Matthew 23: 37-38

One of the saddest passages in the New Testament is Matthew 23: 36-38. 

 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

 Jesus has just been enumerating the hypocrisies of the scribes and pharisees.  He basically starts with small indiscretions like making big phylacteries and broad boarders on their clothes, and flaunting privilege (v. 5-6). Then he talks about them taking advantage of the vulnerable and misleading converts (v. 13-14). He accuses them of extortion and finally, of seeking to persecute and kill God's true servants (v. 25, 34). 

 I read this chapter in Greek this week and something popped out at me at the end of the chapter.  In verse 33 Jesus calls them "serpents" and "generation of vipers".  This automatically rings a bell for someone who knows the Old Testament.  Clear back in Genesis 3 a serpent became the symbol of Satan, the tempter and adversary.  Calling the Jewish leaders the "generation of vipers" is equivalent of calling them children of Satan.  It also hearkens the reader's mind back to the story of the Fall.  

 You may remember an earlier post I did about The Fall.  In it I mentioned that Adam means "earth" in Hebrew, meaning arable soil. When Adam is cast out of the garden, God calls him, instead, "dust" or dry ground that cannot grow things "for dust though art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (v 19).  

So, this is in my mind as I read Matthew 23: 38.  In the KJV it says, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate," but that is a loose translation.  What it says in Greek is ἰδού, ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν ἔρημος, or "behold, your house is given up to the desert." I live in a desert state.  I have seen what happens to abandoned homes that are taken over by the desert.  Of course, "house" here doesn't mean a physical domicile.  It means a clan, or "your people".  Juxtaposed against the idea of them being children of the serpent, I think Jesus is intentionally telling the Jewish leaders that they are going to remain in their fallen state. Because of their iniquity, they and all their "house" are "dust" instead of "adamah" fertile ground. 

 According to the podcasts I listened to this week, (particularly Talking Scripture with Mike Day and Bryce Dunford) within a century of Jesus' death, Jerusalem fell before the Romans, and became a "desert", at least as far as the Jews were concerned.  The temple was, indeed, thrown down, and any Jew that didn't flee was killed. It was the end of the ancient Jewish state, and Judaism only lived on in isolated pockets outside of Jerusalem. I believe Jesus knew this was going to happen. He was seeing the end of his people, just as Moroni saw the destruction of the Nephites.  That is why he was so sad.

The Prodigal Son

 The Prodigal Son (Luke 15: 11-32) is one of the most famous of all Jesus' parables. It is one that has touched me personally.  At various times I have felt like the prodigal, the father, and the older brother.  One of the podcasters I listened to this week (I think it was Michael Wilcox on Follow Him) pointed out that both the older brother and the young brother are the same in one respect. Both of them think their value is based on what they do.  The younger brother, at the end, feels useless because he has chosen to do bad things. The older brother feels like he should be valued because he has chosen to do good things.  But the father loves both children not for what they do, but because they are his children. This was a powerful insight to me and I began recognizing that principal in other places. 

I think it is in play in the parable of the hired laborers (Matthew 20:1-16).  This parable has bothered people before because it seems unfair that those who worked all day should receive the same reward as those who only worked one hour. Again, we are valuing people for what they do--the ones that do more should be valued higher. The parable seems to be trying be saying they are valued, not for how much they do, but for their willingness to do work. I think the line in the parable is significant when the lord says, "Why stand ye here all the day idle?" and they answered, "Because no man hath hired us." They were willing to work but were kept from it because circumstances beyond their control.  We could say the lord values them the same because they all have the same willingness.  But maybe that isn't even quite true.  Maybe the Lord values them because he values all his children, regardless of what they do or do not do. Maybe he is just generous, and would give a denarius to any in need.

My mind bounces to the sermon on the mount.  "Consider the lilies of the field..." (Matthew 6:28).  They don't work for their blessings.  God just blesses them. 

I guess this was impactful because deep down I have felt that I must do XY and Z so that when the time comes when I really need the Lord, he will be there for me.  If I do everything I possibly can to be the kind of servant God needs, I can rely on him in my time of need.  Maybe I need to rethink my motivations. Maybe I am trying too hard to earn God's love, sometimes to the point of making myself miserable because I always feel like I am falling short. But if that is not what God wants, for me to be as righteous and diligent as I can, then what does he want?  He certainly condemned those who are "wicked and slothful" servants (Matthew 25: 26).   

This, I guess, is the old works vs grace argument that theologians have debated for centuries.  I say I believe in grace, but I think part of me is still clinging to works. 

Lazarus (both of them)

 It is interesting that there are two important stories in the New Testament about men called Lazarus. As so often happens, the names have meaning important to the stories.  The name Lazarus is the Greek form of the name in Hebrew Eleazer, which means "God will help."  Both stories show how God will help his faithful children.

The first story is a parable that Jesus gives in Luke 16: 19-26.  It was meant as a rebuke to the Pharisees for putting too much importance on wealth and status.  In the story a man called Lazarus is poorly treated by his master "who was clothed in purple and fine linen." (vs 19).  Lazarus dies and then the rich man dies as well.  After death their roles are reversed.  Lazarus is in Abraham's "bosom" and the rich man burns in hell. The rich man begs to Abraham to send Lazarus to give him relief but Abraham says the he cannot. 

This is such an interesting and complex parable.  As the parable starts it would be easy for the Pharisees to think Lazarus represents "the Jews".  He has a very Jewish name and when he dies he goes to the bosom of Abraham. It would also have been natural for them to associate the rich man with the Romans.  The Roman custom was for their rulers to wear "purple", and they were famous for their elaborate feasts.  But as the story goes on, it becomes clear that Jesus is associating the Pharisees with the rich man and the more humble classes of Jews with Lazarus. In other words, he is suggesting without actually saying it, that the Jewish leaders were as oppressive as their Roman overlords. 

The story of the second Lazarus is found in John 11. Jesus' friend, Lazarus becomes ill and Jesus intentionally delays going to him until after Lazarus has died, specifically so he could raise him from the dead.  This obvious miracle was the last straw that convinced the Jewish hierarchy that Jesus must be eliminated.  It has always seemed interesting to me that the whole thing was so "staged."  Jesus intentionally lets Lazarus die and rot in the grave so he can show forth great power by bringing him back to life.  Why make such a production number out of it?  One answer is that he knew he must die at the hands of the Jewish leadership and this was a way to push them into doing what he needed them to do.  This idea seems a little harsh, though.  

After reading the Old Testament last year another reason came to mind.  There were several prophets of the Old Testament, especially right before the Babylonian captivity, that performed ritualistic acts to demonstrate future events.  For example God to Jeremiah to walk around with a yolk on his neck to signify the coming captivity (Jeremiah 27).  Hosea was told to marry a harlot to represent Israel's unfaithfulness to their God (Hosea 3-5).  I think Jesus' raising of Lazarus was just such an act.  He was prophesying of his own death and resurrection.  There are so many similarities.  Lazarus, like Jesus, was in the tomb several days, signifying that he was well and truly dead.  There was a stone rolled in front of his tomb that had to be removed.  Lazarus arose wrapped in a shroud with a cloth on his face, just as the shroud and cloth were found in the tomb after Jesus arose.  These were all elements of Jesus' own death and resurrection.  I think he knew he had to do this ritualistic act so that in hind sight the disciples would believe that he had truly risen from the grave, like Lazarus did.  He did it to prove what he said to Martha, "I am the resurrection and the life".  

I personally think that the reason Jesus wept when he saw Mary and Martha and the Jews weeping of Lazarus, wasn't just out of sympathy for their grief.  I think he felt bad that he had to intentionally put them through this hard ordeal. It was important that this event happen, but it came at the expense of the emotions of those he loved, and I think it was hard for him to put them through all that.  I think that sometimes he feels bad at what we have to go through.  It is like when a parent cries when they have to take their child to the doctor for shots, even though they know the shots are good for the child. It is still hard to see our children' suffer. Or when I, as a young mother, lay in bed weeping as I listened to my baby cry himself to sleep.  I knew he needed to learn to go to sleep in his bed, but his little voice seemed to sound betrayed and it broke my heart.  I think that is why Jesus wept.