Blog Archives
Jesus’ Kingdom…
“Pilate replied, ‘Am I a Jew? Your people and the chief priests have delivered you to me — what did you do?’ Jesus answered, ‘My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, my subordinates would strive in order that I not be delivered over to the Jews. But at present, my Kingdom is not from here.”
(John 18:35-36)
I want to begin by noting two words in this text that might otherwise be overlooked. The first word is uJphre/thß (huperetes), which refers to an assistant or a subordinate on some level. Typically, the New Testament employs this term to refer to those soldiers serving under some sort of commander. Yet, oftentimes our English Bibles render this as “servants” here, which is not incorrect, but gives the impression that Jesus is referring to the Apostles and the other Disciples who are following in ministry — a group that hardly represents any threat to either the Roman or Jewish authorities. Instead, this likely should be understood in the context of Matthew 26:53 where Jesus, during his arrest, points out to Peter (who has drawn a sword clumsily) that he has the ability to appeal to his Father for 12 legions of angels that would come to his aid. Understood this way, we see the significance of Jesus’ statement here, for this indeed would be the decimation of both the Roman and the Jewish authorities.
The second word to note is the word, nuvn (nun), translated here as “at present.” Many of our translations omit this word as its role is simply to provide a temporal marker. Yet, that omission misses an important piece of theology — Jesus’ kingdom may not have then been part of this world, but it is now and one day it will fully be. After Jesus’ resurrection he ascended to the throne of glory and has had all things in subjection under his feet (Hebrews 1:3; 2:8). He rules as head of his Church (Ephesians 1:22) and though there is much that is still in open rebellion against him today, he is in the process (through the outworking of the Gospel) of putting all things under his subjection (1 Corinthians 15:25-27) so that at one point in the future every knee will bow and tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:10-11)!
Oh, Pilate, do you not understand? Oh, Caiaphas, will you not bow your knee? Oh, Herod, where is your kingdom now and how will your beloved Caesar come to your aid? Those men, working behind the murder of our Lord, did not realize the extent of their sin and Pilate the extent of the one whom he would usher to his throne. These men have indeed bowed before Jesus, though under the crushing foot of the power of he who spoke the universe into existence. Where is your kingdom now, you who persecuted our Lord? And you who have embraced the prince of the power of the air even in our day — your joy will be cut off unless you repent and turn to Jesus for forgiveness and for grace! Here is the judge of the universe being judged by puny men — the irony is staggering…indeed, Jesus’ kingdom was not of this world…at that time. Loved ones, it is now! Beware to whom you bow allegiance!
How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him
Who brings good news, good news;
Announcing peace, proclaiming news of happiness:
Our God reigns, our God reigns!
– Leonard Smith
Where Does Your Understanding of Jesus Come From?
“Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again and questioned Jesus and said to him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Do you say this from yourself or has another spoken to you concerning me?’”
(John 18:33-34)
Jesus has thus been returned to Pilate’s custody and now Pilate must decide how to handle the matter. His first question to Jesus returns to the matter of politics — is this man a threat to Rome. While it may be a surprise that Jesus breaks his silence for a moment, it ought to be considered that this is, for the first time, a private audience without the priests screaming false accusations. Here, an honest conversation can take place. More importantly, Jesus uses this opportunity to change the discussion from the earthly to the eternal.
What is striking about this dialogue is its similarity to one that Jesus had with Peter earlier in his ministry, recorded in Matthew 16:15-17. Jesus is asking his disciples who people said he was. Many answers were given and then Jesus made the question more personal and asked Peter who he said that Jesus was. Peter’s response has become the bedrock of the Christian profession of faith — “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
But notice what Jesus says to follow: “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” This question of Jesus is a spiritual question. Jesus is asking whether Pilate is saying this because that is what he is thinking or because it has been told by another. The right answer would have been, “because I have been told by the Holy Spirit.” This, of course, was not in Pilate’s vocabulary and thus his response is very different than Jesus‘ — rather than professing Christ, the rock upon which the church is built, he professes that one cannot know anything that is true, but we get ahead of ourselves.
The definition of King and Lord and Savior is radically different depending on the source of that understanding. Many would intellectually call Jesus their Lord or King, but have lives that do not reflect that this is something they really believe. Many call Jesus Savior out of an emotional response, often from an experience during a difficult time in their lives, but when the emotion fades the lifestyle does not reflect the profession. The truest way to test a profession of faith is by watching the person persevere in that faith as they live their life because we can reform our lives for a short time, but lasting change requires a work of the Holy Spirit. Pilate sadly demonstrates the source of his understanding about Jesus (or lack thereof); what is the source of yours?
The Path of Least Resistance
“Finding out that he was under Herod’s authority, he sent him to Herod — who was himself in Jerusalem on that day.”
(Luke 23:7)
We have already alluded to this transition, but it should be noted that Luke, always interested in grounding his Gospel in historical events and names recognized by the Roman people, is the only Gospel writer to include the trial by Herod. This Herod, of course, was the Son of Herod the Great, not the same Herod found in Matthew’s birth account. After the death of Herod (around 4 BC), the Roman Caesar broke up the kingdom of Israel into four portions to better control these otherwise stubborn and rebellious people. This Herod, also known as Antipas, became the “Tetrarch” of Galilee and Perea (a region just east of the Jordan River). Antipas is a shortened form of the Greek, ÔAnti/patroß (Antipatros), meaning “like the father.” And while this Herod may not have been as paranoid as his father was, he certainly was as immoral and allied himself closely with Rome as that suited his political ambitions. Yet, because Jesus grew up in Nazareth in the region of Galilee, he was officially under Herod’s jurisdiction, and this provided Pilate a convenient excuse to shift the burden of Jesus’ sentence upon someone else. Conveniently, Herod was in Jerusalem as well — it was Passover, so anybody that was anybody was in town on that day.
The transfer would simply be a means by which Pilate bought time from having to deal with Jesus’ fate, but I wonder how often we fall into a similar pattern of passing the buck when there are things before us that we just don’t want to weigh in on. That is a practice that we never find Jesus engaging in, though, and that ought to cause us pause. Indeed, as Christians, we are called to act wisely and to pursue justice as well as taking the difficult path — the easy path will only ever lead to destruction — how different that worldview is than the dominant worldview today which advocates taking the road with the least resistance. Interesting…
God’s Sovereignty; The Hands of Wicked Men
“Pilate said to them: ‘You take him and, according to your own laws, judge him.’ But the Jews said, ‘We are not permitted to execute anyone.’ This was to fulfill the word of Jesus which he had spoken indicating by what kind of death he was to be executed.’”
(John 18:31-32)
Recognizing that this was not a political matter, Pilate returns the verdict that the Jews should handle this matter on their own. Yet, under Roman rule, local courts were not permitted to practice capital punishment apart from the charge of blaspheming the temple. Execution (apart from this one exception) was something that the Romans kept to themselves. These Jewish leaders, thus desiring to put Jesus to death, recognized that they needed to have Pilate’s blessings and, as mentioned already, they desired to have someone to blame were the people to be upset at this execution. It is sad how often politics shows up in the realm of the church.
This is significant, though, John points out, not just because of the ones who will put Jesus to death, but in terms of the way in which Jesus would die. Typically, Mosaic law demands death by stoning (John 10:31-33); the Romans practiced crucifixion. Jesus had predicted his death by the hand of Gentiles (Matthew 20:19; Luke 18:32) but also that he would be lifted up like Moses did the bronze serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14; 12:32-33). In fact, the Apostle Paul goes as far as to connect Jesus’ execution with Deuteronomy 21:23 which speaks of one who is hung from a tree being cursed by God (Galatians 3:13) — a sign that Jesus bore the curse for us in his death (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Predictions of his own death may seem rather minor to us as we have heard and read these words over and over many times. But Jesus’ predictions of his death are just one more sign that he was actively in control over all aspects of his life and even of his coming death. There were no accidents nor were there any surprises — this is God’s economy, not man’s. As Isaiah wrote, ‘Yahweh delighted to crush him” (Isaiah 53:10). It is God’s design that is ultimately being worked out here, though by the hands of wicked and lawless men (Acts 2:23).
King of the Jews
“And Jesus was placed before the Governor and the Governor inquired of him, saying, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ But Jesus said, ‘You say so.’”
(Matthew 27:11)
“And Pilate asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ But he answered him saying, ‘You say so.’”
(Mark 15:2)
“And Pilate questioned him saying, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ But he answered him saying, ‘You say so.’”
(Luke 23:3)
As the second of the trials begins, the line of questioning shifts somewhat. The Jews were pressing Jesus repeatedly as to whether he was the Christ and the Son of God. Now that the Judge is no longer a spiritual authority but a political one, he begins asking about Jesus’ political office. Now, it should be said that the Messianic office was political in nature — a kingly office — but the Messianic office is also prophetic and priestly, comprising the three spheres of leadership found in Old Testament Israel. Pilate is a Roman Prefect, this idea of Messianic office does not concern him except if it were to encroach on the political realm that he represents — that is of the Roman Empire. And thus, the nature of Pilate’s question.
But just as Jesus responded to the questions about him being the Son of God (Luke 22:70), he responds to Pilate as well, placing the ball back in Pilate’s court. Though some might see this as nothing more than a fancy debating technique, the sheer fact that Pilate is questioning Jesus implies that people think he may genuinely be the “King” of the Jews.
So, what is a king? A king is a ruler, he instructs and gives commands, and he is a protector of his people as well as an avenger with respect to his enemies. A little later, Jesus will speak of the nature of his kingdom — being a heavenly one and not an earthly one — but, from Pilate’s perspective, this ought to give him pause. Yet, what is more important is the language of the Jews. Here there is a bit of confusion. For Pilate, the Jews were ethnic Jewish people who lived within the various territories of the Roman empire (not just the realms of Judea and Galilee) and who practiced their faith in the synagogues and in the temple. Yet, Scripture tells us a different story. Paul writes that it is not the children descended by flesh that are truly Israel, but those descended through the promise — by faith (Romans 9:6-8; Galatians 3:29).
The citizenship of a believer is not on earth (Philippians 3:20), but citizens in heaven — where Christ rules as King and Lord. In this line, the analogy is sometimes made that our churches are outposts or even embassies of heaven in enemy territory — places of refuge from the wickedness of the world and places that represent another kingdom of which we are a part (just one reason the State has no right to make rules concerning the church). Does that mean that Christ has no rights to rule in this world? Not at all, as creator, he is Lord of all his creation, yet fallen creation has entered into rebellion against their rightful Lord and has followed the “prince of the power of the air” — Satan himself. One day, our Lord has promised to return to wipe away his enemies utterly, but not until he brings to himself all of his elect throughout the ages. Once all the elect are gathered into the church and the last martyr dies for their faith, then He will come again and remake heaven and earth free from sin and once again the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth will be one under the single head of Jesus Christ the Lord.
Politics…
“Thus Pilate went out to them and said, ‘What charge do you bring against this man?”
(John 18:29)
Interestingly, John is the only one of the four Gospel writers that records this question from Pilate. The other evangelists simply record the Jews coming to Pilate and accusing Jesus, but John inserts the proper protocol in this context — that of waiting for the Roman official to address them before they start spewing forth hatred and lies. There is no question that there is a bit of a political dance that takes place with this trial, with the Jews seeking to manipulate Pilate into serving their ends (and thus in their minds, taking the blood of Jesus off of their own hands).
Certainly news of some sort has preceded the Jewish officials to Pilate and his aides have given him some degree of counsel as to the nature of this mob as they bring Jesus to him. The relationship between the Jews and Rome had always been a trying one and there is no question that Pilate had in the back of his mind ways in which he could maneuver this in his favor — or at least in a way that would maintain the status quo. Either way, politics as usual is about to begin.
The sad thing about political maneuvering is that we find it taking place in the church, not just in the broader culture. People forget that the church does not belong to them, but that instead it belongs to Christ Jesus. How folks fall into the trap of using church to meet their personal needs, to achieve their personal ends, or otherwise to build a reputation for themselves rather than to build a reputation for Christ. How often even pastors fall into the trap of tip-toeing over Truth because they fear it will offend or chase away members or visitors to the congregation. All of these things are no better than what we see Pilate and the Jewish officials engaged in — protocol, perhaps is being met, but personal agendas are being sought. May our lives and our churches seek Christ’s will in life, not our own.
Whose Hypocrisy?
“And when dawn came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people deliberated regarding Jesus so that they might put him to death. They bound him and led him away, delivering him to Pilate the governor.”
(Matthew 27:1-2)
“And at dawn, immediately the chief priests made deliberations with the elders and scribes and the whole of the Sanhedrin. They bound Jesus and took him away, delivering him to Pilate.”
(Mark 15:1)
“And the whole council of them arose and led him before Pilate.”
(Luke 23:1)
“Therefore they led Jesus away from Caiaphas to the Praetorium. But as it was dawn, they did not go inside the Praetorium in order that they not be defiled but could eat the passover.”
(John 18:28)
Do you see the irony of John’s account? Here are the priests and other leaders of the church conducting a secret and illegal trial designed to frame an innocent man being concerned about becoming ritually defiled by entering Pilate’s headquarters. It should not surprise us that Jesus called these men “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27). They are concerned with the outward forms but have no regard for the inward spirit that is supposed to be guided by the forms. How often in the Old Testament we find God telling the people how he hated all of their sacrifices — not because the sacrifice was bad, but because they were just going through the motions and performing a ritual, not living a life of devotion.
Though we don’t live lives marked by blood sacrifices and ritual cleanliness any longer, how often it is that we end up acting in the way that these Jewish leaders did. How often we fail to get involved in the lives of those who are hurting because of what others in the community might say about them (or us!). How often we fail to evangelize prostitutes, drug addicts, homeless, or convicts in our midst. Our churches often participate in jail Bible studies and ministries, but how often do we embrace those same people once they have been released from jail? We are often quick to invite new people to church if they are “like us,” but what of those from a different cultural background, skin tone, or socio-economic strata? What do we mean then when we say that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek when we exclude people because of their background? How often we have condemned the hypocrisy of these Jewish leaders and have missed seeing our own hypocrisy?
Thus, it is in the midst of this that the Jews determine that their only solution is to put Jesus to death, and that is exactly what they seek to do by taking Jesus to Pilate. If you were a territory under Roman rule, it was Romans who reserved the right to capital punishment except for the case of blasphemy — hence their striving to convict Jesus of anything remotely close to a blasphemous statement — so it is to Rome they must appeal and thus to Rome they go, in this case in the form of the Roman representative who governed Judea — Pilate.
Blasphemy!
“Then the High Priest rent his garments, saying, ‘Blasphemy! What witnesses yet do we have to have? Behold, you have now heard blasphemy! What do you rule?’ And they replied, ‘He is liable to death.’”
(Matthew 26:65-66)
“Then the High Priest rent his tunic, saying, ‘What witnesses yet do we have to have? You have heard blasphemy! What do you see?’ Then all of them condemned him as one liable to death.”
(Mark 14:63-64)
“Then he said, ‘What witnesses yet do we have to have? We have heard it from his own mouth!’”
(Luke 22:71)
A point, perhaps, in clarification. Some of our English translations render the High Priest as saying that they had heard “His blasphemy,” but that is not entirely accurate. Jesus has spoken no blasphemy and the text never inserts the personal pronoun within the sentence of Caiaphas. To make such an insertion implies that Caiaphas might have actually been confused about what Jesus was saying, thinking that Jesus had made a blasphemous statement. Yet, a better picture is of the High Priest manipulating the events of this trial like a puppeteer would put on a play and is seeking to use verbal force and innuendo to achieve the ends he has sought to achieve. He is a bully and those leaders amongst the priests who are with him understand that the only way to keep their positions and “move up in the organization” is to placate this forceful individual.
And of course, blasphemy had to be the charge that Caiaphas was seeking because it was the only charge within the context of being ruled by Rome, that they could legitimately seek the death penalty (in fact, it had to be a blasphemous act in or around the temple). Yet, there is no blasphemy on Jesus’ lips. Even in human terms, to speak of himself being a “son of God” is not that unusual for God’s people (Genesis 6:2; Deuteronomy 32:8; Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; Galatians 3:26). Similarly, there had been many who identified themselves as messiah’s of a sort, and again, this usually did not get the priests into such a frenzy. It is the fact that Jesus’ actions confirmed exactly what the prophets predicted of the Messiah and his miracles confirmed his divinity that got them upset — furthermore, Jesus did not simply claim to be a Son of God, but he claimed to be God himself — which, again was confirmed by prophesy and miracles — which would mean that the priests would have to submit to his authority, thus losing their own. That was something that the High Priest could not consider.
Isn’t it sad how often we get caught up in our own pride, our own status, and our own agenda — even for the church. Isn’t it sad how often we fail to notice God working through the humble in our midst when we wish to achieve a certain end or recognition. And isn’t it sad that we so often fail to notice God’s authority in our lives when we feel that we might achieve our ends. Oh, dear friends, what shall we do other than repent? For we are God’s, God is not ours. We are the clay in his hands — he does not serve us that we might achieve our ends. May we walk with humility and grace as we live our lives in this world and not seek our own ends, but seek Christ’s ends for us.
Tearing Down Temples
“They said, ‘This man said, ‘I have the power to demolish the Temple of God and to rebuild in three days.’’”
(Matthew 26:61)
“And certain ones arose and they bore false witness about him, saying, ‘We heard him say, ‘I will demolish this temple that was made with human hands and in three days, I will build another that is not made with human hands.’’ But their witness was not in agreement, even in this.”
(Mark 14:57-59)
So, even when false witnesses agree on the big lie, they still can’t get the details in order — such, of course is a standard principle in police investigation when trying to uncover who is lying about what happened — but can you imagine the level of frustration that these Jewish leaders must have been feeling at this point? With every botched false witness their blood-pressure probably rose a few notches and now, when they finally locate people who will testify about the same lie — there are holes between those stories as well. So much for making a staged trial look anything but staged … serves them right!
In terms of the confusion of these lying witnesses, what we find is a classic case of confusing the context — or of combining similar statements of Jesus into one that means something entirely different than what was originally meant in each of the two contexts respectively.
All four Gospels refer to Jesus’ discussion of tearing down the Temple, but John records an entirely different account than do Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In John’s Gospel, we find Jesus cleansing the temple early in his ministry and the Jewish authorities don’t get angry with him for his action, but simply ask for a sign that would show them on whose authority that Jesus cast out the money-changers and sellers. Jesus’ response to their request for a sign is to say: “Demolish this temple and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). What follows is John explaining that Jesus was talking about the temple of his body — hence the sign of Jesus’ authority to cleanse the temple would be found when he dies and raises again from the dead. It has nothing to do with the physical temple in Jerusalem, though the Jewish authorities do go away somewhat confused, muttering that it took them 46 years to build the temple. The parables that Jesus tells consistently leave the spiritually blind — blind (Matthew 13:10-17).
The Synoptic Gospels, though, record a different account. In Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, and Luke 19:43-44, Jesus is prophesying the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans. This passage is part of what is sometimes referred to as the “Olivet Discourse,” a passage that prophetically looks forward not only to the final destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, but also to the end of times. In these passages, Jesus speaks nothing of a rebuilding — either physical or otherwise, nor does he mention anything about three days.
The interesting thing is that the two accounts do connect theologically, but not in the way that the Jewish authorities are understanding. Indeed, God will send the Roman armies to destroy the physical temple in Jerusalem. This temple was built by those that King Cyrus sent back to Jerusalem to rebuild and restore their cultural home and then it was added to by King Herod the Great in an attempt to win favor with the people. Yet, this is not the “Greater” temple that is prophesied by the prophet Haggai (Haggai 2:9). The Greater Temple is Christ himself, as alluded to by John in the prologue to his Gospel (John 1:14). Thus the temple that the Romans destroyed was meant as a foreshadowing of Christ.
The Temple that the Romans would destroy (not leaving one stone upon another, as Jesus prophesied) was also a place where sacrifices took place. Again, these sacrifices anticipated the coming sacrifice of Jesus Christ — their only significant meaning, again, being found in the sacrifice that Jesus would make on the cross. Thus, with the death and resurrection of Jesus, the need for bloody sacrifices was brought to a close (Hebrews 10:10) and thus the temple no longer served any sacrificial purpose. The Jews, in rejecting Christ, would continue to worship at the shadow instead of worshiping the glorious Son, and thus God, in judgment, sent the Romans to wipe the temple flat to prevent any more sacrifices from being made (His Son is enough!). And, lest later Jews or confused Christians seek to reestablish a sacrificial system on the temple mount, God sent the Muslim Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan to build the Haram ash Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) on the old Temple mount, the well-known “Dome of the Rock” being its central point. The rebuilding of the Jewish temple would first require the demolition of this Muslim holy site, something that is unlikely to take place. Once again, this is God’s design to prevent the Jews or misguided Christians from rebuilding the “shadow” that Christ fulfilled.
Indeed, the two accounts are connected, but certainly not in the way these false witnesses are connecting them…nor perhaps in the way that some Christians connect them today. Nevertheless, this false trial will move forward, witnesses or no, for the end had already been determined not only by the Jewish authorities, but by the almighty plan of God himself.
False Witnesses
“Now the chief priests and the whole of the Sanhedrin were looking for a false witness against Jesus so that they might put him to death. Yet, though many false witnesses came forward, none could be found until eventually two emerged.”
(Matthew 26:59-60)
“Now the chief priests and the whole of the Sanhedrin were seeking a witness against Jesus to put him to death but none could be found, for though many bore false witness against him, none of the witnesses agreed.”
(Mark 14:55-56)
This is one of those areas where a harmony is extremely helpful in trying to sort out what was taking place. It is clear that the leaders in the Sanhedrin have already decided what the outcome of this trial is to be. At the same time, they are still going through the motions, trying to make this seem a legitimate trial. Realistically this could be explained on the basis that they wanted to discredit Jesus in the eyes of the Jewish people and likely they were trying to save face with the Romans by presenting Jesus as a tried and convicted man.
To do this, they entertained many false witnesses. You can almost imagine the chief priests rounding up their cronies and manufacturing stories against Jesus, twisting the truth to suit their own ends. Yet, something wonderful happens. The Sanhedrin sitting as judge and jury over Jesus cannot find two witnesses that agree on their stories. You can almost see the frustration in their faces as they bear the contrived stories of witness after witness (that they have sought out even!) who cannot agree on what they heard and saw.
So what is the big deal? Why bother finding witnesses who can corroborate each other’s stories? It is meant as a false trial anyway. Their goal was not to slap Jesus on the wrist nor was it to imprison him. Their goal was to see him dead and according to Jewish law, no person can be put to death unless on the testimony of two or three reliable witnesses (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6). They looked hard and wide and eventually found their witnesses, but it likely took some coaching. That is the significance of Matthew’s statement that eventually two emerged — they were looking for, as Mark points out, two false witnesses whose false accounts agreed with one another.
God is Truth and there is no darkness within him. The only way one can accuse the Lord of Truth is with the lies of the devil — false and manufactured — twisted realities to suit wicked ends. The bottom line is that while Truth can exist on its own, evil must have truth to twist and manipulate. Yet, how often we are guilty of allowing our ideas to be warped and twisted by the false witnesses out there in the name of tolerance or out of the fear of consequences if you speak truth in an unpopular way. The bottom line is that we must let our witness of Christ be visible and clear in this world around us, if we don’t, we are no less guilty than the procession of false witnesses that walked before this morning of Jesus’ trial.
Kalos and Kakos
“Jesus answered him, ‘If I spoke wickedly, testify as to the evil; but if nobly, then why did you beat me?’”
(John 18:23)
There is a certain irony in Jesus‘ choice of words. Some of our modern translations render Jesus as saying, “If I have spoken wrongly…” which gives the impression that Jesus is defending his own deportment with respect to the High Priest. Indeed, the man who struck Jesus did scold him for speaking to Annas in such a way, so it is natural that such an interpretation would be made. Yet, that is not what Jesus is saying. This is a false and unjust trial and the man to whom he is speaking is not really the High Priest anyhow. In such a context, what role does protocol have in the first place?
The subordinate struck Jesus for now begging before Annas. Jesus’ response is righteous, truthful, and contains a level of indignation that, were Annas and his cohorts really aware of the man to whom they spoke, should have reduced them to a quiver. Jesus is going like a lamb to the slaughter and soon will remain silent before his accusers, but here in the pre-trial, righteous anger is found to lie behind these words.
The irony in Jesus’ statement can be found in his choice of language before Annas — in two words to be specific: kako/ß (kakas) and kalw◊ß (kalos). The word kako/ß (kakas) refers to that which is evil, wicked, unwholesome, defiled, etc… In the Greek culture, it was the polar opposite of that which is kalw◊ß (kalos), which means noble, beautiful, morally upright, or done in a manner that is pleasing. When used together like this, the contrast is between that which is moral and that which is immoral, that which is virtuous and that which is foul. Jesus is essentially saying, “You who have acted unrighteously toward me, are you going to accuse me of unrighteousness?” Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, indeed.
Of course, this statement also frames all that will take place during these trials. From beginning to end, there is no legitimacy and all the testimonies of witnesses are staged. Often, as we live out our faith in this fallen world, it can seem as if unbelievers or unbelief in general is out to get us — Satan roaring like a lion looking to devour us if given the chance. Peter reminds us that this kind of behavior should not be that surprising to us for this is the way that Jesus was treated (1 Peter 2:21) — and if anyone can testify to that great truth it is Peter — Peter who on this night would deny his relationship with Jesus three times. John, who is also there that night, reminds us that we ought not be too surprised when the world hates us (1 John 3:13). The world hated Jesus first and we ought not be too surprised that we who are servants are treated in the same manner as our master (John 15:20). In fact, be of good cheer — for if the world does not listen to you it very well may be a sign that you are getting things right.
A Debt of Love I Owe…
“But when he said this, one of the subordinates who was standing there gave a blow to Jesus saying, ‘Is this how you answer the High Priest?’”
(John 18:23)
Again, many of our English translations like to render this word as “officer” when it comes to the one who slapped Jesus, giving the impression that this was one of the military guards. A better translation is subordinate, particularly recognizing that this term often refers to governmental offices, not military offices. Thus, we should see this man not as one of the soldiers, but as one of the underlings of Annas, perhaps even one of the Sadducees in authority — we are just not told. And this man strikes Jesus because Jesus refuses to submit himself before Annas in this false trial.
It is interesting that this subordinate also refers to Annas as the “High Priest” although the title rightly belongs to Caiaphas. Thus adds a further degree of support to the theory that Annas is still pulling the political strings of the High Priest’s office from behind the scenes and has likely arranged the events of the night to bring Jesus under Caiaphas’ judgment.
The blow that is struck upon Jesus will be the first amongst many, though it stands out as one of contempt and pride — it is the blow of an underling, likely trying to gain credibility in the eyes of his master, though truly only doing the devil’s deed. Many of our English translations render this phrase in such a way as to argue that the man slapped Jesus. That could be the case, though the word could also refer to one clubbing another with a stick or another blunt object. Were this man one of the mob that was so armed with torches and clubs from earlier that night, it could conceivably be the club and not the hand with which this man struck our Lord.
Loved ones, the one thing that we must keep painfully clear and before our eyes is that Jesus did not need to endure such suffering. Yet, in an outpouring of his grace, he chose to suffer for us by the hand of wicked men. Jesus could have called legions of angels to his defense and left the entire countryside scattered with the bodies of his enemies, but he chose to go like a lamb to the slaughter, be beaten and abused, falsely tried, and then horrifically executed on the cross. He did that for me. He did that for you, that is, if you are trusting in Him as your Lord and Savior. They say that the story of the Gospel is the “Greatest Story Ever Told” and there is truth in that claim. Yet, it is a story that not only travels to great heights in terms of the resurrection and promise of glory — but it is a story that travels to the greatest depths of misery — human and divine — as Jesus enters the household of the wicked to bear the sins of the wicked (you and me!) on his shoulders — and not only facing false judgment by the hands of wicked men, but facing righteous judgment by the hands of a holy God, who crushed him for our sin. Jesus was our substitute, so when you are tempted to wag the finger at these hypocritical Jewish authorities, remember first that he did this for you … and he did this for me. We are the reason Jesus gave himself into the hands of these men, thanks be to God! But oh, my soul, what a debt of love I owe to the King of Grace!
Boldly and Plainly
“Jesus answered him, ‘I have spoken frankly to the world — I have always taught in the synagogues and in the temple where all the Jews gather. And in secret I have said nothing. Why then do you question me? Question the ones who heard me as to what I said to them. Look, they know what I said!”
(John 18:20-21)
To those who like to insist that the word “world” — ko/smoß (kosmos) — always refers to all people without any exceptions, here is a great illustration of the breadth of the term. For clearly, the world of whom Jesus is saying he has spoken to is not talking about all people without any exceptions. Instead, Jesus is implying that he has spoken to all kinds of people in the length of his ministry and in doing so he has spoken openly, boldly, plainly, and frankly. Certainly, in some contexts, the word ko/smoß (kosmos) can refer to all people without exception, but it must be noted that there is a breadth in the usage of the term such that context must be the key to understanding this word’s meaning when it is used.
What is more significant is Jesus’ statement to Annas that he has spoken nothing in secret. There are some who would challenge this statement citing the times when Jesus took the disciples to the side to instruct them or who would cite that the purpose of Jesus’ parables was to keep the unbelievers in the dark as to what Jesus was communicating (Matthew 13:13). While it is true that Jesus did take his disciples to the side on occasion, there was nothing secretive about these actions and the disciples were there as a witness to what it is that Jesus taught. Jewish culture also required two to three witnesses to charge a person with a serious crime — Jesus always took at least three (Peter, James, and John) with him so that they could record what was said and done. In terms of the parables, they were being spoken publicly, if the spiritual truth behind the message was unrevealed that stood as condemnation against the unbelieving Jewish officials, not as judgment against Jesus.
The bottom line is that Jesus is not going to recognize that these false judges have any authority over him — thus he does not legitimize their late night travesty of justice by answering their questions. He simply says, go ask the witnesses. If the witnesses would speak truth, there would be nothing that they could charge Jesus with — but truthfully or otherwise, the wicked priests had arrested Jesus for the purpose of murdering him — this evening would not come to a close without them making their charges — in this case, through trumped up false witnesses, but here I get ahead of myself.
And thus begins the false trial of Jesus in Caiaphas’ court. Perhaps, though for us, it is most important that we ask the question of ourselves — what have we been teaching others by our words and by our actions? Can we say, with Jesus, that our faith has been articulated in a way that would be considered bold, frank, or otherwise plain? Could witnesses to the things we have said and done articulate what we really believe? Would those witnesses even know you as a Christian by what you have talked about on a lunch break at work or at the ballfield? Sadly, I fear that “bold, plain, or frank” would not be an adjective that could accurately describe the lives of many professing Christians in America today. Yet, if the problem is noticed, the next step is to correct the error. Will you do so in your life? Will you strive to the kind of witness that speaks truthfully of Christ to a world that is in desperate need of the Gospel?
The First round of Questions
“Then the High Priest asked Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching.”
(John 18:19)
In light of our discussions above, the High Priest being spoken of here must be Annas — referring to him in this way respecting his reputation and influence (as well as past title) not so much his formal title at the present time. As we labeled it above, we might refer to Annas as “High Priest Emeritus.” Were this not Annas doing the questioning, verse 24 (where Annas sends him over to Caiaphas) would make no sense.
We do not know a great deal of details with respect to this interaction. Clearly, it is not cordial based on what takes place next and it is rather brief (again substantiating that this is likely Caiaphas’ home, though Annas has likely claimed “first dibs” on questioning Jesus as he is likely the one who coordinated the mob that arrested Jesus.
What needs to be noted is that Annas is not only asking Jesus about his theological positions (kind of a hostile Presbytery exam), but also about his disciples. Jesus’ disciples escaped arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane and have gone into hiding. John seems to have connections in the High Priest’s household, so he stays with Jesus to witness events and Peter stays close to John — John getting Peter into the courtyard because of those contacts. Nevertheless, Annas is still after blood and wants to see this movement crushed. The best way to do so, is not just to silence the leader, but also the most significant spokespersons — the inner circle of disciples. Annas did not rise to power and influence without knowing how to silence his enemies and that seems to be exactly what he is doing at this point. Caiaphas can create the political trial; Annas wants to stop the movement.
Friends, it is often easy for us to read the Gospel accounts and to judge Peter and the others for their flight from Jesus’ side. Understand, two things, though. First, the level of hostility that is being expressed here is tremendously high. Were the disciples found, they too would have been similarly tried and killed. Secondly, Jesus had already promised that he would lose none of those that the Father had given to him (John 18:9). Though it was a rather ignoble means of preservation, it was God’s design for the preservation of his own during this time of great wickedness.
Yet, we are still left with the question. Were Jesus questioned about his teachings and disciples today, would we be at risk? Or, perhaps to put the question more plainly — if our words and actions were put on trial, would we be convicted as a Christian? Would the establishment of this world see us as a threat? I propose (sadly) that in most cases, the answer would be, “no.” As Christians, we have grown much too comfortable in this culture we live in and have grown to accept many of the evils around us as “necessary,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Loved ones, let us examine our life and teachings — examine the disciples we are making, particularly of our children — and seek to live and teach in such a way that we can genuinely be convicted of being Christian and even a threat to the status quo of the unbelieving world and their humanism.
The Ram in the Thicket
“And Abraham lifted up his eyes and he looked and beheld a ram behind him caught fast in a thicket by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and went up to make a whole burnt offering of it instead of his son.”
(Genesis 22:13)
Substitution is perhaps the word for the day when it comes to the redemptive work of God. God substituted the ground in the place of Adam and Eve when entering into the curse (Genesis 3:17), animals were repeatedly substituted for the sins of the people (see the book of Leviticus!!!), and ultimately, God would send his Son to substitute his divine person in our place. Justice must be done and rightful justice for sin is death eternal. God sent his Son to bear the weight of death eternal so that we might be given life eternal.
Here Abraham is given a substitute for Isaac but only because a greater substitute is coming. The blood of animals, in and of itself, cannot purify, but can only demonstrate to us the horrid nature of our sin. Think of how the blood flowed in ancient Israel — sacrifice after sacrifice made for millions of people. The blood of animals was but a pointer that there was a need for a perfect sacrifice to be made … not the blood of an animal, but the blood of a perfect man who could intercede for us. God was the only one who could substitute himself in our stead, which is why his Son took on flesh. And, soon after the sacrifice of Jesus the Temple was destroyed, never to be rebuilt. And there is no need for rebuilding as Jesus’ sacrifice is the perfect and final sacrifice for his people.
The ram was a reprieve for Abraham and Isaac, pointing to the great Lamb of God who would come. It might be a bit of a stretch to compare the thicket in which this ram was caught to the tree (cross) upon which Jesus was hung, though it is worth noting that in this very place, the King of Glory would one day come to redeem mankind and perhaps here, in the redemption of his son, Abraham and Isaac not only got a taste for the grief of God in the death of his Son, but the joy of salvation.
How often, as Christians, we take the offer of salvation lightly and for granted. Arguably that is partly because we have such a low view of hell and the realty thereof. There are even some who reject the whole notion of Hell to begin with, considering it an antiquated tool to keep rambunctious children in line with the rules of the community. But the Bible does not let us draw such conclusions, indeed the Bible trumpets not only the reality of the place, but the horrors thereof. And the Bible insists that the only way one can avoid hell as a destination is through faith in Jesus Christ…something we neither deserve or can earn by doing good deeds. It is a gift of grace to those God equips and allows to believe. May we who have been given a gift we did not deserve be grateful for that gift. There is no questioning the extent of Abraham’s gratitude at this point in his life; may those who know us also say that there is no questioning the gratitude we feel for the work of Christ on our behalf.
The Active and Passive Obedience of Isaac – A Shadow of Christ
“In this way they came to the place which God had told him and there Abraham built the altar and arranged the wood on it. He bound Isaac, his son, and set him on the altar on top of the wood. Then Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.”
(Genesis 22:9-10)
It is at this point where the faith of Isaac comes to surface next to the faith of his father. There is no longer any doubt as to whether Isaac understands what is going on for he has likely seen his father make many such sacrifices of animals. Even still, Isaac allows his father to bind his hands and feet like one would bind an animal for the slaughter and then lay his bound body on the fire. There is also no question that if Isaac chose to resist, this teenager could have easily maneuvered around his centenarian father. Yet, Isaac chooses to submit to his father’s will and his obedience to his father here moves from an active obedience to a passive one, trusting the call of God upon his life.
How, in Isaac’s submission, we see an image of Christ. Being God, Christ could have chosen not to go to the cross — yet such a choice would have condemned us all. In love for us and in submission to his Father, Jesus chose to go to the cross and submit to the cruelty of the sacrifice that was laid out before him. Isaac gives us a picture of that submission in his own life though we rarely give Isaac the credit for being a man of faith.
Abraham, too, stands as a man of faith, trusting God to fulfill his promise even through resurrecting his son from the dead. There will be another son (Jesus) who will indeed do just that — die and be raised from the grave to glory. While the promise to Abraham was through Isaac, the one who the promise is ultimately guaranteed by is Christ Jesus, who indeed is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15 as well as being the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16). Abraham believed the promise would be fulfilled through Isaac even if God had to raise him from the dead; God made his promise fulfilled and consummated through Christ, His Son, by resurrecting him from the dead that our hope and life may be in Him. Isaac is a shadow for us of the Christ to come. Praise be to God that he has indeed come and given us life and life eternal.
We have a Stronghold in the God of Jacob
“Yaheweh Tsabaoth is with us;
A high stronghold for us is the God of Jacob. Selah!”
(Psalm 46:8 {verse 7 in English})
What a wonderful statement the psalmist makes. This is the kind of statement that ought to be set in stone on our patios and stenciled on our walls. It should be the words we are reminded of when we wake up and engage the day and that give us comfort when we lie down to sleep. Our God is a refuge that will keep us and preserve us and in his hands we have no need to fear.
This verse is begun with a fairly common title of God: tØwaDbVx hÎwh◊y (Yahweh Tsabaoth) — literally, “Yahweh of Armies” or “LORD of Hosts.” Hosts, in this context, are not those people that wait tables, but are the hosts of soldiers at the beck and call of a general. In this case, it is the Heavenly Host that is spoken of, the hosts of angels that serve at the word and command of God on high. As Christians, we often only think of God in terms of “Jesus meek and mild” and forget that after the resurrection the language we find describing our Lord is of a mighty warrior coming on a horse to destroy his enemies and to liberate his people from the effects of sin in the world around us. This is the mighty God we serve and this is the reason we should have no fear — for Yahweh of Armies is with us!
And not only that, but our God provides for us a stronghold in which to dwell. The word for stronghold, used 11 times in the Book of Psalms (twice in this psalm!) is derived from the Hebrew word bÅgDc (sagab), which refers to something that is inaccessible to the reach of human hands. Thus the idea of a stronghold is not simply marked by strong walls of defense, but it is marked by a high elevation where none but the eagles will roost. And it is from that vantage point that the psalmist describes those who trust in Yahweh as their God. Though the enemy may roar like a lion, the stronghold is quite secure.
So, beloved, why do you fear from within such a stronghold? Do you not trust your God to protect you from slander and from sword? Do you fear the enemy who would malign your name when you are safely behind the walls of our God? Do you fear harm when the mighty hosts of heaven are unleashed in our defense? Loved ones, why do we go about our lives acting with such fear when it comes to sharing what is true with those around us. Do we love those around us so little that we will not show them the pathway to safety in God’s arms — a pathway that leads through the gate of Jesus alone — that we are unwilling to show them the way? How often we act as if we are safe it does not matter what happens to others around us. Is that love? We call it courage when someone runs into a burning building to save someone who is trapped inside; why do we Christians exhibit such cowardice when it comes to the many people trapped in their sin that dwell around us? Loved ones, we have a mighty God to protect us, let us cast fear to the side and boldly share the truth about life in the confidence of the stronghold we have.
Swearing an Oath
“And Abraham said, ‘I swear.’”
(Genesis 21:24)
My mother always told me that it wasn’t nice to swear… Of course, she was talking about something a little different than what Abraham is doing at the moment. In this case, Abraham is taking an oath and promising an alliance between himself and Abimelek. Yet, doesn’t Jesus also say that we ought not take oaths (Matthew 5:34-37)? What shall we make of this action? Can we say that Abraham is sinning here and be done with the discussion? No, for in the very next chapter, we find God swearing an oath (Genesis 22:16, Hebrews 6:13), and we certainly don’t want to accuse God of sin, confusion, or otherwise making a mistake. So what do we do with this apparent contradiction?
The first thing that we must affirm is that Abraham is swearing an oath to a pagan leader. And, as we mentioned before, this is a mark of the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham (that the world will find their blessing in Abraham and in his seed). And along with that affirmation, then, we must conclude that what Abraham is doing is a good thing and indeed scripture never condemns him for this.
So what about Jesus’ statement that we should not swear an oath at all, but simply let our word be “yes” or “no”? The answer is found in the context of Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has been intensifying the Law of God so that we can begin to get a handle on how we are intended to live that lies behind the Moral Law and as to just how sinful we are. In verse 33, Jesus begins a section of his sermon that focuses not only on the 9th Commandment, but also the 3rd Commandment. Both of these commandments deal with a kind of false witness — one toward our fellow man and the other toward heaven, and both typically for personal gain. Often, people use the name of God as a way of getting others to believe that a contract will be fulfilled or that a promise will not be broken, and the 3rd Commandment says that this is sin. Jesus says, don’t do this, but let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no.”
Yet, in the case with Abraham, we do not find him swearing for his own gain — the same is true for the scripture that speaks of God swearing an oath. Neither God nor Abraham benefit, but the oath is designed to bless those who would hear the oath, those who would draw assurance from the fact that an oath was stated, not just a “yes” or “no,” but with the emphasis of an oath. Thus, in application, when we are debating where an oath might be permissible, the same principle holds true. Who will benefit from the oath? If you are the one who will benefit, then you are using God’s name for your own gain. But if others will benefit (as happens when you swear an oath to tell “the truth and only the truth” on the witness stand), then it does not stand out of accord with the teaching of Jesus and with the teaching of the rest of scripture.
Bottom line is that Abraham is choosing to bless Abimelek and in this blessing we find a partial fulfillment of God’s promise that the nations will find their blessing through Abraham and through Abraham’s children. As Christians, we are the descendants of Abraham (Galatians 3:9,29). The question that we must pose to ourselves is whether or not those who live in the midst of the Church would believe that we are a blessing to them. Would unbelievers say, “I never have any interest in becoming a Christian, but I am glad that the Christian Church is there because their presence is a blessing to me and to my community.” Sadly, my concern is that so many Christian churches have become inwardly focused and self-serving that this is not the case. May indeed we repent of our selfishness and live in such a way (individually and corporately) that unbelievers will come to us, as Abimelek did with Abraham, and ask for our blessings.
Safety Inside Our Bondage
A strange thing sometimes happens when people have been held captive for a period of several days or longer. In certain instances, the captive begins to associate with his or her captors, and in some cases, not only resists rescue, but serves to help their captors in their criminal activities. This is typically called “Stockholm Syndrome,” named after an event that took place in 1973 in Stockholm, Sweden where four captives were taken and held in a botched bank robbery. Six days later, the hostages both resisted rescue and even refused to testify against their captors. The 1974 kidnapping of Patty Hearst by members of the Symbionese Liberation Army. Not only did Hearst’s sympathies run with her captors, but she would aid them in robbing banks. There have been some who have suggested that this syndrome helps to explain a variety of cases where captives become sympathetic to their captors, participation in cults, and even the loyalty that some people feel toward the use of PC computers☺.
It is granted that in kidnapping cases, statistics have found that this particular syndrome is a minority case, but I believe that if we apply the principle more broadly, we will find how remarkably common an experience it happens to be. How often, we stay in a situation that is bad, but has become comfortable. How often do people stay in bad jobs where an employer constantly berates them simply because they have become used to the setting and are made to feel that they would be a failure in any other setting. Women often stay in abusive marriages for the same reasons—their self identity becomes dependent upon the identity of their abuser and thus to abandon the abuser is to abandon themselves. Even children experience this in relationships. How often kids stay “friends” with people who treat them very badly because they feel so insecure outside of even that bad relationship. Teenage girls stick with “boyfriends” who treat them badly for the same reason—their self-identity has become so interwoven with their boyfriend that they cannot see themselves without him—no matter how better off they might be. The emotional and spiritual bondage begins to provide a wall of safety, within which people find comfortable.
It seems that this principle, as we take it broadly, can also apply to habitual sins in people’s lives. Their sins, though grievous, have become comfortable and being without those sins, while perhaps desirous at times, is fearful. Certainly, recidivism rates that are calculated by sociologists and criminologists would concur with this assessment. In Hebrews 12:1, the author refers to sins that are eujperi/statoß (euperistatos), which refers to things that ensnare, constrict, or otherwise bind themselves to you. Yet, the author of Hebrews does not simply allow us to look at those sins and leave them alone—you must put them off, lay them to the side, get rid of them! Why? The writer goes on to say that because Jesus has endured the cross to redeem us from the power of sin and death, we must live lives that reflect that redemption. The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17 that in Christ we are a new creation—in other words the new order should reflect the death of the old order in our lives.
Every time a Christian chooses to engage in serious habitual sin, that sends a message to those who are watching that the Gospel is not true. Certainly Christians will sin and will stumble into error and certainly we will not be perfect until we are with Christ in heaven. Yet a falter or stumble is not quite the same as habitual sin. In fact, the Apostle John would suggest that the presence of habitual sin may be a sign that the person is not a genuine believer (1 John 3:4-6). These are hard words for some, but for others, they should be words of assurance and empowerment. For in Christ we have been made a new creation—He delivers us from our sin—we are free! Habitual sin for the believer is a willful choice to turn back to the things from which we have earlier been delivered. It is a choice to go back to the slavers and away from the freedom that our Great Liberator—our divine Goel—who has come to take us to freedom. In some senses, we might refer to it as a spiritual form of Stockholm Syndrome, but Biblically we would say this falls under the heading of spiritual warfare. Whenever we are tempted with a major habitual sin, we are given a choice, will we trust the promises of Christ or will we slink back into the dark self-identification with sin that so long has kept us in chains.
A Living Parable
It has disturbed me to see the attitude taken by many toward the creation account as rendered by Genesis One. Even within my own denomination, one which finds its theological moorings in the Westminster Confession of Faith, there are many who have accepted “alternate explanations” of the account. Some have gone as far as to say that those who hold to a literal, six 24-hour day reading of Genesis One are “trouble-makers” in the grand scheme of the theological conversation. Ultimately, people are choosing to interpret their Bibles on the basis of their science and not to interpret their science in light of the plain teaching of the Bible.
As we look at the life of Jesus, we find that he often told parables to communicate spiritual truths. These parables are not simply “earthly stories with heavenly meanings,” as my old Sunday School teacher used to say, but these parables were used, according to Jesus, to blind the eyes of the unbeliever while enlightening the believer at the same time (Matthew 13:11-15). While the parables themselves were not actual accounts of events that happened, the events taking place within the parable were certainly realistic enough that they could have been either true events or based therein.
Yet, Jesus, being the best of teachers, also taught truth through the events that took place around him. One day Jesus and his disciples were in the temple observing the line of people giving their gifts to the temple treasury and amidst the wealthy people who were there to offer great wealth there was a poor widow who gave her last two copper coins and thus Jesus used that historical event to teach the truth about what it really meant to give to God (Mark 12:41-44). Similarly, when Jesus goes to visit two sisters in their home, one is busily working to prepare the meal while the other simply sits at Jesus’ feet to learn from him (Luke 10:38-42). Again, Jesus uses this historical event to teach us the truth about what it looks like when we truly love God with our entire being and submit ourselves to His priority for our life. The fact that these events are recorded to teach us a spiritual lesson does not make them any less historical. In fact, since God has ordered all history (Ephesians 1:11), we should not be surprised to see such illustrations popping up regularly all around us.
And such brings us back to the creation account. There are a variety of objections to the literal ordering of the creation account, but these objections seem to be able to be broken down into two categories: those who reject a literal reading of Genesis 1 due to its conflicts with science and those who reject the literal reading of Genesis 1 due to a belief that its purpose is to teach spiritual truths and not historical truth. Yet, as with these “lived out parables,” the very fact that spiritual truth can be drawn from the account does not take away from its historicity. By teaching that Genesis one tells us of the divine origin of all things (which it does) does not mean that Genesis one is not telling us the manner and the timetable in which all things were created. Just as we should expect that the widow in Mark 12:41-44 really was a widow and that the details around her giving of the last two coins she had were historically reliable and accurate, there is no reason not to expect the same of Genesis one.
To those who complain that it is scientifically possible for the widow to give of her last two coins but not scientifically possible for the creation event to take place in the order or timetable as recorded in Genesis one, I think that the problem lies not with their faith in science (an ever changing field) but with their lack of faith in the miraculous. God does not present the creation as a result of natural events taking place, but as a supernatural work of creation without respect to contemporary scientific explanations. And if the miraculous is going to be rejected at the creation event, on what basis would the person accept other miraculous works: the parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the widow of Zarephath’s son, the Incarnation, or the Resurrection of Christ? If you would deny a miraculous creation, why would you accept the possibility of a miraculous re-creation at the return of Christ? The Bible affirms both without compromise.
I suppose that to be fair, there is a third group that would seek to interpret Genesis one as a non-literal account, and that is a group that fears being mocked and scoffed at by the world’s scientific community. They find themselves frustrated that holding to a literal reading of Genesis one causes them to be catalogued with fundamentalists and fundamentalists carry with them a stigma of being anti-intellectual (and to be fair, sometimes this is true). Yet, in compromising the natural reading of the Genesis one text, they undermine the intellectual integrity of their own scholarship. More importantly, by their compromise they fail to understand Paul’s words:
“But God chose the foolishness of the world in order the disgrace the wise, and God chose the weak things of the world to disgrace the mighty. God chose what is ignoble in the world and despised, that which is not, in order to invalidate that which is, in order that all flesh might not boast before God. From him you are in Christ Jesus, who has become wisdom for us from God—and righteousness and holiness and deliverance—so that, just as it is written, ‘The one who glories, let him glory in the Lord.’”
(1 Corinthians 1:27-31)
In a very real sense, the creation of this world (and all things) is a lived out or historical parable told by God not to give us spiritual fiction, but to teach the believer spiritual reality within a historical event and at the same time, blinding the eyes of those who would seek to explain all things apart from God’s almighty hand. Thus, God has told us the historical reality, but has created in such a way to leave the eyes of the unbeliever perpetually closed largely as a judgment for their unbelief. It is not the praise of the world that we ought to be seeking, but the words, “Well done my good and faithful servant,” spoken by our God—remembering that a faithful servant believes and submits to the words of his master.
Is the Bible Inerrant?
One of the things we talk a lot about in church circles is the authority of scripture—that it is given by God and is designed to instruct us in every area of life. One of the terms that we use when we speak of why the scriptures are authoritative is the term “inerrant.” But I have found that while we often throw that term around, a lot of times, people aren’t entirely sure what the term means.
To be “inerrant” means far more than something has no errors in it. When I was in school, I regularly had “error-free” mathematics tests; when I was in seminary, many of my Hebrew vocabulary tests were found to be “error-free,” but none of these were inerrant. The word inerrant means not only that something has no errors, but that it is incapable of making an error. The Oxford American Dictionary defines “inerrant” as “incapable of being wrong.” One writer described the inerrancy of the scriptures in this way: “They are exempt from the liability to mistake.”
So why do we ascribe such a nature to the scriptures? To begin with, they are God’s word, and if God is incapable of making a mistake, then his word also must be incapable of making a mistake—remembering that those who wrote down God’s word were “moved along by the Spirit” as a ship is blown by the wind filling its sails (2 Peter 1:21). In the language of the Apostle Paul, scripture is exhaled by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and thus is the source of all training and guidance for the believer. These are God’s words and not man’s and thus we ought to expect them to carry the authority and attributes of God’s character and not man’s character.
It is granted that there are many these days that doubt the inerrancy of scripture. For some, it is a plain matter of unbelief. For others it is misinformation or not having studied the evidence. For others it is the fear that if one acknowledges these words to be the inerrant word of God then one must submit one’s life to scripture’s authority and demands, and such is true. Regardless of the reason that people doubt, Scripture has withstood every test and challenge that has been leveled at it.
There is one other thing that is worth noting about such a book as we have. Not only are the scriptures our only guide for faith and life, but they are the only book to guide us as we go to our deaths. The Bible shows us Jesus Christ, our need for him as a redeemer, and his promise that if we trust in him in life, confessing him with our lips and believing in him in our hearts, he will confess us before the Father and guarantee us eternal life in paradise. For the one who is facing death, this is the kind of knowledge that brings peace and enables them to leave this world with grace and not fear. It is no wonder that the Scriptures are what most people ask to have read to them on their deathbeds, and not Shakespeare or Coleridge. The Bible is the one book that transcends death because it was written by a God who died and rose again—promising that he would do the same for us.
The Scribe’s Comment (Mark 12:32-33)
“And the scribe said to him, ‘Very good, teacher, you speak truthfully that He is one and that there is not another besides him. And to love Him with the whole heart, with the whole understanding, with all strength, and to love a neighbor as ourselves is far greater than all of the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
(Mark 12:32-33)
It is obvious that the scribe is pleased with Jesus’ response, and this sets up an interesting dynamic, for Jesus will commend (at least on one level) the scribe as well. This makes for one of the more unusual interactions that Jesus has during this week. Prior to this question, Jesus has been bombarded by challenges to his authority and traps to try and trick him into siding with this group or that. Here, as we discussed above, is at least an underlying question again as to who Jesus will side with in his interpretation of the law. Some have made the suggestion that this comment by the scribe is rather insincere, but that seems rather odd given the context of Jesus’ statement in response. So how are we to understand this dialogue and how are we going to understand the variation between what Jesus taught immediately before and how this scribe paraphrases his statement?
To begin with, we see the scribe giving the briefest summary of the Shema. Jesus has quoted it verbatim and the scribe is giving his own interpretation of what Jesus said, tying in Deuteronomy 4:35 to support his answer. This was a common rhetorical technique amongst the Jewish Rabbis. Theology was done in the form of dialogue, so one might begin with a question, and the discussion that ensued would be in the form of more questions, answers, and interpretations in the hopes of arriving at a better understanding of the question at hand. We should not see the Scribe as being incompetent and unable to quote the Shema back to Jesus, but that he is interpreting Jesus’ statement in the context of the discussion. With this in mind, it sets the stage for the second part of the scribe’s statement. The scribe misses the language of yuch/ (psuche), or life, altogether and he replaces Jesus’ language of dia/noia (dianoia), or understanding, with the language of su/nesiß (sunesis), or intelligence. In addition, the scribe ties in passages like Hosea 6:6 and 1 Samuel 15:22, to speak of our loving obedience to God is far better than the ritual sacrifices of the temple. Again, what we find is that the scribe is responding to Jesus’ statement by offering an interpretation of it, and Jesus will respond favorably.
One of the major issues that Jesus battled with during his earthly ministry was the issue of people missing the intent behind the law in their pursuit of the letter of the law. The Pharisees, especially, were guilty of this. In their zeal for obedience, they had allowed the law to be understood in a legalistic way and had become blinded to the truth behind what God was commanding. God demands love and obedience from his people in every aspect and area of their lives. As Abraham Kuyper commented, “There is not an inch of this whole life that Jesus, as Lord of creation, does not put his finger on and declare, ‘Mine!’” And in the case of this scribe, it seems that he got it. He understood the intent of the law and demonstrated that understanding by the way he tied in other passages of scripture that spoke of similar things. So, beloved, what should we be reminded of from our scribe’s answer? We should be reminded that in all that we do, in whatever capacity that we serve the church, we are to be wholly committed to the Lord Jesus Christ. This commitment must never take the form of a list of “dos” and “don’ts” apart from what scripture commands to be a “do” or a “don’t,” but instead, we are to pursue God and his righteousness in service to our fellow man. This is our calling, to share the gospel with all and to make disciples by baptizing and teaching people to obey all that Jesus taught. Beloved, what a task we have before us; pray that the Holy Spirit will bless that task and empower it in such a way that God is glorified in all we do.
The Preacher's Study 