interpretation

What’s Up with Johnny B?

September 22, 2011 — Leave a comment

Last time we saw how a little religious and socioeconomic background affected our understanding of Matthew 2. We can also take the same approach with the third chapter of Matthew and see how it can help us understand the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist.

Matthew 3 opens with John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea. If John were a church planter it would be an odd place to start—in the middle of nowhere. Yet this is exactly where John’s ministry began, and for two good reasons. The first reason is self-evident from the passage before us. Matthew writes, “For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight”’” (3:3). In other words, John’s ministry in the wilderness was a direct fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah, which spoke of a new deliverance by God for his people.

The second reason John’s ministry began in the wilderness was because that was most likely the place he grew up. Luke tells us that John was born to very old parents, who probably didn’t live long enough to raise him. He may have then moved in with relatives in the wilderness east of Jerusalem. Some scholars even speculate that John was brought up by people connected to the Essenes, a Jewish sect which had separated from the rest of Jewish culture at that time. This may partially explain why John’s dress and diet were so unusual. “John wore a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey” (3:4). Of course, John’s appearance also had a connection with one of Israel’s greatest prophets, Elijah (cf. 2 Kings 1:8), but it also fit the rugged and humble dress of those living on the outskirts of society. His food, also, would have connected him with the very poor, as well as with those very pious in their dietary laws.

The result of this information about John’s ministry, appearance and diet is that he would have fit the part of an outsider, one sent to rouse Israel and prepare them for the coming of the Messiah. Not only did he fit the part physically and socially, but Matthew reminds his readers that he was the fulfillment of that Old Testament expectation.

Another unique part of John’s ministry was that he baptized those who came to him. This may not seem all that unusual to most modern people. Baptism in one form or another has been a part of the Christian tradition for centuries. It was also something that first century Jews would have been familiar with, also. But the uniqueness of John’s baptism was in those who were being baptized. At that time, baptism was conferred on those who were becoming converts to Judaism. That is, outsiders were baptized as a sign that they were joining the Jewish religion. But John was offering baptism to Jewish people. It is no wonder then, that the religious leaders of the day, the Pharisees and Sadducees were coming to witness this baptism (3:7). John baptized “with water for repentance” (3:11), preparing the people for the coming kingdom. His message was to “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (3:2). John’s message (3:7-12) was one of judgment against the sins of the people. They needed to get ready for the coming of the Promised One, and baptism was the sign that they were prepared.

In the midst of John’s message to the Pharisees and Sadducees he referred to the coming of one “mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry” (3:11). This seems an odd reference for modern readers. But what John was saying essentially was that he was not even worthy to be the Messiah’s slave. It was the slave who often had the responsibility of carrying his master’s sandals when he traveled. Compared to the greatness of the Messiah, John was not even worthy to carry out this humble task.

Finally, reading on in the passage we see that Jesus himself came to be baptized by John in the Jordan river. Immediately following his baptism Matthew writes that, “the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him” (3:16). Additionally, a voice spoke from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (3:17). Many Christians see in this a picture of the trinity, the fact that God the Father, speaking from heaven; God the Spirit, coming down in the form of a dove; and God the Son, in the person of Jesus, were all present in one place, yet in three distinct persons. While this scene certainly does reinforce this particular doctrine, it was probably not the immediate reference in the mind of Matthew’s first readers. Instead, they would have likely recalled the many occurrences of God’s Spirit coming on individuals in the Old Testament Scripture. The Spirit of God came on a person to confirm his calling for a particular task or ministry. The voice from heaven, too, would have reminded readers of the authoritative voice of God which spoke the world into existence and spoke His word to the people of Israel.

In conclusion, the background of this passage helps us to get a grasp on the nature of the John’s ministry and how he would have been perceived by his audience. Something radical was happening in the land. God’s Messiah was coming, and John was just the right person to prepare His way. The people themselves needed to not only hear the message but to respond to it by confessing their sins and preparing their hearts for the Messiah’s coming. And when He did come, Jesus earthly ministry was confirmed by God through the voice, the Spirit, and the prophetic ministry of John.

How would you have responded to the announcement of the kingdom?

The Christmas Story Revealed

September 21, 2011 — Leave a comment

The story of the wise man and their visit to Bethlehem is ingrained in our Christmas memories. We’ve heard that tale so many times that for many it has become like Christmas wallpaper. We read through the first few chapters of Matthew’s gospel and don’t even notice its significance anymore. But I wonder what it would have been like had we lived in that time and read of those events. What might we have understood from the story, knowing how religion and socioeconomics played such a huge part in it. In other words, would our understanding change with a little knowledge of the background to the story?

When we read the second chapter of Matthew we see that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, “in the days of Herod the king” (2:1). Right away, our first readers would have well-remembered this ruler in Israel. History remembers him as “Herod the Great,” but he preferred to be called “king of the Jews.” He ruled at the favor of the Roman emperors for almost four decades, sponsoring massive building projects which culminated in the building of the temple complex in Jerusalem. But beyond his public works program he was known for his ruthlessness. By the time of Jesus’ birth between 6 and 4 B.C., he had put to death his wife, several sons and most of his rivals. He had come to the end of his reign, an old man paranoid of any threat to power. No wonder all Jerusalem shared his troubled spirit when these “Magi” from the east came looking for one “born king of the Jews” (2:2-3). How was this madman going to respond to such news?

Of course, you probably know the rest of the story. Herod summoned the chief priests and scribes to find out what they knew. Most of the chief priests came from the Sadducees, a sect of Judaism that consisted of mostly wealthy aristocrats. They held a lot of the religious power, which they wielded in support of Herod’s administration. For their part, the scribes not only produced copies of Scripture but they were expert teachers of it. Many of them belonged to the Pharisees, devoted to obeying Scripture and all of the laws attached to it. Yet, with all of their combined knowledge and training, the priests and scribes failed to respond to the clues that their long-awaited messiah had been born. Herod exerted great influence on both the political and religious leaders of his day.

He then gathered the magi in secret in order to get information about the whereabouts of this young child. Of course, after the magi visited Jesus they didn’t go back through Jerusalem. When Herod found out about their trickery the full force of his vicious rule was exerted on the town and vicinity of Bethlehem, only a few miles from Jerusalem. This king would stop at nothing to ensure that any potential rival was destroyed. He dispatched soldiers, possibly from the fortress of Herodium, near Bethlehem, to kill every male child there under two years old. Those who knew Herod best would not have been surprised at this account.

And what about these “magi”? Who were they? Wise men? Three kings? All Matthew tells us is that they came from “the east” (2:1). Yet, “magi” were pagan astrologers who were well-known for their ability to tell the future from the stars. They probably came to the bustling trade center which was Jerusalem knowing that in this place, the capital of Judea, they would be most likely to find out about the birth of a royal child. Of course, their search would ultimately bring them to the humble village that lay in the shadows of Jerusalem. It’s also obvious that these magi were from out-of-town. They seem oblivious to any sort of paranoid threat from Herod that would have resonated with someone “in the know.” They even had to be warned in a dream—which their craft inclined them to follow—not to go back to Jerusalem. To get home they would have had to take back roads all the way to the coast of the Mediterranean in order to find a road that could take them north, then back east. A first century reader may have understood the trouble these foreigners took just to worship a child God had revealed to them even through pagan means.

There is one other thread in the story worth following, as well. An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and warned him of the threat from Herod. He was told to “flee to Egypt” (2:13). Why Egypt? Well, Matthew clearly intends to show how Jesus early life fulfilled the prophecy from Hosea, “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Matt. 2:15). But in addition to that is the fact that their were thousands of Jews living in Egypt at that time. And not only in that place, since over the previous centuries Jews had settled in every region of the Roman empire. Could it be that Joseph found refuge with a family in Alexandria, a city known for its large Jewish population and home to the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint? It is easy to see how God may have used the history of his people to both fulfill prophecy and protect his Son.

When Joseph got the green light to return to the land of Israel it seems as if he intended to return to the city of his ancestors, Bethlehem, but something prevented him. One of Herod’s sons, Archelaus, was in power in Judea. While he ruled that region, his brothers ruled in the north. Unfortunately, he shared the same ruthless flaws as his father, but he was a terrible ruler. He didn’t rule long until he was deposed and sent to Gaul. In the meantime, Joseph chose to move north to the region of Galilee, to a small town called Nazareth. The region of Galilee was now ruled by Antipas, a relatively stable ruler who reigned throughout the life of Jesus. Clearly, the political circumstances effected Jesus’ life as well as fulfilled prophecy.

See, the Christmas story contains a deeper meaning which the traditional telling often lacks. We see the contrast between the tyrannical rule of Herod the Great and the humble beginnings of the King of kings. We see the failure of the religious system to acknowledge the culmination of everything it stood for. We see the providential working of God through the rule of tyrants and the out working of Israel’s history. We see the story in The Story, how God did all of this in “the fullness of time” to redeem us and make us his children.

Next, we’ll look at how background can affect how we read the ministry of John the Baptist.

What did Jesus say about “end times”?

September 18, 2011 — Leave a comment

When I was growing up there was a lot of speculation about “end times.” Who was the antichrist? When would Jesus come again? Everyone had a theory and a book to promote it. And with the threat of nuclear holocaust and the cold war looming, it seemed that Armageddon wasn’t far off. Popular interest in the end times were exemplified by movie titles like “The Mark of the Beast,” songs such as “666,” and book series like “Left Behind.”

Does it seem like interest in the end times has waned? To some extent many believers have perhaps given up on the end times. They prefer the widespread eschatological category of “pan-millennial,” that is, “it’s all going to pan out in the end.” But the biblical passages dealing with the end times are still there for us to deal with them. How are we to interpret them?

One such passage is Mark 13. This chapter, sometimes called the “Olivet Discourse” or the “Little Apocalypse,” is the only time in this short gospel in which Jesus teaches his disciples about future events. We would do well to identify which events as well as what it has to do with us. This will be difficult to do in this short article, but I think it might be possible to at least lay the groundwork for understanding what Jesus intended to teach his disciples, and by extension what he wanted us to know.

The entire discourse is in answer to the disciples’ question about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus had just told them that the temple complex would be completely destroyed (13:2). If one takes into account the parallel passage in Matthew 24:3 it is clear that the disciples had questions about three things: the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, Jesus’ coming, and the end of the age. In response to these questions Jesus encouraged them in three things: “Do not be alarmed” (13:7), “Be on guard” (13:9, 23, 33), and “Stay awake!” (13:33, 37).

Jesus began his discourse by discussing the events leading up to the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem (13:5-23). Imagine Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives, overlooking the temple mount, explaining what would soon happen to the great city. This is the context in which he taught them. He told them that many would attempt to lead them astray in His name, that there would be wars and rumors of wars, and that there would be various natural disasters. All of these “are but the beginning of the birth pains” (13:8), “but the end is not yet” (13:7). These described the political and natural signs leading to the destruction of Jerusalem.

He then showed them how they would be treated prior to that time. They would be arrested and beaten, testifying before both religious and political authorities. These authorities, in fact, represented the peoples of the known world at that time. The disciples would even be rejected by their own families, hated for the sake of Christ. These signs would occur to the church prior to Jerusalem’s destruction. For a snapshot of how these were fulfilled in the church prior to AD 70, one has only to read how believers were treated in the book of Acts.

Then Jesus referred to “the abomination of desolation.” This apocalyptic language from the book of Daniel is used by Jesus to describe the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke helps us in his parallel passage when he speaks about Jerusalem surrounded by armies. This seems to point to the events of AD 70, when the Jewish people were slaughtered by the waves of Roman soldiers who came through the region of Palestine. But what of the abomination of desolation? This would refer either to the time when zealots murdered the priests in the temple or when the Roman standards were erected over the destroyed site of the temple. The events of this time were devastating, a tribulation that would have completely destroyed His people had God not cut the time short.

Jesus then turned the disciples’ attention to his second coming. Once again he used apocalyptic language to describe his coming, which will be accompanied with cosmic signs. The end of the age is also mentioned in the same context, when “he will send out the angels and gather his elect” (13:27).

The final paragraphs of chapter 13 are illustrations to help his disciples understand that these events will be both expected and sudden. The illustration of the fig tree shows that his disciples could expect the events to unfold naturally from other events. The illustration of the returning master shows that the events will happen suddenly.

Jesus’ words to his disciples—and to us—are not meant to provide us with a detailed play-by-play of end times. In fact, much of what he told his disciples in Mark 13 occurred within the generation of his disciples, within a period of forty years. But what he told his disciples he tells us: Don’t be alarmed by political upheaval and natural disaster. Be on guard against false teaching and prepared to testify to the Gospel and for the sake of Christ. Stay awake and be ready for his coming! With these warnings many of the believers of the first century were able to avoid the devastation of AD 70 and to persevere through persecution. We live in times not very different, for believers everywhere still experience natural disasters, wars and political upheaval, persecution and hatred. We eagerly wait for Christ to come and restore all things under his authority. His warning still applies to us: Don’t be alarmed! Be on guard! Stay awake!