Passion Week XXX

And following Him was a large crowd of the people, and of women who were mourning and lamenting Him.  But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.  For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’  Then they will begin TO SAY TO THE MOUNTAINS, ‘FALL ON US,’ AND TO THE HILLS, ‘COVER US.’  For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” (Luke 23:27-31 NASB)

My dad had a saying, probably shared by thousands of other followers of Jesus, “It’s not the things I don’t understand in the Bible that bother me, it’s the things I do understand.”  This passage really fits into one of those “don’t understand” categories, but it does bother me.

Mourner was an actually profession in first century Judea.  So, as someone approaches their death, people mourning them was not unusual, some were even paid for it.  It was not necessarily typical for those going to their execution.  Considering that the crowds of Jerusalem have more or less turned against Jesus, this isn’t expected.  And Luke is the only Gospel writer who preserves this detail.

Even more surprising than the mourners is the response of Jesus.  By all accounts (except for Luke) He has been scourged, and even in Luke, He can’t carry His own cross.  In this weakened state, He still takes a moment to have this lengthy discourse with these women?  It just seems out of place.  Although it wouldn’t fit somewhere else either.

The mourners are surprising.  That Jesus takes the time for this discourse is surprising.  And then what He says is, well it’s at least confusing, if not surprising.  Jesus tells the mourners to wail for themselves and their children.  The days are coming when those with children will be considered cursed, rather than the barren women considered cursed.  The barren won’t have to see the end of their own children.

If you look at a reference Bible, you may be sent to Isaiah 2, or Hosea 10, or both.  In Isaiah, Jerusalem (daughters of Jerusalem are the ones mourning) is prophesied against.  But the rocks and hills aren’t falling on them.  In Hosea, the Northern 10 Tribes of Israel (Samaria) are being prophesied against, and here the people want the rocks and hills to fall on them to hide them from God.

Jesus’ reference could simply be a commonly phrased prophecy which He is pronouncing on Jerusalem.  Or He could be using a phrase understood as pertaining to Samaria on Jerusalem to make clear He means the whole country, not just the city of Jerusalem.  Because He refers to the women as “daughters of Jerusalem”, it’s most likely the first option.  Either way, a bad day is approaching.  So, once again, we have a prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction in Luke.  That makes three (19:41-44; 21:5,6,20-24; 23:28-31).  For some commentators, this indicates to them that Luke was written after AD 70, and he is partially explaining why it happened to the Jews.  I’m not convinced, even with the detail Luke includes.

Jesus then completes His discourse with the cryptic, “For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it’s dry?”  Who is “they”? The “things” are probably His crucifixion, or at least His rejection by the religious leaders.  When is the “tree green”, and when is the “tree dry”?  The time of the “green tree” is while Jesus is among them, available as a tangible object of faith.  After His resurrection and ascension, would then be the “dry” time.  But that’s not necessarily the best option.  If the ‘things’ are what’s happening then, then the tree is green right then.  So, if it has to do with Jesus’ presence, what about His presence makes the tree green?

Green trees are alive, or at least not dormant for winter.  Dry trees could be either dead or dormant.  Green trees will produce fruit, while dry trees won’t.  Perhaps the timing is defined by the availability of fruit?  In any case, whichever option is used to define the “green” versus “dry” time, Jesus says the time is coming on them.  If He is referring to the destruction in AD 70, then the “green” time is when He is physically among them, and the “dry” time is after He ascends to the Father.

Having said all that, notice that the blame for what comes is left on the “they”.  “If they do this when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”  What will happen logically follows what they are doing now.  Luke is saying that the destruction of Jerusalem is judgement for Jerusalem’s rejection of Jesus.  He is crucified for the sins of the world, and the city responsible for carrying that out is judged by God and destroyed.

If Jesus is referring to Hosea earlier, then also tucked away in that chapter is this statement “Sow for yourselves righteousness; reap steadfast love; break up your fallow ground, for it is time to seek the Yahweh, that He may come and rain righteousness upon you.” (Hos. 10:12)  Even in the midst of a judgement prophecy, there is a call to repent, there is another option than being destroyed.

That’s my “partial” view through the knothole this morning.  What’s yours?

 

Advertisement

Passion Week XVI

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.  Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-24 NASB)

And so, Jesus finally gets to the question of His disciples, about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.  Here Jesus describes the scene.  In Matthew and Mark we have the reference to Daniel’s “Abomination of Desolation” and the then the parenthetical “let the reader understand”.  Luke leaves that out.  His omission is one of the clues used to place his writing after the destruction of Jerusalem, but that’s not really conclusive.  More telling might be his description of the encircled armies (see also 19:43,44) which is a detail missing from Matthew and Mark.

Then follows the instructions to flee.  These instructions are consistent in the three Gospels, with only minor differences between.  Except for how Luke ends this section.  Matthew and Mark use the destruction to mark the beginning of a great tribulation, where Luke softens his description.  Luke has the added detail of falling by the sword and dispersed into the nations missing from Matthew and Mark.  And then Luke ends with a statement about Jerusalem being closed to Jews, which it was after it was destroyed.  But Luke also has a comment about the time of the Gentiles, which sounds a lot like something he would have learned from Paul (see Romans 9-11).

Then from here, Jesus leaves the answer to the disciples question…or does He?

“There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.  Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.  But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”  (Luke 21:25-28 NASB)

This passage sounds a lot like the great “appearing” of Jesus to wrap up human history.  There are several interesting details here: 1) the end will be signaled by astronomical events, 2) the “powers of heaven will be shaken” which can be a technical reference to the war in heaven, and 3) people will be in great fear of the near future.  So, astronomers will get the first clues, the war in heaven will reach some sort of crescendo, and rampant panic will seize everyone on the earth.  So, who’s ready for breakfast?  In any case, this is a clear reference to Jesus’ appearance to wrap up the history of this world.  When seen, we are to be encouraged because our struggle is coming to an end, our salvation approaches.

But it is interesting that this element is included in Jesus’ answer about the destruction of the temple.  The disciples asked about that not about the final establishment of the Kingdom of God, like at other times (like after His resurrection).  So why answer that question here when the temple is what is in their view?  This is one of those times that I really wonder if there were some editorial choices made by Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  The problem in answering that question to make me feel better is that all three seem to have made the same choice.  Three witness establish a fact, so…I’m guessing that, through the inspiration of the Spirit, this reference actually belongs where it is.  So here’s why that bothers me:

Then He told them a parable: “Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near.  So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near.  Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place.  Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. (Luke 21:29-33 NASB)

And now we have a reference to the timing.  The reference includes a few parts:  1) parable to instruct to look for the signs of these events as we look for signs of seasons, 2) assurance that a generation will not pass before these signs appear, and 3) assurance that Jesus’ words endure longer than the earth (another end-time reference).  The reference to the signs as clues for what is to come ties in both the destruction of Jerusalem (look for encircled armies and/or the abomination of desolation) and Jesus’ final appearing.  It’s possible that the other events, wars, natural disasters, and so on could also be signs of the fall of Jerusalem, but the coming of Jesus in the clouds is definitely heralded by signs as well.

If all these things, Jerusalem falling and Jesus returning, are preceded by signs; then when Jesus says, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”, it’s very difficult for me to divorce this statement from His final appearing.  There are lots of interpretive liberties taken to reconcile this statement with the absence of Jesus’ appearing.  The plain sense of it though is that the generation to whom Jesus spoke passed and Jesus has not returned in the clouds.

Now, let’s consider John.  John never touches problem of Jesus’ return except in his “Revelation” or “Apocalypse”.  At least he never touches it directly in his Gospel or letters.  The closest he gets in his Gospel is to a final scene where Peter looks back over his shoulder and asks Jesus about John.  But John is using this to show that Jesus never actually promised that He would return in John’s lifetime, as if clearing up a rumor.

Now consider a few more points.  Paul very clearly believed Jesus to be returning so soon, it was needless to marry, except for human sex (to avoid sexual sin).  There was no sense in propagating, since it only bring children into a time of tribulation.  He, and presumably the church at large, believed they would see the coming of Jesus with their own eyes.  And they longed for the vindication and salvation it would bring.  This left the Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers in something of a conundrum.

My conundrum ends with John.  If he didn’t see a problem then neither do I.  He describes a wild summary of history with the end in full color.  I’ll go with that.  I don’t know what Jesus meant by what He said, and I’ll just have to be content with that.  If “generation” meant something different than those people alive then, I’ll know soon enough.  If Jesus simply referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, and not His return, then I’ll know that soon enough as well.  Right now, I don’t know which, if either, or if there’s another explanation.  I know it doesn’t sound right though.  I may not like it, but it is what we have the way we have it.

That’s my view this morning.  What’s your view look like through your knothole?

Passion Week II

When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.  For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.” (Luke 19:41-44 NASB)

Why would God hide “the things that would make for peace” from His own people, from the ones living in the city where His name dwells?  She did not recognize the day of her “visitation”.  Essentially, Jerusalem didn’t recognize Jesus.  But in what way?  They’re partying now, with Passover and tons of pilgrims everywhere, and now Jesus coming, it’s on.  And yet there was something that was missed; a massive “oversight”.

Only Luke has this prediction with specifics of the demise of Jerusalem.  “Scholars” are often quick to point out that this indicates that Luke was written late (after the destruction of Jerusalem). But this can’t be proof, as a record of Jesus’ words would have been in existence before the destruction.  The whole “let the reader understand” comment in Matthew and Mark doesn’t seem to indicate that, and yet stems from the same sort of prediction.  At least that’s how the church in Jerusalem took it, and disappeared once the Romans broke through into the Temple.

Yet Jesus is specific about both the way Jerusalem falls, and the reason.  She fails to recognize Jesus; specifically, who He is has been hidden from her.  In other contexts it’s clear that God Himself hides this sort of information.  But here it could be the culture or religious leaders, or political climate, or any number of things not mentioned.  In any case, Luke still points out she’s been “duped”, something was hidden from her, she’s a victim; of sorts.

Jesus refers to what was missed in two ways.  First He refers to “the things toward peace” in verse 42.  But then in verse 44 He says, “against which you did not know the opportune time of your oversight.”  That last word is the Greek word from which we get “episcopal”, yet it is nearly universally translated as “visitation” here.  So how does “overseer” or “bishop” get translated as “visitation”, and everyone’s okay with this?  The two aren’t even related…are they?

Back in the day, when the church I was pastoring was clamoring about me not “visiting” enough, I did a word study on church leadership.  I was fine until I included the Hebrew Scriptures in my study.  At that point, my argument that “visiting” was their job not mine fell to pieces.  In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word for the office and practice of those in religious leadership was a very familiar word to me.  It sounded like pa-KAD, but it meant “to visit”.  It was used in Hebrew class to teach both the declension of nouns and the parsing of verbs because it had both forms.

It was disturbing for me because it has such an enormous range of meaning.  It refers to the “visitation of God” which should terrify His people.  And it also refers to the exercising of leadership (specifically in a religious or prophetic office) over His people.  It wasn’t always a positive thing, it more often tied to “judgement” than consolation.  On the other hand it was also often tied to consolation.  So, both things were a part of why it was used to refer to the activity and title of the leadership office.

When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, in cases where “to visit” was related to the leadership office, it was translated as “episcopal” in Greek, even when it was a verb.  So, we have this very consistent extension of meaning for the word from Hebrew usage and tradition.  It is an extension because typical Greek usage saw it as a leadership office and wouldn’t tie it to a “visit” necessarily.

Okay, as my wife will say so often, “so what?”  Well, here it is: Jesus’ visitation wasn’t just to die on the cross.  There existed the possibility that the nation of Israel could have rallied around Him, recognizing Him as the Messiah they had been looking for.  I believe that, in that case, Jesus would have still died on the cross, just not out of the betrayal of His people.  There existed the possibility of the redemption of Israel right there at that Passover feast.

This is not a “slam” on the Jews, then or now.  It’s a lesson I must learn.  What am I in danger of missing for some of the same reasons they did?  What distracts me today that perhaps distracted them then?  What am I in danger of missing from God?  Is He “visiting” me and I’m missing His presence?  This is the question that brings me to my knees, and leads me deeper into my Master’s presence.  This is where He has more of me and I have less of me.  If I focus on them and refuse to learn from them, then I have let pride and arrogance cloud my vision, and the things toward peace are hidden from me.

That is my view through the fence.  What does your knothole reveal to you?

The City of David?

Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, (Luke 2:4 NASB)

So David lived in the stronghold and called it the city of David. And David built all around from the Millo and inward. (2 Samuel 5:9 NASB)

One quirky thing I ran across here was the reference to the City of David.  I stumbled on it because I have just finished studying 2 Samuel, and there the ‘City of David’ is Jerusalem.  I checked, and the reference is in the Greek text of the Hebrew Scriptures which Luke would have used as well.  I have a few commentaries for Luke, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of ink used on this issue.  But it’s definitely odd to me, and I believe it would have been somewhat odd for Luke’s audience as well.