Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 5 of 5)

Understood in this way, this story of a woman anointing Jesus’ feet with costly perfumed oil lines up quite well with the other record of the same (in Matthew and Mark), in that both women, as far as Jesus is concerned, are performing sacrificial acts towards the true and lasting Temple.  With all of this, Jesus provides further demonstration of His Messianic self-understanding; and it does not escape notice that this straightforward and dramatic presentation of Himself as Messiah has yet again taken place at a meal.       

It is not until the eleventh chapter of Luke, in passing over the feeding of the five thousand, that Jesus can once again be seen at a meal.  In the thirty-seventh verse Luke writes “As He spoke, a Pharisee invited Jesus to have a meal with him” (Luke 11:37a).  As Jesus is rarely in the habit of turning down these meal invitations, regardless of who is making the request, “He went in and took His place at the table” (11:37b).  One is left only to wonder which position at the table has been taken by Jesus.  Does He take the position of most honored guest, sitting immediately to the right or left of His host, who would be seated in the protoklisian (chief seat), or would Jesus position Himself at the lowest place, that being the seat known as the “eschaton”?  It is not important to settle this question here, as the fourteenth chapter of Luke will give provide a greater insight into a potential answer. 

As is common, Jesus is immediately questioned.  It is not presented as an outright question, though one can imagine something being said by the Pharisee that would engender the response that is forthcoming from Jesus.  Luke reports that “The Pharisee was astonished when he saw that Jesus did not first wash His hands before the meal” (11:38).  This is akin to the hushed murmuring that so often accompanied Jesus, which was “He eats with tax collectors and sinners.”  This act of “negligence” on Jesus’ part becomes yet another charge against the possibility of Jesus being the messiah---an ever growing litany of factors, in the minds of some, weighing against this possibility.  In response, Jesus is somewhat less cordial than He has been in the past. 

When He was subtly accused of impropriety when it came to the woman that washed His feet with her tears and hair, Jesus offered up a question of His own to His concerned host.  However, Jesus does not here propose a question, nor does He offer up a parable.  Rather, He lets loose upon this Pharisee, and presumably upon other Pharisees in attendance at this meal, saying “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness” (11:39).  A stinging rebuke indeed! 

He does not let that stand on its own, adding “You fools!  Didn’t the one who made the outside make the inside as well?” (11:40)  With this, Jesus reminds them of their Creator---the God of Israel.  Jesus, operating inside Jewish custom, indicates that the purpose of the washing of hands was the remembrance of the Creator God and His covenant, but this washing had been reduced to a mere formality and custom.  One can imagine that it was used as yet one more barrier, separating the chosen ones of the covenant God from the “tax collectors and sinners” that stood outside of the covenant. 

How can this be imagined?  Well, it is not difficult to surmise that Jesus, Who is routinely concerned with the kingdom of heaven and its practical outworking, has that inclusive kingdom in mind when He says, “Woe to you Pharisees!  You give a tenth of your mint, rue, and every herb, yet you neglect justice and love for God!  But you should have done these things without neglecting the others” (11:42).  This follows His insistence to “give from your heart to those in need, and then everything will be clean for you” (11:41). 

Beyond that, one must not fail to assess the placement of the record of this meal within the overall narrative structure of Luke.  In this telling of the life of Jesus that could very well be designed to be read or recited as a performance piece in a single sitting, one is not far removed from the parable of the “Good Samaritan.”  That parable is prefaced by an expert in religious law standing to test Jesus, just as He is being tested at this meal with this Pharisee, and saying “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (10:25b)  Jesus asks for this expert’s opinion, which comes back as “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself” (10:27).  Jesus acknowledges His answer by saying “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live” (10:28). 

When pressed by the expert as to who would be his neighbor, Jesus responds with the familiar parable of the good Samaritan.  The parable closes with Jesus asking the expert to identify the neighbor in the parable.  “The expert in the religious law said, ‘The one who showed mercy on him” (10:37a), that “him” being the wounded man.  To this, Jesus replied “Go and do the same” (10:37b).  With this parable, Jesus presented His expectations concerning the kingdom of His God and its requirements for costly acts of sacrificial love that show little concern for self, as demonstrated by the Samaritan. 

One does not travel very far from that telling within Luke’s Gospel before again hearing Jesus speak of love and a need for just actions, as in His first pronouncing of “woe” to the Pharisees that are present.  Indeed, there is a nearly direct parallel with the parable.  In addition, it should be noted that the Samaritan gives, and Jesus, unsurprisingly, speaks of a need to give from the heart to those in need.  This is unlikely to happen as long as His followers are overly concerned with the desire for conformity to communal norms that have little or nothing to do with the manifestation and advance of the kingdom.   

Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 1)

The Gospel of Luke, while it does many things in relation to Jesus ministry, provides believers with a firmly rooted understanding of the significance of meals, not only within the communities, but also within Jesus’ ministry.  Because of what they demonstrate, and because of what they allow to be demonstrated, Jesus consistently seizes upon these occasions to teach and to make points about the nature of the kingdom of heaven.  These meals also become the source of ongoing controversies concerning Jesus. 

Engaging with Luke, one finds a perfect example of that in the seventh chapter, as Jesus is following up on inquiries made of Him by disciples of John the Baptist, and speaking about him to the assembled crowds, doing so in the context of the kingdom of His God (Luke 7:28).  At the close of this dissertation about John, Jesus references the controversial nature of His meal practice (and even that of John in a roundabout way), by saying “For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’  The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at Him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (7:33-34)  One cannot take lightly the importance that Jesus and the Gospel authors attribute to meals.  A hermeneutic must be allowed to be fundamentally influenced by this meal dynamic.

Both Luke and Matthew have Jesus closing out His discourse on John the Baptist by adding, “But wisdom is vindicated by all her children” (7:35).  Though there is an implied break in the narrative following these words from Jesus, with the words of the thirty-sixth verse of Luke seeming to present a new situation, it is noteworthy that Luke immediately moves to inform the reader that “one of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him” (7:36a).  With this, the author appears to be communicating the importance of meals, as even though there is a break in the action, so to speak, the theological narrative continues, with Jesus being moved directly from His statement about wisdom and her children (which follows a statement about eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners), to the acceptance of an invitation to dine at the house of a Pharisee. 

If an observer maintains a mental framework that does not have Jesus or Luke diverging from speaking from a context of meals and their importance, then it is quite possible to hear Jesus speaking in that context when He says that “wisdom is vindicated by her children.”  This, then, is not a disconnected aphorism recorded by Luke and randomly placed within the text, but rather, a transition that maintains the meal-related motif.  Of course, this cannot be asserted without addressing the fact that Matthew places Jesus’ speech about John within a different sequence of events, and does not move from the wisdom and children statement to Jesus’ meal in the house of the Pharisee. 

Without attempting to rectify or harmonize the chronological conflicts, the difference can be explained by noting Luke’s greater emphasis on Jesus’ meals.  Though Matthew certainly holds Jesus’ participation at various meals in high regard, rightly signifying their importance for understanding Jesus and their significance for the communication of His mission, it is Luke that has Jesus spending more time at meals, while also sharing some of His most impactful parables (the parable of the prodigal chief among these as one of Jesus’ most important, elaborate, and impactful parables) while at a banqueting table. 

Laodicea's Wealth (part 3)

As a result, Jesus implores this church---the very church upon whose door He stands and knocks so that He might come in and share a meal---to “take My advice and buy gold from me refined by fire so you can become rich!” (Revelation 3:18a).  This is another reference based on historical context.  Laodicea is a place in which large financial transactions take place, with this making a major contribution to the wealth of the city in general, and more than likely, to some of the individuals within the church.  Understandably, precious metals such as gold would have been standard fare in the financial world of the day, which makes sense of Jesus’ reference to the need to buy gold from Him. 

There is no need here to go to any discourses about the impossibility of buying the things of God, or to ponder what it is that Jesus insists needs to be obtained.  Such would be inappropriate, and need only be ventured if one fails to consider the context of Laodicea’s position, its trade, and its source of wealth.  An abundance of gold will generally cause those that possess such abundance to consider themselves rich.  However, Jesus has already informed this church that their practice, quite to the contrary, has made them truly poor.  If they will but discard the practice and enter into what it is that He desires, as demonstrated by His life and practice, then they will truly be rich. 

If the Biblical narrative pattern is followed, these riches (blessings?) that are indissolubly linked to practice will probably have some connection to the Abrahamic covenant.  The true gold that will be purchased from Jesus will be inextricably connected to the kingdom principles that He demonstrated throughout His ministry, and according to the Hebrew prophets, there can be no greater riches than those which are connected to the established kingdom of the Creator God.

According to John, Jesus continues on to say, “Buy from me white clothing so you can be clothed and your shameful nakedness will not be exposed” (3:18b).  Here is yet another contrast.  The issue of putting on clothing appears to be a regular theme in the earliest church.  In his second letter to the Corinthian church, Paul writes: “For in this earthly house we grown, because we desire to put on our heavenly dwelling, in indeed, after we have put on our heavenly house we will not be found naked.  For we groan while we are in this tent, since we are weighed down, because we do not want to be unclothed, but clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (5:2-4).  Though Paul makes reference to houses, dwellings, tents, and clothes, the subject at hand is the glorified, resurrection body that the believer will have when the kingdom of the Creator comes in its fullness. 

In the letter to Laodicea, the shameful nakedness would seem to have the same point of reference, as there will be no glorified body available, and no place in the kingdom of the covenant God made possible for those that operate contrary to the principles of that kingdom in the course of their natural term.  The purchasing of “white clothing” is yet another reference to that which has garnered wealth for Laodicea, which was the textile industry.  Laodicea was a center for the manufacture of clothing, and the sheep that grazed around Laodicea were quite famous for the soft, black wool that they produced, which in turn created a high demand for clothes made from this black wool. 

Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom of God (part 2)

In the same chapter, when Jesus stands before the Sanhedrin, Mark writes that “Some stood up and gave this false testimony against Him: ‘We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this Temple made with hands and in three days build another not made with hands.’” (Mark 14:57-58)  The author punctuates this with “Yet even on this point their testimony did not agree” (14:59), but He is clearly cognizant of and counting on an awareness of what must have been the well-known Jesus tradition recounted in the Gospel of John (not relying on John, as Mark came first, but what would have been the oral and possibly written Jesus tradition), in which Jesus says, “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up again” (2:19).  Shortly thereafter, John helpfully provides the gloss on Jesus’ words by informing the reader that “Jesus was speaking about the Temple of His body” (2:21). 

When all of this is taken together, the reader sees a widow giving all that she has (which is an almost worthless amount) to a Temple that is going to fall, which is ultimately a wasteful action, whereas the woman with the alabaster box gives something of immense value in recognition of the One that is the eternal Temple, causing the onlookers to refer to this as a wasteful action.  Jesus makes it clear that it is the former (the widow’s gift) that was wasteful (and tragic), whereas the latter was “a good service” (14:6b), and therefore not wasteful. 

Because the stories in the Gospels demand to be heard within Jesus’ pronouncement that the kingdom of the Creator God is at hand, one must ascertain what this has to do with Jesus’ kingdom understanding.  It is by this that Jesus addresses the prevalent and apparently incorrect understanding that the kingdom of His God would be centered in Jerusalem, with all nations coming to its Temple to offer worship to Israel’s God.  Jesus makes it quite clear that even though they were correct in believing that all nations would in fact come to worship the Creator God by means of the Temple, that Temple by which this God would be worshiped, in recognition of His kingdom, would be Himself (Jesus).     

To go along with the interesting theological Temple dynamic that has been inserted into the narrative here in chapters twelve and fourteen of Mark’s Gospel, the place of the meal in which Jesus is engaged and at which He is anointed, as He says, “for burial” (14:8), is the house of “Simon the leper” (14:3).  Yes, Jesus is dining at the home of a leper, and therefore dining at the home of one whose entire existence is one of impurity in relation to Jewish law and custom.  Simon would definitely have found himself at the lower end of the honor and shame social spectrum, if not outside of it altogether as one unable to even compete for honor. 

As a leper, Simon would stand almost completely outside the social order, as he would translate ritual impurity to those who came into contact with him.  In the eyes of those that were in a position to observe this meal, Jesus Himself would have fallen into ritual impurity, and amazingly, within Mark’s narrative, Jesus can be seen doing this immediately before Passover.  Though He is looked upon as a respected rabbi within Israel at this point in time, Jesus apparently finds Himself unconcerned with the perceptions. 

Acts, Jealousy & Honor (part 3)

With that in mind, the rehearsal of the Acts narrative to this point encounters the fifth chapter, which begins with the story of Ananias and Sapphira.  That story (which is probably less about their lies and more about their actions that diminished the church and Jesus’ public honor, and the potential shame that could have been brought upon the community by supposed followers not living out its principles) is immediately followed by “Now many miraculous signs and wonders came about among the people through the hands of the apostles” (Acts 5:12a). 

From there, the reader goes on to hear an echo of an earlier statement, when reading “By common consent they were all meeting together in Solomon’s Portico” (5:12b).  That echo is from chapter two, where one would have previously found that “Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the Temple courts” (2:46a).  As was seen, this was appended by “the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved” (2:47b), which is mirrored in the fifth chapter by “More and more believers in the Lord were adding to their number, crowds of both men and women” (5:14).  Quite obviously, the repetition is important, and one must be cognizant of the fact that Luke’s story consistently builds, moving the reader or hearer along with a climax in mind.

Between the reports about the miraculous signs, of meeting with common consent, and of believers being added to the ever-growing group of Christians in Jerusalem, Luke writes that “None of the rest dared to join them, but the people held them in high honor” (5:13).  This, as should be well known, is more than simple respect or admiration.  Honor was a functional component of society.  Honor was important.  Honor was everything.  Luke makes the point that the disciples were being held in “high honor.”  This must not be overlooked. 

This high honor put the disciples in the position of becoming potential patrons to a sizable number of people---able to provide benefits to a large client base.  Now, bear in mind that the disciples and the church did not seek to become patrons, as this was not the motivation behind the signs and wonders.  The signs and wonders were designed to point beyond the disciples to the King and the kingdom that they dutifully proclaimed in word and deed, as they sought to raise the public honor of Jesus by touting His Resurrection in the face of His shameful crucifixion. 

One sees evidence of the movement by the people to elevate the disciples as patrons when reading “Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets, and put them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow would fall on some of them” (5:15).  This is classic client behavior, as they sought to honor a patron or potential patron so as to gain benefaction.  Furthermore, “A crowd of people from the towns around Jerusalem also came together, bringing the sick and those troubled by unclean spirits.  They were all being healed” (5:16).  With this record, one sees a replay of the stories about Jesus as recorded in the Gospels---the church thus carrying on the work of its Lord.  Against all odds, public honor was coming the way of the church.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 19)

In the fourth chapter, Paul states that “every creation of God is good” (1 Timothy 4:4a).  With such words, the Apostle reaches back to the opening words of the Scriptural narrative, affirming the words that close out the first chapter of Genesis, which are “God saw all that He had made---and it was very good!” (1:31a)  One may think that such a statement is hardly revolutionary or counter-cultural, but in the Greco-Roman world, it was. 

Now, before ascertaining the counter-cultural character of this particular statement, which can be heard alongside the declaration of the covenant God’s creation being very good, it is necessary to recognize that this is not an assertion made in isolation.  Paul has written “Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will depart from the faith and occupy themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared.  They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.  For every creation of God is good and no food is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.  For it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer” (4:1-5). 

What Paul has in mind as these things are written, and the issues to which he addresses himself by these words, are not relevant to this study.  Even though the statement about every creation of the covenant God being good does not stand alone and asks to be heard in context, it is also possible to hear Paul operating on multiple levels of communication.  Though he may be directly addressing a known issue within the church community, it is not preposterous to suggest that Timothy, along with those that will hear this letter, will pick up on statements that may be directed to wider cultural forces that could have a deleterious effect on the church of the Christ. 

The Hebrew mindset, which affirmed their God’s good creation, and by and large looked forward to their God’s redemption of His people and His creation---expecting that which defaced His good creation (death) to be defeated and removed and anticipating a resurrection of the righteous dead (especially Israel) into a restored world that will once again be pronounced as very good (a hope that was rightly carried over into Christianity)---stood in opposition to two major, highly influential, and when it comes to the Greco-Roman world, nearly universally adhered to religious/philosophical “schools” of the day, which were “Stoicism” and "Epicureanism.”  Regardless of which god(s) one worshiped in that day, be it the Caesar or any other deity, one’s religious tendencies could be colored by one of the two philosophical bents.  Naturally, those who worshiped Jesus as Lord and God could fall into the same patterns.  Undoubtedly, as shall be seen, this is something against which Paul wanted to be on guard.    

Plato, with his teaching about “forms,” in which (though this is much simplified) all earthly things were merely imperfect forms of that which existed in the heavenly realms, greatly influenced both the stoic and the epicurean approaches to life.  Essentially, the influential Platonic philosophy reduced all of life to the physical, which was bad, and to the spiritual, which was good.  Regardless of one’s particular philosophy, this would largely be the basis for one’s religious approach to life.  With this as a very shallow foundation, it is now possible to proceed to learn about these ideologies. 

Why Scripture? (part 3 of 3)

Though the setting in which a preacher stands behind a pulpit while the audience listens would be foreign to the original followers of Jesus, and wouldn’t be recognizable to them as “church,”  which, for them, took place at a community meal, it is possible to generalize and say that the preacher preaches (the teacher teaches, or the prophet prophesies, or the community leader exhorts and encourages) so that the Creator God may be made known. 

This fact has always been true of the church of Christ, even if it was not done in what has become the most familiar form for most of the believing community the world over.  The preacher preaches so that his hearers can learn about the covenant God and know more about that God.  Knowledge about the Creator God is transmitted so that those that made in the image of that God, who are called to be covenant bearers, might be able to correctly and effectively bear that image and covenant, so that they might be a blessing to all peoples, and that their God may receive the glory that is due to Him for His mighty acts. 

While the Creator God is acknowledged through praises, knowledge of Him is conveyed through the preaching of the Scriptures (primarily the message of the Gospel, rooted as it is in the story of the covenant people and the narrative of the Creator’s interaction with His creation), which convey information about the Creator, His character, His means, His purposes, and His goals.  The primary subject of proclamation in the time and places of regular Christian gatherings for worship must be the Creator God as revealed in the narrative of Scripture, and the primary activity (it seems) must be proclamation. 

Yes, the primary activity that must take place at these regular appointments must be preaching and teaching (communicating knowledge of the Creator God for the purpose of rightly being His divine image-bearers and representatives, with an understanding rooted in the historical recollections of the Creator God’s activity in His world, so that kingdom work might be properly performed), for it is in the mysteriously transformative proclamation of the Gospel that the power of the Resurrection is sent forth, and it is in this that knowledge is seated. 

This instruction in knowledge, which has and always will require great discipline and diligence, is of paramount importance, and should not only inspire the hearers to a constant desire to learn more about their God, but also to live lives of praise to that God.  Also of paramount importance is the realization that living this life of praise will not result in a withdrawal from the world around them into a self-imposed and ungodly exile that has the believer erecting their own temples. 

If learning more about the God of Scripture, as revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, causes the hearer to retreat from the world in separation, isolation, and condemnation fostered by an “us versus them” mentality, then that preaching has gone woefully astray from that which is modeled by Jesus, and springs not from a diligent study of Scriptures so as to learn more about the Creator God, but from a subjective and self-satisfying interpretation of Scripture designed for little more than the gaining of personal control over the lives of the hearers and the all too familiar pursuit of power. 

Instead, living a life of praise will result in the erection of a multiplicity of tabernacles, placed within a fallen world as a symbol of constant exodus, in which, like the one claimed as Lord, the believer goes out to show forth the blessings of the Creator God’s kingdom to “tax collectors and sinners,” to the sick, to the thirsty, to the hungry, to those lacking clothes, to those in prison, and to the places where pain and evil are corrupting the covenant God’s creation and thwarting the advance of His kingdom.   

Naomi's Exile & Exodus (part 1)

In the first verse of the book of Ruth it is recorded that “During the time of the judges there was a famine in the land of Judah.  So a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to live as a resident foreigner in the region of Moab, along with his wife and two sons” (1:1).  Famine is an underlying issue.  Giving this some thought, one realizes that famine is an important theme of Scripture and the covenantal narrative, and it here presents itself on another occasion.  Famines can be seen in connection with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, and with Joseph. 

Thus the man being referenced here in Ruth, whose name was Elimelech, now stands in good company.  In dealing with a famine, he is now walking the familiar path that has been previously trod by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Elimelech, like these men, has voluntarily removed himself from the land of the Creator God’s promise.  When considering one of the overarching themes of all of Scripture, it can be noted that he is now in something of a self-imposed exile.  Along with that, it should be noted that the Scripture here offers no commentary on his departure from the promised land, but simply presents it as a matter of fact. 

While in this state of exile from the land that represents the covenant God’s faithful promises to His people, Elimelech died.  His death left his wife (Naomi) and two sons (Mahlon and Kilion) alone.  Rather than return to the land of Judah, “her sons married Moabite women (Orpah and Ruth).  And they continued to live there about ten years” (1:4).  Here, as one listens to this story as a member of the nation of Israel, it is possible to hear echoes of Jacob’s first departure from his father’s house, which came on the heels of what he believed to be his father’s impending death (because of Isaac’s insistence on blessing Esau before he died), as when Jacob was in the first of his exiles in Haran, two women were married and there was an extended dwelling away from the land of promise.  For Naomi, the pain of exile would grow, as her two sons went the way of their father, dying there in the land of Moab.  With this, she is described as being “bereaved of her two children as well as her husband” (1:5b). 

It was within this bereavement that Naomi “decided to return home from the region of Moab, accompanied by her daughters-in-law” (1:6a).  She decided to make this return journey “because while she was living in Moab she had heard that the Lord had shown concern for His people, reversing the famine by providing abundant crops” (1:6b).  This statement should serve as a reminder of the opening statement of the book and the famine mentioned therein “during the time of the judges.” 

Why would there have been a famine in Judah?  Well, if one believes in a covenant God that is faithful to His promises (according to Leviticus and Deuteronomy), and also believes in the repetitive record of the book of Judges, the famine is a curse related to Israel’s idolatry---doing evil in the sight of their Lord.  Famine points to exile, while also informing an observer that Elimelech’s flight to Moab, occurring during the time period covered by the book of Judges, was most likely undertaken during one of the periods of Israel’s subjugation to a foreign power. 

Triumph Of Jesus (part 8)

The headless body of the king was added to the altar, to burn along with the white bulls, while a fragrant incense was added to the flames so as to cover up the sulfuric smell of the burning flesh.  With that completed, the bodyguards of the adopted son of Caesar, each holding their fasces that symbolized Rome’s power to execute the justice that Rome alone could bring to the world, used those very same instruments in a physical demonstration of that power, slaughtering the traitorous rebels that had taken up with the enemy.  These men, traitors that they were, and branded with the mark of that beastly king, were not considered fit to be buried or burned, so their bodies were taken outside of the city and thrown into the dump.  Before their bodies would have a chance to burn, I’m sure that the vultures and the scavengers gorged themselves on their rotting flesh.  A fitting end.  Now, we are off to celebrate.  Caesar has ordained it!”

This study has been entitled the “Triumph of Jesus,” though it can rightly be said that Jesus has yet to be seen playing a role.  Before tying everything together, let it be said that the Gospels present a picture of Jesus’ “triumph.”  The best example of said “triumph” is to be found in the twenty-seventh chapter of Matthew. 

Keeping in mind the description of the “triumph,” along with the speculative (historical-fictional) narrative that has been constructed, along with the fact that the original audience of this Gospel (like the audience of Revelation) would have been well aware of the tradition of the Roman “triumph,” one reads: “Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the governor’s residence and gathered the whole cohort around Him.  They stripped Him and put a scarlet robe around Him, and after braiding a crown of thorns, they put it on His head.  They put a staff in His right hand, and kneeling down before Him, they mocked Him: ‘Hail, king of the Jews!’  They spat on Him and took the staff and struck Him repeatedly on His head.  When they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the robe and put His own clothes back on Him.  Then they led Him away to crucify Him.  As they were going out, they found a man from Cyrene named Simon, whom they forced to carry His cross.  They came to a place called Golgotha (which means ‘Place of the Skull’) and offered Jesus wine mixed with gall to drink” (Matthew 27:27-34a). 

One can easily identify the stark contrast.  The world in which Jesus lived viewed the triumphal procession in Rome, in celebration of its glorious military victors and their prowess, as the greatest possible public event.  Yet the Creator God, through Jesus His King, did something dramatically different, new, and completely unexpected.  His King will undergo a mock coronation and will then experience a triumphal procession of shame, suffering, and humiliation.  His procession would not end on Capitoline Hill, with the execution of a vanquished king.  His procession, however, would end with a sacrifice, albeit of a different kind.  Jesus’ “triumph” would culminate in a thorn-crowned King carrying His own cross to an ignominious hill named for the skull, so as to undergo death Himself.   

A Tradition Of Wells (part 11 of 11)

The Jeremiah narrative happens upon a well on two occasions.  In the sixth chapter, as Jeremiah verbally depicts the destruction that is going to come upon Jerusalem due to its idolatry, he shares some of the Lord’s thoughts concerning the city.  The God of Israel can be heard to say “Cut down the trees around Jerusalem and build up a siege ramp against its walls.  This is the city which is to be punished.  Nothing but oppression happens in it.  As a well continually pours out fresh water so it continually pours out wicked deeds.  Sounds of violence and destruction echo throughout it.  All I see are sick and wounded people” (6:6-7). 

This is, of course, a reflection upon Israel’s covenant failures.  For this, the Creator God brings His curse against His covenant people.  Death is coming to them.  It is against this that Jesus can be heard speaking, when He says “whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become a fountain of water springing up to eternal life” (John 4:14).  This eternal life is so much more than a one-way ticket to heaven upon death.  Rather, it is an entrance into the covenant people of the Creator God, in which one shares in the covenant blessings promised by the God of Israel (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28), and presumably the resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age. 

Not long thereafter, the Samaritan woman questions Jesus about whether Jerusalem is the appropriate place to offer worship.  Might this be a reflection on what the Creator God says about Jerusalem in Jeremiah (a well that pours out wicked deeds rather than fresh water)?  Jesus responds by telling her “a time is coming… when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (4:23a).  Further on in Jeremiah, the prophet laments over that which he speaks, saying “I wish that my head were a well full of water and my eyes were a fountain full of tears!  If they were, I could cry day and night for those of my dear people who have been killed” (9:1). 

Hosea is the next prophet to be heard, as he spoke to the situation of the northern kingdom of Israel.  Referring to the judgment of the Creator God that was coming upon that portion of His people, Hosea says “Even though he flourishes like a reed plant, a scorching east wind will come, a wind from the Lord rising up from the desert.  As a result, his spring will dry up; his well will become dry.  That wind will spoil all his delightful foods in the containers in his storehouse” (13:15).  Beyond the natural fact that water is necessary for life for all peoples everywhere, wells had been a source of life for Israel, stretching back to Abraham as a place of marriage and ultimately offspring that continued their God’s covenant purposes.  Here, their God speaks of a well that would become dry.  Specifically, this is directed against Samaria (13:16), which is the setting for Jesus well meeting.  This provides added color to Jesus’ talk of “living water” (4:10) and “a fountain of water springing up to eternal life, as well as Jesus’ directing of the woman’s attention away from either Samaria or Jerusalem as the center of worship. 

In a similar instance, to round out and wrap up this study, is to be found in the prophetic work of Micah.  Here, it is possible to readily identify informative points of contact with the Johannine well story, as Micah speaks of the Creator God’s judgment that comes “because of Jacob’s rebellion and the sins of the nation of Israel” (1:15a).  Not unlike the woman’s question to Jesus about the proper place of worship, and being mindful of Jesus’ response, Micah can be heard to rhetorically inquire “How has Jacob rebelled, you ask?  Samaria epitomizes their rebellion!  Where are Judah’s pagan worship centers, you ask?  They are right in Jerusalem!” (1:15b).  As Micah goes on to describe the tribulation that will come their way, he is heard saying “Therefore you will have to say farewell to Moresheth Gath.  The residents of Achzib will be as disappointing as a dried up well to the kings of Israel” (1:14).  

A Tradition Of Wells (part 8)

Continuing to lay the conceptual foundation for the collective consciousness concerning wells, it is worthwhile to quickly trace all remaining mentions of wells within what are considered to be the historical books of Israel.  In the second book of Samuel, there is a mention that is probably not a helpful or useful mention of a well, at least on the surface.  Nevertheless, it occurs during the time period following the death of King Saul, as David is solidifying his royal position, so perhaps others can find related value in its mention. 

Engaging the text: “Then Joab left David and sent messengers after Abner” (3:26a).  Joab is the commander of David’s forces, and Abner is the commander of the forces of Saul, and temporarily Ishbosheth, the son of Saul.  “They brought him back from the well of Sirah.  (But David was not aware of it.)  When Abner returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside at the gate as if to speak privately with him.  Joab then stabbed him in the abdomen and killed him” (3:26b-27a).  Later in the same book, during the time of Absalom’s temporarily successful (and seemingly temporarily divinely sanctioned) taking of the throne of Israel, there is a story concerning two spies that David had in his employ. 

This seems to be as useful as the event just presented, but in dutifully presenting the record it is found that “Jonathan and Ahimaaz were staying in En Rogel.  A female servant would go and inform them, and they would then go and inform King David.  It was not advisable for them to be seen going into the city.  But a young man saw them on one occasion and informed Absalom.  So the two of them quickly departed and went to the house of a man in Bahurim.  There was a well in his courtyard, and they got down in it” (17:17-18). 

Finally, in the book of Nehemiah, in a section that mentions wells as part of a prayerful praise that recounted Israel’s history, beginning with the Genesis account of creation, in a manner which undergirds the purpose of this study by demonstrating a mention of wells in a general recapitulation of the exodus narrative, Nehemiah can be heard to say “They captured fortified cities and fertile land.  They took possession of houses full of all sorts of good things---wells previously dug, vineyards, olive trees, and fruit trees in abundance.  They enjoyed to the full your great goodness” (9:25). 

Having reviewed the location of wells within the historical narrative (though it is possible to find some historical narrative overlap when turning to the prophets, specifically Isaiah), this study now turns its attention to the mention of wells within the wisdom/poetic and prophetic literature of the Hebrew Scriptures.  With these, it will be possible to see how the larger part of the historical narrative that is associated with wells serves to shape ideas about references to wells in this body of work, while also continuing to form the historical imagination along the lines of that of the Johannine author, that one might more correctly approach the story of Jesus and the woman at the well.

A Tradition Of Wells (part 6)

This study now departs from Genesis and moves on to Exodus, which is the event (so much more than just the title of the book) that gives definitive shape to Israel’s self-consciousness.  Indeed, it can even be said that the understanding of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as revealed in Genesis, is shaped by the self-revelation of that same God as the God of Israel’s exodus.  This means that the God that reveals Himself as One Who works and intervenes on behalf of His people and His creation, doing so from the beginning of the Genesis narrative, is now also to be understood through the lens of the God that liberated Israel from Egypt, provided them with a covenant charge, with guidance as to how to live up to their covenant responsibilities, and guided them to their promised land. 

This holds especially true if Moses is indeed the primary author/compiler/compose of the Torah, thus making it impossible to separate the notion of exodus (rescue, deliverance, redemption, restoration, etc…) from thoughts about the Creator God of Israel.  Indeed, thinking along such lines allows us to view Genesis one and two as a divine rescue, much like Israel was divinely rescued from their Egyptian bondage. 

With such thoughts reverberating in a reader’s mind during a conscientious approach to the broad Scriptural narrative, one should be thoroughly unsurprised to see Moses, after fleeing Egypt in the wake of his murder of an Egyptian that had been mis-treating an Israelite, settling in the land of Midian and doing so by a “certain well” (Exodus 2:15b).  That level of surprise continues in its restraint when reading that “a priest of Midian had seven daughters, and they came and began to draw water and fill the troughs in order to water their father’s flock.  When some shepherds came and drove them away, Moses came up and defended them and then watered their flock” (Exodus 2:16-17). 

In this, Moses becomes very much like Jacob, watering the flock for one who will eventually come to be his wife.  As was seen with Rebekah and Rachel, there was a rush to return home so that these girls might share their story with their father (2:18-19).  In response, Moses is summoned to the home of the priest.  He “agreed to stay with the man, and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses in marriage” (2:21). 

With this third patriarchal (in the broadest sense) instance of a wife being found at a well, it shall be noted with great interest that part of Jesus’ conversation at the well with the Samaritan woman---the portion that convinces her of His status as a prophet, centers upon the subject of marriage.  It is almost as if to say that the woman, who actually lacks a husband though it is said that she has had several, has come to the well, and through this encounter with the one that can truly provide water (as did Jacob and Moses), she found herself a true and lasting husband.    

A Tradition Of Wells (part 5)

Because the woman at the well mentions Jacob, one quite naturally expects to find Jacob connected to wells.  This expectation is not disappointed.  Indeed, having seen Abraham and Isaac in connection with such, with wells proving to be an important piece of Israel’s historical narrative, it would indeed be astonishing not to find similar stories concerning Jacob.  Like Abraham’s servant, who had found Isaac’s wife (Jacob’s mother) through an event at a well, so too does Jacob find a wife for himself in much the same way.  In light of that, it’s almost surprising that the story of Jesus’ encounter with a woman at a well did not end up with Jesus finding Himself a wife.  

In Genesis twenty-nine, Jacob, having fled from his father’s house because of the ruse and fraud he had perpetrated upon his father and his brother (the source of a none-too-minor dispute between Jacob and his brother), “saw in the field a well with three flocks of sheep lying beside it, because the flocks were watered from that well” (Genesis 29:2a).  Providentially, Jacob, even though this is the place to which he has been directed by his mother, presumably comes to the same well to which the servant of Abraham had come and at which he is able to make inquiries concerning his mother’s brother, Laban.  It is in concert with this inquiry that one of his future wives, Rachel, is introduced into the narrative, as she was coming towards the well with her father’s sheep (29:6). 

In contrast to what was seen with Abraham’s servant, whose plea to his Lord was answered with Rebekah watering his animals, Jacob “went over and rolled the stone off the mouth of the well and watered the sheep of his uncle Laban” (29:10b).  Similar to what was seen previously from Laban, when Rachel informs her father about Jacob’s presence, “he rushed out to meet him.  He embraced him and kissed him and brought him to his house” (29:13b). 

Fascinatingly, this is the only well to be seen in connection with Jacob as part of the Scriptural narrative.  Never is there a report of anything referred to as “Jacob’s well,” as alluded to by the Johnannine author and the Samaritan woman.  Now, this is not to say that there was no such thing as Jacob’s well, as it is most likely, due to its location, a well located within the territory of the promised land that was bequeathed to Joseph before Jacob’s death. 

With such knowledge, one can surmise that a well there came to be known as “Jacob’s well,” even if there was no overt connection to Jacob within the shared historical memory of Israel.  This piece of information, however, does nothing to change the nature of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman.  The fact remains that a tradition of wells would underscore Jesus way of thinking, along with that of His disciples, the woman at the well, the townsfolk that would come to hear the woman and her story, and the author of the narrative. 

A Tradition Of Wells (part 3)

It is not at all difficult to see this idea at play in the fourth chapter of John, as Jesus said to the Samaritan woman “Give me some water to drink” (John 4:7b).  Of course, in the story of Abraham’s servant, his request is precisely met, thus a wife, Rebekah, is found for Isaac.  When the servant reveals his identity to Rebekah, “the young woman ran and told her mother’s household all about these things” (Genesis 24:28), much like the Samaritan woman runs off to tell the townspeople about her strange encounter at the well.  Rebekah’s action, in turn, prompts her brother Laban to rush out to meet the man at the spring (24:29). 

It can be said of Rebekah that she will be the vehicle through which the Creator God brings Jacob to birth, from whom will come the Creator God’s covenant people, that being the twelve tribes of Israel.  In the same light, what is seen and heard in the encounter with the woman at the well with Jesus?  Though the reader is left to guess at whether or not this woman provides Jesus with any water, such becomes a secondary issue in the wake of her conversation with Jesus.  In recounting the story of Rebekah, an allusion has just been made to the fact that “the woman left her water jar, went off into the town and said to the people, ‘Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did.  Surely He can’t be the Messiah, can He?’  So they left the town and began coming to Him” (4:28-30).  Obviously, this becomes a major divergence in the stories, though the end result will be the same. 

The action of Laban aside, Abraham’s servant is taken to Abraham’s relatives, whereas the people to whom this woman speaks come out to meet Jesus.  However, as said, the result is somewhat identical, in that the Creator God’s covenant purposes are advanced and His kingdom is broadened, “as many Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of the report of the woman who testified…So when the Samaritans came to Him, they began asking Him to stay with them” (4:39a,40a). 

Abraham’s servant experiences much the same, in that after securing the bride for Isaac, he stayed overnight (24:54).  The next morning, upon indicating his intentions to return to Abraham, he was pressed to stay “a few more days, perhaps ten” (24:55b).  The text, however, would lead the reader to believe that he left that day.  At the same time, it would not be unreasonable to presume that at least one more night was spent at that place, in preparation for the journey home (for Abraham’s servant), and the journey from home (for Rebekah and her attendants/servants).  Returning to John, Jesus, and that particular well story, it is reported that “He stayed there two days” (4:40b).  There is a reiteration of this point a few verses later, as it is reported that “After two days He departed from there to Galilee” (4:43). 

Before going any further, the reader should be reminded that this study is not merely looking for points of contact between the story of the woman at the well and stories from the Biblical tradition by which it is preceded.  Rather, this is an attempt to allow the Scriptural narrative---that which provided self-definition and cosmic understanding to the people of Israel, to Jesus, and to those that provided their remembrances of Him, to inform an approach to the Jesus of the Gospels. 

It is to be reiterated that what is being attempted with this study is not an interpretation and application of Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman and that which resulted from it, but rather an attempt to put an observer in a position to come to the well, with Jesus, with the woman, and with the disciples of Jesus, with shared sensibilities that will allow one to hear Jesus, and to better determine the purpose and movement of the kingdom of the Creator God that stands behind this encounter along with understanding the purposes of His biographer.

A Tradition Of Wells (part 1)

…Jesus, since He was tired from the journey, sat right down beside the well. – John 4:6b  (NET)

The story of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman, at a well that was said to be connected to Jacob, is rife with historical underpinnings.  The author of John’s Gospel would know this, and it is quite reasonable to presume that he (or she, one could suppose) wanted to draw on the rich tradition of wells that dot the landscape of Israel’s received traditions.  Indeed, there are so many wells to be found throughout the pages of Scripture, it is probable that a familiarity with these wells is entirely necessary.  It may well be the case that the composer demands that this presentation of Jesus be understood within that context, presuming a familiarity with this history on the part of those that will hear or read not only this portion of his narrative, but the whole of his narrative of the life of Jesus. 

Not only is it incumbent upon a reader to place him or herself alongside the woman at the well or in the midst of Jesus’ disciples when approaching so as to hear this story, but as consumers of a second-hand tale that began with a certain announcement about Jesus that provides the foundational structure by which one is able to understand the Johannine narrative, one must also approach the story of Jesus and the woman at the well from the perspective that the One speaking to her is the physical manifestation of the covenant God that has tacitly directed His people’s contact with wells from the very beginning. 

This study is not going to make an attempt here to interpret the interaction or to draw conclusions about the encounter between the woman and Jesus, but rather, intends to think backwards from the fact of the woman and the well, trekking through Scripture in a way that should have the result of vesting this story with its appropriate context.  Such would be the necessary steps that would put an observer in a position, if so desired, to rightly interpret the interaction and to form the conclusions about Jesus and His words in the pericope on offer that the author desires his audience to form.  A reader should not only do this here, but naturally, for all of the Gospels and for all of Scripture, for doing this is what will actually allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. 

As the search for Scriptural wells is here begun with Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman (an outsider from Israel) as the starting point, it should be noted with great interest that when it comes to the divine narrative, the first mention of a well is to be found in connection with another individual that would be considered an outsider from Israel.  The sixteenth chapter of Genesis finds Sarai (later Sarah), the wife of Abram (later Abraham), expelling a pregnant Hagar from her household. 

When Hagar ran away (having been expelled), “The Lord’s angel found Hagar near a spring of water in the desert” (16:7a).  Though it is here said to be an angel, the reader quickly comes to learn that it was more than an angel, as “Hagar named the Lord who spoke to her” (as the author’s use of Lord is the proper name for Israel’s God), “You are the God who sees me” (16:13a).  Further detail is provided with “That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi’ (16:14a), which is translated as “The well of the Living One who sees me.” 

Jesus & The Finger Of God (part 4 of 4)

This display failed to make an impression on Pharaoh, with the Scriptural record informing the reader that “Pharaoh’s heart remained hard, and he did not listen to them” (8:19b).  In similar fashion, Luke goes on to point out that “As He spoke, a Pharisee invited Jesus to have a meal with him, so He went in and took His place at the table” (11:37).  So even though there is a slight change of setting, Luke wants his audience to continue to keep in mind what has been said by Jesus, which is conveyed by “As He spoke… so Jesus went in.” 

What is the conclusion of the scene at the house of the Pharisee?  Jesus certainly did not win Himself any supporters, as “When He went out from there, the experts in the law and the Pharisees began to oppose Him bitterly, and to ask Him hostile questions about many things, plotting against Him, to catch Him in something He might say” (11:53-54).  Like Pharaoh and his encounter with the finger of the covenant God, their hearts remained hard.   

How else does this story from Israel’s history fit with Jesus’ use of finger of God in Luke?  Taking another looks at what Jesus said there in immediate conjunction with the finger of God and the kingdom of God (which should probably not be allowed to be separated), He says “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his possessions are safe.  But when a stronger man attacks and conquers him, he takes away the first man’s armor on which the man relied and divides up his plunder” (11:21-22). 

Obviously, Pharaoh felt quite secure in rejecting Moses’ requests.  Why shouldn’t he?  He was strong, fully armed, with guards and a palace full of men ready to carry out his every request.  His possessions were safe.  Of course, one does not have to move much further along within the story to find that Pharaoh truly had no power, that he was not nearly as strong as he thought he was, and that he had no ability to deal with the stronger man (the Creator God of Israel) that was attacking him.  Ultimately, his armor (his army) was destroyed after he fruitlessly chased after Israel.  The completion of the thought that is encountered later in Luke, with the Pharisees and the experts in the law revealing their hardened hearts, which casts them in the role of the Pharaoh oppressing the people of the Creator God. 

To cap it off and to complete the overlay of Jesus’ words on to the situation, as Jesus surely meant to activate this particular historical remembrance (along with the others already mentioned, which must be part of Luke’s narrative plan as well), one can see that the culminating plague of the death of the firstborn, which would result in Israel’s release from Egypt (without having to lift their hands against their oppressors, it should be pointed out, and as Jesus must have wanted to convey to those listening to Him that were suffering under Roman oppression, as the sentiment of rebellion was always seething beneath the surface), and know that “The Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, and they gave them whatever they wanted, and so they plundered Egypt” (12:36).  Later, it would be the death of the one that would come to be recognized as the Creator God’s Son that would be the catalyst to a different type of exodus (the Resurrection of Jesus and of His people), in which a different type of strong man (death) would be conquered.   

Jesus & The Finger Of God (part 3)

So by his actions, Jesus clearly presents Himself as a new lawgiver, in the mold of Moses.  If one does not want to go that far and speak to Jesus’ private intentions, one could certainly insist that His biographers wished for their audiences to draw that conclusion. 

In Jesus’ case however, His status goes beyond that of Moses.  Unlike Moses, Jesus does not point to the finger of God as having written the commandments in stone at a time in the distant past, thus pointing to an entity separate from himself in the process.  Jesus does not appeal to the ancient working of the finger of God in the way that one may appeal to an established and recognized authority figure.  Rather, Jesus is reported as speaking of Himself using the same finger of God language that was most assuredly meant to communicate something which He believed to be true of Himself.  Undoubtedly, this is what Luke wants His audience to grasp. 

Later on in the same setting, Jesus goes on to say “For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be a sign to this generation” (11:30).  This use of “Son of Man” is part of a building process within Luke.  That process effectively culminates with Jesus’ linking the coming of the Son of Man, referencing Daniel chapter seven and the Son of Man coming on the clouds to the Ancient of Days in order to receive His kingdom, to the destruction of the Temple, with a repetition of “this generation” in connection with the sign, while also speaking of the Son of Man during the course of His passion (an entirely different subject matter altogether). 

Jesus then, in Luke’s highly structured and structural setting, speaks of Himself in connection to the finger of God (with this functioning on multiple levels), and then speaks of the Son of Man, which can be shown to be self-referential.  Making the connection then, the Son of Man is obviously meant to be understood as a divine figure, and it is the Son of Man (the king of the kingdom of God, the Messiah, the Creator God manifest) that is speaking when providing new laws for the people of that God and casting out demons.       

As this study works backwards through the defining and definitive historical narrative that is the Hebrew Scriptures, the final instance of the finger of God is found in the eighth chapter of Exodus.  There, Moses has struck his staff on the ground, with this striking resulting in the dust of the ground becoming like “gnats throughout all the land of Egypt” (8:16b).  As they had done with the previous signs from Israel’s God that had been provided to Moses in order to prove the veracity of the message he delivered, the magicians of Egypt attempted to match the feat.  However, they were unable to do so.  In response, “The magicians said to Pharaoh, ‘It is the finger of God!’” (8:19a)  

Jesus & The Finger Of God (part 1)

But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you. – Luke 11:20  (NET)

The “finger of God” is something that makes several appearances in Scripture.  It is yet another one of those things that links together the writings of the New Testament with the Hebrew Scriptures that serve as its foundation and basis for any and all understanding.  The Gospels contain two references to the “finger of God.”  The first is the one found in Luke, as seen above, with the other to be found in the Gospel of John. 

Though in John one cannot actually locate the phrase “finger of God,” the reader is led to understand that the finger of Jesus is the finger of the Creator God because John, in his creation-and-new-creation-story tinged narrative of the ministry of Jesus begins with an overt declaration of the divinity of Jesus, with this proclamation rooted in an understanding of the implications of both Messiah and Resurrection.  The finger of God can be seen when Jesus stoops to write in the dirt during the scene in which He is presented with the woman that was said to have been taken in the very act of adultery. 

Here it is necessary to acknowledge that some of the earliest and best manuscripts of John do not contain this story of the woman taken in adultery, and therefore do not contain the story that has Jesus writing on the ground with His finger.  In fact, some manuscripts place the story at the end of the twenty-first chapter of Luke, thus interestingly putting both “finger of God” references in the same Gospel, which makes a great deal of sense.

When Jesus speaks about the finger of God in Luke, He hits upon a key theme of His mission, which is the proclamation of the presence of the kingdom of God on earth.  He offers His statement in response to the accusation that “By the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons, He casts out demons” (11:15).  After speaking of His own casting out of demons by the finger of His God, He goes on to say “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his possessions are safe.  But when a stronger man attacks and conquers him, he takes away the first man’s armor on which the man relied and divides up his plunder” (11:21-22). 

Clearly then, this is designed to resonate with Jesus’ hearers.  Because Jesus speaks within a culture with a shared history, He is building on a foundation from which His hearers can fully understand Him and derive maximum meaning.  So rather than attempt to interpret and spiritualize the words of Jesus and treating His words as a free-floating aphorism subject to any number of flights of interpretive fancy, it is possible to gather up the appearances of the “finger of God” that are to be found in Israel’s defining historical narrative so as to put oneself in position to grasp what is being communicated.

Handsome Men (part 2 of 2)

Certainly, because Joseph was a powerful ruler, even if it was in Egypt, there could naturally be a desire for a ruler of Israel to be very much like Joseph.  Though it is scant, there is a growing sense that this issue of appearance is an important one when it comes to Israel’s rulers and the way the people wanted to think about their rulers.  This is quite understandable in the day of mass media, but it is not at all difficult to comprehend what would seem to be a natural human desire to have attractive leaders set over them. 

This should be kept in mind when first encountering David in the Scriptural narrative.  As is well known, the Creator God is said to have rejected Saul as king.  Samuel, the one whose failure with his sons has lead to the desire for a king, goes to anoint another man as king.  When David is brought before Samuel we learn that “he was ruddy, with attractive eyes and a handsome appearance” (16:12b).  Strangely, this is after Samuel has viewed the first of David’s brothers and was impressed by his physical appearance. 

This experience with the sons of Jesse must have reminded Samuel of when Saul first stood before him.  However, with that in mind the Lord can be heard to say “Don’t be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him” (16:7b), which serves as an explicit reminder of Saul’s having been rejected.  The Lord is reported to have gone on to say “God does not view things the way men do.  People look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (16:7c).  With this said, it is indeed strange that David’s appearance is mentioned at all, let alone mentioned in such positive terms.  One might think that it would have been the opposite when it came to David, and that Samuel was going to anoint one who was unattractive, but this was apparently not going to be the case. 

Eventually Saul dies and David takes the throne as he was anointed to do.  Frankly, he fares little better than Saul.  In many ways, he was more corrupted by the power than was Saul.  When those who hear the story of Saul, followed by the story of David (with that story naturally and appropriately including David’s adultery and murder) while considering that Saul was rejected from the throne of Israel because he had inappropriately offered a sacrifice, the hearer simply knows that Israel’s God is going to remove David from the throne as well. 

As if to confirm that this is indeed going to take place in due course, David’s son Absalom is introduced into the narrative.  During the course of Absalom’s story, adhering closely to the pattern that has been previously established and apparently as if to confirm that Absalom is indeed going to take the throne of Israel, the author reports that “in all Israel everyone acknowledged that there was no man as handsome as Absalom.  From the sole of his feet to the top of his head he was perfect in appearance” (2 Samuel 14:25). 

Unsurprisingly then, he indeed does take the throne (David is temporarily removed), and even experiences an anointing to confirm what was his justly and prophecy (calling corrupt leaders to account) confirming gained position.  However, as had been the case with both Saul and his father, he eventually engages in an action that is displeasing to the Lord of Israel and is removed from the throne, allowing David (one of the handsome men of Scripture) to regain his rule.  

Invitations (part 2)

This is where it gets even more interesting, and also where the narrative connections, both that of Jesus in Luke/Acts and Jesus inside the Creator God’s plan, take over and are revealed.  As has already been seen, “…The the master of the household was furious at the report of the excuses for lack of attendance at the banquet and said to his slave “Go out quickly to the streets and alleys of the city, and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.”  Then the slave said, “Sir, what you instructed has been done, and there is still room.”  So the master said to his slave, “Go out to the highways and the country roads and urge people to come in, so that my house will be filled” (14:21b-23).  How does this fit within the over-arching Biblical narrative? 

Taking in the whole scope of Scripture, the offering of excuses should remind an observer of the oft-repeated offering of excuses to be found within the pages of the sacred writ.  While one can think about the excuses on offer from Jeremiah, Saul, Gideon, and Moses, as to why the Creator God could not effectively use them, one can here be sent all the way back to the very first excuses of Scripture, which are to be found in the opening pages of Genesis.  There, effectively, the Creator God had made preparations for something wonderful (a banquet of sorts) and sent out His invitations.  Those invitations, of course, were extended to the first divine image-bearers, that being Adam and Eve. 

“God created humankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them” (1:27).  It is then that a directive (an invitation) is given to this pair.  They are invited to partake in the Creator’s intentions for His world.  “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply!  Fill the earth and subdue it!  Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.’” (1:28) 

Without getting into the order of the creation accounts on offer in chapters one and two, the reader will go on to learn that “The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it.  Then the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die” (2:15-17).  With this, the invitation takes on specificity. 

Shortly thereafter, at least in terms of the narrative, it is reported that “the serpent was more shrewd than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made.  He said to the woman, ‘Is it really true that God said, “You must not eat from any tree of the orchard?”  The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’”’” (3:1-3) 

Without offering up the remainder of this part of the story, as all should be quite familiar with how it turned out, suffice it to say that both Adam and Eve ate from the tree, thereby introducing death into the world.  They rejected the Creator’s invitation.  Then what did they do?  They offered up excuses.  The Creator God asked “Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” (3:11b)  What was Adam’s excuse?  “The woman whom You gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it” (3:12).  What was Eve’s excuse?  “The serpent tricked me, and I ate” (3:13b). 

Understandably, the covenant God is angry with these individuals that have now declined His invitation of participation in His purposes.  However, what the big picture of Scripture reveals is that the same God re-directs His anger.  That re-direction begins, in earnest, in chapter twelve of Genesis, when the covenant God invites Abraham (Abram) to participate in His plan.  Abraham’s (Abram’s) acceptance of the Creator God’s gracious invitation is prelude to, and because of the promise of descendants, looks toward Israel’s invitation to participate with their God in His plans for the redemption of the entire creation.