New Thoughts (12/17/12-12/26/12)
This being so crucial an event to the entirety of Christian understanding, it is hardly surprising that I find much to consider. In some cases, those considerations are mere curiosities. Those I shall spend some time investigating, and decide whether that curiosity was justified or not. Other matters are more in the nature of technicalities which I shall consider as briefly as I know how and as the matters permit. The goal, as ever, is to arrive at those aspects of this event that have more direct bearing on my own nature today: Those which demand a response that is more than emotion.
Time conflict (12/18/12)
I’m going to lead off with a technicality that I’m not certain I can hope to resolve. But, it would seem to me that I was seeking to avoid the matter if I refuse to consider it at all. That issue is a matter of the timing of events. Here, we seem to have John at odds with the other witnesses yet again. The first occasion is that apparent conflict regarding the relationship of the Last Supper and Passover. The argument is that whereas the Synoptic Gospels seem to place that meal after the lamb had been sacrificed for Passover, and thereby establish it as a Passover meal, John speaks of the events of the subsequent day, the day we are observing now, so far as we understand it, as occurring on the day of preparation, with the chief priests all concerned about remaining clean lest they be disallowed their participation in that feast. How they could be out on Calvary to watch Jesus die given such concerns is beyond me. But, there is that aspect of apparent conflict in the accounts.
This one actually strikes me as more difficult. There is room for a particular alignment of calendar which might explain the apparent observation of this day of preparation on two different days. There are matters of practice which might explain how Jesus and His disciples were observing the Passover one night, and the chief priests another. It is not entirely impossible to bring those two accounts into harmony. But now we have Mark telling us that the crucifixion took place at ‘the third hour’. Yet, John has clearly stated that the hour of Jesus’ judgment back at the Pavement took place (a) on the day of preparation for the Passover, and (b) somewhere around the sixth hour (Jn 19:13-14). How is this to be resolved?
Clarke’s Commentary notes one theory that suggests a scribal error in Mark’s account, noting that the notations used for 3rd and 6th are not so very different in Greek script. Yet, he concludes that the majority opinion remains that Mark records it as the 3rd hour. Barnes also discusses this point. Apparently, it was common for the Greek authors to note ordinals such as this not in written form, but with merely one character to designate the number. In this case, a gamma for 3rd, a sigma for 6th, and there is extra-Biblical evidence of these two being confused during scribal transmission.
He goes further, though, suggesting that we need no such scribal error to explain the disparity. It is an argument in several steps, noting that time declarations, such as we have here would cover the entire 60 minute period until the next such hour. Thus, the 3rd hour persists until the arrival of the 4th. So, the overall delta between the two accounts might be seen as more like 2 hours, rather than 3. Add to this that there would necessarily be time transpiring between the passing of judgment and Jesus being nailed to the cross. If nothing else, there was the march from Gabbatha to Golgatha. There was also the matter of two other prisoners, etc. So, yes, time has passed. Now: Whether Mark intends to demark the exact moment at which Jesus was hoisted upon the upright of the cross, or points more towards the initiation of that process might be more open to debate than his words suggest. I.e. what exactly is meant by “when they crucified Him”? The nails going in? The crossbeam set upon upright? Or, could it point backward to that verdict delivered by Pilate. Add to this that John speaks of an approximate hour at which that judgment was rendered. But, he, too, might be thinking of the whole scope of the event as he contemplates the timing. So, the reasoning goes, we almost flip the markers set by the two accounts: The judgment rendered at the 3rd hour and executed at the 6th. That might feel rather contrived.
Yet, there is this to support the idea: The Synoptic coverage speaks of that darkness which fell at the 6th hour and lasted to the 9th. This would certainly fix the time in one’s mind, wouldn’t it? It would explain John’s choice of that hour. It is not, after all, as though the witnesses were constantly checking their watches as events unfolded. But, that darkness? That was something everybody noticed. There would perhaps even be official records one could check to nail down just when that happened. That Mark and the others concur on this 6th hour darkness, which would offer a point of correlation with John’s 6th hour judgment does lend some credence to what otherwise seems a strained effort at correlation.
The IVP offers another possibility, which is that the 6th hour of John’s account, while generally accounted as pointing to noon could, by a different reckoning, indicate 6 AM. They do not seem to push the matter, and it is noted that John has elsewhere used this noontime coincidence with the beginning time at which the Passover lambs began to be slaughtered with an eye to the symbolism. I would add that this 6 AM understanding would seem to better fit the scene of the early-morning meeting of the Sanhedrin, with their hopes of avoiding undo attention from a public that supported Jesus. The JFB offers another variation on the theme, suggesting that both Mark and John are viewing time from a perspective more common to the Jews of the day, which would divide the day not into the twelve hours of Roman reckoning, but rather into quarters. By this theory, Mark’s 3rd hour, and John’s 6th hour are no more than references to the opposite ends of the same time division. This author finds it difficult to take John as shifting to the Roman clock to make the 6th hour 6 AM, when it seems everywhere else to follow the more native reckoning.
As I said at the outset, the likelihood of my arriving at a satisfactory solution is unlikely. It is well, though, to have at least some potential explanations here. Some might wonder why it even matters. Were it not an apparent evidence against the inerrancy of Scripture, I would likely be among them. Two witnesses have differing recollections of events. What a surprise! In the court of law, this discrepancy might lead to more questioning, but it would hardly necessitate the invalidation of either man’s testimony. As some noted, it would actually serve to prove there had been no collusion in that testimony. But, if Scripture is inerrant (and it is), then it behooves us to understand how two seemingly contradictory statements such as this can both be true. In this case, it seems to me it must be more than that both men wrote what they truly remembered, but it must also be that they both remembered truly.
Was it, then, a scribal error that produced the confusion? Was it different modes of marking the time? Was it simply a certain imprecision of the language used? I honestly don’t know. It would certainly be convenient to mark it as scribal error, and we might not be wrong to do so. I am actually less convinced of Barnes’ explanation, simply because it seems too fragile a construct. Both men seem to clearly indicate the specific event to which they apply their timestamp, and yet, both actually meant the opposite? I don’t see it. I am actually more inclined to accept that John, for whatever reason, shifted to Roman time as he noted the hour of judgment. He was, after all, in a particularly Roman setting for that moment. It’s not that unthinkable, and it does seem to correspond with other aspects of both his account and that of the others. As I said, the efforts of the Sanhedrin to more or less hide their activities while staying (just barely) within the bounds of their law would advocate for a very early arrival at Pilate’s place. The argument against that is, of course, the time spent with the soldiers, the time spent with Herod, the time spent in deliberation. How early was a Roman governor really going to make himself available to the public like this? Perhaps it was early. But, 6 AM does seem awfully early to have arrived at judgment. As I said, it’s not something I can reach conclusive verdict on. That should hardly surprise, I should think, given a few millennia worth of thought that has not arrived at a firm answer either.
Myrrh (12/19/12)
This may prove to be something of a wild goose chase, but noting that the lexical references derive the term myrrh from the word Smyrna causes me to wonder what the connection might be and whether there is further significance to be found there. For example, is there aught in the Spirit’s letter to the church in Smyrna that might be significant? So, there will be a brief diversion while I do some background work. What comes from that depends on what I find.
[Fausset’s] Myrrh is one of the ingredients in the holy anointing oil. It is also symbolic of Christ’s grace (Ps 45:8a – All Thy garments are fragrant with myrrh, aloes, and cassia), which passes to the church through Him. The source of this material is said to be a tree found around Saba, in Arabia. Per Encyclopedia Britannica this was a Semitic nation, more familiar to us as Sheba, located around what is now Yemen. There is mention of another form of myrrh that was grown in Gilead, Cyprus and Crete. Smyrna, on the other hand, was a coastal city in Ionia to the north of Ephesus. In later years, Polycarp would be bishop of the church in that place. The idol Dionysus in that city was believed to have been killed and come to life, bearing a certain similarity, though false, to Christ. “Smyrna (= myrrh) yielded its perfume in being bruised to death.” Smyrna is one of only two churches that are not reproved in the letters from the Lord in Revelation.
Rev 2:8-11 – To the angel of the church in Smyrna: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says: “I know your tribulation and your poverty. But, in truth you are rich). I know the blasphemy those who claim to be Jews but are actually a synagogue of Satan speak against you. Have no fear in what you are about to suffer. Know that the devil will soon cast some of you into prison to be tested, and that tribulation will persist for ten days. But, be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. Hear what the Spirit says to the churches: He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.”
Well, then: It is not clear why Smyrna bore its name, or why that name was synonymous with this aromatic substance. I find no evidence of a connection between city and spice. Yet, there is that most interesting connection to the city in what is transpiring here. The article in Fausset’s made note of the Dionysus cult in that city and their belief that their god died and rose again. They actually point out the significance of Revelation 2:8 in light of that: Here, was the true First and Last, the Alpha and Omega. Unlike the mythical Dionysus, He had truly been dead, and was not truly alive.
What is striking to me in connection with this current scene, though, is the final comment to that church. “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.” Assuredly, the One Who spoke those words had already obeyed them in His own right. Here, upon the cross, He was proving Himself faithful until death. Here, He would be proven. In the grave, He would have no cause to fear the second death, because it was in His authority to take life back to Himself, Who is the Lord of Life. Certainly, then, there is an aspect of Smyrna’s own place in church history to be seen in what transpired here on Calvary.
I would also comment on that sentence from Fausset’s regarding this city. “Smyrna yielded its perfume by being bruised to death.” Let me juxtapose that with the very first proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ of God. “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and hers. He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel” (Ge 3:15). The perfume of Christ, the sweetness of salvation, and that aroma of sacrifice which arose to the house of God at His death, was likewise by His bruising. This is, I should think, a somewhat critical point to bear in mind. In His death, He was not destroyed. He was bruised. He recovered. He died, but now He lives. The second death had no hold upon Him Who is Lord of all! Yes, and knowing somewhat of Polycarp’s end, that bishop of Smyrna, the whole thing does seem to play out again in that place called myrrh.
What would any of this matter there at the cross? Jesus, we are told, rejected the drugged wine that was offered Him. He tasted it, knew it for what it was. It was, in its way, an act of kindness done to this condemned man. It was intended to dull the agony He was about to face. It seems a common enough impression that Jesus, knowing His purpose and the true reason for His being crucified, refused to experience anything less than the full measure of Father’s wrath. He would not shirk His duty even in that much. I find myself wondering, though, if those words with which He would later encourage the church in Smyrna were not on His mind even now. Be faithful until death… That which had been intended to dull His senses and ease His pain had, if this be so, instead strengthened His resolve, been the final note He needed from Home, that He might indeed be faithful even unto death on the cross, knowing that however great the agony He must face, it was temporary, and heaven and home awaited Him. The crown of Life would be added to the many crowns of His reign, and because of His faithful endurance not only would He live, but those whom the Father has given Him shall likewise live in Him (Jn 6:37-40).
Is all of this there to be seen as the Evangelists show us this most critical of events? It certainly is in retrospect. Whether or not Smyrna or the significance of myrrh as an anointing agent were things that registered with Jesus as He approached His end and purpose I certainly cannot say. Yet, there is a reason, I am sure, why Peter felt it needful to instruct his parishioners as to this detail of the wine and myrrh. There is a reason why the Holy Spirit saw to it that Mark recorded this detail for us, and that reason is for our instruction. What else ought we to make of it, then? Perhaps, only that which has long been said: The death of God’s saints is precious in His sight (Ps 116:15). And, if the death of “His godly ones” is precious, how much more that of His Chosen One? Precious beyond measure, that! More valuable than all the riches of earth. Sum up the myrrh and frankincense and gold, tally the silver and the pearls, all that this world has or ever will produce, and it doesn’t even begin to serve as down-payment for that which transpired at the Cross.
How wonderful Your ways, O Lord! How precious Your blood, which has been poured out for the likes of me. As I prayed last night, so it continues this morning: I know not how You can abide in me, the Pure and Holy at rest in this sinful vessel, yet I know You do abide in me. I know You do Your work upon me, and that in You, by Your strength, because of Your love, I can and will be faithful until death, even as You are faithful unto, through and over death. What could I possibly fear knowing Your promise? What cause have I to accept defeat and failure when You, my Victorious Warrior King, have already swept the field? Behold! How sweet and pleasing is my inheritance in You. You have caused my lot to fall in that most pleasant of places, and I can find no reason that this is so. Certainly, it is not in me to deserve it. Yet, You have given it. You have made me Your own, and how I cling to those verses I read last night! “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and I will certainly not cast them out.. Of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but […] I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (Jn 6:37-40). Yes, Lord! Though I suffer my moments of doubt as to my own condition, yet I know this: Your word is true, and Your word is certain. You have said it. You have sworn it upon Your own most Holy Name. There can be no stronger guarantee. Again, thank You. Even so, come swiftly, and let it be done in me as You please.
Paradise (12/20/12-12/21/12)
Today, I am jumping straight to the end of Luke’s coverage of the Crucifixion, the point at which Jesus makes solemn promise to the one thief hanging next to Him. “Today, you will be with Me in Paradise.” Just what is meant by this, it seems to me, has been a particularly divisive point. The relative infrequency of this term’s appearance does not help, although those two other uses might give us a clearer image of that place of which Jesus speaks. But, as with the previous topic, some background information is needed before I embark on any further discussion.
[M&S] The term comes to us via the Persians, who may have themselves obtained it from the Armenians. The Armenian term pardes, indicates a house garden, which would include both ornamental and fruit trees, along with other such plantings as would serve the house both for sustenance and ornament. The Persians applied it more specifically to the royal gardens, parks of sufficient size as to support roaming herds, forested areas, orchards and streams, and yet enclosed, walled off and protected against predators. The Hebrew language also adopts this term, and it is to be found in some few locations in the OT, mostly as referring to walled orchards. The authors of the Septuagint applied the term Paradise to the Garden of Eden, and this connection seems to have stuck. [Applied to the Garden of Eden, I would note, the idea of being walled off and protected is particularly significant as applied to Adam and Eve prior to the Fall, and thereafter.] There follows upon this a lengthy discussion of efforts to locate or otherwise explain the Garden of Eden which do not seem pertinent to what we have here, beyond, perhaps, this point: “The idea of a terrestrial paradise, the abode of purity and happiness, has thus formed an element in the religious beliefs of all nations.” The use of Paradise as applying to the future state of the righteous is presumed to have arisen in the period between the Old and New Testament. This seems to have been a heavenly holding ground for the departed spirits of the just, entered into immediately upon physical death. This usage clearly persisted in the NT period, and indeed came to be the exclusive understanding of the term, and, it should be noted, identified that awaiting Paradise as one and the same place as the Garden of Eden. That which Adam had lost would be restored. It is noted that Jesus never used the term when teaching His disciples, and this is attributed to the very sensuous perspective of Paradise commonly held at the time. It was therefore a counterproductive term to use with those whom He was attempting to lift out of the sensuous and into the spiritual. Further, the two other appearances of Paradise in the NT are not to be found in didactic sections, but in apocryphal, symbolic parts. As to how the Church has understood this, one theory has held that this Paradise is synonymous with that third heaven of which Paul writes. It is a place ‘of life and immortality’. There were periods where the brief descriptions we have of this place were given mystical significance, and highly figurative interpretations. More material follows, exploring some of the varied views held by the early church.
[ISBE] Jewish usage made this a place distinct from Gehenna. That was the place of punishment. Paradise was the happy inheritance of the righteous. Yet, these views are a product of the apocryphal period between Old and New, and views from that period are varied and often conflicting. Some held that Sheol had four divisions arranged by degree of righteousness or sinfulness. The Alexandrians Jews, though, held that righteous and wicked were separated more immediately upon death, and that appears to be the understanding taken in the few NT references. As Jesus uses it here, we are advised to expect no ‘dialectical precision’. He may have been indicating that place also known as Abraham’s Bosom, i.e. simply implying the then-popular conception of Paradise as a place free of extremes of weather, always refreshed by gentle breezes. “The reticence of the sacred writers respecting this subject is in striking contrast to the profuseness and crudity both of rabbinical writers before Christ and of apocryphal writers and Christian commentators at a later time.”
[Fausset’s] What Jesus refers to here is a “resting place with Jesus to which the penitent thief’s soul was received until the resurrection of the body.” [Clarke] “Paradise was, in the beginning, the habitation of man in his state of innocence, in which he enjoyed the presence of his Maker which constituted his supreme happiness.” This same is inferred in Jesus’ promise to the thief. [Note the ‘with Me’ part.] [Barnes] That Jesus indicates a state of blessedness beyond death is clear. That He says nothing as to the location of this place is also clear. What can be learned is that the soul exists (or will exist) separately from the body; that the happy state of the righteous follows immediately upon death; that this happy state is not shared by the wicked (note that the other thief is given no such assurance); that the chiefest joy and glory of this state consists in seeing and being with Jesus. [JFB] The implied contrast here is between the thief’s expectation of some long delayed day when the King takes His kingdom, and the today of Jesus’ promise. “One was to reassume His body in a few days, while the dust of the other would sleep until the resurrection, [and yet] their fellowship would never be interrupted!” If nothing else, this promise should dispel any concept of soul-sleep from our minds. The period between death and resurrection is not one of unconsciousness, but (by this promise) one of bliss. “The spirits of the just, on their being disengaged from this earthly tabernacle, are immediately ushered into paradise in the bud, and find themselves tasting the bliss of heaven in substance.”
Finally, the two other references to Paradise: 2Co 12:14 – He was caught up to Paradise, hearing words inexpressible, which he is not permitted to speak. Rev 2:7 – To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life in God’s Paradise.
Tomorrow, I shall consider whether there is anything more that need be said on this subject. In doing so, I am keenly mindful of this declaration from the ISBE: “The reticence of the sacred writers respecting this subject is in striking contrast to the profuseness and crudity both of rabbinical writers before Christ and of apocryphal writers and Christian commentators at a later time.” It’s true! One considers the lengthy explorations that the M&S provides as to theories of Paradise’s location and its nature. And they are but summarizing long treatises by others.
Allow just a couple of quotes from the commentaries on this verse. Fausset’s insists that this Paradise is a “resting place with Jesus to which the penitent thief’s soul was received until the resurrection of the body.” Now, I might be reading that too closely, but this suggests an understanding that Paradise is, then, a temporary abode which will cease with the resurrection. Meanwhile, Clarke has this to offer. “Paradise was, in the beginning, the habitation of man in his state of innocence, in which he enjoyed the presence of his Maker which constituted his supreme happiness.” If, then, Paradise was a place in which man experienced his supreme happiness, what would cause us to suppose it a temporary estate? Is there reasonable cause to think that bodily resurrection requires departure from Paradise to some other place? Or, ought we to understand Paradise as in some wise being equated with that heavenly Jerusalem which shall be established on the earth in that day?
Well, there are a few points it seems we can settle on regarding Paradise. The first is that it is a place entered into immediately upon the death of the body, for Jesus promises this future begins today for the thief. There is also the particularly powerful added clause in that promise that not only will the thief be in that place, but he will be there “with Me”. So, look back at that past experience of Paradise, wherein the greatest happiness of man was experienced. What was that pinnacle of joy? It was fellowship with his Maker, communion with God Himself, being in His presence. And today, Mr. Thief, you will enter into just that situation. You and I shall be together in that place. We shall have fellowship and communion in that place. Being that this is Jesus speaking, it seems we ought to hear the note of eternity in that promise. Whatever distinctions there were in what lay ahead for these two, for it is noted that Jesus would have His resurrection in mere days whereas the thief is still waiting for his, those distinctions would not necessitate separation. The communion, once entered into, does not cease.
Indeed, we who have come to faith surely understand that this communion has already begun. God already abides within us. The changing physical state does not alter this. For, it is the spirit which might be conflated with the soul in this instance, which persists, and it is the spirit which enjoys this communion. The body, at least in this phase of existence, is more or less just along for the ride.
One other aspect of Paradise which seems certain is that it is properly understood as either being that self-same place which was the Garden of Eden, or it is the fulfillment of that place. I find confidence in stating that this is the case in that when Jesus writes to the church at Ephesus, his concluding promise is that those who overcome are granted to eat from the Tree of Life, which is in the Paradise of God (Rev 2:7). What was in the Garden of Eden back at the beginning? The Tree of Life! Why was the entrance to Paradise sealed after the Fall? Lest Adam or Eve, in their degenerate state, partake of that Tree and suffer eternal damnation, being thus both eternal and eternally sinful.
This brings me to one or two interesting aspects of the term Paradise, which would seem to have value as applied to this place God has set for us. The word, as we have learned, is of Persian origin, at least in the sense it would seem to be used here. It denotes a royal park, and a royal park of significant size. Now, being a royal park, it is attached to the royal palace. This, it would seem to me, sets aside the need to see Paradise and the New Jerusalem as two places for two different seasons of the righteous soul. Where else would we go to enjoy the eternal presence of our Lord than to that park which is of a piece with His palace?
Second, be it noted that these royal parks, in earthly terms, would have been walled around. That wall was, as every wall, dual in purpose. It would keep the wildlife of the park within the confines of the park. It would also keep predators and unwelcome visitors from entering the park. This would seem to bear great spiritual significance as applied to this Paradise of God. Go back to the early account, Adam and Eve in that park and still possessed of innocence. There, they were in a land so pleasant as to satisfy every desire and need. They were in a land so vast as to make its bounds all but unnoticeable. There, they were amidst every plant and animal created. But, there was a wall, a boundary. There was a limit set beyond which they could not go. I am not, in this instance, thinking of that tree whose fruit they were forbidden to taste. Had that been thus walled off, there would have been no test for them to fail. The forbidden would have been beyond the possibility of reach, and obedience not an option, but a necessity.
But, there was a boundary set, an outer perimeter which could not be broached from either side. This was set, as I said, both to keep in and to keep out. And, by both these purposes, it was set for the good of these two who bore God’s image. That they were kept in was for their good, for every good and perfect gift was already to be found within God’s parklands. That whatever lay without in that time was kept out was also for their good, for in their innocence they were also rather defenseless (excepting, of course, that God was their constant companion, which is defense indeed!) But, let us say that wall kept them from any number of opportunities to sin. It reduced the temptations to that which they should have been able to handle, the one temptation of that tree.
What we are to make of the serpent being in the garden, given this understanding, I am not certain. Knowing that serpent to be Satan, and knowing that Satan had access to the palace of God, it is not hard to see how he could have entered the Garden through the gate. It is not necessary to suppose that he somehow crawled or flew over the wall God had set. What we must know with certainty is that God was in no way blind to the serpent’s presence. Indeed, a proper understanding require us to know that the serpent could not have been there without God’s approval. Neither, let us understand, was God unaware that Adam and Eve would fail this test. The Cross was already in sight and established even before Adam was created, never mind when he fell.
But, after the fall, Adam and Eve are evicted, and we are informed that a cherubim with fiery sword was set at the gate to ensure they didn’t come back into the park. What of those other creatures? Nothing is said of their eviction. That this world outside the wall is fallen indeed is beyond dispute. It doesn’t take much more than a casual scan of the news these days to recognize that, if one has eyes to see. But, the park was sealed off from mankind just as it had been sealed off to whatever else constituted fallenness before that point. Was there fallenness before that point? I have to assume so. Satan certainly preceded Adam in existence (at least I’m reasonably certain this is the case.) And, were there nothing fallen outside of Paradise, what need for the wall? What was there to keep out, or what cause to keep in? But, this begins to grow too speculative.
Leave it at this: That Garden of God, which is here called Paradise, is restored, even as the last Adam restored what the first Adam damaged. For the redeemed, the reborn in Christ, the gate to Paradise is opened once more. We, who have been called by the Father, chosen and adopted as sons of the royal house, are given to walk in His park, safe once again within the walls of His compound. We shall walk in His park as we abide in His house. For, in His house there are many rooms, one of which is prepared for me! And from His house, can there be any doubt but that there is access to His Paradise, His parklands? Where better to experience that wonderful estate the prophets saw, wherein lamb and lion would coexist, serpent and child would do each other no harm?
Today you will be with Me in Paradise. That eternal city, the New Jerusalem, is already established. The Eden which was lost to earth was not lost, but as it were, relocated to the heavenly realms, to the third heaven Paul speaks of (whatever that is!) It is redeemed as we are redeemed, by the blood of Christ. All is not lost! Indeed, none of that is lost which God has called good. And this, friend, is our inheritance! This is what is ours by right of adoption! Indeed, the line has fallen to me in good and pleasant lands.
It is hardly to be wondered at, then, that Paul was so inclined to simply pack it in and head home, rather than stay in this fallen land. “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Php 1:21-24). Yes, for to die is to be in Paradise. Here, we have Christ abiding, but we still know Him only as in shadow, only in part. There, we have Christ abiding, but we shall know Him in His fullness, as He truly is, knowing ourselves finally brought to completion and made like Him. And that is supremely to be desired. Yet, as with Paul, so with us. So long as we are to live on in the flesh, it will be (should be) fruitful labor for us. However strong the desire to depart, equally strong ought be our desire to remain for the sake of those who are young in faith, or not yet brought to faith. May we, like Paul, cling to this life not for fear of what lies beyond, not for selfish pleasure, but to pursue God’s will, doing what is necessary for the sake of others.
Temptation Parallels? (12/23/12)
The next thought which I will consider is whether there are parallels to the temptation of Christ to be found in the events of His Crucifixion. I notice I am not alone in this thought, given that two of those three temptations which Matthew enumerates are listed in the cross-references for this passage. But, let me first consider the temptations of that earlier trial. We have, in Matthew 4:3, the temptation to break the fast and ‘command these stones to become bread’. We have, in Matthew 4:6, the temptation to presume upon God by jumping off the temple wall, counting on Him to send angels to catch Him. Then, of course, we have, in Matthew 4:8, the temptation to trade truth for power: “Worship me, and I will give You the nations.”
On one level, all of these temptations amount to one theme: abandon the Father’s plan and do things Your way. God demands a fast to prove Your worth. Worth, for what? To teach a gaggle of backwoods chuckleheads? God demands death on the Cross for these same, benighted folk. Why not skip that part, if death is the requirement? Just jump off the Temple. Either He’ll save You, and seal Your fame, or He won’t, and the job is done without the pain of crucifixion. For all that, You are the King. Why put up with any of this? Just bow down now, and I’ll give it all to You to rule. None of the pain. None of the aggravation. But, every one of those points insists on breaking with God’s command. That is at root. Ignore Him, heed me. That is ever the way of temptation. But, this is not the point I am pursuing here.
What makes these temptations similar is that which makes all temptation similar. But, what makes them unique? In the first case, it is the temptation to deal with provision. It is denying God’s role as Provider and assuming we are on our own. The second test is presumption. It’s one thing to know God will, to trust in His covenant promises. It’s quite another to demand of ones Sovereign Lord, “You better do this, or I’m leaving You.” The third, of course, is power, and in its fashion, power without responsibility. The throne already belongs to Christ, but the path to that office which the Father has set is hard. Satan offers to provide an easy road to power, but in doing so, he presents power without purpose, power for power’s sake. To be King by those means would satisfy the ego, perhaps. But, it would not accomplish anything for anybody else. Mankind could not be saved by another usurpation, even by the rightful ruler.
So, we have three aspects of temptation: provision, presumption, and power. Now, let us return to the scene of the Cross. They offered Him drugged wine. Some translations attribute this offer as an act done by the soldiers, but the nature of the offering is more suggestive of the Jews, doing a final kindness to the condemned by seeking to dull the pain of death for them. This could, I suppose, be seen as a form of provision. Provide for Your pain, Jesus. You needn’t feel the full effects of this suffering. Likewise, had He made bread for Himself out there in the desert, He needn’t have felt the full effects of forty days without proper nourishment.
The several taunts to save Himself, get Himself down off the cross are not so very far from that earlier suggestion that He jump off the temple walls. You have it in Your power to call upon the legions of heaven to come to Your rescue. Jesus, Himself, admitted as much. “I could even now call upon the Father, and He would send legions of angels to do My bidding.” But, then, all would be lost, as to the purpose of His sojourn here. But, that’s the mocking advice of those around Him. “You are God’s? Then call Him! Get down from the Cross. Why die like that, if it’s within Your ability to avoid it?”
It really is rather amazing. Their focus would seem to be upon that ridiculous charge that had been bandied about by the Sanhedrin, that He planned to somehow destroy the Temple and rebuild it. It’s the threat to the Temple that seems to have their attention and their scorn. There is the admission, in the midst of all this, that “He saved others”. At the very least, the locals were surely aware of Lazarus. Whether they had heard news of some of those other events up in Galilee over the years one cannot say. It’s hard to imagine that things like the feeding of thousands would have passed without comment reaching the city. Whether they would lend any credence to such reports coming from that region is a whole different question.
But, they know this much: He saved others. That is beyond denial. The evidence walks among them. But, if this is so, why does He not save Himself? Now, notice that no reference is made to any of the other evidences of His power, His control over wind and wave, His ability (as noted) to manufacture food seemingly from thin air. Nothing is said of His power to cast out demons (for what demon, as had possessed this whole city, would care to be reminded of this fact even at such an apparently victorious moment?) Nope. The one thing they latch onto is His purported threat against their monument. And, the only reasonable act they can construe for God’s Messiah is that He get Himself out of this predicament. “Come down off the Cross, if Your claim is true. Then, when we have seen this with our own eyes, we will believe in You.” But, they had been given more than enough evidence, and their opportunity for repentance was, it would seem, at an end.
An alternate, and perhaps more obvious parallel to that second temptation might be found in the particular taunt thrown at Him by the chief priests. “He trusts God. Let God deliver Him, if God indeed takes pleasure in Him.” That is quite near to the business about jumping into the arms of God’s angels. But, it is also of a piece with those other taunts already noted.
OK. This leaves the temptation of power. Is that here? How could it not be? His condemnation, as indicated in the charges inscribed above His head, comes upon the charge that He is King of the Jews. He is, of course, and not only King of the Jews, but King of all kings. How swift would have been Pilate’s judgment against Him, had he known that! Surely, it was enough of a threat to Caesar that He was proclaimed king of this nation on the edge of the empire. But, if the Truth had been known and proclaimed, that He reigned over all mankind! Indeed, we can hear hints of that truth as Jesus testifies to Pilate. “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above” (Jn 19:11). Yes, Pilate could choose to hear that as reference to Caesar. But, there remains the deeper truth that even Caesar’s power and authority is a delegated thing. It is the most foolish of men that supposes he is in the place of authority by his own cleverness and capability. That is a truth that persists through all ages and in all situations of life!
If there is a more direct parallel of that last temptation, it seems we might find it in this taunt: “He is the King of Israel? Let Him come down from the cross, then, and we shall believe in Him.” There it is. You want the throne? You want us to be loyal subjects? Then just toss of this cross business. Oh yes, we will worship You if You just do this one more sign. Why, it would doubtless bring these very soldiers in amongst Your followers if You do that! And how much less painful than the path You have chosen. If the throne is Your goal, what matter the means? If it is power You seek, why deal with this?
Yes, it does not seem too difficult to find those first temptations here again at the last. Nor should that surprise. Recall Luke’s conclusion to that scene in the wilderness. “And when the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time” (Lk 4:13). The enemy of our soul, the would-be usurper of God Himself, wasn’t giving up here. He was making a strategic retreat, awaiting a moment of greater weakness. But, notice this in Luke’s summation: He had already ‘finished every temptation.’ Consider that in light of the testimony in Hebrews 4:15: “We do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things, just as we have been, yet He, without sin.”
What I arrive at is this: The devil had already played his hand in that earlier temptation. What he had as a ploy here at the Cross was necessarily a rerun. He may be clever, but his talents are really rather limited. The thing that makes him so powerful a threat to us is that we are far less clever, and by fallen nature, particularly susceptible to these particular tactics. We are weak, for all our vaunted strength of mind and body. Indeed, we think so much of our strengths that we completely ignore our weakness and it is this very distraction that provides our enemy with his means of attack. But, the attack is always the same. He’s like a broken record in that regard, or a CD that skips, if we would bring that into more modern terms.
I am always reminded of that sermon from back near the beginning of my faith in Christ. “The devil has one way of attack, and that is the mind.” I’m doubtless misquoting at this remove. But, the point is valid. Physical health? Matters of wealth and power? He can assault those all day long, but if the mind is set on Christ, it has no value. It gains him no advantage over us. But, if he can get into the mind, bring those doubts, insinuate as he has ever done, that things would be so much better if we were in charge. What was the first temptation? God’s all wrong! Just eat and you can be like Him. That’s what He fears most. But, eat, and you will be making the call. You will be god. What was the first temptation of Christ? It was the very same thing. Ignore Him! Do it Your own way! What is it here at the cross? Abandon His stupid plan! Why suffer? Power is there at Your fingers. Just take things under Your own control. Your will be done. And, it is ever the same. It is the same with every niggling little temptation we face. It is ever and always the one note song of the devil: Your will be done, and forget about Him.
Tunic (12/23/12)
When John turns to the activities of the soldiers, he makes particular note of the tunic Jesus was wearing. I am still unclear whether we should understand that as an undergarment or outerwear, but that is a secondary concern. John identifies this tunic as the cause for the soldiers throwing lots, and indicates the reason as being that the tunic was “seamless, woven of one piece.” It may be that I read too much into that statement, but I would suppose that the detail as to its structure would not have been noted except it were unusual. If it was common for the tunic to be made in this fashion, he would have no reason to mention it, knowing his readers would recognize that innately.
There is also this which makes the mention to be of interest. There is one other tunic mentioned in Scripture which is described in very similar language. Back in Exodus 28, Moses is given instructions as to the holy vestures to be made for Aaron, the high priest. When it comes to describing the ephod, we have this: The robe of the ephod is to be blue throughout (Ex 28:31), “and there shall be an opening at its top in the middle of it” bound around by woven work, like “the opening of a coat of mail, that it may not be torn” (Ex 28:32).
A few comments in various texts suppose a certain parallel between this tunic Jesus was wearing and the robe of the high priest. I have to say that looking at the two descriptions, I’m not certain I see the parallel, unless that point about it not being torn applies to the whole. I read that, though, as applying to the hem around the collar, apparently fashioned not so very unlike the collar of a t-shirt. I do not read anything to suggest that the ephod was seamless.
And yet, John has chosen to point this out. One must ask why, particularly given John’s concern for the symbolism and meaning of events. It may well be that there is more to the construction of the ephod than I am going to garner from that one verse, things which would have been well understood by the community of that day, perhaps even visible on Caiaphas. If that be the case, then the implication is clear that Jesus was already in some wise taking up the role of high priest. Certainly, in that He is offering the sacrifice of atonement on behalf of the people, He acts as the ultimate holder of that office, and it is settled that He is eternally in possession of the office of high priest. But, I am not absolutely clear that we should find hints of this in John’s mention of the tunic.
Perhaps he meant nothing more by this than to indicate why the soldiers decided to cast lots. I would think that their casting lots to decide who got which pile would have been natural enough without the tunic. It would appear the other three Evangelists felt likewise. A few small piles of meager possessions, a few soldiers whose reward was to own one of those piles. They could not be exactly the same, and so some means of determining which pile went to which soldier must be devised. And lots would come naturally as the solution.
I’m sorry. This is a very brief and very inconclusive bit of study, isn’t it? But, it is as far as I am inclined to take the topic this morning, and I am becoming more aware of the need for care and caution in what I think I perceive in the pages of Scripture. So, I shall let it stand as is.
Who’s in Control? (12/24/12)
There is an interesting comment upon free will to be found at the end of John’s coverage. After he has described the tunic, and the soldiers throwing lots for possession of it, he notes that this transpired to fulfill Scripture, quoting from Psalm 22, as occurs throughout these passages. “They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” And then, John adds this comment: “Therefore the soldiers did these things.” Some translations have that at the close of John 19:24, others at the beginning of verse 25. And, indeed, many translations soften the statement to, “So, they did these things.”
For my part, the sentence is redundant without the therefore. He already told us they did these things. Telling us a bare two sentences later that they did these things adds nothing. But, if the therefore is understood, then what John is doing is explaining not what the soldiers did, but why they acted. And here, we discover that man’s free will, while certainly in effect for these four soldiers, is absolutely trumped by God’s purposes. We are free to choose our actions. Let there be no doubt of that. But, when God has spoken, His will is done. It will be done not as we choose, necessarily, but it will be done through our choosing. These soldiers had no conscious intention of fulfilling Scripture. Indeed, had they known this would result, they might well have refrained from acting. Likewise, Satan had no desire to see his own defeat as he prompted these activities on Calvary, but God, being greater than all, could certainly put his nefarious activities to good use in bringing about the fruition of His own Good and Perfect purpose.
This is nothing new. It is throughout the Scriptures if we will but humble our egos to see it. There is, for example, the bald statement of Proverbs 16:9: “The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.” When John adds this statement about the soldiers, with ‘therefore’ in the van, he is making this exact same point.
We can apply that same relation of man’s choices and God’s direction to Pilate as he responds to the demands the priests are making. The priests no doubt think they’ve got Pilate’s number now. Having buckled on the matter of crucifixion, surely they can get a concession on the matter of those charges put over Jesus’ head. No, no! Don’t call him the king. Just indicate that he made the claim. But, Pilate, in that place where man’s will and God’s purpose meet, stands firm. I have written it, and it stands. From Pilate’s perspective, this is as likely as not a reaction of disgust and annoyance. He’s disgusted with himself for giving into these bullying priests and he’s disgusted with them for their actions. He’s had all he can take, and he’s not going to take any more. But, from God’s perspective? From God’s perspective, Pilate has recorded the Truth – he who isn’t even certain there is any absolute truth. He has prophesied, as surely as Caiaphas did. “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” Indeed, He is. And King of us all.
As for King Jesus, He has made plain who is in control as concerns His own demise. “No one has taken my life from Me. I lay it down of My own initiative, being authorized to do so, and also authorized to take it back up again. This is the commandment I have from My Father” (Jn 10:18). What particularly distinguishes Jesus in this is that He willingly aligns Himself with the purpose and command of the Father. In Him, the plan of man and the direction of God are joined in one accord. It has not always been easy. It is not some inherent and natural response of the flesh, even for Him. Look no further than those prayers in the garden that preceded this ordeal. Look no further than the agonized cries to come as the ordeal proceeds. But, hard or easy, He is determined. Not My will, Father, but Thine.
Now, as to the lot that was cast: Had this come in the time of Moses, there would have been no doubt but that the lot fell as God directed. It was assumed. Here, we might accept Biblical backing for the conception that there is no such thing as coincidence, alternately understood as the doctrine of God’s Providence. He is in control of all things. Ergo, nothing lies to chance. A dandelion seed does not fall to the ground but that He has directed its course. The fall of the lot was seen as a means of knowing His will, not testing Him. The soldiers, although their conception of the gods was a conception of mythology rather than Truth, still saw the lot in similar light. Oh, it was entertainment, to be sure. But, it retained that sense of being guided or driven by the gods as to the outcome.
That being the case, I wonder what it signified for that soldier to whom the lot fell, who was given possession of that tunic. This wondering collides with another curiosity of mine: Where did Luke get his particular information about the event? He alone seems to have details about what was being said between those three on their crosses. The others, Matthew, Peter, John, who may have been standing amongst the crowds, heard the crowds well enough, heard the priests making their noises. But, what could they make of the comments of those two thieves? The one was doubtless loud enough, and his attitude clear enough. They may have simply assumed the other was making similar noises in his turn. But, Luke reveals that it was otherwise. How did he know this? He certainly didn’t ask the thieves!
This leads me to the possibility that this soldier, this one to whom God directed the lot for His Son’s tunic, that tunic which seems to have some relationship to His Son’s office as High Priest, might have gained more than a bit of cloth that day. He may have come out here amused at this ragged prophet of the Jews, happy enough to do his job and crucify the Man. And that tunic was a bonus he had earned for his exertions. But, the events that he was witness to: The condemned man calling for forgiveness, the surprisingly swift departure of His life, the quaking earth and darkened skies! Those earthly signs, if nothing else, were going to get the attention of even the staunch soldiers of Rome! And later events would be bound to carry some weight, too. Whether or not he was later in that guard detail sent to the tomb of Jesus, rest assured he heard about it, however much they were trying to keep it quiet. And, he would know, as perhaps the higher ups would not, that this was not a case of somebody sleeping on the job. What did all this do in the mind of this soldier? Isn’t it just possible that he found salvation their on Calvary’s hill? Isn’t it just possible that this is what lay behind God’s determination of that lot? Even so small a thing as that, and there is God ensuring things fall out exactly as planned. And, because He has so ordained events, there is this record in Luke of those events that only those nearer the cross that day would know. Too fanciful? Too much my imagination? Perhaps. But, it is an imagining that lies (or so it strikes me) in full accord with what God reveals of Himself.
Significance & Irony (12/25/12)
The truth of what was transpiring out here on Golgatha is inadvertently revealed by those sneering at Jesus as He hung there. “He saved others, let Him save Himself if He is truly Messiah, God’s Chosen One.” Arguably, to this point He had not saved a single other, for the act was not yet completed nor the sacrifice as yet accepted. On the other hand, the certainty of all being accomplished was such that one could look back even to Adam and truly state, “He saved him!” As to the suggestion that He save Himself, or that He could not do so, I could point out that He alone was in no need of salvation. He alone was sinless.
This comment reveals a great deal about the limited understanding of those who were reviling the Christ. They thought of salvation in strictly earthly, temporal fashion. To be saved meant no illness, no poverty, no trouble with the law or with invading armies. That was it. What the Man on the Cross was accomplishing by way of salvation was something so vastly superior as to bear no comparison. And yet, it strikes me that many today would reduce His magnificent work to the same level as these people had done. If God won’t heal my disease, make me well-to-do, protect my job, bring me a wonderful spouse, or whatever my particular focus might be, then I see no cause to follow Him. That’s what’s happening in many houses of purported worship! That’s the thinking that is being imparted and imbibed. And, it has no foundation.
He saved others, let Him save Himself: But, had He done so, had He acted to spare Himself the fleeting pain of the cross (not to minimize that by any stretch!) there would have been none saved whatsoever. Understanding that there wasn’t the least possibility, really, of God not doing as God willed, which is what we’re suggesting in that thought, there was yet the powerful truth that Jesus, though fully God, had willingly, purposefully shed the prerogatives that were His by right to achieve this obedience to the will and rule of God as a Man. And here on the Cross He was bringing that obedience to completion. To stop now would be to fail to obey. To stop now would be to condemn all mankind once for all time from the dawn of creation to its ending. Rather, because He truly is Messiah, God’s Chosen One, God Himself strengthened Him to bear the cast of our sins, that through His sinless death He might save the many from their sins.
Here He hung, the second (and final) Adam. The first Adam, serving in office as the federal head of all mankind, had failed utterly in his fairly singular duty. Do not eat that! But he did, after first failing to guard the woman who was his companion and helpmate. Eve may have been the first to taste that fruit, but there is every suggestion that Adam was right there watching as she fell prey to the innuendo which the serpent spoke against God, as she took that which was not to be taken and ate of it. In his failure, all mankind failed, for he was the representative of all mankind.
And here on Calvary, at least as some local lore would have it, the skull of Adam had been found. This, according to one line of thought, is what gave the place its name. Now, I don’t suppose anybody would maintain that the skull which had been found truly belonged to Adam, not at this remove. But, at the time? It’s possible. It’s possible that such significance was given to the place. Examples of like veneration or commemoration of this locale or that around the area are plentiful.
But, for my brief purpose here, just consider: Here was the place where the first federal head of mankind was thought to have been interred. Here was the place where the second, successful federal head of mankind would meet His end, so far as this earthly existence was concerned. Here, (for the garden tomb was purportedly near at hand) He, too, was interred. But, He would not remain so. None would be coming centuries on to find His remains. For, He would not stay, could not stay. He is Life! He died for a purpose, to complete His obedience, to do all that was necessary to redeem those He represented, the entire congregation of the reborn. “Save Yourself, if You are the Son of God!”? Oh! The irony! Saving Himself He would have lost not only Himself but all God’s children. Dying, He saved all, losing not a one of those the Father had given Him.
Reaction of Man (12/25/12)
One thing we are shown in the scene of Jesus’ agony is that if God is no respecter of persons, neither is the devil. To explain, it is the devil who is at work in all those gathered to enjoy the spectacle of God’s Son being destroyed. Oh, I do not in any way write off the complicity of mankind in the work. No, they are no more relieved of their free will in this as they are by the fact that God was indeed working the most magnificent good by means of their vile conduct. But, he is there, instigating. He is there, just as he was with those two in the garden, seeking to incite rebellion, injecting doubts by every means possible, and for him, every one of those standing by the cross – the priests, the soldiers, the commoners, even those two rebels hung to either side of Jesus – were possible means.
Look at what is recorded! The priests are laughing at Him, taunting Him, tempting Him really. The people wandering by are in on the act. It would be tempting to suppose they had little knowledge of Who was being crucified or why, that they simply assumed a vile criminal based on the punishment, except that John points out that many were reading the charge, written out so all could perceive it, whatever their preferred language. The soldiers, not content with what they had done earlier, not content with taking possession of His meager belongings, feel the need to add mockery to His agony. Oh, yes, they offer Him some of their wine, even! They’re still playing this game of mocking His claim to the throne. You’re the King of the Jews? Well, then, c’mon boy! Save Yourself. Call up Your armies. There’s only the four of us here. Surely, You have more than that at Your command, Your highness. And even those two soldiers hanging from nailed limbs just as He: They, too, feel the need to revile this sinless One.
Can we even begin to hope to understand what motivates such behavior? The priests are perhaps the most explicable, for we have long known of their sense of threatened prestige, their concern for the competition represented in this One, and the certainty (proven over and over again, really) that they would lose any contest that pitted them against Him. So, of course they feel a certain glee at seeing Him brought to such an end. This is what they’ve been pursuing for a year or more now! It’s worked. It’s actually worked, and they are there to capitalize on their little victory.
As to the soldiers, we might suppose it was just the brutal nature of those who were typical of Roman ranks. Bah. They’re hardened military men, used to the violence inherent to military practice. Theirs is a coarse culture, a constant contest of manliness, of proving oneself tougher than the other. So, a bit of a victory dance from them is almost to be expected.
Even the thieves on their own crosses we can almost understand. However low we may be sinking, it seems we are forever looking for somebody who’s doing worse, somebody we can yet look down on. So, that crass rebel, seeing this celebrated Man of the people hanging as he himself is hanging, finds some last shred of ego to stroke by knocking Him down yet another peg. Yeah, dude. Go ahead and save Yourself, and You might as well save us while You’re at it. Like that’s going to happen. You! You Who have been making such claims about Yourself, You Who have been the hero of every folk tale, or so it seems: You’re no better than we are. You’re suffering the same fate. So, don’t get all righteous on me.
But, what of the rest? How is it that these common folk, who had perhaps even been witness to some of what Jesus had done, who had maybe even benefited from His ministry, being healed or set free of this demon or that; how is it that they, too, are joining the chorus of scorn? Is it really such a relief to see this miracle worker brought down? You know, it might just have been.
I think about that constant refrain that comes from heaven’s representatives when they visit. “Fear not!” That really ought to tell us something about what those visits are like! If they looked like average Joes, or if they were obvious harbingers of glad news, what cause would they have for such an introductory comment? Think back across those miracles we read of, which Jesus had performed. Think back, even, upon His teaching. What was the constant reaction? Wonder, astonishment, amazement. And, I recall looking at those terms in previous studies, and there is that sense, at least in one of the terms, of being driven nearly beyond sanity by what has been witnessed. Look! Those who saw Him calm the wind and the waves didn’t just stand by and clap for the entertainment that had been provided. Even the disciples were freaked. Who is this Man?
When the thousands were fed, to be sure there was pleasure in the experience. Who doesn’t enjoy a free meal, and this one came with something of a floor show! How was He doing it? Would they still feel like they had been fed when the illusion ended? Discovering that there had been no illusion, that He truly had manufactured a meal for the masses, was going to push them right back into that state of shocked awe. What had they witnessed? What was to be made of it? And, if they in any way were beginning to comprehend, there were implications to that as well.
Finally, and this is something all Jerusalem was assuredly quite aware of, there was Lazarus. This guy had been bringing people back from the dead! This wasn’t some rumor from the hinterlands. This was a man they knew, whose funeral they had attended, at whose tomb they had mourned. And yet, he was back, walking the streets of Jerusalem. Impressed? Given a few moments to think about that, many were more likely scared – deeply scared – of this One Who could do such things.
And, as with the meal, there were implications to this. He Who could do such things, how was He doing them? Answer that and one must come to the question of, “How Should we then Live?” They would need to consider His teaching more seriously, for He clearly had the power to enforce what He taught, this One for whom all the ordinary rules of nature appeared to be suspended. He commands the elements. He commands the grave. What is beyond His power? Nothing! And He is telling us we must repent, that we must enter into a new, and uncomfortable lifestyle. Fear not? Who can abide His teaching?
These things might begin to explain the universal response of derision. How consciously were folks pursuing such lines of thought? Who can say. For some, I suspect, it was very much thought about. For others, the reaction may have been more beneath the surface, a subconscious rejection of the call to change. But, that poison seeped into the soul, however it arrived, and now, here was this One Who made such a demand upon them brought down, brought down not just to their own level, but brought down to such a level that they could actually feel superior to Him. More than that, it provided them with the excuse to of an instant deny all that they had heard and seen to this point. Apparently, He doesn’t really have power over nature and life. Whatever it was we witnessed, it was an illusion of some sort after all. Look! If He were truly capable of such feats, would we see Him there? If He has such power, is it really to be supposed that He would put up with this; that He would not save Himself?
As I said, Satan the insinuator is hard at work in this scene, as he has been throughout. He will certainly have been suggesting such implications. It’s not possible that this is the Son of God. The Son of God would never do such a thing. If we were to apply modern psychological terminology to this liar, we would see that he is projecting. He would certainly never do such a thing, so his assumption is that God, of Whom he is so jealous, would never do so either. It’s so far beyond his character as to be unimaginable. And those to whom he whispers this seemingly solid bit of reasoning are equally inclined to find it impossible that Jesus could be Who He claimed to be and still be there on the Cross.
The same reaction continues in our own day when men of God are discovered to be imperfect. Society appreciates the fall of any believer, but particularly one that is prominent. For, they see in this not proof that God’s assessment of mankind is perfectly accurate, but rather that God is imperfect, that faith is empty and void, and that therefore, any moral demands that faith and faith’s God might make upon them are likewise null and void. God, if He happens to exist, can be safely ignored. If this is the best He can find to represent Him, then who cares?
We who have been adopted into the very family of God need also to take heed. We, too, are capable of effectively ignoring the very God who adopted us. We can come to take it for granted. We hear about the eternal security of the believer, and sin in us almost instantly rises up and discovers cause to let life proceed as it has before. If security is out of our hands, then let our hands continue doing what they enjoy. Time enough for salvation in eternity. For the present, we shall eat, drink and be merry.
Yes, we know, if we give it proper thought, that such an attitude must be cause for deepest concern. We know that where this is our mindset, the adoption we think is ours is very much in doubt. Indeed, if our desire and preference is to continue with our sins, we ought be driven to our knees by that realization. It is the strongest evidence of our need that we feel no need. It is a warning to be heeded with alacrity, lest we arrive at that final day only to discover that we were tragically, irrevocably wrong.
Reaction of God (12/26/12)
Having considered how mankind, top to bottom, reacted to the death of God’s Son, it is most needful that we should consider how God reacted to this same event. It is summed up in the brief prayer of Jesus that is recorded by Luke. “Father forgive them.” Indeed, I don’t even feel the need to include the remainder of that passage. We know it well enough to fill in the blank, anyway. But, the reason – I could almost call it an excuse – given by Jesus is not to the point. That Father forgives us is entirely to the point.
That is what we see of God’s reaction here. But, in reality it is not His reaction. It is His purpose! God does not react. God does not need to react. What is happening here is what He has determined must happen here, and that determination was made before ever the first Adam fell. Now, this is not to say that God has no opinion as to the events made necessary by that Fall. This is not to say that God does not feel wrath. He Himself proclaims in no uncertain terms that He does feel wrath, and His wrath is entirely righteous, just and true. I would be hard pressed to suppose He felt no wrath towards those who were most immediately involved in the destruction of His Son. But, that is not the reaction for us. The reaction for us is, “Father forgive them.”
Take those words back to the original occasion, though. There is Jesus, suspended upon that cross, the shock of pain at having nails driven through wrist and ankle. Physically, He is at His weakest point. Strength of body has been utterly drained from Him. Yet, in Spirit, He remains strong. In Spirit, He refuses to succumb to the fleshly response to such extremities of pain. He does not cry out in agony. He does not revile those who have brought Him to such straits. He seeks forgiveness. But, may I ask, for whom? I remain mindful that there are several distinct groups observing His demise. There are the priests who have been plotting this moment for quite some time. There are the soldiers who have carried out the deed upon orders they could hardly have refused even were they so inclined. There are the crowds of onlookers. And, of course, there are those who, like ourselves, read of the event long years later, and wonder. And many in this crowd of historical rubberneckers find the whole thing as utterly ridiculous and repulsive and, in some sad way, relieving. They, too, would as soon have a reason to ignore the Man on the Cross.
So, Jesus says, “Father forgive them,” and I repeat, forgive whom? We have this notion of this magnanimous Jesus, benignly looking upon all those who surround Him in this moment and blessing them. Perhaps it is so. But, then again, perhaps it is not so. He came to do the Father’s will, let us recall, and while the Father would certainly prefer that sin never needed punishing in His creation, yet His will demands that justice be done, that His glory be manifest both in forgiveness and in wrath. He must be True to Himself, and His Son, Who does only as He sees and hears from the Father, must likewise speak and act in a fashion that is True to Himself. Given this reality, can it really be that He prays for the forgiveness of those He knows to be doomed to destruction? He has already pronounced final woe upon the priesthood that has ever and always killed the prophets. On what basis would He now turn around and seek their forgiveness? Can I say with the finality of a doctrine that these were excluded from His prayer? No. But, it seems more likely to me that His attention is on a different group.
Is He, then, thinking of His disciples? No doubt. But, then, they are best situated of all those who surround Him, assuming any besides John are even here to witness the end. There is cause to forgive them, certainly. Their abandoning of Him did not speak well of their development. But, it was also something long ago forecast. And, we know also that the opportunity for a more personal forgiveness would come for them in but a little while.
What about the crowds, then? Well, I would note that Luke has not even introduced the crowds yet. They show up in his narrative afterwards, and after the soldiers have divvied up His possessions. And this leads me to what seems the most obvious intent for His words. Considering the context, the setting in which Luke has set this gem, we see that ‘they’ came to the place, where ‘they’ crucified Him and the two criminals, and as Jesus speaks, ‘they’ are casting lots for His clothing. Who, are ‘they’? Clearly, we are reading about those soldiers, four in number as John reports, directly responsible for carrying out the sentence the priests had instigated and Pilate had decreed. And here, the words make perfect sense, don’t they? “Forgive them. They don’t know what they are doing.” The priests certainly knew what they were doing. The people of Jerusalem, as evidenced by their reception of Jesus when He made His triumphal entry, knew what they were doing, or at least had solid reason to be aware. The criminals? They, as yet, were doing nothing to Him. What could they do, being nailed to their own crosses? Other than the abuse they hurled along with the rest, His death has no relationship to them.
If, then, I center in on the immediate setting, the immediate application would seem to be clear. The soldiers, most directly involved in causing Him pain, had the least reason to know or even suspect Who He Is. This, too, could be laid to the account Israel owed. For, they had been set apart as a nation to make God’s glory known to all nations, and had instead become arrogant and possessive, refusing the very idea that God might look with favor on the dogs outside of Israel’s camp.
There remains the larger picture of God’s reaction. His reaction, we must see, is both wrath and forgiveness. It is so plainly on display here. His wrath is ever towards sin and towards those who prefer their sin to His Truth. His forgiveness is ever towards those in whom He is pleased to set His Spirit. He is, right here in this prayer, entering into His labor in separating the sheep from the goats. This is, I dare say, why the Holy Spirit caused the final scene of those two thieves to be incorporated in the Gospel record. One a sheep, one a goat. One reviling to the bitter end, the other, though he may well have been taking part in the abuse early on, is granted to have his eyes opened before he goes to his death. And, what a profession of faith! “When you come in Your kingdom.” Even His own disciples couldn’t profess such a thing on that day. Their dreams hung on that Cross right in His person. They could not look upon this One with Whom they had been living these last three years and see any further hope of kingdom.
Think of James and John, who had asked, either through the prompting of their mother, or perhaps having sent her to speak for them, “order that we may sit to Your left and Your right in Your kingdom” (Jn 20:21). Of course, that was back when the kingdom still seemed an imminent physical reality. Now? There’s no hope for those seats anyway, and the very idea of having vied for a place seems silly, embarrassing really. Look at Him. There’s no kingdom there. What kind of King could He be, if He hasn’t used His power to avenge Himself in this moment? What possible kingdom can there be if God’s champion hangs bleeding before His enemies? But, the thief! The thief saw beyond the moment. “When You come in Your kingdom.” It’s not over yet! God is not defeated, nor is it thinkable that His Champion is defeated!
Here is faith in full flower. Here is Truth exposed. And, Jesus is instant in response. Here is God’s reaction. No, friend, it is not some far future day that you must wait for. Today you will be with Me in Paradise. Is there really any need to wonder why this statement was added to the Gospel account? How great a need there would be for God’s children to understand this! How great a need there is today! Why should we fear the end of this life? Why are we so engrossed in prolonging our days in this vale of tears? There remains a certain dread of the unknown, I think, or maybe a dread of the known. We know, after all, that in spite of all that God has done in us, the work is not complete and we remain sinful beings even in the light of forgiveness. We know that there is a strong scent of goat on us even if we are confident that we are sheep. So, there’s that. There’s also a certain lack of faith, I think we must confess, that what Jesus said to the thief here is true. We’re not certain about that moment after death. What if we discover we were wrong? Not necessarily wrong about God or our being among the elect; what if we were merely wrong about that whole Limbo thing? What if we now have to hang about in some indefinite state until that second advent arrives? Will we, like the faithful of earlier days, have to bide our time in Abraham’s bosom until time is complete? We hate waiting! Nothing bothers us more than lines, or being penned up in some reception area until the one we’ve come to see is free.
But, Jesus promises something better about this whole death business. Today, saint of God, you will be with Me. Do you see how that understanding began to soak in for the Apostles? Paul practically sings of it! To live is Christ, but to die is gain! I count all the sorrowful events of this life as less than nothing when weighed against the glory of that eternity which is set to my account! I only stay on because it’s needful for the work of God. He won’t let me come home just yet. But, when He does, when my moment is come, don’t cry for me. If I might quote the lousy PSA that’s been on AM radio of late: “I’m home, and I love it! I’m home where I belong!”
Wonder of wonder, miracle of miracles, God Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth and all they contain, has chosen to forgive us. He has brought peace where there could be no peace. He has brought forgiveness to those He has absolutely no need to forgive. He has upheld His name. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Ex 33:19). Again, we hear the point driven home by Paul. “So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Ro 9:16).
This is the reaction of God. His reaction is His name. He will have mercy on whom He wills. The clear implication is that He will withhold mercy from whom He wills. He has ever and always stood as the Shepherd marking out the sheep from the goats. It has been happening since the day the gates of Eden were closed against mankind, and it shall continue until the day when those gates are reopened, when all has been finally, perfectly restored to full accord with His perfect design.
Reaction of Faith (12/26/12)
There remains one further reaction to observe, and that is the reaction of faith. How does faith react to this gruesome scene? How does faith react to faith’s object hanging, suffering, dying? Of course, we have the answer there in the thief’s plea. “Remember me when You come.” Faith must look upon this scene. I have said it before, and it remains there before me: I don’t want to. I do not enjoy the consideration of what is happening there on Golgatha. I do not like to ponder my Savior bloodied, agonized, almost unrecognizable as the Man He was, the Man He Is. It offends me. The Cross seems so terrible a symbol even at this remove, even relieved of the burden of God’s body upon it.
Oh! The power of this moment is a thing to be cherished all my days, but the method and the means? Would there had been another way. Would that God’s wrath weren’t necessary. Would that I did not feel so keenly my own contributions to that necessity. And at the same time, would that I felt them more keenly still, for perhaps (one likes to suppose) if I could but feel my cost to Him keenly enough it might just serve to keep my heart from sinning yet again.
So, what is it in me really, that makes me want to get past this part? Is it just the offense of God being put to death? Is it just that I find it so hard to think of men being this cruel to one another? That I find it so odd and out of place that other men would find cause for glee and sport in such a display of inhumanity? No. I don’t really think so. I think I would like to think so. It is more comfortable, certainly, to allow the discomfort to find its cause in something more remote such as that. But, faith must look at the Cross. Faith must stand in that crowd of onlookers. Faith must recognize that I am the reason He is there. It is for me that He has come, that He has suffered so. It is my sin whose penalty He is feeling. Oh! It becomes so terrible. That cry that will rip from His lungs, “Father, why have You forsaken Me?” What have I ever done to deserve this? Why must it be this way? And, I must, with deepest sorrow, confess that it is because I am who I am that He must be Who He Is, must do as He is doing here.
It is I who has brought Him to the cross, I who has nailed Him there, I who am so relieved to see Him dead. But, my relief, though in the flesh it has too much in common with the crowds out from Jerusalem, is found in the result. My relief is that He has indeed paid it all! My relief is that all to Him I owe! My relief is that He was proved – is proven – faithful. He, the sinless One, became sin for me that I might live in Him. And, though I know my life is far from what it should be, yet because of Him, I know as well that it is farther still from what it was. He is faithful. He was faithful to obey the plan of God even to this most bitter of ends. He was faithful to continue in that obedience, rising yet again to live forevermore. He was faithful to retrieve the keys of the kingdom from Satan’s usurping hand, and to take His throne. He remains faithful still: working in us to achieve that for which the soul yet longs, interceding for us when our own actions contribute so much to the case against us! He is faithful still to speak faith and comfort to our souls when our own self-assessments would leave us as hopeless as Peter walking away from this day.
And now, because of Him, because He lives, but also because of this Cross upon which He died, these three abide: Faith, hope and love. They abide because He abides. They abide in me because He abides in me. Oh! That I might one day begin to respond in a manner worthy of such love. Oh! That I might one day offer back something, anything, that might truly demonstrate that I have understood His magnificence.
