Pagan Messiahs?

Unworthy. Ever felt that way? It seems there was an instructor to preachers who claimed that, “If God could speak through Balaam’s ass, He can speak through you.” Oddly, that never helped me much. It’s the challenge to believe that my worth is entirely founded on Jesus: dead, buried, and raised.

While I know that Jesus’ death atoned for my offenses toward my Creator, and I know His burial removed the safety of the enemy, and I know it is the power of His resurrection that empowers my walk with Him; I don’t always feel those things. This is no surprise to my Savior, so He preserves this odd poetic prophecy in Isaiah 45. It begins with this statement:

“This is what the LORD says to his chosen one,
to Cyrus, whose right hand I hold
in order to subdue nations before him,
and disarm kings,
to open doors before him,
so gates remain unclosed:
‘I will go before you
and level mountains.
Bronze doors I will shatter
and iron bars I will hack through. (Isaiah 45:1-2 NET)

In case you were curious, “chosen one” is actually the Hebrew word, messiah. You can see the Strong’s reference here. Notice that it has a special reference to “Cyrus”. That’s because this reference is weird. You might think that’s because God knows that Cyrus’ heart will change toward him, but those kings are Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, in Daniel. Cyrus’ heart is never said to have acknowledged the God of Israel.

As this poetic prophecy continues, Yahweh says He gives Cyrus a bunch of blessings to reveal Himself to him. Look at the following verses:

I will give you hidden treasures,
riches stashed away in secret places,
so you may recognize that I am the LORD,
the one who calls you by name, the God of Israel.
For the sake of my servant Jacob,
Israel, my chosen one,
I call you by name
and give you a title of respect, even though you do not submit to me.
I am the LORD, I have no peer,
there is no God but me.
I arm you for battle, even though you do not recognize me. (Isaiah 45:3-5 NET)

God gives this pagan king “hidden treasures”, “title of respect” and “arms him for battle”, all this even though “you do not submit to me” and “you do not recognize me”. Why? “For the sake of my servant, Jacob, Israel my chosen one”. Unfortunately, the NET translators chose “chosen one” for both the Hebrew adjective “chosen” in verse 4, and “messiah” in verse 1. That’s not really helpful, in my opinion. Even so, it’s clear God uses this pagan king in spite of his lack of acknowledgement of the God of Israel.

The prophecy concludes with these verses:

I do this so people will recognize from east to west
that there is no God but me;
I am the LORD, I have no peer.
I am the one who forms light
and creates darkness;
the one who brings about peace
and creates calamity.
I am the LORD, who accomplishes all these things. (Isaiah 45:6-7 NET)

So we’re clear about this, when there is only one God, even evil has its source in Him. Which is why the verse has the line, “the One making peace and creating evil”. It almost never is translated that way, but check out the King James Version. And that’s not embarrassing, it’s true, and should give us encouragement.

Don’t focus on God creating “evil”, focus on the whole point of these two verses: There is no god (no Elohim) but Yahweh, He has no peer, no equal, no true rival. All things, whether we like them or not, have their ultimate source in Him. Which means, they also can be destroyed by Him. And yet, that’s not even the best part.

Now go back and read all seven verses together. Our Creator uses this boastful pagan king to accomplish His plan. Cyrus can boast, conquer, posture, threaten, do whatever, but, in the end, remains a tool of his Creator. And, so it is today.

In our country, some have celebrated the new president, some have lamented. Some were sure the previous guy was the “antichrist”, others think it’s the new guy. I look at Isaiah 45, and I think, who cares? As long as our Creator remains on His throne (no worries there), any ruler, of any type, will merely be His pawn, for His purposes. That view of history can be really unsettling, considering the horrific leaders who have marred the history of this world.

Closer to home, though, if my Master can use such kings, then, even with my flaws, He can use me. He can use you. Perhaps, you might say, the more flaws, the more He shines. Why? So that people, from the east to the west, will recognize that our Creator has no competitor. 

Okay, if I have no other purpose than that, that’ll work.

Advertisement

Intercession

Last week I wrote an entry about Jesus as hour High Priest. In it, I claimed that the qualification of Jesus to be our High Priest is that he made intercession for us. That is an interesting qualification, if you think about it. I’ve been reading through Numbers recently, in a “chronological Bible”, and I find it fascinating how much animal sacrifice was supposed to go on regularly for the people. Daily, monthly, festivals, annually, all the time. Since they ate many of those sacrifices, the Temple would have been one of the best restaurants in Jerusalem.

But what were those sacrifices for? What did they accomplish in the covenant relationship between Israel and Yahweh? That’s not as easy or simple a question as it sounds, because it depends on what you read in the law. Basically though, in one way or the other, these sacrifices are made on behalf of the people. So, in a very practical sense, they are a form of intercession. Therefore, the role of priests, as administers of the sacrifices of the people of Israel to Yahweh, was intercession on behalf of the people.

The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Hebrews 7:23-25 NASB

The Greek word for “intercession” in the above passage is “entygchano” (Strong’s G1793), which not terribly common in the Christian Scriptures. When it’s used with the Greek preposition “over” (Strong’s G5228), then “entygchano” means to “intercede on behalf of another”, and specifically to intercede to our Creator on behalf of His human creatures.

As common a theme of prayer as that is, you’d think that this word would be more common in the Christian Scriptures, but it’s only used this way three times (2X in Rom 8, and once here in Heb 7). There is actually a compound word made up of both the Greek word for intercession, and the preposition “under” used in Romans 8:26, but that word only occurs there in all of the Christian Scriptures. So, four times total, even so, still more rare than the common practice would suggest. Why is that?

Because the more common way to refer to intercession is “to pray for” someone. Suddenly the common quality becomes obvious, that phrase is used all over, by nearly every Christian author. But now the question becomes, why is “entygchano”, a technical term, different than “praying for someone”? And that question helps us understand the role of Jesus as High Priest.

Jesus is not sacrificing, daily, for the sins of His disciples. He sacrificed Himself, once, and that was all that was needed:

For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Hebrews 7:26,27 NASB

Therefore, intercession done by our Savior is not the daily regular sacrifice, even though He “always lives to make intercession for them.” Something else is meant when Jesus intercedes for us as our High Priest. What is it? What does Jesus do in the role as High Priest which intercedes for us?

To answer that, I refer you back to my prior entry, “Why A High Priest” (see the first sentence of this entry). Basically, Jesus offered up “prayers and supplications” on our behalf. It wasn’t presiding over the death and burning of animals, but more the role Moses played in going before God on behalf of the people (see this repeatedly in Exodus and Numbers). Jesus is more a “priest” in the sense of Moses than that of Aaron. Although, Moses’ role is more often thought of as prophet, and Jesus is our Messiah of that type as well.

I believe it’s the right time to state the obvious conclusion. Jesus is our King, Prophet, and High Priest, because each of those designations is simply a different way of saying the same thing. We have needs which categorically fall into each of those roles. Jesus fulfills each and every one of those needs, as He completely fulfills each and every one of those roles. So, once again, through the venue of obfuscating elucidations, we have ended up with a simple answer. Perhaps I should have led with that…

Passion Week XXVI

Then the whole body of them got up and brought Him before Pilate.  And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.”  So Pilate asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And He answered him and said, “It is as you say.”  Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no guilt in this man.” (Luke 23:1-4 NASB)

Having concluded that Jesus claims to be God, and therefore, deity, the religious leaders take Him to Pilate for execution.  The problem is that claiming to be a foreign god isn’t a “hanging offense” under Roman law.  But rebels are punished pretty quickly, so they accuse Jesus of sedition (just to be able to use that word in a sentence).

Their initial accusations refer back to some of their confrontations during the week, like paying taxes.  But others refer to Jesus as claiming to be a king, and that He claims to be an “anointed one”.  Being anointed does have meaning in Roman and Greek culture, just not exactly the same meaning.  Anointing for Greeks and Romans is what you did with medicine on a wounded person.  But the Romans were very aware of the political ramifications of anointing to the Jews.  So when the Jewish leaders say, “king”, Pilate begins his interrogation.

The Problem for Pilate is that when asked, Jesus doesn’t go frothing-at-the-mouth crazy.  That would have made the job easier, and it’s what others did.  But instead, Jesus is calmly saying yes in an oblique manner.  So, Pilate returns and says he finds no guilt in Jesus.

In other Gospels, more detail is supplied about Pilate’s predicament.  His wife warns him to stay out of it.  Jesus has no problem with Pilate’s authority, and claims His kingdom is from another realm (does Pilate think He’s nuts?).  Regardless which Gospel you read, Pilate does not have a rebel before Him, only rabid religious leaders.  The ones frothing-at-the-mouth crazy, inciting a riot among the people, are the ones seeking to have Jesus crucified.  It’s a tragic irony.  And at some point, it really comes down to keeping the peace during the festival.

Still, Pilate will be trying other means to apply a modicum of justice to the event.  Of course, it won’t work.  Unbeknownst to everyone but Jesus, He has an appointment with a cross, at a particular hour on that that specific day.  It’s an appointment set when the universe was created, to be heralded by signs in the sun and moon.  How could Pilate know?  How could the religious leaders have known?  Jesus knew.  Jesus sees this act unfold exactly as written by the Playwright of Heaven.  But Jesus also knows this isn’t His final act.

When confronted with social and cultural pressure to disavow Jesus, what do we do?  Far too often, we do the expedient thing.  In order to not be offensive, we decide to prevent a riot, to keep the peace.  Too many things go wrong with that behavior.  The “reasonable” believers are stuck in the middle between rabid-frothing-at-the-mouth religious nuts wanting to kill everyone disagreeing with them, and the comfortable religious sanguine group who sell out the practice of their faith in Jesus to a bowl of mixed nuts.  Many in the middle are caught between the desire to simply minister to the hurts of humanity, and the clamor for lies in the society at large.

Jesus neither held a sign saying “God hates everybody”, nor did He simply “go along to get along” with the religious leaders.  He wandered the region healing, preaching the truth, raising the dead, and casting out demons.  Jesus set a course, and everyone else could either get on board or watch from the dock as He left them behind.  He invited some, some of those accepted His invitation, and others didn’t.  But He didn’t deviate from His goal, His appointment with a cross.

I suspect our problem is more about not having that sense of divine goal or purpose.  We don’t seek the definitions of our lives which only our Master provides.  When we do, we don’t like the answers we get.  The purpose is behind us, but we won’t turn around.  The goal lies in a direction we’ve already rejected, so we don’t see it.  We look without turning the head or lifting the clutter of our lives.  What we want is for our Master to confirm our goals and purposes.  What He wants is for us to follow Jesus to a cross.  So, we check our calendars for the first opening we can find.  But, finding no convenient time to be tortured to death, we ask for another goal or purpose.  In a sense, we, once again, choose from the tree providing us the right and power to choose good and evil for ourselves.

Life lies at the end of a path through a method of humiliating death.  Death is found on every other path. Discipleship, repentance, and faith are the ingredients resulting in love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, and self-control.  We want those things, but balk at the price God charges.  Will we be crucified with Christ, and no longer live?  Will we live this life in the body by faith in the Son of God who has loved us and gave Himself for us?  We can’t have one with out the other.  That’s just how this play was written.  We can try to write another, but the warning from Scripture is that such a play is always a tragedy.

What’s your view through your knothole this morning?

Passion Week XXV

When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask a question, you will not answer.  But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD.”  And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”  Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” (Luke 22:66-71 NASB)

In Luke, we have an abbreviated version of the trial.  He skips the false witnesses.  There are no comments about Jesus building the temple in three days.  Missing are the frustrations of the religious leaders as they struggle to gain some way to accuse Him.  But in Matthew, Mark, and Luke we have the same allusion to Psalm 110.  And we have Jesus’ answer of “You have said it yourself” when asked if He were the Messiah and Son of God.  The order is reversed in the other two, but the content is essentially the same.

John doesn’t record much of a trial by the Jewish leaders.  What we have in Matthew and Mark is the greatest amount of detail.  Considering that there were no disciples present at this proceeding, it’s not hard to understand the lack of detail.  But in Luke we do have two peculiar details that are missing in the other three.  First is the odd answer Jesus gives to the question about whether or not He is the Messiah.  Jesus’ answer has three parts.  Only the third occurs in other Gospels.

Jesus says, “If I tell you, you might not believe.  But if I ask, you might not answer.”  Scholars are confused by the second part.  So am I, and I suspect so are you.  If Jesus asks what they might not answer?  Most translations use a confident future tense in English, “…you will not believe…”, “…you will not answer…”.  In Greek it’s actually subjunctive, which leaves open the potential without such certainty.  It’s the negation that lends itself to the choice of English translation.  With the combination of the verb tense and mode with the negation, the meaning is an ingressive sense, as in “do not begin to…”.  And that’s the other problem, if it’s taken that way, it’s a prohibition, not an indicative statement.  In other words, Jesus is telling them to not begin to believe, to not begin to answer.  It’s context that suggests otherwise, so what’s a translator to do?  They all pretty much do the same thing, done since 1611, translate it as a confident future.  Even so, it’s probably good to keep in mind that Jesus is saying that they won’t even begin to believe or answer.  He’s saying He’ll get nothing from them.

But what does that combination in Luke mean?  Why claim they won’t believe, why state they won’t answer?  While the answers to that are not really clear, I suspect that that Jesus is protesting that there is no dialogue here.  There is no option to discuss, but, rather, the discussion is all one-sided.  They want Jesus to only tell them what they want to hear so they will have an excuse to have Him killed.  They don’t want to hear anything else.  They don’t want to discuss, their minds and hearts are already set.

Don’t we do that though?  We have a point of view in our minds and hearts, and let nothing add or detract from that view?  I have struggled with that for a lot of my life.  The concept of this blog has come out of that struggle.  Have you also come to the place that you are convinced that you need the perspective of others?  It has been a tough lesson to learn that I need to listen more and speak less.  I do have my own views, and often I fall in love with those views over and above my Master.  I have the potential to idolize my own conclusions.  I hope I’ve grown out of that, but the potential will probably always haunt me.

Where are you in that?  Have you attached yourself to some view of God without realizing that it’s impossibly narrow?  Maybe it’s a teacher you believe makes no mistakes.  Maybe it’s a comment you’ve heard or read on a passage that has framed your entire view of God.  Whatever it is, it’s possible Jesus is asking you whether you will begin to believe and begin to answer so the two of you can dialogue.  The problem I faced was that my Master uses the views of others to help refocus my own; lots of others.  Sure I filter them, but I find truth in the oddest places, but only if I look, listen, and ask questions.  If I dialogue I learn.  If I’m open to belief I grow.

That’s my view this morning.  What’s your view?

Divine Conundrum

Then He said to them, “How is it that they say the Christ is David’s son?  For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”‘ Therefore David calls Him ‘Lord,’ and how is He his son?” (Luke 20:41-44 NASB)

Growing up, I looked at this question as the end-all, be-all of theological conundrums.  At this point, I’m wondering what the problem was.  The term “son” isn’t as simple as it is to us.  In our culture the word “son” refers to a male child of a particular person.  By extension we’ll allow the person to be one of a group (Sons of the Revolution).  But in Hebrew and many Semitic languages, the term has a categorical meaning as well.

A man seventy-five years old is said to be a “son of seventy and five years” in Hebrew.  So, when Jesus claims to be the Son of God, it’s not just a reference to His Father, but also a categorical reference to His divinity.  So here’s the problem: is “son of David” a progeny or categorical reference, or both?

The question as Jesus poses it refers to Psalm 110 where David refers to the coming “Messiah” as “Lord”, subordinating himself under the One referred to as his son.  My question is, is Jesus saying Psalm 110 means the Messiah is not a Davidic King?  It seems a lot of work was done to substantiate this quality of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, what with a Bethlehem origin-story, genealogy back to David, and the statement of Joseph’s family.  Is Jesus now saying in effect, “who cares?”  I don’t think so.

I think what Jesus is asking is for a different definition of the Messiah paradigm.  From the line of David shouldn’t include a definition of the kingship.  In other words, being a descendant doesn’t require all the other elements of the categorical reference.  So Jesus is free to be a King like David; yet with the additional elements missing from David’s kingship.  I think Jesus is expanding this categorical reference to include the other references to Prophet and Priest, not just “King”.  In this way, Jesus’ Kingship is greater than David’s.

And this is not to say that Jesus won’t be King or ruler.  He will be King, He will sit on the throne of David, but only in a sense.  He will be a king like David, yet He will also be very different.  Jesus says as much to Pilate when He tells Pilate that if His kingdom were here His people would be fighting here, and they’re not.  His Kingdom is not of this world.  His reign is not of this world, and His kingship does not belong in the category of earthly kings.  His kingship belongs in the category of David only in so far as David ruled the Chosen People as a man after God’s heart.  In this way, so does Jesus, but from the right hand of the Father.

So, the Psalm points to a type of king, one greater than David.  The kingdom will be greater than the Jews. The people will be more than one ethnic group.  The King will reign forever. And He will do so from a “Jerusalem”, but a new one.

I suppose what this means for me is that Jesus is like lots of things found in Scripture.  But none of them can fully describe Him.  He is a king like David.  He is a prophet like Moses.  He is a priest like Melchizedek.  I believe that, in Biblical Theology terms, this is “typology”.  I believe that Jesus merely limits how thoroughly we apply the type.  He is like those things, but He is not those things.  Jesus will always surpass our types, imagination, and dreams.  He’s really cool that way.

What’s your view through the fence this morning?

Passion Week I

As soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen, shouting: “BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”  (Luke 19:37-38 NASB)

I needed to start this series somewhere, and opted to skip the colt and focus on the ride.  Jesus rides into Jerusalem.  And along the way, Luke records cloaks (not palms) in the path.  In Luke this a royal procession more than triumphal.  Immediately following the parable about the king receiving a kingdom is this event.  For Luke (and therefore his audience) there is a direct link between the two.

And yet there’s another link.  See what the disciples (the crowd of them) say?  It sounds a bit like angels singing above shepherds so many chapters ago.  So, Luke connects the beginning with the beginning of the end.  Just in case we had forgotten how we got here, he uses a brief reminder.  The King is coming into His own.

In Luke, the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem is much more than a pilgrimage.  The palms and hosannas of the other pilgrims are here replaced by royal references and cloaks in the path.  If you consider the setting, this had to ignite excitement and confusion among the visitors to Jerusalem.  It was already becoming an unusual Passover.

The King comes to Jerusalem, the Davidic King, the Messianic King, the King of Righteousness (Malchizadek), and the Eternal King.  The Davidic King has been absent for over 400 years, but the King of Righteousness since the days of Abraham.  Jerusalem is unexpectedly hosting the Priest-King she knew in her youth, when her name was just Salem.  The peace she was named for was about to ride through her gates.

The history of God-Most-High leading and guiding His people was coming around to the cross-over; where a circle becomes the symbol of infinity.  So much meaning, symbolism, and change was coming together in this one city.

“Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!”  The King comes.  Actually, the King returns.  He remembers Salem before Abraham ever arrived in Canaan.  He’s coming home in ways no one around Him imagines.  And home has changed.  It’s no longer a single hill, but three.  The shrine has become a massive temple complex.  And the throngs of pilgrims far out number the original inhabitants.  So much has changed since those days.  And yet, in those days when the sin of the Amorite had not yet reached its fill, so much seemed very similar to what He saw.

By the time Joshua reaches the Promised Land, Salem’s king is no longer the priest.  By the time David takes the city, there seems to be no king at all, just a priest named Zadok, “righteousness”.  The king of righteousness is just the priest named righteousness, and David enters the messianic role of king.  The two roles become separated.  Righteousness has become divorced from politics and war.  And as Jesus rides into town, the two streams merge once again.  The King of Righteousness has returned.

Will I bow before the King and worship before the Priest?  Will you?  Will we offer our heads to the King?  Will we offer our goods and lives to the Priest?  He comes to us, but will we receive Him?  He came to Bethlehem and no one knew.  He comes to Jerusalem, and no one understands.  He comes to us today, but what will we do?

I am Matthew Scott Brumage, son of Lloyd, Knight of the Realm, Servant of the King.  He has revealed that He loves me, He has my back, and I am at His service.  He has called me to wait, worship, and walk before Him.  That is who I am because that is who He declared me to be.  Who are you?