Triumph Of Jesus (part 10)

The tale of the “triumph,” offered from an attendee’s perspective, simply followed a pattern to be found in the same chapter from which that verse was drawn.  Revelation nineteen, quite obviously, presents  a “triumph of Jesus,” providing the Creator God’s point of view on His world, doing so as Rome continues to celebrate itself as the greatest of empires while not realizing that it has already become subject to one that is greater by far.  As the fictional but historically plausible “tale of the triumph” was being told in the course of this study, those that have ears to hear (or eyes to see), will have recognized the almost exact parallel with the Scriptural text. 

Looking to those words now (and it may be worthwhile for the reader to quickly review the “eyewitness account” before doing so), one can read “Then the angel said to me, ‘Write the following: Blessed are those who are invited to the banquet at the wedding celebration of the lamb!’  He also said to me, ‘These are the true words of the God.’  So I threw myself down at his feet to worship him, but he said, ‘Do not do this!  I am only a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony about Jesus.  Worship God, for the testimony about Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’ 

Then I saw heaven opened and here came a white horse!  The one riding it was called ‘Faithful’ and ‘True,’ and with justice He judges and goes to war.  His eyes are like a fiery flame and there are many diadem crowns on His head.  He has a name written that no one knows except Himself.  He is dressed in clothing dipped in blood, and He is called the Word of God. 

The armies that are in heaven, dressed in white, clean, fine linen, were following Him on white horses.  From His mouth extends a sharp sword, so that with it He can strike the nations.  He will rule them with an iron rod, and He stomps the winepress of the furious wrath of God, the All-Powerful.  He has a name written on His clothing and on His thigh: ‘King of kings and Lord of lords.’  Then I saw one angel standing in the sun, and he shouted with a loud voice to all the birds flying high in the sky: ‘Come, gather around for the great banquet of God, to eat your fill of the flesh of kings, the flesh of generals, the flesh of powerful people, the flesh of horses and those who ride them, and the flesh of all people, both free and slave, and small and great!’ 

Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to do battle with the One who rode the horse and with His army.  Now the beast was seized, and along with him the false prophet who had performed signs on his behalf---signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.  Both of them were thrown alive into the lake of fire burning with sulfur.  The others were killed by the sword that extended from the mouth of the One who rode the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves with their flesh” (Revelation 19:9-21).  Though this is obviously  much shorter, primarily owing to the fact that the first century reader would not need any background information to provide context for the visuals on offer in a triumphus, the parallels to the Roman triumph “observed” earlier in the this study should be inescapable. 

Love On John's Terms (part 29)

So when it comes to paying attention to the wider narrative on offer by the Gospel of John, what assistance does the author provide?  He provides assistance with his record of the people saying “everything John said about this man was true!”  This forces the listener and the reader to recall what it was that was said by John the Baptist.  Just as the statements by the Baptizer form the foundation for the introduction of Jesus into the Gospel narrative (and into the long-running story of Israel itself), this recapitulation of statements forms the bedrock for the transition to the second half of this narrative. 

Therefore, it is important to know what Jesus’ cousin said about Jesus, so that these things are in mind while proceeding.  He offered: “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because He existed before me.’” (1:15)  He also said, “Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, who is coming after me.  I am not worthy to untie the strap of His sandal!” (1:26b-27).  He said “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!  This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, because He existed before me.’  I did not recognize Him, but I came baptizing with water so that He could be revealed to Israel” (1:29b-31).  This speaks quite strongly to Jesus’ first identifying Himself with John’s movement, as He underwent the exodus-themed baptism (symbolically crossing the Jordan River into a new land that reflected the Creator’s promise to His people) so that He might fit into a recognizable pattern for the covenant people of Israel. 

John also said of Jesus: “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on Him.  And I did not recognize Him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining---this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’  I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God” (1:32-34).  Finally, John saw Jesus and said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” (1:36b) 

Amazingly, this recollection of statements by John, accompanied by another mention of “miraculous signs,” is immediately followed up by the author’s presentation of that which he presents as the most significant of Jesus’ miraculous signs (outside of the Resurrection), which is the raising of Lazarus from the dead.  The raising of Lazarus, in this Gospel, is presented as the catalyst that causes Jesus’ ultimate fate to come cascading down upon Him.     

This is yet another reflection of the Moses motif that the author has seemingly gone to great lengths to create, though it is not one that is immediately obvious.  Because this study is concerned with defining love, and because Moses and the exodus appears to be a prominent feature of the background construct (as the exodus was always a crucial component of the way Israel understood themselves as a nation and of the way that they understood their relationship with their God), one must make note of the way that the story of the Creator God’s deliverance of Israel from out of Egypt effectively begins. 

In the second chapter of Exodus it is reported that “During that long period of time the king of Egypt died, and the Israelites groaned because of the slave labor.  They cried out, and their desperate cry because of their slave labor went up to God.  God heard their groaning, God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, God saw the Israelites, and God understood…” (2:23-25).  The words immediately following are “Now Moses” (3:1).  This is a very tight grouping of highly important people and concepts.  The author of John, naturally and as would be expected, has a firm grasp on the fact that the Creator God’s covenant underlies all of His activity throughout history, and as has been seen, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses (but not Isaac) are mentioned in the narrative. 

Upsetting The Lord (part 1 of 2)

The life of David most certainly has positives and negatives.  The low-light for King David comes when he had sent out Joab and the army to do battle with and ultimately defeat the Ammonites.  It is then that David enters in to his adulterous affair with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, who was one of David’s trusted servants and soldiers.  The story is familiar, so it needs only a brief recapitulation before we examine it in relation to our overall project so as to connect it with exile and exodus and the all-encompassing faithfulness of God. 

David does not go out to battle, but rather, stays back in Jerusalem.  There, he sees Bathsheba and determines that he must have her for himself, at least temporarily.  He summons her to him during her period of ovulation (of which she is well aware), they engage in intimate activity, she returns home, she finds that she is pregnant, and she sends words of such to David.  So as to cover up his regrettable actions, and perhaps also to spare Bathsheba from the shame of accusations of harlotry, David summons her husband home from the battle, so that he and his wife might engage in the activity in which married couples generally engage after long periods of separation from each other.  Naturally, this would then be able to account for her pregnancy.  As we know, Uriah, strangely enough (though he does offer up what appear to be legitimate and honorable reasons) did not act as David expected, even after David’s repeated attempts to get him to do so.  At this point, David feels as if he has no choice but to make arrangements to have Uriah killed in battle, which is precisely what occurs. 

After Bathsheba goes through a requisite period of grieving for her husband “David had her brought to his palace.  She became his wife and she bore him a son” (2 Samuel 11:27b).  Now, even though we are informed that Uriah had “not gone down to his house” (11:10b), and that, rather, “in the evening he went out to sleep on his bed with the servants of his lord” (11:13b), we could posit the possibility of a relative disbelief amongst anybody that knew that he had returned to Jerusalem, that he did not engage in any type of sexual relations with his wife.  After all, his house was near David’s residence.  Furthermore, the fact that his wife was pregnant would have been clear evidence to a relatively disengaged and disinterested observer that he had in fact visited her.  So when he is killed, Bathsheba now gains sympathy from the surrounding community, rather than scorn and shame.  David, by taking the pregnant widow of a deceased warrior into his royal harem, is viewed by the people as something of a savior for Bathsheba and her child, as well as being the king who desires to honor the fallen dead.  The epithet to this marriage, however, is that “what David had done had upset the Lord” (11:27c). 

Such an interesting statement.  David “had upset the Lord.”  What was it that upset the Lord?  As we glance through the Biblical record, what do we find in David’s behavior that would have upset the Lord?  Was it not going out to battle?  Lust?  Adultery?  Betrayal?  Pre-mediated murder?  As the story is presented, we have quite the list from which to choose.  Beyond the surface of the text, there is, quite possibly, pride and hubris on the part of David, as he may very well have enjoyed a bit of basking in the adulation of his people, through taking in the pregnant widow and offering to raise the son of his servant as the son of the king.  So what upset the Lord?  Naturally, it was all of those things.  More importantly though, it was what all of those things represented, which was oppression and injustice. 

When the prophet Nathan comes to David, he tells him a story of a rich man and a poor man.  The rich man had a great many flocks and herds, while the poor man had only a single lamb, for which he provided a tender and loving care.  Nathan goes on to tell David a story of oppression, in which the rich man, in need of food to provide hospitality to a visitor, takes the one and only lamb of the poor man, and provides it as food to his guest.  David, as he had been in the case of the abusive treatment of his men at the hands of the king of Ammon, is rightly indignant.  He expresses outrage at this act of oppression and exclaims “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die!” (12:5)  David referred to the actions of the rich man in the story as a “cold-hearted crime” (12:6).  Nathan responds to this correct and insightful declaration by the king by informing him that “You are that man!” (12:7b). 

Following this assertion, Nathan recounts God’s faithful actions towards David, beginning with his being chosen as king (evocative of Israel’s being chosen by God), and his rescue from Saul (evocative of Israel’s rescue from Egypt).  To that, Nathan adds talk of David being given his master’s house and wives and the “house of Israel and Judah” (12:8).  This is not at all dissimilar to what the Lord had done for Israel as a whole, bringing them into the promised land, with fields that they did not plant, and houses that they did not build.  What’s more, says Nathan, as we are clearly now ensconced in a mindful polemic against Israel for which David is a proxy (though he is most assuredly guilty), “And if all that somehow seems insignificant, I would have given you so much more as well!  Why have you shown contempt for the word of the Lord by doing evil in My sight?” (12:8b-9a)  Yes, this is what God effectively asks of Israel, as this is the story of Israel, as they waver between exile and exodus, inexplicably choosing exile and its curses over exodus and its blessings on a regular basis.  This story is now being embodied by David, which is appropriate, as the king of Israel does stand as the representative for the people.  David is choosing the path of exile.  Though he is embodying the larger story of Israel, he is also embodying Egypt, the oppressor of God’s people.  Though we are dealing with a specific instance related to a specific individual, we are being reminded of the grand framework and plan of God.