New Thoughts (05/02/10-05/05/10)
Luke’s account focuses our attention on the idea of completion. As Jesus responds to the Pharisees who have come to Him, He uses two words that both speak of completing something, of achieving a goal, fulfilling a prophecy, or finishing a task. It is there in the comment that He is going to perform cures, and it is there when He says He will reach His goal. It is that latter case that might raise a few eyebrows. The association of this reaching a goal with the third day, of course, immediately has us thinking of the Crucifixion, particularly given the comment that follows – after all, it would hardly be fitting for a prophet to die except in Jerusalem! Clearly, Jesus is seeing that event on the horizon.
It will be pointed out, though (as the NET does), that the final period in Jerusalem itself was more than three days, and there remains yet the travel time after He departs Galilee. So, what exactly does He mean, here? Is He strictly speaking of the Galilean mission? Is He just saying that the active phase of His ministry, with its focus on exorcisms and healings, is wrapping up? Or, is His sense of the timing simply off?
Well, I feel confident that we can eliminate that last option. The Creator and maintainer of time is not likely to lose track of it. Yet, if all He was speaking of was the current phase of ministry, whether geographically or characteristically, the comments about Jerusalem make no sense.
Might I suggest that the key to assessing His meaning lies in that first comment He makes about Jerusalem? He talks about how the prophet will most commonly meet his demise in Jerusalem, and it’s clear that He is speaking in a self-referential way, since He is imparting His itinerary. Thus, I think it well to consider that third day reference as most assuredly referring to the Crucifixion, which would be the ultimate conclusion of His mission. I can’t help but recall the, “it is finished” that marked the end of His earthly life, as He died on that cross. Everything completed to perfection, every last aspect of God’s plan and purpose for Him successfully concluded. Truly, on the third day, He reached His goal, fulfilled the prophesies, completed the mission.
Given the power of that event, one could even go so far as to apply that completeness to the casting out of demons and the performing of cures. For, the death of God – and His subsequent Resurrection – were the final battle with the demonic. At that point, the forces of evil were defeated conclusively, all hope of victory removed. I realize, of course, that this doesn’t seem to fit with our daily experience, but it remains the truth. The enemy is defeated. He knows it. But, the scale of time on the heavenly clock runs a tad differently than it does here. He knows it’s over, but he can’t stop fighting. He’s determined to inflict as much damage as he can before he goes down for the count. Still, the fact remains that he is going down. It is finished.
Likewise, the eventual elimination of sickness and disease was fully dealt with in that same act. Things reached an irreversible point at the Cross. There remains, after His final act, no possibility of stopping the plan and purpose of God from proceeding. Not that there was any real possibility of it before then, but for all that people today are looking for prophetic fulfillments regarding the temple and red heifers and all that sort of stuff, the prophesies were already fulfilled. He did it. It’s done.
All that being said, there remains that sense in which prophesies may have both an immediate and a remote fulfillment. The fall of Jerusalem was something along these lines, satisfying the immediate application of some the things Jesus prophesied for that city. No stone left standing? Check. Women and children dying as mercilessly as the men? Check. Go read Josephus’ account of the siege of Jerusalem. It’s truly a most harrowing account, to see the people of God’s own choosing fallen so far from grace. Gives one pause in considering our own potential for likewise failing.
So, we might look at the Galilean mission that was wrapping up in this same way. Jesus says He will be performing cures for another couple of days, and as I noted, that performing has the idea of completing and perfecting. So, we might take that one of two ways: either that those cures that He brought about would be final and complete, or that He would have dealt with every healing that was on His schedule.
This puts me in a rather touchy area, as I know too many in my immediate circle who are focused on issues of miraculous healing to what I would consider an unhealthy degree. Let me consider briefly: If the idea is that those healings Jesus performed were perfect and complete, then I should expect that those He cured would still be with us today. After all, sickness and disease are a reflection of the decay of this world which is itself the product of sin. So, too, is death. We learn that from the outset, with Adam and Eve. They were not created with any sort of planned obsolescence. They were expected to last an eternity, body as well as soul. It was only with the arrival of sin that the body began to undergo decay. So, then, a perfect cure must surely have ended that process of decay?
Honestly, this is (to my thinking anyway) the unanswerable argument for those who would raise physical healing to a place of primacy in the realm of faith. However healed the body, even counting the resurrected Lazarus, every last man, woman and child that ever experienced miraculous healing died anyway. They got a reprieve, perhaps, but not a rescinding of the sentence. If one brings up Paul, and his thorn in the side, one may hear the argument that we can’t be certain that was any physical malady at all. Maybe he was just complaining about that constant harassment by the Jews. Of course, there’s nothing to support such a stance, but be that as it may. This same Paul makes it a point to downplay bodily issues. “Though our body is decaying day by day, our spirit is being renewed!” Guess where his focus is! Guess where he is instructing us that our focus should be!
So, no: I don’t think I can look at this passage and say that Jesus is talking about the perfectly cured. What if I take it in that other sense, that He will have cured all He intended to cure? Wow! That would certainly put a crimp in a few folks’ tails, were that the case. We should have to ascertain whether Jesus healed anybody beyond that three day window. I see in Luke’s account that there is a healing in the very next passage, but the location and timing is not specified beyond its being on the Sabbath. By my ordering of things, which is hardly guaranteed accurate, I see Bartimaeus and Lazarus both healed after this time, although in the first case, Matthew actually has it prior, and in the latter, it being John’s account, the timing is necessarily uncertain.
All in all, though, I don’t think that sense is reasonable, either. The most weight I think we can comfortably put on that third day comment, as it applies immediately, is the close of the Galilean phase of ministry, and perhaps a shift of focus. Healings might still occur, but they would no longer be as prominent. From this point forward, Jesus is steadfastly focused on Jerusalem, and on the completion of His earthly ministry and purpose that must transpire there. More and more, He is tuning Himself to the heavenly and away from the earthly, for it is that heavenly battle that must be won, it is that heavenly agony that He must endure, else all is lost. But, endure He will. Endure He has. It is finished! Whatever the immediate sense of this prophecy might be, we can rejoice in that ultimate conclusion: It is finished!
Another question which should be considered is what these Pharisees Luke speaks of had in mind. If the text had read, “some people came up,” or even, “some Jews came up,” it would be quite reasonable to suppose an honest intent behind the warning given. Perhaps they were just concerned for the safety of Jesus and His followers. After all, Herod was not a particularly popular ruler. But, when Luke tells us specifically that it was Pharisees who came with this warning, we must question their motives. It’s not that there were no Pharisees at all that were sympathetic to Jesus. There were some. But they were few, and based on what we see of those we know, it would hardly be expected that they would be this public in their support of Him.
Sadly for the Pharisees, it seems we must understand this warning as no warning at all, but simply an attempt to scare Jesus. In fact, we can and probably should question whether the thing they warn of is even true. Granted, this is the same Herod Antipas who had John arrested and beheaded. But, then again, this is the same Herod Antipas who had well noted the popular backlash against that action. He had not done himself any favors with the people over whom he reigned with that action. So, there is reasonably strong evidence that Herod was not at all decisive in how to deal with this Jesus. He had not, frankly, been all that decisive in his handling of John. He had just followed the path of least resistance as events unfolded; acting less like a ruler and far more like one ruled.
As to reputation, we learn that Herod was well known both locally and abroad for his lack of moral fiber. The extent of his self-absorption, as with all of his clan, was a byword in Rome. The utter moral abandon in taking as wife one who was not only his brother’s wife by law, but his own niece by physiology could not be missed by any. Indeed, it was this event that had prompted his actions against John. It’s worth noting that we have nothing in the record to suggest any such provocation from Jesus.
Now, it is suggested in some articles that Herod may at the very least have been debating what he ought to do about this new revivalist in his domain. To honor the man and curry a bit of favor amongst the people, or to pursue him as a criminal and ensure the Roman peace?
Like Pilate, Herod was in a bit of a precarious place so far as the power structure was concerned. His first marriage, intended as it was to unite a pair of neighboring kingdoms to serve as buffer between Persia and Rome, had led to war between those very neighbors when he divorced. That could not have gone over well. There had been riots in his area. There had been abuse of his people by his government, and word of this had gone to Rome. This man who would be king had made some moves that were hardly conducive to such a promotion. Viewing this situation, he would doubtless be calculating which path would be the better received in Rome, and in doing so, he would be measuring how his own people would react to any move he might make.
So, yes, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that Jesus was on Herod’s mind as a problem to be addressed. But, to take that to the point of saying he had already decided his course and sought to have Jesus taken and killed as he had done with John is surely stretching things. Thus, it would seem pretty safe to conclude that these Pharisees are wholly inventing their message, and seek nothing more than to cajole Jesus into doing as they would have Him do. That leads us to a question as to why they wanted Him out of Galilee and into Judea? Well, this would put Him in a region more connected with their base of power. They had connections in Jerusalem. They had their seats on the counsel. They could instigate things. Up here in the hinterlands of Galilee, their influence was not so strong.
But, I do wonder if there was more to it than that. Was it that their plans were already pretty well laid? That doesn’t seem reasonable. Too much of what their planning required depended on the ‘circumstantial’ actions of Judas later on. The opportunity for their plan to move forward simply didn’t exist, even if the plan did. Maybe they just figured to discredit Him by causing Him to jump. After all, who would follow a leader who ran away in fright?
Whatever their intent, it is clear enough that Jesus is not taken in by their words. His reply not only delivers a very succinct summing up of the nature of Herod, but also makes it very clear that He moves solely by His own plan and purpose, that being the plan and purpose of God. Indeed, not only does he tell these men that he’s not impressed by the threat of Herod, He goes out of His way to spell out His immediate itinerary. Tell him I’ll be around for the next day or two if he’s that keen to kill Me. Oh, and by the way: When you see Me cross over to Judea three days from now? That’s because My work here is done, and for no other reason. Let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind: My goal will be achieved on My schedule. Then and only then shall I be moving on to the next phase of My mission.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the fox has continued to be so representative of sinful habits even to our day? After all, on those rare occasions when we catch a glimpse of one, our first reaction is not to note its evil, but to acknowledge its beauty. A fox is a pretty animal. There’s a reason that our vernacular has that idea of, ‘what a fox!’ But, the connotations remain. A fox is also a cunning, sneaky, deceitful creature. We may not have the direct experience of this, but we still understand that it is so. The fox is that one which would sneak into the henhouse if we had one, and would have his prey and be gone before we could react.
Consider this quote that the NET includes in its footnotes for this passage. “A person who is designated a fox is an insignificant or base person. He lacks real power and dignity, using cunning deceit to achieve his aims.” Wow! That’s some kind of insult Jesus has just leveled at this ruler. Yes, he holds office, to be sure. But he is insignificant. His threats are insignificant because he lacks any real power to achieve those threats. I would suggest, though, that just as the Pharisees were using Herod’s name as something of a foil for their own purposes, Jesus is replying to the office of Herod as something of a foil for addressing the Pharisees. That doesn’t sound clear to me. Let me try again. In what Jesus says of Herod, He is actually speaking of those Pharisees who have come with this warning. He is not unaware of their game. Even if what they claimed were accurate, Herod would remain powerless to touch Jesus, for it was not the plan and purpose for him to do so. More to the point, though, the threat is empty and powerless. It is a deceitful conniving on the part of these Pharisees, and in couched phrases, I do think Jesus has let them know that He’s onto their little game.
Look at His reaction this way: Really? He’s after Me? Well, let Him know I’ll be here for a few more days. So, if He wants Me, come on out! I’ll cast out his demons as well. But, death threats from that quarter? No, no. That honor goes to your crew in Jerusalem. After all, it’s common knowledge how well Jerusalemites treat those God sends to them. Hardly fitting that Herod should get the credit for your own proclivities. He has enough sin of his own.
But, let me come back to that image of the fox for just a moment, because it truly demonstrates the nature of sin with us. As I noted, our sense of the fox, when we see him, is that he is cute. We wish that he could be domesticated, because he seems like he’d be fun to have about as a pet. But, the reality of the animal is far different. He’s not cute, he’s a killer and a sneak-thief. Isn’t that just like sin, though? Sin looks good on the surface. We aren’t likely to be enticed by something that is clearly hideous and distasteful. If advertisers were to clearly lay out the consequences of pursuing the sorts of things they advertise, we should see those ads as warnings rather than enticements.
Had every tobacco ad consisted of pictures of throat cancers, every magazine ad for the same emitted the odor of stale tobacco smoke, every image magnified the yellowing teeth of the smoker, who would look at that and say, “Oh, yes! That’s for me!” If ads for beer and scotch and the like showed the broken alcoholic’s end, the adverse effects on the body, and such; would so many be inclined to go out and partake? But, no. The advertiser is not paid to show you reality. He’s paid to entice you with the imaginary. He’s the very model of the tempter, playing sleight of hand with the instant gratification that masks the terrible result.
The sin of the fox most clearly depicted in Scripture is the sin of jealousy. It’s that particular nature of sin which wishes to destroy what it cannot have for itself. It’s that mindset of, “If I can’t enjoy it, then nobody shall.” So, the craftiness is devoted to destructive ends. It drives the one it masters to take what it can get from whomever it can get it from, and to spoil what it cannot take. So, the foxes go into the vineyard, and it’s not just the grapes they eat that are lost, it’s the vines they trample in the process, the death they spread throughout the vineyard in their careless satisfaction of a lust for grapes.
Sin! Sometimes we find ourselves willing to forgive our own sins because, after all, we’re only hurting ourselves. But, this, too, is the deceptive craftiness of the beast. It’s not just hurting ourselves. It’s never just hurting ourselves. We may not see the effect of our actions on those around us, but they’re very real. Maybe it manifests as something as simple as a short temper. Maybe it’s something worse. Maybe, as we have come to tolerate our own sins, we have become equally lax in warning others of the path they are on, and thereby failed to be a true brother to them. Sin is crafty. It is jealous. It is not willing that any should enjoy the fruits of righteousness, so it will steal such fruit as it can get its hands on, and do what it can to corrupt what it cannot steal outright.
The saddest part is that, like Herod, we are inclined to do what we can to hold onto our sins. Consider this point that Fausset’s makes in regard to Herod’s response to John’s rebuke: Herod, it says, “preferred keeping his sin to gaining God’s favor and the approval of God’s minister.” Listen! This is the very same thing Jesus is saying about Jerusalem, here. I wanted to, but you wouldn’t have it. I willed, but you willed not. This is nothing new, to be sure. It is the sadly consistent legacy of God’s people. Consider how the author of Proverbs speaks on behalf of Wisdom (and who is Wisdom but God?) Wisdom, he writes, shouts in the streets! She proclaims loudly in the square, crying out at the head of every street, the gates of every city, proclaiming her wise sayings (Pr 1:20-21). “Turn to my reproof! I will pour out my spirit on you, and make my understanding known to you” (Pr 1:23). What a promise, but there is that requirement of actually taking the reproof to heart. But, like Herod, those to whom Wisdom is speaking prefer their sins. Listen. “I called and you refused. I stretched my hand toward you, but no one even paid attention. You neglect my counsel. You don’t want my reproof. So, I will laugh as your calamity comes upon you, mock you in your dread. Oh, in your distress you will finally call for me, but I will not answer. You will seek, but not find, because you hated knowledge. You would not choose the fear of the Lord” (Pr 1:24-30).
Do you suppose this stopped, somehow, with the beginning of Christianity? I fear not. Certainly, it has not changed for the vast bulk of humanity. Sadly, I’m unconvinced that it has changed all that much even within the Church. It is a rare man who willingly accepts rebuke. It is a very rare man indeed who accepts a negative word from the Lord. We have been trained to think positively, after all. We have been taught the name-it-claim-it mentality, and though we may deny it we practice it anyway. We are sadly inconsistent creatures. But, what can be sadder than that epitaph on Herod’s life? “He preferred keeping his sin to gaining God’s favor.”
Wow. So often we hear about those who put some thought into what they would like to have upon their tombstone, what final words they would have describe their lives. I wonder, though, if those words were required to be accurate, how many would find the same epitaph on their headstones as we read here of Herod. I wonder if I should escape such a final declaration. If so, I have none to blame but myself. See, the perennial story is that God seeks redemption, but man insists on destruction. We hear that call to decision that Joshua shouted out to Israel, to choose life or death, and what do we choose? We say the words, sure, just like Israel did, but what do we really choose? Over and over again, we choose death. Over and over again, we see God’s hand outstretched, reaching out to us, we sense the great sorrow in His heart because of our choices, but we go on as we please, untouched, unmoved, utterly unmoved.
If there is any sort of proof in Scripture to support those who insist on free will trumping God’s will, I suppose this might be it. I willed, but you willed not. I cannot even brush this off as being that lesser sort of willing that is expressing desire but not yet determination to take action. No, it’s that firm, I have decided and on this decision I shall act type of willing that Jesus is expressing here.
Honestly, I am not entirely sure how to reconcile this, other than to pray God that He will so will and work in me as to make me willing that His will be done. And, indeed, is that not the promise of Scripture? For, He shall surely finish this work He has begun. Yet, I must be mindful that there are limits even to His great patience and mercy. There does come a point where even the daily renewed mercies of God say, “Enough! If you are that determined to continue your sins, so be it. Let your will be done, and you deal with the consequences.”
This is what is being pronounced on Jerusalem in this passage. “Your will be done, Jerusalem. You have made your choice, so be it. You do not wish My presence and My comfort, then indeed you shall not have it. You shall have none of it. You will be deserted by Me and all who love Me. You will be deprived of My aid and the aid of all My own. You shall no longer have protection, no longer have a friend in the world. This is your choice, and I accede to it.” Oh! May it never be thus for the Church! And yet, in how many cases is that already the way of it? How many denominations, how many communions, have already decided that while they continue to bear the name of Christ, they will no longer tolerate Him having any say in their practices? How many really give Him any least thought as they determine their beliefs, their practices, their morals? Not as many as should, to be sure. I could wonder if there are any at all, but then I am reminded that the answer has already been given, “No, not one.”
We continue to be a people in desperate need of that rescue we in no way deserve, hanging on by a mercy that we daily prove ourselves unworthy to receive.
