Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 4)

This account of Jesus dining at the house of Simon the leper provides a bit more detail.  Here, the reader is informed that “six days before Passover,” (thus answering the question as to whether or not Jesus had adequate time to complete purification rituals before celebrating Passover---so Jesus (the Messiah) went to the cross in a state of ritual impurity, and the early church was unconcerned with this aspect of the story, though it would have certainly attributed to the scandalous, stumbling-block nature of the message of Jesus) “Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom He has raised from the dead.  So they prepared a dinner for Jesus there.  Martha was serving, and Lazarus was among those present at the table with Him” (John 12:1-2). 

If one did not have the stories of Matthew and Mark, when reading this story in John it would be possible to get the sense that Jesus is dining in the house of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary.  If He was doing so, that would be quite understandable.  Lazarus had, quite naturally, become famous.  Many people, as John reports few verses later, came to this house to see both Jesus and Lazarus (12:9).  Not only that, there are indications that the family may have had some wealth, and therefore may have been an honored family within the community, with that indication being the fact that Mary had the costly perfume with which to anoint Jesus, and the fact that the gathered guests make mention of “the poor,” with the words themselves ringing out and serving as an indication of the dichotomy that existed between the poor and those that were joining Jesus at this meal.  However, this meal is not taking place at the house of the now-famous-and-potentially-wealthy Lazarus, but rather, at the house of Simon the leper.       

In the ancient world, it was customary for a community to receive a famous and honored individual into their midst with great pomp and ceremony.  Often, a delegation from the community would go outside their town, meet the arriving person of prominence, and accompany them back to their locale.  This is referred to as a “parousia”.  There are several examples of parousia in the life of Jesus, and even one when He goes to Bethany to raise Lazarus from the dead.  There is no record of Jesus being received in this way upon this visit to Bethany, but one can imagine that such an event took place, as His fame could only have grown as Lazarus continued to live amongst the people. 

As a part of the reception, there would be a determination made as to which member or family of the community was the most worthy and important individual, in the best position to accept the dignitary into their house, most capable of reflecting favorably on the larger community so as to give the best possible impression to the honored guest, and able to bring honor to the whole of the community in the process.  As was said, it would have been a natural choice, owing to previous events, for Lazarus to host Jesus in Bethany.  The fact that Jesus loved Lazarus and His sisters would have contributed to this more than natural arrangement.  However, it is Simon the leper that receives the honor of hosting a meal for Jesus. 

Whether this is the choice of the community or Jesus’ choice one is left to wonder, but what is clear is that one who would normally be marginalized and even ostracized in the community for a variety of reasons is the one that has this honor.  If the story of Zaccheus (as a prime example of Jesus choosing His own host) is any indication, it is likely that it is Jesus that has made the choice of meal location, but it is not something about which one can be dogmatic. 

Collapse Of The Temple (part 4 of 4)

How did the people to whom Jesus addressed this statement respond?  It is reported that “The chief priests and the experts in the law heard it and considered how they could assassinate Him, for they feared Him, because the whole crowd was amazed by His teaching” (11:18).  Not only was He calling their role into question, Jesus was messing with their pocketbooks and their livelihood, and doing this after making His “triumphal entry” (a parousia like that which would have been enjoyed by a Caesar, while also being a re-enactment of two Jerusalem entries previously recorded in the history of the covenant people) in which He was hailed as the King of Israel and the bringer of the Kingdom of God. 

A bit later in Mark, Jesus can be heard speaking about the Temple yet again.  This time, his commentary is offered immediately after He has witnessed a widow putting into the Temple offering box “what she had to live on” (12:44b).  Seeing as how those that served the Temple should not have let this happen, but should have been providing for this poor widow, Jesus laments what He has just seen.  He comments on it, saying that she “has put more into the offering box than all the others” (12:43b), and probably doing so with a touch of sadness and anger. 

Jesus’ response to what He has seen perplexed Jesus’ disciples, as they probably missed His larger point about the failure of those that were supposed to be representing the Creator God, and perhaps thought to themselves something like, “If everybody gave the same amount that this widow gave, then we would not have this beautiful and glorious Temple with which to worship our God.”  They said to Jesus, “Teacher, look at these tremendous stones and buildings!” (13:1b), as if to say, “We think you’re mistaken.” 

Jesus surveys the tremendous stones and buildings in full realization that the glory of God is not to be found in the Temple, but in Himself, and with the knowledge of the Temple’s redundancy says, “Do you see these great buildings?  Not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down” (13:2).  This, of course, was fulfilled when the Roman army came and destroyed the Temple in 70AD, and it must be noted that His words about the destruction of this Temple and its system follows hard on His observation of the widow and her gift.  With the knowledge that Jesus closely connects the fall of the Temple with the offering from the widow, any notion that Jesus praises the widow as a model of giving must be put aside. 

It can be confidently asserted that these words of Jesus were circulated, and that they were understood as yet another affront against the Temple and those who ruled over it.  As has already been noted, they had already begun to devise plans to assassinate Jesus, and things like this would only serve to cement and accelerate those plans.  Ultimately, their assassination plot would take shape and be successful, as the Temple authorities would be able to turn Jesus over to the Roman governor, presenting Him as an instigator of rebellion and revolution and a self-proclaimed rival to Caesar.  Accordingly, they could have Him assassinated through a state-sanctioned execution. 

So what does all of this have to do with Samson?  How does this compare with the way in which Samson died?  When Samson died, He did so through laying down His life in a seeming defeat, doing so to  defeat those that were his enemies.  Jesus did the same.  When Jesus went forward to His death, so as to do battle with His enemies.  Though He speaks against them, His true enemies were not the Temple authorities, but the dark forces of evil that stood behind those authorities. 

In his final confrontation with his enemies, Samson, standing in the temple and enduring mocking, pushed hard against the pillars and collapsed the temple upon himself and on all that were inside.  Jesus, in confrontation with His enemies, also pushed hard against the pillars of the Temple (the Temple authorities).  In doing this, Jesus (while also enduring the mocking crowds) metaphorically brought the Temple down upon Himself, by prompting the men that were responsible for the Temple to push hard against Him (though He was the true Temple), enabling Him to lay down His life in the process, hoping that death would not the final word.  In His death, most assuredly, Jesus conquered a vast army of dark forces, and forever sealed their defeat with His glorious return to life.       

Visiting Bethany (part 6 of 6)

As the Gospel of John reports, with many witnesses present and presumably able to confirm or deny the story that is being told, Jesus calls Lazarus forth from the tomb.  It is reported that, as a result of this display of life-giving power, many people came to believe in Jesus.  Whether they came to believe in Him as a miracle-worker or as the Messiah is not specified.  However, it can surely be imagined that many that had witnessed the event, and who had perhaps witnessed the whole of His coming to Bethany (the veritable parousia that had taken place), happily joined with Mary and Martha in calling Him “Lord,” “Christ” (Messiah), and “Son of God.” 

This verbal elevation of Jesus to the position that was categorically reserved for the king of Israel (or one who would be king---remember, these are not titles of divinity in and of themselves), without the requisite approval from or sanction of Rome, among a number of other issues that are swirling around Jesus, is shown to have sparked the Pharisees and chief priests and council to declare “If we allow Him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation” (11:48). 

It seems that the author wants those that hear or read the story to understand, along with what these men clearly understand, that Jesus’ actions are intensely political.  The author appears to be making this point in the way he shapes his narrative, deftly and somewhat subversively pointing to the fact and the ways of the coming kingdom of God in which Jesus rules over all kings. 

So Jesus, as is discovered in the text, was acclaimed by the people for His miraculous work in raising Lazarus, which was the culmination of a great number of miraculous works and the point in the narrative where the tide turns and an onward rush to the climactic conclusion of crucifixion and Resurrection begins.  It is quite likely that He gained the honor and respect and worship of all in Bethany upon the event of this visit, which would be significant in an honor and shame culture.  A first century hearer or reader would presumably be inclined to accord this Jesus honor as well.  If he or she understood the underlying movement of the narrative that suggests that Jesus is a greater King than Caesar, then it is possible that this honor is accorded to Jesus at the expense of the Caesar.  

Figuratively, the whole of the community, upon Lazarus’ return to life, would have bowed at the feet of Jesus.  Had Caesar visited Bethany, the response would have been expected to have been the same.  All would have bowed at his feet in recognition of his power and rule and dominion over “the whole earth”.  The main difference is that when Jesus came to Bethany in his quasi-parousia, He brought life, and it was the bringing of life that would have induced the authentic worship and real honor.  While it is true that Caesar would also have received a form of worship, in the end, in spite of all the good that he might very well have done or have been able to do for the people under his rule, ultimately, men and women would only fall at Caesar’s feet because he demanded it, carrying with him the threat and power of death.    

Visiting Bethany (part 5 of 6)

After a brief exchange between Jesus and Martha that serves to outline the basic Jewish hope concerning the resurrection of the dead, “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life.  The one who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and the one who lives and believes in Me will never die’.” (11:25-26a)  How does Martha respond?  Again, making use of imperial titles, “She replied, ‘Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God Who comes into the world’.” (11:27) 

Now, even though both “Christ” (Messiah) and “Son of God” are both titles for the Jewish king, and are not necessarily meant to automatically connote divinity (ironically enough, as opposed to the appellation of the term “son of god” to the Roman emperor as part of the Caesar cult), one can here discover yet another appropriation of emperor related language, further reinforcing the idea of the supremacy of the eternal kingdom of the Creator God that is being established in and through Jesus (Son of God), as opposed to the temporal kingdom of Rome that has been established and perpetuated by the Caesar (son of god). 

Shortly thereafter, Mary, repeating Martha’s actions, “got up quickly and went to Him (Jesus)” (11:29b).  What follows is where it is learned that Jesus has not, in fact, entered into Bethany, as the text states: “Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still in the place where Martha had come out to meet Him” (11:30).  This information is inserted parenthetically here in the middle of the story, rather than at the beginning, which is a subtle placement which would seem to serve to partially mask the politically subversive nature of the language that is being used surrounding this event that leads up to Jesus’ grand parousia, which is His “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem.  That particular parousia will bear all of the explicit earmarks of what would be well-understood as a royal visit (depending on one’s viewpoint) by a Caesar or by Israel’s King. 

As would be expected from a person going out of his or her city to greet the “Lord Caesar,” upon reaching Jesus “Mary fell at His feet and said to Him, ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died’.” (11:32b)  Here, Mary echoes Martha, and once again use is made of an imperial title, as Mary calls Jesus “Lord.”  The author clearly does not want his audience to lose sight of Jesus’ position.  

It was at this point then, with Jesus having been greeted outside the city, with people falling at His feet, referring to Him as Lord and Son of God and Messiah, and making note of His great power, that Jesus finally enters into the village.  It seems that the tomb is in the village, or at least adjacent to the village, which would account for the author’s comment that Jesus “had not yet” made His way to the village. 

The reader makes note of the fact that Mary did not go to Jesus by herself (11:31,33,36), so when Jesus does make His way to the tomb, presumably, it is with a group of people.  Since Martha’s voice can again be heard breaking into the story when Jesus asks for the stone over the mouth of the cave to be rolled away, one can also presume that Martha, as one that has bowed at the feet of Jesus and called Him Lord, was one of the people in the procession that made its way to the tomb with Jesus.   

Visiting Bethany (part 4)

If a compare and contrast is underway, one glaring contrast between Jesus and the Caesar can be found in verses previously quoted from the third chapter of John.  There it is said that the covenant God of Israel “gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:16b-17).  Caesar, the man entitled with “son of god,” was looked to as the one who dragged the world from darkness to light.  With this, the parallel between John and the Augustus inscription becomes increasingly obvious. 

Yes, it was Caesar Augustus who was said to have brought order out of the chaos.  It was Caesar Augustus that was said to be responsible for the life and vitality of the world, with this spread throughout the world via the pax Romana (Roman peace).  It is Caesar Augustus who is referred to as the “Savior” of the world.  Ironically, though war would be almost endless, Augustus is credited with putting an end to war.  It is worth nothing that, though death continues, Jesus is credited with putting an end to death. 

For Ceasar of course, the end of war was accomplished by crushing his enemies through massive warfare.  Furthermore, it is said that Caesar Augustus is the fulfillment of all hopes and in him the world has “good news.”  How did this son of god “save” the world?  How did he bring the world into new life?  It could be argued that he did so through the instrument of death. 

He, his predecessors, and those that would follows and take up his mantle, slaughtered millions so as to usher in an era of “peace” and to give their version of life to the world.  Effectively, in order to give the world life and vitality through the establishment of the Roman empire, the world experienced an almost unprecedented level of condemnation.  The other Son of God, however, is said to bring eternal life and peace and light, which will be accomplished and effected through His worldwide kingdom. 

As the Gospel of John informs its readers, through Jesus the world will be saved, but this salvation will not come about through the world-condemning instrument of war and its power of death.  Ultimately, this salvation will come about through the laying down of His own life and going willfully into death in an act of self-sacrificial love---making Himself subject to that which was (and still is) the Caesar’s only true power. 

Returning to the issue at hand then, Martha can be heard speaking to Jesus and saying, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.  But even now I know that whatever You ask from God, God will grant you” (John 11:21-22).  In calling Jesus “Lord,” and doing so in the context of what is increasingly looking to be a “parousia” of Jesus, Martha has conferred upon Him one of the titles that was then accorded to and reserved for the Caesar.  Much like that which would have been experienced by the emperor when he would visit subjects within his realm, the one that has come out to greet Jesus makes it a point to honor the world’s ruler and to make comment upon His power. 

Visiting Bethany (part 2)

No, He did not go straight to the tomb or to the house of Lazarus’ sisters, Mary and Martha, with whom He was known to have shared a close relationship---at least, knowledge of this close relationship is implied in the Gospel narrative.  Instead, and quite curiously, Jesus is reported to have stopped outside the village.  Does this not seem a bit strange?  It does indeed.  It does so because the one who reads the Gospel is presumably already aware of the outcome of the situation, already privy to the full story. 

Because the full story is known, together with the way the story happily ends with Lazarus being raised from the dead, it is known that Jesus loved both Lazarus and his sisters.  One would think that this love would compel Him to not only not delay His visit to Bethany, but also to go straight to the grieving sisters without hesitation upon reaching their town. So why does the story, as told exclusively in the Gospel of John, make the point that He did not immediately go to these people that He loved?   

It may seem redundant to point out, but as the story of the raising of Lazarus begins, Jesus’ love for this family was immediately evident, as it is said that the two sisters went to the trouble of sending a message to Jesus that Lazarus was sick.  Why go to the trouble to do this unless the expectation was that Jesus would come quickly to the aid of the one He loved?  Coupled with Jesus’ not immediately rushing to provided the requested and likely expected assistance to His friend, this stopping outside of Bethany and not even going into the town seems doubly strange.  If it seems a bit perplexing to those that would later hear or read this story, one can probably imagine that it was every bit as frustrating for these two sisters of Lazarus in that day as well, and that along with them, their fellow villagers were likely struck by the oddity of this occurrence. 

Not only that, but in small, tight-knit communities as Bethany no doubt was, not only would the entire village know that Lazarus was sick, they would also know that Lazarus had died.  It is likely that they would be aware of the fact that a message had been sent to the miracle-worker Jesus, informing Him of the sickness of Lazarus.  They would also learn that Jesus did not respond to the message by coming to Bethany with all rapidity (perhaps even bringing a bit of shame to this family), and they would now know that when Jesus did finally make His way to Bethany, that He stayed just outside the town, forcing the grieving sisters to come out to Him. 

Almost undoubtedly, they would know all of these things in the larger context of the hope of Mary and Martha that Jesus could do something about the sickness, which can be seen to be manifested in their urgent message to Jesus about Lazarus’ sickness and the words that are reported to have been spoken to Him when they finally see Him.  This hope, that would eventually be vindicated by their brother’s raising at the hands and words of Jesus, would have been reasonably and understandably spurred by the healings and other miraculous occurrences that had marked Jesus’ ministry, not to mention Jesus’ love for Lazarus and his sisters.         

Naturally, based on the information heretofore provided, Jesus’ visit to Bethany should be considered in the light of the parousia of the Caesar.  So when one hears or reads that “when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet Him” (John 11:20a), a context has been created.  It is here necessary to bear in mind that the readers of this Gospel, in the first century, would be quite familiar with an imperial parousia.  Those that would hear this story in the world in which Jesus was said to have become King of all by His own Resurrection, would find that this going out of the village to meet Jesus, on the part of Martha, very much fits into the mold of expectations concerning an imperial visit.  

Visiting Bethany (part 1)

Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still in the place where Martha had come out to meet Him. – John 11:30  (NET)

In the time of Jesus, when the emperor (the Caesar) came to pay a visit to a town or a city within a colony or province under his dominion, his visit was generally referred to as a “parousia.”  When this visit would be made, as one would expect, the great emperor, for whom notoriety and honor (especially in an honor and shame culture) would be of paramount concern, would not simply enter into the town or city un-announced. 

Such a thing would be unthinkable, especially in light of the Caesar-cult (worship of Caesar as a divine being---the son of god) that was so prevalent in the first century world so dominated by Rome.  Quite the opposite would occur, in fact, as the Caesar would be lauded in grand fashion by the people of the places that he deigned to visit.  After all, the man making this visit was rightly viewed as the most powerful man in the world, and would be afforded as much honor as possible. 

Not only would this honoring of the god-man be expected, but it would also demanded.  To effect this, quite apart from Caesar simply entering into the city by himself, or with nothing more than his imperial entourage, a large group from the city would be expected to go out to meet him while he was still outside of or at some distance from their city.  This would occur while all (or at least most) inside the city would be preparing themselves, in a conformity (for some) that was most likely under the threat of physical pain or even death (or shame), to receive the exalted emperor with the appropriate acclamation and with reverence. 

Upon greeting the Caesar outside the city boundaries, the selected and special group from the city, quite naturally, would return to the city with Caesar  and his royal entourage in tow, celebrating his entrance into yet another place in which he was acknowledged to both reign and have complete and unrivaled dominion.  This would seem to be an entirely appropriate reception for the one who, beginning with that which would come to be said of the emperor Augustus, is referred to as “lord” (the lord of the world who claimed allegiance and loyalty from his subjects throughout the whole of his empire), whose birthday was referred to as “evangelion” or “good news,” is referred to as the “son of god” and “savior,” and who was thought of as the one who had finally brought light and peace and order into a  dark and often chaotic world.

Having provided that basic bit of information, the scope of this study move to the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of John, and the story of raising of Lazarus from the dead at the hands and word of Jesus.  In the story, one is able to observe some rather interesting elements, making His visit to Bethany something of a “parousia” by Jesus.  The first thing to notice, though it is not revealed immediately, is that after Jesus had remained in the place where He was for two days after hearing that Lazarus (the one He is said to have loved) was sick (John 11:6), and upon His finally reaching the town of Bethany after what can be thought of as an unexpected delay, Jesus did not immediately go into the village.