the forbearance of God

As I prepared to teach the Gospel of Luke at our May conference of Bethany Bible School, and then as we marked Ascension and Pentecost in the last weeks, I was struck by the significance of the city of Jerusalem in the text. Indeed, as I mentioned in my last entry, the word "Jerusalem" occurs 30 times in 24 chapters in Luke, compared with 10/16 and 12/28 in Mark and Matthew respectively. Fittingly, Jerusalem is central to Luke's accounts of the ascension in the gospel and its sequel, the book of Acts. As it says, Jesus "ordered [the apostles] not to leave Jerusalem" after his ascension into heaven, "but to wait there for the promise of the Father" (Acts 1:4). Staying, or waiting in Jerusalem was the prerequisite for the disciples' reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).

Why was it necessary for the disciples to wait in Jerusalem? We might simply answer that the disciples were still struggling with their fear of the authorities ("fear of the Jews" as John put it, 20:19) and therefore could not--apart from a miracle--have begun any ministry in Jesus' name. Still we must ask, why Jerusalem? Matthew's gospel, for example, closes in Galilee. It is from there--indeed from "the mountain to which Jesus had directed them" (28:16)--that Jesus gives the apostles directions for an upcoming ministry to "all nations." To summarize:

In Matthew, the disciples' ministry to "all nations" under the "authority" of Jesus departs from Galilee; in Luke, the disciples' ministry, eventuating in "all nations" or "to the ends of the earth" (Lk. 24:47; Acts 1:8), in the "power" of the Holy Spirit "begin[s] from Jerusalem" (Acts 1:8; Lk. 24:47).

To all nations. Power of God (Jesus, Holy Spirit). Place of Departure.

These are the common ingredients. The difference is in the place of departure. Matthew assumes that power was conferred on the mount of ascension. Luke emphasizes that power was conferred in Jerusalem. So the question remains: Why Jerusalem? Why has Luke bequeathed to us, his readers, the Jerusalem part of the narrative? What are we to understand?

My working hypothesis is that Luke, via Jerusalem, is emphasizing the long-suffering of God. Jerusalem, the religious center of Israel's faith, the location of the house of God, must be given every last chance to "recognize the time of [its] visitation from God" (Lk. 19:44). Jerusalem, the embodiment of the Jewish people, must be given every opportunity to acknowledge Jesus as its own anointed "Leader and Savior" (Acts 5:31). It is only then, after God has extended every chance, fulfilled every promise to his people, that God can turn his face to the nations. Not without suffering does God turn away from those whom he called. Even beyond the cross, the place of God's suffering for his own, is God found extending his mercy to Jerusalem. The resurrection, ascension, Pentecost, the apostolic ministry bring a second chance--a third, a fourth, a fifth. The apostles preach first, again, "in Jerusalem"--then Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). In fact, even when Paul, God's "chosen instrument to bring his name before Gentiles and kings" (Acts 9:15), ventures throughout the earth preaching the good news of Jesus Christ, he goes first to the Jewish houses of worship. After, in various cases, some Jews reject his message (while others welcome it) and Paul vows "from now on only to go to the Gentiles," he nonetheless returns to the synagogues; Paul cannot give up on his brethren. Indeed, the last picture of Paul's life is of him trying to convince the Jews in Rome about Jesus. So ends Luke's narrative, the story of God's promises extended to the nations--but always, forever, with reference and with concern, for the Jews (Acts 13:46, 14:1, 17:1-2, 17, 18:5-11, 8-10, 28:17ff.).

If this message is for God's first chosen, those whom he first called to be his witnesses upon the earth, it is also for his second chosen--for whomever, from every nation, tribe, and language, has chosen to live by the faith of God's Messiah. Not without suffering does God abandon his wayward people. Patiently God persists, "not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance" (1 Pt. 3:9, 15).

-Joe

of Pilate and the poor

Since re-reading it a couple of weeks ago, Jesus' conversation with Pilate (John 18:33-38) has been on my mind.

Some observations:

1. Pilate acts here as any worldly king does, ultimately disinterested in the plight of the poor in his kingdom. This is obvious from his lack of effort in distinguishing Jesus from the people who have handed him over. Those who handed him over, of course, were Jesus' own people, in the words of Pilate to Jesus "your own nation and the chief priests" (v. 35). Also by implication these are simply what the text calls "the Jews", for Pilate is perturbed that Jesus insinuates that Pilate might be able to tell for himself whether Jesus is truly or not "King of the Jews." "I am not a Jew, am I", Pilate retorts, aghast that he might be associated on any level with the subjects of his rule. In effect Pilate is saying, "I don't know them, I can't know them, indeed I do not want to know them." It is unthinkable that a man of his power shares anything in common with the subjects of his kingdom. Because of this attitude, it is not surprising that Pilate is surprised that Jesus' own people would hand him over; the impassible king does not sense that conflict rages within and among the subjected peoples of his reign. He can only ask,"What have you done?", implying an act of offense great enough to warrant a request for crucifixion, because he sees no reason otherwise why the Jews should be at war among themselves. This is not because Pilate regards the Jews as exceptionally good people, immune to conflict, but simply because he does not care whether they are typically human enough to have passion, disagreement, conflict. To Pilate they are "only" Jews, the subjects of his rule, objects to be moved or crushed for his political gain. In Pilate's eyes, the only conflict of the Jews is that between them and him; they are all out to get him because everyone and everything must always be about the king.

2. Jesus, on the other hand, is not out to get the king, at least not in the manner that Pilate fears. Jesus, rather, contra Pilate, is only concerned with the plight of the poor, his own people (which is to say, and not with Pilate). Jesus knows that the fight which Pilate fears from the Jews is not the fight that will free them. He will not permit them to fight, and see, as he explains to Pilate, his followers do not fight "to keep me from being handed over to the Jews" (v. 36). Rather, Jesus' people will be free on account of their trust in another kingdom--one "not from this world"--and another king. The sign of that trust will be their refusal to fight in the manner of Pilate, with the weapons of blood and flesh. The sign will be that they will "be handed over", but they will hand no one over. It is the sign that distinguishes Jew from Jew, the sign also Pilate might have seen if he had eyes to sees.

3. The question remains whether the sons and daughters of Pilate will ever see. The historical record is not good (At this moment Barack Obama has handed over 30,000 more U.S. troops to a war in Afghanistan). We have little reason to doubt whether the kingdoms of the world have not really been "given over" to Satan (Lk. 4:6), and whether therefore the poor are not more worthy of our attention in the hope of a better world.

-Joe