New Thoughts (03/09/13-03/15/13)
It’s rare that a selection for key verse strikes me as begin a matter for comment, but this is one occasion where I find that to be the case. “Why do you seek the living One among the dead?” So much could be said about this. Of course, in its immediate setting, the point is quite obvious and quite literal. It’s as though the angels were asking why one would even think to find Him here at all. And, quite possible, from their perspective this is indeed all but incomprehensible. How could you have missed it? Weren’t you listening to Him? Seriously: How often did He speak of these things in terms that really couldn’t have been misunderstood? And yet, you’re still acting like His death is the final act.
We might just as easily ask ourselves the same question today, though. It is, after its fashion, a word of conviction against dead religiosity. Why do you think to find the living One in dead works? Why do you think dead, empty ritual will somehow bring you together with He who Lives? Why, even if your faith is as real as can be, do so many of your actions seem to indicate a complete lack of belief that He lives? Why, if you know He is life, do you expend so much energy on things which do not lead to life, but rather to death? If you are in the family of the living One, why are you so keen to identify with the dead and dying around you?
All of these are questions I would as soon avoid. Most of them, anyway. Even in the issue of dead works, I have to wonder sometimes, as much as I don’t count this issue of earning my way into heaven amongst my conscious beliefs, how often do I act otherwise? Is my motivation where it should be, or am I doing what’s expected, what looks good? I know what the answer ought to be. Empty ritual? There are times when even these morning studies seem to draw dangerously close to that description. I shall do this because this is what I do. I shall pursue this aspect because that’s on the schedule today. But, is there an impact? Is there application? If you meet me an hour hence will I even recall what I was considering? And, if I do, will it show in any way? I know from past history that it is doubtful.
And yet, I must pursue these morning efforts! I must, because quite honestly I know my day and my attitude throughout the day really does depend upon this time. Yesterday was one of the rare occasions when schedule did not permit of my usual morning routine. Oh, I got my comics in, yes, and that first cup of coffee. But, that was it. I should like to say that if there is one reason I could accept for skipping this study, needing to get to church on time would be about the most acceptable. But, it still disrupts the day.
So, yes, I know there is a risk of empty exercise in this time, but if God is willing to hold my feet to the fire of His word, it can also prove a most valuable time. Believe me, my feet are trying very hard to move away from the heat of the thoughts that arise this morning as the Spirit works upon me. Dead religiosity? I am never so far from it as I think, I fear. It’s so painfully easy to just start going through the motions, and to really feel the whole thing to be nothing more than that. Quite seriously, there is a sense in which the whole weekly routine begins to feel rather like a treadmill. There’s the morning study times. Fine. Then there’s Tuesday night prayer, and then Thursday night practice. Is it Saturday? Then, I’ll need to be preparing for Sunday School. And, zoom! It’s Sunday again! Any one of those events that bring me from one Sunday to the next can begin to feel more like a chore or a burden than a joyful opportunity to spend time with God. Sad, but there it is.
And what would I rather be doing? Sigh. There is nothing edifying in that list. Why, I could go read some online news, or better, cartoons. Yes. Much better, cartoons. And, if I’ve exhausted my usual haunts for that line of distraction, there’s always some tower defense game or other that could be played. What value is there in any of that? And yet, I demonstrate a clear preference for pursuing those things rather than prayer, rather than spending any quiet time. What is quiet time? Apart from these morning hours, it’s all but unthinkable to me!
But, oh! These morning hours! Oh! These periods when God seems best able to get my attention, when distractions are at somewhat of a minimum. What times they are, and how easily they can wind up stretching beyond their allotted period. I remember, vaguely, when fifteen minutes was pretty typical, and a half hour was long. Now it seems a half hour is rushing, an hour typical, and it may well be more than that before I emerge. But, eventually, the pressures of daily schedule make themselves felt and I must away. I wonder where all this would wind up were this not the case. Would I find myself caught up in these contemplations of Scripture and God and self to the same degree I can get caught up in figuring out some problem at work? I’d like to think so, but I’m not certain that would be the case.
In the meantime, this seems like one of those things I should be keeping before my mental eye. It’s rather like that image that I have kept through the years of that emblem that hung upon Aaron’s forehead when he wore his priestly attire, which proclaimed that he was, ‘Holy to the Lord’. That image has been so significant for me. Not that I am successful in remaining consistently mindful of my being likewise holy unto the Lord. Not that I am anywhere near conducting my day to day life with that mindset, but the image is there. The desire, when I am thinking about it, is there. This is another of those things. Maybe I should print it out and strap it to my monitor! “Why do you seek the living One among the dead?”
Why would you do these things? What’s the value in what you’re doing. How does this draw you closer to the Lord of life? You know, on one level, it seems like asking that sort of question of one’s activities would soon reduce one to a nearly monastic mode of living. But, that would be wrong as well, perhaps more wrong than the present course. No. God, in His wisdom, pronounces even our mundane vocations a matter of His kingdom, if we will but see it in His light. He commands us to work and be productive, and to give our employers value as He makes of them a means for our provision. But, even here, I can consider that question. Am I taking my sense of self-worth from this job? Or am I giving to this job from my sense of Christ? Two very different perspectives. Two very different motivations. One honors God. One seeks honor from man. It’s worth my while to ponder that as I prepare to head out for the office today. Am I seeking my living among the dead, or am I seeking to serve the living One?
Timing (03/12/13)
It seems to be a thing all but impossible to avoid, this issue of the timing and order of events around the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Set aside the confusion of the reporting, the questions of how the Sabbath and the Passover aligned and so on. Much is made of this simple conundrum: If He died on Good Friday and rose on Sunday, how is that three days? The typical answer given is that this reflects a particular mode by which Jews reckon days. Thus, a day being measured sunset to sunset, any lesser period within that span is counted a day. So, we have Friday evening as day 1, Saturday as day 2, and Saturday night / Sunday sunrise as day 3.
Here’s where it seems to me that theory falls. Jesus Himself, speaking of what must befall Him, says, “for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Mt 12:40). While the preceding theory might explain the three days part of that statement, it cannot provide us with three nights. On that basis, it would seem to me that we must move the Crucifixion back to Thursday, and we must also accept that the Passover feast fell on a Friday in that year, allowing for Thursday as the day of preparation. This offers some support for Matthew’s awkward phrasing in speaking of the next day as the day after the day of preparation, rather than as the Sabbath.
If we return to that supposition that the term Sabbath can speak of both the weekly observance and the high holy days, which I believe is a usage supported by current practice, then there would be a certain ambiguity to speaking of the priests going to see Pilate on the Sabbath. I’m not saying that the ambiguity is any less by speaking of it as the day after preparation, but what might be happening here is that Matthew is intentionally bringing that very ambiguity to his description. If he had said they went to Pilate on the Sabbath, that would be taken as implying Saturday. If he had said they went on the Passover, well, I don’t know why that should have presented a problem. On the other hand, if this was one of those years when Passover fell immediately before Sabbath, then there were special rules in place to allow for a certain amount of Sabbath preparation transpiring on the Passover day itself.
All that being said, it does seem to me that Jesus’ statement that He would be in ‘the heart of the earth’ for three nights rather requires that there have been three nights involved, and even the Jewish reckoning of days cannot create three nights between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning. The one certainty we have as to this schedule is that He did indeed rise on a Sunday morning. That much all four witnesses are in agreement on.
Perspective (03/12/13-03/13/13)
As to the rest of the account, the four witnesses vary rather significantly as to what they relate. This is held out as evidence that they did not collude on their testimony, for if they had, surely they would have taken greater care to align their efforts. More to the point, perhaps, they being simple folk, they would not have thought to create so varied a testimony; certainly not so as to satisfy theological investigators who might come along centuries later!
One point we should hold in view as we consider the accounts: None of those writing were present for this moment. All of them are relying on what they were told by the women who were there. I will offer the suggestion that Matthew may well have had connections amongst the Romans, given his past as a tax collector. It seems to me that this might explain that particular bit of detail he adds regarding the soldiers of the guard, both their having been assigned in the first place and their reaction to angelic interference.
It is, I must admit, interesting that these guards gain not so much as a mention by the other accounts. They are reduced to insignificance. We can speculate as to the reasons for this. It will be recalled that Matthew is writing primarily for a Jewish audience, so speaking poorly of these guards is no big deal for him or for his readers. It causes no offense, and may even cause a bit of amusement. There is also the factor that these guards, upon instruction from the priests and for the purposes of preserving their own hides, were spreading false tales about what had happened. In Rome or in Greece those tales would be unknown and uninteresting. But, to that Jewish congregation that Matthew addressed? This was stuff they had heard themselves. This was a matter that argued against the faith, a reason for unbelief, and it need countering in the strongest possible way. For Matthew, this part of the story absolutely must be addressed, for to skip past it would suggest a certain validity in that version of events the soldiers were promulgating.
Beyond this, though, there remain many distinctions in the way events are described. Matthew has an angel outside, Mark one inside, and Luke presents a pair. Matthew seems to depict the stone having still been before the cave when the ladies arrive, only being rolled aside in the earthquake of the angel’s appearing. Mark has them discussing the matter of the stone, and only noting the problem has been resolved when the ‘look up’. For Luke, the problem was solved before they even got there. And then, of course, there’s John; John whose account always seems to provide special difficulties for harmonizing.
John presents Mary Magdalene alone, she arriving when it was still dark, although the others are rather careful to make plain that the Sabbath is over before they make their way there. She, seemingly by herself, sees the open tomb, and rushes off to find Peter and John, telling them the body is gone and she doesn’t know where it’s been taken. Now, while I read certain commentaries suggesting that Mary was there for the angelic discussion, but frankly didn’t believe it, I find that explanation a bit too strained to accept.
I have attempted to provide my own sense of how things actually fell out in the way I have arranged my paraphrase of these four accounts. But, let me provide a brief sketch of my thinking here. First, the business with the soldiers that Matthew describes is not necessarily to be understood as having taken place in the immediate presence of the women. Indeed, to accept what Mark and Luke say, it must be supposed that this occurred while they were still underway, if not during the night. So, then, I am going to suggest that there is a significant time gap between Matthew 28:4 and Matthew 28:5. Thus, we have the case that the women, when they arrive, find the stone already displaced. What is left unmentioned is that they quite likely also see those guards still laid out as though dead. This may not have been the case, I suppose. The guards may have already stirred themselves and run off to the priests, but I think not.
So, let’s picture these women, three that we are certain of, coming through the early dawn, on a particularly sorrowful mission, and arriving at this scene. There are guards on the ground, Roman soldiers according to most accounts. The tomb is open. I will suggest that the angel which had moved the stone and stunned the soldiers is no longer visible, although he remains present. How do these women respond? I am going to suggest that Mary Magdalene, at least, ran. She had seen enough to know that staying could well be trouble. Where there were guards, there would be an officer come to check, or a change of guards. At any rate, for a Jew to be found in the vicinity of fallen soldiers was not going to be healthy for the Jew! She wouldn’t be aware, in the dim light of morning and the shock of discovery, that there was no bloodshed. All she knows is soldiers are down and the tomb is open, and she reaches immediate conclusions. Somebody has stolen the body! Must go tell the guys. Certainly mustn’t be found here. I can imagine that she is telling the others to run as well. But, they are apparently more curious than she. Or perhaps we can explain it with no more than a pointer to this being the way things needed to fall out, so this is the way God ordained it. One needed to go find Peter and John, but others needed to hear the words of the angels. Thus far, this feels sufficient to explain the immediate distinctions in coverage.
What I find more intriguing than the seeming discrepancies are the ways in which these four accounts reflect the very personal experience of events by those who are composing the reports, or those who are providing the reported testimony, as the case may be. I have already mentioned Matthew’s unique inclusion of that material which would seem to have come from the Roman barracks. Luke, we are often told, has a particular interest in the role women played in these events. Of course, he also writes at furthest distance from personal experience of those events. Not only was he not there in that moment, he was not there to hear the moment reported at the first. It is many years later when he investigates the things of which he writes. That said, it would be reasonable to suppose that he gathered his facts from those same women, although now with the reflection of years rather than the shock of the moment. And John? John also writes from a distance, but in his case a distance in time. Yet, there is no cause to think his memory addled by age.
What we see in his writing instead is a very personal recollection of a particular moment in the unfolding drama that only he and Peter were present to witness, as Mary Magdalene comes running with her sad news. We could ask why Peter doesn’t mention this, but the answer, I think, is pretty clear. First, as we read Mark’s notes on Peter’s preaching, it is clear that the focus of those notes is solely upon Jesus. Only such details as are needed to move that narrative are brought to bear. The timing is important. The fact that the stone was moved aside is important, and the fact that they did not do it or have it done is of critical import. Certainly, the angelic message is something that is worthy of attention. But, the thing that really points to Peter in that account is the memory he has of that special attention given his case. Tell the disciples – and Peter…
From this we can gather that those women, when they returned to tell the disciples, made it a point to relay the fact that the angel had singled Peter out specifically. He’s not dead, Peter! Remember what He said, Peter! You can stop kicking yourself, now. There’s nothing you could have said which would have altered the course of events for Him, and you dying with Him would not have improved matters at all. You are most assuredly still counted with the disciples, so do join them in their return to Galilee. Yes, that Gospel would seem to bear Peter’s stamp, wouldn’t it? But, Mark is an energetic author, capturing some of Peter’s impetuous nature in his style. Everything is immediate. Everything is galloping to its conclusion. So, here, as he describes that early morning encounter, everything moves quickly. The stone is moved. The how is not as important to spell out. The angel sitting within ought to make that understood. The other angel is not important to the story. One is sufficient to validate the message.
For Matthew, perhaps because he already knew what Mark had covered, it is that other angel outside, and his effect on the soldiers that is interesting. After all, the reports that were spread in Jerusalem required both an explanation and a clear invalidation. Soldiers sleeping on station are nothing new, and were that the real situation, then their story becomes quite believable. Somebody stole the body. Needn’t be one of the twelve, or even one of the 120, but somebody. On the other hand, even the righteous are inclined to be overwhelmed by angelic visitations, contrary to modern pop cultural views on the subject. And, one come in something nearer the fullness of his power? The earth shakes at his visible approach! Single-handed, he moves the stone aside. He doesn’t even appear to be making an effort! And the Romans are a fairly superstitious lot as it is. Oh, yes. Show them the likes of this supernatural event, and they’ll be down and out of the picture alright! Of course, with the angel already accounted for, Matthew likewise finds no need to mention another. One was enough.
Luke, though, speaks of two. He also shifts the timing around, saying that the women had already gone in and found the tomb empty before ever the angels made themselves known to them. This feels legitimate to me. In fact, it rather serves to hold the remaining three accounts together, to my thinking. It needn’t be found contradictory, only more considered. Where Mark and John, and to some degree Matthew were hearing the immediate message, the confused tumble of words as these women came rushing back to tell their news, we needn’t suppose that these women delivered their testimony as if on the witness stand. No! They were relaying things of great import, things needing immediate attention. They are not speaking with an eye to some historical record. They are speaking, their words likely tumbling over each other in the rush to tell what they have seen, to be delivered of the message, and to inform the leaders of the message about their Lord.
These women are bewildered. They were already at a loss as to what to do next when the angels appeared, and terrified thereafter. Mark comments on their unwillingness to tell anyone what had just happened (Mk 16:8), although this presumably applies only to those who may have been seen on the way back. The likelihood of their delivering anything but a rather jumbled account at the outset is pretty slim. Luke has the benefit of having interviewed them at a later date, when the surprise was gone and the reality of a risen Savior settled in. He also interviews them with an historians’ sensibilities. He is seeking to set down an accurate account, not just another didactic digest of events. In that sort of a setting, the women are able to compare their recollections and set things more properly in order. Yes, there were two angels, but neither had been immediately noticeable to them when they came up. But, they sure were noticeable when they appeared! Who could miss them? Those dazzling robes in that dark cave… Think about it: If their apparel was ‘dazzling’ it must fairly have glowed in the dark, robes with a light of their own, or maybe just doing a poor job of cloaking the innate glowing of the beings themselves. No wonder, then, that they felt a sudden need to bow down. They are not so very different from those soldiers who hit the deck. Only, they have the comfort of knowing God a bit better.
John, as we shall soon see, moves from that initial report from Mary to his and Peter’s dash to the tomb to see what’s going on. If the body’s gone and it’s not their doing, they must be thinking, what will they do? Should they go to Pilate? Certainly not to the priests! But, first, they feel the need to confirm Mary’s report. That oughtn’t surprise, really. In fact, it just shows them to be men of their day. A woman’s testimony was of little value. The legal system of the day would reinforce such a view, so it was likely something of an unconscious presupposition on their part. Much like the way the maid’s report of seeing Peter was automatically discounted later. Yeah, sure. He’s in prison if not already executed, and you saw him at the door. Right. There may well have been the same sort of skepticism happening on this occasion, but the news is still enough to make them jump to the task of finding out for themselves whether she speaks truly. Besides, they’ve known Mary for some time now. She may be a woman, but she’s proven trustworthy, and her devotion to Jesus is well known. That being the case, her message carries somewhat more weight for them. But, it still needs verifying.
Reaction (03/13/13)
I have already mentioned this alternate view to reconciling John’s account with the others. In that view, Mary, by the time she reaches Peter and John, has already heard what the angels had to say, having stayed there and gone in along with the others. But, even the angelic message isn’t enough for her. Her grief is so deep that by the time they find the disciples, she no longer believes her own experience, doesn’t think that what she saw was real. This is attributed in part to the depth of her grief over the loss of Jesus.
The whole explanation strikes me as failing to take matters properly into account. If she found the direct encounter with two angels insufficiently real, she would be the first, I think. That would particularly be the case with them appearing as they did. These messengers were meant to be believed, and no doubt, they were. Even if she was having difficulty maintaining her grip on reality, there were the others, relaying the same message. Surely, that would have bolstered her confidence in what her own senses, her own memory reported.
And, too, to suppose her grief somehow more debilitating for its extent than what the others were experiencing? Really? Well, yes, her deliverance had apparently been significant, and the relief she had known by Jesus’ ministrations was great. Perhaps she feared a relapse now that He was gone? No, I don’t think that was it. She adored Him, revered Him. She had personally experienced His power. It was simply wrong, unthinkable really, that He was dead and gone now. But surely Peter in his grief over the cost of his failings, John as another particularly beloved companion, Mary as His mother; surely these knew unimaginable depths of pain for their loss as well.
This alternate perspective suggests that it is due to the profound depths of her sorrow that she requires that special ministration from the risen Lord. Indeed that author goes so far as to suggest that were it not for His intervention, those seven demons that had been escorted out of her might make their return, bringing more besides. Perhaps this is so. But, I would note that the lesson upon which this line of thought is built had to do with one who returned to their sinful and unrighteous ways after being cleansed, not to one who, through no fault of their own, was smitten by sorrows.
For my part, I find it much more believable that she would simply bolt at the sight of so unexpected a situation. It’s not clear whether the guard is still scattered about the grounds when they come up, but there’s no reason to suppose they are not beyond the lack of mention in Mark and Luke. The stone being out of place would be enough, certainly. She had seen those two, Joseph and Nicodemus, roll it in place when they laid Jesus there. Did she know who these two were? Did she know they were believers and not just tools of the Sanhedrin? This was known after the fact, but as members of that council themselves, they had, we are told, kept their faith hidden as best they could. It would seem doubtful that they had been in regular attendance on Jesus when He was in town. So, she saw two unknown men put Jesus in a tomb and close it up. Now, she comes to find that the tomb is opened again. She would not need further evidence to suppose foul play here. What other reason would there be to have moved the stone except that they had moved the body? And who were they?
She may have even reasoned, as John did, that the only reason they had used that tomb was because it was nearby and the Sabbath was closing in. They had no time to choose another. Perhaps they had no right to that tomb and had moved His corpse elsewhere, maybe to a tomb they actually owned, maybe, God forbid, He had been tossed into the burning valley after all, to rot with the corpses of criminals. No. It would not take a preponderance of evidence for her to conclude that the body was gone.
So, chalk it up to dismay. Chalk it up to fear given the fallen soldiers and the stone and the earthquake. Chalk it up to some combination of these things. But, it seems she wasn’t waiting for further data. She ran. She ran straight to Peter and John, and it seems clear from her message to them that she had not heard what the angels would say. All she knows is: stone moved, body missing. Somebody has to do something!
As to the other women, their reactions are not all that much better, stability wise. Luke speaks of them being perplexed at the sight of the empty cave. Seeing that it was not quite empty, but that the linens in which He had been wrapped were right there where He should have been wasn’t helping. What to do? Never mind deciding a course of action, they couldn’t even come up with any options from which to choose! And then, lo! They are not alone in here! How could we have missed these two? They practically glow in the dark, and we didn’t notice them? I have a feeling that these two fairly crackled with energy as they arrived, the power they possessed very much tangible to these women. Perplexed? At a loss what to do? Not anymore! There’s but one path possible, and they take it. Bow down. Bow down, now. It is actually somewhat remarkable that these two do not insist they get up and stop that nonsense. If they did, as it seems angels are wont to do, there is no mention made of that. There is only the calming of fears and the delivering of that message which they have been sent to relay.
It’s worth thinking about these messengers of God just a bit. Much is made of angels these days, and a goodly portion of what is made of the angels is mush. As with pretty much anything else that is tinged with the supernatural, popular culture has romanticized their image beyond recognition. It’s amazing, really, that this seems to happen to both the good and the evil. We have vampires put forth as enticing beaus for the ladies, and we have angels presented in a light not so very different. Never mind the popular culture, though! Even in a large swathe of the church, there is this romanticized conception of angels. Oh, I’d love to meet one! Wouldn’t it be cool! Why, we have entire contingents of believers who think themselves granted command of angels! As if.
Look at the scene set before us here. It is not an anomaly. It is very much typical of the Biblical presentation of angelic encounters. What is the first thing that these poor messengers must say on every occasion? “Fear not!” But, of course, those who encounter angels for real are very much afraid. It is in part reverence for the holiness of these heavenly beings, but not entirely. I think there is another large part of that reaction which comes of encountering power, and knowing that far from being granted command of that power, that power is entirely and absolutely beyond your command.
I think back to that encounter that Joshua had with the angel of the Lord. “Are you for us or against us?” But, even that was to misconstrue that one’s office. He served the Lord and that was it. He does not answer to man’s command. He commands. Joshua found his perspective corrected in very short order.
We need to understand this about the angels, whether we ever encounter one in tangible form or not. They may well be sent to earth for our benefit and protection. In that sense, it is true, they are here to serve the believer. But, they are not here to serve as subject to the believer. Not at all. They are subject to God and Christ and that is the end of it. No other has authority to command. No man may cajole an angel to his own purposes. Even Joshua could not. Moses, had he thought to try, would have found himself unable. They serve God’s purposes at God’s command, and that is the end of it. If their service is for our benefit, then praise God for it, but don’t believe for a moment that you can command them to take up some post or duty of your devising. Neither allow yourself to find your awe of these heavenly beings reduced by romantic misconceptions. They are power. They are awe-inducing. Should it ever turn out to be the case that you do indeed meet one, have no doubt but that you shall find yourself just as floored as those soldiers, and as these women. Have no doubt but that you will depart that encounter thankful that you were found to be on their side!
One last point I want to make on the details of this scene before I turn to other things, and that concerns the way Mark’s account rather innocently confirms John’s description of the burial of Jesus. He alone, you will recall, mentions the involvement of Nicodemus in that burial (Jn 19:39-42). Noting that these two together laid Him in the tomb. Mark, as he relays the angelic message, records these words: “Behold, here is the place where they laid Him” (v6). It is not, as with Matthew, the place where He was lying. It is where they laid Him. Bearing in mind that Mark was pretty clearly writing well before John, it’s not plausible that he would be seeking to cover for John’s later misrepresentation of the facts. No. John’s account is still a few decades away. This is simply Mark recording the message. “They laid Him right there, as you ladies know. Is He there now? No, He is not. But, look! There are the linens that they wrapped Him in. That, too, you know because you saw them do it.”
This is actually the beauty of the Gospels, that far from contradicting each other and proving the accounts unreliable, they are full of these incidental confirmations. That such confirmations are here in all innocence, and in this case long before there was some other record in need of confirming, is indeed evidence of an authentic witness.
I suppose somebody might propose that John actually added Nicodemus to the scene to confirm Mark’s mistaken account, but that would make no sense at all. If anything, were John seeking to maintain an accord with what others had written, he would leave Nicodemus out. After all, were there never a mention of this second man, then nobody would think to go looking for him based on that plural reference by the angel. But, bring him up, and suddenly there is a glaring difference between John’s description and everybody else’s. Add to this the many other distinctions in John’s account and it’s pretty clear that he’s not seeking to conform to any prior reportage, only laying out his own witness.
Leadership (03/14/13)
Based on what is happening in this moment of discovery, we can determine that Peter and John were both considered leaders amongst the disciples, Peter particularly. We find him singled out, even by the angels, to hear news of the risen Lord. Generally, that singling out is seen as evidence of Christ’s compassion for Peter. Peter had messed up. Hardly the first time for that, as he well knew himself, but this was big, and he was quite probably feeling guilty at least in part for the death of his Teacher. Yet, this is also Peter who had been honored with the revelation by the Holy Spirit that Jesus was, “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:18).
I suppose we could take his dejection at this point as evidence that indeed it was the Spirit speaking through him on that occasion, for it certainly seems he has no concept of who Jesus is at this point. Of course, seeing a man die like that could tend to influence one’s opinions about His abilities. But, Peter needed to hear this: Jesus was alive!
Peter also, given that earlier revelation, might be seen as being the most likely to actually believe that point. It just needed a reminder, that revelation. If He is the Son of the living God, could death really have any power over Him? Suddenly, we might suppose, all those earlier declarations by Jesus come back to mind. After three days… How many times had He told them that part? At least three, I think. It’s no wonder he was running to see that tomb! Never mind the restoration of fellowship! That would come later, and this news had likely chased all that remorse from his mind, if only for the moment.
As for John, it’s easy enough to arrive at a reason why Mary would have been looking for him in her dismay. He was the one Jesus spoke to from the cross. She had quite probably heard Him giving John charge for the care of His mother. Clearly, then, Jesus considered him dear, so she ought to rank him pretty highly herself.
What is interesting is that Peter and John are found together. It’s not the eleven to whom Mary has run. It is just the two of them. On the one hand, it seems as though, if these two are together, James ought to be there as well. They were, after all, the three who made up Jesus’ inner circle. But, there’s no James in sight, just these two. And these two, not so very long ago, had a bit of rivalry going on. All that business on the way here about who was greatest, and who would have the places of privilege in the kingdom. It certainly looked like James and John were maneuvering to edge Peter out at that point. Peter, for his part, just seemed to naturally assert himself as a leader, and for the most part, folks acquiesced and let him lead.
But, here we have Peter and John together. I seem to recall associating these two in certain of those tasks surrounding the last week in Jerusalem, fetching the donkey and her foal, getting the lamb for the Passover, preparing the upper room. It does seem as though Jesus was determined to see these two established as a team. Why James was seemingly reduced in stature is not immediately obvious.
The premise I arrived at previously is that given how James would soon be martyred for Christ, it was important that John, the younger (and perhaps more emotional) brother, should have another to turn to. Yes, of course, Jesus remains the Rock upon which all stand. But, in this life we all know the need for support, for mentors, for confidantes. The evidence we have in the book of Acts certainly suggests that these two had indeed become a team. Nothing in the Gospels seems to indicate any previous tendency which would explain this, except for these occasions in the final week.
The Future Glimpsed (03/14/13)
While I have marked this part of the study as “The Future Glimpsed”, it is really a matter of looking both backward and forward. I found, when I reached this section, that I had left myself about a year and half back, a connection I had seen based on some verses I was reading as part of a Table Talk devotional. Those verses point me further back, into the legal details of Leviticus. The heading for the devotional that day (which I have beside me now) was “Blessed are the Peacemakers.”
One of the passages that I was pointed to from that article is Leviticus 3. That chapter describes the rules for the sacrifice of a peace offering. Said offering must be ‘of the herd’ and ‘without defect before the Lord’ (Lev 3:1). Isn’t that an interesting choice of phrase – without defect before the Lord? Wouldn’t it have been perfectly plain and understandable to leave it at ‘without defect’? There is much said as to the details of the sacrificial process, laying hands on the head, where it is to be slain, blood sprinkled, portions burnt on the altar, and so on. There follows, at the close of that chapter, the permanent injunction, “Throughout your generations in all your dwellings, you shall not eat any fat or any blood” (Lev 3:17).
Now, what is perhaps more interesting for this present setting is the next reference from that article, Leviticus 7:11-18. This section also deals with the ‘law of the sacrifice of peace offerings’. Here, a grain offering is added, unleavened bread with oil. This is particularly a peace offering for thanksgiving. Now, a portion of this offering was to become the property of the priest who would sprinkle the blood. But, there was this injunction: The flesh of that offering must be eaten prior to the third day. Indeed, the strict reading indicates that it is to be eaten on the day in which the sacrifice is offered (Lev 7:15), although for a freewill offering, some could be eaten the next day. But, it’s the final note of this section that strikes me: “What is left over from the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burned with fire. So if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings should ever be eaten on the third day, he who offers it shall not be accepted. It shall not be counted to his benefit, but shall be an offensive thing. And the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity” (Lev 7:17-18).
Well, now! We certainly understand Jesus as our Prince of Peace. And, we certainly understand Him to be the sacrifice offered for our sins. He is, then, an atoning sacrifice. Ought we also to see in His death a peace offering? Certainly, apart from Him we can have no peace with God. And there, I come back to that description of the lamb: without defect before the Lord (Lev 3:1). That, it seems to me, makes little to no sense as description of an animal. Yes, it is understood and well set forth elsewhere that any propensity for taking the dregs of one’s flock to use as offering, the lame, or diseased creature, was reprehensible. So, certainly, the lamb to be offered is to be without blemish or defect. But, where is that ‘before the Lord’? Is it merely a way of telling the offerer that he acts as one before the Lord, Who sees the truth whatever deception man may try? Or, is this pointing to Something greater?
Is it the case that this really does contain a seed glimpsing what was then a future moment, the moment when the whole of the sacrificial system would have its perfect fulfillment in the perfect Sacrifice? Here, as never before or since, was One who was without defect before the Lord. Here was a Man without sin. Here was a Man who had upheld the Law in absolute perfection. And here He was, sacrificed on behalf of the nations. And this perfect Sacrifice had made much of His rising on the third day. Now, I have always associated that with the then-current belief that after three days, life was completely gone from the body and there remained no chance of restoration to life. But, then, Jesus had already broken that boundary with Lazarus, hadn’t He? So, why this powerful repeated declaration that He would rise on the third day? Why three? Why not the very next day, making the Sabbath that much more holy? Why not five? There are, after all, no bounds on this One who is Life! It’s between Him and Him, Father and Son, as to the timing, and no other in heaven or hell has any say in the matter.
But, He specified three. Repeatedly. And, we are now arrived at that third day, however it is reckoned. It is now the third day, and He is risen, the perfect Sacrifice accepted and approved by God. What, then, is the point of this particular choice of day? I find it at least intriguing that we have this association with the flesh of the peace offering, which expired, if you will, on the third day. He is our peace, but it would seem that for those who made the offering, time was up. The priests could have had their part in that peace, even up to this moment of His rising, but they would not do it. Were they, upon His rising, to suddenly suffer a change of heart, one wonders if it would not have fallen under that clause form Leviticus 7:18: “It shall not be accepted. It shall not be reckoned to his benefit. It shall be an offensive thing, and the person who eats of it shall bear his own iniquity.”
Recall that earlier teaching of Jesus, “I am the living bread, the manna that came down out of heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread I give for the life of the world is My flesh” (Jn 6:51). The priests were to have a portion from the free-will peace offering, and be assured Jesus offered Himself of His own free will. Surely, as the priests had their hand in His conviction and crucifixion, they may be thought of as having sprinkled the blood of that Sacrifice. They still had a portion. They had now three days to repent, one of them a Sabbath during which they really ought to have been particularly focused on God, rather than on getting guards from Pilate, and the other, it would seem, a High Holy Day. The Passover! The reminder of how God had caused judgment to pass by the obedient sons of Israel back there in Egypt. Would they remember? Would they repent and return? The gate was closing, but there remained this one last chance. But, on the third day, that flesh was no longer of any avail to them, indeed, to partake then would only add to their crimes against heaven. Is this the point, then? Is this the reason for the three days? Or, do I read too much into the matter?
Now, then, having looked back and surmised this forward-looking glimpse from Moses, let us look forward to that glimpse which was given John. In that Revelation, John records that, “After this, I saw a great multitude beyond counting, with people from every tribe and nation and tongue, all standing before the throne and the Lamb. They were clothed in white and had palm branches in their hands. They cry out loudly, ‘Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.’ And the angels around the throne and the elders and the living creatures all fell on their faces before the throne worshiping God. They said, ‘Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever. Amen’” (Rev 7:9-12)!
Oh! What a marvelous vision! People from every tribe, every nation all gathered around that glorious throne! Of course, we Gentiles find a particular poignancy in that picture. We have been welcomed, made one with the family of God, forgiven all our past ignorance and all our past violence against Him and against His chosen ones. We have been made one. This in itself is a wonder of wonders. But, then, there is this: As we together stand before the throne and the Lamb (that most beloved and necessary Paschal Lamb of God, offered for our peace), we are all of us clothed in white.
This is the immediate connection we have between this future image and that which is in the passage at hand. Here it is the angels who are thus clothed, garments white as snow, so white as to be dazzling. That same purity of whiteness had been seen by Peter, James and John when they encountered the transfigured Christ up on the mountain. Just for that moment, His garments had been as white as this. But, Lo! Come that heavenly day, and all God’s children have garments like that! It is the mark of purity, of righteousness. There’s a reason why brides have traditionally worn that color. It was a statement of purity. But, there’s purity before one’s spouse, and then there’s purity before God. He alone can clothe us in white. He alone can so cleanse us as to allow our presence in His courts – He Who cannot abide even the presence of sin.
He alone has arranged our place, not only to dwell in His Father’s house as His bride, but also to have the high honor and privilege of participating in this worship around the throne. “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever. Amen!” This, my friends, is no explosion of wishful hope. It is not the heavenly host expressing their desire that it might, just possibly might be the case that this God they serve might be glorious and wise and powerful, and granted the thanks and honor He so richly deserves. No! It is really more of a proclamation that this is the way it is. Amen! He is glorious. He is wisdom. He is honor and power and might. He reigns forever. He need fear no one, nor have we any fear that another might usurp His throne. He reigns forever, and All blessing, all glory, all honor are not only due His name, but shall indeed be given His name! So be it! Amen! Every knee shall bow. Every tongue shall confess. Some, it is true, shall bow and confess through gritted teeth, an acknowledgement forced from them who would that it were otherwise. But, for those white clad masses before Him, no! It is indeed a glorious day. It is the Day of our Lord, and it is a perpetual Day. World without end, amen! Amen!
