Inspired Scripture (part 3)

When Scripture is referenced as being God-breathed, one is forced to discern what it means to be God-breathed?  What would the recipient of this letter, immersed within a world of self-identification that was shaped by the Scriptural narrative to which the author refers, have understood when he read about the Creator God-breathed nature of the divinely shaped writings that were set apart to be used by that God for His purposes (holy)?  Answering this question drives necessitates a return to the beginning of the story, to Genesis, and to the creation of the divine image-bearer. 

In the second chapter of Genesis it is written that “The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (2:7).  Here, the Creator God breathed.  In the first chapter, one finds that “God created humankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them.  God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply!  Fill the earth and subdue it” (1:27-28a).  Yes, the second chapter confirms that the Creator God breathed life into the being that He created as and to bear His image into the world---into the being that He intended to tend to His good creation, spreading the knowledge and glory of Himself as His representatives.  Has this mission gone unchanged?  Is this not a great work for which the Creator God continues to train those that are called by His name, doing so through that which is primarily designed to communicate knowledge of Him, that being the Scriptures (and the church)? 

Though this would be a more than sufficient basis upon which to build a doctrinal foundation that should animate all believers in their representation of and service for the kingdom of the God of Israel, this is not an isolated occurrence.  Though this study is certainly not designed to be an exhaustive presentation of the Creator God’s acts of breathing, there are other important instances of such things in Scripture, to which the author of the second letter to Timothy makes reference and most likely expects to be called to mind by this simple reference. 

In the book that bears the name, Job makes reference to the general understanding of the creation narrative and of man’s place in it when he speaks and says “for while my spirit is still in me, and the breath from God is in my nostrils” (27:3).  Later on, Elihu will speak to Job and say “But it is a spirit in people, the breath of the Almighty, that makes them understand” (32:8).  He will continue on to say “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (33:8). 

In Ecclesiastes, the “preacher” insists that “the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the life’s breath returns to God who gave it” (12:7).  In Isaiah, as reference is made to the covenant God’s creation and His creative power, the prophet writes “This is what the true God, the Lord, says---the one who created the sky and stretched it out, the one who fashioned the earth and everything that lives on it, the one who gives breath to the people on it, and life to those who live on it” (42:5).  Jeremiah and others make the point that “There is no breath in any of those idols” (51:17b).  Idols, which are designed to represent a god, have no breath, whereas a human, a divine image-bearer, is animated by the Creator God’s very breath.  A stark contrast indeed. 

While it is not necessary to take the time to draw all of the possible conclusions that can be teased out from these passages, certainly, these passages from the book of Job, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, which well encapsulates the exile and exodus narrative that appears to be foundational within Scripture, provides a tremendous perspective from which one can view/hear the words on offer to Timothy.    

Compassionate Brother (part 15)

One could go on at great length in discussing the honor and shame connotations so as to be able to gain a more robust reading of Scripture, but it seems as if the point has been made.  Considerations of honor and shame are more than necessary if there is a desire to rightly understand the stories and movement of Scripture, as this cultural component looms large.  Approaching the text from this angle allows a reader to make sense of the stories on their own terms, rather than reading terms and ideas into them (however noble or uplifting those things might be) that simply are not there. 

Additionally, as was previously said, proceeding along these lines allows for the narrative to be heard as it would have been heard by the people for whom it was written, while also allowing for a better comprehension of the movement of Scripture, and therefore an enhanced ability to comprehend and serve the God that is said to be revealed in and through those Scriptures.  This then, of course, allows a divine image-bearer to better understand the words and deeds of the God that was made manifest in human form, that being Jesus of Nazareth.    

So what has been seen in the course of this study?  What is it that prompted travel down the path that has revealed that Esau, perhaps surprisingly, was the compassionate brother?  To answer that question, the story of Jacob must be reviewed in broad terms.  Jacob, as is known, was one of two sons.  He was the younger of fraternal twins.  In a deceptive and dishonorable action, he secured for himself the blessing of his (purportedly dying---a deception in its own right) father---a blessing that rightfully belonged to his brother.  This generated anger on behalf of his brother, and most likely on the part of his father as well (due to the shame that would have been generated by the deception).  It is said that his brother was determined to kill him, so rather than staying, Jacob left, putting distance between himself and those that he had dishonored, ending up in the house of his uncle Laban. 

As was seen, Jacob lived a rather interesting and tumultuous life.  In particular, the report of his wives competing for his attention and his affection, with them offering up their female servants as wives to their husband, is revealed as being rather riotous.  When one considers the lifestyle, the adjective “wild” comes to mind.  By all indications he worked very hard for his uncle.  It appears to be the case that his labor served to increase his uncle’s wealth (and honor), but when it came to his own wealth, possessions, and honor, though he had surreptitiously secured the blessing of his father (which promised the richness of the earth along with plenty of grain and new wine), it was as if his life was gripped by famine.  Seeking to rectify this situation, he struck a deal with his uncle.  Though at first it seems like a legitimate agreement, closer inspection reveals that Laban may very well have intended to cause Jacob to become discouraged and despondent over his situation, possibly hopeful that this would result in Jacob leaving (and leaving behind his wives and children that would have been the property of his uncle). 

Eventually, after realizing that there was nothing more to be gained by staying where he was, and continuing to live in what was going to be a difficult and ultimately unsatisfying situation, Jacob expresses a desire to return to his father’s house.  He shares with his wives the reasons for acting on this desire.  However, there is the problem of his dishonored and angry brother, not to mention the dishonored and angry father, whose son had brought shame on the entire family.  Jacob had no idea how Esau would respond, and he figured that it was likely that he would meet up with Esau somewhere along the journey to his father’s house.  With this in mind, he devises a plan by which he will attempt to soothe his brother, even if it means dishonor for himself. 

In This Is Love (part 7)

In addition to the ground that has already been covered, it is possible to cast a gaze elsewhere in order to understand the way in which Israel was truly called to destroy the works of the devil, with this being understood to be love’s great work.  In doing that, one takes into view the covenant markers that were given to Israel at Sinai. 

The events of Sinai are intimately connected to the whole of the exodus account that generated the way in which Israel saw itself as the collective son of the Creator God, and therefore the law (terms of covenant) and its associated covenant markers that were said to have come to them at Sinai were crucial components of the way that they were to be revealed sons of God that would serve the purpose of destroying the works of the devil. 

These covenant markers ultimately point to the same age-old problem that had initially brought corruption and evil into the world, which was the worship of that which was not the Creator God.  So when one considers that Israel, above all things, was to reverence their God’s sanctuary (His tabernacle and His Temple, as well as the created world in which He is said to have rested on the seventh day---again, a temple was commonly understood to be the place where a god would rest), to observe and honor His Sabbaths (the weekly Sabbath, the feasts, the Sabbath of the land, and the year of jubilee) as a reminder of His position as Creator and sovereign over the world and of the human role of divine image-bearer in this world, and to avoid the worship of idols, one is then able to see the Creator God’s design that would allow them to take up the charge to destroy the works of the devil. 

Ultimately, this end would not be best served by physically exterminating their enemies in the land, but rather by adhering to these marks of covenant, as did Abraham, to recognize and worship and proclaim their God as the only God.  Adhering to these marks are part of what would allow these people to be the exemplification of divine blessing to the world, thus turning other peoples to Israel’s God as they forsook all others.  This would, in a sense, serve to destroy a work of the devil.  Would this then not be a shining manifestation of love?    

Alas, Israel did not live up to the call of its revelation as the firstborn son of the Creator God.  Rather than destroying the work of the devil by turning men from themselves and their gods, Israel is reported to have been repeatedly ensnared by the allure of idolatry.  Israel did not engage in the practice of righteousness (faithfulness to the covenant), denying that to which it had been called at Sinai, which was ultimately, by being the source of blessing to the world, to bring glory to their salvation-providing God by living out their covenant markers as a response of thankfulness to their gracious election as the Creator God’s chosen people.  The covenant God desired to show forth His love for the world through the vehicle of His son Israel, but due primarily to idolatry, this purpose would be denied. 

Only Son (part 2)

The brief answer to that important question is found in chapter twelve of Genesis.  There, the Creator God instructs Abraham (Abram) to “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you.  Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing.  I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse, and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name” (12:1-3). 

So yes, the covenant God is demonstrated to have chosen Abraham so that through Abraham the nations and families and the whole of the earth could be blessed.  This becomes, for all time, the explicit charge of the covenant people.  Naturally, a person that is recognized as a “teacher of Israel” would have been quite familiar with the answer to this question.  This, however, it should be recognized, is not a sufficient answer. 

The Creator God’s words to Abraham merely beg the question as to “why.”  Why did the sovereign God of the cosmos need to choose Abraham?  Why did this God have a need or desire to make Abraham into a great nation?  Why did the one who, as indicated in the story of Scripture, repeatedly showed Himself as the God of covenants want to bless him?  Why make Abraham’s name great?  Why was there what seems to be a pressing need to exemplify divine blessing through Abraham?  Why is there all this talk of blessing and cursing in association with Abraham?  Why indeed? 

The reason for all of these things is to be found in what comes before the introduction of Abraham.  In the narrative structure, what comes before, of course, is the presentation of the ordering of the creation as the Creator’s cosmic temple, the pronouncement at every stage that this ordering was “very good,” and the placement of man, created as the divine-image, into that creation-as-cosmic-temple so as to steward it, to be a reflection of the glory of its Creator into it, and to stand as a constant reminder to the whole of the creation of its Ruler, that being the Creator God of Israel (Genesis 1 & 2). 

This record of the ordering of creation is quickly followed by the report of the divine image-bearers’ first act of idolatry, rebellion, and violation of their God’s commandment.  This is swiftly followed by the exile of the now marred image-bearers from the role to which they had been assigned by the Creator.  What accompanied this, as pointedly and painfully indicated by Scripture, is the exile of the creation from the condition and state in which it had been created (very good, perfection), as it came to share in the cursing brought about by the one appointed to its rule and stewardship (Genesis 3). 

Subsequent to that the first murders are to be found (Genesis 4), along the fathering of a son in the likeness of the fallen image-bearer rather than in the image of the Creator God (Genesis 5), the growing wickedness of the collectively fallen image-bearers (Genesis 6), a worldwide flood of judgment (Genesis 7), the curse of Canaan (Genesis 9), and the culmination of man’s self-idolatry, rebellion, and defiance of the Creator, which was the construction of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). 

It is at this point that the Creator God is said to have reached down into His creation for the purpose of choosing and appointing Abraham, as something of a project manager charged with the task of the restoration of the fallen creation.  Undoubtedly, accurately and purposefully communicating this definitive story would be part and parcel of being a “teacher of Israel,” and it would have to in such a context that Jesus delivers the words of what have come to be the most famous words in the whole of Scripture.   

Nebuchadnezzar's Fall (part 4)

According to the Scriptural narrative, as the first divine image-bearer, Adam had been given complete dominion over the covenant God’s good creation.  Through his actions however, as creation’s representative before its God---the creation’s king and ruler as it were---that creation had become marred.  In what amounted to bringing himself honor through self-worship, in full knowledge of his desire to be like his Creator God with whom he was said to have regular and direct fellowship (presumably that he might best know how to be the divine image bearer in and for the creation), Adam fell from the position of authority into which he had been placed. 

Due to this, Adam was told “cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.  It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain of the field.  By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground” (3:17b-19a).  So the creation itself was unable to escape the judgment that came to its representative.  How is this reflected in the Nebuchadnezzar story?  In much the same way that Adam had been driven from the garden of Eden, because of the king’s self-worship, when he was stripped of his rule and authority, the Creator God said to him, “You will be driven from human society” (Daniel 4:32a).  Adam had given up his full humanity, which is a fate that would come to Nebuchadnezzar as well. 

Yes, it must be understood that, in his fall, Adam gave up and rejected what it meant to be fully human.  Adam, having been made as the image of the Creator God for the world---designed to trust and honor and worship his Creator, lost that which the Creator God had apparently intended for humankind.  This realization makes Nebuchadnezzar’s plight of being “driven from human society” all the more fascinating. 

To this fact of being driven from human society, the God of Israel added that Nebuchadnezzar would “live with the wild animals” (4:32b).  With his dominion over creation taken from him, in which he was clearly placed by the Creator God (much like Nebuchadnezzar had been given power and a kingdom by that same God for a particular purpose and time) in a stewarding, care-taking, responsible, and God-like superiority over the beasts of the field (how would the Creator of all things treat His creation?), Adam’s expulsion from the garden now meant that he too was going to live with the wild animals. 

Why?  Why is there this parallel in the stories of Adam and Nebuchadnezzar?  It is because, quite frankly, humans become what they worship.  Adam, as Scripture seems to indicate, turned his thoughts upon himself, essentially worshiping the creature.  Nebuchadnezzar, in many respects, did the same.  With that being so, the Creator God drove both of them to join the realm over which they had previously ruled, and to live like the remainder of the created order---to live like that which they had now come to worship.  By over-reaching, both of them denied the Creator God’s purpose for them.         

Along with being driven from human society and living with wild animals, the covenant God tells Nebuchadnezzar that he “will be fed grass like oxen” (Daniel 4:32c).  As one continues to compare this king’s fall with the fall of the earth’s first ruler (Adam-the divine image-bearer that originally been given sovereignty over the creation), is it possible to find a corollary with this statement in the fall of man?  In a way, yes.  

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 1)

When Jesus heard this, He said, “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” – John 11:4  (NET)

Prior to making this statement, Jesus had received a message about a good friend.  In that message, He had been told that “the one You love is sick” (11:3b).  As an aside, it should be noted that Lazarus is the only man in the New Testament of whom it is said that Jesus loved him, while here it can also be learned that “Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus” (11:5).  It is fascinating to consider that it is these people alone that are of spoken of in this way (Jesus loved him/them), and spoken of this way here in this Gospel alone, which makes an internal claim to be authored by the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:20,24). 

Upon hearing this, Jesus---the one that had demonstrated power to turn water into wine, who is said to have pronounced from afar the healing of the son of a royal official in Capernaum, reported to have healed a long-crippled man at the pool of Bethesda, multiplied a few loaves and fishes to feed a multitude of people, walked on water, and gave sight to a man that had been blind from birth---did not run to Lazarus’ bedside and He did not pronounce healing from afar, though presumably, based on His track record and what is reported about Him, He could have done so.  The author reports that He simply replied to the message by saying that “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”  Additionally, having heard this report about the one (the only individual in Scripture) that Jesus is specifically said to have loved, somewhat oddly, “He remained in the place where He was for two more days” (11:6b). 

So what did Jesus mean by this statement concerning sickness, death, the Son of God, and glory?  Many conclusions can be drawn.  As possible answers are considered, it must be remembered that these Gospel narratives were not compositions of random occurrences.  Rather, the Gospels, John included, are continuous narratives.  As continues narratives that leave out some details of Jesus’ life, while including and highlighting others, are designed to tell a story that is subsequently designed to prompt the reader of the story to draw a conclusion about the person upon Whom they are focused. 

When Jesus said that this sickness would lead to God’s glory, was He indicating a knowledge that Lazarus was going to die, and that He was going to go and call him forth from the tomb, thus bringing glory to the Creator God?  This is possible and simple, but it seems to be unlikely.  In fact, it is probably as unlikely as the idea that the man that had been born blind, about whom can be read in the ninth chapter of John, spent an entire lifetime suffering in blindness and darkness so that one day Jesus could come along and heal Him and the God of Israel could be glorified through the healing.  That would seem like nothing more than a great, cosmic joke by a prankster god unworthy of praise.  That does not seem like the type of God that Jesus is said to reveal.  

Considering the record of the man that was born blind, Jesus said that this condition existed “so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him” (9:3b).  Thus, that case would seem to  less about the healing and more about Jesus’ Messianic claims, as the fall-out over the healing, as recorded in the Gospel narrative that must be read as a continuous and connected story, would ultimately center on questions about Jesus as Messiah and Jesus’ presenting Himself as the Good Shepherd, which carried patently messianic undertones.  Through the healing, the acts of the Creator God were in fact revealed, in that one of the widely held expectations about Israel’s messiah was that he would be the physical, human embodiment of the faithful and covenant God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that He would be acting on behalf of Israel to fulfill His promises to them.  In addition to that, through the healing, the reader, who has been introduced into the Johannine story about the true divine image-bearer with the words “In the beginning,” is given a glimpse into what the Creator God had always intended for humanity.

My Enemies (part 4)

Not only was Jesus the Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David, and King of Israel (all of these being understood firstly as royal titles, and only secondly as having divine implications), He is also presented as the One in whom Israel’s God Himself had entered into history in order to vindicate His people, inaugurate His kingdom on earth, and begin to set to rights His world that had been marred by sin (the failures of divine image-bearers, be it Adam or Israel, to keep covenant with the Creator God) and death’s corruption, doing so by the power of the Resurrection, which was the power of the age to come now breaking in upon creation (the kingdom of heaven coming to earth).  This breaking in of the Creator God’s power and plans for His creation had been foreshadowed by Jesus’ life and His miracles, but was now going to be made manifest because of His death and what it implied and accomplished, along with the miracle of His Resurrection.   

Having been rescued from hostile armies on both sides of the cross and raised up with all power as a clear demonstration that He was indeed the Messiah for whom His people had been waiting, the remainder of the eighteenth Psalm becomes even more striking and dynamic for both Jesus and later observers.  Jesus, while exploring the possible paths upon which His vocation could take Him, could continue to read Himself into this Psalm, speaking to the one He would have called Father (like all members of the covenant people) and saying, “You make Me a leader of nations; people over whom I had no authority are now My subjects” (18:43b).  Throughout the New Testament, this exaltation of Jesus as a leader of nations is a regular theme, as has already been seen in the previous reference to Paul’s letter to the church at Philippi. 

Naturally, the theme of Israel’s messiah as a ruler is only a recurring theme in the New Testament because it is so prevalent in the Hebrew Scriptures.  The repeated insistence of the prophets and the Psalmist is that the messiah will be a ruler not just for Israel, but for all peoples.  Though this was routinely misapplied both before and after Jesus’ day to mean that national Israel, through the rule of its messiah, would also rule all nations.  This would lead to an unfortunate exclusiveness by Israel, as the covenant God’s people isolated themselves and set up prohibitive boundaries around their God’s covenant and its associated blessings. 

This, as can be readily gathered from Scripture, was never their God’s intention.  From the outset, and especially as recorded in the Creator God’s dealings with Abraham, all peoples were always in view.  This is made explicit in and through Jesus and the Christ-event, the instruction that were reported to have been given to His disciples in regards to all the world, and the ready application of its meaning (both the instructions and the Christ-event) as recorded in the New Testament. 

Yes, Jesus Himself makes it quite clear that He was a King for all peoples, and the Apostle Paul seizes on the implications of Jesus’ life and actions, along with the “all nations” presentation from the Hebrew Scriptures, to show forth that the Creator God’s kingdom on earth (the kingdom of heaven---heaven as the realm of the Creator God and earth as the realm of those made in His image over-lapping) was inclusive of all peoples, in accordance with the covenant that God had made with Abraham.

Israel & Adam (part 1 of 2)

Israel was set apart to the Lord; they were like the firstfruits of a harvest to Him. – Jeremiah 2:3a  (NET)

There are interesting similarities to be found between Adam (and Eve) and Israel.  As it is well-nigh possible that the story of Adam is the story of Israel in microcosm, while also being the pre-story for the existence of Israel and the explanation for the superiority of Israel’s God, the similarities make perfect sense. 

In terms of the Scriptural narrative, Adam, of course, was the first of humankind.  He is also represented as the first person to enter into a covenant with the Creator God.  By comparison, Israel was chosen out of all humankind, beginning with Abraham, to be the special, covenant people for the Lord.  As Adam is said to have strayed from the Lord in the matter of the fruit and the rebellion from his simple charge, the actions of God’s chosen, special covenant people would later cause their God to ask why “they strayed so far from Me” (2:5b). 

That straying was highlighted by the prophet Jeremiah and marked by the fact that “They paid allegiance to worthless idols, and so became worthless to Me” (2:5c).  Essentially, they were following the path of Adam, who paid attention (allegiance) to the words of the serpent, as reported by his wife, and thereby relinquished the responsibilities that had been given to Him by God, bringing a curse upon the earth.  It could be said that Adam became worthless to God, and humankind (forsaking covenant responsibility) became a liability in creation. 

The covenant God said to Israel through His prophet Jeremiah: “I brought you into a fertile land so you could enjoy its fruits and its rich bounty” (2:7a).  Likewise, humankind had been delivered into a perfect creation, a fertile land, given responsibility for stewardship and dominion over that creation.  Instruction was provided such that all but one small part of its fruits and its rich bounty could be enjoyed.  However, because Adam could not restrict himself to that which God had offered for Him to enjoy, that perfect creation of God “was ruined in the sight of God; the earth was filled with violence” (Genesis 6:11). 

Because of Adam’s actions, “God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all living creatures on the earth were sinful” (6:12).  That is, they had been subjected to corruption and decay because of humankind’s rebellion and faithlessness to the obligations of the covenant as divine image-bearer.  Similarly, Israel had been delivered into the bountiful land but God said that they had “defiled it,” adding that “you made the land I call My own loathsome to Me” (Jeremiah 2:7b).

The Lord goes on to ask, “Has a nation ever changed its gods (even though they are not really gods at all)?  But My people have exchanged Me, their glorious God, for a god that cannot help them all!” (2:11).  The question that is asked and answered concerning Israel, working back through Adam, can then be equally applied to all of humankind.  Just as Israel stooped and fell to the worship of other gods, so too did Adam (first, according to Israel’ story).  For whom did Adam exchange his allegiance?  First, his allegiance went to his wife.  Secondly, it went to the serpent, for the one that could effectively countermand the directives of their Creator, causing humankind to break faith with their God, is the one that is trusted and so worshiped.

Hezekiah's Prayer (part 1 of 2)

This is the prayer of Hezekiah of Judah when he was sick and then recovered from his illness – Isaiah 38:9  (NET)

As it is possible to find correspondence between the lives of King David and Jesus, and King Solomon and Jesus, which makes complete sense because they all share the title of King of Israel, so too is it possible to find a Scriptural linking of King Hezekiah and Jesus.  In his prayer, and as all of Scripture is viewed through the lens of the Christ-event, this link becomes quite explicit.  Hezekiah can be heard saying, “I thought, ‘In the middle of my life I must walk through the gates of Sheol, I am deprived of the rest of my years’.” (38:10) 

Like Hezekiah, Jesus, in the middle of His life and ministry, walked through the gates of Sheol, into death.  The Gospel narratives insist that this was something that Jesus anticipated throughout the duration of His ministry, as He frequently spoke of the expectation of the premature cutting off of His natural life.  This was part and parcel of revolutionary activity and His positioning Himself as King.  Though Jesus’ revolutionary actions were different from that of others, and took a different form than what many expected from a revolution, that does not make Him any less revolutionary.  In fact, the uniqueness in the face of pressure to travel a different path may make it even more revolutionary.   

Hezekiah is said to have thought, “I will no longer see the Lord in the land of the living, I will no longer look on humankind with the inhabitants of the world” (38:11).  When he was sick, Hezekiah expected death to come.  Jesus, as was said, also expected death to come.  Because he had been sick and expecting death, but was allowed to recover and continue, Hezekiah figuratively experienced a death and resurrection.  However, not only did Jesus expect a Resurrection, but He received one as well. 

At the same time, Jesus could certainly agree with Hezekiah that He would no longer see the Lord in the land of the living either.  How can that be?  It is because the world into which Jesus was resurrected was a changed world, now subject to Him as its King.  It would no longer merely be the land of the living, but the land of eternal life that is had through union with Him that springs from a believing allegiance in that kingly position.  The Scriptural emphasis is that Jesus came forth from the grave into a new creation that had been inaugurated with His Resurrection. 

Jesus Himself had been given a transformed, resurrected body, that was understood to be animated by the very power of God.  Because of that, He could no longer look out upon humankind from the position of being merely another one of the inhabitants of the old world that had now been fundamentally changed.  He was radically different in a way that was difficult for His followers to understand or express.  He had received a glorified body, which was the long-held hope of His people. 

It is not the case that He would no longer look upon man as an inhabitant of the world because He was going to stay in the grave.  Rather, He would look upon man with a pair of renewed eyes, as the first of a different form of humanity---as the true divine image-bearer, unspoiled by the corruption that had been foisted upon creation by the failure of the original divine image-bearer.  With His Resurrection, Jesus now inhabited a different world.  Through belief in Him, by faith, His disciples would come to inhabit that same world, though without a glorified body, with a down payment of Resurrection power that would allow them to look upon humankind, not as one of its inhabitants, but as new creations, viewing man with the compassion and love that comes as a gift from God, desirous to tell forth the Gospel of Jesus (He is Lord) that is an invitation to share in this inaugurated new creation.