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. 

Acts, Jealousy & Honor (part 1)

Now the high priest rose up, and all those with him (that is, the religious party of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. – Acts 5:17  (NET)

The Book of Acts tells a wonderful story.  The opening chapters, especially, are fast-paced and action-packed, detailing the movement of the Spirit of the Creator God and the way in which the kingdom of that God (as revealed in Jesus) came to be manifested on earth and began to spread, bringing new and renewed creation in its inspirational wake.  In chapter one, the disciples are given a promise by Jesus, they watch Him ascend, they return to Jerusalem, and appoint another man to take the place of Judas. 

Chapter two begins in the same breath, as Pentecost brings with it the reversal of the language confusion of the tower of Babel, with people from many nations able to exclaim “we hear them speaking in our own languages about the great deeds God has done!” (Acts 2:11b)  With an ironic nod to the story of the ill-fated tower and the astonishment and confusion that no doubt took place when the languages were confounded, Luke writes “All were astounded and greatly confused, saying to one another, ‘What does this mean?’” (2:12)  It is upon this occasion that Peter delivers what is looked to as the first “sermon” of the church (post earthly life of Jesus), explaining the coming of the Spirit and the kingdom, saying “let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ” (2:36). 

What was an immediate effect of the announcement of the advent of the kingdom of the Creator God, as it was ensconced within the proclamation of Jesus’ Resurrection?  The author writes: “Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles.  All who believed were together and held everything in common, and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need” (2:43-45).  This was a significant mark of the worshipers of Jesus, and this significances leads to a repetition in the fourth chapter, where one can read “The group of those who believed were one of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but everything was held in common.  With great power the apostles were giving testimony to the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on them all” (4:32-33). 

What was the testimony to the Resurrection and the kingdom it portended?  What was the evidence of the great grace?  The next verse provides the answer: “For there was no one needy among them, because those who were owners of land or houses were selling them and bringing the proceeds from the sales and placing them at the apostles’ feet” (4:34-35a).  What was the purpose and result of this testifying, grace-evidencing and manifesting activity?  “The proceeds were distributed to each, as anyone had need” (4:35).  The apostles didn’t simply sit on the proceeds or allow the proceeds to pile up, going un-used.  They were distributed to each, as anyone had need.  It is key to note that the sharing of goods led to needs of the people being met---the needs of the people being met.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 2)

In the fifth chapter of Mark, Jesus heals a demoniac by casting a “Legion” of demons out of him and into a herd of pigs.  At the conclusion of this story, it is reported that “As He was getting into the boat the man who had been demon-possessed asked if he could go with Him.  But Jesus did not permit him to do so.  Instead, He said to him, ‘Go to your home and to your people and tell them what the Lord has done for you, that He had mercy on you.’” (Mark 5:18-19) 

At first glance, it appears that Jesus is in fact telling this man to engage in activity that would be standard for a client, that of telling others about the benefaction of a patron.  However, on second glance, Jesus, as was customary, is pointing away from Himself and to the Creator God of Israel as the source of healing.  At the same time, the Gospel author wants the reader to see the way in which Jesus act of mercy is received against the known background of the patron-client dynamic, as he goes on to write “So he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis what Jesus had done for him, and all were amazed” (5:20).  This would have been standard practice for a client.  Though it has not been requested nor demanded of him, he has made Jesus his patron.  Though the earthly Jesus clearly did not desire this, especially when considering His constant insistence on keeping His activities or identity secret, in a cosmic sense this is entirely appropriate.

The story of “Blind Bartimaeus,” as recorded in the tenth chapter of Mark, also fits well into the patron-client dynamic.  Commencing with verse forty-six: “They came to Jericho.  As Jesus and His disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the road.  When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to shout, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’” (10:46-47)  By this, Bartimaeus is attempting to gain Jesus’ attention and ultimately His patronage, offering Jesus praise, requesting mercy, and so attempting to take the position of client. 

Reading further then, it is said that “Many scolded him to get him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’  Jesus stopped and said, ‘Call him.’  So they called the blind man and said to him, ‘Have courage!  Get up!  He is calling you.’  He threw off his cloak, jumped up, and came to Jesus.  Then Jesus said to him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’  The blind man replied, “Rabbi, let me see again.’  Jesus said to him, ‘Go, your faith has healed you.’  Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the road” (10:48-52). 

In this story, Bartimaeus is undeterred by the scolding.  He desires Jesus’ patronage.  He is willing to become Jesus’ client.  He throws off his cloak (likely his only cloak), thus signifying a complete reliance on this patron (further debasing himself as a nod to the honor of the potential patron).  He also uses the honorific title of “Rabbi.”  Jesus’ response is not what one would expect from a patron, in that He does not take credit for the healing, but rather, Jesus tells the man that he has been healed by his own faith (fides, pistis - loyalty).  The now healed man, desirous of showing forth his loyalty and of having a role in increasing Jesus’ public honor, takes up the position of a client, by following Jesus on the road. 

Absalom (part 20)

While it is true that a great deal of time and space has been spent dealing with Absalom, it simply must be said that his story is truly and fascinatingly compelling, as it presents and ties together (as has been seen) multiple themes that run deep in Scripture.  Therefore his story lends itself to drawing many conclusions about the Creator God’s working, His mission, and what it is that the Creator God desires for His people (for all time), as it serves as something of a climactic turning point in the history of Israel. 

Now, it has been concluded that Absalom’s downfall came because he agreed with the idea of raising his hand against the Creator God’s anointed, thereby demonstrating that he did not fully trust that God and the promises upon which he may very well have been relying.  Is this sort of conclusion justified?  Apart from the example of Moses and Israel, which was an example and path from which Absalom was deviating, was there another example that he could have followed?  Of course there was.  It was the example that had been set by his own father, before he had been corrupted by the power of the throne. 

In the first book of Samuel, there are two occasions on which David had the opportunity to kill Saul, his oppressor and subjugator.  However, he did not seize upon either of those opportunities to do so.  In fact, David felt guilty for cutting off an edge of Saul’s robe (1 Samuel 24:4).  Of course, to this point Absalom had not even gone that far.  In response to his own action, David said “May the Lord keep me far away from doing such a thing to my lord, who is the Lord’s chosen one, by extending my hand against him.  After all, he is the Lord’s chosen one” (24:6). 

A short while later, David calls out to Saul and says “Even though I have not sinned against you, you are waiting in ambush to take my life” (24:11b).  In the case of Absalom, up until the point that Ahithophel and Hushai speak, there has been no talk, on either the side of David or Absalom, about one attempting to take the other’s life.  Certainly, it can be said that part of the judgment of the Creator God that came upon Saul was related to his ongoing desire to physically and violently raise his hand against the one that his God had been said to have anointed.  Absalom should have continued in the attitude modeled by David and said “May the Lord judge between the two of us” (24:12a), which had already apparently been happening in Absalom’s favor based on the fact of the peaceful exchange of power.  In relation to his opportunity to raise his hand against Saul, David continued with words upon which Absalom should have seized, saying “may the Lord vindicate me over you, but my hand will not be against you” (24:12b). 

Absalom already had the support of the people, and it would appear that David himself was willing to accept Absalom’s exaltation as king.  David had been disgraced and humiliated.  The last thing that Absalom needed to do was to take action that would draw attention, and perhaps even heap sympathy upon David.  Instead, it may very well have been better to completely forget about his father.  Surely, his attempted actions against David might have been perceived as a spiteful type of “kicking a man while he is down,” which would serve to elicit the sympathy and condolences of the people while creating an unfavorable opinion of Absalom as an oppressive ruler that, after all has been said and done, is not all that interested in justice. 

Now, David will be able to turn his words against Absalom, and paint him as a king who has had the hand of Israel’s God removed from him, in a way not unlike that which was experienced by King Saul, and say “Who has the king of Israel come out after?  Who is it that you are pursuing?  A dead dog?  A single flea?  May the Lord be our judge and arbitrator.  May He see and arbitrate my case and deliver me from your hands” (24:14-15).  David will now be able to turn the tables on Absalom, and make his plea for justice, when such, to that point, has been Absalom’s cry. 

Absalom (part 15)

In the Deuteronomic curses, Moses informs the Creator God’s people that one of the curses that will come upon them for their failure to obey their God’s commands (of which David was certainly guilty) would be that “You will be engaged to a woman and another man will rape her” (Deuteronomy 28:30a).  This is not strictly analogous to what Nathan has told David, or to what it has been suggested that Absalom do, as neither this God’s threat through Nathan nor Ahithophel’s suggestion to Absalom carries with it (at least on the surface) the connotation of violence or force, but it can probably be thought of as being connected closely enough to drive home the point to David that he has violated his God’s commands. 

Additionally, Ahithophel apparently sees a close enough connection in that it will play well into Absalom’s ongoing effort to show himself as a true deliverer in the mold of Moses, thereby allowing Absalom to continue co-opting the most powerful story of Israel’s history for his own purposes.  Furthermore, it adds to Absalom’s claim to be a just man and the one that is used by the covenant God to deliver justice to Israel.  This is especially and strikingly so if Absalom is the means by which the prophecy (judgment) related to cursing that had been delivered to David by Nathan is fulfilled. 

This merely cements the notion that David is no longer fit to be king, while also pointing to the fact that the story of Bathsheba and David, and the oppression and injustice that the story entails, has been made known in Israel.  If it has not, then there is no real point in Absalom engaging in sexual relations with his father’s concubines, unless it is also being used to indicate that just as David has forsaken these wives of his, that he has also forsaken his care of the people of Israel as well. 

The second part of Ahithophel’s response to the request to provide advice to Absalom is to say that “All Israel will hear that you have made yourself repulsive to your father.  Then your followers will be motivated to support you” (2 Samuel 16:21b).  Yes, Ahithophel suggests that this will be viewed by the people as Absalom being willing to be cursed by his very own father, if it indeed means justice for Israel.  This is powerful symbolism.  Absalom will be seen to be willing to bear that pain and shame on behalf of the people, with this becoming a messianic role.  In a society based upon honor and shame, this is a calculated move (though also prophetically fulfilling) to win further sympathy from the people. 

Does this aid Absalom in his desire to be seen as Moses?  Absolutely!  Moses was willing to forsake his father’s (Pharoah’s) house so as to identify himself with the people suffering under the oppression of the king.  Thinking beyond that however, this might also be an attempt to entice David to retaliate against Absalom, who up to this point has not lifted up his hand (nor asked anybody else to lift up their hand) against his father. 

David has left willfully.   He has abandoned his throne and fled from Jerusalem and Absalom has peacefully entered to take that throne.  There has been no bloodshed, violence, or loss of life (except Amnon many years prior, but that has only tangential bearing on the events at hand at that time).  If David now turns and raises sword and spear against Absalom and his supporters, then David is most certainly to be likened to Pharaoh, who allowed Israel to depart from Egypt and from his oppression peacefully, but then had a change of heart and set out to recover the Israelites (and his power) by violent means.    

Absalom (part 1)

Now David’s son Absalom… - 2 Samuel 13:1a  (NET)

In this way, David’s son Absalom is introduced into the Scriptural narrative.  The story of Absalom well embodies the ongoing story of Israel, founded in the exodus by which they were defined (a life and worldview practically centered upon a remembrance of the Passover) and almost always at risk of being exiled from their promised land if they failed to uphold the covenant responsibilities that had been assigned to them. 

Absalom is introduced by way of the story of the rape of his sister, Tamar.  Chapter thirteen of second Samuel begins with “Now David’s son Absalom had a beautiful sister named Tamar” (13:1a).  For some reason, Tamar is not presented as David’s daughter, but rather, as Absalom’s sister.  It is said that Amnon, another of David’s sons “fell madly in love with Tamar” (13:1b).  This “love” eventually resulted in her being raped by Amnon.  Obviously, Tamar is humiliated and disgraced.  A pall of exile (part of Israel’s own story) is cast over her life.

Afterwards, “Tamar, devastated, lived in the house of her brother Absalom” (13:20b), and “Absalom hated Amnon because he had humiliated his sister Tamar” (13:22b).  Absalom understood that Amnon, through his actions, had brought the shame of exile to his sister.  She was suffering.  In due time he planned on bringing her vindication, with this occurring through the killing of Amnon.  Absalom held a grudge against Amnon for a considerable length of time, and the story of Absalom’s revenge picks up “Two years later” (13:23a).  Absalom conceived a plan by which he could secure his revenge, and send Amnon into the exile of death.  After Amnon’s demise has been accomplished, it is reported that “This is what Absalom has talked about from the day that Amnon humiliated his sister Tamar” (13:32b). 

With Amnon’s death, Absalom most likely feels as if he has brought vindication to his sister, somehow relieving her of the shame and disgrace that she has experienced.  However, in the process of doing what he believed would bring his sister’s suffering to an end and thus providing her with something like exodus (Israel’s story constantly superimposed on individual stories), Absalom brings exile upon himself. 

Surely, Absalom calculated this as part of the risk of what he was undertaking, and would have imagined that something like this might be necessary.  It is said that “Absalom fled and went to King Talmai son of Ammihud of Geshur” (13:37a).  Absalom’s exile brought a measure of exile to David himself, as part of him was bound up with his son, so “David grieved over his son every day” (13:37b).  Interestingly, Absalom’s self-imposed exile from his homeland lasted longer than his grudge against Amnon.  While he had plotted against Amnon for two full years, Absalom remained in Geshur for three years (13:38).  Throughout that time, “the king longed to go to Absalom, for he had since been consoled over the death of Amnon” (13:39). 

Clearly then, this correlates rather well with the broad narrative scheme of the Scriptures that begins with the first exile---an exile that was truly self-imposed---which was that of Adam and Eve.  Though obviously their exile began on a different basis from that of Absalom, in that they did not commit a vengeful murder, they did in fact bring death upon themselves and upon the whole of their progeny.  It is not surprising then, to find that vengeful murder is in the heart of one of their sons, as evidenced by Cain’s jealousy-fueled murder of his brother Abel.  Having brought death, Adam and Eve were exiled from the place of the Creator God’s presence, from the Garden of Eden, and from the Creator’s good creation.  Like Absalom, fleeing from possible punishment, their exile began with their attempting to flee from the Creator God by hiding themselves in the garden. 

Love On John's Terms (part 27)

The author of John provides an excellent example of the necessity of hearing the story as a whole in what follows from the presentation of Jesus as the good shepherd.  In the twenty-second verse of the chapter, there is a change of scenery in Jerusalem, as the author writes “Then came the feast of the Dedication in Jerusalem.  It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the Temple area in Solomon’s portico” (John 10:22-23).  Clearly, this represents a substantial shift in timing, because all that has been heard from the seventh chapter up to this point has occurred in conjunction with the Feast of Tabernacles, which does not take place in the winter. 

The temptation, then, is to pick up right here with these verses and treat this story separately.  To do so would be foolish, as when Jesus is heard to say “My sheep listen to My voice and I know them, and they follow Me.  I give them eternal life, and they will never perish” (10:27-28a), it can only be heard correctly in the context provided by all that has come before in the narrative, which is also dependent on a knowledge of Israel’s history along with then current understanding of Jewish hopes that would have informed Jesus’ use of eternal life (otherwise, Jesus could not expect to be understood).  As stated, the narrative continues to build, demanding to be heard as a whole. 

Again, the concepts as presented, and especially ideas concerning what is meant by love, demand to be heard on their own terms.  So to understand John’s notion of love, which is prefaced by the description of the way that the Creator God loved the world, and to do so without retrojecting preconceived notions about its definition, it is entirely necessary to take this step by step journey through the Johannine text, so as to come to grips with this author’s theology and its accompaniments (Christology, soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc…) that will define the ethic. 

A fair amount of space in this study has been spent on the issue of “miraculous signs” in this Gospel, with nine such appearances in the text having already been reviewed.  The phrase has not been encountered since the seventh chapter, but it reappears at the close of the tenth chapter, where the author reports that “Many came to Him and began to say, ‘John performed no miraculous sign, but everything John said about this man was true!’  And many believed in Jesus there” (10:41-42).  This is prefaced by a reference to the fact that “Jesus,” following his time spent specifically in Jerusalem, where He has His dealings in the time periods of the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication, “went back across the Jordan River again to the place where John had been baptizing at an earlier time and He stayed there” (10:40).  This mention of John at the close of the tenth chapter is mildly intriguing, as it obviously calls attention to the words and work of John the Baptist.  It takes the step of re-identifying Jesus with John and the exodus-themed movement that John had begun at a place not terribly distant from Jerusalem. 

By making mention that it was being said that “John performed no miraculous sign,” it seems that the author wants to hang a substantial amount of weight on the miraculous signs performed by Jesus, as reported in his Gospel.  It would appear to be the case that the miraculous signs are what, in the author’s mind, set Jesus apart from all those that had come before Him.  With the Resurrection from the dead following His crucifixion being the ultimate miraculous sign, it could be said that the church was fully agreed that Jesus was quite unique.  

Love On John's Terms (part 21)

The man to whom Jesus had given sight challenges the Pharisees who are questioning him and Jesus.  In response to that challenge, they threw him out of the assembly.  In the thirty-fifth verse, after he is thrown out, Jesus is said to have come to him in order to confirm to the man His presumed messianic identity.  This “throwing out” is ironic, as the very beginning of this story presents an observer with a sense of the way that this man had been previously treated prior to his healing.  Pointing to the nature of that treatment, Jesus’ disciples had asked Him “Rabbi, who committed the sin that caused him to be born blind, this man or his parents?” (John 9:2) 

By this question, one can surmise that this man was ostracized from the community.  He was treated as an outsider.  He was treated as a sinner.  In terms of the way that he was treated by the community, he may as well have been a Samaritan or one possessed by a demon, but Jesus went to him.  Yes, Jesus gave him sight, and this is love at work; but perhaps just as importantly, Jesus also removed from him what was seen to be a curse and a source of shame (not just for him, but obviously for his parents as well), and this act of restoration to full humanity and to full participation in the community may be an even greater act of love. 

The tenth chapter of John, which does not provide a change in scenery (continuing in the same location in which the events of the ninth chapter unfolded---information useful to keep in mind as the story progresses), but does provide remarkable insights into the author’s definition of love as it relates to His telling of the story of Jesus, begins with “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, is a thief and robber” (John 10:1). 

Now in hearing what follows, an observer is absolutely forced to consider that while it is highly likely that Jesus uttered these very words as words of warning to the assembled people in Jerusalem due to the highly charged political situation in Israel, and that they would have carried great weight for His original hearers, these words, as part of this narrative compilation of the life and words of Jesus, would have carried even greater weight for a Christian community near the close of the first century as they lived and served and worshiped after the fall and destruction of Jerusalem and the knowledge of the events that brought about that fall, and as they attempted to live out the ethic of Christ-modeled love that had gained ascendancy for this particular community. 

So, having put forward this thought, Jesus embarks on a series of statements about entering the door as the shepherd of the sheep, about gatekeepers, about sheep hearing the voice of true shepherd, about their not following strangers, and about sheep fleeing from that voice.  It is then said, not surprisingly as it is something of a general theme for the Gospels, that “they did not understand what He was saying to them” (10:6b).  However this lack of understanding was expressed (in the absence of an omniscient third-party narrator), Jesus apparently seizes on the lack of understanding and goes on to elaborate, repeating His dictum of “I tell you the solemn truth”, and going on to say, “I am the door for the sheep” (10:7). 

He then makes a slight change to His previous statement in regards to those that climb in by another way.  By doing so, Jesus makes it more direct and applicable, saying that “All who came before Me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them” (10:8).  What does Jesus mean when He said that “All who came before Me are thieves and robbers”?  To whom is He referring?  He is obviously not talking about the prophets with whom He is no doubt being compared.  He is probably not talking about humans in general, and given the “all who came before Me,” it is unlikely that He is referring to the leaders of Israel in that day.

Love On John's Terms (part 18)

Something that must be noted as these efforts progress, is that once the scene of this Gospel shifts to Judea, it is a final shift.  There will be no more changes of scene or location until after Jesus’ Resurrection.  From the fourteenth verse of John’s seventh chapter, all the way until the beginning of the twenty-first chapter, Jesus is never to be found at too great a distance from Jerusalem.  This continuity in change of settings may carry with it some mild significance, as it relates to another repetitive message in John. 

Here in the seventh chapter, after a few more words from Jesus that served to prompt what are reported to be additional private exchanges amongst the Jewish leaders, Jesus is said to have “stood up and shouted” (7:37b).  It seems clear that the author wants to emphasize the words that are to follow, and any public performance of the written presentation of this theo-drama would quite naturally follow suit, with the reader also standing and shouting along with Jesus.  Jesus’ hearers, along with the audience of this Gospel story, hear “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink” (7:37c-38a). 

Where was this first heard?  Of course, Jesus was heard saying this to the Samaritan woman at the well.  His words there were “whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life” (4:14).  An approximation of these words are said to have fallen from Jesus’ lips after the feeding of the five thousand and His walking on water, when He said “The one who comes to Me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never go thirsty” (6:35b).  Now Jesus can be heard saying “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink.”  Interestingly, the first instance of such speech is in Samaria, whereas the second instance is in Galilee, and the third instance is in Jerusalem. 

Not to unnecessarily muddy the waters with a non-Johannine reference, but this is somewhat evocative of a statement that is recorded in the first chapter of Acts, in which Jesus says to His disciples “you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth” (1:8b).  In the case of Acts and quite significantly when it comes to understanding the nature of the kingdom of heaven come to earth through Jesus and those that claim allegiance to Him as King of all, Jesus directs His followers to an ever widening geographical circle to which they are to witness to the facts about Jesus and His Gospel.  In John, the order is somewhat reversed, in that Jesus presents what the author considers to be an extremely important aspect of His message first to Gentiles, and then in an area that is a mixture of Jew and Gentile (Galilee of the Gentiles is a Scriptural refrain), and then in the Temple itself, which would presumably be a message directed almost exclusively to Jews. 

So in the case of John’s presentation of Jesus, His ministry begins with a wide geographical circle that is narrowed down as He goes along (though this is not meant to imply any narrowing in the intended reach of His message).  This is yet another piece of information by which one can deduce the nature of the audience to which the Johannine writings are directed, and the way in which Christian love, rooted in the dissemination of the Gospel message, is to be expressed 

Love On John's Terms (part 8)

Returning to the well in Samaria and to the unusual event there recorded, Jesus can be heard speaking to the aforementioned Samaritan woman and saying “Give me some water to drink” (John 4:7b).  The startling impact that this would have had upon the Samaritan woman should not be underestimated.  It is likely that she would have been completely taken aback by the fact of this Jewish man speaking to her. 

Unless an audience was familiar with the story of Jesus, and presumably John is initially composed and performed for a community or communities that were familiar with the Jesus story, this could be a bit surprising to a listener, especially if the one hearing or ready the story was from one of the Jewish communities of the diaspora.  Of course, the author provides a clue that this Gospel is composed for a mixed audience, as the author is compelled to include the fact that “Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans” (4:9c), which comes on the heels of this woman, startled by the very fact of speaking and the request that it contained, says “How can you---a Jew---ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water to drink” (4:9b).      

Jesus, undeterred by the violation of cultural norms which are also put on display with the report of His disciples’ return and the fact that they were “shocked because He was speaking with a woman” (4:27b), engages in a rather in depth conversation with the Samaritan woman.  Not only is he speaking with a woman, and not only is He speaking with a Samaritan woman, but He is effectively engaging in a conversation that takes the shape of a rabbinic debate---which has great significance in and of itself, as a rabbinic debate would only take place among and between social equals (perhaps not equal in level of honor, but equal in that both sides were able to engage in the social honor competition, which was inaccessible for women in that day).  Of course, things like this simply do not happen.  In that day, women were not considered at all worthy to be involved in such things (honor competition or rabbinic debate), but here, Jesus elevates this woman to the status of social equal. 

The encounter begins with a request for water, and then moves to a conclusion in which Jesus utters words that would appear to be confirmation of His messianic status, with this following what should be recognized as a fascinating give and take.  Most often, the focus of the story becomes the content of the conversation---the questions of the woman, the responses from Jesus, her responses to His words, and the woman’s present marital status.  These are legitimate things on which to focus, but they can also create a situation in which one misses seeing the forest because of the time spent looking at all of the trees.   

With the conversation and its content, not only is Jesus doing cross-cultural ministry, but it must be reiterated that Jesus is elevating this woman.  In this conversation, which is reported by the author of John for in obvious accord with his narrative and wider purpose, Jesus flattens out the social dynamics.  This should prompt a reflection on the developed and developing theological tradition within the church that operated on the basis that there was neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.  Is this not love at work?  Is this not an advance illustration, at least as far as the presentation of the narrative is concerned, of the power of the Gospel. 

Compassionate Brother (part 14)

As an aside, a similar story of give and take and relent can be found in connection with Abraham, which serves as a reminder that there is a cultural component at play in this reunion exchange between Jacob and Esau, and that it is informed by the constant struggle for honor in almost every transaction.  The twenty-third chapter of Genesis opens with the report of the death of Abraham’s wife (Jacob’s grandmother) Sarah has died.  Abraham desired to obtain a burial site for Sarah, and speaks to a group of men, saying “I am a temporary settler among you.  Grant me ownership of a burial site among you so that I may bury my dead” (23:4). 

Not wanting to lose sight of Esau’s compassion, of his willingness to shame himself, and the fact that great honor accrues to him because of his extension of compassion, the encounter between Jacob and Esau is kept in mind, along with the culture of honor that even extends to routine transactions, as the exchange between Abraham and these men is observed.  Abraham receives a favorable answer as he hears: “Listen, sir, you are a mighty prince among us!  You may bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs.  None of us will refuse you his tomb to prevent you from burying your dead” (23:6).  Though this seems like the offer of a gift, in reality, with these words the negotiations have begun.  Abraham understands this.   

Abraham “got up and bowed down to the local people,” saying “If you agree that I may bury my dead, then hear me out.  As Ephron the son of Zohar if he will sell me the cave of Machpelah that belongs to him… Let him sell it to me publicly for the full price, so that I may own it as a burial site” (23:8-9).  Though this will certainly be a great honor for Ephron, the immediate acceptance of payment from Abraham would be a source of dishonor for Ephron.  Also, as every such transaction is an opportunity to elevate oneself in ongoing competition to accrue honor and eschew shame, getting Abraham to purchase more than that for which he has expressed interest will gain him some honor, as it demonstrates the shrewdness and business savvy of the seller.  Of course, this will not be unexpected by Abraham.  He’s willing to play the game, and has undoubtedly played the game throughout his life as well.  

The negotiation continues, as Ephron, couching the offer as a demonstration of magnanimity while also extending the range of purchase (a rather regular feature in transactions in the culture) says, “No, my lord!  Hear me out.  I sell you both the field and the cave that is in it.  In the presence of my people I sell it to you.  Bury your dead” (23:11).  Ephron has called attention to the fact that there are many witnesses to this negotiation, which is a tacit reminder of the honor game that is being played.  Hearing this, Abraham bows again and says “Hear me, if you will.  I pay to you the price of the field.  Take it from me so that I may bury my dead there” (23:13b). 

It should be noticed that Abraham does not yet name a price, leaving this to Ephron to propose---another feature of the game of honor.  Abraham receives the response of “Hear me, my lord.  The land is worth four hundred pieces of silver, but what is that between me and you?  So bury your dead” (23:15).  Though Ephron has been forced to name the price (and thus loses that end of the game), by his words he attempts to position the price as so low that it is practically a gift to Abraham.  Thus the game continues.  Those that have spent any amount of time in the east, whether living there or simply visiting, will be familiar with this type of exchange.           

Compassionate Brother (part 13)

The compassion on display is a remarkable response from Esau.  Esau has every right to be angry.  He was grossly dishonored.  He is in a position to justifiably lord himself over Jacob until such a time as Jacob recompenses him for the wrong that has been done to him.  However, he runs to Jacob, embracing him, kissing him as a brother, and weeping with him.  This is indeed a tremendous act of compassion on the part of Esau.  Though he is often dismissed and looked down upon, it is in this very act that Esau reveals himself as the quintessentially compassionate brother. 

As Jacob goes through a process by which he is effectively attempting to divest himself of honor (effectively shaming himself through behavior that is set at quite a distance from behavior that works towards the accrual of honor), Esau’s gracious compassion shines through.  He actually takes shame upon himself (divesting himself of honor) by running to Jacob.  It was well understood that men, in that culture, did not run.  A man’s honor was at least partially measured and revealed by the slowness of his walk.  It was shameful for a man to even show his legs, and with the type of clothing that was common in that day, showing the legs would be necessary for running to take place.  Now, one might believe that Esau was being disingenuous, and was actually harboring resentment towards Jacob, but the fact of Esau’s running to Jacob takes this possibility out of play.  This is extraordinarily revelatory when it comes to providing knowledge of the character of Esau, and this would not be lost on the hearers or culturally attuned readers of the story. 

The scene of Jacob and Esau’s reunion continues, as “Esau looked up and saw the women and children,” asking “Who are these people with you?” (33:5a)  Continuing his effective prostrations before Esau, Jacob answers with “The children whom God has graciously given your servant” (33:5b).  With this, the pattern established by their husband and father is carried forward, as “The female servants came forward with their children and bowed down.  Then Leah came forward with her children and they bowed down.  Finally Joseph and Rachel came forward and bowed down” (33:6-7).  Surely, this pleased the compassionate Esau.  Searching out his brother’s intentions, Esau goes on to as “What did you intend by sending all these herds to meet me?” (33:8a)  Of course, those who have been hearing the story know the answer, as Jacob replies by saying “To find favor in your sight, my lord” (33:8b). 

It can be observed that Jacob has done well in keeping up the language of servant and lord.  Undoubtedly, he is still fearful and hopeful.  What has been seen from Jacob, though assuredly genuine, is also a negotiation tactic.  Jacob has sent the animals ahead of him, laying the groundwork for their face to face meeting, but Esau does not immediately acquiesce in acceptance.  Things will not be so simple for Jacob.  He is not going to be able to give Esau some animals and get himself off the hook.  He is going to have to demonstrate some penitence.  Esau makes it clear that this is not a matter of property.  He says “I have plenty, my brother.  Keep what belongs to you” (33:9). 

Jacob insists and even ups the ante, moving beyond the use of servant and lord while also presuming Esau’s satisfaction, saying “If I have found favor in your sight, accept my gift from my hand.  Now that I have seen your face and you have accepted me, it is as if I have seen the face of God.  Please take my present that was brought to you, for God has been generous to me and I have all I need” (33:10-11a).  With this, it is said that Esau relents and accepts the gift, though it seems as if he does so in a way that is actually against his wishes, especially as he has demonstrated such compassion and mercy, and because there is nothing in the Scriptural record to suggest that this compassion was not genuine. 

Compassionate Brother (part 8)

Providentially (it would seem), and with the glaring reality that he has completely worn out his welcome with Laban staring him in the face, “The Lord said to Jacob, ‘Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives.  I will be with you.’” (31:3)  This conforms with the word of the Lord that was heard in the twenty-eighth chapter when Jacob was at Bethel, where Jacob heard the Lord say to him, “I am with you!  I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land” (28:15a). 

As Jacob, at this point, is still going to be unsure as to Esau’s disposition towards him, he is in desperate need of the reassurance of these words.  Regardless, the deteriorating situation with Laban, along with the fact that Laban really did not want him there (as evidenced by his dismay at Jacob actually achieving what it was that was proposed in his wage agreement), apparently causes Jacob to come to his senses, re-orienting him towards his homeland and the house of his father. 

Accordingly, he sends a message to Rachel and Leah, asking them to come to him in the field where he was with his flocks and said to them “I can tell that your father’s attitude toward me has changed, but the God of my father has been with me” (31:5).  He presents his reasoning process behind the decision that he has taken to return to his father’s house, saying “You know that I’ve worked for your father as hard as I could, but your father has humiliated me” (31:6-7a), thus drawing out the honor and shame component that has been herein submitted as an underlying factor in the growing tension between Jacob and Laban, “and changed my wages ten times.  But God has not permitted him to do me any harm” (31:7b). 

Making this point, and underscoring his gathering of honor in spite of Laban’s desire to shame him, he adds “If he said, ‘The speckled animals will be your wage,’ then the entire flock gave birth to speckled offspring.  But if he said, ‘The streaked animals will be your wage,’ then the entire flock gave birth to streaked offspring.’” (31:8)  Reinforcing the fact that Jacob has accrued honor (and possessions), while Laban’s possessions (and honor) have been devoured, Jacob says “In this way God has snatched away your father’s livestock and given them to me” (31:9). 

Jacob piles further divine sanction upon his pending departure by speaking of a dream in which the angel of the Creator God (31:11) reportedly spoke to him and said “Observe that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled, or spotted, for I have observed all that Laban has done to you.  I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the sacred stone and made a vow to me” (31:12-13a).  To this is appended the message of “Now leave this land immediately and return to your native land” (31:13b). 

Dutifully, his wives respond with “Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father’s house?  Hasn’t he treated us like foreigners?” (31:14b-15a)  This insistent query in regards to being treated like foreigners would certainly take an interesting connotation upon itself when heard by the people of Israel after the receiving of the law, as the Mosaic law provided detailed proscriptions for dealing with foreigners.  Prior to the receipt of the law, and though the circumstances are not entirely applicable (Jacob had grown rich at the hand of the one that treated him as a foreigner), one can imagine how the words of this story would have been heard by an oppressed Israel in Egypt.  In later years, when the tribes of Israel were scattered and exiled as strangers in strange lands, it is almost certain that the story of Jacob’s exile from home, along with these words on the lips of his wives, provided a hope for restoration to their promised land (as it also would have for Israel in Egypt). 

Only Son (part 14)

Eternal life, therefore, must be understood to be a part of the Creator God’s intentions for the beings that He created in and as His image, as well as the creation over which that being was set in rule.  For man, this can be extrapolated from the existence of the tree of life and the point made to bar the way of the fallen image-bearer from accessing the tree.  For the creation, this can be extrapolated from the insistence that all of the creation fell from a state of eternality of life when Adam (its steward) fell. 

The Apostle Paul would seem to be making an explicit reference to this type of understanding in the eighth chapter of Romans, when he writes that “creation was subjected to futility---not willingly” (8:20a), while also going on to make the point that the creation awaits a time of restoration when it “will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:21).  If only Adam had believed the Creator---trusted, relied upon, adhered to the commandment while believing in the associated promise---it could be surmised that neither he nor the creation would have experienced decay and death.  If he had believed, he would not have perished. 

Having covered so much ground, and having done so much to at least partially construct a more appropriate mindset in which to hear the words of Jesus, it is now possible to connect some of the dots, discovering part of what is being communicated in the Nicodemus/Jesus dialogue, and interpreting John 3:16 in light of the experience of Adam as revealed in the Hebrews Scriptures and as told as part of Israel’s historical self-understanding and as part of their God’s overall purposes for mankind, to which Jesus appeals in order to legitimate His mission as that of the promised and long-awaited Son of Man. 

The Creator God indeed loved the world that He is understood to have created and set in order.  He loved it so much that He made a being in His own image (as His image)---a son---and placed that being in the world.  As part of His creation, He also loved this son.  He is understood to have given that son responsibilities and a commandment, asking that son to believe in Him, so as to be able to faithfully and rightly perform His duties in the world, before his Creator.  If that son did in fact believe in the God that had created Him and given him his position, then we would have eternal life.

If he did not believe in his Creator, and did not exhibit trust in His word such that he did not live up to the terms of the covenant that had been set for and with him, then the result of that dis-belief and the forsaking of His expressed purpose in and for the world, would be that He would perish.  His fate would be shared by the much loved realm over which he had been set.  He would be exiled from that place of purpose, forfeiting access to that which granted eternal life, which, in reality, is the unbroken relationship with the Creator as His exact image, and thereby losing eternal life itself.  What ultimately perished was trust, and therefore his union with his Maker, which was the source of that life.  Quite naturally then, to perish at the hands of death was the only logical result.  Such was the history of the Creator God’s initial sending of His son into the world.  Coming to grips with this provides a portion of the much-needed framework for an understanding of Jesus’ mission. 

With all of this said and hopefully absorbed, one becomes able to more effectively peer into the historical context that surrounded these famous words of Jesus, reflecting on the fact that the Creator God’s love for the world, His sending of His Son, the necessity of belief, and the subsequent reception of eternal life, could and would cause Nicodemus to hearken to the “beginning of the story,” and the story of Adam and his fall.  

Only Son (part 2)

The brief answer to that important question is found in chapter twelve of Genesis.  There, the Creator God instructs Abraham (Abram) to “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you.  Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing.  I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse, and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name” (12:1-3). 

So yes, the covenant God is demonstrated to have chosen Abraham so that through Abraham the nations and families and the whole of the earth could be blessed.  This becomes, for all time, the explicit charge of the covenant people.  Naturally, a person that is recognized as a “teacher of Israel” would have been quite familiar with the answer to this question.  This, however, it should be recognized, is not a sufficient answer. 

The Creator God’s words to Abraham merely beg the question as to “why.”  Why did the sovereign God of the cosmos need to choose Abraham?  Why did this God have a need or desire to make Abraham into a great nation?  Why did the one who, as indicated in the story of Scripture, repeatedly showed Himself as the God of covenants want to bless him?  Why make Abraham’s name great?  Why was there what seems to be a pressing need to exemplify divine blessing through Abraham?  Why is there all this talk of blessing and cursing in association with Abraham?  Why indeed? 

The reason for all of these things is to be found in what comes before the introduction of Abraham.  In the narrative structure, what comes before, of course, is the presentation of the ordering of the creation as the Creator’s cosmic temple, the pronouncement at every stage that this ordering was “very good,” and the placement of man, created as the divine-image, into that creation-as-cosmic-temple so as to steward it, to be a reflection of the glory of its Creator into it, and to stand as a constant reminder to the whole of the creation of its Ruler, that being the Creator God of Israel (Genesis 1 & 2). 

This record of the ordering of creation is quickly followed by the report of the divine image-bearers’ first act of idolatry, rebellion, and violation of their God’s commandment.  This is swiftly followed by the exile of the now marred image-bearers from the role to which they had been assigned by the Creator.  What accompanied this, as pointedly and painfully indicated by Scripture, is the exile of the creation from the condition and state in which it had been created (very good, perfection), as it came to share in the cursing brought about by the one appointed to its rule and stewardship (Genesis 3). 

Subsequent to that the first murders are to be found (Genesis 4), along the fathering of a son in the likeness of the fallen image-bearer rather than in the image of the Creator God (Genesis 5), the growing wickedness of the collectively fallen image-bearers (Genesis 6), a worldwide flood of judgment (Genesis 7), the curse of Canaan (Genesis 9), and the culmination of man’s self-idolatry, rebellion, and defiance of the Creator, which was the construction of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). 

It is at this point that the Creator God is said to have reached down into His creation for the purpose of choosing and appointing Abraham, as something of a project manager charged with the task of the restoration of the fallen creation.  Undoubtedly, accurately and purposefully communicating this definitive story would be part and parcel of being a “teacher of Israel,” and it would have to in such a context that Jesus delivers the words of what have come to be the most famous words in the whole of Scripture.   

Only Son (part 1)

For this is the way God loved the world: He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. – John 3:16  (NET)

Jesus is said to have spoken these words to a man named Nicodemus, referring to this man as a “teacher of Israel” (3:10).  With such words, the reader of the Gospel of John is reminded that Israel had a story, and that its teachers communicated a vast, vitally important, and powerful story to the group of people that rightly thought of themselves as the chosen people of the one true Creator God.  That story of a special people charged with covenant responsibilities (together with the blessings and curses thereby implied) took root in the tale of the exodus.  This is partly evidenced by the fact that, within his communications to Nicodemus, Jesus makes it a point to specifically mention Moses, saying that “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (3:14). 

According to Israel’s historical narrative (by which they defined and understood themselves and their place in the world), the lifting up of the serpent took place while the nation made its way to its land of promise, following their Egyptian exodus.  They were operating on the understanding that this land had been promised to them in the promise that their God had made to Abraham.  In all of the talk of the importance and significance of the very land of Israel, one can be sure that the reported word of the Creator God to Abraham had a prominent place: “The Lord said to him, ‘I am the Lord Who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess’.” (Genesis 15:7)  Therefore, though the story of Israel was deeply rooted in exodus, the exodus story is defined by, and would have very little meaning apart from, the story of Abraham and of the promises that were understood to have been made to him by the covenant, creative, and providential God of Israel. 

Yes, the exodus gains a great deal of its meaning from the story of Abraham, as it was believed that Abraham received word from the Lord that the promise being made to him would ultimately be confirmed by another promise.   The book of Genesis reports that Abraham (then still Abram) had said to the Lord, “O sovereign Lord, by what can I know that I am to possess it?” (15:8)  In the record of this exchange, the Lord’s response was the aforementioned promise, as He is said to have replied to this query by saying “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a foreign country.  They will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years.  But I will execute judgment on the nation that they will serve.  Afterward they will come out with many possessions” (15:13b-14). 

This promise is dramatically fulfilled in the events of the exodus (that are set forth in the book of the same name), as the Creator God’s powerful judgments are said to have veritably rained down on those that dared to oppress His people.  Exodus reports that following the tenth and final blow of judgment to fall upon Egypt (the death of the firstborn), Israel was quickly ushered out of Egypt.  Tying the narrative tightly to the Abraham promise concerning possessions, the author reports that before leaving Egypt, “they had requested from the Egyptians silver and gold items and clothing” (Exodus 12:35b).  In response, “The Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, and they gave them whatever they wants, and so they plundered Egypt” (12:36).  Again, the exodus story gathers meaning from the Abraham story.  

However, a “teacher of Israel” would not only teach a story of Israel that had the exodus as its foundation, which also looked to the story of Abraham as the foundation of the exodus, but he would also look further back, to the story that provided context for their God’s choosing of Abraham (and ultimately his descendant(s)) as His personal representative(s) in this world.  To be sure, Abraham had been called out of Ur and promised a land and given promises in association with that land, but why was it that this had occurred in the first place?  

Law To Become Void (part 1)

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. – Luke 16:17  (NET)

Before Jesus gets to the words presented above, He told a story about a manager that had been irresponsible in the handling and management of the assets of his master.  Without here delving too deeply into the parable itself, it can be posited that his irresponsibility eventually resulted in dishonesty, though this dishonesty was heavily dependent upon the prevailing and determinative honor and shame culture, as the steward ultimately pins his hopes on his master’s concern about his own honor standing in the community. 

Unfortunately, to the western reader, there are a number of nuances to that particular parable that escape notice, including the fact that the initial termination of the steward in the story would not necessarily be understood as an event of finality, but rather, the beginning of a negotiation, which would have most likely ended up with the steward not losing his position.  Because it is the world in which they walked, and as they were steeped in the honor and shame culture and the push and pull that goes along with that, Jesus’ audience would have been able to grasp these nuances almost inherently---as familiar as breathing. 

After telling the parable, Jesus says, “The one who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and the one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” (16:10).  As Jesus continues to point back to the one framed as the dishonest manager, He says, “If then you haven’t been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will entrust you with the true riches? (16:11) 

As one considers the application and interpretation of the parable that is provided by Jesus, it is necessary to remember that this particular story, and its application, follows the three parables of the fifteenth chapter of Luke (the parables of the sheep, the coin, and the “prodigal”).  Along with that, one must consider Jesus’ audience, and that He is reported to be speaking to “the Pharisees and the experts in the law” (15:2a), who had offered up the complaint that Jesus “welcomes sinners and eats with them” (15:2b). 

This particular accusation was true, as Luke begins his record of Jesus’ dealings in this section of the telling of his story with “Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming to hear Him” (15:1).  So when Jesus is speaking about those who are faithful in a little and dishonest in a little, His original audience, along with the audience of Luke’s Gospel, must keep in mind that He is directing His comments towards the Pharisees and the experts in the law.  The same is true of His statements concerning the handling of worldly wealth and the true riches. 

Considering the nature of His audience, Jesus’ comments were quite direct, as He continued on to say “And if you haven’t been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you your own?” (16:12)  With the clear statement at the beginning of the fifteenth chapter in regards to the Pharisees, who were the self-appointed (in many respects) guardians of the law and the traditions of the elders, and their being included with the experts in the law, it is reasonable to surmise that Jesus is reprimanding these groups in regard to their handling of the law.  

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 5)

With this question from Jesus, and His reference to belief and the glory of God, an observers thoughts are returned to the beginning of the story of Lazarus.  As Lazarus and his plight is introduced into the Gospel narrative, Jesus says that “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory” (11:4b).  Once again, one must look past the immediate circumstance of the Lazarus issue, hearing the story as a component of a wider narrative (within a wider narrative) with a certain theological, sociological, and religious objective, in order to truly understand that to which Jesus is referring when He speaks about the Creator God’s glory.  Without making that effort, it would be tempting to think that the glory of the Creator God will be demonstrated through the raising of Lazarus, but in reality, the raising is only relational, and it serves only as a catalyst to that which will truly reveal the glory of the covenant God of Israel. 

The author reports that Jesus casts His eyes heavenward (11:41), and, one would have to imagine, thinking through what it was that is going to be accomplished through the events that this Gospel portrays as being set in motion through this raising, Jesus offers thankfulness for the power that will be put on display that will have the result that the people “may believe that You sent Me” (11:42b).  Having done this, Jesus, with a loud voice, said, “Lazarus, come out!” (11:43b)  As should be expected from all that has been reported to this point in the story of John, that is precisely what happened.  Lazarus came out of the tomb.  What was the result?  The author says that “Many of the people who had come with Mary and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him” (11:45), thus setting the stage for the previously mentioned glory of the Creator God that was soon to be manifested. 

John indicates that this growth in the number of those that believed in Jesus caused a widespread furor.  Honestly, one can only imagine the response to reports about a dead man being raised back to life.  In what is said to be a direct response to this occurrence and the furor that it created, “The chief priests and the Pharisees called the council together and said… If we allow Him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in Him” (11:47a, 48a).  This statement thus continues the march towards uncovering that to which Jesus was referring when He spoke of the glory of His God in connection with Lazarus’ death and raising. 

Continuing this same story that began with the report of Lazarus’ sickness, some short period of time later, when there was “six days before the Passover” (12:1a), the reader learns that “Jesus came to Bethany” (12:1b).  This place, of course, was inhabited by those that had seen the great miracle of Lazarus being raised from the dead.  This would, undoubtedly, be a defining moment for Bethany for all of its existence, so it is wholly unsurprising that the author reports about “a large crowd of Judeans” that “learned that Jesus was there, and so they came not only because of Him but also to see Lazarus whom He had raised from the dead” (12:9).  Here one can note that Lazarus’ raising, as it was drawing people to Jesus, and ultimately to His mission and way of ushering in the kingdom of heaven on earth, was still being used as an instrument in the Creator God’s hands for the purpose of His own glory. 

Apparently the “Lazarus event” was quite well known, so much so that “the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus too, for on account of him many of the Jewish people were going away and believing in Jesus” (12:10-11).  This was a problem on many levels.  One of the reasons that it was a significant problem in the eyes of the chief priests and Pharisees that the people were going away and believing in Jesus, was that Jesus was seen as somebody that was not rigorously keeping to the covenant markers (works of the law) that were so vitally important to Israel’s national interests in that day.  

Broken The Permanent Treaty (part 1 of 2)

The earth is defiled by its inhabitants, for they have violated laws, disregarded the regulation, and broken the permanent treaty. – Isaiah 24:5  (NET)

Before one reaches the verse above, one also encounters the verses which state that “The earth will be completely devastated and thoroughly ransacked.  For the Lord has decreed this judgment.  The earth dries up and withers; the prominent people of the earth fade away” (24:3-4).  Though this was clearly not the Creator God’s intention for His good creation, this is the situation wrought by man’s rebellion in the garden.  Man was able to have this impact on the earth because He is the creature made in God’s image (the divine image-bearer).  Man was specifically tasked by God and was given the responsibility to steward the creation---to steward it wisely as the vice-regent of the Creator God---and failed to do so, introducing evil and its effects into the world. 

In the Scriptural narrative, it is Adam’s faithlessness to what were his God-given responsibilities and limitations by which the earth becomes defiled.  The narrative insists that Adam willfully and egregiously violated the law that had been given to him by his Creator.  Tying this together with what is offered by Isaiah, it can be said that he most certainly disregarded the regulation.  The covenant God of Israel had designed His creation to be permanently good, and for man to tend His good creation in perpetuity, but that permanence proved to be fleeting.  As Isaiah writes, mankind broke “the permanent treaty.” 

Another rendering of the Hebrew that is here translated “permanent treaty” would be “the everlasting covenant.”  Adam, representing all mankind, violated the everlasting covenant of the Creator God.  Naturally, any talk of covenant would immediately call to mind the covenant governing the relationship between Israel and its God.  What was the result of this defiling, violation, disregarding, and breaking?  “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children.  You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you’.  But to Adam He said, ‘Because you obeyed your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, “You must not eat from it,” cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.  It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat of the grain of the field.  By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you will return’.” (Genesis 3:16-19) 

Yes, the Lord decreed this judgment.  The earth would be devastated and ransacked by thorns and thistles and pain and hostility.  Though the earth had produced bountifully, in effect it would now be dried up and withered.  Man would indeed fade away into dust.  It is in the stream of identity that flows from this understanding of their story that begins with Adam in which Isaiah would write, “So a treaty curse devours the earth; its inhabitants pay for their guilt.  This is why the inhabitants of the earth disappear, and are reduced to just a handful of people” (24:6).  Isaiah, whose worldview is shaped by the Adam story and all that flows from it, appears to indicate that Israel is effectively recapitulating the fall of Adam, failing in their stewarding responsibilities and their everlasting covenant.  

Thus, as one continues to focus in on what occurred with Adam, so as to read or hear Isaiah from within the sweep of the Scriptural narrative, it can be seen that God cursed the earth because of the broken treaty, the ignored agreement, the disregarded covenant.  As a result, man has continually suffered from death and decay and all that goes with man stepping outside of the bounds of God’s covenant.  

Faithfully Turned Over & Overwhelmed (part 1 of 2)

The Israelites did evil in the Lord’s sight, so the Lord turned them over to Midian for several years.  The Midianites overwhelmed Israel. – Judges 6:1-2a  (NET)

Along with many other things, including being something of a story or script that the people of the covenant are expected to understand and use to guide their actions in and for this world, the Bible can certainly be understood as the record of the covenant faithfulness of the Creator God of Israel.  The Hebrew Scriptures reflect the way that Israel understood and came to understand their God.  With the composition and collection of these writings, Israel would possess something that served as a constant reminder and evidence of His faithfulness to His covenant, of His faithfulness to His covenant people, and of His faithfulness to His covenant promises.  The idea of a covenant-making-and-keeping-God would be top of mind for a member of the Israelite people, so that even though a modern reader may miss it at first glance, what is to be found in this verse points back to the covenant and faithfulness of Israel’s God. 

What is to be understood when we read that “The Israelites did evil in the Lord’s sight”?  As we comb through the book of Judges, we find a highly representative example that “The Israelites did evil before the Lord by worshiping the Baals.  They abandoned the Lord God of their ancestors Who brought them out of the land of Egypt.  They followed other gods…  They worshiped them and made the Lord angry.  They abandoned the Lord and worshiped Baal and the Ashtoreths.” (2:11-13).  This made the Lord “furious with Israel” (2:14a).  We also find that “they prostituted themselves to other gods and worshiped them” (2:17b).  We read this while remembering that this narrative will be compiled after the fact, as part of the story by which later generations would define themselves.  

It is said that “When a leader died, the next generation would again act more wickedly than the previous one.  They would follow after other gods, worshiping them and bowing down to them” (2:19a).  To drive the point home further, the writer repeats himself, saying “The Lord was furious with Israel” (2:20a).  What was the basis for the fury?  Naturally, it can be presumed that it was the idolatry, but more specifically, it is said that it was because “This nation has violated the terms of the agreement I made with their ancestors by disobeying Me” (2:20b).  This is covenant language.  We can take these words from the second chapter, safely apply them to the sixth chapter, surmise that Israel’s doing of evil was something along these lines, and rightly understand the coming execution of the Lord’s fury. 

Now, when we read about terms of agreement with ancestors in conjunction with references to being brought out of the land of Egypt, we should be mindful of what it was that their God was said to have demanded of His people following the exodus, which was the ultimate defining event for the nation.  In the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus (26:1-2), which may very well have been composed after the time period of the stories of the book of Judges (the Israelites of that period may not have had a written Leviticus as a guide, but written accounts of both, all understood together and instrumental in the self-definition of the covenant people and their relationship with their God, would certainly have been available to Israel at the time of Jesus, along with the earliest members of renewed Israel that is the people of the covenant through belief in Jesus as Lord,), we find Israel’s God insisting that His people refrain from idolatry, that they keep His Sabbaths, and that they reverence His sanctuary (the place of His presence).  Thus, even if there was not a composed Leviticus at the time of the Judges, the author of the Judges assesses the behavior of the people according to the basic principles of honoring their God that are offered therein, thereby suggesting at least a strong oral tradition. 

If they were to have success in these areas, then they would experience the blessings that are to be found outlined in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, which is another text, possibly composed later than Judges, but which offers thoughts of which the author of Judges seems to be aware.  On the other hand, failure in these areas would bring the curses that are to be found in the same chapter.  Regardless of the time of composition, it seems obvious that Israel’s actions in the Judges time period are to be judged against the ideals of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  Additionally, their experience is explained as the response of their God, with that response understood in accordance with those same ideals.