Son Of Abraham (part 2 of 2)

Following the telling of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, Luke recounts a scene in which there is an issue with people bringing their babies for Jesus to touch them.  Some did not appreciate this, “and began to scold those who brought them” (18:15b).  However, “Jesus called for the children, saying, ‘Let the little children come to Me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.  I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.’” (18:16-17) 

Now how could this possibly relate to Zacchaeus?  Because Zacchaeus was said to be short (19:3) should one equate that with being a child?  Of course not.  Rather, one must look at the fact that he wanted to “get a look at Jesus” (19:3a), but because he was short “he could not see over the crowd, So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him” (19:4a).  Quite simply, men did not climb trees.  In an honor and shame culture, climbing trees was not dignified---it was considered to be a shameful activity for a man.  Such things were left to children.  So in climbing the tree, Zacchaeus attempts to come to come close to Jesus by acting like a child.  In addition to that, it is possible to tie in the story of the healing of the blind beggar, who most certainly, like Zacchaeus, wanted nothing more than to get a look at Jesus.  Luke indeed is a skilled constructor of narrative.

Returning again to the eighteenth chapter of Luke, Luke reports that “a certain ruler” came to Jesus and “asked Him, ‘Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’” (18:18)  Rather than get sidetracked into a dissertation about the point of the question and Jesus’ initial response to it, it is best to skip down a few lines and hear Jesus tell this man to “Sell all that you have and give the money to the poor” (18:22b).  What is it that is heard from Zacchaeus?  “Lord, half of my possessions I now give to the poor” (19:8b).  Now, that doesn’t sound like he is selling all that he has and giving the money to the poor---it sounds like he is committing to giving half his possessions to the poor.  However, the follow-on statement, which was “and if I have cheated anyone of anything, I am paying back four times as much” (19:8c), is likely going to require him to dispose of the remaining half of his possessions. 

In chapter eighteen Luke records that “when the man heard this he became very sad, for he was extremely wealthy.  When Jesus noticed this, he said, ‘How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!’” (18:23-24)  Hard?  Yes.  Impossible?  No.  Jesus says “What is impossible for mere humans is possible for God” (18:27).  To prove that this is the case, Luke offers the story of Zacchaeus giving away all that he had, entering the kingdom of the Creator God as a “son of Abraham.”  By the way, the man that came to Jesus in chapter eighteen was said to be a “ruler.”  Zacchaeus was also something of a “ruler,” being a chief tax collector. 

Lastly, it is with interest to note that rather than simply indicating that Zacchaeus has entered into the kingdom of Israel’s God (acceded to Jesus’ kingdom principles) by his actions, Jesus refers to him as a son of Abraham.  Why make this type of statement?  Well, any mention of Abraham is bound to call to mind the Creator God’s first words to Abraham, in which the man that was then named Abram was told that he was going to exemplify divine blessing.  It would certainly not be a stretch to say that Zacchaeus, by giving in the manner that he proposed, was going to exemplify divine blessing.  In so doing then, he would truly become a son of Abraham. 

That exemplification of divine blessing has been spelled out, to some extent, by Jesus, a bit earlier in Luke’s Gospel, where Jesus can be heard to say “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you.  Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.  Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh” (6:20b-21).  Certainly Zacchaeus’ actions blessed the poor and brought a measure of satisfaction to the hungry, whereas those whom he had cheated, who had no doubt wept as they slipped further and further into mounting and perhaps insurmountable debt, who perhaps came to find themselves in a position in which they were unable to feed themselves and their families and forced to consider lives of slavery because of that debt, were comforted with a joy that resulted in laughter at the four-fold reparation.    

Collapse Of The Temple (part 3)

As he “channels” and calls the prophet Jeremiah to the mind of the people of Jerusalem, Jesus had a great deal to say about the Jerusalem Temple.  His activity in Jerusalem, as one would expect, was centered around the Temple, though He did not treat it at all in the way which was expected of the messiah.  The messiah, more than likely, would have been expected to honor the Temple. 

However, when it came to the Temple of Jerusalem, Jesus did and said some rather interesting things.  The things He said and did were not necessarily directed against the Temple itself, as it, though a symbol of something much larger, was merely a building.  Rather, Jesus’ words were directed against the Temple authorities, who seemingly wielded the presence of a building and what it was meant to represent and contain, against the people of Israel, so as to preserve their own power and position. 

With that frame of mind created, one can look at one of the stories recounted in the Gospel of Mark as fairly representative of that which can be seen in both Matthew and Luke.  In the eleventh chapter of Mark it is said that “Jesus entered the Temple area and began to drive out those who were selling and buying in the Temple courts.  He turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves, and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the Temple courts” (11:15-16). 

This disruption in business would have had an obvious impact on the sellers, as they would be losing money by being unable to carry out their trade for a period of time.  In and of itself, such action is not a critique of the activity of buying and selling (though one could question the legitimacy and necessity of the way in which the sacrificial cult was in operation in that day) but of the greed and corruption that would so often be the companion of the commerce. 

Regardless, the disruption would certainly create some enemies for Jesus, as shutting down the buying and selling also shuts down the operations of the Temple, effectively shutting down the Temple itself.  Not only is this having an effect on livelihoods, but this is something of a symbolic pronouncement against the Temple, as Jesus actively calls into question not what was there taking place, but rather the ongoing need for the Temple.

Additionally and as would be expected, the disruption would have had an impact on the finances of the Temple authorities, as they would have had a stake in each transaction made within the Temple in relation to the sacrificial cult.  Thus, more enemies for Jesus.  These are more powerful enemies than the merchants who plied their business at the pleasure of the Temple authorities.  Thirdly, Jesus might very well have been taking a chance at angering the people, and turning the populace in general against Him, as they would have been unable to buy the necessary items to make what they understood to be their necessary offerings, thus jeopardizing their right-standing with their God (their covenant status).  

However, it would seem that the potential for anger amongst the commoners was quickly diffused, which can be seen when one encounters Jesus’ words in which He said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’?  But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” (11:17b)  In this, Jesus apparently reveals to the people that the merchants in the Temple, in collusion with the Temple authorities, had conspired together to cheat the people through false dealings in their money-changing and sale of animals.  Beyond that, it is possible that there is an implication that the Temple authorities were cheating the people through their insistence that the sacrifices were a continuing necessity.   

Law To Become Void (part 4 of 5)

What was the basis for the ridicule that Jesus is said to have experienced at the hands of the Pharisees and the experts in the law?   As suggested by the construction of the narrative, it was most likely Jesus’ statement about money, for though it is said that they loved money, the Pharisees and experts in the law would not necessarily have possessed a great deal of it.  Though there would certainly be exceptions, they were not necessarily a part of the aristocratic ruling class of Israel.  In the majority of cases, when it came to wealth, they would have been little better off than the rest of the people. 

However, one’s honor status was not necessarily tied to wealth, and the honor competition is always at the forefront of these interactions.  Because of what was likely relative poverty of Jesus’ primary interlocutors, as they could demonstrate themselves to be suffering right along with the people in the shared experienced of subjugation to the Caesars and the Herods and the oppressive burden of taxation, they could be in a position to seize upon Jesus’ words about the service of money, point to their own empty pockets (in a manner of speaking), and thereby demonstrate that they did not serve money, being therefore devoted to the service of the Creator God of Israel.

It is also possible, however, that this particular slice of interpretation when it comes to talk of money, limits the intended reach of the parable and of the words of Jesus, as the context that has been created thus far has attempted to connect wealth and the true riches with the correct use of the law and the kingdom of the Creator God.  Therefore, the dichotomy of serving two masters might be better understood as their service of the law itself, in a selfish and non-inclusive pursuit of the blessings to be had in the fulfillment of the covenant and the coming of the kingdom of heaven, with this service taking place rather than the service of the God of the law and the covenant, and the all-nations inclusiveness of that covenant that was clearly presented in its original iteration to Abraham, and buttressed by its detailed expansion especially to be found in the prophecy of Isaiah (which was highly influential among those with messianic expectations and sensibilities in their considerations of things related to the kingdom of heaven). 

In response to their ridicule, in which they attempted to justify themselves against Jesus’ pointed accusations (quite possibly in a way such as what was just described), Jesus says, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in men’s eyes, but God knows your hearts.  For what is highly prized among men is utterly detestable in God’s sight” (16:15).  These words from Jesus about that which is “utterly detestable” forces the observer to make an additional consideration of what it was that these men had been saying in their attempts to defend and justify themselves. 

One can continue with musings concerning the boundaries that were being placed around the Creator God’s covenant promises, and of those boundaries and the associated blessings being limited to those that acceded to the works of the law as then commonly understood (the three primary indicators that revealed one’s allegiance to the Creator God), and find oneself in a position to hear the Pharisees and law experts who, along with their pointing out of their insignificant financial status, are able to speak about their extraordinary efforts to protect and defend the law (the guide to being properly human) and therefore the honor standing of the God of Israel, by keeping Gentile sinners outside the bounds of the covenant.  

Law To Become Void (part 3)

Again, this law of the Creator God, delivered to Israel, represented a rich heritage for the people of that God.  However, the guardians of the law in Jesus’ day, as far as He was concerned, were not handling it adequately.  Jesus observed that the law, rather than serving its intended purpose, had been used as a means to draw boundary lines and erect walls around the blessings that were associated with living according to the revealed covenant of the Creator God.  It had been used for purposes of exclusion and isolation, thus denying the idea that their God could bless anybody but those that were marked off as Israel---those that were properly ascribing to the works of the law. 

At the same time, the Pharisees and the experts in the law were eagerly awaiting and expecting the promised messiah to come forth, so as to establish the kingdom of God on earth and to elevate His covenant people above all nations.  The kingdom of the their God, which represented the Creator God’s realm of existence (heaven) breaking in to the realm of existence understood to be occupied by those that were created as the image of the Creator God (earth), was what was looked forward to as the true riches that were going to be experienced by God’s covenant people.  Here, one can think of Jesus’ prayer that the will of His God be done on earth as it is in heaven.  Jesus, much like those with whom He lived, expected heaven to come to earth through the Creator God abiding with and among His people.  

It was the true riches of that coming kingdom of God, as these Pharisees and experts in the law understood them, that caused them to be so rigid and vigilant in their application of the required works of the law and the traditions associated with those works.  As they looked upon Israel’s history, with the idolatry (and associated problems) and its results (judgment and repeated subjugations) that seemed to stem from inappropriate contact with surrounding nations, their efforts were somewhat understandable, and can even be looked upon as noble in some respects.  Jesus however, as He seems to consider the way that these individuals understood the kingdom of God, with their purposeful and strident exclusion of the Gentile nations and all that did not perform according to the law and the traditions of the elders, disagrees with their program and informs them that they cannot be entrusted with the true riches. 

This established, Jesus can be heard to continue His dissertation against the presumption and what He apparently saw as the kingdom-of-God-denying high-mindedness of the Pharisees and the experts in the law.  With the words that followed His telling of the story of the irresponsible and dishonest manager, He can be understood to be clearly painting these people in that role.  This will have the effect of winning Jesus additional supporters amongst the “commoners”, but it will certainly gain Him little to no favor with those who fancied themselves as the guardians of the covenant. 

Jesus makes the connection between the dishonest-though-hopefully-relying-on-his-master’s-honor-standing manager and the Pharisees and experts in the law even more clear, as He continues on to say, “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and money” (Luke 16:13).  Luke reinforces the connection in the very next verse, writing that “The Pharisees (who love money) heard all this and ridiculed Him” (16:14).  The connection appears to be rather clear.