The Puzzle of His Conduct
A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for May 10-16, 2008
The Annunciation as painted by El Greco (1575)
There is absolutely no doubt that Jesus was a constant source of puzzlement to his contemporaries. This seems very odd to modern readers of the Gospels, who wonder about the collective blindness of Israel. Indeed, Christian theology has accustomed us to see in Jesus the promised Messiah fulfilling the numerous Old Testament texts, and we marvel at the all-apparent incredulity of the Jews. The source of our puzzlement is to be found in the fact that Israel did not understand the prophecies like we do. How is that to be explained?
Let us for a moment stop and place ourselves within the context that prevailed at the time. Palestine was under the control of Rome and, as history shows, that control was rigid, not to say brutal. The deep aspiration of any enslaved nation is for freedom. But in Israel’s case the aspiration went much deeper because of its longstanding awareness of being God’s chosen people, whom God had at different times freed from the Egyptians, the Philistines, the Syrians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians respectively. Most of God’s intervention had been achieved by extraordinary feats of power. That God would also free the nation from Rome was a given. Furthermore, the expectation had been honed to a fine edge by the countless promises of a Messiah, who like Moses and Elijah of old would come and drive the hated conquerors away with a display of raw power. This is the national consciousness that Jesus breaks into.
Some thirty years earlier, there had been some strange rumors of a baby being born in unusual circumstances. Miracles reminiscent of ancient historical occurrences had taken place. Shepherds had seen and heard angels sing: “…Peace on earth among men in whom God is pleased.” A much-respected priest had been struck dumb, but then his first words on recovering speech had been: “… he has raised a horn of salvation…that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hands of those that hate us.…” To top it all, it was said that an angel had announced to the would-be mother that her son should be named Emmanuel, God with us. Talk about excitement.
Thirty years go by and the excitement has somewhat subsided. Then appears and man dressed in the garb of the old prophets and he invites the people to prepare for the coming of he who is mightier. True, his call was for repentance, but it is not at all hard to see how the excitement caused by the announcement of the coming of “the mightier” one pushed any idea of moral repentance to the side. Soon after, the man known as “Jeshua” begins to preach that the Kingdom is indeed come, and he proceeds to change water into wine, cast out demons, heal the sick, feed the throng, and resurrect the dead. Mark summarizes well the excitement: “At once his fame spread everywhere throughout the region of Galilee” (1:28). In a short time, the fever would also reach south to Judea. That the hero has come is in every mind.
But then, Jesus begins to utter some rather unexpected, not to say strange, statements like “Love your enemies…if they ask you to do so much, do even more.” The statements are accompanied by actions that cause more concern. He heals the servant of a Roman centurion; he spends time with the Samaritans; he feeds four thousand heathens in the eastern region of Lake Galilee. The words and the actions do not forebode the kind of deliverance, primarily political, that the nation is impatiently waiting for. Three long years of waiting go by. At last, the hope flickers and dies. Under the instigation of the religious leaders who determine that it is expedient that the pseudo messiah should die, the mood of the nation turns ugly and the drama as far as the people are concerned ends in violence on the hill Golgotha. By the time Jesus is murdered, the disciples themselves have not yet understood the true nature of the freedom offered by their master
With the above context in mind, it is not difficult to see why the overall conduct of Jesus was so puzzling to his contemporaries. Just one case in point: the cursed fig tree and the vendors chased from the temple. Mark’s account (11:12-23) is very interesting in that he is the only one who ties both events together as happening in sequence: first the cursing of the fig tree; then the chasing of the vendors; then the interpretation of the fig tree incident. Mark quotes Isaiah and Jeremiah to explain the actions of Jesus. Isaiah 56:1-8 had identified the temple as the place provided by God to be a house of prayer for all nations. God had designed the temple to be his invitation to the strangers (non Jews) and to the eunuchs (I am a dry tree). The Jews restricted such individuals to the external courtyard of the temple. But then, they turned God’s House of Prayer into a trade mart, effectively preventing the gentiles from the possibility of worshiping.
Mark also quotes Jeremiah 7:11, which says that the temple had been turned into a den of robbers. A den is a place that provides refuge, security, and comfort. The Jews had come to believe that they could behave in whatever way they wished then come to the temple and say, “I am secure.” By chasing the vendors (minions of the priests), Jesus reintegrates the courtyard into the temple, thus giving access to God to the non-Jews and to the marginalized. As to the sense of spiritual security of the Jews, it is reduced to nothing. The fig tree covered with green foliage (understood to be God’s blessings) symbolized the nation but Jesus curses it and it becomes dry, that is, it has no life and is not productive. Mark uses irony. It is no longer the eunuch that is the dry tree, it is Israel. Israel is to be replaced by a new people. Talk about puzzling conduct; shocking is maybe more to the point.
Maybe the lesson for Seventh-day Adventists is to be always aware that the same danger lurks. We who rest on our “supposed” knowledge of end-day prophecies, have we possibly put God in a box and will be caught by surprise if he does not act according to our well-designed scenarios with charts and all?
Eddy Johnson pastors two churches in Sidney, Australia.
Search
- herb douglass on Weimar Academy and College Get a “New Start”
- Nic Samojluk on How to Wait for the Second Coming
- Tom Zwemer on The Spirit of Prophecy
- laercio on For Such a Time as This: The Apostle Paul
- Johnny A. Ramirez on Are “Sabbathers” Jews or Christians?
- pat travis on Are “Sabbathers” Jews or Christians?
- pat travis on Are “Sabbathers” Jews or Christians?
- RDS on Are “Sabbathers” Jews or Christians?
- RDS on Are “Sabbathers” Jews or Christians?
- Johnny A. Ramirez on Are “Sabbathers” Jews or Christians?
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Is not this amazing, to understand God plans its proportionate to our relationship, Israel like many of us today , got caught up with superficial side of religion, as we today, this colective blindness , was because we wanted God to fit into our plans and not viceversa.
We adventist in latinamerica Mexico , we are so exclusive that we close the door to outsiders, everything is for us and not those that are not adventist christian, we are doing the same mistake as Israel of old, we talk about is second coming, but we are preaching it to ourselves, we are not telling it to the outside world, we are to special , too proud, not knowing that we are like the fig tree that never gave fruit, but the Master is still calling, wish we could see and ear, there is no need to be puzzle, let us listen to His voice today , reading the word
Pastor Johnson’s intriguing and provocative commentary on this week’s lesson makes the appropriate suggestion where he says: "Maybe the lesson for Seventh-day Adventists is to be always aware that the same danger lurks. We who rest on our ‘supposed’ knowledge of end-day prophecies, have we possibly put God in a box and will be caught by surprise if he does not act according to our well-designed scenarios with charts and all?"
Well put. Yet this question should be asked not just of Adventists but of all Christians -- Protestant and Catholic. Certainly no denomination has a monopoly on error, just as no denomination has a monopoly on truth. The Catholic Church over-read Scripture in its treatment of Galileo and his scientific theories centuries ago. Certain widespread assumptions were read into the text of Scripture requiring certain scientific conclusions to be held beyond contestation – such as the geocentricity of the universe. Public apologies subsequently had to be made after recognizing the difference between what Scripture was really teaching and what believers were assuming Scripture was teaching. No one today thinks Scripture was speaking at all to the astronomical question of a geocentric versus heliocentric universe.
Too closely identifying our theology with The God Who is Other has been a tendency of humankind from the very beginning, and is an arguably idolatrous inclination found not just among Christians or even solely among monotheists. We humans disdain uncertainty and embrace clarity, even at the risk of oversimplification.
A more humble view of all of our talk about the God of Jesus Christ in particular and theological speculation in general is in order. Just as the Jewish leaders of Jesus' own day failed to recognize the Messiahship of Jesus because he did not meet their preconceived expectations, so too today may we fail to recognize what God is seeking to reveal/teach/disclose to us about God if we expect revelation to take on only a certain form or content.
May we ever approach Scripture and the teachings of the Christian faith with new vision and humble hearts.
Great commentary on the lesson! Thanks.
Dave
Very nice article and an appropriate conclusion. Only let's not be so hard on the people who live through an historical event as they only have their contemporary aspect to view. Even the disciples did not appear convinced until the resurrection. Then we really start to see the historical reality and that historical reality shapes all of our doctrinal as well as religious historical perspective. It is not really fair to expect those without the historical perspective to understand what had not yet occurred in their time. Which may also explain why none of the gospels were written at the time of the events.
David,
"We humans disdain uncertainty and embrace clarity, even at the risk of oversimplification even at the risk of oversimplification."
Hasn't it always been the mark of religion to have the certitude to declare proper belief and behavior and dogma? This has allowed the multitudes to accept without analyzing or thinking of other possibilities.
rc:
"Even the disciples did not appear convinced until the resurrection."
And considering that no written record of these events occurred until at least 60 year afterward, there was more than sufficient time to interject such miraculous stories of virgin birth, conception, babies slaughtered and more in contradictory tales by Matthew and Luke. The earliest writers, Paul and Mark, appeared to never have heard these fables and did not mention them at all. Who should we believe and why?
Wow - a lesson quarterly that invites you to think - how refreshing!
God in a box?? Resting in our knowledge?? Only, if you are trying to pull God down to your level. We who live in the hinterland, not having all the distractions of city life, definitely see things in a more narrow straight way. First, you can't put God anywhere...its only in YOUR mind. Resting?? This is automatic when your fire goes dim or in most cases, out. That is why so many are puzzled with Jesus today. Even many pastors have dim or dead fires. Want to feel the heat again? Its simple folks...put your nose back in the book. Put God back in the frontal lobes of your mind. Pray daily, often, when you think you are praying enough, your just starting. And don't forget...line upon line, rule upon rule, a little here and a little there. Result?? Jesus becomes LESS of a puzzle, including His Word. Our church is being pulled down into the same pit Israel fell into before Jesus came upon the scene. Puzzlement overwhelms most. The...I will crowd...abounds. And that is the problem. I will...bring the world into the church. I will...rebel and start a new church with perfect saints only. I will...change the music to my liking. I will...demand from our president that we accept evil into our church. (sinners are always welcome). For now, enough said.
Elaine,
You wrote: "Hasn't it always been the mark of religion to have the certitude to declare proper belief and behavior and dogma? This has allowed the multitudes to accept without analyzing or thinking of other possibilities."
Agreed. And I imagine that you’d share my sentiment that we, now benefiting from past discussion, the continuing revelation of God through Scripture, developing tradition, the on-going prayerful reflection and writing of sincere Christians over the centuries -- we can proclaim with certitude that we don't know everything and that there is a real difference and necessary distinction between our Theology, on the one hand, and the God Who is the Object/Subject of Our Theology, on the other hand. From past experience we can certainly proclaim with certainty that we must be humble in our statements of beliefs, our theology, our doctrines and dogma. The Infinite will never be amenable to being fully and definitively captured in the language of the finite. God will never be fully understood in all God’s complexity and glory in this lifetime through human effort as expressed in our language. This we can proclaim with certainty.
In terms of what is solid, however, we can rest on the Scriptures as inspired revelation about God, recognizing that there is a role for interpretation, and that our interpretation will not be inspired, though they may be faithful and indeed inspiring. Christians have gotten themselves in trouble in proclaiming our interpretations of Scripture as inspired. We have all too often as human beings made idols of our theology.
Alongside Scripture, we have the earliest Creeds. The Trinitarian formula of the Nicene Creed, while containing expressions of greater detail and precision than Scripture, is nonetheless essentially faithful to the witness of Scripture and to the leading and guiding of God through the early centuries while Christians were discerning the nature of God and Jesus Christ in a complex and changing context including constant attack by heresies – Arianism, Docetism, Gnosticism.
You are right that we need to continue the life of faith, not "accepting without analyzing" -- as blind faith is NOT what we are called to. You are also correct that failing to continually think of other possibilities has been practiced by Christians but again is not faithful to what it means to be a follower of Christ. We can be certain of what is at the core of Christianity, without having to set in concrete what is theologically peripheral.
Pastor Johnson's point that "There is absolutely no doubt that Jesus was a constant source of puzzlement to his contemporaries" is one we have forgotten, imagining that we have it all figured out and always have from the beginning.
Blessings on you. Intriguing conversation.
Dave
Thanks, David, for your comments
I cannot add anything, other than the church doctrines, specifically the Trinity, are the frail, human attempt to explain the impossible. The notion that all abstract ideas must be put to words (eventually becoming a formal creed) is seen by many, and especially the Eastern monks who were much better informed on philosophy and left open this idea as an experiental one, rather than adopting the concrete and more wordy ideas informing the western branch of Christianity.
Personally, I find it much more appealing, leaving much to be experienced, rather than defined by words; which is, I believe they way such ideas should be approached: we know and see through a glass darkly. Unfortunately, as the age of the church has progressed, there seems to be a need to concretize every aspect of doctrine which is limiting to individual and personal experience.
Elaine,
You wrote: "church doctrines, specifically the Trinity, are the frail, human attempt to explain the impossible. The notion that all abstract ideas must be put to words (eventually becoming a formal creed) is seen by many, and especially the Eastern monks who were much better informed on philosophy and left open this idea as an experiental one, rather than adopting the concrete and more wordy ideas informing the western branch of Christianity."
But let's not forget that many Eastern monks were some of the most ardent defenders of Trinitarian/Christological orthodoxy: Basil the Great, Maximos Confessor (my patron saint), John of Damascus, Theodore the Studite, etc. Also, one must recall that the Eastern church has always been far more precise in its definition of the Trinity doctrine. The Byzantine empire was consumed in theological debates (monophysitism, monothelitism), which the West never considered with the same passion.
Post new comment