JESUS WAS A RADICAL

The term "radical" is certainly in vogue, whether used as a noun or an adjective.  TV newspersons and pundits, comedians, the social media, whether of the right or left, love throwing this word around; usually - though not always - negatively to describe those with whom they disagree.  "The radical right," "the radical left."  Our former president as well as a presidential candidate, was criticized for not using the phrase "radical Islam" to describe middle eastern terrorists.

Then I saw a meme on Facebook - a photo of a Klan rally with the words "Radical Christianity" on it in bold letters.  My immediate reaction was to comment, "NO!  These people know nothing of what it means to follow Jesus." Then I started pondering the definition of the word "Radical" and what "radical Christianity" would really be.  My conclusions:

            No, the Klan is not radical Christianity!  (It's neither radical nor Christianity.)
            Radical Christianity is what every Christian should strive for!
            Jesus Himself was radical - a radical - perhaps the most radical human being who ever lived!

Before the reader picks up stones, I ask you to hear me out.  First, we should seek to define what a radical is; what does the word mean?  My dictionary (Merriam- Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition) gives a number of definitions which seem almost contradictory.  I believe the following are relevant:

radical (adj.)  [...from Latin radic, - radix root ...]

1:  of, relating to, or proceeding from a root ...
2:  of or relating to the origin:  FUNDAMENTAL
3a:  marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional:  EXTREME
  b:  tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions or institutions ...

radical (noun)

1b:  a basic principle:  FOUNDATION ... 
3:  one who is radical

How can one word convey both the ideas of getting back to the root and of departing from tradition?  I'm not sure how it can, but I see both definitions in the person of Jesus as He is portrayed in the Gospels - as He walked this earth as the God-man 2,000 years ago and as He preached and taught.  He was radical.

He was radical in His ethics and in His ethical demands.  They were, to use Mr. Webster's word "marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional."  They were "tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions or institutions ... "  Look at His sermon as recorded in Matthew, chapters 5 through 7:

"You've heard that it was said to the ancients, 'You shall not commit murder ....'  But I say to you that anyone who hates his brother, will be guilty of judgment." (5:21, 22)

"You've heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'  But I say to you that anyone who looks at a woman so as to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  (5:27, 28)

And on and on with ethical demands that seem to "depart from the traditional."  Read the whole sermon.  Yet a close reading of these radical demands and their Old Testament precedents should bring us to conclude that He was taking us back to "the root," or as He says elsewhere, to "the Spirit of the (Old Testament) Law."

He was radical in His political views.  When His disciples were arguing over who was the greatest among them, He said this:

"The kings of the nations lord it over them and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.'  But not so with you!  But the one who is greatest among you should become as the youngest and the one who leads as one who serves."  (Luke 22:25, 26)

He was radical in His religious views.  He had no respect for the religious leaders of His day.  He tore into them verbally, telling them that they "shut up the Kingdom of Heaven before peoples' faces" and told them that they weren't entering the Kingdom and they were keeping out those who wanted to enter.  (Matthew 23:13.  Again read the whole chapter.)

And He made radical demands of any who desired to follow Him.  He demanded that the disciple turn his back on all relationships, that he "take up his cross," that he "say goodbye to all that he has."  (Luke 14:25-27, 33)

Jesus was a radical by anyone's definition.  He was an extremist.  He was definitely not a conservative.

So then why are we who claim to be His followers anything but radical?  We are comfortable with the status quo.  We cozy up to those in power, whether religious or political.  We are more concerned about "family values" than about Jesus' values.  We even equate the words "Christian" and "conservative."  We are cautious and afraid.  We run our churches in the same manner as "the kings of the nations" do.

 

What happened?

THE MAN WITH CLEAN HANDS

The New Testament devotes a great amount of material to the trials of Jesus - more even than to the crucifixion itself.  There were six stages taking up the whole night as well as the morning preceding His death.  The gospel writers paint pictures of the various characters involved in the drama - the Jewish priests, Judas his betrayer, Peter who denied him, Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate to whom the greatest amount of material is devoted.
 

In many retellings of the story - sermons, Sunday school lessons, movies, TV episodes - Pilate is treated as a minor character, in others as an evil, unprincipled man.  But the Gospels themselves portray him almost sympathetically, as a troubled, confused, frustrated person; a man who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; a truly tragic figure.

There is also much historical material available concerning Pilate.  Josephus the contemporary Jewish historian and others give background for an understanding of the man.  An inscription with his name and title - "prefect" has even been discovered.  He served as prefect (Josephus calls him procurator) of the Roman province of Judea from 26-36 AD.  It is thought that he held this position under the patronage of Sejanus the prefect of the Praetorian guard, the most powerful man in Rome.

Pilate is pictured by history as a cruel "law and order" governor.  He had cruelly quelled Jewish demonstrations and riots in the past (see Luke 13:1) and at the time of Jesus' trial his position was shaky, as the Jews had powerful connections in Rome and by this time Sejanus had fallen from power.

So when the Jewish Sanhedrin brought Jesus to Pilate on Friday morning after their night-long trial, he clearly did not want to get involved until they insisted that Jesus was guilty of a capital crime and accused him of crime against the Roman emperor - especially of claiming that he himself was a King - their Messiah.

Pilate's interrogation of Jesus is described in all four Gospels with each writer supplying various details.  It is John's gospel, however, that describes it most vividly:

          "So Pilate entered the Praetorium again and called Jesus and said to him, 'Are you the King of the Jews?'

          Jesus answered, 'Do you say this on your own or did others tell you about me?'
          Pilate answered, 'I'm not a Jew, am I?  Your own people and their chief priests handed you over to me!  What have you done?'
          Jesus answered, 'My Kingdom isn't of this world.  If my Kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews.  But now my Kingdom is not from here.'
          Thus Pilate said to him, 'So then you are a king?'
          Jesus answered, 'You say that I am a king.  For this reason I was born and for this reason I came into the world, that I might testify to the truth!  Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.'
          Pilate says to him, 'What is truth?!!'''  (John 18:35-38a)

We can almost hear the frustration in Pilate's voice - perhaps anger - at the Jewish accusers, at Jesus.  He had found himself in a dilemma.  Shall he free an innocent man and anger the Sanhedrin or should he simply go along with them?  After all, to Pilate, Jesus was just another Jew, another provincial.  Pilate had disposed of a number of them in the past.  One more would seem to be no problem.  Or would it?  Does Pilate perhaps recognize that the man standing before him is more than just one more provincial?  Does he suspect that Jesus just may be the person his accusers said he was falsely claiming to be?

Both Luke 23:4 and John 18:38b tell us that at this point Pilate gives his verdict:  "I find no guilt in this man!"

It is probably at this point that Pilate, upon hearing that Jesus is from Galilee, sends him to Herod Antipas, who after mocking him, returns him to Pilate with no decision (Luke 23:5-12).  Luke tells us that Pilate now for the second time pronounces a Not guilty! verdict and offers to chastise and release Jesus (Luke 23:13-16).  All four Gospels tell us that the crowd at this time demands that Jesus be crucified and that Pilate release Barabbas, an insurrectionist and murderer.

In the meantime Pilate had received word from his wife, "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man.  I've suffered a lot today from a dream about him!"  (Matthew 27:19)  As the crowd continues to demand Barabbas' release and Jesus' crucifixion, we can almost hear Pilate screaming as he says, "Why?  What evil has he done?"  (Matthew 27:23)

 

Pilate appears to be doing all he can to save Jesus from the death penalty.  He has Jesus scourged; the soldiers mock him and plant a crown of thorns on his head.  Pilate has him again brought out to the crowd, bloodstained and beaten, and we hear Pilate's shout, "Behold the Man!"  (John 19:5)  Could it be that Pilate is hoping this will satisfy the bloodlust of the crowd?  He twice again pronounces Jesus not guilty!  But when the priests continue to demand his death, Pilate gives in and says, "Take him and crucify him yourselves!"

At this point the priests come up with a new accusation:  "We have a law and according to that law, he needs to die because he made himself out to be the Son of God!"  (John 19:7)

John tells us here that, "When Pilate heard this accusation, he became even more afraid" (19:8).  While it may be doubted that Pilate was a religious or superstitious man, he was a Roman and the gods would have been a part of his culture.  Myths of gods taking human form would have been familiar to him.  Add to this mix the fact that he had been in the center of Judaism for a number of years and must have gained some knowledge of their belief in the Invisible God with an unutterable Name.  And then there was his wife's dream.  Certainly the frightening possibility must have crossed his mind that he, Pilate had been forced into trying an earthly representative of a God much more powerful and frightening than his own.  So he again returns to the Praetorium with Jesus.

          "'Where are you from?' he said to Jesus.  But Jesus didn't give an answer.

          So Pilate says to him, 'Aren't you talking to me?  Don't you know that I have the authority to release you and I have the authority to crucify you?!'

          Jesus answered him, 'You'd have no authority over me if it hadn't been given you from above.  Because of this, the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin!'"  (John 19:9-11)
 

          We're told that after this, "Pilate was seeking to release him." But the Jewish leaders had one more trump card, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend! Everyone who makes himself a king is opposed to Caesar."  (19:12)

It was apparently these words that caused Pilate to cave in. "Friend of Caesar" was probably an official title that Pilate had, one that provided privilege.  Pilate was already in hot water because of his previous acts against the Jews and the fall of his patron.  This could be the final straw.  A Jewish complaint to Rome could lead to his losing his position, even (literally) getting the axe.  It was no longer the question of Jesus or Barabbas, but of Jesus or Pilate!

But Pilate makes one more effort:  he presents Jesus to the crowd with a shout, "Behold your King!"  When they shout louder for Jesus to be crucified, we can hear Pilate  pleading?  Shouting?  Screaming?  "Shall I crucify your King?"  to which the chief priests reply, "We have no King but Caesar!"  (19:14, 15)

Matthew tells us that Pilate also feared a riot, and that he "took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this man's blood!  See to it yourselves!'" to which they answered "His blood be on us and our children!" (Matthew 27:24, 25)

And Pilate handed Jesus over to them to be crucified.  But Pilate did get the final word.  While all the Gospels tell us that the charge for Jesus' crime which was nailed to the cross over his head, said, "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews," John tells us, "The chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, 'Don't write The King of the Jews, but that he said I am the King of the Jews.'  Pilate said, 'What I have written, I have written!'"  (John 19:21, 22)

This in no way, of course, justifies Pilate's actions.  The early disciples recognized that there was enough blame to go around.  An early prayer recorded in the Book of Acts names "Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the people of Israel" as those who "were gathered together against (God's) holy servant Jesus" (Acts 4:27).  That's pretty all inclusive.

We in our day may justly put blame on Pontius Pilate; it's easy for us to do.  It's easy to think of him as an evil, unprincipled man, one willing to condemn an innocent man - our Savior - to save his own skin.  But if I may, I'd like to imagine Pilate addressing us as he wipes his hands:

"I had to do it.  I had no other option, did I?  What do you suppose would have happened to me if I had released Jesus?  The Jewish Sanhedrin would have accused me to Caesar himself.  I would surely have lost my position that I had worked so hard to attain.  It could even have cost me my life.  I wasn't willing to take that risk.  After all, I have a wife and family to look out for.  That's important, isn't it?  I've got to keep my job - and sometimes that requires compromise doesn't it?  Am I really that different from you 21st century American Christians?  Or maybe I should ask, are you really different from me?  I looked out for number one.  Don't you do the same?"

"My gods are made of bronze, granite and plaster.  You claim to worship the God who made the universe. To me Jesus was just another provincial - expendable if necessary. You claim him as the Son of God, as your Savior, as your Lord.  You claim to have surrendered your all to him.  But what if those claims could cost you your life?  Your family?  Your job?  Your comfort? Would you behave any differently than I did?  Or would you too wash your hands of Jesus Christ?"

"Think about it!"

KINGDOM LOGIC

The central section of Luke's Gospel devotes much material to Jesus' training of His disciples - not only the 12, but a much larger group.  His training program was not the sort of training program we'd see inaugurated in our day when the emphasis is on leadership and the qualities required.  Jesus rather emphasized what we could call "followership."  As a matter of fact, His methods would undoubtedly have been just as out of place in His day as in ours.

Look at His recruitment program and how He dealt with three would-be apprentices:

          "As they were going in the way, someone said to Him, 'I'll follow you wherever you go!'
          Jesus said to him, 'The foxes have dens and the birds of the sky nests, but the Son of Man doesn't have a place where He may lay His head.'
          He said to another, 'Follow Me.'
          He replied, 'Lord, first permit me to go to bury my father.'
          He said to him, 'Leave the dead to bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the Kingdom of God.'
          Another also said, 'I'll follow you Lord - but first permit me to say goodbye to those in my house.'
          Jesus said to him, 'No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks behind is fit for the Kingdom of God!'"

          Luke 9:57-64

We're not told whether or not any of the three signed up.  Elsewhere in the Gospels we do read of similar calls and that some did respond.

As we discussed this passage in our Sunday morning Bible study, I felt that all of us (myself included) felt some discomfort with these demands.  Someone made the statement that these demands were unreasonable and most of us agreed that by this world's standards they definitely were.

Someone else brought up the fact that we who follow Jesus are citizens of two kingdoms - the Kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of God.  These demands are unreasonable by the thinking of the Kingdom of this world, but not by that of the Kingdom of God.

The demands Jesus makes are unreasonable, if we begin our reasoning with the premises of this world.  But they are reasonable if we begin with the premises of the Kingdom of God.

And what are those premises?  I do not intend to look here at all of them and to compare those of the two contrasting Kingdoms, except for a few basics.

If I may speak in generalities, this world is based on self-centeredness.  The goals are personal happiness.  We seek for fame, wealth, possessions, power, and position in order to bring about this happiness.

The premise of the Kingdom of God is God-centered.  He is to be the center of our concern, our worship, and our service.  And this concern is to work itself out in service to others.  Self takes a back seat.

After this recruitment program, Jesus sent 70 disciples out in pairs "to every town and place where He was going to go" (Luke 10:1).  Who these people were, we're not told,  though their number probably included the twelve.  Did it also include raw recruits like the three just mentioned?  Their assignment and methods are spelled out in this chapter although the history of their mission itself is not described.

We read that "the 70 returned with joy saying 'Lord even the demons are submitted to us in your name'" (10:17).  They are filled with excitement over the newly gained power and authority.  After a few words concerning their new powers and their place in God's program, Jesus apparently wants to bring them down from this excitement.

"However don't rejoice in this, that the spirits are submitted to you, but rejoice that your names are written in the Heavens!" (10:20).

Often when reading a passage such as the above, we stop and package it up by itself, pulling it out of its immediate context.  We then pick up the following passage at some other time and do the same with it, failing to see the connections.  We may especially do this with the one that follows this story.  We want to meditate on Jesus' prayer to His Father, without considering that it was apparently uttered in the presence of those 70 who had just returned from their mission.

"At that same hour, He rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, 'I praise You Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to children.  Yes Father, because this was pleasing in your sight!  All things have been handed over to Me by My Father.  And no one knows Who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal Him'" (10:21, 22).

I have pondered the deep theological implications of Jesus' prayer many times, but have failed to recognize when He uttered it.  It says, "At that same hour."  In other words, immediately after the 70 had returned with reports of their mission.  They were on a high from seeing success occur at their hands.  Jesus had just assured them of their place in heaven.  But then, instead of building up their self-esteem, He turns to His Father and thanks Him for using these "children" - while they were apparently listening.  I can imagine the wind going out of their sails.  They stopped high-fiving and probably were pretty bewildered.  Surely Jesus could have given them a little bit of praise?  Is He being unreasonable again?

I like recognition, even when it's flattery.  It seems as though that is the way we're made.  We love a little pat on the back for what we've accomplished.  But somehow Jesus seems to love to burst our bubbles.  God doesn't use us because we are so well qualified.  He uses us because we are not qualified!  The praise goes to Him.

Anyway, Jesus does end this with a bit of encouragement.

"And turning to the disciples privately, He said, 'Blessed are the eyes that see what you see, for I'm telling you that many prophets and kings have wanted to see what you see and haven't seen and to hear what you hear and haven't heard'" (10:23, 24). 

 

The logic of the Kingdom of God makes sense if we start from the premises of the Kingdom. It makes no sense if we begin with the premises of this world.
 

See:   JESUS FOR DUMMIES?

          COMMITMENT TO CHRIST

          HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?

DRINKIN' FROM THE DIPPER

When I was a little boy my family's home was on a lot on a corner of my maternal grandparents' farm in Michigan.  Apparently Gramma and Grampa Lorenz had given a small lot to my family as well as to an aunt and uncle who lived next door.  So while technically I did not grow up on a farm, it was only 100 or so feet behind us and their farm house was not more than a half mile down the road.

But walking down that half mile was like stepping back in time.  My grandparents' house was old and not furnished with all the modern amenities that our house was.  They had no indoor plumbing and no running water.  Gramma did her cooking on a wood-burning stove.  Water was furnished from a well which was located just off the front porch and on top of which sat a wooden platform with a huge (to me) forest green cast iron pump.  Sometimes I would be assigned to fetch the water.  I would affix a porcelainized steel pail by its wire handle to the top of the spout projecting from the front of the pump and pump the handle up and down while a beautiful stream of clear cool water filled the pail.

Then with both hands I'd struggle to carry the pail in and place it on a shelf near the door.  On a smaller shelf just above the pail sat a porcelainized dipper.  Whenever anyone desired a drink, they'd dip the dipper in the water and place it to their lips.  When finished they'd shake it off and replace it on its shelf for the use of the next person.

We all drank out of the same dipper.

Later in life when I moved to Texas, I heard the expression, "He drinks from the dipper," used I suppose to describe a person who was just a regular guy, no better nor worse than the rest of us, one who did not feel he was above sharing in the normal matters of life with others.

Whenever I read the story of Jesus' meeting with the Samaritan woman at a well as John relates it in the 4th chapter of his gospel, my mind returns to the above thoughts.  A portion of the story is as follows:

"He had to pass through Samaria.  He comes then into a town of Samaria called Sychar ... There was in that place the well of Jacob.  Jesus, since He was worn out from the journey was sitting thus on the well.  It was about 6 in the evening.

A woman of Samaria came to draw water.

Jesus says to her, 'Give me a drink.'  (His disciples had gone into town to buy food.)

The Samaritan woman says to Him, 'How do you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman for a drink?  Jews do not use things in common with Samaritans!'"  (John 4:4-9)

[NOTE:  I translated "the 6th hour" as 6 P.M.  John appears to use Roman time rather than Palestinian reckoning - see 19:14.  I also translated the Greek word sunchraomai as "use things in common" rather than the usual "have dealings with."  Obviously the disciples were "dealing with" the Samaritans to purchase food.]

The woman was astounded by Jesus' request for a number of reasons:

Jesus was a Jew - probably obvious to her by his tasseled garment - while she was a member of a group shunned by Jews for what was regarded by them as a corrupt religion and a corrupted mixed race.

Jesus was a man.  Jewish (and probably Samaritan) men did not speak to women 

publicly. This even was surprising to His disciples on their return later, as John says in verse 27:  "... they were amazed that He was talking with a woman."

She was also probably carrying some shame concerning her past and present marital/sexual activity.  Of course she didn't know till later in the conversation that Jesus knew all about her "checkered" past.  Verse 18:  "... you've had five husbands and the one whom you now have isn't your husband!"

She was apparently carrying a single water jug (verse 28). The only way for Him to get a drink from her would be to put her water jug to His lips.  He was asking to drink from her "dipper"!

While people of the first century were not germ-phobic as the people of our day are - they knew nothing about germs - the orthodox Jews were even more fearful of ritual defilement.  And this would have been that - big time.

There's much more to this story, but this simple request of Jesus is, I believe a metaphor for what He had done in His incarnation.  He, as preexistent God, took on Himself humanity.  He wasn't afraid of "contamination."  He became one of us.  He drank from the dipper!

So if Jesus could drink from the dipper, shouldn't we who claim to be His followers do the same?  Jesus broke down all sorts of barriers in this simple story:  racial barriers, religious barriers, gender barriers, barriers based on sexual behavior.

Do we?

THE RIGHTEOUS ONE

Reading in Matthew's account of Jesus' trial before Pilate, my attention was called to the brief account (found only in Matthew) of the note Pilate received from his wife.  It read, "Have nothing to do with that Righteous One, for I suffered many things in a dream today because of him" (Matthew 27:19).

A reference in the margin of my Bible pointed me to Luke 23:47, where immediately after Jesus expired on the cross, the centurion who was in charge, "... glorified God saying, 'Certainly this man was righteous!' -- or 'this was a Righteous Man!'"

Matthew and Mark give it a little differently.  In their accounts the centurion says, "Truly this was God's son.'"  (Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:3)  Most likely he said both.

The question was raised in my mind as to whether "The Righteous Man" is a title for Jesus which was recognized by the New Testament writers.  Certainly they had an Old Testament basis for this.  Isaiah the prophet in his well-known passage concerning the Messiah's suffering says, "My Righteous Servant will justify many" (Isaiah 53:11).

Sure enough, Jesus is frequently referred to this way in the New Testament, but especially in regard to His suffering unjustly.  Luke mentions this usage three times in the Book of Acts, twice in an accusation against the Jewish leaders.  Peter accuses them in Acts 3:14, "... but you denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you!"  Steven at his trial, just before his martyrdom said to probably the same people, "Which of the prophets didn't your fathers persecute?  And you killed those who proclaimed beforehand concerning the coming of the Righteous One of whom you now have become the murderers ..." (7:52).  [We should notice that in both of these accusations there is forgiveness offered (3:16ff; 7:60).]

Paul, in Acts 22:14 quotes Ananias as saying to him after the appearance of Christ to Paul on the way to Damascus, "The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth."

Peter carries this thought forward in his First Epistle, "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the Righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring you to God ..." (1 Peter 3:18a).

Of course, all these things have been noticed before, but what especially intrigued me was the same title as it was used by James in his epistle.  James berates the wealthy for three offenses, the first that they have gained or at least increased their wealth by the mistreatment of their workers by defrauding them of their wages (James 5:4).  Their second offense is that they have "lived luxuriously and ... indulgently" (5:5a) apparently at the expense of those they'd defrauded.

But the third offense seems to stand out.  "You have condemned, you have murdered the Righteous One.  He does not resist you" (5:6).

Who is the one James refers to as "the Righteous One"?  Students of the Scriptures have puzzled over this question.  Is this simply some generic reference?  Is James referring to the workers mentioned in verse 4?  If so, why does he use the singular and mark it off with the definite article?  Is he referring to Jesus?  The language sounds like that of Peter and Steven in the Book of Acts, but Jesus had been condemned and put to death years before James wrote.  Besides those who had done this were in Judea and James was writing "... to the twelve tribes of the Diaspora" as he says in 1:1.  So how could he be holding these persons accountable?

Well, this thought came to mind:  perhaps James is thinking of the Judgment of the Sheep and Goats that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 25:31-46.  James' tirade appears to have eschatological thoughts running through it.  He speaks of "the last days" (James 5:3), "a day of slaughter" (verse 5) of "the harvesters" and "the Lord of Hosts" (verse 4).

If this is the case, then the reference to their killing of "the Righteous One" may be in the same vein as that of Jesus' statement that "in that you did (or didn't do) to one of these least ones, you did it to Me" (Matthew 25:40, 45).  So James would be applying Jesus' words directly to the wealthy oppressors of his own day and location.  They were as guilty of Jesus' murder as the ones who had personally committed the act.

So where does that put us?

Just a thought.

 Revised 4/8/2019

WHY DO YOU SPEAK IN PARABLES?

I love to tell stories.  I recall a line from an old John Denver song, " ... and the gifts of growing old are the stories to be told ... "  Sometimes I suppose my kids and grandkids get tired of my stories, but I just can't seem to help myself.  I have a friend, however, who outdoes me and we can fill up a conversation quite easily.  At times we tell stories to make a point, though at other times our stories are just occasioned by the conversation with no particular object in the telling.
 

I suppose we're in good company.  Jesus also liked to tell stories.  I've read that about 1/3 of His teaching was story telling.  I haven't checked that number, though it seems reasonably accurate.  His stories, however, -- at least the recorded ones -- always had a point, sometimes more than one point.  We call them "parables," which is taken from the Greek word in the New Testament, parabole which  literally means "something set to the side," hence, "a comparison."  They are really simply extended similes because they give comparisons ("The Kingdom of Heaven is like ...").  Often, however, the comparison is not clearly stated, so we may call them extended metaphors ("I am the vine ...").
 

Although there are a number of parables in the Old Testament, we find the most in the Gospels.  All the Gospel writers record some of Jesus' parables and a number are repeated in all three Synoptic Gospels.  Luke has the greatest number of them -- 34 by one count, of which half are unique to Luke.  Matthew has 27 of which 12 are unique.  Mark has 11, of which only one is exclusive to Mark (the Seed -- 4:26-29).  Some contend that John's Gospel contains none, but at least some of Jesus' "I am" sayings certainly qualify, so I'll give John credit for 5.

It is difficult to come up with precise figures because Jesus (like most preachers) often repeated Himself in different contexts; do we count these as one or two (or more) parables?  For instance, compare the Lost Sheep parable in Matthew 18:12-14 with the one in Luke 15:1-7.

So why did Jesus use parables, besides the fact that they were entertaining?  Well, Jesus Himself gave an answer to the question, following His parable usually known as the Parable of the Sower.  This parable is found in Matthew 13:1-9; Mark 4:1-9 and Luke 8:4-8.  Immediately after this parable, His disciples came up and asked Him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?"  (Matthew 13:10; Mark 4:10; Luke 8:9).  His answer differs a bit as each writer has recorded it, but Mark's seems the clearest.

"To you has been given the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but to those outside all things are in parables in order that 'seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest they return and be forgiven'" (Mark 4:11, 12, quoting Isaiah 6:9).  We may sum this up by saying that Jesus had two purposes for using parables:  to clarify truth and to conceal truth.

Jesus was simply restating for His disciples a spiritual principle that we find all through the Old Testament.  Though the Word of God may have a number of effects on its hearers, they all come down to just two:  the "hearers" can either reject it or can receive it and "bear fruit."

The Parable of the Sower (or better the Soils) brings this principle out.  Though there are four different "soils" enumerated, the results for the first three are essentially the same; it is only that last that "bears fruit."  Jesus explains that the soils of course represent the various hearers of the Word (Matthew 13:18-23; Mark 4:13-20; Luke 8:11-15).

Though Jesus appears to put an allegorical spin on His interpretation, we should be careful of spending too much effort on the details.  His major emphasis is on hearing.  Notice how many times He uses the word "hear" in some form over and over throughout the parable and its interpretation.  And of course He closes the parable with, "The one who has ears -- hear!"  (Matthew 13:9; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8).  Perhaps He was implying that there were those in the crowd who didn't "have ears" -- who were incapable of receiving spiritual truth.

I can picture the crowd's reaction at the close of the parable.  Some faces show pleasure -- they've enjoyed the story though they are clueless as to its meaning.  Others are set in deep frowns as they try to figure it out, or possible they understand just enough to know that they don't like what they hear.  And then there are those faces that appear to have a light bulb going on over them as they grasp the truth.  As a preacher and teacher, I've learned to look for those expressions.  I wonder if Jesus did.  I wonder if He looks for the expressions on our faces.  I know He looks for the results in our lives of what we hear.

THE GOLDEN RULE

"And just as you want people to do to you, do to them in the same way" (Luke 6:31).
 

“Everything then, whatever you want people to do to you, in the same way also do to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).
 

Just about everyone seems to have some knowledge of the verse in the Bible known as the Golden Rule found in Jesus' Sermon On The Mount.
 

We have two different versions of this rule, which differ slightly.  When we remember that Jesus was most likely speaking in Aramaic, while Matthew and Luke have given it to us in Greek, and that both give us condensed versions of the Sermon, the differences can be easily accounted for.  The real difficulty is that Luke places it early in the Sermon, tucked into a longer passage on love, while Matthew places it much later, separating it from other sayings.

Why is this?  I believe that the simplest answer is that Jesus said it twice.  Most preachers (myself included) repeat themselves in the same sermon, so why couldn't He?  The first time it's spoken (Luke 6:31), it is tucked away within Jesus' commands regarding loving our enemies.  The second time was nearer to His closing remarks.

Most people could probably recite the Golden Rule in one form or another, or at least paraphrase it.  It also seems to be the verse most often deliberately misquoted:

·       “Do unto others what they do unto you.”

·       “Do unto others before they do unto you.”

·       Or (my personal favorite) simply:  “Do others!”



The saying (sometimes referred to as the ethic of reciprocity) is so familiar to Christians who know that it’s a quote from Jesus, that they are often surprised to find that this concept is also found in many religions and cultures.  A Google search will quickly show many similar sayings in Buddhism, Baha’i, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism, as well as in many ancient writings much older that the Gospels.  A few samples:

• Buddhism:    
• "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
• Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
• Confucianism:
• "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
• "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
• Hinduism:   This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
• Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 3
• Judaism: 
• "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a
• "And what you hate, do not do to anyone." Tobit 4:15 4

 

Theologically liberal Christians gladly receive this information as evidence that all religions are equal.  Theologically conservative Christians are sometimes rattled or upset, feeling that this sort of thinking is a threat to the uniqueness of Jesus.
 

But is it?  Does finding truth in other religions threaten the uniqueness of Jesus?
 

No way!

• First of all we need to realize that not everything Jesus said was original with Him.  Every word He said was and is true, not because it was all original with Him, but because He is God.
• Secondly the doctrine of natural revelation teaches us that God has revealed Himself in many ways.  “…that which is known of God is evident among them (humankind), for God made it evident to them” (Romans 1:19).  “For whenever gentiles, those not having the Law, do by nature the things of the Law, these, though not having the Law are a law to themselves, such ones as show the work of the Law written in their hearts…” (2:14, 15).

 

But Jesus’ statement is unique for a number of reasons.  The first reason is that it is the word of the Son of God and as such has an authority over His hearers that the other sayings do not.  Also, many (though not all) of the other sayings were in a negative form (“Do not…”), whereas Jesus’ was in a positive form.

Many of the other sayings were stated or could be interpreted with a utilitarian motive, i.e., be nice to others, so that they will be nice to you.  Jesus gives a different reason for this behavior, “…for this is the Law and the Prophets.”  This, I believe, is the radical difference.
 

Jesus’ hearers were mostly Jews, living under the Old Testament Law of Moses.  In Matthew's Gospel we read that Jesus had already devoted a large portion of this sermon to the proper understanding of that Law (5:17-48).  He taught that God’s Law is not simply about the performance or non-performance of external acts, but began with the thought life.  Much of that teaching was in a negative fashion.  Here, in this one statement, He gives a positive summation of the keeping of the Law, as well as the teachings of the Old Testament prophets.

 

Later, when Jesus is questioned by a Pharisaic law expert (Matthew 22:34-36; Mark 12:28) as to which is the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus replied, “’You will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like it, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:29-31).

 

Jesus here was quoting from two texts in the Mosaic Law, Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18b.  And He ties these two together as a summation of the Law and the Prophets.  Jesus quoted these passages a number of times, but sometimes only the second, Leviticus 19:18b, about loving one’s neighbor.
 

I would even venture to say that when He placed the two love commands together, He was implying a link between them – an unbreakable link.  Can one actually love his neighbor without loving God?  Can a person love God without loving His neighbor?
 

And if the “Golden Rule” and the Law of Love are both said to be the fulfillment of God’s Law, can we not assume that they are one and the same?  This elevates the Rule to more than a utilitarian social ethic.  Though it may be found to be good practical advice, it is so much more than that.  It is an expression of the Love of God worked out in our lives.  As John, one of Jesus’ 12 disciples, would later write, “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19).
 

The other disciples also grasped this concept.  James, Jesus’ brother, who was not a believer at the time Jesus preached the Sermon, but may very well have heard it, wrote of it in his letter, referring to it as “the perfect Law, the Law of Liberty” (James 1:25) and “the Royal Law” (2:8).
 

And then there’s Paul, another who was an unbeliever at the time of the Sermon, who probably never heard Jesus at all, and who many believe wrote before the Gospels were written.  Yet he grasps Jesus’ sayings and almost paraphrases Him.
 

“For all the Law is fulfilled in one word in this, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14).
 

“Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another, for the one who loves the other has fulfilled the Law.  For this, ‘You will not commit adultery, you will not murder, you will not steal, you will not covet,’ and if there’s any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does not do evil to a neighbor, therefore love is the Law’s fulfillment!’” (Romans 13:8-10).
 

So for the follower of Jesus, the “Golden Rule” is more than just good advice, more than the best advice.  It is the living out of the love of Christ in our relationships with others.
 

{NOTE:  Most of the above thoughts were previously posted on THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 20.}

LOVE MY ENEMIES?

Luke 6:27-35

          "But I'm saying to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you!  To the one who hits you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the one who takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt!  Give to everyone who asks from you, and from the one who takes away your stuff, don't demand it back! (verses 27-30)

          And just as you want people to do to you, do to them in the same way. (verse 31)

          And if you love those who love you, what grace is that to you?  For even sinners love those who love them!  And if you do good to those who do good to you, what grace is that to you?  Even sinners do the same thing.  And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive what grace is that to you?  Even sinners lend in order that they may receive back the same! (verses 32-34)

          However, love your enemies and do good and lend, not hoping for anything back, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.  Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful!" (verse 35)

When Jesus was questioned elsewhere as to what the first and great commandment of the Law was, he replied:  “’You will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the great and first commandment.  And the second is like it.  ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-31; See also Matthew 19:19).

Jesus was quoting, of course, from the Old Testament Law.  The commandment to love the LORD was from Deuteronomy 6:4, 5.  The commandment to love one’s neighbor came from Leviticus 19:18.

We should note that in the same chapter in Leviticus that Jesus quotes, there is another commandment:  “The stranger (or alien) who resides with you shall be to you as a native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34).  Both verse 18 and 34 conclude with “I am the LORD!”

And later, when a lawyer (teacher of the Law) tried to find a loophole by asking, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus told him a story of how one about whom the lawyer held racial and religious stereotypes (a Samaritan) behaved as a neighbor, and then told the lawyer to do likewise (Luke 10:25-27).

So then, our neighbors include not only those who look, behave and worship like we do, but also aliens, and people of different races and religions.

And here in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us that we are to love those who hate and persecute us, and we are even to pray for them!  I don’t see how this excludes anyone.  There are no loopholes!

We will have enemies; we’re not told that we won’t.  The New Testament is filled with promises and examples of persecution and conflict.  But I don’t believe that we are to choose our enemies, nor to consider those with whom we simply disagree as our enemies.  Nor are we to pray for their demise.  We can’t prevent some people from being our enemies, but we should leave the choice to them.  And we are to love them.

And the reason given for loving indiscriminately is “You will be sons of the Most High.”  I don’t believe Jesus is speaking here of that sonship that we have through faith in Him, but rather He’s referring to a concept found throughout the Bible.  To be “the son of” someone meant to be characterized by the same traits as that person.  Paul says in Romans 4:11, 12, that Abraham was “the father” of those who believe, even though not physically related.  Jesus accuses the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:31 of being “sons of the murderers of the prophets.”  In similar fashion we show our family relation-ship to our Heavenly Father when we love and do good indiscriminately.

We often tend to read Jesus' commands rather abstractly.  We nod our heads and agree with Him without really considering what it means to love another person. 

There was a dear sweet lady in a church I pastored years ago, but she had an uncontrolled tongue; gossip and hurtful sayings were often part of her conversation.  When I finally confronted her about these things, she gave me a sad puzzled look and said, "But I just loove everybody!"  I'm afraid many of us, myself included, tend to use this as our defense or excuse. 

But Jesus doesn't just give us this command in the abstract.  He gives us specific examples of how that love is to be worked out toward even our enemies:

          Do good to them.

          Bless them.

          Pray for them.

          Don't retaliate.

          Don't withhold.

          Give expecting nothing in return. 

Can we really say that we love our enemies? 

{NOTE:  Most of the above thoughts were previously posted on THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.]