A Most Wicked Exchange, Luke 22:6-71

It's human to prefer some parts of the scriptures more than others.  Christ's arrest, trial, and execution are the worst, revealing the bottom of the pit of humanity and the "religious" establishment.

Reading this section of Luke 22:63-71, Jesus knows that they are merely going through the motions.  He reveals this when he states, "If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go."  There is no win to be had in the immediate and he knows it.

However, in the discouraging corners of my spirt, I also need to hear the end of his remark as emphatically: "Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God."

And yes, they willfully misunderstand his words--these very words--and use them to condemn him in the immediate, 

Then said they all, "Art thou then the Son of God?" 

And he said unto them, "Ye say that I am."

And they said, "What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth."

Jesus allowed himself to become a soundbite for us in that moment. 

But the immediacy of man's wicked nature and plans does not nullify the overarching, unchangeable goodness of God. 

Amos, Getting my Bearings

Amos the Shepherd

I suppose Amos is much more than a shepherd, not that being a shepherd isn't enough alone. Jack Abeelen translates his name as "burden bearer," more to think about.

Background Context

Amos was a prophet from Judah, called from his rural  hometown of Tekoa to an urban environment in the Northern Kingdom, perhaps Bethel, their capital. Tekoa was about ten miles south of Jerusalem, one of a chain of places that Rehoboam of Judah fortified to mount a defense. 

At one point, Amos says to a king--"I was a shepherd and God called me," which makes him relatable.  Who wouldn't rather be overseeing sheepherders and sycamore figs instead of slogging condemnation at urbanites?  Bring on the sheep and figs.  Truthfully, it reminds me of a visit to my pastor's office one morning--a hundred places both Amos and I would rather be!

 Who was ruling?  Northern King: Jeroboam II   Southern King: Uzziah

E. Hassell Bullock titles his chapter on Amos "Call for Moral Obedience" and asserts that "the moral character of the Hebrew religion was incorporated into the fabric of his prophecies." He cites Amos as the first time since Moses in the Old Testament where the welfare of the nation was directly linked their morality. The book is comprised of a collection of oracles and visions which took place over a number of years.

The setting of the book of Jonah may precede or come after Amos--scholars argue both.  Bullock puts him after Jonah asserting that the affluence of Israel at this time argues for a date later in the reign of Jeroboam II. The affluence of the Northern Kingdom is in full swing. The text mentions that summer and winter homes were destroyed. It also alludes to people indifferently lounging around on couches, which reminds me of Daisy and Jordan when Nick first encounters them on East Egg in Gatsby. It could as easily remind me of the summer homes on Reynolds Mountain above our home.

I found this excellently crafted overview from the Bible Project helpful: 

The Bible Project's fantastic overview of Amos.

Jonah, Parting Thoughts

 It's been a good stay in Jonah, but after three weeks, I'm ready to move along. I finished Jack Abeelen and Alistair Begg's sermons on Jonah, in addition to the Bullock sections. I even re-read my 2014 thoughts on the book, which held up better than I feared. It's both comforting and scary that my realizations then and now have many similarities--comforting to know that I am thinking through things carefully in a way that is "checkable"--scary because I don't remember thinking all those thoughts before.  I guess that's the wear and tear of seven years.

Before I leave Jonah though, I have a cache of unsorted truths worth corralling.

First, I'm thankful for God's great patience and pursuit of man. He makes a way for Adam and Eve, Cain, Noah. We see it with Abraham and Sodom, Jacob at Peniel, with Job, and yes, Jonah and the Ninevites as well. I see it in my life today as well as the lives of others.   Jesus knew the heart of man, yet he wept over Jerusalem. Praise be to God for His care, His long suffering patience and endurance with us.

I'm also thankful that God allows mankind to wrestle with Him. He's not diminished or threatened by earnest, sincere questions, but willing to throw Himself in the ring with man's best attempts to reason.  He is fully wise beyond our understanding, and won't permit us to limit His scope: 

"The actions of God, in judgment and in mercy, are not constrained by our understanding of what’s taking place...."Says one Scottish theologian, “Ultimately divine grace towards sinners cannot be understood. It does not have a reason. It simply reflects the way God is.” -Alistair Begg

All the same, He's also willing to endure Jonah and Job's questions about His nature and intentions. He bothers to listen and answer. God is pleased to be sought after by any and all nations and people groups.

Pivoting To Address Today's Church

In this last sermon of his "Man Overboard" series, Alistair Begg bring the question out to the present, to today's church and our sometimes insular tendencies which are not far from Jonah's nationalistic preferences.  He quotes George Verwer, the head of the missionary organization, Operation Mobilization:

"[First,] we need a greater renewal and reality in the churches. By this I mean Christians moving on from a superficial walk with God to one which accepts the challenges which God is putting before us today. I also mean an honest and open attempt to break down barriers between different visions and different emphases in the church and working for a Holy Spirit marriage of them.

Secondly, it is so important that there should be a “grace awakening”. By this I mean a renewed emphasis on the kind of love which 1 Corinthians speaks about. I believe that unless we have more of that big-heartedness towards one another—individuals and organizations—our grand visions for large numbers of new workers will not become a reality. We need every member of the Body of Christ.

Thirdly, a greater discipline is needed in prayer, in studying the Word of God and in giving. These basic, godly activities cannot be separated from other visions that God has given us.

Finally, we must beware of allowing negative thinking to kill our creativity or vision." 

And Begg's follow up comments: 

"The kind of negative thinking that builds a little shelter and sits in it and says, “Oh, I think I’d be better if I was dead.

And again, we see our faces: attending services, preaching sermons, giving the right clichéd answers, and all a thin veneer for a heart that is increasingly distanced from your heart of compassion, Lord Jesus Christ. Hearts that have failed to look at the lonely people and to say, “Where do they all come from?”[7] Hearts that have grown cold. Minds that have retreated into our theological shibboleths, using our theology as a means of retreat from ever getting our hands dirty, from ever putting ourselves in the place of vulnerability—for asking people to come to us and forgetting that it was Jesus who said, “Come to me,” and he said that we should go to them.

The real question is, How do we, the readers of the book, perceive the grace of God? And does the example of God, in showing his compassion to Nineveh here, establish the pattern for our concern? Or, if you like, taking it forward into the New Testament: Does the example of the concern of God our Savior provide the pattern for our concern? First Timothy chapter 2: “This is good”—verse 3—“and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” 

And, the larger purpose of prophecy in Jonah's time and in our own, is not merely "to predict," just as Christ's miracles were not merely "to heal." God isn't into cheap tricks and much more efficient than this. Healing and prophecy point beyond the healing of today or the punishment of tomorrow; they testify to and reveal His character and action in the universe:

"Prophecy is not merely for the sake of proving God’s omniscience by the verification of predictions of the future, but is mainly designed to vindicate God’s justice and mercy in dealing with the impenitent and penitent respectively" (Rom_11:22). -Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown

In the end, thankfully, the vision of God is also beyond the visible church of today, beyond our petty infighting and turf battles. I'm thankful for this truth as much as the others. Honestly, I see little difference between today's church, Nineveh, and Jonah. We all have blind spots, preconceptions about how God should work, self-serving tendencies, and unaddressed sin. Praise be to God that His mercy endures forever. It's less about Jonah, the sailors, the Ninevites, the Jews...much more about Him.

Jonah, Chapter 4, Jonah's Anger

Jon 4:1  But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry. 

He was very angry; Septuagint, συνεχύθη, "was confounded." -Pulpit Commentary

Why was Jonah so mad as to be confounded?  Was it because Nineveh was their enemy?  This type of nationalism is hard for me to relate to.

The Expositor's Bible explains, 

"In short he could not, either then or now, master his conviction that the heathen should be destroyed. His grief, though foolish, is not selfish. He is angry, not at the baffling of his word, but at God’s forbearance with the foes and tyrants of Israel. Now, as in all else, so in this, Jonah is the type of his people. If we can judge from their literature after the Exile, they were not troubled by the non-fulfillment of prophecy, except as one item of what was the problem of their faith-the continued prosperity of the Gentiles. " -Expositor's Bible

Alistair Begg sees the problems as that of a double standard:

"In Jonah’s case, the root issue is a double standard. He has a standard for himself and the people of God—namely, Israel. And then he has another standard by which the foreigners and the enemies of God’s people are to be judged. It was okay for God to forgive Jonah’s disobedience, but not, in Jonah’s mind, just as right for God to show his mercy to the Ninevites."

Jamieson Fausset Brown's comment is also helpful:

"If Nineveh had been the prominent object with him, he would have rejoiced at the result of his mission. But Israel was the prominent aim of Jonah, as a prophet of the elect people...he was bitterly disappointed, not from pride or mercilessness, but from hopelessness as to anything being possible for the reformation of Israel....But God’s plan was to teach Israel, by the example of Nineveh, how inexcusable is their own impenitence, and how inevitable their ruin if they persevere." 

It's an excellent point--not only does Jonah anticipate Jesus in the belly of the great fish/death followed by rescue and the resurrection, but Jonah's selfishness anticipates the problem of the Jewish response in Christ's day.  They had a certain thought about how things should be, how God should perceive things, and it wasn't big enough.  It was still playing favorites, the Jews, not the Jews and...

"Moreover, if this is a picture of Christ in his death and resurrection, then it’s also, by extension, a picture of his followers. One reason Jonah was such a beloved subject among Christians throughout the Roman Empire during the persecutions is because his story, and its New-Testament fulfillment, reminded them of the ultimate powerlessness of the grave, of the hope they had of rising again on the last day. And it is a picture not only of what will be but also of what has been in baptism: the believer’s dying to sin and being raised to new life in Christ (Romans 6:1–11).  -Victoria Emily Jones

Source: Woodmen Valley Chapel

Jonah, Chapter 3, And He Did It Not

"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." Jonah 3:10  

How can  it be that God would need to "repent of evil"?  It's got to be in the wording, or I run into all kinds of snags regarding the unchangeable nature of God (Westminster Catechism Questions 4) then additional tangles while considering determinism and free will. 

As a counterpoint, Numbers 23:19 floats to mind:

"God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? God a man that he should change his mind?"

Alistair Begg addresses this change briefly in his Jonah series, "Man Overboard,"

"Now, how then are you to understand that? Well, the fact is, loved ones, that there is no ultimate inconsistency between these two modes of expression. Because actually, when God is said to change his mind, it is really an accommodation to us. When God is said to change his mind, matters are being viewed from our human perspective. Because it appears to us that there has been a change in God. But what in fact has actually changed is our human conduct, not God. -Alistair Begg

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown also weigh in on this issue: "What was really a change in them and in God’s corresponding dealings is, in condescension to human conceptions, represented as a change in God (compare Exo_32:14), who, in His essential righteousness and mercy, changeth not (Num_23:19; 1Sa_15:29; Mal_3:6; Jas_1:17)." 

These perspectives help in part. They answer the chronologically troubling aspect of the question.  However, the entire mystery of why God chooses to "relent" at times and other times not, remains a mystery for the end of this age.

Source: Michele Lesley

 David, clearly a darling of God, was repentant, but their child still died as a consequence of his moral failure. Lot was spared on account of Abraham, though he didn't seem to repent at all. 

In this narrative, it's oddly the pagans who quickly grasp the need for repentance while the seasoned Jew with the inside track bucks the plan.

"So the captain came up to him and said, "How can you stay asleep? Get up! Call on your god! Perhaps your god will give a thought to us so that we will not perish." Jonah 1:6

Later the king of Assyria explains his reasoning of repentance, "Who knows, God may turn [in compassion] and relent and withdraw His burning anger (judgment) so that we will not perish." Jonah 3:9

As mechanical and man-centered as these thoughts seem, they do hope in God's mercy. In both instances, unbelieving men are willing to "try" God out.

Alistair Begg reminds us that sometimes God chooses to change his plan but other times not. Nor should man assume that man's repentance will result in a "change" of God's reaction. The pagans got this right too; they allowed it could make a difference, not that it must.

Begg feels our American culture is too presumptuous in this regard:

"There is no definite indication that their turning in repentance will be accompanied by a divine turning. He says, “But you never know, God may actually respond in this way.” It’s a reminder to us of this: that the repentant have no case to argue for acceptance. And the future well-being of the repentant remains solely dependent on the grace of God.

That’s why I get so tired of people in America here—sorry to say, that makes me an alien again—I get so tired of people in America and in Britain trotting out 2 Chronicles 7:14: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and turn from their wicked ways and do this and do this and do this, and then I will hear from heaven and heal their sin and do their land.”[15] And the way that it comes out is this: “If we press Button A, he is duty bound to press Button B.” We have it completely upside down." -"Man Overboard Series," Alistair Begg

God is God, and He is entirely just whatever He chooses to do.  This is why when David and Bathsheba's son dies, David's right response is to go to worship. He accepts God's sovereignty whichever way it falls upon his life:

"And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?  But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." 2 Samuel 12:22-23 

Luke 22:3-4, Difficult Verse of the Day

"Then Satan entered Judas, the one called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve [disciples]. And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him and hand Him over to them." Luke 22:3-4

Even though I am reading short chunks of Luke each day, not even full chapters, I feel like each day brings a new "difficult" verse.  Today's is above.

I feel as if I could gain more understanding of it if it came from Mark--it has that abrupt Mark quality---boom, four words and we are in a different spot.  But it's Luke.  Luke, who takes time to linger, who gives us the fullest account of Christ's birth, who sets forth to create an orderly account, who is a physician by trade.

And Luke, all these things, sets forth this idea that Satan entered Judas.  John mentions this truth too (John 13:2 and 13:27) in the context of the Last Supper:

"It was during supper, when the devil had already put [the thought of] betraying Jesus into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son...." Joh 13:2

So, what to make of a matter of fact statement that Satan can place thoughts in a person's head. What to make of an evil spirit that enters a person? 

I can't blow past such statements with wrestling

A few things occur to me immediately.  One is that Jesus places a high emphasis on thoughts and our thought life. He places thought right up there with action: Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

I think of the man of Gadarenes tormented by evil spirits that Christ sent into the herd of pigs. In the Old Testament, I think of King Saul, also tormented by an evil spirit. Searching further through cross references, Ananias

Luk 13:11  And there was a woman who for eighteen years had had an illness caused by a spirit (demon). She was bent double, and could not straighten up at all. 

What to make of this? How to differentiate between a distorted psychological perception and a spirit that is separate, distinct, that enters a person. It's surely confusing and riddled with potential for over simplification, under simplification, and general abuse.

Seeking greater understanding and perspective, I came across this comment:

“True to its principle of contrast, this book gives Satan a prominent position” (Abbot). See Luk_4:13; Luk_10:18; Luk_22:3, Luk_22:31. See Introduction.  -Vincent's Word Studies

VWS's further commentary on contrasts in Luke was worth digging for:

"Luke's Gospel is the gospel of contrasts. Thus Satan is constantly emphasized over against Jesus, as binding a daughter of Abraham; as cast down from heaven in Jesus' vision; as entering into Judas; as sifting Peter. The evangelist portrays the doubting Zacharias and the trusting Mary; the churlish Simon and the loving sinner; the bustling Martha and the quiet, adoring Mary; the thankful and the thankless lepers; the woes added to the blessings in the Sermon on the Mount; the rich man and Lazarus; the Pharisee and the Publican; the good Samaritan and the priest and Levite; the prodigal and his elder brother; the penitent and impenitent thieves."

This is an interesting angle to think through--I don't believe I've considered contrasts in Luke as a major aspect of his style.  And thinking further--how to interpret "style," how the individual composer expresses his identity, perspective, and uses literary constructs to express inerrant truth?  This is way too much to push up against on a cold and dreary Monday morning.

Even searching for this reference has prompted me to circle back around and try to understand Luke better as an author, a disciple, a doctor, a person.  22 chapters in, and I am just realizing this need? It makes me further question my mind's ability to grasp the forest and the trees together, always losing one for the other.

Key insights from the VWS introduction to Luke also include thoughts that he was Greek, maybe from Antioch, the most skillful of the gospel writers in terms of his precision for language and skills of observation.  He utilized over 700 words not in the other gospels. He saw the world through the lens of a physician, but also had a precision about terminology related to the sea and politics.  We are not certain of when he enters Paul's life, but there is also a strong correlation between Paul's language/thoughts and Luke's--almost like a married couple.  It illustrates the closeness of their walk. 

Not done thinking by any means, but this is where I need to leave the questions and verses for today.

Luke 22:3, More Thoughts--Sin Doesn't Just Happen

I'm still making efforts to process the implications of Luke 22:3 this morning:

"Then Satan entered Judas, the one called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve [disciples]."

 Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown suggest that this entering was part of a progression of sin, that sin is a process:

 Then entered Satan, etc. — but not yet in the full sense. The awful stages of it were these: (1) Covetousness being his master - passion, the Lord let it reveal itself and gather strength by entrusting him with “the bag” (Joh_12:6), as treasurer to Himself and the Twelve. (2) In the discharge of that most sacred trust he became “a thief,” appropriating its contents from time to time to his own use. Satan, seeing this door into his heart standing wide open, determines to enter by it, but cautiously (2Co_2:11); first merely “putting it into his heart to betray Him” (Joh_13:2), suggesting the thought to him that by this means he might enrich himself. (3) This thought was probably converted into a settled purpose by what took place in Simon’s house at Bethany. (See Mat_26:6, and see on Joh_12:4-8.) (4) Starting back, perhaps, or mercifully held back, for some time, the determination to carry it into immediate effect was not consummated till, sitting at the paschal supper, “Satan entered into him” (see on Joh_13:27), and conscience, effectually stifled, only rose again to be his tormentor. What lessons in all this for every one (Eph_4:27; Jas_4:7; 1Pe_5:8, 1Pe_5:9)! -Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown

I find this helpful and remember when I was young, wondering how someone ended up in jail, homeless, or any other sad circumstances.  The thought here is that it didn't just come out of the blue without warning or ability to prepare for it. And maybe that was part of what I was struggling with--the way Luke presents it seems as Judas was a hapless host for evil without explicit culpability. JFB make excellent points in noting that it was a progression.  The verses they reference in the last line further lay forth this spiritual principle: 

"And do not give the devil an opportunity [to lead you into sin by holding a grudge, or nurturing anger, or harboring resentment, or cultivating bitterness]." Ephesians 4:27 

"So submit to [the authority of] God. Resist the devil [stand firm against him] and he will flee from you." James 4:7

"Be sober [well balanced and self-disciplined], be alert and cautious at all times. That enemy of yours, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion [fiercely hungry], seeking someone to devour." 1 Peter 5:8

"But resist him, be firm in your faith [against his attack--rooted, established, immovable], knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being experienced by your brothers and sisters throughout the world. [You do not suffer alone.]" 1 Peter 5:9

They are right on---lots to ponder in these verses. Our involvement in sin is not passive but active, no matter how things go down.  There is a maintenance of our spirits, a right position before God, caution, and alertness to events, keeping short tabs and a clean house spiritually, submission, resistance, firmness of resolve and spirit, self-discipline, consistency, and the help of community---all these are to be considered, factored, part of the spiritual principles that were set in place long ago.