Last evening we looked at 1) the betrayal of our Lord (vv. 21-23), and 2) the concept of greatness (vv. 24-27), and 3) the concept of kingdom-judgment (vv. 28-30). Below we will focus only on our Lord's betrayal, for it is all we have space and time for.
A Christological insight
Christology is simply the study of ‘the person of Jesus’. How are we to understand his humanity, his divinity? With brief summary, the Councils of Nicea, in 325 A.D. and Constantinople, 381 A.D. gave us summaries of Christ’s divinity, e.g., his pre-existence, while the Councils of Ephesus, 431 A.D. and Chalcedon, 451 A.D. gave us summaries of his humanity; in particular, how the human nature was related to his divine nature. Councils are often a response to error. The Council of Ephesus responded to the view of those (Nestorian) who held that there were two persons within Christ, one divine and the other human. While the Council of Chalcedon responded to the view (Eutychian) that held that Christ only had one nature, a kind of merging of the two into one. The end result was the famous confession – filled with tension – of the two natures. It states that the two natures (human and divine) exist in Christ, “…without confusion, without change, without division and without separation.”
HOLDING ONTO THE TENSION OF HIS HUMANITY AND DIVINITY
If we don’t affirm two natures within Christ, then we are pressed to understand how he can be “fully human” or “fully divine,” both of which are extremely important. I mention this because our text makes subtle use of this tension. Jesus opens with the phrase (v. 21):
“But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.”
We can easily gloss over this too quickly and conclude this is a figure of speech that merely affirms his divinity, i.e., Jesus knew he was going to be betrayed before it happened. A metonymy is definitely present, i.e., something is presented which represents something or someone (the hand), without explicitly identifying something or someone (Judas). So Jesus’ future knowledge of Judas’s betrayal, i.e., his divine omniscience, is certainly in view. Judas’s betrayal was traitorous, and therefore was an act of treason; he betrayed the divine Christ and his kingly reign. But I believe there is something more; something humanly beautiful yet tragic.
While the “hand of him” represents something tragically schemed against our Lord, such tragedy cannot be fully appreciated without grasping the beautiful connotations embedded in “the hand” phraseology elsewhere in Scripture. In Genesis 21:18 the Angel of the Lord says to Hagar, regarding her son, Ishmael, “Lift the boy up and take him ‘by the hand’ for I will make him into a great nation.” Now obviously, this is a figure of speech, an idiom, which means - come alongside him - journey with him - help him – befriend him – nurture him, and we could go on. Making Ishmael a nation was not to happen that day, but rather, “taking him by the hand” meant that she was to be in relationship with him. This is the 'positive' dimension of 'hand'. We find this dimension fleshed out in Psalm 41:9 where we see the betrayal predicted long before Christ's birth:
“Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.”
Here we see a glimpse of the pain involved. Betrayal involves ‘trust’ and ‘friendship’, and such experiences bespeak ‘transparency’ and ‘vulnerability’ between two people. This verse points backward to Ge 3:15 where the serpent was prophesied to ‘strike the heel’ of the woman’s offspring, i.e., Christ, and also points forward to our text, where its fulfillment commences with Judas’s betrayal and climaxes in his Jesus’ crucifixion. The heel of the woman is struck implying a kind of defeat, i.e., Jesus is crucified; whereas the serpent’s head is struck, implying ultimate defeat, i.e., Jesus is raised to life. But we need to hold ‘the tension’ and see both the divine & human dimension. To be sure, here is glorious theology saturated with redemption, but this redemption comes at a heavy ‘human’ price - that of deep betrayal of a trusted friend. Lifting up the heel implies an attack of great deception, an ambush (Josh 8:13), a ploy, and a trap (Job 18:9), and Jesus felt all the emotions and consternation that accompanies such an act (DOTE, vol 3, p. 504). In other words, depth of wound directly parallels depth of relationship, and our Lord’s devotion to his disciples was second-to-none; he was, is, and will ever remain, our truest friend; and therefore his wounds went deep.
In summary, we as image-bearers of the divine, have significance. No one can take it away, and it doesn’t fluctuate; it’s a constant. We also, however, have a desire for our significance to be affirmed, by which its objective reality is experienced as something beautiful. Yes, this can be twisted and categorized as sinful, but it need not be, and here it is not. The desire for the affirmation of our significance is quite natural, normal and healthy. Having a friend is a rich experience of our significance. He or she affirms our personhood as a unique individual; that’s what having and being a friend partly means. When Jesus says “the hand of him,” I believe we are witnessing the human grief of betrayal and all the deep hurt this entails, but such hurt necessarily rides the coattails of human intimacy within the context of human friendship. It pained Jesus to undergo this friend’s betrayal; it hurt, just as it hurts us when someone close betrays our confidence; we are inwardly violated and wounded. We know our Lord’s response however – he gives himself for the good of his enemies – he bears their sins and defeats our great enemy – death itself, and he now calls us to behave in the same manner (Luke 6). (I am elaborating on the insight obtained from Marshall 1978, p. 808, mentioned by Bock 1996, p. 1733)
HOLDING ONTO THE TENSION OF DIVINE CAUSATION
We not only see tension within our Lord’s humanity and divinity in his friendship with Judas, but we also see tension as to the event in terms of causation. Jesus says:
“For the Son of a Man goes as it has been determined…” (v. 22a, ESV).
Luke is fond of this divine causation (Ac 2:23; 10:42; 17:26, 31). This is nothing other than God’s will set in motion, being determined by his good pleasure (Ep 1:11c). But back to back with what some describe overall as God’s sovereignty, we have human responsibility:
“…but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” (v. 22b, ESV)
This is not the setting to delve into various theological/philosophical diatribes, e.g., divine middle knowledge, congruism, or the mystery of secondary causes, et al. (a profitable journey in themselves), but we must receive the tension which rides the surface; it’s what Luke wants us to receive. Humans act and are accountable, not in lieu of, but in light of, God’s all-controlling providence. They are both sandwiched together, and I believe for the purpose of creating an awe-inspired fearful reverence for God. He exists in a category all to himself; no one is like him. He is to be feared and worshipped. We cry out, “How can this be!?” As creature we are simply caught in the mystery of it all and can only cry out, with Paul, in doxological praise:
“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment