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. 

Seeing God (part 6)

With this in mind, Jesus goes on to explain that “The eye is the lamp of the body” (6:22a).  The eye, of course, having primacy in the building of the desire to accumulate treasure and the recognition of the most appropriate, kingdom-minded ways to liquidate that same treasure (treasure being primarily money and possessions, though time must certainly be under consideration).  If that thought is held in mind, it is understandable to hear Jesus continue to speak about treasure and its proper place, as He goes on to say “If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light” (Matthew 6:22b). 

A healthy eye views the world through the lens of the kingdom of heaven, while the call of the Creator God’s people, historically and for all time, to a light to the nations, does not drift too far from conscientious consideration.  With these thoughts in mind, Jesus can be heard saying: “But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be full of darkness.  If then the light in your is darkness, how great is the darkness!” (6:23)

Now, how can one be sure that Jesus is connecting His thoughts as presented in verses twenty-two and twenty-three with the thoughts of treasure and the heart in verses nineteen through twenty-one?  Well, the reader can be assured of this when reaching verse twenty-four, which says that “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and money” (6:24).  Clearly, money (treasure and that which is used to acquire possessions) is an issue of the heart.  One who is pure in heart---the one who will see the God of Israel---is one that rightly uses their money in service of the Creator God’s kingdom purposes. 

Certainly the Scriptures have much to say about the use of treasure.  If Jesus’ thinking about the right use of money is influenced by Israel’s history and Israel’s Scriptures, which it obviously was, then it will be quite worthwhile to look into that history and those Scriptures in order to further illumination in regards to purity of heart and its connection to the use of treasure.  If Jesus has in fact linked being pure of heart with properly using money, then those Scriptures that seem to deal in this area will be immensely beneficial.  They will also provide a basis to return to Matthew’s Gospel in order to make a final determination as to what it would mean, being “pure of heart,” to “see God.”    

Though there are countless passages that beg to be accessed, a representative sample of passages will suffice.  Having already made mention of Deuteronomy in the course of this study, as the book is called to mind in the quite obvious presentation of Jesus as the prophet like Moses, as He delivers a new set of guidelines by which the Creator God’s people are to operate, and doing so from a mountain, one finds a veritable treasure trove of applicable statements in Deuteronomy.  These statements could be viewed as being inextricably linked with the covenant God’s expectations for His people, as they attempted to demonstrate a purity of heart that would serve in their directive to be a light to the nations. 

Deuteronomy fifteen presents key thoughts for consideration.  Because Israel’s God insists that “there should not be any poor among you” (15:4a), it is insisted that “If a fellow Israelite from one of your villages in the land that the Lord your God is giving you should be poor, you must not harden your heart,” always a not-so-subtle allusion to Pharaoh, easily recognized by a people defined by their exodus, “or be insensitive to his impoverished condition.  Instead, you must be sure to open your hand to him and generously lend him whatever he needs” (15:7-8).  

Son Of Abraham (part 2 of 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nebuchadnezzar's Fall (part 2)

Nebuchadnezzar is said to have engaged in sin, and implored by Daniel to “do right.”  He is further encouraged to break away from his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.  Here, not only does Daniel provide a rather overt definition of sin and wrong in the eyes of the Creator God, but he is essentially informing the king that he has engaged in the exact same types of activities (calling it sin) that landed the covenant people of which Daniel is part (Judah/Israel) in the position of subservience to Babylon as part of their God’s judgment upon them.  

Nebuchadnezzar, and presumably Israel, were guilty of sin, and the nature of this sin is announced in Nebuchadnezzar being instructed to show mercy to the poor.  Essentially, he was going to experience judgment in much the same way as had Israel, and for much the same reason---failing to live up to covenant obligations, having acknowledged the Creator God of Israel, and presumably having come to an understanding of being raised up by that God for a specific purpose.

So what were the circumstances under which these things that Daniel had told the king were going to take place were brought about?  Well, “he happened to be walking around the battlements of the royal palace of Babylon” and “uttered these words: ‘Is not this the great Babylon that I have built from a royal residence by my own mighty strength and for my majestic honor?’” (4:29-30)  By the way the narrative is constructed, it appears that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten the dream and Daniel’s warning (or perhaps come to disregard it), as well as His proclamation concerning the signs, might, wonders, kingdom, and authority of Daniel’s God. 

Consequently, the Creator God’s response to this statement is swift, as the author reports that “While these words were still on the king’s lips, a voice came down from heaven: ‘It is hereby announced to you, King Nebuchadnezzar, that your kingdom has been removed from you!  You will be driven from human society, and you will live with the wild animals.  You will be fed grass like oxen, and seven periods of time will pass by for you before you understand that the Most High is ruler over human kingdoms  and gives them to whomever He wishes’.” (4:31-32)  As the God of Israel apparently did not see fit to waste any time in executing this judgment (He was less lenient and patient towards this king than He had been toward His people), we learn that “in that very moment this pronouncement upon Nebuchadnezzar came true” (4:33), being fulfilled completely. 

What’s the point of going through this story?  What is to be learned from it?  Does it merely show forth the power of the Creator God and the effects of human pride?  Of course it does, but it goes beyond that.  This story fits within the scope of the larger and all-encompassing narrative of the Scriptures that serves to reveal the nature and character of the One about whom these Scriptures speak.  For example, there is a tremendous symmetry between this story of the king of Babylon and the that of the tower of Babel. 

Could one not look at the tower of Babel, from the book of Genesis, and see humanity---in the wake of the Creator God’s great proclamation of His own power that had presumably been demonstrated by means of the flood, building their tower and saying “is this not the great tower that we are building by our own strength and for our majestic honor,” doing so in defiance of the Creator God, as they dared Him to send another flood upon the earth?  Naturally, the correlations between this story of Nebuchadnezzar and the story of the Scriptures goes far beyond that.  In fact, it reaches back to the beginning---to the creation.   

Nebuchadnezzar's Fall (part 1)

It is you, O king!  For you have become great and strong.  Your greatness is such that it reaches to heaven, and your authority to the ends of the earth. – Daniel 4:22  (NET)

In the prophetic and apocalyptic work of Daniel, it is said that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had been “frightened badly” (4:5) by a dream.  He would come to recount the dream to Daniel, and Daniel proceeded to inform him as to the meaning and interpretation of that dream.  It is said that Nebuchadnezzar had been frightened by his dream, whereas Daniel was upset and alarmed at what it was that he was going to have to tell the king, going so far as to say “if only the dream were for your enemies and its interpretation applied to your adversaries” (4:19).  One should take a moment to imagine what it would be like to hear such words from somebody that has proven to be reliable in their interpretation of dreams. 

The king had dreamed about a tree “whose top reached to the sky, and which could be seen in all the land, whose foliage was attractive and its fruit plentiful, and from which there was food available for all” (4:20b-21a).  This, Daniel said, represented Nebuchadnezzar.  However, the command came to “Chop down the tree and destroy it, but leave its taproot in the ground, with a band of iron and bronze around it, surrounded by the grass of the field.  Let it become damp with the dew of the sky, and let it live with the wild animals, until seven periods of time go by for him” (4:23b). 

Before going any further, it should be pointed out that just before Nebuchadnezzar tells his dream to Daniel, he had made the proclamation to the whole of his empire, in regards to Daniel and Israel’s God: “How great are His signs!  How mighty are His wonders!  His kingdom will last forever, and his authority continues from one generation to the next” (4:3).  Interestingly, within seconds it seems (at least as far as the Biblical narrative stands, though it could have been a much longer period of time between the two events), Nebuchadnezzar is being given a dream which, as he will hear, has him being cut down and temporarily removed from his place of power. 

Having informed the king that it is he that is the tree of his dream, Daniel tells him that “It is the decision of the Most High that this has happened to my lord the king.  You will be driven from human society, and you will live with the wild animals.  You will be fed grass like oxen, and you will become damp with the dew of the sky.  Seven periods of time will pass by for you, before you understand that the Most High is ruler over human kingdoms and gives them to whomever he wishes” (4:24b-25).  This must have certainly been a bit befuddling to the king, especially when viewed in the light of his grand proclamation concerning this very same God.  Also, this is the same Nebuchadnezzar that the Creator God has raised up, and who seems to realize that he has been raised up, to bring that God’s judgment upon and against His covenant people that had failed to live up to their covenant obligation to be a light to all nations and reflect His glory into the world. 

However, Daniel does not leave Nebuchadnezzar without hope.  He continues his explanation of the dream, saying “They said to leave the taproot of the tree, for your kingdom will be restored to you when you come to understand that heaven rules” (4:26).  Daniel’s prescription to Nebuchadnezzar, in light of his pending problem, was to “Break away from your sins by doing what is right, and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor” (4:27b).  The narrative informs the reader that just twelve months later “all of this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar” (4:28). 

What Would God Have Me Do? (part 3 of 3)

Now, as one lives within the kingdom of heaven that was inaugurated at Jesus’ Resurrection and is ruled by Him so as to serve as lights to all peoples for the glory of the Creator God, the Gospel of Jesus is preached.  It is the very preaching and proclamation of that Gospel, which has power in itself according to the Apostle Paul in Romans (1:16), that gives a Father to the Fatherless, bringing men and women into the covenant through belief in Jesus as the Christ (Messiah).  At the same time, as the Gospel takes root and inspires a trusting allegiance to its claims, the Creator God’s people are inspired to meet the physical needs of literal orphans.  It is the power of the Gospel that brings His image-bearers close to the heart of their God, for preaching and for serving, carrying them into a devotion to what it is that God desires for His people if they truly seek to serve Him.    

The Psalmist goes on to write, as He presents God’s plea to His people, saying “Vindicate the oppressed and suffering!  Rescue the poor and needy!  Deliver them from the power of the wicked!” (82:3b-4)  With the inclusion of “the wicked” in this verse, one can make a return to the favoritism towards the wicked of the second verse and realize that, more than anything, man needs to be delivered from his idolatry.  That idolatry, among a range of possibilities, is the idolatry of self, as man worships a harsh and cruel taskmaster that keeps him in subservience to a stream of desires that was brought into being when man, in Adam, renounced his purposes and his dominion and his bearing of the divine image, choosing to trust and serve the creation rather than His Creator. 

According to the Scriptural narrative on which the Psalmist and presumably Jesus as a member of the covenant people operated and based their interaction in and for the world, because of the fall, all that are under the curse that had been wrought by Adam can be said to be oppressed by the stalking specter of death, while suffering under the corruption and violence that is in this world.  It is only in becoming people of the covenant, now through belief in Jesus as the One through Whom God has sufficiently dealt with these things, that the oppressed and suffering can be vindicated. 

This vindication, as indicated by the New Testament, only comes through sharing in Christ’s conquering of death---by being crucified with Him and being raised up with Him (an unthinkable thing)---and sharing in His Resurrection (His vindication) and eternal life through faith that shines through as belief in Him.  Through a belief in the Gospel of Jesus as Christ and Lord of all, and through that alone, is a man delivered from the power of the wicked, by being given a faithful King to Whom he can render submission.  Along with that, a man is also given a God to serve that exists and that took human flesh upon Himself in order to suffer, that sympathizes with man as His brother.  That does not change.

There is a Gospel, and an empowerment to belief in the Gospel, somehow by the Gospel message itself, so that the covenant God’s people can carry out His purposes in this world, to be what He would have them to be, and to do what He would have them do.  It is only through that Gospel and its power to grip and to change and to conform a person into the divine image that had been previously forfeited, that a believer can truly make just decisions, defend the poor, support the orphan, vindicate the oppressed and suffering, rescue the poor and needy, and deliver them from the power of the wicked.  If oneis found engaged in this battle, motivated by their allegiance to the Gospel proclamation, then that same one can trust that he or she is quite close to the heart of the God revealed in Christ, and serving according to His will.    

What Would God Have Me Do? (part 2 of 3)

It is possible then to see a picture of that God, entering into the pantheon of gods that are worshiped by the nations surrounding His people, all of which would, at some time, be worshiped by His people.  He stands in the midst of representations of these gods, looks around, holds out His arms and says, “How long will you continue showing favoritism to what is wicked?  How long will you worship these gods?” 

To the leaders of His people, the Creator God of Israel can be heard saying, “How long will you attempt to live and rule based on the subjective whims presented in the stories of these fickle and always changing gods?  If you are attempting to honor these gods, and to live and rule and judge by precepts that you believe will be pleasing to them, rather than based on the firm foundations of the covenant God that does not change, then you will forever be making legal decisions that are not just, but rather, unjust and capricious.  Because these gods represent wickedness, with stories of their rule full of pragmatism and a self-serving ethic, then your decisions will favor that which is wicked, because you are doing nothing more than following in the patterns of the myths of man-created gods, who have sprung from the imaginations of men that have been corrupted by evil.”  Clearly, this will not do for the people of the covenant God.  That God demands that His people act in justice. 

So much time and energy in wasted in the quest for an answer as to how the covenant God expects His people to live, when that God provides a straightforward response and merciful direction for the people that He chooses to carry out His plans and purpose for the creation.  After doing away with that which is purely pragmatic and self-serving, and by rendering His clear judgment on the gods that have been providing a faulty foundation for His people’s ongoing justification for not carrying out His purposes for them, Israel’s God sets forth His plan. 

Quite simply, He says, “Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless!” (Psalm 82:3a)  Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless.  Though poor is a highly fluid and relative term that is dependent on a number of subjective factors (though access to basic life necessities would be largely determinative of status in this area), “fatherless” is easily understood.  The Creator God expects His people to be an advocate for the orphaned and abandoned.  Orphans are extraordinarily close to the heart of the Creator God, an assertion which is borne out by the repetition of Scripture concerning the fatherless, and of the God of Scripture being their supporter through His people. 

This can be taken a step beyond the understanding of “fatherless” as referring to those that are orphans because they do not have an earthly father, with this conception carried into the spiritual realm as well.  Because Israel (and renewed Israel through the covenant of belief in Jesus) can look to and speak to the Creator God as their Father, those who stand outside of the covenant could be considered to be “fatherless.” 

How do the Creator God’s people defend the cause of and support and show concern for such fatherless ones?  They do so, naturally, both then and now, through the preaching the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) in both word and deed.  Prior to Jesus, Israel preached the Gospel (their God is Lord) by avoiding idolatry, reverencing their God’s sanctuary, and by keeping their God’s Sabbaths as they eventually came to look forward to a messiah through whom their God would put down evil and restore His creation.  In doing this, they were a light to all peoples for their God’s glory, and were blessed by their God in a way that was designed to draw people to Israel and to their God. 

John's Inquiry (part 1 of 3)

Now when John heard in prison about the deeds Christ had done, he sent his disciples to ask a question: “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” – Matthew 11:3-4  (NET)

In light of the flurry of first-century messianic figures in Israel, the question that John asks his disciples to put to Jesus is one that is both legitimate and understandable.  Just like a great number member of the nation of Israel in that day, as Israel stood under Roman occupation, John seems to have carried, based on his message, some expectation that Israel’s God was going to break in to history through His Messiah, to go about establishing His kingdom.  To John, the deeds of Jesus, in the areas of healing sickness and disease, casting out demons and giving of sight to the blind, looked very much like the Scriptural portents that indicated what types of events would accompany the time (and the person or persons---messiah figure) through which Israel’s God would become King.  A the same time, the words that Jesus was speaking, and the way in which He was going about building a following, differed from much of the expectations of the messiah that had been created by Scriptural interpretation, Israel’s sense of itself, and the actions of the previous would-be messiahs. 

In consideration of these things, and though some do, we should find that there is absolutely no justifiable reason to chastise John for asking the question of Jesus.  Frankly, it would have been the question on the minds and on the lips of nearly everybody with whom Jesus came into contact.  Surely, John was not the only one to ask this question of Jesus’ messianic status; but Matthew, so as to be able to provide a context for further statements about John that were to come from Jesus, puts the question into the mouth of John ahead of all other questioners. 

How does Jesus respond to the question?  Does he send John’s disciples back to him with a stern rebuke?  Does Jesus say, “How dare you ask such a thing?”  No, of course He doesn’t.  Considering the subversive nature of His ministry---as He appears to be cutting across all of the religious and political movements within Israel in that day (that would seem to be at least one of the ideas to be garnered from the Gospel presentations of Jesus), and also considering the fate of every single person that had claimed the status of messiah for themselves (death on a cross at the hands of the Romans)---Jesus answers in the only way possible.  He offers a gentle answer, albeit indirect but in the affirmative, saying “Yes, I am He.”  How does He do this?  He says, “Go tell John what you hear and see: The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news proclaimed to them” (11:4b-6). 

Though we do not utilize Luke to interpret Matthew, as the authors had different intentions for their biographical offerings, looking to other portraits of Jesus does allow us to get a better sense of the way in which Jesus was understood in His own time and relatively shortly thereafter.  Of course, we also consider that Matthew and Luke had a common source (often thought to be the Gospel of Mark) that provided the underlying structure of their own works.  So if we look to the Gospel of Luke in consideration of the response of Jesus in Matthew, how do we hear and see Jesus announcing Himself?  While in the synagogue in Nazareth, he read from a scroll, saying “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (4:18-19).  He then added, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled even as you heard it being read” (4:21).  Naturally, that sounds somewhat similar to the answer given by Jesus in answer to John’s quite reasonable question.  Of course, in those words, Jesus was reading from the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah---reading the words that were possibly expected to be found in the mouth of God of Israel’s Messiah---and applying those words to Himself. 

We can presume that John, with a messiah-expectant mindset (especially in light of the new exodus movement that he was leading---an exodus is accompanied by a deliverer/redeemer), would have understood the implications of this statement reported by Matthew just as well as did the people that heard Jesus that day in Nazareth (as reported by Luke).  On that day in Nazareth, after Jesus added a few more words of explanation, and when those words that indicated the direction of His messianic program did not necessarily appeal to His group of hearers, “the people in the synagogue were filled with rage” (4:28b).  It is with that in mind that we can return to what Jesus said to John, and perhaps better understand why it is that Jesus, after providing His subtle answer in confirmation of the substance of John’s inquiry, adds “Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me” (11:6).