Jerusalem

Jerusalem

Monday, November 10, 2014

Jesus' Last Week Part 1 (November 9, 2014)

Talking points

This lesson comes in two parts because it is too long for one week.  It is mostly about Jesus' "last week".  It doesn't have a real application, other than to help bring to life some of the rich pictures that are hidden in the Text that we don't even know are there.  All of this will be framed in the context of Jesus as the Passover Lamb.  The New Testament has several references to Jesus being the "Lamb of God" or the "Passover Lamb", and without blemish or defect.  This is not an after-thought, tacked on to the Old Testament stories.  Rather, the Old Testament stories hint at a very rich fulfillment in Jesus.  We're going to explore that, by first exploring some of those Old Testament stories themselves.


The Spring Jewish Festivals

The Jewish calendar is based on the moon.  A new month starts with each new moon.  So the months will vary between 29 and 30 days.  In Exodus 12:1-6, God is reorienting their calendar.  That current month is to now be the first month of their year.  It was named Nisan, and was also known as Aviv or Abib.  The month of Nisan is the month with the first full moon after the spring equinox.  Since each month always starts with a new moon, the full moon is always on the 14th of the month.  Some years actually had 13 months, because when it was time for Nisan to come around again, it's full moon would have been before the spring equinox.  When that happened, an extra month was inserted at the end of the year, so Nisan could always come out right.

Passover

So sometime that month, God gave the instructions to Moses regarding the lamb.  The 10th day of the month was to be "lamb selection day".  They would choose a lamb without blemish and take it into the house with them for the next few days, and continually inspect it to assure it has no defects.  Then they would slaughter it on the 14th day at twilight.  I think of twilight as being right after the sun has set, but this would have been as their day is ending (right before sunset).  They would slaughter it at the end of the 14th day, and by the time they would eat it after sunset, it would now be the next day (the evening of the 15th; remember Hebrew days start at sunset).  From the Text, it appears that Moses gave these instructions to the Israelites on the 14th, because it sounds like they had to hurry to slaughter the lamb that day, so the instructions regarding starting on the 10th day would have been for when they commemorate the Passover in subsequent years.  They were to eat their bread with no yeast.  When they were leaving Egypt, there was no time to wait for yeast to rise.  But also, yeast is a symbol for sin, and God had them purge their houses of it.  The angel of death was going to pass over their house that evening (assuming they have the blood of the lamb on their doorposts), but would kill the firstborn of the Egyptians.  The Israelites were to leave Egypt during the day on the 15th.  The word for Passover is pesach, but it doesn't mean "Passover"; it means "protective sacrifice" -- that which enabled the "passing over".  It protects you from what is about to happen all around you.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread

The Feast of Unleavened Bread started the day after Passover.  It was 7 days long, and the first and last days are essentially Sabbaths (sometimes they are referred to as Sabbaths, and sometimes not).  These were in addition to the regular weekly Sabbaths (though in some years one of them would coincide).  The people were to hold a sacred assembly on the first and last days, and were not to do any work except what was needed to prepare food.

Crossing the Red Sea

Israel crossed the Red Sea some number of days after starting their departure from Egypt on the 15th.  It appears that they crossed in a single night, and that the Egyptians were dead on the shore by daybreak.  It would be nice to know how long after their departure on the 15th this actually was, but I don't think we can know for sure.  There are some reasons to believe it might be on the third day (the 17th):
  • In Exodus 5:3, before they had left, Moses had asked permission for Israel to go 3 days journey into the wilderness to worship God.
  • The recounting of their journey in Numbers 33:1-8 has been construed to indicate a crossing on the 17th, but the reasoning seems to be off by a day or two as I see it
But the stronger reasons come by inference from other Old Testament stories where significant new beginnings occurred on the 17th of that month:
  • Genesis 8:4 says the ark touched down on the earth on the 17th day of the 7th month.  That was the month of Nisan, which God later told Moses was to be their first month
  • Exodus 12:40-41 says that it was 430 years to the day after Israel went into Egypt that the Lord brought them out.  It's not clear to me whether "the day the Lord brought them out of Egypt" refers to the day they started leaving (the 15th), or to the day they actually left Egypt by crossing the Red Sea.   In the Hebrew mind, their nation was born the day they crossed the Red Sea.  Whatever day they crossed, it was the same day 430 years earlier that their forefathers went into Egypt, so if it actually was on the 17th, then both events occurred on the 17th.
  • Joshua 5:10 - 6:2 describes Israel crossing the Jordan River and preparing to take Jericho.  Events are described as occurring on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of that same month, and then the very next thing is the encounter that Joshua has with the "commander of the Lord's army", who gives instructions for taking Jericho.  It is reasonable (though not certain) to think that this occurred on the 17th.
  • In 2 Chronicles 29:1-28, Hezekiah has the temple cleaned up and the sacrifices resumed after years of neglect.  This occurred on the 17th of that same month.
  • In the book of Esther, the evil Haman has all but ensured the destruction of the Jews, but his plot is exposed to the king.  As a result, Haman is hanged and the Jews are granted the right to defend themselves against the destruction that has been decreed toward them.  Dates are given throughout the story, and it appears that all of this occurred on the 17th of that same month.  The Jews later overthrew their enemies, killing 75,000 of them.
So while it is conjecture about Israel crossing the Red Sea on the 17th, it seems undeniable that God is up to something here that we'd like to be able to get our heads around.

Israel arrives in the desert of Sinai on the first day of the 3rd month, so they've been on the road a little more than 6 weeks at that point.  They camped in front of Mt. Sinai, but the Text doesn't say how long it took to get there from the point where they entered the desert, so we don't know exactly when this occurred.  But once they get there, Moses goes up the mountain and meets with God, who tells him to have the people be ready on the 3rd day (today, tomorrow, the next day) for him to come down the mountain and give the Torah.  By Jewish tradition, God came down the mountain 50 days after the people left Egypt (crossed the Red Sea), but I don't see how we can know that from the Text.  By Jewish counting methods, this would count the day they crossed the Red Sea as day 1, and the day God gave the Torah as day 50.

First Fruits

The book of Leviticus gives more information regarding the Feasts.  It confirms again that Passover is on the 14th, and the Festival of Unleavened Bread starts on the 15th and goes for 7 days, with the first and last days being extra Sabbaths.  But there is more.

The day of First Fruits is the day after the weekly Sabbath (not the extra Sabbaths) following Passover.  (The Text doesn't seem to indicate exactly which weekly Sabbath this is, but it meant, and was practiced, as the first weekly Sabbath following Passover).  This would be for the barley harvest.  You give your first barley grain to the priest who waves it before the Lord.  You cannot begin harvesting your crop until after this first fruit ceremony.  First Fruit is all about giving God the first portion of your harvest, acknowledging his provision and trusting him to provide for you after you've given him the first.

So think about when the barley First Fruit can occur.  It is the day after the weekly Sabbath after Passover.  Passover is on the 14th, the weekly Sabbath after it can occur anywhere from the 15th to the 21st.  This means First Fruits can be anywhere from 16th to the 22nd, so on some years it will occur on the 17th.

Then you count off 50 days starting with the day of the barley First Fruit and come to another "day after the Sabbath" seven weeks later, and you have another First Fruit, for the wheat crop.  This festival is called shavuot.  Here you offer 2 loaves made from your wheat with leaven, and this is another extra Sabbath.

The fact that the two First Fruit days are 50 days "apart" (by Jewish reckoning) and that by tradition the Torah was given 50 days "after" crossing the Red Sea (again by Jewish reckoning) is really significant.  The crossing of the Red Sea was the day the nation was born.  The Torah was God's marriage covenant with Israel.  Both of those event surely qualify as "first fruit events".  There can be no doubt but that those two events occurred on the two days of First Fruit.  God hadn't established the Sabbath Day for Israel yet at the time they left Egypt, but he did establish it for them along the way (when he started giving them manna on 6 of 7 days), before they arrived at Mt. Sinai.  No doubt, the Sabbath Day was established for Israel to coincide with being the day before these first fruit events.

So go back to the major Old Testament events representing new beginnings that occurred, or may have occurred, on the 17th of the month.  I've got to believe they actually occurred on the barley First Fruit day.  In the cases where the Text is clear that they occurred on the 17th, then surely the barley First Fruit was on the 17th that year.  Where it is not clear that they occurred on the 17th, they at least occurred on a day close to it, which was (I believe) when the day of First Fruits would have occurred that year, sometime from the 16th to the 22nd.


Palm Sunday

Jesus comes into Jerusalem riding the colt, which leaves no question he is announcing himself as the Messiah.  He has hidden that fact before many times, to prevent what is about to happen this week from happening too soon.  But now the time is right.  He is to be proclaimed as the Messiah, and he says that if the people didn't do it, the rocks would.  The people understand he is the Messiah, and think that the age of peace associated with the Great Day of the Lord is going to arrive after the Messiah throws Rome off their backs.  Their cries of Hosanna are not necessarily what we think they are. They mean "God save us!", and they come from the time of the Macabees (164 BC) where they were used as a war cry.  Judas Macabees started a revolt against the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and liberated Jerusalem.  Then there was a celebration of his military success, complete with the shouts of hosanna and the palm branches, just like we see when Jesus is coming to Jerusalem. "Go get 'em, Jesus!  The Macabees did it.  We can do it again!"  Everybody believed the Messiah would come on some Passover, and they all expected him to lead a revolt against an oppressive foreign power, just like Moses led the people out of Egypt on Passover.  It's what they all wanted; it's what they thought the Messiah would do.  Given their view of the End Times, you really can't blame them for thinking that way when they see Jesus on the colt.

But it's a different experience for Jesus.  When Jesus came over the Mount of Olives and saw Jerusalem, he cried.  The word for "cry" in the Text is the Greek word klaio, which means to cry vehemently and uncontrollably, like parents who have lost a child.  It's not merely being overcome with emotion, which would be the meaning of the Hebrew word dakrou, like when Jesus wept over Lazarus' death.  Jesus cried here, because the city did not recognize the Kingdom of God and his Messianic agenda when he came, and it was going to be brutal for them as a result.  "If you only knew what would bring you peace.  You think it comes by the sword.  You want to kill the oppressors, but that's not the way of the Kingdom".  Ironically, peace would only come when they killed him.  In Matthew 23:37, Jesus calls the name of Jerusalem twice.  That only happens on 8 occasions in the entire Text, and indicates God's calling of someone to a new path.  Israel could have had a path of peace, but now it is going to be disaster.  Their time has come and gone, and won't come again until Christ comes again in the End Times, when they will finally recognize him.

I can't confirm from the Scriptures that the day Jesus entered Jerusalem was the day after the weekly Sabbath (Sunday), but church tradition from the earliest times holds that as true.   So as best we can sort out the narratives in the Text and rely on church tradition, Passover was Thursday that week, and that being the 14th would have made the Sunday before it, which we regard as Palm Sunday, be on the 10th.  So Jesus enters Jerusalem on Lamb Selection day.  He presents himself as the Messiah and as God's Lamb.

The first thing he does is to cleanse the temple from the money changers.  (Recall that one of the expectations of the Messiah was that he would clean up the corruption in the temple).  We've all heard this story many times.  He was angry because the religious establishment was keeping people from worshiping God, and he cleaned it up.  This parallels the cleaning that had to be done in the Israelites' homes to purge them of all leaven before Passover.  But besides cleansing the temple, the story includes an innocent-sounding verse, that makes you wonder why it is included.  Matthew 21:14 says that the blind and the lame came to him at the temple and he healed them.  Why are the blind and the lame singled out?  2 Samuel 5:6-8 tells us that before David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites, they taunted him, saying that even the blind and the lame could defend the city; David would never take it.  But he did, and he came to refer to the Jebusites as "the blind and the lame".  And in his hatred for them, he said "the blind and the lame will not enter the house".  Whether he meant his palace, or the temple (the house of God that he wanted to build, but which Solomon built instead), isn't clear, but it came to be the temple.  The priests excluded the blind and the lame from participating in the temple worship.  So when Jesus cleanses the temple, they realize that he has opened up the temple to them as well.

Lamb Inspection


Jesus spends the next few days teaching, and in the same way that the lamb was inspected for defects every day before Passover, he tangled with the religious leaders and was tested by them as they tried to trap him. 
  •  In Matthew 21:23-27, Jesus' authority was questioned by the chief priests and elders.  "By what authority do you do these things, and who gave you this authority?"  He had cleansed the temple the day before, and they were upset about it.  It is interesting that they asked about his authority.  Recall that there were several occasions where the gospels say that Jesus "spoke as one who had authority, not as their teachers of the Law".  The notion of "having authority" was significant.  It was conferred from one person to another.  It started with Aaron, the brother of Moses, and was traced down the line through the generations.  There was a ceremony where one person with authority would confer it on his successor, and there were witnesses.  A person with authority could provide new interpretations from the Law and the Prophets; a person without it could only teach what others taught.  The chief priests and the elders didn't like what Jesus was doing and wanted to have a word with whoever it was that conferred authority onto him. 

    Jesus says he won't answer their question unless they first answer his question, which they decide they cannot do.  How many times have you looked at this and thought Jesus looked maybe a little childish here, maybe a little bit like a brat?  But recall that the rabbinical teaching method was to answer a question with another question which actually answers the original question and takes the conversation further.  That's what Jesus is doing here, but the chief priests and elders don't realize that Jesus was actually answering their question.  He asks them about John's baptism.  John was the one who baptized Jesus, and at that event God said "this is my Son whom I love; with him I am well pleased".  Jesus is indicating that he had received his authority both from John (who had received it from God - recall John's birth), and from God.  Jesus goes on to speak with authority in the many situations that follow.
     
  • Starting in Matthew 21:28, Jesus goes on to tell a number of parables about the Kingdom, using them to speak against the chief priests and the Pharisees.  This goes on through Matthew 22:14.
     
  • Starting in Matthew 22:15, the Pharisees and the Herodians team up against Jesus.  These two groups couldn't stand each other.  The Herodians were Jews who had positions of power and favor with Herod (and therefore with Rome); the Pharisees tried their best to obey every possible law in order that God would bring about his Kingdom and throw Rome off their backs.  But these two groups had a common enemy in Jesus, and they tried to trick him with a question about paying taxes to Caesar; surely his answer would have to offend one group or the other.   In typical rabbinic style, Jesus started answer their question with another question.  "Whose image and inscription is on the coin used for paying the taxes"?  They replied that it was Caesar's.  Jews weren't to make images of anything, so Jesus is indicating (1) that coin is not God's, and (2) Caesar is not God.  "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's".  His answer amazed them so much that they left him and went away.
  • But the Sadducees were next, starting in Matthew 22:23 with a question about the resurrection.  They didn't believe in the resurrection, and they suggest a preposterous story that the resurrection couldn't possibly account for.  Jesus answers that the resurrection will be unlike anything they expect, and so their story is moot.  Furthermore, he says that the Scriptures say God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, indicating that the patriarchs are still alive.  This is a new interpretation.  The crowds are astonished, and the Sadducees are silenced.
  • The Pharisees then think it is their turn and they get together and one of them, an expert in the Law, tests Jesus with the question, starting in Matthew 22:34, "What is the greatest commandment?"  He's looking for a fight, but Jesus tells him that the whole Law is important, and all of it hangs on loving God with all your being, and loving your neighbor as yourself.  There's really no argument for this.
Then before they can do anything else, Jesus goes on the offensive and asks them a question about David and the Messiah that they can't answer.  "If David calls him Lord, how can he be his son?"  Matthew 22:46 says that from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.  The inspection process is done!

Jesus' Passover Meal -- The Lord's Supper

Next we look at Jesus' Passover celebration.

Based on an interpretation of the Text and on early church tradition, we're assuming that Passover (on the 14th) took place on Thursday that week and that Jesus celebrated the passover meal in the evening of the 15th (Thursday night to us, the beginning of Friday the 15th and the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Hebrews) and was crucified later that day (Friday the 15th).  This is not an easy thing to understand if you research it.  I'm not sure it's right, but I can't do any better.  There are reasonable sounding arguments for many different explanations of the timing of the week, based on different ways of reading the Text and understanding the traditions and history.  There are many layers and nuances to this that Gentiles and people without an innate understanding of Hebrews history and culture (including me) would not even notice or think about.  So I can't prove that the timing of events actually took place the way I'm describing them here.  And there are things about it that don't seem "right" to me, and I can't find a way to make them all "right".  But we're going with the traditional church calendar timeline for this week, since it comes from the earliest church traditions.  Whether it is exactly right or not probably doesn't matter.  It will be close enough to see the big picture.

Luke 22:1-6 describes Judas becoming Satan's pawn and agreeing to hand Jesus over to the religious leaders.  How would Judas have gotten to this point?  He was probably a Zealot (as was Simon, one of the other disciples).  The Zealots were militantly anti-Roman.  Judas was probably one of them because of his surname, Iscariot.  This is believed to be a form of the title sicarii, meaning "dagger-men", a group of ultra-Zealots who carried a knife with them at all times to be prepared to assassinate traitors and capitulators.  It was known as the "sicarii knife".  Today we would have called him "Judas the dagger-man".  As a Zealot, Judas would have been attracted to Jesus' message at first, but then when the Kingdom didn't seem to be about overthrowing Rome, he would have lost interest.  Judas here may be thinking of revenge against a false Messiah, but more likely he is trying to force Jesus' hand, putting him into a position where he would have to act as Judas thought he should.  The #1 command for all Jews was to "Love the Lord your God ...".  For Zealots, the #2 command was "No idolatry" (which would include paying taxes and tribute to Rome).  Jesus' #2 command was "Love your neighbor as yourself".  As these differences became more and more clear, Judas had to take matters into his own hand.  His intent probably was not for Jesus to be killed (as we see such remorse on his part when it went that way and he couldn't stop it), but just to force Jesus to get started with his military agenda.  At some point, however, he was Satan's pawn, with Satan taking advantage of Judas' inclinations and using that for his own purposes.

When Jesus wants to get ready to celebrate the Passover, he gives some cryptic instructions in Luke 22:7-13. Why would he have done it that way?  It most certainly would be so Judas would not know where Jesus would be celebrating the Passover, so Judas could not do something against Jesus at that time.  Luke 22:14-16 indicates that Jesus was very eager to celebrate this particular Passover with his disciples.  It was going to be his last, and he still had many things to teach them and was running out of time.

Jesus' Passover meal would have been the traditional Jewish Passover Seder.  This is a long drawn-out meal taking 4-5 hours.  All Seders followed the same script.  In fact the word seder means "order".  I want to look at a couple aspects of it.

The meal would not have been at a long table with Jesus in the middle like Michaelangelo has painted it.  It would instead have been at a triclinium, which is a 3-sided table in the shape of a U around an open area, with the 4th side open for serving the meal to all 3 sides from within.   The people did not "sit" at the table, but rather "reclined".  They basically would lay on their left sides, propped up with their left arm, eating with their right, with their heads near the table, and feet away from it.  For purposes of describing it here, let's assume we are observing it in front of the open area, so the table starts on our left and goes back away from us, then goes across the back and toward the right, then on the right side it comes again to the front towards us.  The people on our left would be laying on their left sides facing towards us, while the people on the right would be laying on their left sides facing away from us.  The people at the back would be laying on their left sides, facing to our left.  The second position from the front on the left side would be the position of the host, which would be Jesus.  From the story in John 13:21-26, we can figure out where some of the key people were positioned.  John leans back against Jesus to talk to him, so he has to be on the left side in the very front position, next to Jesus (so while reclining on his left side he could lean back to him); he would be the first person we would see on the left side from our place of observation.  Peter is not near John, and communicates with him by motioning.  Where would Peter have to sit so he could have the best eye-contact with John?  Directly across from him, on the right side at the front.  He would be the first person we would see on the right side from our place of observation, and we would see his back.  (I believe this is a weak argument for where Peter would have been seated, but there is much literature available that puts him in that position).  Judas would have been on the other side of Jesus so Jesus could have given him the bread after dipping it (other Gospels say Judas was the one dipping with Jesus, so he would have been next to him).  Another reason for Judas to be next to Jesus would be for Judas and Jesus to have this exchange privately so none of the other disciples knew what was going on.

The amazing thing about this seating arrangement is the role associated with the places these disciples were reclining in, and what Jesus was communicating with it:

  • John was in the place of the "intimate friend".  He was the disciple Jesus loved.  "John, you're the youngest.  I care for you like a son.  You're going to take care of my mother".
  • Peter was in the servant's place.  "Peter, you're going to be the leader after I'm gone, but you've got to learn how to serve.  Remember the whole foot-washing incident?  You had the role of the servant, but you didn't wash everyone's feet and I had to do it for you".
  • Judas was in the place of the "guest of honor".  "Judas, I love you and will not stop loving you in spite of what you're doing".
Jesus tells them that one of them will betray him.  Matthew 26:21-25 records their responses.  All of the (other) disciples say, "Surely you don't mean me, Lord?", but Judas says, "Surely you don't mean me, rabbi?".  "Lord" means master -- I will obey you.  Rabbi means teacher - I will listen to you.  There's not the same level of commitment to Jesus in their responses.  Jesus answers him, "You have said so".  By Judas' own words he incriminated himself; his words betrayed him.

Then Jesus starts what we call "The Lord's Supper" (Matthew 26:26-30).  We're familiar with the symbolism from a Christian standpoint, but there's more to it when we look at the Passover Seder.
  • Jesus takes a cup  and says it is his blood of the (new) covenant poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
  • After that cup he says he will not drink of the fruit of the vine from then on until he drinks of it new with them in his Father's kingdom.
  • When they sang a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives.
In I Corinthians 11:23-26, Paul describes the Lord's Supper based on what he had received in revelation from Christ.  He says Jesus took the cup after supper.  So here's where we need to dig in deeper.  In the Passover Seder there were 4 cups of wine.  Two were drank before the meal, and 2 after.  The cups had symbolic meaning, and were taken from the Passover and Israel's Exodus from Egypt.  Their meaning comes from Exodus 6:6-7:
  1. The cup of Sanctification comes from the phrase, "I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians".
  2. The cup of Deliverance comes from the phrase, "I will free you from being slaves to them".
  3. The cup of Redemption comes from the phrase, "I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment".
  4. The cup of Restoration comes from the phrase, "I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God".
The cup Jesus offered was after supper, so it was the cup of Redemption.  "This is my blood of the new covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins".  He did not drink the cup of Restoration; he said he would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until he did so in the Kingdom (where everything would be restored).  Why does the Text say they went out after they'd sung a hymn?  Why do we need to know that?  The next-to-last event in the Seder was the singing of Psalms 113-118, so that would have been the hymn they sang.  The last event in the Seder was the drinking of the 4th cup, so the Text is confirming that they did not drink it.

This lesson continues next week.

Handouts

John 1:29
1 Peter 1:18-19
1 Corinthians 5:7

The Spring Jewish Festivals

    Passover
        Exodus 12:1-6
        Aviv or Abib
        Nisan
        pesach
        Exodus 12:21-23

     Feast of Unleavened Bread
        Exodus 12:14-18

     Crossing the Red Sea
        Exodus 5:3
        Numbers 33:1-8
        Genesis 8:4
        Exodus 12:40-41
        Joshua 5:10 - 6:2
        2 Chronicles 29:1-28
        Esther 3:12 and following
        Exodus 19:1-2
        Exodus 19:10-11

    First Fruits
        Leviticus 23:5-8
        Leviticus 23:9-11, 14
        Leviticus 23:15-17, 20-21
        shavuot

Palm Sunday
    Luke 19:28-31
    Zechariah 9:9
    Luke 19:37-40
    Matthew 21:8-9
    hosanna
    Luke 19:41-44
    klaio (Greek)
    dakrou (Hebrew)
    Matthew 23:37
    Matthew 14:12-14
    2 Samuel 5:6-8

Lamb Inspection
    Matthew 21:23-27
    Matthew 21:28 - Matthew 22:14
    Matthew 22:15-22
    Matthew 22:23-34
    Matthew 22:35-40
    Matthew 22:41-46

Jesus’ Passover Meal - The Lord's Supper
    Luke 22:1-6
    Luke 22:7-13
    Luke 22:14-16
    seder
    John 13:21-26
    triclinium
    Matthew 26:21-25
    Matthew 26:26-30
    1 Corinthians 11:23-26
    Exodus 6:6-7

No comments:

Post a Comment