Wisdom

Luke 7:24-35 continues upon the departure of John's disciples. Jesus was still in the city of Nain. Jesus was still in the company of “many of his disciples” and “much people.” When John's disciples left, the same crowd remained. It was to this crowd that Jesus turned and spoke about John.

It is evident in his address that Jesus spoke to people who had once followed John. John had been the big thing until Jesus showed up. It was as if Jesus took all of John's customers and John was facing bankruptcy – and wondering how much longer he should hold out before he closed up shop.

They now followed Jesus, but previously, they had followed John. Jesus asked them why. He asked them what they were hoping to find in the baptist. He asked them what they were looking for in the former 'big thing.'

It is in these passages that we discover critical information, not only about John but also about the people who had once followed him. As for the crowd who had followed John, including some of the disciples present, it becomes apparent that they had been baptized by John. Even Jesus had been baptized.

In regard to that fact, Jesus made this comment in verse 35, “But wisdom is justified of all her children.” Here, I would ask the reader to focus on the word 'justified.' Merriam-Webster gives this definition of the word: 'to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable.' The word justified is used twice in this portion of text. Before Christ made his comment, the writer of this gospel pointed out that the very act of being baptized “justified God,” proving, as the definition goes, that His 'capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power' in their lives was just and right.

It is also pointed out, by way of comparison, that “the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves” by not being baptized by John. In other words, the audience that Jesus addressed had accepted the counsel of God, and by doing so, had proven the actions and wisdom, both of God's counsel and of their own response, to be just, right and reasonable. It is obvious to all who read these accounts that there was a bone of contention between Jesus and the religious authorities. It now occurs to me that the failure to be baptized by John figured heavily into that contentious relationship.

Baptism was the open and visible testimony that an individual had knowingly accepted the counsel of God. To illustrate that clear division between either accepting or rejecting the counsel of God, Jesus made this comparison between those who accepted and those who did not: “Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, we have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.”

Joy and sorrow are like oil and water. They are used to represent the two types of individuals. Those who accept the counsel of God seek to share their joy in new life, but the sorrowful will not be a part of their celebration. The sorrowful, who have rejected the counsel of God, seek to share a sense of grave dedication and self-enslavement to the letter of the law, but those who find joy in new life will not be brought down to such an un-life-like existence.

There had been a time when a dedication to the letter of the law was applicable. That time was not the time of Jesus. Jesus set that previous time as opposite to his time of new life as outlined in the counsel of God. Jesus gave his opinion of his cousin, John. Of all the men born of women, and representative of the previous time – a time in which the law ruled with an iron fist, John was the greatest, for he was a prophet of God tasked with bringing mankind into the time of Christ, where the counsel and covenant of God were realized in redemption, new life, joy, and love.

Jesus painted a picture of John as the greatest of all men, but he added that the least of men in the time of Christ were greater than all men of the previous time, including John, because those in the time of Christ were the children of God's wisdom. They justified God's will and work.

Pointing clearly and openly at the Pharisees and lawyers, Jesus explained what it was not to be a child of the wisdom of God – showing the utter futility of the mindset that is based on rejection rather than acceptance. John came adhering to a legalistic appearance, “neither eating bread nor drinking wine” and the Pharisees and lawyers rejected him. Jesus came in a more relaxed and life-like appearance: “eating and drinking” and accepting anyone who accepted the counsel of God. The Pharisees and lawyers used that to reject Jesus. In the eyes of the Pharisees and lawyers, you were damned if you did and damned if you didn't.

I suppose, in the minds of Pharisees and lawyers, all was fair, for they fought for what they believed in. Too bad they believed in their law-keeping rather than God. The mind that rejects will find a reason to reject again. In their rejection of John and Jesus, the Pharisees and lawyers actually rejected God. There is no wisdom in that.

Rumor Has It (Part Two)

Luke 7:19-23 shows us something curious about John the Baptist. In church services, we are force-fed the relationship between John and Jesus where John baptizes Jesus in the Jordan. He boldly proclaims, in John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

I think we can all agree that, at the time of baptism, John seems confident of his cousin's role in God's plans for Israel. One point we reserve for Bible trivia, but seldom seriously consider, is the blood relation between John and Jesus. They were cousins. Mary's sister was John's mother. It's not like John and Jesus lived on opposite sides of the world. I think it is possible that the two of them grew up together.

It is possible they spoke often to each other on higher topics. It is, after all, more than evident that they chose similar paths in their adult lives. Both became masters of a sort, commanding apostles and disciples – and that was likely a position arrived at through already established societal structures such as the synagogue, the temple, or schooling within orders such as the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or even the Essenes.

How can it be that John goes from confidence in John 1:29 to doubt in Luke 7:19? As a concept, the Lamb of God can find an informal relationship to the Passover lamb. The constituents of such a concept might include 'being covered by the blood', 'redemption' or being 'set free', 'the first born being spared from death' or 'the death of the first born as a ward against death.' Not to be overlooked is the connection between the slaying of an unblemished lamb for the Passover celebrations, the 'body' and the 'blood', and the crucifixion, or 'slaying' at the time of Passover.

These well could have been topics of discussion between two cousins pursuing similar goals. Jesus might have referred to himself as the Lamb of God, and that could have been the reason John said what he said in John 1:29. And while John's statement seems bold and confident, it might have been nothing more than parroting what he had heard from his cousin.

Had that been the case, and John began to hear rumors of his cousin, his actions would have been justified. Yes, he had baptized his cousin, but he needed to know if Jesus was the one he and his disciples looked for. All of the major religious groups of Jesus' day looked for the coming of one who would set Israel free from the yoke of Rome. John's need to know, actually, aligns him with the prevalent mind-set of that era.

All established religious orders of that day lived in expectation of a coming Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament law and prophets. The Pharisees and Sadducees found it hard to swallow that the coming Messiah could be found in the person of one of their own. For them, a messiah had to be big enough and Holy enough to justify their keeping of the law. The Essenes, on the other hand, imagined a day of reckoning that lay somewhere in the future, but the confrontation between the forces of light and dark would clearly see them come out on top. The fact that John entertained the notion that “he that should come” might be realizable in the person of a living contemporary could indicate a connection to the Zealots.

So John sent two of his disciples to ask. While they were there, they witnessed actual deeds rather than simply hear more talk. They saw with their own eyes everything that Jesus told them to report back to John. They saw sight given to the blind, fully functional legs given to the lame, and life given to the dead. They saw those with infirmities healed. They saw those with plagues healed. They even saw the incredible cleansing of lepers. They heard the Gospel and saw how the poor of the land had their hope restored.

In part one of this study I asked the question, 'where's the evidence?' The disciples of John returned to their master with evidence. That is how Jesus answered them. Doubting Thomas, in similar fashion, had his doubts answered with evidence. He told Thomas, in John 20:24-27, “Be not faithless, but believing.” Thomas had been offended in the truth of Jesus as reported by his fellow disciples. A week earlier, his fellow disciples had been offended in the truth of Jesus – in so much that Jesus ate fish and a piece of honeycomb in their presence as evidence of his risen reality. To John the baptist, and to all the rest of us, Jesus says pretty much the same thing, “Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.”

The evidence is there; we do not have to remain faithless.

Rumor Has It (Part One)

Luke 7:11-18 is an account of Jesus raising the dead. It occurs on the day after the incident with the centurion's sick servant. Jesus had traveled to the city of Nain, a walled city with a gate. Traveling with Jesus were “many of his disciples” and “much people.” I can envision a small crowd.

As Jesus and his crowd were making to enter through the gate into the city, they were met by another crowd of people exiting through the gate. That second crowd was, in fact, a funeral procession. That crowd followed along with a widow who was on her way to bury her only son.

On the surface, such a crowd might give the impression that the widow, her late husband, and her deceased son had garnered the love and respect of the community. A first thought is that one or more of the tragic family unit were objects of community admiration.

Such is not a certainty, however. People without their own business to attend will invariably attend someone else's business. Simple and gregarious folk may follow along for no other reason than they are curious and have nothing better to hold their attention. Also, a tenet of such Jewish events were the professional mourners who could be hired.

Whatever the case, the poor woman had lost her entire family. She was a broken soul knowing only the sorrow of bitter loss. Jesus felt sorry for her and responded with compassion. He felt it was all too much for her to bear. Now, he did not have to raise her son from the dead – he could simply have extended his condolence, but Jesus was the son of God acting in his father's name. He was the outward expression of God's will.

This miracle must be compared to the miracle of the previous day. Whereas the healing of the centurion's servant engendered awe, the raising of the dead son engendered fear. A wandering Rabbi raises a corpse to life – literally, talks it back to life, then takes him by the hand and personally delivers him back to his mother. What's one to think?

They were taken aback. They were at a loss. This was definitely not normal. They actually trembled with fear, and the opinions they voiced among themselves were couched in words of utter amazement. They are recorded as having said such things as “God has visited His people” and “a great prophet is risen up among us.” Such words glorified God.

Prophets in Israel were never rare. The greatest of the prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha, performed similar miracles. Doubtless, all that crowd grew up hearing the stories of Elijah and Elisha in their synagogues. Now, they had witnessed such a miracle with their own eyes and it made their hearts skip a beat.

Jesus had previously performed miracles and word of those miracles had spread. The nature of such news about Jesus was couched in words such as 'fame.' This time, however, a different word was applied – that word was 'rumor.'

Rumor is defined thus: 'a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth' and 'circulated as an unverified account.' In other words: where's the evidence? The rumor of Jesus raising the dead son of the widow went far and wide, ultimately reaching the ears of the disciples of John the Baptist. In part two of 'Rumor Has It' I will explore the concerns that John voiced.

The Greatest Faith in Israel

The Christian thinks he is all that; the Jew thinks he is all that. In fact, every religion and faithful follower think the same way. Rather than their God or their prophets, they actually extol their own faith as an accomplishment. It is a boastful spirit that says to all others, 'this is how it is done.'

So what if you clasp your hands and kneel and contort your face while you pray! So what if you kiss a wall and wear curly locks! So what if you parade thousands around a giant cube! In this study, I turn to Luke 7:1-9 to discover what Christ thought about the faith of his people.

Jesus rubbed shoulders with many people in the course of a day. Most of them claimed to be faithful. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, the elders of the Synagogues – they all thought of themselves as pious, as devout. They claimed Abraham; they claimed Moses. They wore all the right clothing and said all the right words and adamantly adhered to each custom, law, and precept. They had every right to pat themselves on their collective back. They had every right to crow – they were the faithful, after all; they were devout. They were all that.

But Jesus had a different standard to judge by. He claimed meekness and lowliness. He knew the turmoil of professed faith and offered rest from its rigors. Now, there were many people who did not really know what they believed in, but they knew the misery of their daily lives. They knew the desire for all things that life deprived them of. When Jesus viewed the world around him, he knew that the will of men stood in opposition to the will of the spirit.

The story of the centurion provides a rare example of a faith that was greater than boastful profession or desperation. The story describes the nature of a Roman centurion. He is described as a man who loved Israel. The elders who had been sent to Jesus praised the man for the benefits they had enjoyed; he had built them a synagogue. It seems obvious from this testimony, as well as the fact that the dying servant was dear to him, that the centurion had a connection to the people around him. Perhaps the man was known to care, or to display compassion.

He had only just heard of Jesus – that Jesus had the power to heal. Being the type of man he was known to be, the centurion doubtless knew a great deal about Jewish culture and news. He would have known what the Jews believed about God. And here was a healer who claimed to heal by the authority of that God.

It is a moving story and many recognize humility in the Roman when he sends friends to Jesus. Jesus was almost there when the friends of the centurion conveyed a message to Jesus. The Roman said to Jesus, 'don't bother. You really don't need to come all the way here. Besides, I am not worthy that someone as godly as you should come under my roof. The authority of your word is enough. If you say it, it will happen, for just as you command spirits I command people, so I know authority and yours is of God.'

The friends returned to find the centurion's servant healed. Jesus was moved by the centurion's genuine faith and healed the servant from a distance simply by the authority of his word. Jesus was so impressed with that Roman's faith  he turned to those who followed him and told them the faith of an outsider was the greatest faith in all of Israel.

I have no doubt that among the company Jesus traveled in one could not help but find the obligatory Pharisee or church elder. Why was Jesus impressed with the faith of the Roman? Why did he need to make a point of it to the crowd? What did he recognize in the Roman that he could not recognize in his own countrymen?

The Roman, indeed, was humble but that is not what impressed Jesus. It is my opinion that what Jesus recognized in the Roman was a sincere recognition of the authority that he exercised – that it was of God. While some claimed the keeping of custom as their faith and others claimed hopes for the expulsion of Rome from Israel as their faith and while yet others claimed their desire for what Jesus offered as their faith, the outsider claimed a recognition of Christ's authority as a certain knowledge.

Let's face it – how can you claim to believe in Jesus if you don't recognize his authority?