Reflections on Jesus as "Learner": Growing Up in Maturity in Jesus

Meditation

On September 23, 2024 I gave a talk on abortion at South Mountain Community College.  That morning in my devotional time I read in Luke chapters 1-2.  I wrote the following words in my journal:

"Thoughts of being made in the image of God and given a task--take dominion.  This requires learning and thought.  There is trial and error.  The Lord doesn't do it for us.  I read in Luke 1 yesterday of the angel Gabriel coming to Zacharias.  [My] thought: Gabriel could show up at SMCC in radiant power and proclaim the truth regarding life.  That's what he did in Luke 1!  But the Lord has me doing this today!  He is growing me up--I'm an infant (Luke 10.21).  I have to study and take in information and arguments.  I have to assess and analyze.  I have to creatively figure out the best way to present the material.  This is good.  This is the way the Lord has set up the world.  There are not short-cuts.  There is the Lord's presence--the Holy Spirit--enlivening, shaping, guiding, and revealing.  But he is not given to short-circuit creational realities but, rather, to fulfill them.  There are miracles--feeding 5000--which bypass the created reality of baking bread.  There is prophecy and direct words from the Lord but the normal and good way is the normalcy of the created order with its in-built wisdom.  It is good to study, learn, and grow.  Jesus did this!  Luke 2.40, 52.  The realism of the incarnation needs to be grasped and deeply meditated upon!  Jesus had teachers.  He learned math and how to read.  He learned his father, Joseph's trade of carpentry.  He saw, observed, and reasoned.  He read (or, at least, heard) Scripture.

Luke 2.46 "Then after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions."

"Jesus listened and asked questions!  He is a learner!  He is not teaching here.  That will come later."

Sermon: Matthew 7.24-29--The Challenge of the Teacher and His Teaching

 * A sermon I preached on May 29, 2022 at Pella Communities.

Sermon on Matthew 5.33-37: Jesus on Vows & Oaths

* I preached on Matthew 5.33-37 at Pella Communities (3/14/2022). 

Football and Interpreting Scripture

 

Imagine someone's exposure and understanding of American football being composed solely of watching highlight videos of just the kicker and punter.  There would be scenes of punting on fourth down, the kick-off, extra-point kicks, and field goals.  This would allow a person to understand some things about the game of football.  A person could understand how the ball moves (sometimes) and how points are scored (at least some of the time).  But this, of course, would not be a full understanding.  Such a de-contextualized "understanding" of football would miss many of the details and connections between actions in the full game of football.  Even the significance of the actions viewed in the highlight reel would not be weighted properly--being either over-valued or under-valued.  Such a limited understanding of football would miss the center and weightiest part of scoring in football, namely the touchdown.  It would all miss the central movement of the football, namely the movement of the ball by running and passing.

This is good analogy for how some people cherry-pick a few sayings or deeds from Jesus' life without placing them in the larger pattern of his thought and life.  This is to fundamentally misunderstand Jesus.  A "pick-and-choose" approach to Jesus will miss the center of his teaching and misunderstand the connections and significance of Jesus' teaching and actions.  

To focus on the love of Jesus or his concern for the poor to the exclusion of the larger contextual themes of the Kingdom of God and the person of Christ Jesus himself is to fundamentally misunderstand Jesus and his message.  D. A. Carson's words on "love" in the Scriptures are relevant here:

I do not think that what the Bible says about the love of God can long survive at the forefront of our thinking if it is abstracted from the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, the wrath of God, the providence of God, or the personhood of God—to mention only a few nonnegotiable elements of basic Christianity. 

The result, of course, is that the love of God in our culture has been purged of anything the culture finds uncomfortable.  The love of God has been sanitized, democratized, and above all sentimentalized.[1] 

---------------------

[1] D. A. Carson The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Crossway, 2000), 11.

Jesus as a Philosopher: Some Resources

I've been thinking recently about Jesus as a thinker who is to be reckoned with as a participant in the history of philosophy.  Below are some resources and quotations relevant to this issue.

1.  Douglas Groothuis wrote a small book for the Wadsworth Philosophers Series--On Jesus.

Chapter one is entitled "Was Jesus a Philosopher?" and argues in the affirmative.  Groothuis put this chapter up on a website so it can be read here: Was Jesus a Philosopher?

Here is piece from this chapter:

Jesus did not build a philosophical system in the same sense that Spinoza or Hegel did. Wittgenstein, arguably the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century, did not build a system at all, although he developed a distinctive philosophical method, which in some ways attempts to dissolve philosophical questions. But the fact that Jesus did not “build” a philosophical system does not preclude the possibility that he thought in terms of a well-ordered and logically consistent account of reality and argued rationally with those who disputed it. If he thought and spoke in this manner, he was a philosopher indeed—and the most influential one in Western history. (p. 8)

Chapter three of Groothuis' book is entitled "Jesus' Use of Argument" and it examines the kinds of logical arguments that Jesus utilized.  For example, Groothuis notes that Jesus employed a fortiori arguments as well as reductio ad absurdum arguments.  Jesus could and did appeal to evidence and was adept at escaping the horns of a dilemma when in the midst of argument.

In chapter five--"Jesus' Epistemology"--Groothuis furthers speaks of Jesus' reasoning and approach to logic.

Jesus reasons from the Scriptures and he reasons against his critics.  When presented with an apparently irresolvable dilemma concerning the resurrected state or political allegiance (Matthew 22:15-22), he finds a tertium quid that avoids either horn of the dilemma.  In this, and in all his other use of argument, Jesus implicitly endorses the law of noncontradiction as a necessary test for truth.  A statement and its negation cannot both be true in the same way at the same time.  Jesus never accepts a proposition and its negation as both true; nor does he revel in irreconcilable paradoxes as a way to disarm rational thought and make room for faith.  Jesus at no time invokes an irresolvable paradox when pressed into a logical corner--although he will often employ a paradox to give a memorable ending to a pertinent teaching.  When accused of holding contradictory teachings or of opposing the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus argues in order to resolve the apparent contradiction and vindicate his teaching.

Nevertheless, some interpreters attempt to make Jesus into a Jewish Zen-Master or guru by claiming that he employed mind-stopping contradictions.  They compare several paradoxical sayings of Jesus to Zen koans.  A koan is a riddle having to do with a logical impossibility; it is given to a Zen student in order to induce the student to transcend normal logical analysis and rational processes.  Zen epistemology involves transcending all dualities and antitheses through various practices, such as contemplating koans and sat-zen (meditating on a blank wall for hours) in order to attain the state of "no-mind."  A famous Zen koan is, "What is the sound of one hand [clapping]?"  This question has no resolution, because one hand cannot clap (in any standard sense of clapping).

Jesus utters statements that are prima facie similar to koans, such as, "But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first" (Matthew 19:30).  But Jesus' use of paradox is pedagogical, not illogical.  It has nothing to do with Zen or any other kind of mystical practice that abandons rational categories as a means to enlightenment.  Jesus' paradoxes are given not as enigmas but as memorable conclusions to his teachings.  They have an intellectual  context and communicate propositional knowledge.  The statement, "Many who first will be last, and many who are last will be first" is not affirming that "first equals last" (a contradiction), as would a Zen koan.  Rather, Jesus is speaking of the final reward of those who give up much in this life to follow him.  The reward more than compensates for the losses they experience.  Therefore, many who are "first" (or fortunate in this life) will be "last" (or unfortunate in the next), and vice versa.  Jesus' phrasing is paradoxical, and, therefore, pedagogically provocative, but it has a determinative and intelligible meaning (see Matthew 19:16-30).  (pp. 52-53) 

2.  Dallas Willard has a famous essay titled, "Jesus the Logician" which appeared in the Christian Scholar's Review vol. 28, no. 4 (1999), 605-614.  It was also reprinted in Willard's collection of essays The Great Omission (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2006), pp. 180-195.

Here are some choice quotations from this piece (page numbers are from The Great Omission):

There is in our culture an uneasy relation between Jesus and intelligence, and I have actually heard Christians respond to my statement that Jesus is the most intelligent man who ever lived by saying that it is an oxymoron. Today we automatically position him away from (or even in opposition to) the intellect and intellectual life. Almost no one would consider him to be a thinker, addressing the same issues as, say, Aristotle, Kant, Heidegger or Wittgenstein, and with the same logical method. (p. 180)

 

 Now when we speak of “Jesus the logician” we do not, of course, mean that he developed theories of logic, as did, for example, Aristotle and Frege. No doubt he could have, if he is who Christians have taken him to be. He could have provided a Begriffsschrift, or a Principia Mathematica, or alternative axiomatizations of Modal Logic, or various completeness or incompleteness proofs for various ‘languages’. (He is, presumably, responsible for the order that is represented through such efforts as these.)

He could have. Just as he could have handed Peter or John the formulas of Relativity Physics or the Plate Tectonic theory of the earth’s crust, etc. He certainly could, that is, if he is indeed the one Christians have traditionally taken him to be. But he did not do it, and for reasons which are bound to seem pretty obvious to anyone who stops to think about it. But that, in any case, is not my subject here. When I speak of “Jesus the logician” I refer to his use of logical insights: to his mastery and employment of logical principles in his work as a teacher and public figure. (p. 181)

 Not only does Jesus not concentrate on logical theory, but he also does not spell out all the details of the logical structures he employs on particular occasions. His use of logic is always enthymemic, as is common to ordinary life and conversation. His points are, with respect to logical explicitness, understated and underdeveloped. The significance of the enthymeme is that it enlists the mind of the hearer or hearers from the inside, in a way that full and explicit statement of argument cannot do. Its rhetorical force is, accordingly, quite different from that of fully explicated argumentation, which tends to distance the hearer from the force of logic by locating it outside of his own mind.

Jesus’ aim in utilizing logic is not to win battles, but to achieve understanding or insight in his hearers. This understanding only comes from the inside, from the understandings one already has. It seems to “well up from within” one. Thus he does not follow the logical method one often sees in Plato’s dialogues, or the method that characterizes most teaching and writing today. That is, he does not try to make everything so explicit that the conclusion is forced down the throat of the hearer. Rather, he presents matters in such a way that those who wish to know can find their way to, can come to, the appropriate conclusion as something they have discovered--whether or not it is something they particularly care for. (p. 183)

We need to understand that Jesus is a thinker, that this is not a dirty word but an essential work, and that his other attributes do not preclude thought, but only insure that he is certainly the greatest thinker of the human race: “the most intelligent person who ever lived on earth.” He constantly uses the power of logical insight to enable people to come to the truth about themselves and about God from the inside of their own heart and mind. Quite certainly it also played a role in his own growth in “wisdom.” (Luke 2:52) (p. 189)

3.  J. P. Moreland was deeply influenced by Dallas Willard and he also wrote a short piece on Jesus and logic: "How Did Jesus Argue? Jesus & Logic" which begins with the following words: 

Today there is widespread indifference to, even downright hostility towards logic and the fundamental laws that govern it. We are sometimes told that logic is a Western construction invented by DWEM’s (Dead White European Males such as Aristotle), that in a postmodern world, story and narrative have replaced a cold-hearted, logical approach to life, and that Jesus was a prophet for the common man, not a logician for the “wise and intelligent.”

I could not disagree more. Logic comes from the very nature of God Himself, its employment need not be cold and impersonal, it can be expressed through story and narrative as C. S. Lewis’s works of fiction nicely illustrate, and Jesus used logic with “the common man” every bit as much as he did with the “wise and intelligent.” In what follows, I shall unpack these assertions by doing two things: present a primer on logic and God, and explain and illustrate Jesus’ skill in using logic.

The article ends in this way, looking at Jesus' example of logically reasoning:

Consider Matthew 22:23-33 where the Sadducees raise a reductio ad absurdum argument against Jesus. In such an argument you grant your opponent’s premise, show that it leads to an absurd conclusion, and argue, therefore, that the granted premise should be denied. The argument is also an example of a dilemma syllogism (see below): Formally, the Sadducees argue thusly: If P (there is life after death), then either Q (adultery is permissible in the afterlife) or R (polygamy is permissible in the afterlife). Not-Q (adultery is not permissible, period) and not-R (polygamy is not permissible, period). Therefore, not-P (there is no life after death).

Grasping the heart of this syllogism, Jesus skillfully notes that the either/or dilemma his opponents have placed on him (either adultery or polygamy is permissible in the afterlife) both make an assumption: There is marriage in the afterlife. They argue: If there is marriage in the afterlife, then either there is adultery or polygamy. Jesus denies that there is marriage in the afterlife (Matthew 22:39), and in one simple step, he undermines the dilemma (either adultery or polygamy) they have raised against life after death.

In Mark 11:27-33, Jesus himself uses a dilemma syllogism. Put formally, such a syllogism goes like this: (1) (If P then Q) and (if R the S), and (2) either P or R, then (3) either Q or S. In context, the religious leaders are challenging Jesus’ authority, and he asks, “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” His argument is this: (1) (If John’s baptism is from heaven, then the critics ought to believe John’s teaching about Jesus) and (If John’s baptism is from men, then the critics are in danger from the people). (2) Either John’s baptism is from heaven or from men. Then, (3) the critics should either believe John’s teaching or place themselves in danger from the people. Realizing that Jesus had successfully placed them on the horns of a nasty dilemma, they responded by saying “We don’t know from where John’s baptism came.”

To my mind, Jesus was the greatest thinker who ever lived. And while he did not come to develop a theory about logic or to teach logic as a field of study, it is clear that he was adept at employing logical forms and laws in his thinking and reasoning. We who are his followers should go and do likewise.

4.  Jonathan T. Pennington's new book is appropriately titled Jesus the Great Philosopher: Rediscovering the Wisdom Needed for the Good Life (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2020).

Pennington begins his book by considering the art on the walls of a third century church.  

Now we can look at their church walls.  What were their decorations?  Like those in our imagined megachurch, these faithful Christians also used their walls to remind worshippers of who Jesus is.  The painted images in this ancient church depict Jesus in various ways, as the Good Shepherd, the Great Physician, and the Water Walker.  And as a Philosopher.  In fact, in all the pictures of Jesus healing, teaching, and performing miracles, he is wearing the telltale philosopher's robes, has the haircut that indicated his status as a philosopher, and is standing in the posture of a philosophy teacher. (pp. 4-6)

Pennington has the following picture inserted which is from Dura-Europas church.

In examining Jesus' teaching, Pennington notes that Jesus often taught in parables.  There are over sixty different parables which comprise almost 35 percent of the Gospel material.  Pennington writes:

Parables are powerful because they are imaginative and memorable and teach disciples to see the world in an unexpected way and invite an appropriate response in attitude and behavior--exactly what sages were all about.

Pennington then adds:

Jesus plays the role of a prophetic philosopher, a sage-prophet who is inviting people to see the world from the perspective of divine revelation that goes beyond human-centered knowledge.  This prophetic emphasis does not make Jesus any less of a philosopher, but it does add an urgent edge to his teaching.  Jesus regularly inserts the weighty tagline "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"  That is, "If you can understand my wisdom, then pay attention!"  Jesus's teaching in aphorisms and parables would have immediately identified him as a philosopher during his own lifetime. (p. 63)

5.  My own contribution to looking at how Jesus uses logic is found in my blog post "Jesus' Use of Reason in Matthew 12.22-29".   Here is the post in full:

Matthew 12.22-29: Jesus’ Use of Reason

1.     Setting the scene

a.     There is a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute.

b.     Jesus responds by healing the man “so that he spoke and saw” (v. 22).

c.      The crowds are amazed and begin to draw the explanatory conclusion that Jesus might be the Son of David—the Messiah.[1]

d.     The Pharisees offer another causal explanation—Jesus’ exorcistic power is from Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons. 

2.     Jesus begins to reason about why their explanatory cause makes no sense.  He points to their (a) inconsistency and (b) arbitrariness.[2]

a.     Inconsistency:  Jesus points to an internal inconsistency in his opponents argument in verses 25-26.  Essentially Jesus argues that if Satan is casting out Satan this creates a divided kingdom.  If Satan is casting out Satan and in the process is drawing people’s minds to think of God’s promises—namely the Davidic Messiah—then is a stupid plan.[3]

b.     Arbitrariness: In verse 27 Jesus points to a reality the Pharisees accepted—exorcisms by their “sons.”  Jesus is asking if their causal explanation of his exorcisms is consistent with the fact of other exorcisms they do accept.  Jesus is thus demonstrating that their causal explanation is arbitrarily applied.[4]

3.       Jesus continues to draw out his reasoning about the situation in verse 28: “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” 

a.     This is an example of modus ponens:

                                               i.     If P then Q

                                              ii.     P

                                            iii.     Therefore, Q 

b.     In Jesus’ argument:

                                               i.     P = I [Jesus] cast out demons

                                              ii.     Q = the kingdom of God has come upon you

c.      Jesus had defended P in verses 25-27 against the counter-explanatory claims of the Pharisees

4.     The Pharisees can irrationally hold to their inconsistent and arbitrary explanation or they could attempt to take Jesus’ modus ponens argument and turn it into a modus tollens argument.

a.     modus tollens

                                               i.     If P then Q

                                              ii.     ^Q

                                            iii.     Therefore, ^P

b.     They could deny that the kingdom has come (^P).  Therefore, whatever the explanatory cause of the exorcism it is not the case that the kingdom has come so they reject Jesus’ reasoning.  It is to admit that they do not have an explanation for Jesus’ power but they refuse to give credence to Jesus’ explanation. 

5.     Why does Jesus draw the conclusion about the relationship between exorcism by the Spirit and the coming of the kingdom?

a.     Jesus’ words in Matthew 12.29 help us to see the background of Jesus’ reasoning.  Matthew 12.29 states: “Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man?  And then he will plunder his house.”

b.     This language of Matthew 12.29 is an allusion to Isaiah 49.24-25:

24”Can the prey be taken from the mighty man, or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?”  25Surely, thus say the Lord, “Even the captives of the mighty man will be taken away, and the prey of the tyrant will be rescued; for I will contend with the one who contends with you, and I will save your sons."

c.      Larger context of Isaiah 49 is about the “Servant.”

                                               i.     Servant is both corporate (Israel—verse 3) 

                                             ii.     And an individual—the Servant brings back Israel (Jacob) to God (v 5-6)

d.     “Servant” language in Isaiah 49 is part of larger Servant imagery in Isaiah that Jesus also appeals to in his teaching.

                                               i.     Isaiah 42.1 “Behold, my Servant, whom I uphold; my chosen one in 

whom my soul delights.  I have put my Spirit upon him…

1.     Isaiah 42.1-3 is the passage quoted by Jesus in Matthew 12.17-21—the pericope immediately prior to the passage under consideration about Jesus’ exorcisms!

2.     The Servant who has God’s Spirit upon him is linked in Isaiah with the Spirit-anointed One in Isaiah 61.1 “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted;…”

                                              ii.     Isaiah 61.1-2

1.     “This individual parallels in the servant figure of Isa. 40-55.  The anointment of the Spirit recalls 42:1…” 

2.     “Thus Beuken (1989) is correct in understanding Isa. 61 as an ‘interpretation’ of Isa. 40-55.”[5]

3.     Isaiah 61.1-2 is quoted by Jesus in Luke 4.18-19

e.     Jesus is utilizing the background material in Isaiah regarding the Spirit-anointed Servant who brings God’s kingdom.[6]

6.     Jesus and the Pharisees hold certain background assumptions in common.  They both formally affirm the Old Testament perspective on God, his covenants, his promises in Isaiah, etc.  Jesus reasons from within these shared assumptions to show the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the Pharisees.  Their explanation does not fit the evidence as situated within their shared background assumptions.

Footnotes

     [1] “The question is worded in such a way as to indicate a measure of perplexity, but also to open the door to an interesting possibility.”  Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), 314.

     [2] Douglas Groothuis sees Jesus’ answers here in verses 25-27 as an example of Jesus using a reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation.  On Jesus (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thompson Learning, 2003), 34.

     [3] “It is not be presumed that Satan is stupid: the Pharisees were taking up an impossible position.  Theoretically, of course, it might be argued that Satan could allow the expulsion of one demon in order to effect some diabolical purpose, but this would be met by the fact that Jesus kept on expelling demons; he carried on an unrelenting war against all the demonic forces.”  Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), 315.

     [4] “The only possible logic behind the Pharisaic position was that a mere human could not overcome a demon.  If Jesus did have such a victory, therefore, it would show that he had aid from a superhuman source, and in their hostility their logic led them to hold that the source could only be Satan.  But they had spoken hurriedly; they had not stopped to reflect that some of their own people claimed to cast out demons.  The Pharisees would have vehemently denied that their sons were in league with the evil one, but they had not realized that such exorcisms said something about Jesus also.  Therefore they will be your judges; your own sons will prove you wrong!  The logic of a Pharisaic denial that their followers cast out demons through the evil one meant that Jesus did not use the powers of evil either.  The sons would be able to testify to the fact that casting out demons was not a work of Satan.  They would ‘judge’ them for ascribing to Satan what they, the exorcists, knew came from God.”  Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), 316.

     [5] David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007), 288.

     [6] “In making this unique claim—in the light of the expectation that in the last time God’s Spirit would rest on the Messiah (Isa. 11.2)—Jesus was almost certainly claiming that in his exorcisms it was evident that he was endowed with the eschatological Spirit and therefore an eschatological figure himself.”  Graham H. Twelftree, “The Miracles of Jesus: Marginal or Mainstream?” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1.1 (January 2003), 119. 

The Book of Revelation: Background on the Political and Cultural Context (part one)

I was recently spending time reading and re-reading the book of Revelation.  In our mid-week Bible study we are going through chapters 2-3 and looking at the seven churches mentioned.  As is usual, anytime I spend significant time in Revelation I tried to read in both commentaries and published articles.  Two recent articles I read are Imperial Pretensions and the Throne-Vision of the Lamb: Observations on the Function of Revelation 5 by J. Daryl Charles (Criswell Theological Review 7.1 [1993], 85-97) and The Social Setting of the Revelation to John: Conflicts Within, Fears Without by David A. DeSilva (Westminster Theological Journal 54 [1992], 273-302).  This blog post will look at J. Daryl Charles' essay.

Both articles bring out the first-century background of the Roman Imperial cult.  This background is crucial since it sets up the point of tension with the Roman society--its culture, religion, economics, and politics.  These Christians in the seven churches of Revelation 2-3 had to navigate an increasingly hostile culture.  Opening up this background dynamic helps bridge the hermeneutical gap and provide practical resources and examples for our time.

Charles begins his essay with these words:

"At the core of the Christians' dilemma in the first century was their refusal to adore the national gods and affirm Roman Imperial pretensions.  Christian non-compliance in this regard constituted rebellion against the established order, at the center of which stood the emperor, hailed as Kyrios, 'Lord,' incarnate.  Although conditions reflected up to the time of the writing of the Apocalypse suggest that Christians were not regularly martyred, the writer foresees an ominous development.  At issue is a clash of two irreconcilable worldviews.  At its core, the apocaplyse represents a challenge to the Roman principate.  The all-encompassing machinery of the imperium Romanum is utterly bewitching to the world (Revelation 13 and 17), leaving none unaffecte; it thus calls for a prophetic consciousness."  (pp. 85-86)

Charles focuses on Revelation chapter 5 with its depiction of the heavenly throne room with worship being offered to the Lamb.  Charles argues that the imagery of chapter 5 is not merely general in nature but would have evoked Imperial overtones with a subversive twist: true worship was being offered to Christ the Lamb and not to the Roman emperor.  Here are the words of Charles:

"In 5:1-14 the reader catches a glimpse of both the political ramifications of Imperial pretensions as well as the religious implications of absolutist Imperial claims.  Both kingly and priestly imagery are employed to reassure John's audience.

"Attention has been drawn earlier in this century as well as more recently to the 'polemical parallelism' between the Imperial cult and early Christianity.  The language of adoration and worship associated with the former is transferred by the writer of the Apocalypse from a defied emperor to Christ.  Most conspicuous in Revelation is the emphasis on ritural and ceremony.  Ritual demonstrates precisely where human loyalties are to be found.  To affirm the sovereignty of one is in fact to deny it to another.  Worship, hence, is the confession of one's all.  In the Apocalypse, the reader is confronted with an absolute antithesis; no compromise is possible.  Since confession of one is clearly a negation of another, the Christian community is challenged with a dilemma stemming from claims of ultimacy by the Imperium." (p. 87)

The Christian allegiance to Christ Jesus was "perceived a menace to imperial unity and supremacy."  (p. 88)

"Inasmuch as the Christians called Jesus Kyrios/Dominus, the same title could not legitimately be ascribed to the emperor--a dilemma interpreted plainly enough by Pliny.  Ultimately, for the first-century Christian the matter comes down to a fundamental antithesis: Divus Imperator ('Emperor Divine') or Christus Dominus ('Christ the Lord').  Christians refused to acknowledge Caesar as god-man, while at the same time proclaiming Christ to the God-Man who ruled even Caesar.  Such de-sanctifying of the state was certainly not lost on the emperor himself.  The Christian disciple is thus at root an imperial antagonist; one's devotion cannot be split." (p. 88)

Charles notes that even the specific imagery of Revelation 5 and the throne room vision of the Lamb has resonances with the Imperial cult.

"The vision, as it turns out, is heavily imbued with 'imperial' overtones.  The 'Lamb--ie., the 'Lion-Lamb' who is simultaneously 'savior' and 'conqueror'--is revealed in terms that are uniquely and painfully familar to a first-century audience living in Asia Minor.  Borrowing images and epithets suggesting conscious 'polemical parallels,' John portrays Jesus in a manner that causes even the glories of the Imperial throne to pale by contrast."  (p. 89)

The historical background regarding Emperor worship is also something to be noted.  "Worship" is a key theme in the book of Revelation and the ancient Roman world was filled with actual religious devotion to the Emperor.

"From 3 B.C., at the formation of the Octavian-Antony-Lepidus triumvirate, until the time of Diocletian, eighty-three places of consecration/deification were erected in Rome, indicatiing the relative influence of the Imperial cult.  Augustus, as the inscriptions show, was being worshipped in the East as 'a Savior... through whom have come glad tidings.'  While it is true that Augustus never allowed himself to be openly designated a god and worship of Augustus in Rome and Italy was nominally forbidden, the poets of his age--Proportius, Virgil, Horace and Ovid--were lavish in their praise of him as Deus." (p. 91)

Caligula and Nero had pretensions of divinity.  Coming to Domitian, the third of the Flavian rulers, he becomes much more inclined to accepting Divine praise so that "he became the object of widespread worship, marking a departure from the moderacy of earlier Julio-Claudian emperors." (p. 91)

Even the physical dynamics of Nero's throne are helpful in understanding the throne room scene of Revelation five.  Charles describes Nero's throne:

"Nero had built for himself a rotunda that represented the cosmos.  The structure rotated day and night.  The middle region of the rotunda was the region of the sun.  Roman poets appealed for Nero to take his seat exactly in the middle of the universe, otherwise the cosmos would lose its equilibrium.  From this position the emperor judged, determing the fate of humans.  He thus fulfilled the role of fatorum arbiter, ho pantokrator, ie., the cosmic god of fate." (p. 93)

John's description, based on the heavenly revelation, provides a counter-image of a glorious throne with the Lamb--Jesus Christ--in the middle of it.   This is just one more example of a "polemical parallel" which manifests the transcendent nature and role of the Lamb of God.

This all is part of John's implicit political philosophy given his historical situation in the Roman empire.  The words of Charles are instructive:

"To be sure, Christianity was per se not opposed to the state; the Apostle Paul viewed it as divinely appointed with a civil function in the temporal order.  Rather, it was Rome's pretense of absolute authority and ultimate allegiance that for the Christian disciple was intolerable; hence, the dilemma for the Christian community." (p. 90)

With this understanding, the contemporary Church can glean insights and resources in the development of her stance against political regimes that seek to overwhelm the Church with oppressive, Jesus-denying policies.

#JesusChangedMyLife 2020

* A short video on Good Friday 2020 about what Jesus means to me.

* Also see my piece I mention: Keeping Faith While Growing Up Evangelical: Reflections on My Journey.

Mark Meditations: Mark 4.21-25

Mark 4.21-25

And he was saying to them, 

"A lamp is not brought tobe put under a basket,

 is it, or under a bed?  Is it not

brought to be put on the lampstand?

For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; 

nor has anything been secret, but that it would

come to light.  If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."

And he was saying to them, 

"Take care what you listen to.  By your standard

of measure it will be measured to you;

and more will be given you besides.

For whoever has, to him more shall be given; 

and whoever does not have, even what he has

shall be taken away from him."

Mark 4.21-25

* Question: Two separate parables or are they connected?

* Jesus is speaking of hidden things being revealed.

-Perhaps, the parables and their truths being more fully understood

* Jesus is urging: "Take care what you listen to."

* Seems to connect with Mark 4.13-20--each of the four soils has "heard" the word (vv. 15, 16, 18, 20).

* Whereas Mark 4.13-20 the focus is on the results--these kinds of soils and conditions produce this result.  The focus in Mark 4.24-25 is a challenge to the hearers of the word to respond rightly.

-With the soils there is almost a passivity--these conditions produce these effects.

-The charge to "Take care what you listen to" focuses on the person's active response that will determine what kind of soil they will be. 

* v. 24: "more" 

-Correspond to v. 20 "bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold"

* v. 24 "By your standard of measure it will be measured to you..."

-How do you measure or consider the word of the Kingdom that Jesus brings?  Is it the word of life from the Son of God?  If so, and you respond to it as such you will experience the measured more in your life.

* v. 25 "... and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him."

-cf. Mark 4.15 "... and when they hear immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them." 

* Challenge: Will you accept the word of Jesus as that which is worth enduring affliction for (v. 17) and worth forsaking all other things for (v. 19)?  If so, then you will bear fruit in abundance and even more will be given to you.

Mark Meditations: Mark 3.31-35

Mark 3.31-35

Then his mother and brothers arrived, and standing

outside they sent word to him and called him.

A crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him,

"Behold, our mother and your brothers are outside

looking for you."  Answering them, he said,

"Who are my mother and my brothers?"  

Looking around at those who were sitting around him

he said, "Behold, my mother and my brothers!

For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother

and sister and mother.

Mark 3.31-35

* Question: What if Jesus had gotten up and gone outside to his mother and brothers?  What would that have communicated?

* Jesus is both relativizing family and re-drawing the boundaries of family obligation.

* Jesus seems to be defining the "doing the will of God" around himself.  Sitting and listening to Jesus was doing the will of God.

* Four times: "mother and brothers"

-Then Jesus mentions "sisters"

-Jesus had men and women sitting around him

For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified

are all from one Father, for which reason he is not

ashamed to call them brethren.

Hebrews 2.11

* Jesus is my brother and he is not ashamed to call me "brother."

-This seems to intimate and yet it is the Word of God!  The roles are not reversible.  He is the sanctifier and I am the recipient of this grace--the sanctified.  Jesus is the author of salvation.  He tastes death for me (Hebrews 2.9)

* Also, it is not just about me--there are others gathered around Jesus whom he calls brothers and sisters.  Jesus redraws the family lines and he is much more inclusive than I am.

Mark Meditations: Mark 3.20-30

Mark 3.20-30

* Jesus gathers extensive crowds due to his ministry
* Jesus is opposed by

-hometown: "He has lost his senses." (v. 21)

-scribes from Jerusalem: "He has an unclean spirit" (vv. 22, 30)

* Jesus responds in parables

-Why? Forces them to think and respond to the truth

* Jesus is recognized by his opponents as having power to cast out demons (v. 22)

-They didn't dispute his power--they challenged its source

* Jesus is plundering the "strong man's house"--people are being set free from demonic control.

Mark Meditations: Mark 3.13-19

Mark 3.13-19

* Jesus goes up on a mountain (symbolic of Moses?)
* Jesus appoints 12 to be with him yet one will betray him (v. 19)
* Jesus wants them to be with him and to send them out to preach and cast out demons
* Jesus gives (his) authority to cast out demons

-Jesus empowers for ministry

And he went up on the mountain and summoned those

whom he himself wanted, and they came to him.

And he appointed twelve, so that they would be with him

and that he could send them out to preach,

and to have authority to cast out demons.

Mark 3.13-15

-Be with Jesus

-Jesus sends them out: (1) to preach and (2) to have authority to cast out demons

* Our job is to be with Jesus.  He will send us out as he sees fit.  He will empower us for ministry in the Word and Power.

 

Mark Meditations: Mark 3.7-12

Mark 3.7-12

* Jesus is followed by great multitudes from all over Israel

-"a great multitude" (v. 7)

-"a great number of people" (v. 8)

-"the crowd" (v. 9)

-"he had healed many" (v. 10)

-"all those who had afflictions pressed around him" (v. 10)

* Jesus is recognized as the Son of God by the unclean spirits
* Jesus has power to heal and to heal many
* Jesus' presence is powerful: the unclean spirits fall down before him
* Jesus will not let the unclean spirits tell who he is

-There is a distinction between his disciples and the crowd (vv. 7, 9) 

Mark Meditations: Mark 3.1-6

Mark 3.1-6

* Jesus is the center of attention--"They were watching him..."
* Jesus takes command of the situation
* Jesus asks challenging questions
* Jesus is angry--grieved at their hardness of heart
* Jesus is the object of their hatred and opposition

* The hardness of heart displayed by the Pharisees is amazing.  They do not care about the hurting in their midst.  The man with a withered hand is a mere prop--at tool to catch Jesus.  The Pharisees don't doubt Jesus' power.  They know he can heal.  They don't rejoice in the healing and restoration of people.  They are seeking to trap Jesus because of his alleged Sabbath violations.

And he said to them, "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm

on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?"  

But they kept silent.  

After looking around at them with anger,

grieved at their hardness of heart, he said to the man,

"Stretch out you hand."  And he stretched it out,

and his hand was restored.

Mark 3.4-5

* The Pharisees were content with the status quo--leave the man unhealed or heal on a different day.  They wanted to subordinate Jesus and his healing power to the Sabbath, to their interpretation of it.

* Jesus' options: to do good or to do harm; to save a life or to kill.

* Of course, the Pharisees would not sanction active violations of the law in doing harm or in killing.  But Jesus goes further with the law.  The prohibition against killing is not merely negative in nature.  The prohibition should move us to love--to positive action that promotes life.

* For Jesus, to leave the man unhealed is tantamount to harming him--to killing him.

* Jesus asks them a question, "But they kept silent."  Their silence was born of hardness of heart.  They knew that the answer would show an inconsistency in their thinking.  They refuse to be led by the logic of Jesus.

Mark Meditations: Mark 2.23-28

Mark 2.23-28

* Jesus is the Son of Man
* Jesus is Lord even of the Sabbath 
* Jesus appeals to Scripture

And he said to them, "Have you never read what David

did when he was in need and he and his companions

became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the 

time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated

bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except

the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?

Mark 2.25-26

* Jesus is placing himself in the place of David and his disciples in the place of David's companions.  I can imagine as Jesus makes the statement in Mark 2.2-26--"Have you not read...?--that the Pharisees were thinking, "Of course we know that story!  But that was David--are you comparing yourself to God's anointed one, David?!"

* The Pharisees misunderstand the actions of Jesus because they misunderstand Jesus' identity.

* It's like Jesus is saying, "If you understood who I am and what I am all about, you would understand: (1) Why I eat with tax-collectors and sinners, (2) Why my disciples don't fast right now, and (3) Why I approach the Sabbath the way I do."

Mark Meditations: Mark 2.18-22

Mark 2.18-22

* Jesus is the bridegroom.

-He brings the kingdom and it is time to celebrate!

* Jesus will be taken away from them.
* Jesus brings something new that reorients everything else.
* Jesus does the unexpected.
* Jesus challenges our expectations.

	Mark 2.15-17	Mark 2.18-22
Challenge from…	Scribes & Pharisees	Disciples of John & Pharisees
About…	“Why is he eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?”	“Why… your disciples do not fast?”
Jesus is the…	Physician	Bridegroom

* The presence of Jesus challenges and changes everything!  Everything gets reoriented around Jesus.

* The religious exercise of fasting is contextualized by Jesus.  How it is done and when and its meaning is defined by Jesus!

* Jesus is not concerned about fitting into expected patterns of behavior.  He is establishing new patterns.  His power brings newness.  To recognize this newness in Jesus is to take up his pattern of life.

Mark Meditations: Mark 2.13-17

Mark 2.13-17

* Jesus calls Matthew, the tax collector, to follow him.
* Jesus is eating and drinking at Matthew's house with many tax collectors and sinners.

-"for there were many of them, and they were following him" (v. 15)

"Why is he eating and drinking with tax collectors

and sinners?"  And hearing this, Jesus said to them,

"It is not those who are healthy who need a physician,

but those who are sick; I did not come to call the

righteous, but sinners."

Mark 2.16b-17 

* The challenge to Jesus is that he is doing something wrong by eating with tax collectors and sinners.  His reputation is being sullied and he is being made unclean.  But Jesus' answer presupposes something about his identity--that he is a physician.  His actions are for the sake of healing.  Jesus' presence is healing.

* The Scribes and Pharisees want repentance from people but their vision is to stand afar off.  Jesus also wants repentance but he draws near to pursue it.

* "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

-Call to what?  Jesus called Matthew to follow him!

* I am a sinner.  I need Jesus.  Jesus communes with his people in the Lord's Supper.  I sometimes think, when taking the Lord's Supper, that Jesus is saying, "I still choose to eat with you.  I would choose you again to be in my presence."

* The Scribes do not understand what Jesus is doing or why he is doing it.  They don't understand who he is!

* Think of all the people in the narrative: Scribes, disciples, tax collectors & sinners, and Jesus.  In what ways am I like each person/group?

-Am I standing aloof in judgment like the Scribes?

-Am I entering into Jesus' missional mindset?

-Am I eating and drinking with Jesus as a sinner accepted in his presence?

 -Am I like the disciples, caught up in all this while seeing and learning from Jesus?

Mark Meditations: Mark 2.1-12

Mark 2.1-12

* Jesus heals a paralytic man and forgives his sin.
* Jesus is worthy of audacious actions.

-Four men removing parts of the roof to bring the paralyzed man to Jesus

-They must have been his friends.

-I need friends like this to "bring me to Jesus!"

* Jesus sees faith.
* Jesus forgives sin.
* Jesus is aware of the reasoning of their hearts.
* Jesus is the Son of Man.
* Jesus asks challenging questions.
* Jesus makes authoritative declarations.
* Jesus' words are effective and powerful.
* Jesus speaks and things happen.
* Jesus' words and power produce amazement and people glorifying God.

* The people (and we) are amazed at the healing but I tend to overlook the forgiveness of sins.  I need forgiveness of sins.  If I'm in the story I want to shout out, "Forgive me, too!"

Which is easier to say to the paralytic:

"Your sins are forgiven"; or to say, "Get up,

and pick up your pallet and walk"?

But so that you may know that the Son of Man

has authority on earth to forgive sins--

he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, 

get up, pick up your pallet and go home." 

Mark 2.9-11

* "Easier to say"

a) Both statements are "easy to say" if mouthing mere words is the issue.

b) If it means "easy to say" without seeing visible effects then saying "your sins are forgiven" has no discernable outward manifestation.

c)  If it means "easy to say" and to bring about the effect--why should I think it is easy to forgive sins?  Jesus is rendering the forgivenss of God in light of the coming cross.  He is "writing checks" against the future payment of his blood and life.

d)  There is nothing easy about Jesus procurring my release--my forgivenss of sins.  He must suffer and die for my sins.  He must give his life a ransom for many--Mark 10.45. 

Mark Meditations: Mark 1.40-45

Mark 1.40-45

* Jesus heals a leper.
* Jesus is moved with compassion.
* Jesus touches the leper.
* Jesus is willing to heal.
* Jesus' touch is powerful to heal.
* Jesus sternly warns the man to say nothing to anyone.
* Jesus directs him to follow Moses regarding cleansing.
* Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city.
* Jesus attracted people from "every where."

And a leper came to Jesus, beseeching him and falling

on his knees, and saying, "If you are willing you

can make me clean."  Moved with compassion,

Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him,

and said to him, " I am willing; be cleansed."

Immediately the leprosy left him 

and he was cleansed.

Mark 1.40-42

Leper	Jesus
* Came to Jesus	* Moved with compassion
*Beseeching Jesus	* Stretched out his hand
* Falling on his knees	* Touched him
* Said, “If you are willing you can make me clean”	* Said, “I am willing be cleansed.”

* Consider the physicality of it all--actions with the body.

* Leper is in a desperate condition and brings a desperate faith.

* All he brings is his needy condition and faith in Jesus!

But he went out and began to proclaim

it freely and to spread the news...

Mark 1.45 

* He comes in faith with his needy condition.

* He is healed.

* He goes away proclaiming Jesus' power.

** Isn't it (or shouldn't it) be the same for us?!