In this study, I want to deal with one verse only and one thought. Luke 22:28 has Jesus telling his disciples this, “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.”
He said that to all twelve of his disciples, even the one who betrayed him. As far as we know, they were the only ones present at the last supper.
The statement is enigmatic and stands without support from other verses. What could Jesus have possibly referred to by the expression “my temptations?” Obviously, it was an ongoing issue. If the disciples had “continued” with Jesus in this regard, they were always with Jesus when Jesus was tempted. They knew each one of the temptations.
That fact alone opens to us the possibility that at least some of the disciples were present when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness. They witnessed Jesus fasting for forty days. As we know, that temptation was written down – but where are the rest of the temptations?
Some of you reading this may recall a movie titled 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. My point in this is that temptations are real and must be dealt with in real ways. We must know for certain how the word was used by Jesus. If, for example, Jesus referred to something as a temptation in a purely euphemistic sense – well, that changes everything.
Synonyms for the word euphemistic include 'mild', 'understated', 'indirect', 'neutral', 'evasive', 'diplomatic', 'inoffensive', and 'polite'. If Jesus used the word 'temptations' as a substitute for another concept, that makes for a needle-in-a-haystack scenario for those of us seeking the truth.
On the other hand, if Jesus lived a life in which he daily overcame some temptation or other, why did not the writers of the gospels present us with these temptations? Why did they not name them and show us just how Jesus won each battle? It is possible, of course, that time, itself, has altered the direction from which we approach the word. What if, originally, ( by which I include culturally-inclusive applications) the word implied a test or particular objective rather than the daily failings of human nature?
Here, I am thinking along the lines of the twelve labors of Hercules – feats so difficult as to seem impossible. Surely, raising the dead, rising from the dead, walking on water, and such other similar exploits would qualify in this regard. One has to acknowledge that since there was a perpetual fame associated with the actions of Jesus, there must be a real reason for the fame.
It cannot be chalked up to the simplicity of uneducated peasants. I am pretty well educated, but I have to say, if I saw someone raise the dead or cure uncurable diseases with just a touch and a word, I too would be just as amazed. To see the things that Jesus did – that would astound anyone.
No one denied the things he did, not even his enemies in the Sanhedrin. Pharisees did not deny the impossible things he accomplished. Sadducees did not deny his amazing feats. Rulers did not refute his deeds or fame. In all, the only thing that his enemies did in that regard was to suggest he performed his mind-blowing feats by a power other than God.
When we look at the impossible things that Jesus was able to accomplish, how far can we take the list? How about a fish with a coin in its mouth? How about walking through a mob intent on stoning him? How about holding a conversation with Moses and Elijah? How about feeding thousands with next to nothing? How about calming the storm?
Admittedly, Jesus did amazing things. Were these 'labors' to be accomplished? Such things are easy to see, but are there other labors that might pass us unnoticed? How about changing the mind of a mob intent on obeying the law by stoning a woman caught in adultery? That mindset was self-justifying, not to mention sanctioned in written law. Such men could stone sinners with one hand tied behind their backs. They probably dreamed about stoning sinners.
No comments:
Post a Comment