is it not that knowledge that should animate the lives of believers in this day?             

No One Knows The Hour (part 38)

To whom is Jesus referring when He speaks of sheep?  It is those to whom the Son of Man, the King, speaks and says “For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited Me in, I was naked and you gave Me clothing, I was sick and you took care of Me, I was in prison and you visited Me” (Matthew 25:35-36).  He, as the Son of Man, the King, goes on to add: “I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for Me” (25:40).  If a believer is looking for an answer as to what sort of person he or she is required to be, this is as good as any, especially when the goats are described as those that did not do these things.   

Tying off Jesus’ Temple-fall-and-coming-of-the-Son-of-Man related speech, and continuing a clearly pronounced connective theme, Matthew writes “When Jesus had finished saying all these things” (26:1a).  Based on what has been seen with the synoptic use of “these things,” and the fact that it appears in a related passage in Peter’s second letter, its usage here simply cannot escape attention or be at all considered as a random placement.  Matthew wants to draw attention to the fact that all that has just been heard from Jesus, from the fourth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter through the final verse of the twenty-fifth chapter, was presented in relation to the fall of the Temple and the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days for the purpose of receiving His kingdom.

This, of course, includes Jesus’ insistence that “as for that day and hour no one knows it---not even the angels in heaven---except the Father alone” (24:36).  What Jesus is saying here could not be any more obvious.  In fact, by this point, it would take a willful refusal to acknowledge the point that is being made or to hear Jesus talking about anything but the fall of the Temple when He makes this statement.  This probably does not even need to be said, but to somehow connect this to some kind of rapture or to the return of Jesus to earth, considering the incredibly obvious context that is on offer, is not only absurd but also strains credulity to the point of breaking. 

Throughout the whole of Matthew twenty-four, Jesus has never once wavered from answering the question that was posed by His disciples and which was prompted by His statement about the Temple.  By way of one final review, Matthew writes “Now as Jesus was going out of the Temple courts and walking away, His disciples came to show Him the Temple buildings” (24:1).  In response to what He sees, Jesus says “Do you see all these things?  I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!” (24:2)  His disciples, who did not imagine that He was talking about anything but the Temple being torn down with not one stone being left on another, which would have been catastrophic and unimaginable to their way of thinking (the end of their world), say “Tell us, when will these things happen?” (24:3b) 

To that Matthew adds “And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (24:3c)  That question is based upon the quite popular seventh chapter of Daniel.  According to what would have been the popular understanding of that passage, the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days, together with the concordant receipt of His kingdom, will mark the end of one age and the beginning of another.  Apart from that, one must remember that Mark and Luke simply have the disciples adding “And what will the sign that all these things are about to take place?”  Yes, the disciples know that Jesus is speaking about the fall of the Temple and want to know how they will know when it is that this singularly cataclysmic event will occur. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 36)

Sticking with Matthew’s presentation for the purposes of this analysis, the reader is now in a state of superior comprehension of the words of Jesus when hearing such things as “Whenever they persecute you in one place, flee to another.  I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (10:23); “The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will gather from His kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers” (13:41); “For the Son of Man will come with His angels in the glory of His Father, and then He will reward each person according to what He has done” (16:27)---a clear Daniel seven reference; and “I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (16:28).  It is now understood that the last of these mentions of the Son of Man can be equated with the fall of the Temple, as would be made clear later in Matthew.  For the followers of Jesus then, seeing the Son of Man coming in His kingdom was the same thing as seeing the Temple fall. 

Something mentioned within the previous analysis of second Peter, which was the fact that talk of “heaven and earth” was a common way of referencing the Temple, leads back to that which precedes Jesus’ statement that “as for that day and hour no one knows it---not even the angels in heaven---except the Father alone” (Matthew 24:36).  Just before Jesus says this, and immediately after He speaks about the generation that will see the Temple fall, Jesus says “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away” (24:35). 

This, as has been alluded to several times, is also identically reported by the three evangelists---a fact that, like the other identically reported statement that preceded it, should not escape attention.  Now, does one take this statement, allow imagination to wander about again, and hear Jesus going off on a tangent about the end of the world when He speaks these words, or is to be heard within context, speaking in a very understandable way?  Obviously, the latter option is the more prudent and proper choice. 

Jesus has not changed the subject.  Jesus has not gone off on a tangent.  He is speaking about the fall of the Temple.  He is continuing to answer the question posed to Him at the beginning of the chapter following His declaration that not one stone of the Temple would be left upon another, as to when this would happen.  He has given the bulk of His answer, telling His disciples and other hearers the types of things that they would see and which should prepare them for the Temple’s fall, and re-asserts the finality of His prediction when He says that “Heaven and earth,” the Temple, “will pass away, but My words,” this prediction, “will not pass away.” 

In other words, Jesus says, “Oh yes, the Temple is going to fall.  You can count on it happening.”  Beyond that, one can hear Him making an existential claim, in that even though the Temple will pass away, His words---words that spring from the true Temple, will never pass away.  Also, because it is coincident with the fall of the Temple that Jesus (the Son of Man) will be going before the Father (the Ancient of Days) to receive His kingdom, those who are listening to Him, and those who come to believe in Him through the preaching of His disciples, can have confidence that His words are words that will endure.  His words about the Temple will indeed prove to be true---they will never pass away.  History will prove Him correct and He will reign as the Son of Man.     

No One Knows The Hour (part 6)

So, with the Temple as the backdrop, Jesus embarks on a series of parables.  The first one of these is known as the “parable of the two sons.”  Not only is the parable offered in the Temple, but it begins with a question, “What do you think?” (Matthew 21:28a), with that being directed to “the chief priests and elders of the people” (21:23b).  They had posed a question to Jesus.  Jesus had not answered the question, but instead posed a question to them.  He continued to question them, as was just said, by prefacing a parable with a question. 

The parable of the two sons, spoken in the Temple and to the Temple authorities, uses a vineyard as its setting, with a father and two sons as the characters in the story.  Thus Israel as the point of reference is unmistakable.  The father and two sons theme is quite prevalent in Israel’s history: Abraham with Ishmael and Isaac, Isaac with Esau and Jacob, and Joseph with Manasseh and Ephraim.  The fact that it is being directed to whom it is being directed, in the place where it is being spoken, with the conclusion drawn about a failure to believe on the part of those to whom Jesus speaks (Temple authorities), builds on the Jeremiah theme and is further judgment upon the Temple and its system.  Remember, Jesus has already pronounced judgment on the Temple by way of His actions and His words in the Temple.  The fig tree has withered and He has spoken of the mountain to be thrown into the sea.  The setting has not changed, so it is correct to continue hearing Him speak according to this train of thought, without any unwarranted deviations from this path. 

Following the parable of the two sons is the “parable of the tenants.”  Jesus commences with “Listen to another parable” (21:33a), with this serving as a reminder that Jesus is speaking to the same people to whom He was speaking with the previous parable.  This parable tells a horrible story, and Jesus uses terms such as “evil” to describe the antagonists in the tale.  Of course, Matthew removes all ambiguity when he writes “When the chief priests (Temple authorities---representatives of the Temple) and the Pharisees heard this parable, they realized that He was speaking about them” (21:45).  Jesus is calling the chief priests “evil.”  Thus, He effectively de-legitimizes them, their positions, and that which they represent. 

With this, one cannot help but think about the Apostle Paul standing before the council in Jerusalem and being struck on the mouth.  Paul responds to his abuser by saying “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall!” (Acts 23:3a)  The reply that comes to this statement is “Do you dare insult God’s high priest?”  (23:4b)  Now, this is not to say that Jesus was speaking to or of the high priest, and of course He did not speak these words overtly, as they were implied in the parable and the chief priests made the connection themselves, but as one considers the issues of legitimacy and authority and the words of Jesus, it is interesting to note that Paul says “I did not realize, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You must not speak evil about a ruler of your people.’” (23:5) 

Because Jesus refers to the antagonists in the parable of the vineyard as evil, with the knowledge that this epithet was meant for those who were challenging Him there in the Temple, Jesus may very well have been emphasizing that these men (and even the high priest) were not legitimate rulers, and that they were nothing more than the caretakers of a Temple and system that has been judged as illegitimate by Israel’s Creator God.  Indeed and to that point, Jesus also says “I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you” (21:43b), and it was the Temple---the place of God’s dwelling and the place where heaven and earth met---that represented the Creator God’s presence and His kingdom.  This carries meaning on multiple levels, especially if one considers that Matthew, using these words that are absent from Mark’s account, is most likely composed in a time following the destruction of the Temple at the hands of the Romans. 

Calling His Disciples (part 12 of 12)

It is not at all surprising to find that Abrahamic insistence included almost directly and immediately following the call of Simon, Andrew, James, and John, with the additional information that James and John left their work and their father and followed Jesus.  Once again, mentioning a call by Jesus, who was being recognized and worshiped as the Creator God by the author of Matthew (who is constructing his historical narrative not necessarily as a chronological biography, but constructing his narrative in a certain way and for a certain purpose to communicate certain facts about the activity and nature of the God that is being more thoroughly revealed by Jesus) and adding the leaving of a father as a response to a summons, is sure to call Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant to mind. 

After a very brief interlude to round out his fourth chapter, in which Matthew describes Jesus’ ministry throughout Galilee, and concludes by insisting that “large crowds followed Him” (4:25a), the beginning of the fifth chapter reads: “When He saw the crowds, He went up the mountain.  After He sat down His disciples came to Him” (5:1).  While there is a temptation to notice the Moses motif that is also being obviously laid into the narrative (teaching from a mountain, mentioning the law and recounting some of the “ten commandments”), that is merely kept in mind while remembering the more foundational Abrahamic context.  Though there are large crowds following Him, the author, very specifically, says that “His disciples came to Him.”  Though there were most likely more than just the four called and named disciples at this point, making mention here of the group of disciples, having just presented the calling of the first four, must be completely purposeful. 

What does Jesus do?  “He began to teach them” (5:2).  What does He say?  He says “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.  Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.  Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.  Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied” (5:3-6).  With a call from Jesus, the leaving of a father, words that are presented as being directed to those called---which are the disciples (though obviously there is a much larger audience present), and now this talk of “Blessed are…”, it is nigh impossible to not hear echoes of the Creator God speaking to Abraham (after he had heard “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you”) and saying “Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you.”  Verses three through six clearly spell out the covenant God’s directing of blessing to the called ones of Jesus, with them being given a nation (kingdom of heaven), comfort, and an inheritance (here, one thinks about the promise of an heir to Abraham and that which would be possessed by his descendants). 

Of course, Jesus did not stop there.  He continued on to say, “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.  Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.  Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God” (5:7-9).  Here, the indication is that the blessings are now bi-directional.  This sends the audience back to the Creator God’s words to Abraham, with which Abraham was told “I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing.”  Certainly, we can see that these three uses of “Blessed are…” are outwardly directed, in that Jesus’ called ones are to demonstrate mercy and purity of heart, while being peacemakers.  By this they will exemplify divine blessing and be sources of divine blessing for the world, while also continuing to be blessed by their God (also an exemplification of divine blessing, which obviously works on two levels), in that they will receive mercy, see their God, and be called children of the Creator God. 

Jesus continues, saying “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.  Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things about you falsely on account of Me.  Rejoice and be glad because of your reward is great in heaven, for they persecuted the prophets before you in the same way” (5:10-12).  Does not this strike a chord in similar fashion to what Abraham was also told, which was “I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse”? 

Beyond that which can be seen in chapter twelve of Genesis, this talk of a great reward in heaven is a reminder of the fifteenth chapter of Genesis and where the Creator God speaks again to Abraham and says, “Fear not, Abram!  I am your shield and the one who will reward you in great abundance” (15:1b).  For sake of context, this follows the account of Lot being captured and Abraham defeating his captors to rescue Lot, after which he received the blessing from Melchizedek (persecution, blessing, and reward). 

Finally (for purposes of this study), Jesus says “You are the salt of the earth…  You are the light of the world… let your light shine before people, so that they can see your good deeds and give honor to your Father in heaven” (5:13a,14a,16).  What rounded out the Creator God’s first words to Abraham?  “All the families of the earth will bless one another by your name.”  Abraham was called to be salt and light in a way that would reveal his God’s glory and gather to Him the praises that He deserves---the abounding of blessing at the hand of that God being quite obvious as it flows out in all directions.  The disciples of Jesus were called to do and effect the same.  

Calling His Disciples (part 8)

The fact that only two of the disciples specifically called by Jesus are said to have left their father is irrelevant to the larger point that is being made.  The simple mention of leaving their father, when called by the one that is worshiped as the embodiment of the Creator God by the community that is hearing the story, creates an Abrahamic frame of reference that can be comfortably applied to the rest of the callings.  In this Abrahamic light then, one can take a moment to stretch the analogy just a bit further, calling attention to the fact that James and John are said to have taken the action to leave their father together. 

The call of Abraham, according to the Genesis narrative, was to “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household.”  However, those that know the Abraham story know that Abraham took his nephew Lot with him.  So even though these two disciples (James and John), unlike Abraham, did indeed make the difficult decision to leave their father (Zebedee), that decision was made a little bit easier, as each man did so in conjunction with his brother.  The fact that the first four called disciples are said to have been business partners, at least according to Luke, probably made the decision to leave their occupations and to follow Jesus just slightly less tenuous.

Is the call from Jesus to follow Him, combined with an account of leaving a father behind the extent of the similarities to the call of Abraham?  Of course not.  That would hardly be enough of a basis from which to build a credible argument.  Considering that the covenant God’s redemptive plan for His creation begins with Abraham, climaxes with Jesus and is to be continually carried out through His disciples through the time of the consummation of His kingdom and beyond, there must be far more points of contact between the Abrahamic covenant and the call to discipleship.  Fortunately, there are. 

Returning to Mark’s Gospel then and venturing to the third chapter, it is there found that Jesus “appointed twelve (whom He named apostles), so that they could be with Him and He could send them to preach and to have authority to cast out demons.  He appointed twelve” (3:14-16a).  The duplication of “appointed twelve” could easily be heard as an emphasizing of the re-gathering of the twelve tribes of Israel.  As the Creator God ordained Israel to be a light to the nations, so too Jesus has ordained twelve to the same end.  Naturally, any implicit references to the Creator God’s covenant with Israel also carries with it an implicit reference to the Abrahamic covenant, as there is no Israel without Abraham, and there would be no Mosaic covenant without the Abrahamic covenant. 

So in coming to understand the Abrahamic mental triggers that would be pulled by the appointment of twelve, one can  then make a rather broad analysis based on what it is that Mark says next.  If the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants are in mind when Mark writes “so they would be with Him and He could send them,” then this is yet another recapitulation of the long-standing charge to Israel, for the Creator God had promised Israel that He would dwell among them if they were faithful to the obligation to carry out His commandments.  Ultimately, this dwelling among them would be for the purpose of their revealing His glory to all peoples.  Certainly this can be seen as Israel both being with their God and being sent by their God.  If that is the case, then one is forced to revert further to that which is foundational to Israel’s relationship with their God, which is the promise to Abraham. 

Calling His Disciples (part 7)

If one considers and accepts that the Genesis narrative does allow for this account by Stephen, then any supposed difficulties or contradictions vanish.  It would be incorrect to assert that Stephen somehow got the account of Abraham and his call wrong or that he was simply mistaken in his telling of the story, or that Luke was mistaken in his report.  This is especially important if when considering that Luke, as the author of Acts, clearly presents Stephen as speaking “under the inspiration” if you will, as Luke intends to make the point that it is Jesus Himself that has given Stephen the words he is to speak. 

Luke knows what he is doing in his writing, and would naturally have in mind what he has previously written, which was “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to synagogues and prisons.  You will be brought before kings and governors because of My name.  This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses (martyrs).  Therefore be resolved ahead of time not to make your defense.  For I will give you the words along with the wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict” (21:12-15).  This plays out in Stephen’s trial.  

Obviously, Jesus, if He is indeed speaking through Stephen (presumably via the Spirit of the Creator God), which appears to be the conclusion that Luke desires his hearers to reach, is going to get the story of Abraham correct.  That said, it is interesting that Stephen, when recounting the history of Israel, omits the portion of the call in which Abraham is directed to leave his father.  This is probably a standard bit of smoothing out of the Abraham narrative, since it is clear that, though the call came at an earlier point in his life, according to the Genesis narrative, Abraham did not leave his father until after his father had died.  The point is, the call came to Abraham while his father was still alive, not after he is dead, as one might presume if simply reading Genesis and contemplating a straight chronological progression from the end of chapter eleven to the beginning of chapter twelve, which, if read in such a way, makes the call to leave his father make little sense. 

So yes, Abraham is given a difficult choice.  Will he stay with his father or will he leave his father, as the Creator God has directed him to do.  Clearly, Abraham chose to stay with his father.  In a sense then, and it is okay to point these things out because Abraham is not to be deified, it can be asserted that Abraham failed in this area.  Of course, Abraham failed in other areas too, so it’s not as if this is groundbreaking news.  Where Abraham failed, in that he did not undertake the journey in response to the Creator’s call until after his father had died, these disciples succeeded in their response to the call, leaving their father when called.  Painting a big picture then, where Adam, Abraham, and Israel had failed, Jesus and those that follow after Him will succeed, with this demonstrated in these disciples (leaving their father when called by Jesus (the second Adam/the one that will complete Abraham’s mission/the new Moses/the embodiment of Israel/the incarnate Creator God).  

Though there is no reason whatsoever to take a dogmatic stance here, thinking about the call of the disciples in conjunction with the call of Abraham, along with the similarities and differences to be found, gives a new twist to one of Jesus’ most provocative statements, as recorded by both Matthew and Luke.  Using Luke’s treatment, one reads that “Jesus said to another, ‘Follow Me.’” (9:59a)  This, according to this particular theory of engagement with this Gospel, is going to have brought Abraham’s call to the minds of Luke’s audience.  What is the response to Jesus’ call?  “He replied, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father.’” (9:59b) 

Might this rather standard excuse for not taking action be an oblique reference to Abraham?  If Abraham, the progenitor of the covenant people, didn’t do something that the covenant God had commanded him to do until after his father died, surely his descendants should not be expected to do so.  To this, Jesus responds, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God” (9:60).  Perhaps Jesus is here insisting that His countrymen go beyond the example provided to them by Abraham?  For Luke’s purposes (and Matthew’s), the audience that is hearing his construction of a Jesus narrative, has already seen two disciples respond to His God-to-Abraham-like call by leaving their father, and here, with the addition of another story from Jesus’ life, he builds on that premise.

Calling His Disciples (part 6)

The “basic” happening connected to a couple of disciples departing from their father would have been readily identifiable to the original hearers of these Gospels, as the majority of the audience would have been well-versed in the history of Israel and the story of the Creator God’s people.  The primary audience (and later audiences that would come to be necessarily versed in the Israel narrative that gives shape to Jesus and His Gospel message) would have been ready (and rightly so) to hear, process, and interpret this story of Jesus according to the worldview that was constructed and given shape by that history. 

Much like those that confess Jesus as Lord and believe in His Resurrection are conditioned to a pre-disposition to accept accounts of the supernatural and miraculous, so too would the audience of the Gospel accounts, following His Resurrection that was understood to have shown Jesus forth as Israel’s Messiah and therefore the Creator God acting in the flesh on behalf of Israel and the world, be conditioned to place the story of Jesus and His ministry within the context of the covenant God’s long-running redemptive plan for His people and His world.  That plan, of course, was intimately connected to Israel and is shown forth in the history that they told and by which their identity and their interaction with the world was shaped.

So when the Gospel authors tell stories about Jesus calling His disciples, and these stories are heard with a post-Resurrection understanding of Jesus as the human voice of Israel’s Creator God (realizing that all of these accounts, though seeking to relate pre-Resurrection history, are presenting a post-Resurrection narrative with an obvious and justifiable theological bias), and the authors offer this seemingly minor detail about the father of two of these disciples and the fact that they were called to leave him, the thoughts of the hearer should take flight to Genesis and to Abraham.  In chapter twelve of Genesis one finds “Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you” (12:1). 

In substance then, those hearing these stories of the call of the disciples as they are presented in the synoptics, are hearing a recapitulation of the call of Abraham.  If this is the case, an objection might be raised that Abraham was not actually called to leave his father, or at the least, that he did not have to make that difficult decision, as the eleventh chapter of Genesis appears to close by recounting that Abraham’s father died in the land of Haran before Abraham received his call from God.  That objection falls flat, as the text of Genesis does not necessarily indicate a chronological progression of events. 

Understanding that the Genesis account is not necessarily a progression takes a step in the direction of reconciling the Genesis account with the account of Abraham that is provided by Stephen in Acts (the second part of the Luke’s two-part narrative).  There, Stephen says “The God of glory appeared to our forefather Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he settled in Haran, and said to him, ‘Go out from your country and from your relatives, and come to the land I will show you.’  Then he went out from the country of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran.  After his father died, God made him move to this country where you now live” (7:2-4).  

Calling His Disciples (part 5)

Now restricting this study to the records of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, particular notice should be taken of yet another feature of their stories.  Though it has been mentioned in the initial review of the record of the calls of Jesus’ first four specifically called disciples, this feature, as part of the movement of this project, demands to be given its own special attention.  That feature is the mention of the father of James and John, Zebedee, and the fact that his sons leave him when Jesus makes the call. 

Now, this is not an overlooked feature by any means, though a significant aspect of this departure has been overlooked to be sure.  Long has it been the case that expositors and preachers have drawn attention to this feature of the Gospel narratives, pointing out that when Jesus calls, He expects a wholehearted devotion that transcends family ties.  This is undoubtedly true, and the earliest followers of Jesus certainly saw themselves as a fictive kinship group and a new humanity.  Of course, at the same time, it is often said that Jesus prizes family values above all else.  This event seems to fly in the face of the commandment to honor father and mother, but that is a subject for another day. 

Reviewing the record then, Mark informs his audience that “Going on a little farther, He saw James, the son of Zebedee, and John his brother in their boat mending nets.  Immediately He called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed Him” (1:19-20).  Matthew adds that “Going on from there he saw two brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in a boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets.  Then He called them.  They immediately left the boat and their father and followed Him” (4:21-22). 

Luke’s record is a little less explicit, in that there it is reported that Peter had been astonished at the haul of fish, “and so were James and John, Zebedee’s sons, who were Simon’s business partners” (5:10a).  Following that, Jesus directs words to Peter (5:10), which then flows into a report of their bringing their boats to shore, leaving everything (which would include James and John leaving their father), and following Jesus (5:11).  It should be noted that Luke does not specifically mention James and John leaving their father (the explicit mention of which apparently does not serve a purpose in particular telling of the Jesus story), but as is obvious, it is implied in the narrative.    

Why mention Zebedee at all?  Why this identification of James and John in this way?  Is it for purposes of delineation, so that there would be no confusion due to the presence of multiple men named James in the record of the earliest church?  Such is certainly possible.  Why mention the fact that they left their father?  Did Zebedee have some type of standing in the early church and used that as a way to influence these authors to include a mention of him in their stories of Jesus?  Maybe.  Is it purely to make the point that following Jesus may very well involve the sacrifice of livelihood and of family relationships?  This would be a reasonable conclusion. 

Is a reader to take from the fact that James and John are identified in this way, and that they are said to have left their father while Andrew and Simon and others are not reported to have had to leave their father behind as an indication that the call comes differently to different people---some will be called to leave their family while others will not be asked to do such things?  That could work as well.  While all of these conclusions could certainly be drawn, and while there is no need to raise a protest to any of these ideas, there is something far more basic happening here, and it is in connection with the underlying narrative, which is that of the nation of Israel. 

Calling His Disciples (part 1)

Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will turn you into fishers of people.”  They left their nets immediately and followed Him. – Mark 1:17-18  (NET)

With these words, Scripture offers the first report of the call and response of Jesus’ first disciples.  This occurs as Jesus “went along the Sea of Galilee,” where “He saw Simon and Andrew… casting a net into the sea (for they were fishermen)” (1:16).  Repeating the thrust text of this study then, “Jesus said to them, ‘Follow Me, and I will turn you into fishers of people.’  They left their nets immediately and followed Him” (1:17-18).  To these two are quickly added another two, as we read “Going on a little farther, He saw James, the son of Zebedee, and John his brother in their boat mending their nets” (1:19). 

This story is also told in two of the other Gospels.  In Matthew it is said that “As He was walking by the Sea of Galilee He saw two brothers, Simon (called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishermen).  He said to them, ‘Follow Me, and I will turn you into fishers of people.’  They left their nets immediately and followed Him.  Going on from there He saw two brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in a boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets.  Then He called them.  They immediately left the boat and their father and followed Him” (4:18-22).  It is unsurprising to find Matthew offering up a bit more information than what is to be found in Mark, as Matthew mentions that James and John are said to be in the boat with their father at the time of their call.  This adds an interesting dimension to the fact of their leaving to follow Jesus, as they are said to have left their father, with whom they are presumed to have been working up until that very moment. 

Luke’s treatment of the call of these particular disciples differs from that of Mark and Matthew, with far more information provided in what is really a different story.  There, Luke reports that “Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, and the crowd was pressing around Him to hear the word of God.  He saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gotten out of them and were washing their nets.  He got into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little way from the shore.  Then Jesus sat down and taught the crowds from the boat.  When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, ‘Put out into the deep water and lower your nets for a catch.’  Simon answered, ‘Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing!  But at your word I will lower the nets.’  When they had done this, they caught so many fish that their nets started to tear.  So they motioned to their partners in the other boat to come and help them.  And they came and filled both boats, so that they were about to sink.  But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying ‘Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!’  For Peter and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, and so were James and John, Zebedee’s sons, who were Simon’s business partners.  Then Jesus said to Simon, ‘Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.’  So when they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed Him” (5:1-11). 

Luke’s Gospel begins with this statement: “Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.  So it seems good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught” (1:1-4).  This would seem to imply that Luke is perhaps a bit more serious about his details, and that he wants his intricate details to be taken very seriously.  As Luke, because of his extensive two-part series (Luke & Acts), is considered to be more of a historian than the other Gospel writers (though this is probably up for debate, depending on what is meant when one seeks to define “history” or “historian”), his account of the call of Simon, Andrew, James and John becomes very interesting, as it is worthwhile to note the substantial differences and the detailed elaborations. 

In Luke’s account, which is presumed to have been built upon Mark’s account as a basis, Jesus is not merely going along or walking by the Sea of Galilee, where He sees these individuals and calls them to join Him.  Rather, the story speaks of Jesus preaching, His getting into Simon’s boat, the command to fish, the great catch, and the call to follow.  It is here that one learns that James and John were Simon’s business partners.  However, if one is surprised or put off that Luke’s presentation is different, though these differences should not cause an observer any real trouble, and if the rendition of the events that is on offer in his work is to be taken as perhaps a more accurate and expanded rendering of the events in question, then it is possible that an observer is going to be flatly shocked when he or she comes to the record of the calling of the first disciples when they come to John’s Gospel. 

Love On John's Terms (part 25)

Not only does this remind the observer of the fact that the setting in which Jesus is presented as speaking is the same setting in which He has given sight and standing within the covenant community (no longer ostracized) to the man blind from birth (who was looked upon as cursed---much like a Gentile), but it also informs the same observer that the author is reaching back even further, tying this event to the events recorded in the seventh chapter of the Gospel, which is the point of commencement of this particular portion of John’s wider narrative. 

There, Jesus is reported to have said “My teaching is not from Me, but from the one who sent Me.  If anyone wants to do God’s will, He will know about My teaching, whether it is from God or whether I speak from My own authority” (7:16b-17).  This dovetails quite nicely with the Father language of the tenth chapter.  In the seventh chapter, in conjunction with His words about God, Jesus says “Hasn’t Moses given you the law?  Yet not one of you keeps the law!  Why do you want to kill me?” (7:19)  In the tenth chapter, Jesus speaks of laying down His life. 

Following His accusation that there are those that want to kill Him in chapter seven, the crowd responds by saying “You’re possessed by a demon!” (7:20b).  In chapter ten, the author presents the conclusion of a similar pattern, with the aforementioned reference to accusations that Jesus is possessed by a demon.  Back to the seventh chapter, one finds “Then some of the residents of Jerusalem began to say, ‘Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?’” (7:25), which will ultimately, within this story, culminate with Jesus’ declaration that He is willing to lay down His own life---no man takes it from Him.  From that point, an interesting exchange commences, with a back and forth between and amongst Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Jewish leaders. 

Keeping in mind the close of the scene in chapter ten, questions are raised about the geographic location from which Jesus has sprung.  Questions about His pedigree are raised because He is believed to be from Galilee, and it is said that “no prophet comes from Galilee” (7:52b).  When this is considered, one must not forget this use of “prophet” in John and its connection to Moses.  Jesus responds to this challenge by speaking of Himself as “the light of the world” (8:12b), apparently contrasting following Him with living a life of darkness.  Darkness, of course, could easily be a euphemism for blindness. 

Shortly thereafter, Jesus begins making repeated references to His “Father,” which will set the tone for its use in the tenth chapter, which forms part of this same extended story.  Also, the issue of the possibility of Jesus killing Himself is raised (8:22), which is answered by Jesus’ firm declaration in the tenth chapter that He will lay down His own life, with the ability to lay it down and take it up again.  Because of what precedes that statement, which was His referencing false messiahs, which would remind His hearers of those who had had their lives snuffed out by the enemies of the Creator God’s people, the issue of whether or not Jesus may take His own life is put to rest. 

In the forty-eighth and fifty-second verses of the eighth chapter, Jesus is once again accused of being possessed by a demon, which adequately continues the narrative flow, reminding the hearer of John’s story about what has been heard to this point.  Though He leaves the Temple area, the events of the ninth chapter, in which the man born blind is healed, informs the reader that the story begun in the seventh chapter is continuing.  The query of “A demon cannot cause the blind to see, can it?” is an overt reminder of the healing of the blind man, along with being a reminder of the exchange between Jesus and some of the Pharisees in which sight and blindness are discussed (9:39-41). 

This also serves as a reminder (along with the other things that have been pointed out in these recent paragraphs) that these several chapters are designed to hang together to form a unified treatment within a larger unified treatment, with the exaltation of the ethic of love as displayed by the Christ and by Israel’s God through His Christ (the mentions of miraculous signs come to mind) as that which is intended to predominate the inter-personal relationships of the covenant bearers, as well as their relationships with the wider world (those whom the Creator God also loves and seeks to bring in to His covenant family as part of His restoration of His once good creation). 

Love On John's Terms (part 1)

I give you a new commandment---to love one another.  Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples---if you have love for one another. – John 13:34-35  (NET)

Most certainly, these words represent a very familiar saying that is attributed to Jesus.  Some might insist that this statement represents the cornerstone of what it means to live as a Christian, and it would be difficult to disagree with that assertion.  Surely, those that lay claim to a confession of Jesus as Lord would and should have a desire to live out the prescription of these words, thereby showing themselves to be functionaries within the community that has oriented their lives around Jesus and His pronouncement of the kingdom of His God. 

These words are reported to have fallen from the lips of Jesus at what is generally referred to as the “Last Supper,” and the statement is immediately bracketed by Judas’ departure for what is revealed to be the purpose of executing his plan to betray Jesus to the Temple authorities, and Jesus’ insistence that Peter is going to be shortly offering his own betrayal in the form of a three-fold denial of his Lord.

So what is meant by these words?  What is implied?  What will it look like when Jesus’ disciples are loving one another?  Quite rightly, each person comes to this text and these words with ideas concerning what it indeed it means to love.  Due to the fact that humans are relational creatures, formed in community with other relational creatures, love generally comes to be defined in relational terms---love of and for other people.  For the most part, for good or for ill, humans formulate their conceptions about love primarily according to that which is received from parents and family (regardless of who or what plays those roles). 

The love of fathers and mothers (or lack thereof from whomever plays those roles) readily serves to shape and define the parameters that are placed around the concept of love.  The love of a father or a mother is generally considered to be the strongest type of love.  It is this type of love, which is largely and ideally of the completely unconditional variety, that is simply presumed upon and taken to be an unalterable matter-of-fact.  It is this ideal of love that most people desire to cultivate in their relationships, regardless of the type of relationship. 

The model of love that is associated with mothers and fathers, whether it is a good model to which should be aspired or a faulty model which might possibly need to be avoided, lies behind the age-old adage (within societies that do not participate in arranged marriages) that insists that women most often marry men that are like their father, whereas men desire to marry women that remind them of their mothers (think of the song lyrics “I want a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad”). 

For better or for worse, humans are programmed to seek out love based on the terms of love that have been presented to them from the time of their birth.  Unsurprisingly then, it is this type of love (painting with an overly broad brush), that people desire to offer up as part of the experience of their relationship with the Creator God.  Conversely, it comes to be believed that such is the type of love that the Creator God desires to share with them---defining the God of love based upon (generally) parentally constructed concepts of love.  Of course, this does not hold true one hundred percent of the time. 

Compassionate Brother (part 18 of 18)

In the parable of the prodigal, the younger son returns home, doing so with the knowledge that he is taking a risk and potentially putting his life in jeopardy.  If he is seen and recognized by the community, he is possibly going to be subject to stoning at worst, and a very public ceremony of shaming at best.  However, Jesus says that “while he was still a long way from home his father saw him, and his heart went out to him: he ran and hugged his son and kissed him” (Luke 15:20b).  Like Esau running to Jacob, the compassionate father ran to his son, subjecting himself to loss of honor (increase in shame).  As is said of Esau, who did not take it upon himself to inflict pain and suffering on Jacob, the compassionate father, following the model of the compassionate brother, shamed and dishonored himself, rather than allowing his son to suffer. 

As Esau hugged and kissed his brother, enduring the shame and extending compassion, so too did the father and true star of the parable hug and kiss his son, in a similar demonstration of merciful compassion.  The son of the parable attempted to execute the plan that he formulated and rehearsed, but before he was able to deliver his prepared speech, the father cuts him off and restores him to the position of honor as if he had never wronged his father, his family, or his community.  Likewise, Jacob’s planning and preparations were wholly unnecessary, as Esau welcomed him with open arms, celebrating a joyous reunion with no apparent thought of retribution or a need to re-pay (thought Jacob is revealed to not be fully convinced of his brother’s compassion). 

The father in the parable exclaims that “this son of mine was dead, and is alive again---he was lost and is found!” (15:24a).  Esau, who had wished his brother dead, and to whom he was effectively dead, celebrates the return of his brother---alive again.  Here are the stories of a compassionate brother and a compassionate father, who dealt with a brother and a son whose stories shared some common features.  Both had been dishonored and both had been shamed.  Both had the right to take vengeance.  Both exercised compassion. 

Both stories, as told to and for a people of the covenant-making and providential Creator God that seeks to reconcile His image-bearers and His world to Himself, reveal a God that revels in compassion---willing to take the pain and shame and suffering that rightfully belong to others upon Himself (there was no greater shame than the curse of the cross) so as to set His world to rights, restore the beings created and set forth as His image in the world, and show forth His kingdom and His glory.           

Compassionate Brother (part 8)

Providentially (it would seem), and with the glaring reality that he has completely worn out his welcome with Laban staring him in the face, “The Lord said to Jacob, ‘Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives.  I will be with you.’” (31:3)  This conforms with the word of the Lord that was heard in the twenty-eighth chapter when Jacob was at Bethel, where Jacob heard the Lord say to him, “I am with you!  I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land” (28:15a). 

As Jacob, at this point, is still going to be unsure as to Esau’s disposition towards him, he is in desperate need of the reassurance of these words.  Regardless, the deteriorating situation with Laban, along with the fact that Laban really did not want him there (as evidenced by his dismay at Jacob actually achieving what it was that was proposed in his wage agreement), apparently causes Jacob to come to his senses, re-orienting him towards his homeland and the house of his father. 

Accordingly, he sends a message to Rachel and Leah, asking them to come to him in the field where he was with his flocks and said to them “I can tell that your father’s attitude toward me has changed, but the God of my father has been with me” (31:5).  He presents his reasoning process behind the decision that he has taken to return to his father’s house, saying “You know that I’ve worked for your father as hard as I could, but your father has humiliated me” (31:6-7a), thus drawing out the honor and shame component that has been herein submitted as an underlying factor in the growing tension between Jacob and Laban, “and changed my wages ten times.  But God has not permitted him to do me any harm” (31:7b). 

Making this point, and underscoring his gathering of honor in spite of Laban’s desire to shame him, he adds “If he said, ‘The speckled animals will be your wage,’ then the entire flock gave birth to speckled offspring.  But if he said, ‘The streaked animals will be your wage,’ then the entire flock gave birth to streaked offspring.’” (31:8)  Reinforcing the fact that Jacob has accrued honor (and possessions), while Laban’s possessions (and honor) have been devoured, Jacob says “In this way God has snatched away your father’s livestock and given them to me” (31:9). 

Jacob piles further divine sanction upon his pending departure by speaking of a dream in which the angel of the Creator God (31:11) reportedly spoke to him and said “Observe that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled, or spotted, for I have observed all that Laban has done to you.  I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the sacred stone and made a vow to me” (31:12-13a).  To this is appended the message of “Now leave this land immediately and return to your native land” (31:13b). 

Dutifully, his wives respond with “Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father’s house?  Hasn’t he treated us like foreigners?” (31:14b-15a)  This insistent query in regards to being treated like foreigners would certainly take an interesting connotation upon itself when heard by the people of Israel after the receiving of the law, as the Mosaic law provided detailed proscriptions for dealing with foreigners.  Prior to the receipt of the law, and though the circumstances are not entirely applicable (Jacob had grown rich at the hand of the one that treated him as a foreigner), one can imagine how the words of this story would have been heard by an oppressed Israel in Egypt.  In later years, when the tribes of Israel were scattered and exiled as strangers in strange lands, it is almost certain that the story of Jacob’s exile from home, along with these words on the lips of his wives, provided a hope for restoration to their promised land (as it also would have for Israel in Egypt). 

In This Is Love (part 8)

From viewing Israel as son of God, one then moves on to the next explicit revelation of a son of God, which is to be found in Israel’s king, Solomon.  After Solomon’s father David had settled into his role as king of Israel, the Creator God is reported to have spoken to him and given him a promise.  That promise was related to David’s dynasty in general, and more specifically to his immediate successor on the throne.  The God of Israel told David: “When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed  you, and I will establish his kingdom.  He will build a house for My name, and I will make his dynasty permanent” (2 Samuel 7:12-13). 

More importantly, at least for purposes of this study, to this was added “I will become his father and he will become My son” (7:14a).  Now, while one can certainly use this promise as a looking forward to Jesus and the true kingdom and truly permanent dynasty, one can also undoubtedly know that this refers to Solomon.  The Creator goes on to insist that “When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings” (7:14b).  Though the second part of this statement can eventually be applied to Jesus, it would be difficult to make the first part do the same, so it is appropriate to almost assuredly assert divine reference to Solomon, and view him as yet another revelation of the son of God. 

With what has been spoken by the Creator God, it becomes possible to recognize that this title of the son of God, though it is here being applied specifically to Solomon, can also be applied to the kings of Israel.  This can be said in the context of the concept of the king of Israel as representative of the people, which is also of dreadful importance to a proper Christology, if one hopes to rightly understand what was accomplished by the covenant God in and through the Christ.  If Israel is the son of God that is revealed and tasked to destroy the works of the devil, then it is only appropriate that the king, if also called the son, engage in this revealed role as well. 

Additionally, as the Creator God promised to correct Israel if it entered into unrighteousness (failing to live up to its covenant) and provided a rather detailed list of calamities that would be visited upon His people (which are found in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28), so also does the promise come in connection with the king that is directly referenced by the Creator God as being His son.  As has already been seen, the God of Israel speaks of correction to come to Solomon if he is to violate His covenant responsibilities and fall into unrighteousness, as reference is made to the rods of men and the infliction of wounds. 

As the story of the Creator God’s elect people began with such high hopes, so also does much hope adjoin the commencement of the record of Solomon’s rule.  His kingdom was established, and this is said of His kingdom in much the same way that it is said that Israel was able to make an entrance into the land of promise.  Solomon, firmly entrenched in the kingship (1 Kings 2:46), is said to have thrown himself upon the mercy of his God, asking for discernment so as to justly rule that God’s people.  He is reported to have demonstrated wisdom, gained wealth and fame, and achieved peace on all sides.  Along with that, remembering that the Creator Himself is understood to have built Himself a Temple (the Genesis account), Solomon goes on to build the Temple of the Lord (as the Creator God has promised David would happen).  

In This Is Love (part 2)

To talk of the Father’s love and becoming children of the Creator God is added: “Dear friends, we are God’s children now” (3:2a), which the author of the letter insists is the case even while admitting that there is a mystery to the purpose of being the children of that God, as he writes “what we will be has not yet been revealed” (3:2b).  From here, though confessing that he does not know the precise reason that he and others are have become the children of God or what exactly it will look like when they are functioning as the children of God, he goes on to write that “We know that whenever it (or He) is revealed we will be like Him” (3:2c). 

Furthermore, the author goes on to insist that “Jesus was revealed to take away sins” (3:5a).  Is it not of the utmost interest that the practice of righteousness (faithfulness to the requirements of the covenant---a right standing) is connected to being fathered by the covenant God and to being His children, with this immediately connected to that which is “revealed”?  “Revealed” is used three times in relatively rapid succession before the author makes his grand claim that “the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil.”  This, of course, is the devil who it has been said has been sinning from the beginning.  

So here the term “righteousness” or “covenant faithfulness” is now connected to the children of God.  Righteousness is ascribed to Jesus, as the author wants all to know that He is faithful to the covenant.  The Son of God, who presumably also operates in righteousness (meeting all covenant requirements), is revealed and sent to destroy the works of the devil, and this seems to be roughly equated, by the author, with being an atoning sacrifice for sins as part of the activity of the love of the Creator God.  As has been said, the devil has been operating outside the bounds of the covenant---in covenant unfaithfulness---since the beginning.  This, presumably, is what necessitated the revelation of the Son of God, so that such work could be destroyed.  This then is the mission of the Son of God. 

Inevitably, proper consideration of authorial intent drives one back to the beginning (since the beginning is mentioned), so for the purpose of gaining a more in-depth understanding, one is forced to look to the book of Genesis (the beginning) and to the first revelation of the Son of God.  Demonstrating that such is necessary and proper when considering Jesus, it is worth noting in the Gospel of Luke, as the narrative recounts the genealogy of Jesus, traces that lineage back to Adam.  In that presentation, Adam is referred to as the son of God.  If Adam is the son of God, then he was placed in this world (or revealed) to destroy the works of the devil. 

This forces the reader into the realm of cosmology, to look at the beginning of the beginning as far as one with an Israelite worldview is concerned, where one finds that the God of Israel created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).  Somehow and for some reason, without going to deeply into this and thereby getting dramatically off-topic, the earth became “without shape and empty” (1:2), or traditionally, “without form, and void.”  The Hebrew words used in this passage, “tohu” and “bohu,” are often taken to imply that this is a new situation far afield from what had been intended by the Creator when He brought the cosmos into existence.  

Joseph's Release (part 2 of 2)

How would this particular experience of Joseph apply to an attempt to better understand the message of Jesus?  While the believers posits that Jesus is presently ruling as Lord of all things within the kingdom of heaven that commenced with His Resurrection and began to make its presence felt on earth through those that believe in Him and follow the serving and suffering example of Jesus, one should consider what is billed as the great dissertation on the Resurrection, as presented in the fifteenth chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, that Jesus “must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet” (15:25), and that “The last enemy to be defeated is death” (15:26). 

Quoting from the eighth chapter of the Psalms, Paul adds to that, writing “For He has put everything in subjection under His feet” (15:27a), while also going on to point out that “when it says ‘everything’ has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the One (Father) Who put everything in subjection to Him (Son)” (15:27b).  Closely echoing the story of Joseph’s imprisonment, release, and exaltation to the place of second-in-command, one can go on to read here in the Corinthian letter that “when all things are subjected to Him, the Son Himself will be subjected to the One Who subjected everything to Him, so that God may be all in all” (15:28). 

Reflecting back to Joseph then, having been given his charge and management responsibility, the Psalmist reminds the covenant people that Pharaoh also gave Joseph “authority to imprison his officials and to teach his advisers” (Psalm 105:22).  So too Jesus, having been freed from an imprisoning tomb of death, and having had a kingdom delivered over to Him, was also given authority that would be connected with teaching.  With this, one looks to the Gospel of Matthew, and latching on to the greater narrative structure that is to be found there, hears Jesus---before His death and Resurrection, but just before it is posited that “From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things… and on the third day be raised” (16:21), and so connecting His authority with His death and Resurrection---speaking to His disciples and saying, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven” (16:19). 

Clearly, Matthew has the authority of the Christ (anointed one/Messiah/King of Israel) in mind as a key component of His presentation of Jesus, and this is made quite poignant in Matthew’s record of Jesus’ farewell address to His disciples.  In it, Jesus makes an allusion to the seventh chapter of Daniel, with its kingdom and authority for the Son of Man, and says “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (28:18b).  Together with the quote from the sixteenth chapter, this dovetails quite nicely with the authority that was said to have been delivered to Joseph.  Building on this, Jesus Himself would seem to be extending and solidifying the connection between Himself and Joseph, saying “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (28:19-20a).   

In My Father's House (part 6)

As a transition is made to analyzing this particular story, wearing spectacles that will allow an observer to see the crucifixion and the Resurrection embedded here in the tale, where is one most likely to find, in the Gospel accounts, remarks indicating that Jesus has not been understood?  They are to be found precisely at those places where Jesus speaks to His disciples about His upcoming crucifixion and Resurrection.

Clearly, all of the stories that are found in the narratives presented by the Gospels are there for a reason.  Each one has a specific communication, and taken together as a whole, they all point towards a larger message.  Luke, who, owing to the fact that he is essentially Paul’s biographer and therefore heavily influenced by Paul (for whom the crucifixion and Resurrection were everything), points consistently to the Resurrection, which can be observed in a re-tracing of steps through this specific story of the young Jesus at the Temple. 

Firstly, it is noted that this particular trip to Jerusalem was made at Passover.  At what season did the crucifixion of Jesus take place?  It took place at Passover.  In fact, the tragic event occurred immediately after the Passover.  Additionally, because it was the custom of the family to make this trip every year at Passover (2:41), this would help to explain why Mary, the mother of Jesus, was able to be at the foot of His cross, as recorded in the Gospel of John, even though there is no other record that she was ever with Jesus or His disciples and followers when He made His trips to Jerusalem and the region of Judea (though it is certainly possible that Mary regularly followed Jesus). 

It stands to reason then, that Mary, in order to be at the foot of the cross as reported by John (which has no bearing on Luke, as John would be influenced by Luke rather than the other way around), had made the trip to Jerusalem for the Passover, as was her apparent custom.  In the story, at the conclusion of the feast, and though His parents had left, Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.  This would happen again at the end of His life.  Following His final Passover, Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.  This time, of course, He was not in the Temple courts (though the events that would lead up to His death began at the Temple courts), but rather, He stayed behind for His crucifixion and His burial. 

With this consideration of His staying behind in Jerusalem for His crucifixion and His burial, it’s interesting to consider the words that Jesus spoke to His parents when they found Him.  A number of Bible translations (NET, NASB, ASV, RV, WEB, ESV, and more) has Jesus asking His parents, “Didn’t you know that I must be in My Father’s house?” (2:49b); but there are a significant number of translations (KJV, AKJV, Rheims, Darby, Webster, Weymouth, and Geneva---naming a few) that translate this with Jesus making reference to His Father’s “business” rather than His “house.” 

The text itself appears to be vague at this point, as the Greek has Jesus indicating, by His response, that His parents should not be in the least bit surprised that He is concerning Himself with that which is of the (His) Father.  The words for either “business” or “house” do not appear in the text, so it is an understanding that must be inferred from the text supplied by the translator.  Either way, one cannot be overly dogmatic at this point.  With an eye towards the climactic event of Luke’s story, considering the use of “business” in connection with His staying behind in Jerusalem for His crucifixion and burial makes an eminent amount of sense, as most assuredly, when Jesus entered into these things, He was definitely about His Father’s business.