Triumph Of Jesus (part 11 of 11)

With all of this, what must be discerned is that the Revelation is not necessarily here looking to a future event in the sense of a prediction.  Rather, in the midst of a world dominated by Rome, its Caesar, its armies, and its self-exaltation, which is the same world in which Jesus has undergone Rome’s greatest punishment and assertion of its own authority and claim to all-encompassing dominion and been resurrected from the dead, and in which the kingdom of the Creator God is said to have been on the march through the Gospel proclamation of Jesus as the true King of kings and Lord of lords (rivaling Caesar’s claim), what can be seen here in this apocalyptic triumphus of Jesus is a confirmation that the God of Israel, through His Christ, has already conquered the conqueror (whoever and whatever that conqueror may be). 

Not only has Rome and its supposedly divine ruler been judged and defeated, but the power that stands behind Rome, which was that of death, has been judged and defeated as well.  Therefore, the church of the Christ (in the first century and indeed for all time), to whom the work of Revelation is addressed, need not fear any temporal claims to power or persecution.  Those who claim allegiance to the world’s true King need not be downcast, though they may find themselves in the midst of oppression and persecution, and even though they may experience a continuous flow of evidence that seems to run contrary to their claim. 

Most definitely then, with Rome squarely placed within the Creator God’s purview as the entity that has fallen under His judgment, which was evidenced by the author of Revelation co-opting the familiar language of the Roman “triumph,” followers of Jesus must not celebrate the idea or ideals of Rome, nor can they allow the church of the Christ and the kingdom of the Creator God to become identified and co-terminus with Rome and its ways.  Doing so would mark a failure on the part of the church.  One of the larger points that is being made throughout Revelation, as one puts aside futurist concerns and grapple with the message of the Revelation as it is addressed to real people in real churches in real places in a real time in history, is quite well-demonstrated by the triumphal scene of the nineteenth chapter. 

Indeed, as the Roman “triumph” is merely a parody of the “triumph of Jesus,” so too is any earthly empire, together with its ideals or ideologies, nothing more than a poor parody of the empire of the covenant God that has been somehow and mysteriously established and which also is to come.  Here then, it is possible to read the Revelation’s “triumph of Jesus,” doing so as an understanding hearer of the first century church, and then make the appropriate response in applying the words to the situations of any day, so as to shape a response to the world with its rulers, its empires, and its gods.  All of Revelation asks to be read in this way, so that abiding concerns about some time in the distant future while reading the work, quite simply, are well out of play.     

No One Knows The Hour (part 14)

To make the point about the devouring of widow’s property, Mark and Luke speak nearly identically with what comes next.  Using Mark’s record, they report that Jesus “sat down opposite the offering box, and watched the crowd putting coins into it.  Many rich people were throwing in large amounts” (12:41-42).  By this, they secure the presence of experts in the law at their synagogues and their banquets.  Continuing, Mark reports: “And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, worth less than a penny.  He called His disciples and said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others.  For they all gave out of their wealth.  But she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had” (12:41-44). 

Far from being a praise of this widow, and though it is certainly not a criticism of the poor woman, these are words of lament.  These are not words meant to inform the Jesus community as to how they should live and how they should give (though many would certainly give all that they had, but not because of this story).  Heard in line with all that is going on, this story of the widow portends judgment, for her property had been devoured by the very Temple which has already been judged, and this is the point that Jesus makes and what the Gospel authors intend to convey.  Indeed, judgment---a more severe punishment---is what is coming. 

Matthew, almost surprisingly, makes no mention of the widow and the offering box.  He does not position Jesus across from the offering box to view the happenings, as does Mark.  Matthew does offer up the warnings about the experts in the law, their desire for greetings and the best seats, but he makes no mention of the devouring of widows’ property, or their long prayers.  Of course, Matthew’s lack of the warning about the devouring of widows’ property actually makes sense of the fact that he does not provide a record of the widow’s offering, as he does not have a need to demonstrate that which he has not mentioned. 

Where Mark and Luke record the warnings and the widow’s offering, Matthew and Matthew’s Jesus are more evocative.  Some might say that what Matthew puts in place of the warning and the offerings is far more harsh; and it would be difficult to disagree, for this is the point at which Matthew presents the “seven woes.”  Because Matthew is using Mark as the basis for his narrative, one could assert, with reasonable confidence, that Matthew, even though he omits part of the warning and the story about the widow, has the whole of these things in mind as he presents Jesus’ pronouncement of woe. 

Even if he does not have the devouring and the widow precisely in mind, one can certainly assert that he was aware of the story, since he presents half of the warning that is found in Mark and Luke.  Of course, the fact that the whole of the story is there in Mark and Luke, combined with the fact that Luke relies heavily on the Markan narrative, is an indication that Matthew must have known the story of the widow. 

Honestly, as one understands the setting and the narrative flow, it is almost unreasonable to surmise that Matthew is not here thinking about the second half of the warning and the widow’s offering.  So even if the widow is not going to be immediately called to the minds of Matthew’s hearers and readers, especially if his story is heard and read in isolation from the Markan and Lukan constructions, readers of the collected Scritpures have the privilege of knowing the story, and it should dance in their thoughts as they hear the words of Jesus as reported through Matthew’s twenty-third chapter. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 13)

All three of the synoptic evangelists present that which follows from the question about the commandments (though this is omitted by Luke).  Though this study has spent most of its time with Matthew, Mark’s rendering will form the basis of a treatment of this section, primarily because it begins with “While Jesus was teaching in the Temple courts” (12:35a).  Though Mark feels the need to reiterate the fact that Jesus is still in the Temple, Matthew, offering a reminder that this section flows directly from the question and answer about the greatest commandment, begins with “While the Pharisees were assembled” (22:41a).  Luke moves from the Sadducees’ question about marriage and the resurrection to this next exchange, with a smooth “But He said to them” (20:41a). 

Staying with Mark, Jesus says “How is it that the experts in the law say that the Christ is David’s son?  David himself, by the Holy Spirit, said, ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’  If David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” (12:35b-37a)  Luke’s record is essentially identical to Mark’s, whereas prior to Jesus’ longer statement from Jesus, Matthew reports that “Jesus asked them a question: ‘What do you think about the Christ?  Whose son is he?’  They said, ‘The son of David” (22:42).  Following Jesus’ words, Mark reports that “the large crowd was listening to Him with delight” (12:37b), and Matthew says that “No one was able to answer Him a word, and from that day on no one dared to question Him any longer” (22:46), while Luke offers no editorial comment.

As has been seen before and made abundantly clear, and though Jesus is obviously offering a question that, according to the Gospel records, goes unanswered (thus, in the mold of rabbinic challenges in an honor and shame culture, asserting His final and unchallenged authority as a teacher), there is more than meets the eye (or ear).  This quotation by Jesus, lifted from the one hundred tenth Psalm, is designed to call to mind the entirety of the Psalm (as should be well understood).  Jesus, standing on the Temple mount, which is generally and idealistically referred to as Mount Zion (though the Zion mount may not have been the actual site of the Temple), quotes from a Psalm that says, “here is the Lord’s proclamation to my lord: ‘Sit down at My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool!’  The Lord extends your dominion from Zion.  Rule in the midst of your enemies!  Your people willingly follow you when you go into battle.  On the holy hills at sunrise the dew of your youth belongs to you.  The Lord makes this promise on oath and will not revoke it: ‘You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.’  O sovereign Lord, at your right hand he strikes down kings in the day he unleashes His anger.  He executes judgment against the nations; He fills the valley with corpses; He shatters their heads over the vast battlefield.  From the stream along the road he drinks; then he lifts up his head” (110:1-7). 

Though Jesus frames the desired response with His follow-up question, He and the Gospel authors are undoubtedly communicating a great deal of information.  In this Psalm, not only is there talk of Zion, which is quickly translated into Temple-talk, especially with Jesus standing in the Temple while speaking, but there is also talk of an eternal priesthood occurring in the place where there were constant priestly functions occurring.  With the quotation from the Psalms potentially calling to mind a mention of Melchizedek and an eternal priesthood, it also calls to mind a replacement priesthood---a bold move, considering Jesus’ location. 

Is it reasonable to make such a suggestion?  It seems to be so, especially when Mark and Luke do not follow-up with a theological and philosophical elaboration on what Jesus meant by His questions, but rather report Him as saying “Watch out for the experts in the law.  They like walking around in long robes and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.  They devour widows’ property, and as a show make long prayers.  These men will receive a more severe punishment” (Mark 12:38b-40).  Luke’s record is nearly identical.  Are the enemies the experts in the law, as stand-ins for the Temple authorities?  When Jesus mentions a more severe punishment, is He speaking in generalities, or does He have something in mind?  If it is something in mind, one might ask “A more severe punishment than what?”  Well, the striking down of kings, judgment against the nations, valleys filled with corpses, and heads shattered on battlefield seems to be fairly severe punishment.  Those that defile the Creator God’s Temple, and doing so through pretended service to His people (echoes of Jeremiah’s plaintive cry of judgment ringing through) will receive punishments of greater severity. 

Israel & Adam (part 2 of 2)

Can one even imagine the providential and creative God’s response to being rejected by Adam?  A sense of it can be had through understanding that God’s response at having been rejected by Israel, as Jeremiah exclaims “Be amazed at this, O heavens!  Be shocked and dumbfounded…Do so because My people have committed a double wrong: they have rejected Me, the fountain of life-giving water, and they have dug cisterns for themselves, cracked cisterns which cannot even hold water” (Jeremiah 2:12-13).  As humankind (via Adam) rejected their life-giver, turning their trust away from their Creator and looking elsewhere for support, ultimately, to other creatures now marred and cursed and corrupted, so too did Israel reject their covenant God that had redeemed them from Egypt and carried them through all their years. 

The Creator God of Israel says, “You have brought all this on yourself, Israel, by deserting the Lord your God when He was leading you along the right path” (2:17).  Effectively, this bears little difference to what that same God can have been thought to have said to Adam.  Again, it should be noted that though the Adam story may very well be a retrojection of the Israel story, it is still the story by which Israel partially defines, understands and presents itself.  Did Adam not desert the Lord and His path, bringing a curse upon all creation, as it is reported, through not heeding the warning promise?  Israel failed to heed the warning promises, and as a result, their faithful covenant God was going to bring a curse upon His people. 

Jeremiah goes on to share that “Your own wickedness will bring about your punishment” (2:19a).  For Israel, the punishment was going to be the curses of siege, destruction, exile, captivity, and oppression.  For humankind, the immediate judgment was that “cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17b).  Continuing in Jeremiah, the God of Israel informs His people that “Your unfaithful acts will bring about your punishment.  Your unfaithful acts will bring down discipline on you” (2:19b).  Israel’s unfaithfulness was to the covenant, and to their God’s requirements that they do not engage in idolatry, that they reverence the sanctuary, and that they keep His Sabbaths (while also caring for orphans and widows).  Their punishment and their discipline represented their God’s faithfulness to His covenant, in response to His people’s lack thereof.  Adam fared no better.  His unfaithful act most certainly brought about punishment, as it is understood to be the vehicle that carried death into the world for Himself and all living things.  Jumping further along in the story, as the second Adam to come, Jesus reverses this so as to ultimately carry death out of the world by exhausting the curses brought about by both Israel and Adam.   

To Israel, to Adam, and to His covenant people from all nations and generations, the Creator God says, “Know, then, and realize how utterly harmful it was for you to reject Me, the Lord your God, to show no respect for Me” (2:19c).  This is what is spoken by “the Lord God Who rules over all” (2:19d).  The rejection, by Adam, of God’s singular command, brought the curse.  The rejection, by Israel, of their God’s covenant laws and responsibilities (what can be thought of as a singular command) brought exile and captivity.  Later, that rejection would be manifested in the rejection of Jesus as their God’s anointed, crucified, and resurrected King and Lord of all creation.  Submission to His rule means being brought into a fertile land, as were Adam and Israel, so as to enjoy its fruits and its rich bounty in eternal life (the life of the age to come brought into and making itself felt in the present as the Creator God’s people become the place where heaven and earth overlap as part of their service in recognition of their King) and a renewal of God’s good creation.  Rejection means a continued march into the bonds of death, under that curse forever.