New Thoughts (06/22/11-06/26/11)
Having taken a very brief glimpse at David, as his name comes up in these verses, there was something noted by Fausset that had not occurred to me before. It comes, I suppose, of being rather ignorant to the geography into which David’s history is set. But, the article noted the ways in which David’s early years as shepherd prepared him for his later years in God’s service. Now, there are aspects of this that are perfectly familiar. Yes, we know of his battles with such animals as came to threaten his flocks, and we recognize how fighting with lions and bears would certainly demonstrate his physical strength as well as sharpening his tactics when facing a stronger opponent. The article looks at this as direct preparation for his confrontation with Goliath.
One can see, as well, how dealing with sheep would be of value to one who would later shepherd a nation. Sheep are not generally looked to as examples of great intelligence and well developed common sense. Rather, they are the very image of a rather mindless and carefree innocence forever leading one into troubles. Think of sheep, and we think of a creature forever wandering off if one does not keep close eye on them. We think of creatures so focused on feeding their appetites that they will walk right into entrapping or life threatening environs without even realizing where they are going. We think of a creature wholly defenseless to the predations of other animals. In engineering, we speak of managers needing a talent for herding cats. The effort of the shepherd is not all that far removed in difficulty. His only edge is, as Jesus depicts His own people, sheep will at least recognize the commanding voice of their shepherd and follow it, where cats are as likely as not to completely ignore that voice.
But, a king would certainly need these talents. He would need the experienced vigilance, with an eye upon those hidden, stealthy predators who would otherwise harass and destroy his people. He would need that careful eye, as well, upon those people; such an eye as can see them heading for trouble before they are too far gone, such an eye as is quick to note the absence of even one of those in his charge, and a willing eagerness to go find that absent one and see him restored. There is every good reason for God to have so often described His administrators as shepherds over the sheep of His pasture.
What I hadn’t really recognized, however, was the way the shepherd’s lifestyle particularly equipped David for those years between his calling and his attaining the throne. The shepherd, after all, spends his days in the countryside, and the nature of the sheep requires that he relocate them frequently lest they overgraze one particular bit of land. But, my vision of sheep sees them on pleasant, rolling hillsides and grassy plains. This is not the geography that David experienced. And so, I miss an intriguing point. David did not wander the hills and dales of New England. He wandered the region of Israel often spoken of as ‘the wilderness’. It could very nearly be called desert, but not in the same fashion as the Sahara is considered desert. It is a rugged land, sparsely vegetated, and actually rather mountainous. David’s shepherd life was not some idyllic dance through grassy meadows. It was a time spent in harsh environs, finding passage through an unfriendly land not only for himself, but also for these sheep he led.
A man on his own could find many ways through, one supposes. He could climb over obstacles, scale cliffs, and so on. A sheep, however, is not outfitted for such pursuits. And, so, the man must find a way not only amenable to himself, but also to these other creatures. Then, too, there are issues of weather. I could think, for instance, of the way one finds the weather changing so swiftly in the mountains of this area. One moment sunshine, the next potentially dangerous thunderstorms. In the big skies of the Midwest, one can watch these changing fronts approaching from afar and take steps to prepare. But, in the limited vista of mountainous terrain, both lack of perspective and the generally more turbulent nature of the weather tend to catch one more or less unawares. And, when the weather is threatening, I don’t imagine many shepherds will opt to simply stand exposed in whatever field or outcropping they happen to find themselves. They will seek shelter, and shelter sufficient not only for themselves but once more sufficient for the sheep they herd as well.
So, David, as part of this profession, had great cause to become particularly intimate with the natural features of this difficult region. He knew where he could find water for his sheep. He knew also where the nearest cave was to be found, wherever he might be. And this brings me, finally, to the unrecognized point made by Fausset. This bit of preparation proved crucial to David as he spent years running from Saul’s treacherous intentions. There is a reason he knew of the cave of Adullum, for example. He knew, as well, of any number of other caves throughout the region. He arguably knew pretty much every last hidey hole in the area. Being a son of Bethlehem, that would certainly hold for those areas south and west of Jerusalem. I would suppose he might well have ranged farther (for the area is not really all that big to begin with), and have been nearly as familiar with regions beyond the peaks, the even harder landscapes around the Dead Sea. Here, for instance, one could find the pleasant natural alcove of En Gedi, a place he is known to have found respite at one point.
Why spend time on this comment? Well, as God’s people we do well to take these things to heart. It would seem very likely that we shall find ourselves called to serve in ways that might reasonably be expected to cause a certain degree of trepidation in us. What missionary, facing a journey into regions utterly unfamiliar and potentially hostile, facing departure from all kith and kin, could fail to experience a certain level of anxious concern at the prospect? Closer to home, I could think of those who have just recently stepped up to serve as elders in our own church. Even in the most harmonious of times, that’s quite a load to voluntarily take upon oneself, and I would imagine that even those who have served before must surely approach the call with a sense of being inadequate to the task.
Even in positions that we might see as being less demanding, even when there’s no position involved, but merely something God is directing us to do, we may feel that sense of inadequacy, of being wholly unprepared and unqualified for the deed at hand. Well, so did Moses! So did Jeremiah! Me, Lord? Are you serious? I can barely get two coherent words out and You want me to go face down Pharaoh? I am but a youth and You tell me to go speak words of correction to my elders, to my king? Please! You can’t be serious! But, of course, He is. He is also perfectly Wise in having chosen you, most imperfect of vessels, to serve the role He has chosen you for.
More to the point, the example of David serves to remind me that however much I may feel unprepared and unequal to the task He sets me, the fact is that He has long since prepared and equipped me. That preparation, if I follow David’s example, is not likely to come in obvious ways. David could not have looked at his menial task as the least member of the household, an assignment that was nigh on being demeaning, as serving some purpose of preparing him for greatness. As he fought the lion or the bear there is no cause to suppose he was thinking how this experience would help him in battles to come. As he went chasing after some stray sheep, no thoughts of royalty flitted through his mind. There was only the present need, and a dependence upon God to aid him in meeting the need. And that, even more than all the circumstantial stuff, was the greatest lesson of all!
We, too, will find ourselves constantly facing situations in which we must depend upon God. We are, after all, in constant need of being reminded that we are never so self-sufficient as we like to think. We, too, will discover, albeit after the fact, that we have been well prepared for these events. The preparation may be, will even likely be, in some form that we would never have thought of as preparing us for what we now face. We may be calling on experiences that we would not even dream of connecting with our present situation. And yet, those previous experiences are found to have provided us with exactly the skill and understanding that the present purpose requires. Accidents of life? I think not! No, but God proclaims to us that He has prepared these present purposes, these good works in advance, set out the circumstances before He even got around to knitting us together in the womb.
This is the reverberating lesson of this Davidic aside. It is a lesson in Providence. Providence, God’s active management of our days and provision for them, is such that we need never fear that He is calling us to a task that is beyond us to fulfill. We excel in our weakness precisely because in our weakness He is the more able to clearly manifest His strength. It is those ‘only by the grace of God’ times in our walk that best demonstrate our faith. It is those same moments that, when considered later, best serve to bolster our faith. Seeing the faithfulness of God to prepare the men we consider as being the greats of Scripture gives us greater cause to trust in Him to likewise prepare us for the tasks He sets out for us to accomplish.
Of course, David enters into this passage no more by accident then he entered the caves of his shepherding years. As his life was directed and in many ways choreographed by his Maker, so this confrontation between Jesus and the local religious experts is being directed and choreographed by the Father to more fully emphasize the glory of His Son, the great Purpose of the entire venture of creation. Jesus is, after all, a man raised among His people. His childhood training would have included a certain inculcation of the religious understanding of the time. He would know the Messianic conceptions common to the area. And, He would clearly know the Messianic truths as well! So, in posing this question, He knows what answer to expect.
The answer which the Pharisees give is utterly predictable. It’s an answer which is, amongst other things, in keeping with their general contempt for Jesus. When asked whose son Messiah is, one can almost hear the sneer of their thinking in the answer given. Why, any child knows He is David’s son. Surely, You could come up with a better question than that, you rube! Remember, their expectations are built upon the rabbinic traditions. The nature of the questions they have been posing to Jesus reflect that expectation. These are a class of men who are pleased to debate at length over the fine points of law. We read of Paul’s visit to Athens, and of the thirst of the people in that place to listen to and evaluate whatever new thoughts and philosophies were presented. We read, as well, of those who loved to sit in the gates of the city and demonstrate their wisdom one to another. In later years, we would refer to such people as Sophists. We might also, if familiar with the history of the term, recognize a certain negative connotation to the term. There’s a love of teasing out the significance of this or that, a love for expounding the hidden truths. But, there’s no real application. This was ever the issue Jesus had with the Pharisees: all knowing and no real applying, majoring in the minors and getting the majors completely wrong.
At any rate, it’s this mindset that is showing up in the answer they give. It’s not that they had no understanding of Messiah as being ascribed the title ‘Son of God’. The ISBE notes this, bringing out the question posed to Jesus by the high priest as proof. “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God” (Mt 26:63). It is likely that they thought of this as nothing more than a title, particularly as the high priest came from the Sadducees, who were not inclined to accept the idea of spirit life. Besides, it sounds too much like heathen Greek mythology to conceive of some man descended from heaven to visit the earth. But, there it is.
So, in asking this seemingly innocuous and rather banal question, Jesus is really exposing a major shortcoming in the understanding of these theologians. To recognize the full impact of this exchange, and how neatly the trap is sprung on them, it seems one must blend together Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts of the events. Matthew alone tells us that the question is posed to the Pharisees in particular, to those same ones who came out to accost and expose Jesus. Mark simply notes that Jesus was teaching in the temple courts. The overall setting, however, could lead us to view that exercise of teaching almost as if Jesus was summarily dismissing the interference of the Sadducees and Pharisees who have been questioning Him. They are immaterial, of no particular consequence.
However, combine Matthew’s introduction of this first question with Mark’s phrasing of the followup and I think we begin to see the flow of events more clearly. Jesus first draws the obvious answer from the Pharisees. In their answer, as it clearly underestimates the One who asks, they have made an unforced error. And, Jesus pounces on it. This is, after all, a serious confrontation, a battle. It’s not just an exercise in intellectual gymnastics. So, as soon as they have given this answer, Jesus turns from them to the crowds at large. One can picture Him raising His voice a bit as He frames the next point.
“How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?” There is an implied second half to that question, which I have chosen to append in selecting my key verse for this passage. “And why do they stop there?” Without ever resolving to a direct statement on the matter, the exposition He gives on Psalm 110 makes the point clear. That this Messiah would also be called the Son of God was knowledge just as commonly held as was the fact of His being of Davidic lineage. The point is simply this: The minds of the Pharisees remained wholly earthbound. They looked for Messiah, but they looked only for a man. However powerful, however glorious he might prove to be, they could not see beyond the human, beyond the flesh. Their expectations for Messiah were as sadly limited as their expectations for themselves. For all their belief in angels and spirits, they had zero spiritual awareness.
Even Peter, we should note, likely had a seriously insufficient understanding of the import of his words when he confessed Jesus to be the Son of God. The thoughts went to a titular phrase and nothing more. But, no! Peter, as well as the rest of the apostles, would come to the realization that this was far more than a title. It was a very literal description of Messiah. And the experts had missed it! What Jesus demonstrates by that passage He recites is that the revelation was always right there for them to see. The experts had seen this passage any number of times. They knew it to be a Messianic message. But, for all that they read the words, and for all that they strained at the finest of points, they had missed the glaring implications of David’s words. If he’s just talking about some descendent of his own, why would he ever refer to such a one as his Lord, as his Master? The thought could not have entered the mind of the king himself! To whom would any king willingly submit himself in such a way? True, there are times when a king is forced into such submission, but it is never a thing faced gladly. Certainly, it is nothing that king would choose to celebrate in song. Yet, there it is. And the question for the crowds is simply this: How could these guys who claim to be your shepherds have missed this?
In part, I think the answer comes of their failing to grasp, or to have lost the full significance of what it is to be a son. It reflects the state of idolatry in that day. It seems that when we cannot manage to manufacture idols of our own, we adopt idols from others. And, if we find no idols available from either source, we fall to so debasing the true faith as to render it idolatrous in its own right. Sometimes, the effect is quite obvious. Go back to Jeremiah’s days, and for all that, to the years immediately after Jesus’ ascension, and we see that faith has been moved from God to His temple. There was Shiloh before that. Then, there was the serpentine pole in the wilderness.
The case at hand with these Pharisees was one of lineage. Lineage had become god to them. Think back to that encounter when those arguing with Jesus stood on the point, “Abraham is our father” (Jn 8:39). That’s as may be, Jesus replied, but you are clearly not his sons. What is reflected in this thinking is that the ability to grace one’s genealogy back to the patriarchs was such a primary focus of the Pharisees and their ilk that real faith hardly entered into it any more. So long as one could produce that family tree, actions were but icing on the cake and the inner state meant nothing whatsoever.
But, what Jesus built on in that other case, and what He is stressing here, is that to be a son, to be Huios rather than merely teknon is to have a demonstrated affinity to that which is father, to bear a likeness of character. This goes way beyond genetics. That teknon sense of sonship may have sufficed to prove one a legitimate child before the court. It might even qualify one for inheritance, however unworthily he had treated his parents in life. But, it was not a demonstration of that sort of sonship that matters. To be son in this huios sense reflects an intimacy of relationship with the father, that relationship clearly influencing and molding one’s character and belief system.
When Jesus asks them whose son Messiah is, their answer reveals the shallowness of their idolatrous thinking. They are only looking at the lineage, the legitimate child issue. This aspect of sonship, more properly reserved to the teknon sense of the thing, had been allowed to color, or more appropriately to dumb down their sense of what it meant to be huios. It was this self-limiting perspective that allowed them to consider that known Messianic reference as ‘Son of God’ to being merely a title, a fancy phrase. But, Jesus is adamant. No! By David’s own confession, whose lineage is so important to your investigations of Messiah, it is far more than a mere title! How else would this greatest of Israel’s kings look to his own progeny and declare the child his own master? It’s unthinkable! No king would ever do so. Why, even when the kingdom was given over to Solomon, you will not find David having set himself in submission to his son, but rather he laid a series of demands upon the new king, insisting that Solomon take care of some unfinished business that David, by God’s command, was unable to address. And, we should note that Solomon did so in short order. He knew full well that David, even in death, had right of command over him as his predecessor. No, the Psalm cannot be suggesting that David submits himself to some child of his own loins, and but a moment’s thought would force them to realize this truth. In fact, as their silence indicates, a moment’s thought, once Jesus had pointed out the obvious, did force them to acknowledge this truth.
Yet, they would not confess that acknowledgment, for this would make the matter somewhat binding on their future actions. Very cagey politicians these men. To admit to the clear truth of Jesus’ point would leave them unable to find fault with Him claiming to be Son of God. That query from the high priest in Matthew 26:63 would have no point, since the confession would only be an admission to fitting the qualifications God Himself had set forth. But, by their silence, they maintained a plausible deniability of holding with any such understanding of the term being anything other than titular. It’s an entirely calculated silence. It’s in the same line as those other points where we are privy to their thoughts. If we say thus, then we expose ourselves to this counterpoint. If we say this, then we are exposed on another point. Therefore, we are best served by pleading ignorance on the matter. So they had handled the question of John the Baptist. So they are seeking to equivocate and guard their position this time.
Exactly so do we also find ourselves bartering with God on many an occasion when He has brought us under conviction on some issue of our own character and action. We seek to find a way in which we can pretend we haven’t heard, a way in which we can ignore the warning and continue on unchanged. We will go to great lengths, it seems, to have things our way and thumb our noses as God. But, God wins. He always wins. It is no thanks to ourselves that His winning happens to be to our advantage. Nor are we given any guarantee apart from His own chesed, that unshakable lovingkindness, grace and mercy that He has sovereignly decided to express towards us, that His will is to our advantage. But, we do have His word on the matter. “I know the plans I have for you, plans for good and not for calamity, plans that provide you with a very certain future and hope” (Jer 29:11). Here alone have we found cause for confidence. God has done it! God has called. God has rescued. God has secured.
Of course, I cannot look to that security I have in Him without recognizing that where this is true, there must most assuredly be evidence. As James rightly says, a faith that has no evidence of works is a useless faith, a dead faith (Jas 2:20, Jas 2:26). Indeed, it is worse than dead. It is deadly. It is deadly because it is utterly misleading and provides us with a false sense of security that sees no cause for change. I think of those who suppose that having been baptized as children they are therefore secured in death, and can go about the interim period with no thought for God or man. I think of those who delude themselves into thinking that somehow attending church on the two high holy days of the Christian calendar keeps them in good standing with the man upstairs. I cannot but suppose He finds their visits as great a stench as He found those who came with sacrifices and praises whilst having no greater desire than to get on with their sins at the earliest possible convenience. Sons? Not in any sense of the word!
Turning to that passage Jesus sets forth, the first verse of Psalm 110, we are confronted with a certain limitation in the capacity of the English language. We have two Lords in the sentence, but if we turn back to the Hebrew, we find there are two terms being thus translated. There is Yahweh in the first instance (the Lord), and la-`Adoniy in the second (my Lord). The first is very clearly a reference to God Himself and is always and exclusively thus. It is the expression of the Tetragrammaton, the inexpressible name. As to meaning, it expresses His being as the self-Existent (and therefore Eternal) one. We could also add into that the idea of being the Life-giver, the Creator, the One who brings to pass. Most emphatically, though, it speaks of Him as absolute and unchanging.
The second term, one of the most often used means of avoiding the pronunciation of His ineffable name of Yahweh, bespeaks His sovereignty. It sets Him forth as ruler and controller. This term is, however, also applied to others besides God. It is not an exclusive term in that sense, and so allows of a bit of contextual influence on how a given usage is to be understood. It speaks of being master in some relationship, potentially inclusive of governors of any level, prophets, husbands, fathers, or any other having a degree of authority or superiority over oneself. It is noted that this Adonai term is often utilized as a parallel for Yahweh.
There remains, though, the issue of context which must drive our determination as to whether that latter term speaks of some human agent or of God Himself. For that, we must look further into the Psalm. And, in doing so, I fear we must set aside the capitalization present in our translation, for this is but a reflection of the translator’s understanding of the matter. But, when we arrive at verse 4 of that psalm, we find the issue has shifted from a matter of royal perspective to a matter of priestly concern. To this same one who is called, ‘my lord,’ the unequivocal Yahweh pronounces, “You are a priest forever, of the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). This should stand, I believe, as a clear indication that ‘my lord’ is more than a king, for what king of Israel was granted to serve as priest? The only ones who tried were swiftly punished for their effrontery. But, this one, ruling by the scepter yet also set forever amongst the priests, is held forth as exemplary and praiseworthy. The implication is, then, that something far greater than a continuity of Davidic genes is in view here. That continuity is as may be, but something greater than David is being presented, and any theologian worthy of the label ought to have noticed this.
Related to this point, the NET comments via footnote that Jesus is hereby affirming that, He being the Messiah, He is both God and man. That seems to me to be just a little bit wide of the mark. He is certainly laying the groundwork. But, as has been noted already, the understanding that the phrase ‘Son of God’ would apply to Messiah was pretty much common knowledge. It is not the applicability of the phrase that Jesus is propounding here, but the significance thereof. If He is making a claim pertaining to Himself on this occasion, it is so thoroughly oblique as to be completely missed by those hearing Him, which would render the attempt to so claim somewhat pointless. Had He been understood to be affirming the reality of this God-sourced Messiah to His own person, have no doubt that there would have been uproar rather than amusement. There would not have been silence on the part of His panel of experts, but calls for His immediate arrest. It would have been (as it would later prove to be) the perfect excuse for them to act, at least in their own view. So, then, while I think it entirely accurate to say that Jesus is affirming that Messiah is revealed by Scripture to be both God and man, it would seem incorrect to suggest that He was connecting this point to Himself on this occasion.
As to our own understanding of Messiah, it is built upon things reasonably well understood at the time, but has added to it the revelation of Him Who has already come and shall return. That He would be in one person and at one time satisfy the role of prophet, priest and king is a point nearly as old as the revelation of a Messiah at all. The history of Messianic revelation that is contained in the ISBE article on the topic is itself quite revealing in this regard. It is not, however, that the growing body of revelation concerning Messiah added new offices as it built, but rather that those authors who contributed to that body were focused upon certain aspects more than others, as national circumstance changed. Thus, as the fortunes of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah faded into something of a total eclipse, the focus on the royal aspect of Messiah likewise dimmed. To a people who could barely continue to think of themselves as a nation at all, speaking of a coming king didn’t present much by way of hope. So, the focus turned more to the priestly aspect. But, the royal was never completely lost sight of, and the prophetic, though least emphasized in the continuing unfolding vision, was also never out of sight completely.
It is interesting that these three threads, three lines of descent, are all made subject of God’s covenant promises. From the days of Moses there is that promise of the prophet to come, the prophet like Moses, as it was understood in Jesus’ day. I have always tended to hear that as a promise of one singular prophet who would arise at one singular time. In the fullest Messianic rendering, that would assuredly be the case. However, the articles I have reviewed on the subject make this a promise in keeping with that regarding the Aaronic priesthood and the Davidic dynasty. There would always be a priest from Aaron’s line. There would always be a king on David’s throne. Likewise, there would always be a prophet after the nature of Moses, and bearing similar authority. In other words, it was to be expected in every age, every generation.
History would seem to indicate that the term always might be a bit too strong an understanding to have in regard to any of these three lines. There have certainly been great spans of time with no Davidic king upon the throne of Israel, indeed no throne upon which such a king could sit were he extent. There is cause, as well, to question whether the priestly line did not jump rails to a different lineage, particularly given that Messiah is remarked as being after the order of Melchizedek, who precedes Aaron by quite a bit. Likewise, given the long silence of the inter-Testamental period, it would seem that at least in earthly terms, there have been very noticeable gaps in the availability of sound prophets.
Of course, the reality of this is that Messiah has always been and ever shall be Messiah. The throne that is envisioned is not that limited, earthly throne that once stood in Jerusalem, but that throne which is and always has been in heaven, the which will eventually descend in the new Jerusalem. That throne is indeed forever, and He Whose throne it is likewise is forever upon it. That priest, as the order of Melchizedek would imply, has forever been in office, and He, the Prophet, has always served in that capacity as well. The earthly manifestations, as important as they were to the people alive at the time, and as important as they are for our own edification, were nevertheless but types of the Real. The best of men that we see in Scripture are never more than that. David, for all his import, was still but a type of the King to come. Solomon, in spite of being unmatched in splendor even to this day, is but a type of that King. Isaiah, considered the crown of prophecy this side of Moses (and perhaps even inclusive of Moses), is but a pale shadow of the Prophet, a man repeating what the Word of God spoke. Aaron, Zadok, and whatever other servant in the office of high priest one might wish to name remained but imperfect vessels, themselves in need of atonement before they could dare to enter into the Presence. But, Christ is the Presence. The Christ is perfect in every way where all of these predecessor types were unanimously imperfect.
So, then, the three lines of descent are promised to continue, and are ensured their continuity in the eternal being of Messiah. Whereas many were marked out for kingly or priestly office by the mark of holy anointing, Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, is the Anointing. It is there in the very name. He is the perfectly Holy. That mark set those so marked out as being, “chosen, consecrated servants, whose persons were inviolable”, as the ISBE describes it. I think of that favored passage of mine that notes the high priestly garb as including a plaque of sorts upon the forehead marking that man as “Holy unto the Lord” (Ex 39:30). This was but a visible reminder of what was required to be the spiritual reality of the man in that office. The Christ, as the fulfillment of the office, has no particular need of such a reminder, although we who are His servants can stand to be reminded of it every now and again.
Indeed, as we come forward to serve the Messiah, we do well to consider that the same ought to be said of us, that we are proclaiming ourselves holy unto the Lord. More properly, we are proclaiming ourselves to be amongst those He Himself has set apart to be thus holy unto Himself. That holiness implies precisely what the ISBE speaks of as applying to the anointed: We are to chosen. We are ‘consecrated servants’. What does that mean? It means we are set apart for His exclusive use. That particular mix of ingredients which composed the anointing oil, it was to be used for no other purpose. We, the anointed of Christ, are likewise to allow ourselves to be used for no purpose other than His own. We are to serve no other. We are declared inviolable. Turning to Webster’s for assistance on that term, I find the primary definition most wonderful. We are declared ‘secure from violation of profanation’. The secondary definition is no less encouraging. We are declared ‘secure from assault or trespass’. As He Who thus declares the case is incapable of lie or error, it is even more powerful. We are not merely declared to be thus secured, we are made thus secured.
If you are His, I dare say there ought to be a certain thrill of doxology arising as you consider that point. To be pronounced holy is well and good, although a bit of thought would give one to recognize that this is as much a responsibility as a promise, and one we are quite powerless to fulfill. But, to have it declared and guaranteed by God Himself that we are secure from violation, profanation, assault and trespass! This is the powerful provision given us to cope with the first clause! God Himself backs us. How can one not rejoice in this? How can one fail to give praise to the Majesty on high, Who has looked upon our weak and ineffectual condition and chosen – Chosen! – to make us fit for His service, for His household?
God, it’s a source of continual amazement. I look upon these things You have done on my behalf and it remains beyond my capacity to fully grasp. I know these things to be true because You have Yourself made it clear that they are true. Yet, it is so far beyond me to consider any action as would even compare. It is so far beyond me to see how You would find Your way clear to proclaim me such as I could scarcely dare to say of myself! Yet, You have not just found the way. You are the Way. What thanks could ever suffice? What service could ever hope to measure up to the gracious gift You have given? What is there that would be too much for You to ask of me in return? Thank You!
And yet, I hear the echoing thought as I give You these thanks, the thought that cannot but acknowledge the many times I have refused Your small requests of me. How this can be, I am at a loss to explain, nor would any attempt to explain alleviate the utter wrongness of it. I can but come seeking Your promised forgiveness, and seeking as well to find myself so changed by Your continuing work upon and within me as to be swifter to accede to Your desires as we go forward together. This I can ask in the assurance that You are pleased to answer. For I can look to Your promises of a finished work in my person, knowing that You Who have begun that work are most assuredly faithful to see it through. Here, too, I can but shout my thanks, and speak the more highly of Your great renown. Thank You indeed, and may I find myself truly thanking You in deed.
There are a couple of points of interest I would like to explore rather briefly in regard to the priestly and kingly aspects of Messiah. To be clear, neither of these points are anything original to my own thinking, but rather points that jumped out at me as I researched the subject. The first point that is thus prominent in my thinking is a comment made regarding Zechariah 6:11. There, we are looking in on the scene of Joshua, the Branch being brought before the Lord. This one, noted as son of the high priest, is to be crowned with an ornate crown. The revealing of the Branch continues to build, arriving at the proclamation of Zechariah 6:13: “He will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”
The crown, the, was the mark of that One in whom the two threads would be joined, the priestly and the kingly. In Him they would meet, and having met would be forever united. This was something no other who had filled either office was ever permitted, as we well know. However, it is also a point that, as the NET points out in its footnotes, was kept before the people in the very structure of the temple mount. From the founding, the king’s palace was located to the right of the temple, and the two joined by colonnade. The intention was clear: The relationship that we see fulfilled in the vision of the Branch was ever and always the intention for Israel’s leading. For, even with the admission of an earthly king for the people, they remained truly a theocracy. The king was ever and always a servant under God, and God remained the power above and behind the throne.
This same understanding is enshrined in our own national pledge of allegiance, much to the chagrin of the ungodly: One nation under God. It is an acknowledgement and recognition that as a nation we depend wholly upon God for our continued existence. It is a reminder to those who would take office over this nation that they are not royalty, not above the laws common to all, and certainly not the supreme power. They serve at the whim of God Himself, and do well to remember that this is so. The king or president or other such governor of men does well to remain humbled by the knowledge that he is by very nature totally unfit for office. To serve well he shall need to serve as a man under God’s direction, mindful of being an extension of God’s authority, and careful to act as one who has been set apart for God’s exclusive use and direction.
This is no less applicable to us lesser mortals as we fulfill our God given roles. It is, of course, the mindset we must surely have as we seek to serve in the house of God. It is also a critical mindset for us to keep as we labor in the workplace, and even more, as we labor in our own homes. In short, it is a mindset we ought to have in every moment of life. We are, after all, the children and the servants of the Most High. We are His ambassadors by His own decree. We serve at His whim, and we serve well only by His own power. Yet, we serve best when our desire and our every effort is to serve Him well.
I find that in this study, the points I have been led to consider resolve around the three words that I had taken to be of particular note: Christ, Son and Lord. All of these are terms wholly applicable to Jesus. As I near the end of my reflections on this passage, I am drawn to focus more fully on the last of these terms. By way of introduction, consider that first sermon that Peter preached on Pentecost. Concluding his message, Peter says, “Let all Israel therefore realize that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ” (Ac 2:36). The wording chosen by Peter, through the Holy Spirit, is telling. That he specifically proclaims these two titles not as parallels but as both being applicable to Jesus.
If I go back through the things that were wrapped up in the conception of Messiah, I am immediately returned to that threefold office that was clearly understood to be his: Prophet, Priest and King. That is not, so far as I understand it, some post-resurrection understanding. It was already part of the common belief regarding Messiah. In that light, I think we need to ask ourselves what Peter meant by stressing that Jesus was not only Messiah, not only Prophet, Priest and King, but He is also Lord. Lord, in this case, is not to be received as simply indicating His right of rule. That’s already established in Messiah. The context would not admit of that sense of the word as it might be applied to a fine teacher, though Jesus was surely this as well. The implication that remains is that Peter is declaring that very point that Jesus makes in this question and answer. Messiah as Prophet, Priest and King, as powerful as that combination is, remains but a man, a great man but only a man. The addition of Lord to that threefold office raises Him higher. It insists, as Jesus points out with the Davidic ‘my Lord’, that He is more than just a man, He is God. He is, as Anshelm would speak of Him, the God-man. That is Peter’s insistent conclusion here, and indeed, he reaches that conclusion through the exact same passage that Jesus first drove it home not so many weeks prior.
That being said, there is a reason that the terminology of Lord is applied to God, and that is quite simply that He is the ultimate Master over us all. There are a few aspects of that word’s meaning, particularly as wrapped up in the Greek kurios, that bear our consideration here. The Lord of a person or thing is the owner of that person or thing. The Lord has power of decision of that of which He is lord. Were we not so thoroughly ashamed of our own history with slavery, we would not be so hard pressed to keep in mind that He who is our Lord is also our Master in exactly the fashion that the slave owner was master to his slaves. He has control of our person, and there is no court of appeal to which we might bring a plea against his rule of us.
Let me be quite clear on this. I am not in any way suggesting we ought to rethink our determined rejection of slavery, nor that we ought to revise our opinion of the trade we rightly foreswore. We should, however, stop seeking to bring that rejection, a rejection informed in large part by a clear, Christian evaluation of worldview, and try and filter our hearing of the Gospel message through that understanding. No, one cannot come to the Scriptures and find that it condones or promotes slavery. It admits to the reality of slavery being a common feature of the culture and it quite frankly sets forth guidance for God’s people as to how they are to demonstrate themselves as His in the midst of that culture.
One could argue that God should have banned the concept outright. However, if we look particularly at the institution as it is depicted in the Old Testament, we see that the institute in view had very little in common with the practice as it was to be found in our own nation’s practices. It appears to me that the practice of which the Law speaks was a matter of mutual benefit. The slave, first and foremost, was not a slave for life, but for a period of service. It was a situation likely entered into because of some temporary setback on the slave’s part. In that sense, it could almost be looked upon as an early form of welfare, a social safety net, in that it provided that man and his family a means of survival while they got back on their feet. The only way this became a permanent arrangement was by the specific request of the slave. And meanwhile, the master was given strict guidelines dictated by God Himself to ensure the reasonable and more than humane treatment of that one over whom he had temporary right of decision.
There was even a ceremony involved in this decision, as well as a physical mark taken upon the one who set himself in this relationship. He would have his ear pierced through, a physical mark of his personal choice and commitment to serve the master and his household all his days. This should be recognized as a form of covenantal relationship. Just as circumcision served to mark the man as having made covenant promises to God (and having received covenant promises in return), so the mark upon his earlobe served to make it clear to all that this man is not his own. He has willingly and freely chosen to belong to another. He has made a covenant promise and received certain covenant promises from this master in return. Woe to him should he then break faith.
Two thoughts come to mind when I think on this imagery. The first is a sad thought, as I consider the propensity amongst the youth of today to happily take such marks upon their own bodies with no thought to the meaning. Have no doubt that however much the practice is painted as an innocent bit of personalization, it is no such thing. There is a slavery being declared here, a lifetime slavery. The significance of the act may be something of which the participant is unaware, but rest assured the master to which he has made this voluntary pledge will deem it binding. To that sad thought, I will add this burst of hope. There remains a Redeemer, and He has a long history of restoring slaves of this foul master to their freedom, even such as were marked for life!
This turns me to the other side of the coin. We are repeatedly spoken of as slaves of Christ. The apostles were quite proud to proclaim this title for themselves. I am a bondslave of Christ. In that term we should recognize that same willingly chosen and willingly marked lifelong commitment. When we confessed Him as Lord, it was and is so very much more than just calling Him our king. We barely understand the concept of king anyway! All we know is that we don’t truck with such arbitrary and absolute authority around here. Except we do, all we who have believed on the Christ. We just don’t vest such right to authority in any mere mortal.
We have, however, in accepting Jesus as Savior, also proclaimed His rightful lordship over us. We have taken His mark upon our ear, albeit in figurative fashion, and proclaimed for all to see and know that we act at His whim. He has the ownership of us. We have willingly, gladly granted to Him the power of decision over our every move. We have placed ourselves in His control.
At least, this is how it’s supposed to be with us. God has made Him both Lord and Christ. He has rescued, paid the price of our redemption from a cruel taskmaster. But, He has not thereafter simply left us to run about as we please. He bought us. Paul, in particular, stresses this point. “You were bought with a price!” (1Co 7:23). He would continue, in this case, to advise his readers that this belonging to the Master did not give them leave to revolt against whatever earthly situation might be extent for them. Remain in that condition in which you were called (1Co 7:24). That’s no invitation to wallow in your sins while claiming to be a child of God. It’s an insistence that, even if you be found a slave to some earthly master, your true Owner is God Himself, and His command in this circumstance is that you be the most faithful slave that master has ever owned. If you be found a master to some earthly slave, that same insistence demands that you think of yourself not as master and owner of that other person, but only an overseer on God’s behalf. And, simultaneously, you must clearly recognize yourself a slave to God even as this one you control. It’s all there in the application provided in Paul’s letter to the Colossians (Col 3:22-4:1), most particularly in the summary clause of Colossians 3:23. Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men. There’s the work ethic of the Christian in all ages.
I want, however, to focus more completely on the Lordship of the Christ. For, as I have noted, this is what we proclaimed on the day we acknowledged Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Lord: Owner, Controller, the One with power of decision over every moment of my every day. And, I must ask myself whether this is really how I live? Having asked, it will shock nobody to learn that I must answer that no, far too often it does not describe my life at all. Indeed, I should have to confess that I go through much of my day without giving thought to asking permission to do as I please. I don’t even so much as think that I needn’t bother my Master with such trivialities. The truth of the matter is that I still act as though I were my own master most of the time. That’s not an exercise of Lordship, as I understand it.
It would be one thing if I could point to a moment of my day in which I have asked my Master, “What do You require of me today Lord?” and He had replied, “Your day is yours to do with as you please.” Then, my freedom is His command, and all is well. But, if I have not bothered to ask, have simply presumed myself thus freed to pursue my own pleasures, where is the obedience in that? Where is the keeping of covenant? It is not there to be found. Even my diligence to be here each morning, spending time with God in the degree I do in these studies does not change the fact. For, not so very long after this time is over, I shall have gone back to living my day out without really asking after His desires again until tomorrow, unless maybe some emergency arises in which I am forced to sense my own inadequacy.
Brothers, this is not right! Now, I will say by way of saving myself from a sense of total ruin that I have noticed an upsurge in my awareness of God’s presence with me, of His directing me in recent days. For this I am most thankful: not just that He is directing, or even primarily so, for He is ever doing so. More, it’s that He is so working upon me that I am inclined to listen, and listen in that Biblical sense of obeying what I am hearing.
Yet, I am also aware of things, larger things in the eyes of my Master, that I have been hearing with stubborn resistance. There are those things I am being told to speak that I convince myself I know will be poorly received. And knowing this, I hold my silence. Except, that silence is not mine, is it? Nay! I have signed over my right to that silence. It is His to command, whether to extend or to curtail. I am back to that book I read so many years ago, “You Have No Rights!” That is the life to which I have signed on. It is time I took the rules of that life more fully to heart.
Lord, You know my many shortcomings, my many sins. Yet, You have chosen to bring to that place of willing commitment to serve at Your pleasure. You have also (praise be to Your wisdom!) made plain that it is You Who so works upon me and in me as to make me not only willing but able to so serve You. I come, then, with that knowledge of You, and the knowledge that You are a merciful and compassionate Father to me. I come therefore seeking first Your forgiveness for my willful refusal to obey and second Your power in me to cease from my willfulness going forward. Take from me that stiff necked insistence on my own way and render me tender to Your word, eager not only to hear You speak but equally eager to act upon what You say. I thank You as well for those places where I have seen the progress of Your work in recent days, and I humbly ask that You make fast those improvements and guide me to build soundly upon the groundwork You have set in place. Make of me a child to Your own glory. And, I know You shall. But still I ask that You would speed the day when I am entered into the maturity of the man of God You are creating in me.
