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?  

Calling Down Fire (part 2)

The followers of Jesus would also be aware of the strong possibility that if the Caesar had sent messengers ahead of himself, to prepare a city for his arrival there, and that city (or town or village) rejected him for any reason whatsoever, that the Caesar’s response would likely be to make an example of that village.  The Caesar, in a show of force that proved his power and rule, could very well take the step of killing those who did not bow the knee.  If this was done, the killing would probably be done in a fairly dramatic and attention-getting way (a crucifixion may not be out of the question), so that it would not be necessary to repeat such a thing upon reaching the next city during the course of his travels.  Though lacking the power of the Caesar, the question about calling down fire from heaven (invoking Elijah), it would seem that James and John are expressing a desire to follow the same pattern. 

One could understand the way of thinking, however misguided.  Truly, if this King is greater than Caesar, than all should be made to bow the knee.  Calling down fire from heaven to consume those that refused to show honor would be the way of insuring that such would happen.  Jesus’ response is well known and in line with His character as revealed in the Gospels.  He “turned and rebuked them” (Luke 9:55).  It is to be noted that He did not turn and rebuke the villagers that rejected Him.  Rather, He rebuked His disciples that wanted to go about commanding allegiance in the way that Caesar and all other kings had commanded allegiance, which was ultimately the threat of pain and death.  In consideration of this of course, one cannot help but think of the regular “calling down of fire”---that of death and the eternal fire of hell---that is employed to convince people to bow the knee to Jesus. 

Rather than stay in that village in an attempt to defy the rejection, “they went on to another village” (9:56).  Jesus was not going to be side-tracked in His mission to preach the Gospel of His kingdom, which is what is to be understood as that which truly carries power.  To that end, chapter ten of Luke begins by saying, “After this,” thereby connecting it with the words and events of chapter nine.  Luke writes, “After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others (possibly seventy) and sent them on ahead of Him two by two into every town and place where He Himself was about to go” (10:1).  This is quite similar to what can be seen taking place in the ninth chapter, when Jesus “sent messengers on ahead of Him… to make things ready in advance for Him” (9:52a,c).  Observing these instructions in this context, it would seem that Jesus sees Himself in the role of the world’s true Caesar, sending out evangelists to announce His coming and to prepare His subjects for an appropriate reception.   

With the sending, Jesus included instructions, saying “Do not carry a money-bag, a traveler’s bag, or sandals, and greet no one on the road”  (10:4).  This sounds like rather unusual instructions, but it is possible that Jesus wants His disciples to be distinctive from other wandering teachers in those days.  He added a demand that once they find a hospitable response from a household, that they stay in that one house, and “not move around from house to house” (10:7b).  Again, without getting too bogged down in details, suffice it to say that this practice will continue to set His disciples apart from other roving teachers of that day.  Ultimately, those that came across the representatives of Jesus are to be made to realize that the visitors are there for a single mission, which would be to “Heal the sick in that town and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come upon you!’” (10:9) 

In My Father's House (part 4)

Now, at first glance, this should seem quite unusual and a bit suspicious.  Jesus was in the midst of the teachers, listening and asking questions?  This is difficult to believe.  Children were not afforded respect in those days.  Yes, Jesus had reached the age at which he could begin to sit at the feet of a teacher, but that would occur based on relationships and an invitation.  It is unlikely that such was the case here.  Yet here it is reported that Jesus is not only sitting and listening to the teachers, which means that He is intruding and out of place when it comes to His station, but that He is even going so far as to ask them questions.  Can this be true to life?  Is this believable?  Even if a boy of the same age was there at the feet of his teacher, one can be certain that no other twelve-year-olds were allowed to ask questions in the Temple courts. 

So why is this grace, and this honor, extended to this particular child that has no particular honor standing, and who does not even yet participate in the honor and shame culture and competition (which is one the reasons to engage in listening and asking questions)?  One would have to presume that it is because He is of David’s family line, and that this has been somehow made known to this group of men.  He is of Israel’s true royal lineage, and this in a day when the three kings of Israel were considered to be nothing more than usurpers upon King David’s throne. 

Together with that, because the Creator God’s messiah (Israel’s king and deliverer in the mold of Moses, who led forth Israel from its exilic subjection to a foreign nation) is called the Son of David, and because messianic expectations were running quite high in that day, owing to what would have been popularly believed to be the conclusion of the four hundred ninety years set forth in the book of Daniel, a place among the teachers might very well be granted to a boy (on the cusp of adulthood) that can make a legitimate claim of descent from King David.  Now, that’s not to say that Jesus would be automatically granted the floor, treated with the utmost of honor and respect, and deferred to in the asking and answering of questions, but that as long as He did not make Himself too much of a nuisance, He would be tolerated.   

When Jesus’ parents found Him in the Temple courts, not only did they observe that He was asking questions, but they were also able to see that He was able to interact with the teachers.  Luke writes, “And all who heard Jesus were astonished at His understanding and His answers” (2:47).  Remembering that Jesus was fully human, it must be said that this is indeed quite remarkable for a twelve-year-old.  Now, it is one thing to be able to ask an intelligent question.  Many twelve year-olds are capable of such things.  It is quite another thing altogether to be able to make informed inquiries based upon the answers provided. 

It is unlikely that these teachers were actually asking Jesus questions in order to solicit His opinions on the subjects under discussion, but rather, it is more likely that His “answers” were along the lines of additional, probing questions.  Quite simply, a boy would not presume to instruct a group of teachers, nor would a group of teachers in that day, regardless of how astonished they might be at His instruction, sit and listen.  There is always honor at stake, and a child of that age is not going to be allowed to accrue any of the limited good of honor to himself.  It is quite reasonable to think in this way, as it would be in the mold of what can be seen throughout the records of Jesus’ ministry.  While Jesus would teach, quite often the teaching would be prompted by a question that has been put to Him; or Jesus would receive a question, and in response, posit an additional question, with all of these engagements occurring under the pretext of honor challenges in the honor and shame culture and competition.