Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 3)

If one does not operate from within an awareness of the patron-client system of the ancient world, one will undoubtedly miss what would have been obvious to the witnesses of these things and to those to whom these stories came, whether in oral or written form.  That is not to say that it will not be possible to understand the overarching Gospel message (Jesus is Lord), but rather, that readings and the ability to apply that which is gleaned and learned from those readings will be richer by orders of great magnitude if one approaches the Scriptural text within appropriate historical and contextual boundaries. 

Moving forward then, it is incumbent upon an observer to realize that the world into which the Gospel narratives were introduced would have been more than well-versed in the dynamics of the patron-client relationship, as would those that came to identify themselves as Christians.  This cultural dynamic would certainly be put to good use, especially since, in that time, it was very much the case that all positive relationships with any god were rooted in the perception of the patron-client relationship. 

So, even though it may seem quite extraneous to a perusal of a letter of Paul, it is quite important to have a strong grasp of this underlying cultural principle of the patron-client system so that it is possible to correctly hear what Paul is communicating to Timothy.  As indicated by the title of this study, there is a strong counter-cultural bent in the first letter to Timothy, as is largely the case for Paul; and the patron-client system seems to be a useful jumping off point.  To that end, said system will continue to be explored, with that exploration providing a few more details that can serve as cultural keys in an exegesis of the letter. 

A client was a loyal supporter to a high standing Roman family, and it is the head of that higher-standing family that would ultimately be known as “patronus,” or “patron.”  The clients of the patron functioned as an extended family to the patron---something like a clan.  They would be expected to loyally support him (offer fides or pistis) in any venture upon which he chose to embark, be that military, political, or commercial.  Meanwhile, the patron would aid his clients through representing their political interests through the office that he held, or by defending them in the courts as their advocate if such became necessary. 

This bond between patron and client was one of the bedrock foundations of Roman society.  This reciprocal loyalty (again, fides or pistis) was a highly prized virtue, and it served to hold together families while serving as the unifying nexus of the social order.  The loyalty of the client would be expected to extend beyond the patron and to the patron’s family as well.  If a patron were to die, a client would be expected to offer the patron’s heir the same loyalty as had been offered to the original patron.  Likewise for the client.  Should the client die, his heir would be expected to stand in for the head of that family, continuing the clientele loyalty to their benefactor. 

Binding & Loosing (part 2)

Not to get too far afield, and though Matthew is not to be interpreted by John, it is little wonder then, that the Gospel of John, in its portrayal of Jesus that reflected the development of Christian understanding about Jesus and a better grasp (in the late first century in the time period after the fall of the Temple) of Jesus’ sayings about Himself, has Jesus telling Nathanael and the other men that had been called to be His disciples, that they “will see heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man” (John 1:51b).  

Yes, the early church clearly understood that Jesus was the true Temple.  He Himself was understood to be the house of Israel’s God.  He was the place where heaven and earth came together.  By the gifting of His Spirit (or as the evidence of the presence of the Spirit of the Creator God), His church would carry out His mission as the Temple, thus becoming the extension of His own faithfulness.  

Naturally, if talk about the church as the Temple of the Holy Spirit is taken seriously (as can be seen in the pre-Matthean letters of the Apostle Paul, though Paul would have drawn from the Jesus traditions that would eventually come to be concretized by Matthew and the other Gospel writers, while also having a hand in the theological shaping of those Jesus-centered narratives) in both a communal sense and in accord with the responsibility of the individuals members that compose the body of the Christ, this realization about the role of the church as the Temple (the place where heaven and earth are to come together) informs the Christian as to his or her responsibilities in association with a life lived in response to the Gospel claim that Jesus is Lord.  

Yes, the Christian is to be the place where and heaven earth come together---bringing heaven to earth as a singular purpose (and this will look a lot like caring for orphans and widows, which is the constant cry of the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures).  The church, as the collection of individual elected ones (Christians), carries out this purpose in community.    

This brings this study back to Matthew sixteen and Jesus’ statement to Peter.  Having established that the Temple was the concrete and understood point of reference with talk of earth and heaven (throughout the New Testament and demonstrably so in Matthew and all of the Gospels), while also establishing that Jesus sees Himself as the new Temple, a great hermeneutical service has been provided.  By extension then, continuing with said hermeneutic, and doing so in line with the earliest interpreters of the Jesus’ tradition, the church (and its members), as it (and they) carries out the mission of Jesus and as it (and they) is infused with the same Spirit by which Jesus was raised up from the dead, is to be conceived of as the Temple in so far as it represents Jesus in, to, and for the world. 

Therefore, talk of earth and heaven, within an appropriate context, becomes talk of the church.  This knowledge can be employed and deployed when hearing Jesus speak to Peter.  Peter has just insisted that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16b).  Part of Jesus’ response to this declaration is to tell Peter that “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven!” (16:17b)  The use of flesh and blood presents an unspoken contrast of revelation by a means other than flesh and blood.  When Jesus says “My Father in heaven” revealed this to Peter, having set “flesh and blood” in juxtaposition, He is making an obvious reference to the activity of the Creator God, by means of His Spirit.  

Invitations (part 1)

…The the master of the household was furious 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.” – Luke 14:21b-23  (NET)

In Luke fourteen, Jesus tells a parable of a great banquet.  A man had planned the event, invitations had been sent, requisite preparations had been carried out, and food and wine had been prepared in accordance with the number of people that had accepted the invitation.  Though it is not necessary to take up space setting up the context for this banquet, what can be seen, contextually, is that this parable of the great banquet is set within Jesus’ own attendance at a meal to which He had been invited.  Jesus’ presence at a meal closely follows His speaking about, in chapter thirteen, the great messianic banquet that will be hosted by Israel’s God. 

Luke, as an excellent story-teller within what is a culture that communicates its stories primarily in oral/aural fashion, builds on that which comes before, and never leaves Jesus’ words unexplained.  This, of course, is why one can never look at portions of the Gospel in isolation, and why, in order to have any authentic and plausible meaning, the stories in each of the Gospel narratives must be understood in relation to the multiple layers of narrative on offer as part of the whole.    

Rather than get into interpreting the details of the banquet or even explaining the nuances of the story, this study will attempt to place the banquet within Luke’s narrative of Jesus, which stretches past the Gospel that bears the same name, and on into the book of Acts.  When considering the nature of story and always realizing that details offered up early in a story will have bearing upon or come to fruition later on in the telling, one must be mindful that Luke sometimes brings resolution to a statement from Jesus within Acts, rather than neatly tying things off within the first half of his two-part series. 

As this is done, this study will also consider the mission of Jesus as presented by Luke, bearing in mind that the mission of Jesus is defined by the situation within the covenant God’s creation, and within the Creator God’s plan of redemption for His world as it is being enacted and carried forward by the people of His covenant.  To this end, as one hear the parable of the banquet, the hearer/reader  should be able to find points of contact with Luke’s ongoing presentation as well as the whole of the Biblical narrative, which of course gives shape to Jesus’ own mission.     

As Jesus opens the story, all indications are that the banquet is ready to commence.  However, something strange and quite unexpected happens.  Those who had been invited and who had accepted the invitation, fail to follow through on that acceptance.  Instead of coming when summoned, all begin offering up excuses as to why they cannot now attend.  One says “I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it” (14:18b).  A second says, “I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going out to examine them” (14:19a).  A third says, “I just got married, and I cannot come” (14:20). 

Now, without dwelling on the implausibility of the excuses (these excuses would have been laughable in the ears of Jesus’ audience), which is what enrages the spurned host, it is necessary to add that it seems as if the point being made is that all that were invited made excuses, and therefore were not going to be attending.  Rather than retaliate, as Jesus’ hearers would have expected the enraged host to do, especially in a culture defined by honor and shame, the insulted party-thrower re-directs his wrath and re-extends his invitations in another direction. 

Seeing God (part 2)

Jesus continues on to say “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.  Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.  Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied” (5:4-6).  His use of “righteousness” helps to mark a transition.  “Righteousness” is best understood as “covenant faithfulness.”  This, of course, is what the Creator God has always expected from His people---faithfulness to their covenant responsibilities to represent Him and to be a light to the nations for the purpose of His glory.  Understandably then, almost immediately after finishing His “outline,” Jesus reminds those that want to participate in the kingdom of heaven (come to earth) that they are to be “the light of the world” (5:14a).   

Though this should not be done too often (as it is paramount to let the Gospel narratives speak for themselves, as they are informed by the history of Israel and the implications of Jesus’ Resurrection), when considering the idea that “righteousness” is to be equated with “covenant faithfulness,” it is useful to look to one of Paul’s letters.  Naturally, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that Paul’s theological outworking of the meaning behind the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus had a role in shaping the theology that stands behind Matthew and the other Gospels, and therefore also played a part in giving shape to the narrative form that would be taken by the Gospels.  Additionally, looking to Paul, while also looking back into the history of Israel, one can get a sense of the thinking in the time of Jesus concerning this important subject. 

In his second letter to the Corinthian church, Paul insists that at least one of the purposes of the covenant God’s redeeming activity is that “in Him,” that being Jesus (“in Him” as a shorthand way of saying that it is through calling Jesus Lord, in a pledged oath of loyalty, that all are enabled to enter into the grouping of the Creator God’s covenant people), “we would become the righteousness of God” (5:21b). 

In short then, Paul says that the Creator God desires that His people be the ones to carry out that which represents His covenant faithfulness, as “ambassadors,” with “God making His plea through us” (5:20), having given over to His covenant bearers (obviously, through the working of the Holy Spirit), His “ministry of reconciliation” (5:18)---the covenant God’s reconciling His people and His divine image-bearers to Himself as part of His redemptive plan for His world that Paul refers to as “new creation” (5:17).  This happens, of course, because “the love of Christ,” which was demonstrated by His willing and self-sacrificial death, and by which He gave proof to the conviction behind His kingdom plans and principles, and which believers should seek to imitate in principle if not in form, “controls us” (5:14a). 

Returning to Matthew then, and considering Jesus’ introduction of “righteousness” or “covenant faithfulness” into the sermon, one can see that Jesus proceeds to give at least a partial summary of the form that will be taken by that execution of righteousness (covenant faithfulness).  Jesus says “Blessed are the merciful…  Blessed are the pure in heart…  Blessed are the peacemakers” (5:7a,8a,9a).  Those that demonstrate these characteristics will “be shown mercy… will see God… will be called the children of God” (5:7b,8b,9b). 

Amazingly enough, however, Jesus indicates that those that live in such ways, rather than being universally praised and lauded for their fine demonstration of their alignment and agreement with the principles of the kingdom of heaven, will be “persecuted for righteousness” (5:10a)---persecuted for the way that they demonstrate their faithfulness to the covenant and the way that they insist upon people entering into the covenant.  In fact, those that insist upon this way of bringing in, establishing, and expanding the Creator God’s kingdom will have an altogether unexpected experience, as they will be insulted and persecuted, whilst people speak evil of them on account of their loyalty to Jesus. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 35)

This line of thinking becomes especially poignant when one considers that Jesus’ dealings with and in the Temple are a central feature of the Gospel accounts, and that all three make it more than clear that it is this ongoing clash with the Temple authorities, culminating in Jesus’ enacted judgment (in the mold of Jeremiah) against the Temple that ultimately resulted in the collusion with the Roman authorities that was productive of His death by crucifixion. 

While this can be said, it is more than possible that Mark did in fact write His Gospel before the Temple had come to its end, as is often posited.  Mark’s Gospel lacks the embellishments (in the sense of a more rounded-out presentation) on Jesus’ life that are to be found in Matthew and Luke, with this lack of embellishment being quite understandable.  If Mark writes before the Temple’s fall, whereas Matthew and Luke write after the fall and because of that fall, then it is understandable that Mark’s account would be more direct and straightforward, lacking the material details and stories to be found in the narratives on offer in Matthew and Luke.  Understandably, composing their accounts of Jesus in a post-Temple-fall world, Matthew and Luke could be far more comfortable relating more of Jesus’ life story, as preserved and transmitted via the oral tradition. 

Together with these important realizations, if one also holds to the idea that the early church, having rightly comprehended what Jesus meant by His fall-of-the-Temple-focused discourse (as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21), tightly connected the fall of the Temple with the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days in order to receive His kingdom, then the heavy inclusion of all of the Son of Man language throughout the Gospels makes even greater sense.  While this study will not take the time to offer an in-depth review of all of the mentions of the Son of Man, it is worth taking a bit of time to review and to draw out some conclusions and inferences that would have been obvious to Jesus’ original audience. 

In a superficial review, one cannot help but notice that John has the fewest uses of “Son of Man.”  Mark clocks in with the next fewest, while both Matthew and Luke are replete with its usage (Luke nearly doubling Mark’s count, while Matthew more than doubles Mark’s usage).  While John obviously pursues its agenda on a different path than do the synoptics, Mark’s relative restraint in using the term is understandable if it is, in fact, cautiously and expectantly composed before the fall of the Temple.  If Jesus presents Himself as the Danielic Son of Man, while tying the expected reign of the Son of Man to the fall of the Temple, it would not be odd to see a pre-Temple-fall composition being a bit more judicious in the use of the term.  If both Matthew and Luke are composed and disseminated post-Temple-fall, then all things considered, it would make far more sense to include far more Son of Man language. 

Of course, one does not simply assert that a lack of details in indicative of a pre-fall composition, as Mark could certainly have been just as precise and non-verbose, as opposed to his evangelistic counterparts, while writing after the Temple’s fall.  Once a position has been achieved in which it possible to correctly and contextually hear Jesus’ Son of Man language within His crystal clear, prophetical, and predictive speech about the coming fall of the Temple, doing so in the light of Daniel’s seventh chapter, it would be a tremendous dis-service to fail to reflect on a few of its appearances prior to the Temple speech in which Jesus connects the Temple’s fall with the Son of Man’s arrival and kingdom acquisition.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 34)

As one hears the words of the second letter of Peter (as a perfect example, though one could also comb through Paul’s letters as part of this exercise) and considers the possibilities surrounding the potential interpretation of what is to be found there, while also considering the possibility that it was produced before the fall of the Temple, in demonstration of the church’s expectation of that fall and what it would mean for their faith,  it is appropriate to think about the time frame in which the written synoptic Gospels are said to have been produced. 

If indeed it was well understood that Jesus, as reported by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, was speaking of the fall of the Temple as something that would occur within the lifetimes of many of those that heard His answer to the disciples’ question about when the Temple would be thrown to the ground with not one stone left upon another, then this can also help to explain the time period that saw the relative explosion of Gospel narratives on to the scene in the first century. 

Though there are ongoing debates about the time frame for the production of the synoptic Gospels, and though there could certainly be written records that would be incorporated into the Gospels themselves that were composed at an early stage, it is generally accepted that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Mark preceding the other two) in the forms in which the church possesses them, were all composed roughly around the year seventy.  Some suggest an earlier dating for Mark, perhaps in the late sixties.  If true, this is not problematic for our suggestion. 

However, if the insistence of this study is correct, and the early church did indeed hold Jesus’ prediction concerning the Temple in very high regard (again considering that Jesus is reported to have made precious few predictions), giving it a place at the center of their teaching about Jesus as the thing that would bring about a great validation of His ministry, then it would be quite understandable to place all three of the synoptic Gospel accounts as being produced shortly after the very fall of the Temple that was predicted by Jesus as recorded by the Gospel authors. 

Remember, a great deal of weight has been placed on the fact that, despite numerous differences in details throughout the whole of their accounts of Jesus’ ministry and of His time and activities in the Temple, all three coalesce to identically report His talk about the generation that will see the fall of the Temple, along with the words that immediately followed.  This single fact should be endlessly fascinating.  It would make perfect sense for all three of the evangelists works to spring from the fall of the Temple, with all being produced after that event in a veritable rush to generate and disperse the written account that would include His words about the Temple’s fall. 

It is possible that, in the minds of the authors and the Jesus communities, the fall of the Temple would be the final piece of the puzzle, validating all that Jesus had said and done.  Now, with the Temple destroyed, which also meant that the Son of Man had most certainly gone before the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom (for if one prediction was correct, then the prediction tied to it must be considered to be correct as well), all of the preaching and teaching about Jesus that had been taking place within the nascent church movement, and all of the persecution undergone by the church, primarily at the hands of the Temple authorities, could be seen to not have been done or experienced in vain. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 22)

In an attempt to move along and listen to Jesus’ response to the disciples’ question as they react to all that He has said and done in the Temple, this study will not attempt to interpret and apply every statement that Jesus makes.  Rather, it is more important to listen to Jesus with the full realization that He is responding to a question about the fall of the Temple, whether it be the question on offer in Matthew, Mark, or Luke.  In doing so, taking an unwarranted flight of fancy so as to hear Jesus talking about anything but that which He has been asked to address will not be allowed.  The obvious intention of the authors does not allow for this. 

So as Jesus answers, every word must be heard in connection with His statement, in reference to the Temple, that “not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down,” along the disciples’ inquisitive response to that statement, inquiring when this earth-shaking event will take place.  This is not exactly a far-fetched or groundbreaking idea, especially when considering how Temple-centric the Gospel narratives have been since Jesus made His triumphal entry. 

As Jesus tells His disciples how they will know that the Temple is about to fall, He begins by saying “Watch out that no one misleads you” (24:4b), which is quite prescient, considering the many strange paths down which many erstwhile interpreters have attempted to lead the Creator God’s people, as Jesus’ rather straightforward discourse is presented in isolation from all that comes before it.  Continuing on, Jesus says “For many will come in My name, saying ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many.  You will hear of wars and rumors of wars.  Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come” (24:5-6). 

What is “the end”?  In context of the statement, the question, and the answer of course, “the end” is the fall of the Temple.  Foreign notions are not to be here imported into the text.  The end is the fall of the Temple, and for Matthew, it is already and also known that this end is connected to the son of man appearing before the Ancient of Days, as detailed in Daniel 7.  Both Mark and Luke have Jesus here speaking of the end, and since neither one of those records have the disciples asking about the end of the age (which is most decidedly not a reference to the end of the physical world), this reinforces the fact that the end of which Jesus speaks is the end of the Temple that currently stands in Jerusalem, for that is the object that is squarely and most unmistakably in view.      

Jesus continues: “For nations will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.  And there will be famines and earthquakes in various places.  All these things are the beginning of birth pains” (24:7-8).  If these things are the beginning of birth pains, what will be the result of those birth pains?  Clearly, the answer, unless one allow himself to be diverted from the subject at hand, is the throwing down of the Temple.  What else will be associated with these birth pains?  In conjunction with all that Jesus has said will happen in the lead-up to the fall of the Temple, Jesus says “They will hand you over to be persecuted and will kill you.  You will be hated by all nations because of My name.  Then many will be led into sin, and they will betray one another and hate one another.  And many false prophets will appear and deceive many, and because lawlessness will increase so much, the love of many will grow cold.  But the person who endures to the end will be saved” (24:10-13).  Yet again, here is another “end.”  What is the “end”?  The fall of the Temple.  It is necessary to keep coming back to that point, for far too many are far too conditioned to let their minds wander off to different ideas. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 21)

What must be done when one hears the disciples ask about Jesus’ coming, is hearing them ask that question as first-century Jews whose mindsets were thoroughly influenced by the imagery on offer in the extraordinarily popular and influential work of Daniel.  In the seventh chapter of Daniel, a vision is reported in which “with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching.  He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before Him.  To Him was given ruing authority, honor, and sovereignty.  All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him.  His authority is eternal and will not pass away.  His kingdom will not be destroyed” (7:13b-14).  In this vision, one like a son of man came to Ancient of Days.  Presumably this movement is from earth to heaven.  This is the coming to which the disciples make reference, and to which Jesus will make reference in His answer as reported by Matthew. 

Is this a leap of logic and an unsupported assertion?  Well, the issue of common sense has already been addresses, demonstrating that the disciples could not possibly have been asking Jesus about a coming to earth when He was already there, as there is nothing in the Gospel narratives to that point that would suggest that such a question would be appropriate or that such thinking would be warranted.  As supported by the Gospel narratives and the general disposition of the vast majority of the members of the nation of Israel, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to die, let alone be raised from the dead, nor ascend to heaven following a resurrection or return to earth from heaven at some point in the future. 

To go along with that, the prevalence and popularity of Daniel in that time and culture compels the reader to hear talk of “coming” along the lines that it suggests, which was a coming before the Creator God (the Ancient of Days) of that one that represented Israel, that Israel might be delivered from those under which it suffered oppression.  That, of course, was one of the primary concerns of the day.  In any consideration of Jesus’ presumptive messianic activity or mission, the deliverance of Israel was paramount. 

Matthew underscores the fact that Daniel is in mind and that it was an instructive work in that day, as later on, as Jesus answers the disciples’ question, He makes reference to Daniel, saying “So when you see the abomination of desolation---spoken about by Daniel the prophet” (24:15a).  It is fascinating to make note of the fact that it is Matthew alone that has Jesus specifically naming the book of Daniel as part of His responsive discourse, informing his audience that Daniel was a major influence of his worldview and is one of the primary lenses through to which to view his Jesus story, especially when it is Matthew’s report of Jesus’ “end times” vision that is so often mis-interpreted. 

Though Mark makes reference to it by mention of the abomination of desolation, there is no specific mention of Daniel.  In Mark, it is the mention of the abomination of desolation that first calls Daniel to the mind of the hearer or reader, whereas the one hearing Matthew’s tale has already had Daniel called to mind by the mention of the signs of Jesus’ coming.  It therefore makes sense that Matthew’s Jesus makes mention of Daniel, whilst Mark’s Jesus merely makes a reference.  Both build on the crucial reference.  For Matthew’s purposes, Jesus’ coming (not to earth but to the Ancient of Days) is what marks the end of the age (of Israel being oppressed, among other things) and is emphatically linked to the destruction of the Temple.  He makes that explicit in the foreground, with his framing of the disciples’ question.  This link is also found in Mark and Luke, but as has been shown, they do not have the disciples marking their query with a concern for the end of the age, so the connection between the two comes later in Jesus’ response to the question. 

Calling His Disciples (part 5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calling His Disciples (part 3)

Strangely, and though there is no mention of fishing in connection to their initial call, it is following the crucifixion, Resurrection, and appearance of Jesus that the Gospel of John provides the first inkling that the disciples had in fact been fishermen (though this fact was probably something that was well known to the early church community and the audience of the author of this Gospel).  In the twenty-first chapter the author writes: “After this Jesus revealed Himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias.  Now this is how He did so.  Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael (who was from Cana in Galilee), the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples of His were together” (21:1-2).  As an aside, the mention of Nathanael being from Cana in Galilee provides a clue as to why Jesus, His mother, and His disciples were at the wedding feast in Cana, the story of which is presented immediately following Jesus’ words to Nathanael at the close of the first chapter.  Returning to the text of the twenty-first chapter: “Simon Peter told them, ‘I am going fishing.’ ‘We will go with you,’ they replied.  They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing” (21:3) 

Where Mark, Matthew, and Luke have Jesus calling His first disciples in Galilee, John has them being called outside of Galilee, and there are no boats or fish anywhere in sight.  At the close of their narratives, Mark concludes with the report of the Resurrection, Luke (and Acts) has Jesus speaking to the disciples in Jerusalem, and Matthew has the disciples on a mountain in the Galilee.  John follows Matthew’s account, at least in terms of region, with the final appearance of Jesus to His disciples taking place in Galilee.  Ironically, Mark, Matthew, and Luke have the disciples fishing when Jesus first calls them, and it is an occupation to which they do not return, whereas John, which offers up a wholly different setting at the time of their calls, has the disciples off and fishing after Jesus makes His first post-Resurrection appearance to them, and it is at this time that they catch a great number of fish.      

The only other specific calling of a disciple recorded in the Gospels is that of Matthew, who is also called Levi.  Similar to the presentation of the calling of the first four, Mark reports that “Jesus went out again by the sea.  The whole crowd came to Him, and He taught them” (2:13).  Once again then, Jesus is near the sea of Galilee.  This time though, similar to Luke’s record of the calling of the first four, Jesus is in the act and process of teaching.  “As He went along, He saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the tax booth.  ‘Follow Me,’ He said to him.  And he got up and followed Him” (2:14).  Matthew says “As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax booth.  ‘Follow Me,’ He said to him.  And he got up and followed Him” (9:9).  Luke writes that “After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax booth.  ‘Follow Me,” He said to him.  And he got up and followed Him, leaving everything behind” (5:27-28). 

As can be seen, the synoptics are essentially univocal in their witness to this particular calling event.  To the contrary though, John does not present the call of Matthew.  In all three synoptic narratives, the calling of Matthew follows the healing of the paralyzed man that had been brought to Jesus by his friends.  In Matthew, there is a significant textual gap between the call of the first four disciples and the call of Matthew, but this gap is not to be found in Mark and Luke, as the call of Matthew comes quickly on the heels of the calling of Simon, Andrew, James, and John.  Not only do all three synoptic accounts of the call of Matthew follow immediately after the healing of the paralyzed man, what follows the record of the call is nearly identical in all three as well.  With the differences to be found in these Gospels, as they frequently diverge in their order of presentation, this nearly identical presentation of three events in sequence, with minor differences in detail, is quite remarkable. 

Hated (part 3)

If what it was that Jesus had to say was too unique, He could never have found an audience.  Based on the strange-for-the-messiah actions that accompanied His words, offering something unfamiliar to the people of Israel could have resulted in His being dismissed as a heathen, outside of the realm of the covenant people, and probably overly influenced by the pagan religions by which Israel was surrounded and to which they are said to have so often succumbed in their past. 

So while remembering the grounding of Jesus’ teaching within historical Judaism and Israel, an observer also does very well to remember that those that heard and those that would later provide historical records of His life and teaching so as to pass it on in both oral and written form, heard what He had to say within the same historically-rooted context as those that would hear and not provide narratives that would be passed down through history.  They did so while also speaking and writing of Jesus in the light of the Resurrection and what they came to believe that the Resurrection implied for Him, for Israel, for the world, and for the ultimate eschatological purposes of Israel’s God. 

Before moving on to the uncovering of the answer that will makes it possible to get a more firm and far less anachronistic grip on what such words from Jesus implied, it must be said that this pronouncement concerning hatred that is the focus of this study was not isolated.  The Gospels insist that Jesus spoke of being hated on more than one occasion.  While Mark has Jesus speaking of being hated in association with His pronouncements concerning the end of the age, with this occurring in the wake of His kingly entry into Jerusalem and His “cleansing” of the Temple, Matthew has Jesus first speaking of being hated much earlier in His ministry. 

Matthew records a sermon on the mount, whereas Luke records a sermon on the plain.  Some look at this as a conflict, but a more realistic assessment is that is quite likely that Jesus’ message was repetitive in nature, and that these repetitive messages were offered to an oral-history-oriented community in much the same way as a modern politician will give the same speech to different audiences, or a pastor has a particular, popular, go-to sermon. 

So in regards to the hating and being hated, Matthew has Jesus speaking of such things in association with His sending of the twelve “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6).  It is in this context that Jesus says “you will be hated by everyone because of My name” (10:22a), while also adding, as He appears to have done at the speech recorded by Mark, “But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (10:22b).  Progressing on to the Gospel of Luke, on the lookout for hate, lands a reader in the sixth chapter, where Jesus is to be found speaking of such things during the aforementioned sermon on the plain.  Here, He is speaking to a wider audience than just His disciples, but the general theme remains unchanged.  Jesus says, “Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject you as evil on account of the Son of Man!” (6:22) 

Interestingly, Jesus here speaks of being excluded, which should certainly have reminded His hearers (and those that would subsequently be presented with these words) of the exclusive practices referenced earlier in this study, though in a way that informs His hearers (and readers through the centuries) that separating exclusions within the “kingdom of God” (6:20) should themselves be excluded.  Later, Jesus will add the difficult demand to “Love your enemies,” and to “do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (6:27b-28). 

Vindication For Joy & Rejoicing (part 1)

May those who desire my vindication shout for joy and rejoice! – Psalm 35:27a  (NET)

The thirty-fifth Psalm begins with “O Lord, fight those who fight with me!  Attack those who attack me!  …Rise up to help me!  …Assure me with these words: I am your deliverer!” (35:1,2b,3b)  As these words are read in the light of the knowledge of the Savior, of His crucifixion at the hands of the Romans at the behest of the Temple authorities, and His unexpected Resurrection from the grave and its signal that death had ultimately been defeated, it would seem to be quite natural to want to place them on the lips of Jesus as He endured what would come to be understood as His saving ordeal. 

However, because Jesus did not speak against His accusers, nor is He said to have spoken against those that carried out the sentence of death that was passed against Him, it is actually not appropriate to have Him asking His God to fight and attack those that were responsible for His death.  Instead, what is recorded is that Jesus asked the one He called Father to readily forgive them for their actions that He believed to have been performed in ignorance.  So if these words are, in fact, to be somehow ascribed to Jesus, with a direction in mind (which does seem like a reasonable proposition), their direction needs to be properly understood. 

Ultimately, who was it that could be said to have fought with Jesus?  Who was it that attacked Him?  Who was His great enemy?  From whom did He desire deliverance?  The answer to these questions is “death.”  If one was to peruse the New Testament writings that reflected on the life and ministry of Jesus, with many of these writings pre-dating the final composition of the Gospels (though oral narratives that would certainly have taken a shape not unlike that which would eventually be written were in circulation), it would be a relatively easy matter to see that some of the earliest believers thought this to be the case.

It would seem then that it was the battle with death into which Jesus asked His Father to enter, to fight on His behalf, to rise up to attack.  Because Jesus entered the battle as well, and did not ask His Father to deliver Him in a way that allowed Him to stand absent from the pain of death, Jesus appeared to know that the cross must be endured.  Owing to that, and if such words could have crossed His mind and His lips, Jesus could be here considered to be asking for an assurance that He would be delivered up from the power of death, after willingly allowing Himself to be overcome by His great enemy.  It must be borne in mind that Jesus did not go into the ordeal of the crucifixion with a knowledge that He would indeed be raised.  He did so with a hope that He would be vindicated and redeemed from the exile into which He was flinging Himself.  

The Resurrection that followed is said to have stripped death of its power.  From that point on, though it would continue to be very real and very present, death would ultimately be a toothless foe in the face of the promise of the power of resurrection and new life for the people of the Creator God.  Death had held sway from the time of the fall, but with the Resurrection, what could be seen as a further request of Jesus, of “May those who seek my life be embarrassed and humiliated!  May those who plan to harm be turned back and ashamed!” (35:4) was answered in the affirmative.  

Joshua's Battle (part 1)

Joshua campaigned against these kings for quite some time. – Joshua 11:18  (NET)

As Israel was taking what it believed to be its promised land and, according to what was believed to be their God’s command upon them, dispossessing the land-corrupting and non-divine-image-bearing nations that were to be found there, it is said that “Joshua conquered the whole land, including the hill country, all the Negev, all the land of Goshen, the lowlands, the Arabah, the hill country of Israel and its lowlands, from Mount Halak on up to Seir, as far as Baal Gaad in the Lebanon Valley below Mount Hermon.  He captured all their kings and executed them” (11:16-18).  It is these kings of whom it is said, “Joshua campaigned against these kings for quite some time” (11:18). 

As one reads about Israel’s conquering and taking of their land of promise, it is necessary to bear in mind what was understood to be the Creator God’s purpose for His covenant people called Israel.  Israel, by and large, was to be the Creator God’s instrument for setting the world to rights.  To that end, it was they who had received the special revelation of their Lord, so that they might become a light to the nations and to all of creation, so that they might be the reflection of their God’s glory into the world---representing their Creator to creation as had been the intention for the father of their race (Adam).  Israel was redeemed (exodused) by their God, from the slavery and exile of Egypt, so that they could be His instruments of redemption and exodus for a world in exile and in bondage to corruption and decay. 

Of course, making the natural and logical extension, this can also be said of Jesus, as He was the embodiment of Israel.  Extending beyond that, such can also be said of all that would become a part of the Creator God’s covenant people, with this occurring through the believing union with Jesus that is the mark of a trusting allegiance (faith) in Him as Lord.  For Israel, because that redemption from slavery and exile from their God’s intentions was for both humankind and the creation itself, the land that they were promised and commanded to occupy can be safely viewed as the first part of the whole creation that was itself to be redeemed.  What becomes clear in the Mosaic and historical narratives, is that Israel was to drive all that was representative of evil from the land and occupy it. 

Returning to Joshua then, it can be found that “No city made peace with the Israelites (except the Hivites living in Gibeon); they had to conquer all of them” (11:19).  Drawing the natural correlation from the responsibility of the Creator God’s covenant people in that day (Israel), with that of the covenant people that are the renewed Israel in Christ (the church,disciples and followers of Jesus), one can here think about that which was penned by the Apostle Paul, in that there would be a constant battle against principalities and powers, against what he refers to as “world rulers of this darkness,” and against spiritual forces (Ephesians 6:12). 

Though the believers is never and will never be called to draw swords so as to extend the kingdom of God by violent force, just as Jesus challenged Israel in His day to forsake the idea that the kingdom of God was to be ushered in by bloody overthrow, believers are well able to understand the use of the imagery of battle in the way in which they are employed by Paul.  Yes, because of the corruption that entered into the world because of the initial failure to keep covenant, human nature---the nature that had been designed to perfectly bear the divine image and to do that which was pleasing to the Creator God as glory-reflecting stewards of His creation---is itself corrupted.  

In My Father's House (part 6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law To Become Void (part 5 of 5)

Based on the model of the kingdom of God that Jesus is shown through the Gospel narratives to be constantly presenting, which was that of inclusion of all peoples---Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free, clean and unclean, sinner and righteous.  This inclusion was demonstrated in His far-reaching and highly impactful practices of table fellowship, as He regularly ate with those that were considered to be outside the covenant and of varying social standing. 

By this, Jesus subverted what were the standard and widely accepted societal norms and customs, and in doing so as a would-be messiah figure that represented the interests and kingdom of the Creator God of Israel, He provided a inherently critical response to what He apparently deemed to be the wrong-headed and presumptuous self-adulation of the “guardians” of the covenant.  Though they lauded their own efforts to provide what they believed was legitimate protection of their God’s promises to His covenant people, Jesus referred to their efforts and the way they went about it as being “utterly detestable in God’s sight.” 

So would it be proper to connect these words of Jesus to His thoughts about the kingdom of God?  Well, what can Jesus be found saying in the next verse?  He says, “The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it” (Luke 16:16).  These words inform the observer that he is on the right track, as it is to be considered that John the Baptist is first introduced with his words of repentance and the kingdom of God being at hand.  In fact, Luke makes a connection between John’s preaching and that of Isaiah, and that in his preaching “all humanity will see the salvation of God” (3:6).  Without getting into what is meant by “salvation,” while pointing out that it is far more than going to heaven when one dies, one can comfortably assert that this fits quite nicely with Jesus’ statement about the proclamation of the Gospel, the kingdom of God, and everyone being urged to enter it. 

Having said all of these things, Jesus, with what might very well need to be heard as indignation and sarcasm in His voice, raises His voice and says to these people that He has been critically accusing of shutting up the kingdom of God: “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a letter in the law to become void” (16:17).  With the context that has been constructed, it can be determined that when Jesus says this, He is not offering up a praise of the law, and neither is He making an existential statement about its eternality. 

In this context, as can be readily apprehended based on all that has been seen and understood to this point, He is mocking and condemning these Pharisees and experts in the law.  In this mocking that is also a plaintive cry, Jesus decries their adherence to their covenant boundaries according to the performance of the well-understood works of the law.  Jesus indicates that it has become readily obvious to Him that these individuals will hold on to these exclusive standards of identity and covenant standing that are being improperly employed to keep the Creator God’s blessings for Israel alone, and that they are so entrenched in this position that they would do so even if heaven and earth were to pass away.

Interestingly, this is actually an existential statement about the Temple in Jerusalem, which was understood to be the place of the Creator God’s presence---the overlap of the heaven and earth.  With Luke’s Gospel likely composed after the fall of that Temple to the Romans in 70AD, as the Romans crushed the Jewish rebellion that was so intimately connected to positions about which Jesus was highly critical, with all of this taking place after the Christ-event had ushered in a new basis of covenant standing.  Thus, this of the passing away of heaven and earth would make the well understood statement about that common phraseology and the impossibility of the law becoming void even more poignant. 

Yes, Jesus derides them because they were so convinced that God’s blessings were for national and ethnic Israel alone, that they would rather the heavens and earth pass away than allow their God’s covenant blessings to be extended to the Gentiles.  Indeed, they would not let go their perceived grip of control on the bestowal of their God’s blessing and act according to the way that Jesus demonstrated, not letting one tiny stroke of a letter of their law become void.

Law To Become Void (part 2)

It becomes clear that Jesus is insisting that those to whom He is directing His discourse, perhaps along with those within range of hearing Him, have not been faithful to the true purpose of the law, which was (among other things) to mark Israel out as God’s covenant people, so that they could be a light to the nations in reflection of their God’s glory, in a way that would cause all peoples to want to seek out and know and serve the Creator God of Israel. 

Through His parables and their explanations, as provided in the Gospel narratives, Jesus indicates that the Pharisees and the experts in the law (with the people that they represented and influenced in tow) had been unfaithful to the purpose of the law, using it dishonestly and inappropriately.  It appears that many men of influence used the law as a way to keep Israel separate from all nations and to block those who found themselves outside of the covenant due to nothing more than race, ethnicity, or national origin, from entering into the covenant so as to enjoy its blessings that would be had by keeping to the way of being human prescribed by what was understood to be Israel’s divinely given law.  When measured against the big picture of Scripture and Israel’s story, this would have clearly run contrary to the Creator God’s promise to Abraham, which included the blessing of all peoples through his seed, presumably in the same way that Abraham himself was believed to have been blessed by his covenant God. 

The law had been, for Israel, an astounding gift of God’s grace.  It was taken to be a revelation of the expectations of a people’s god, showing them how to live and how to by truly human, with this standing in striking contrast to the capriciousness and seemingly arbitrary expectations of the gods of the people that surrounded Israel.  By its very receipt, the tribal nation of Israel was blessed above all peoples, receiving direct revelation from their God, with the knowledge of how to serve and please Him, and by extension how to serve the whole of the creation and humanity. 

As a sign of their acceptance of the law, and the grace and beneficence of their God that was signaled by that law, Israel was given covenant markers that consisted of not worshiping idols, of reverencing God’s sanctuary, honoring the Sabbaths, and the continuing rite of circumcision, which, along with a trusting allegiance to the Creator God (faith), was the original covenant marker that had been required of Abraham and his household.  These would mark them out and delineate Israel as the Creator God’s chosen people---chosen for the purpose of representing their Creator to His creation. 

By Jesus’ day, these covenant markers had been reduced down and were primarily demonstrated in the keeping of food and purity laws, honoring the Sabbath, and bearing the mark of circumcision.  Reverencing the sanctuary was fairly commonplace (perhaps even overdone), and, at least as it would appear in the historical records, idolatry was not an issue in the Israel of Jesus’ day.  These three things (purity laws, Sabbath-keeping, circumcision) were commonly referred to in that day as the “works of the law,” were representative of what had previously been a slightly different list, and now stood for living according to their God’s law. 

A person could hold to many traditions, customs, and laws, but if one was not holding to these main things, the powers-that-be generally presumed that such a person was outside of the covenant.  Consequently, said person was looked upon as a sinner---perhaps even as less than human.  Ironically, not living up to the requirements of the covenant did indeed, when measured against the purpose of the law and its relation to the covenant and its God, did mean that one was less than human, but Jesus’ response to those that were holding some as such surely indicates that He did not share their particular application and interpretation of what constituted the bounds of true humanity.   

Humiliation (part 2 of 2)

When the Romans carried out a crucifixion, the victim would be crucified naked.  This was meant to add to the humiliation of the victim (shaming him and increasing the honor of Rome and the Caesar), adding yet another display of his utter powerlessness in the face of Rome’s great might.  For crucified Jews, the fact of being naked meant that their covenant marker, their circumcision, was exposed for all the world to see.  The Romans, of course, knew this, and it added yet one more dimension of humiliation to the process.  Naturally, and though artistic representations of the event present something slightly different, Jesus underwent crucifixion in this way---completely unclothed. 

Along with this, though there is no record of it in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, there is a long tradition that Jesus’ beard was ripped from His face at some point during His ordeal.  This tradition stems from the words of Isaiah, in which his “suffering servant” speaks and says, “I offered my back to those who attacked, my jaws to those who tore out my beard; I did not hide my face from insults and spitting” (50:6).  The Gospel narratives do record that Jesus was scourged, which involved lashes primarily to the back (though certainly not limited to the back), that He was insulted, and that the Roman soldiers spit in His face.  Therefore, an extrapolation is made, in conjunction with this prophecy, and as those that believed in Jesus came to see Jesus as the embodiment of Isaiah’s suffering servant, it was presumed that His beard was ripped from His face as well.  

In light of the sheer number of prophecies that came to be understood as being fulfilled in the life and death and Resurrection of Jesus, it is probably quite safe to accept this tradition, especially in light of the continued and enhanced shaming (not to mention intense pain) that would go along with this.  These two things then, that being naked crucifixion and beard-pulling, bear a similarity to the humiliating exposure and beard-shaving of the servants of King David.  As it relates to Jesus and His crucifixion, these two things, naturally, were designed to not only increase pain and suffering, but to induce a thorough humiliation.  This connection would have been especially pronounced for a Jew, as this story of David’s servants might very well have sprung to mind, in light of Jesus’ messianic claims and the messianic title of “Son of David” that was attached to Israel’s messiah-king. 

Undoubtedly, in undergoing these things, it is not difficult to imagine that Jesus would have been humiliated.  That would have been the intention.  David’s servants experienced such humiliation, so such a thing would have been a natural response.  However, if one were to move forward in Isaiah, as Isaiah himself perhaps looks back to the “Hanun situation,” the suffering servant is found to have undergone these actions that were meant to induce humiliation, saying, “But the sovereign Lord helps me, so I am not humiliated” (50:7a).  He goes on to say, “For that reason I am steadfastly resolved; I know I will not be put to shame.  The one who vindicates me is close by” (50:7b-8a). 

Jesus, in defiance of the intended shaming and humiliation, steadfastly trusted that His God was going to raise Him up.  Jesus knew that His vindicating Resurrection was not far away, so rather than rage against His adversaries and accusers, He asked for their forgiveness and entrusted all things, His spirit included, into the faithful hands of His Father.  In a culture in which being put to shame was the equivalent of undergoing death, He knew that He was going to be made to overcome the pending grave, thus trumping any possible shame brought to him by the crucifixion, while also paradoxically accepting the shame and providing the model for service to His kingdom for all that would come to pledge their allegiance to Him.  

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pure Nonsense (part 1)

But these words seemed like pure nonsense to them, and they did not believe them. – Luke 24:11  (NET)

The words that are reported to have been nonsense to the disciples of Jesus were a part of the attempt by some women to convey what was an amazing experience.  A group of women had gone to the tomb of Jesus.  There had been loyal followers of and providers for the one that they believed had been the messiah.  They were “taking the aromatic spices they had prepared” (24:1b).  Not only was this an obvious expression of love and devotion for and towards Jesus by these women, but what they were doing was a regular part of then-current Jewish burial practices. 

The report of the Gospel narratives is that Jesus had been buried in a tomb “where no one had yet been buried” (23:53b).  Though it is said that no one had yet been buried there, over time there would have been many people placed in that tomb.  Though He would be the first, it would have been highly unusual for Jesus to have been the lone occupant.  Then as now, real estate was valuable, and the tomb that would house Jesus’ body was in a choice location, as would be expected of the tomb of the presumptive owner, Joseph of Arimathea. 

Quite simply, a tomb was not designed for one person and one person only.  This was not the common practice.  That is the reason for the women taking the aromatic spices to the tomb.  A body would be placed in the tomb, and while that body was in the tomb, other bodies would also be placed in the tomb.  The spices would function to counteract the smell of decaying and putrefying flesh, which would make the further placement of bodies in what was likely a family tomb somewhere more bearable. 

After a period of time, when the flesh of a body had completely decomposed, family members would return to the family tomb to collect the bones of the deceased.  The bones would be placed in a jar or box.  These bones, now collected together into a more compact container, would either be taken to another location or left on a shelf or in a nice in the tomb.  So it was for this reason that each body laid in the tomb would have aromatic spices applied to them.  So even though the women that had planned to apply the aromatic spice to the body of Jesus were doing so out of love and devotion (with this normally done for family members, but most likely rarely done for the shamed victim of crucifixion), they were not doing something that was uncommon or unique (much like the use of nails, crowns of thorns, whips, reeds, robes, and mocking were not at all uncommon to crucifixion).    

This plan to carry out basic burial practices serve to point out that none of Jesus’ disciples or followers expected Him to be raised from the dead.  They were simply engaging in a routine activity.  None of them were looking forward to Jesus’ Resurrection.  Clearly the women were not expecting a resurrection from the dead, because again, they were taking the spices to the tomb as part of the normal burial routine.  So when “they found that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb” (24:2), and even though they were surely aware of the guard that had been set and the seal that had been set on the stone, they might not have thought that to be a completely odd occurrence.  One of the first thoughts to cross the minds of these women might very well have been that somebody was already there, perhaps one of His disciples (perhaps the one known as the one Jesus loved, who is reported in the Gospel of John to have followed Jesus all the way to the cross) doing to Jesus’ body exactly what it was that they had come with the intention of doing.