Absalom sounds a bit like Samson doesn't he? The weight of his hair was something like 50
pounds when he cut it, he was the most handsome man in the kingdom, his
appearance so striking that all marveled at him. His reaction to Joab's ignoring his request
to come to him in his closer exile in Geshur was to burn his fields to get his
attention. That sounds a bit like Samson
also doesn't it when he tied torches to the foxes' tails and sent them to the
Philistines to burn their grain in Judges 15.
He wants an audience with his father the king. In his mind he has done nothing wrong because
his half-brother Amnon raped his sister Tamar and therefore he was acting in
the acceptable role as avenger in killing Amnon. The question is, was the murder justified on
these grounds? Was killing Amnon an
overreach on vengeance? Absalom must be
one of the most vain and self-centered men in the Bible.
The commandments Jesus cites in response to the young
ruler's query about what he must do to inherit eternal life don't begin at the
beginning do they? They begin after the
duties we have towards God, to have no other gods before Him, to keep Sabbath
and to make no idols. The man affirms he
has done the things Jesus indicates. Perhaps
he has but perhaps he lacks the fullness of understanding of these things as
well. Jesus says the one thing he lacks is
to sell everything. How is that
"lack"? He esteems what he has
more than he esteems the kingdom of God.
His lack can only be dealt with by truly lacking, lacking the world's
goods. In that lack all will be supplied. You have to be willing to get rid of your
earthly kingdom to receive the heavenly kingdom. Jesus gives his disciples an equally
enigmatic answer to the question who can be saved. With God all things are possible. The only ones who will receive the kingdom
are those who trust in Him alone, His righteousness not your own. We have to lay down any claim to kingdom
apart from the grace and mercy of God in Jesus if we are to share in his
inheritance. The full answer to the
original question, "What must I do to inherit the kingdom of God?" is
the same as any inheritance, the one who possesses the kingdom must die, your
claim to inheritance is always based on your relationship with the one who owns
it.
Why are these Jews who believe zealous for the law? The story of the Transfiguration should have
told them something about the relationship we have with the Law, it is
fulfilled and surpassed in Jesus, no longer our pedagogue as Paul wrote. Why does James not set the record straight
concerning both Paul's teaching to the Gentiles and what the Jerusalem Council
decreed back in Acts 15 several years before?
Why instead have Paul pay the expenses of the men in connection with
their vow? James acknowledges that they
have said to the Gentiles they are not bound by the Law but Paul lives under
the Law according to James. This act
supposedly will appease the Jews because Paul is doing obeisance to the Law
while he is in Jerusalem but it seems out of step with everything else Paul
does and teaches. James' leadership is
questionable here, just as David's was in trusting Absalom. What would Jesus have done?
No comments:
Post a Comment