Feb 25, 2016 by Don Casselman
Have you ever had a situation where you were asked a question and could not answer it because any answer you might give would implicate you in saying something you did not really believe? A while a go a friend of mine asked me an easy question that stumped me – I could not answer him. Since that time I have pondered it and am determined to find the answer, since there has to be an answer to every question.
As a born again believer I believe that the Bible has the answer to all of our questions. Yes, I know that is often followed up with the phrase, in all spiritual matters, but I believe the phrase should be, in all matters of life and faith, for the Bible indeed shows us the rules of life that lead to success. Although the laws of Moses did not give eternal life to every one living under them it did give real and measurable advantages to all the people of that nation as a whole, so let us look at their culture, for this background will help us find the answer and better still to answer with a reply as Jesus might have done if the question were posed to Him.
For Jesus was a Jew and He lived in Israel. That was God’s determined choice, that all the world should be blessed through the Redeemer Who is the descendant of Abraham. And to understand His Person and His teachings we need to know how being a Jew in every respect of the law and that culture, right from birth, would predetermine how he would act and speak. Although He was the Creator He allowed society, Jewish society, to preset many assumptions in His life. Not all, but many and perhaps most situations and encounters.
Jesus was a Jew
To illustrate with only one cultural delimiter which even today makes that race stand out from the crowd, let us look at the art of debate. When we observe how earnestly and energetically they involve themselves in this we wonder how soon they will come to blows or something worse, but no, God put it into the minds of their leaders long ago to encourage this exercise. In fact it has been presented as a sort of game which all should be good at and the rules are quite simple and purposeful.
The first thing to do is to choose your side in the debate and then to present the most compelling argument as to why that is the right or best resolution to the problem. Get involved completely. Then the next absolute is to argue the advantage of your side and the disadvantages of the other side without calling your opponent’s character into question. He is not the problem, he is a relative or friend and at the end of the day must still be a valued friend. The rabbis even went so far as to propose a very inconsequential subject to practice on for a start, and we have misunderstood the purpose of it so badly as to make fun of their question about how many angels can dance on the point of a pin. That is almost the limit of inconsequential or what-does-it-matter, but being that it should help us to keep from running down our opponent for we all know that neither one of us have seen angels dancing on the point of a pin.
We laugh at it, but it became part of their culture to be logical, respectful and not easily offended. So when the experts in law and logic came to Jesus with a question you can be sure that it was as carefully crafted a resolution as possible to make sure that their side would win and Jesus could not win. The cultural assumptions were so well known to both sides, to Jesus and to them, that they could be gratuitously assumed, and Jesus acknowledged this. He was aware of their ploy and they knew that He, a fellow synagogue taught Jew, would know he was trapped. Was it lawful to give tribute to Caesar? If He said ”No” they had Him as an enemy of Rome, and if He agreed to voluntarily pay He was also wrong.
We know that Jesus did not answer the leading question, but required them to declare their logic in making it so ambiguous. It is highly unlikely that He could have done this in a different culture than the one they were living in. What different assumptions there would have been if He were asked that question by a group of today’s Hollywood crowd or ISIS terrorists. But He was on common ground with the Jewish lawyers and did not need to engage His Godly privilege of knowing everything. His cultural upbringing was sufficient to prepare Him for the proper response.
What is the reference?
Now back to the original question. It was, “Show me a place in the Bible where Jesus said He was coming back to earth to be the King of Israel.” And before you declare that everybody should know that the answer is such and such, or be tempted to bristle at the imputed unbelief, do some thinking. Maybe remember the old button we used to wear on our sweaters, WWJD, “what would Jesus do?” And what would He do, for if He made an answer of any kind, as far as I know, He would have to then hang His head and admit defeat, for the question is asked knowing full well that we cannot point to a chapter and verse that says exactly that. What to do, for remember, this is our friend who has asked the question, and we want to keep him as a friend as well as to assume that he is honorable in asking the question. Anything less puts his character in question, and we are not his judge.
When Jesus was asked another question by these brilliant educated lawyers about the woman who had seven brothers as husband He was, so they thought, caught in an escape proof trap. And He would have been if He did not ask them another question to ponder first. As we read the story we see how evidently wrong they were to not know what they were talking about, and Jesus did say this to them. With the common cultural background common among all Jews. He could do this and they would know that He was only judging the facts without judging them as persons. Of course their consciences and memories would judge them, but it was not Jesus intention to judge, He wanted them to explore their logic according to their own culture and there was nothing “merely spiritual” about that.
As we continue to read on in the Gospel of John, the assumed meaning of knowing both the Writings and the power of God, which are not explained in the passage, convince us that the contrivers have overdone themselves and lost. But if we do not know the assumed cultural and educational background for the situation we cannot make sense of the encounter unless we “spiritualize” it all and pass it all off as though it was only a made up frinstance instead of a real historical event.
Most of us believers do not have this Jewish cultural background, so we do not naturally know how it worked without a lot of study and reading. Neither do we as urbanites know or understand the assumptions of an agricultural or pastoral lifestyle. Therefore when we are questioned by someone who has different background assumptions from us we are hooked if we do not reply with a question. Again we emphasize not questioning the person’s character but asking the necessary whys. But there are no air-tight cultural assumptions that can be taken for granted in today’s multicultural society.
And so in reply to the pertinent question of where is the reference, we must ask “Why would such a thing need to be said in the text when everyone there knew what He meant? Everybody in His audience would have assumed that all He said and did was from and for His Jewishness. He lived as a Jew, taught as a Jew, and died as an Israelite, so the people could not have mistaken the fact that He came for them, lived by their laws, in their land, interpreted Moses as they did, and would be their Redeemer, their Messiah, their King and everything else that the prophets claimed He would be.
What is the logic of the question?
Our answer then, after asking our questioner to take into account all the cultural background and setting of the life of Jesus, is simple, “if there were such a direct statement in the text it would quickly be accused of being spurious, added later and not reliable, for the background assumptions make it absolutely unnecessary to mention in order to uphold His clear teaching that He is the King of Israel and will eventually sit on the throne of David in the real-world city of Jerusalem.” That is what the first readers understood and what it means today.
To further emphasize the importance of background let us go to the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. As we read the details we clearly see that it occurs in a different cultural back ground from Jerusalem or Galilee. Samaria was so different in His time that travelers normally avoided it by taking the longer road on the other side of the Jordan River. The Samaritans thought of themselves as being part Jewish in that they had inherited some of the reprobate priests and practices of the corrupt Northern Kingdom that they replaced, but to the real Jews they were complete outsiders with no claim to any of God's promises to Israel.
So when this Samaritan woman brought up the promise of the Messiah who would rule, Jesus ignored that aspect of the promise because it had nothing to do with outsiders, but He did speak to her about the Redeemer Messiah. As to the promise of Messiah as the King who would set all things right nationally she was an outsider. But when Jesus spoke to her as a person for whom Messiah was right there in front of her she came to realize that even as an outsider or half outsider she could claim Messiah the Redeemer, and this revelation quickly sent her around the town telling everybody that she had found Him.
Inside the Jewish culture and the tradition of the Messiah of God coming to rule and reign as King on the throne of David we read the story of the triumphant entrance into the city with people shouting, “Thy King cometh. . .” and Jesus encouraging them. And again on the temple mount when He is asked about restoring the kingdom He did not speak of the event as being in question, only the timing. It should be evident that although there is no explicit statement from Jesus about Him coming again to sit on the throne of David that the cultural background requires us to take that as a valid and trustworthy implied assumption.
Surely the text of accusation that Pilate affixed to Jesus’ cross would have been that Jesus was merely a Jewish King instead of being the (definite article) King of the Jews if we were expected to understand it only in relation to the Church. Of course He is the King of His Church, but also the King of Israel Who will reign in Jerusalem. He is King.
Ps 45:2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.
Ps 45:3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. Ps 45:4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.
Ps 45:5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.
Ps 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Ps 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Ps 45:8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.The Emmaus incident gives us another glimpse into the Jewish mindset of that day for it was evidently a long-time disciple who said, that they all thought that Jesus would live to restore the Kingdom of national Israel by ruling at that time. They fully expected a real historical fulfilment of the prophesies before Jesus died. On the Mount of Olives after His ascension the angel used some very definite words to confirm that those very promises would be personally fulfilled by the very same Jesus in real time and not just in a spiritual sense. Of course Jesus has a spiritual kingdom, but that in no way eliminates or replaces His plan to rule and reign in Jerusalem as the King of the Jews. He will yet come back to earth in H is human form and will rule the nations and His people Israel in a different event from His coming for His Bride, the Church.
The figures of Bridegroom and Bride and wedding and wedding supper are New Testament ideas, hinted at by Jesus in His parables but expanded on by John and Paul in later years. In the Old Testament times Israel was referred to as the wife of Jehovah, not as His bride, In contrast to national Israel where there were believing and unbelieving Israelites, there are no unbelieving members of the Body of Christ which is what the Church is, so the apostle's reference to Christian believers being like spiritual Israelites in no way means that we are now the spiritualized national Israel or that we are a nationalistic fulfilment of that prophesy. The Church is not Israel.
There are prophecies yet to be fulfilled in National Israel Since the two, Israel and the Church are not to be confused we should have no problem with the promise of Jesus to come again specifically for His Church, His Bride, and also to come again specifically to rule over Israel. Two separate events that will come to pass in God the Father's time frame. Both events will openly display His glory.
How good is our God. Praise to His glory, amen.