Triumph Of Jesus (part 5)

I could spend all day describing the triumphator alone, but of course, no man does what he has done by himself.  An army is required to conquer, and his is a fine one.  So yes, the army of Rome followed him triumphantly, as would be appropriate, and they were certainly decked out in all of their military splendor for this occasion.  Some walked and some rode horses---fine steeds indeed.  Rome has the finest horses, of that there is no doubt.  The spoils from this war must have been great, as it looked like they were all wearing brand new uniforms and brand new armor.  Normally, one would expect to see evidences of battle, especially some spatterings of blood, but there were none to be seen.  They looked sharp.  Crisp and clean.  That certainly said something about the way that Caesar felt about this man and his accomplishments on behalf of glorious Rome. 

Getting back to the triumphator, I could see that he was carrying the ivory baton.  You don’t see this every time either.  Yet more evidence about the nature of Caesar’s feelings toward this general, as if the fact of the adoption wasn’t enough to communicate such things.  He held the baton aloft like a sword, as if he is charging in to battle right now, with army in tow.  I wonder if he lead his army into battle or if he called out the execution of battle plans from the safety of the rear.  Something tells me that this general was out front, risking himself bravely for his king, his gods, and his fellow countrymen. 

Between him and his army came his bodyguards.  He had a group of them.  I’ve never seen that many, though I’m told that if this was a ‘triumph’ for the Caesar, that he would have that many, if not more.  A general has never had that many bodyguards.  I suppose being the newly adopted son of Caesar affords one such luxuries.  Perhaps they are necessities?  After all, Caesar does have his enemies---there’s always rumblings among the people.  One hears things.  Each of the bodyguards is carrying a ‘fasces.’  Ah, the symbol of Rome and its power. 

Has there ever been a kingdom more glorious than Rome?  Has there ever been an empire so powerful?  When Rome strikes, nations fall.  Sure, other empires may have been larger geographically, but none has ever been united in the manner of Rome, with its roads, its aqueducts, and especially its religion.  Combined with the wonderful system of Roman justice and the ever-present military to help preserve the occasional outbreak of revolution (though why anybody would want to revolt against Rome, I have no idea), Caesar’s rule is iron-clad.  Rarely does Caesar have to execute his power on a grand scale, but when he does, it can indeed be furious, like the falling of the wrath of all-powerful Jupiter himself. 

We have all heard tales of the fury of Rome’s legions when unleashed---the ‘gates of hell’ I believe it is called.  I would never want to experience it, that’s for sure.  Pity those who do.  Once the full force of Rome’s military might is marshaled, battles tend to come to an end very quickly.  This triumphator, I’m told, had done this very thing.  He probably could have refrained from doing so, but then the war would have dragged on and on, and more would have died needlessly.  He had an enemy to defeat.  He knew that if he could bring down or capture just one general in particular, then Rome’s victory would come quickly.  Owing to that, his strategy was to bring it all to a grand conclusion, at a single time and place, and that is just what he did.  He risked a great deal by this, but the enemy was defeated and many were spared. A plan executed flawlessly!  So not only does it seem that he has very much earned this adoption by Caesar, but he has earned the titles that he bears on this day, which were embroidered on his tunic. 

Measure Given, Measure Received (part 7)

These are striking statements.  Jesus is telling His fellow Jews that, as the covenant people of the Creator God, they have a greater obligation to do all of these things of which He has been speaking.  They were not justified in waiting around for better treatment from Rome.  A redress of grievances was unlikely.  Rome was not going to come around.  Though this is certainly difficult, the idea that they were under no obligation to love until they were loved was patently dismissed.  As the covenant people, held to a higher standard and with a greater set of obligations laid upon them, they were to treat others as they wanted to be treated. 

Indeed, Jesus makes the point that loving those who loved them would not mark them out as the Creator God’s covenant people, for this was true of all men, Jew and Gentile.  Yes, all people do this, so it is nothing particularly special.  The higher standard---the true way of the kingdom of God that was the hope of their day---was to love one’s enemies, though the nation may have felt them to be completely undeserving of that love.  To make this point, Jesus adds “And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?  Even sinners do the same” (6:33).   

These two questions and statements are neatly tied to what He has already said.  Jesus had said to those “who are listening”, who had ears to hear (a standard rhetorical tool), to love their enemies and to do good to those who hated them.  Even about the Gentiles, those upon whom His Jewish brethren would look down and dismiss, Jesus says, they do good to those who do good to them.  There is nothing extraordinary about that.  Surely covenant people, those who desire to participate in bringing the kingdom of the Creator God to earth, are asked to live according to a much higher standard.  Tying in His directives concerning the person who takes away a coat, to which you add the tunic (6:29), and not asking for one’s possessions back from those who take them away, Jesus says, “And if you lend to those from you hope to be repaid, what credit is that to you?  Even sinners lend to sinners, so that they may be repaid in full” (6:34).   

By now, Jesus’ point is well made, so He adds, “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back” (6:35).  This is truly revolutionary, and it is a foundation of Jesus’ revolutionary scheme.  Why would they do these things?  What would be the point?  All of this, it would seem, would only serve to maintain and deepen their subjection to Rome, extending their exile from their God’s promises to them.  In response to such a thought, Jesus says, “Then your reward will be great” (6:35).   

Throughout His “sermon,” Jesus has been helping His hearers to actively call to mind the words of Moses from Deuteronomy concerning the blessings and the curses of their God.  At the same time, He wanted to turn their hearts, in love, towards those to whom they were supposed to be shining as the Creator God’s light.  While they may have been naturally inclined, upon hearing about those that hate and persecute them, to think “Then the Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies, on those who hate and persecute you” (Deuteronomy 30:7), Jesus implored them to show preference, love, kindness, and favorable treatment.

Measure Given, Measure Received (part 5)

With such light cast upon the text, the potential exegete is now in a much better position to move forward in a quest to better comprehend what Jesus means when He says, “Give, and it will be given to you… For the measure you use will be the measure you receive” (Luke 6:38a,c)  Before continuing that quest, it is worth reiterating how imperative it is that one must always resist the temptation to pull isolated verses out of their context in order to meet a perceived need or to pursue an ideological agenda.  Rightly understanding the context is the effort that has been undertaken to this point. 

Remember, the Gospels are biographical, historical, literary narratives that reflect specific social settings with both sociological and anthropological underpinnings and presuppositions that are designed to make a theological point.  They are, most assuredly, not merely collections of random sayings or high-minded teachings (this is the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels and similar materials).  If they are treated as such (collections of random sayings or high-minded teachings), it is quite likely that their connection to the Hebrew Scriptures (the foundational narrative for the person of Jesus and all of His followers) will be missed, as that too (Hebrew Scriptures) also function as a grand, historical narrative that makes a theological point.  By failing to adequately tackle statements in their social, historical, cultural, and literary context, a grave disservice is done to the text and to the reader/hearer of the text.

With the points that have been made thus far (parts 1 through 4), this study is now better positioned to assist the reader in becoming one of Jesus’ first-century hearers, so as to feel the full weight of His word when He says, “To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either” (6:29-30), as this is part of the same discourse in which Jesus speaks of giving and receiving.  Though Luke does not make mention of it, it is worth mentioning Jesus’ directive, found in Matthew, in which He says, “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two” (Matthew 5:41).  In Matthew’s “Sermon on the mount”, this follows Jesus’ statement about the tunic.  Luke has Jesus offering this teaching on a plain rather than on a mountain.  This is not to be perceived as a contradiction, as one must be realistic, understanding that Jesus would have repeated such things numerous times in numerous places.  One needs only think of a campaigning politician in order to make this connection. 

Now, though it is certainly possible and necessary to hear such “second mile” talk as a principle of good-hearted, Christian service, those who heard it would not be thinking in such a way.  They would have immediately thought of the requirement of their subservience to Rome, and the lamentable fact that a Roman solider could requisition anybody into service to carry his gear, or his pack, for one mile.  Jesus says to not only go that first mile, but to offer to go a second mile as well.  Why?  Well, numerous reasons come to mind.  The primary reason is that any Roman soldier that allowed a person to carry his gear for more than one mile was subject to harsh discipline.  By insisting on going the second mile, the carrier put the soldier in the position of requesting (begging for) the return of his pack, thus equalizing the relationship between the two.  

Another reason would be that in doing so, that member of the people of the Creator God could make an impression on that soldier, becoming a light to him as their God intended His people to be.  A final reason could be the fact that, at the end of that one mile, the solider is likely to requisition another person for the next mile.  Thus, going the second mile would alleviate that necessity, and also enable the one doing the carrying to relieve one of his fellow brethren from having to be called into the task of bearing up under that burden.  This moves a bit afield of the scope of this study, but this third way of approaching Jesus’ statement about the second mile fits quite well with the Apostle Paul’s instruction and exhortation to the Galatians to “Carry one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).  Paul would have been very familiar with this practice, and apparently, also familiar with the words of Jesus (“the law of Christ”), as the word that he uses for burden there (unlike the one he will later use in the fifth verse of the sixth chapter of Galatians), refers to a soldier’s pack.

Joseph & Jesus (part 1)

Now Joseph’s brothers saw him from a distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him.  They said to another, “Here comes this master of dreams!  Come now, let’s kill him, thrown him into one of the cisterns, and then say that a wild animal ate him.  Then we’ll see how his dreams turn out!” – Genesis 37:18-21  (NET)

Just before this set of verses, which is set within a larger narrative (and within a sociological setting) that must always be borne in mind as the Scriptures are approached, as we are introduced to Joseph, we learn about his dreaming of dreams, and their implication that one day, his father, his mother, and his brothers will all bow down to him.  Coupling this with the fact that he was his father’s favorite---being the son of his father’s favorite wife---and had received special gifts due to that favored status, it is understandable why it is that his brothers did not care for him.  Natural sibling rivalries and jealousy aside, this also takes place within a world defined by honor and shame, and the competition for honor.  Here, Joseph is receiving greater honor from his father, while also attempting to accrue more honor to himself.  In a society in which honor is a limited good, he is creating problems for himself. 

As we are able to view all of Scripture through the lends of the Christ-event and the cross, so much of what we see in the life of Joseph becomes a pre-reflection of themes that will eventually be found in the life of Jesus.  This makes sense, especially when the biographers of Jesus are steeped in the story of Israel, defining themselves in accordance with the shared traditions associated with the stories of their patriarchs.  Thus, as we hear the words of his brothers, do we not also hear those that presented themselves as opponents of Jesus?  Can we not hear the scribes and the Pharisees, along with the other leaders of the people of Israel in Jesus’ day, with whom Jesus would not align Himself and with whom He would not come into agreement in the larger competition for honor, saying “let’s kill Him and see how His dreams turn out”?  Obviously, we do not have to look very far to find the plot to kill Jesus, as we find it executed in the pages of the Gospels. 

As the story goes, Joseph was sent to his brothers by his father.  After a bit of searching, we find that “When Joseph reached his brothers, they stripped him of his tunic, the special tunic that he wore” (37:23).  This was the famed “coat of many colors” with which we are all familiar.  This was the special gift from his father that indicated his special status (enhanced honor standing) and invoked the ire of his siblings (envy---a powerful social force in the honor and shame society, of which Jesus will also be victim). 

Following that, “they took him and threw him into the cistern” (37:24a).  This was done because Reuben, Joseph’s oldest brother (the first son of Jacob and his first wife Leah---ironically, the one that should have been held in the highest honor by his father and brothers), convinced the rest of his brothers not to kill Joseph.  Reuben had said, “Let’s not take his life!...  Don’t shed blood!  Throw him into this cistern that is here in the wilderness, but don’t lay a hand on him” (37:21b-22a).  Following this, we are given a special glimpse into Reuben’s mindset, as we read “Reuben said this so he could rescue Joseph from them and take him back to his father” (37:22b). 

It is likely that Reuben saw this as an opportunity to gain some honor for himself while also returning to his father’s good graces, after having sexual relations with one of his father’s wives (35:22).  We cannot allow ourselves to forget that every interaction in the ancient near east would have a component of the competition for honor.  Not only would this have been the case, but anyone who heard this story told would naturally expect there to be some element of honor competition and would process the story along those lines.  Indeed, it would be counter-intuitive for an interaction, or the story of an interaction such as this, to lack this element.