|
Bible Ponderings by Andrew Hamm
|
|
I'm no "expert". So, please email me with your thoughts. I'll publish them on this web page. See Colossians 1v19 and 2v9. What do you have to say about this marvelous subject? The online bible shows more refs: The fullness of God, Eph. 3v19, The fullness of Chris, Eph. 4v13, The fullness of the Godhead, Eph. 3v19. I rather like the definition of it: AV-fulness 13, full 1,
fulfilling 1, which is put in to fill up 1, pierce that
filled up 1; 17 I also thought of the word Glory. How do these two words, fulness and glory relate? Well, difference that becomes aparrent it that fulness relates to that which is put into something or someone, whereas glory relates to that which comes out of something or someone. We know that when Jesus performed His first miracle, we read in John ch2v11: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory". You see, that which was in our Lord Jesus was shown forth, or manifested.
When we think of the sufferings of our Lord, we tend to think of His sufferings after His arrest, and on the cross. While these were His greatest sufferings, I am also concerned to learn more of His sufferings throughout His life. From my limited knowledge of scripture, it would appear to me that Jesus' sufferings are far more than merely physical. I would think that His rejection by His own people, the Jews, must have been at least as bad for Him as any physical rejection. What made me first think about the Lord's sufferings was 2 Corinthians ch.1 vs 16 to 33. Paul here makes a clear statement about his physical, abusive sufferings. They occurred during his life. In contrast, the physical, abusive sufferings of our Saviour occurred only at the end of His life. Now, before anyone gets me wrong, let me assure you that I am not in any way making light of Jesus' sufferings. We cannot but acknowledge that He did suffer. I suppose that one of the clearest statements of the Lord's sufferings is in the that written by the prophet Isaiah. In his book, chapter 53 and verse3, the prophet writes of Jesus' being "rejected" of men. Other, equally good words can be used here: "left alone" and "held aloof". Now, even ungodly people will tell you that being "held aloof", "left alone" and "rejected" by everyone is a terrible thing to have to endure. I am sure that many suicides are a result of being so treated. I have heard that such rejection is harder to bear that physical pain. Yes, it is painful to be rejected by people. That's why one of the most natural desires, really a desire of the flesh, is to be accepted by everyone. I speak for myself: I know how much I am held back from witnessing to others because I fear being rejected by them. If it were not bad enough to be rejected, in verse 3 we also read of His being despised. Again, my mind quickly jumps to what I've heard about people suffering through being hated, particularly by those who should love them. Such events of young folk running away from home, because they feel so hated by their parents. Stooping to the lowest depths of drugs and prostitution. Becoming murdering gang members just to get acceptance, and that only superficial, insincere acceptance from their gang members. But I am straying from the subject I claim to be considering if I dwell only on the sufferings of people in our present day. However, I hope it serves to give you a feel of the sufferings our Lord went through. So, let's look at the sufferings of Jesus so far dealt with. Despised So, let's see if we can identify, from the gospels, the first evidence that Jesus was despised. Now, It may help to look at the dictionary definition of the word. The Collins dictionary defines "rejected" as being of 15th century origin; from the Latin reicere to throw back, and RE and jacere to hurl. So, the force of this conveys to me "to throw back with force". Well, it is simply a matter of reading through the gospels and highlighting where we see such rejection occurring. The first time I observe the rejection of our Lord after His birth is in Matthew chapter 2, when Herod seeks to kill Him. Now, to compare this with the most common form of rejection today, in this country (UK), brings up an interesting observation. After birth, most youngsters who are rejected do not suffer a murder attempt on their lives. Neither do older folks who may be rejected and ignored by their families. So, on the whole, there is not the level of fanatical rejection our Lord suffered. It is, of course, different in other countries, particularly where severe persecution exists. I cannot leave this topic of rejection, to the point of murder, without mentioning how many young children are murdered, in this country, daily. You've probably tumbled what I'm talking about: yes, abortion. Even before the child has a chance to defend himself, often his mother has decided, often by pressure from others, to have the infant aborted. Many mothers use this form of murder without realising it, when they use abortifacient (abortion inducing) contraceptives (ref.1). I may be dreaming a bit here, but could it be that Satan tried to fatigue Mary into having a miscarriage by making it law she needed to go on a long journey, whilst carrying our Lord? So we see the result of Herod's enraged despotic decree: many young children murdered. It is obvious that he despised and rejected the King of the Jews. For more details of Jesus' youth, we need to go to the gospel of Luke. There, we don't read of a specific rejection of Him. However, would I be going too far off the point if I made this observation: in Luke 2 verses 41 to 52, we read of Jesus being misunderstood. Now, while this may not be so bad as being rejected, it is still a hard thing to bear. How did His parents misunderstand Him? Well, verse 49 tells us: they didn't realise "He had to be about His Father's business", literally "to be in the things of His Father". What is also amazing, is how Jesus was also subject to them. What a great demonstration of God's grace, through God in flesh! And, if I may say so reverently, God in the flesh of youth! No sign of rebellion here! The next we read about Jesus, He is a fully grown man aged about 30 years. It is rejection by men we are looking for here, so I don't feel the temptation in the wilderness falls into this category, marvellous though it is, as we see our Lord's response. It is interesting to see that one of the first "rejections" Jesus speaks about is that of His words. In Matthew chapter 7 verse 26, He speaks of "everyone who hears my words and does not do them". I think we can include rejection of His words here. Would this not include rejection of Himself to some extent? But I digress, really: there are many such non-physical abuses of our Lord we could consider. The next physical one mentioned is in Luke chapter 4. There, the rage of those in the synagogue is against Him. They "rise up", and "cast him forth out of the city". Well, in doing this, they must have laid hold on Him physically. I do not believe that Jesus would have fought back, being meek. But it would have been physical suffering, being handled and led by them up the hill. What is amazing is the way in which He "passed through the midst of them", without any fight. This was surely His omnipotence being put into practice. It reminds me of the effect of His words "I AM" in the garden, when they came to arrest Him: "They fell backwards on the ground". What also is interesting is how He permitted their leading of Him up the hill. Why did He allow them to lead Him at all? Why did He choose the time when at the top of the hill to render them powerless? It is as I write this, that I wonder if they really pushed Him in any forceful way. Could it not be that, when they rose up in anger in the synagogue, He chose to walk away from them? That would mean that they followed around Him rather than lead Him. But that doesn't sound like the words "they cast Him forth out of the city"! No: I've got to admit it: Jesus allowed Himself to be physically moved to the top of the hill. I encourage the reader to further consider this very significant event. It is the only other time, other than at His arrest in the garden, that He allowed Himself to be moved around by men. (Could it possibly be that He wanted to go to the top of the hill?) What we see in
Luke 4 is evidence of Jesus' being in complete control
of all situations, so that His life, in all it's
details, was performed exactly as it had to
be. The next physical abuse of Jesus: His arrest. This is surely the main abuse of Jesus. We saw that He was taken hold of by the angry Jews in the synagogue, but they had only that power over Him that He permitted. Now, because we have the scriptures, we know that He permitted all the events, right up to His burial. He was certainly "led like a lamb to the slaughter", as Isaiah wrote. Jesus Himself makes the clear statement at the beginning of His arrest: "This is your hour, and the power of darkness". He was putting Himself, from that time, into the hands of darkness: I suggest Satan himself. He also says "I was with you daily in the temple, and you did not stretch out your hands against me", thus showing that not only did He have such control that He could walk through the middle of them if He wished, but that their actions were also under His control.
Jesus' further abuse It is interesting to compare the 4 gospel accounts of what happened between His arrest and the first time He is physically abused. I reprint them together: By comparing the 4 gospel renderings, it can be seen that they laid hold of Jesus, probably firmly and maybe with some element of violence. He was then bound. Something that I notice here is how, for the first time ever, He was bound physically. I find it gives me a graphic picture of what he was allowing. He allowed Himself to be resricted of physical defence. Restriced of even any further kind acts: we see that a few moments earlier, those kind hands had not held back from healing the servant of the high priest. Jesus is taken to the high priest's house. In there, we are told "with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes", Mark 14 v 53. So, a full council is assembled. Now, I wonder if this hadn't happened before: in John 7v32, we read: "the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him". Then, after probably at least one day, "Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees: and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?" I assume a full council was assembled, as in Mark 14 v 53, if not they were ready to assemble if the officers had brought Jesus back to them. It appears that Jesus was taken first Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas the high priest, John 18 v 13. Whether Annas had the council with him, I'm not sure. But we know, from John 18 v 24, that Annas sent Jesus to Caiaphas. There is evidence that Jesus was in the presence of the officers, Caiphas, the elders and the scribes. It was while there, that He was first abused: He was struck by one of the officers. This was after Jesus had been asked about His disciples and his doctrine, see John 18 v 19 - 22. It was probably a blow that could have knocked a man off his feet, although we are not told Jesus was. Here we see the meekness of Jesus. He does not retalliate. Yet He makes the only response to their abuse: He challenges them to say what He has said that was evil, John 18 v 23. Failing this, His question is: "why do you hit me?" So, Jesus is still in the high priest's house. Whether before or afterwards we can't be sure, but, in addition to His being slapped by the officer, we read of further abuse from "the men that held Jesus", Luke 22 v 63 - 65. This is complete mockery. We learn, from
Matthew 26 v 67 and 68, that, after Jesus had answered
the high priest's command to "tell us if thou art
the Christ, the son of God", they abused Him then..
It is detailed also in Mark 14 v 65. The morning Now we are told, in Matthew 27 v 2, the chief priests and the elders of the peole "took council against (or concerning) Jesus, so that they might put Him to death". Mark 15 v 1 says they "held a consultation". Neither Luke nor John record this; they continue instead with Jesus being led to Pilate. The next physical abuse of our Lord appears to be detailed only in Luke 23. He is questioned by Pilate. When he learns that Jesus is a Galilaean, he sends Him to Herod, v 7. It is when Herod had tried to get some response from Jesus, and failed, that he and his "his men of war" abuse Jesus. We read they "set Him at naught, and mocked him". Now, we don't read of any physical abuse like hitting. Well, at least it was extreem mockery. Having been sent
back to Plate, Jesus is then questioned again by Pilate.
He makes attempts at releasing Him, but fails. The scourging. This is recorded in Matthew, Mark and John. It appears to be what was done when someone had been condemned to crucifiction. Scourging is one of those expressions that take only a word or two to define it, but would take many words to fully describe it. It is said to involve being flogged with a whip. This whip would have apparently been a rod or handle, with several strips of leather attatched. These leather strips would have had sharp pieces of bone or something else in them. The effect of scourging would therefore been to have torn the flesh of the one being scourged. This, I would feel, would have been the most severe physical abuse of our Lord thus far. It is interesting that John records that Pilate brought Him out to the Jews after this, possibly for two reasons: 1) to show that Jesus had confessed to nothing even as a result of the scourging. 2) To try to draw the Jew's symphathy, hence hopefully get them to take Him back. Notice that Jesus was wearing the crown of thorns now. Pilate also pleads Jesus' innocence. He also takes Him to the judgement hall, and asks Him further questions. It is amazing how Jesus is able to answer him, after His sufferings so far. He even states, just as clearly and accurately as ever, how Pilate "couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above". It is when
Pilate's attempt to get them to release Jesus fails, that
He is then delivered to the soldiers. At this time, their
abuse begings. Matthew, Mark and John record the
change of garment and crown of thorns. Only John records
that Pilate attempted to hand Jesus back to the Jews after
these things. The crown of thorns brought forth more
blood. (So, it may be, did the hitting and buffeting that
went on during the night). He was now also hit with the
soldiers' hands. This may have involved a metal glove.
The scarlet cloak is put on Jesus while He is mocked.
Someone has said that that in itself would have
been torture: placed upon His torn flesh, His blood would
have started to congeal. Further agony would have
occurred when it was taken off. His crucifiction Like scourging, a singel word or two does not describe to us what was involved. The people of that day, being used to seeing these things take place, would have known only too well what was involved. Jesus was not directly
led away and crucified. In Mark 15, we read, v 15:
"when he [Pilate] had scourged Him, he delivered
Jesus to be crucified" (my order of words reversal).
Then, in v 20, we read: "they [the soldiers] led Him
out to crucify Him". Between these two mentions of crucifying,
there is the mocking of Him by the soldiers, and the
crown of thorns. So, we see that crucifiction involved,
first of all, extreme physical abuse. Burden shared All except John
record Simon being compelled to bear Jesus' cross. It is
interesting to notice, in Mark 15, that Simon's details
are noted, verse 21. The writer Mark therefore
already knew or found out who Simon was. He was
"compelled to go with them". I wonder if he
knew who it was he was bearing the cross for. Vinegar and gall It is said that
this drink offered was for pain relief. Why did
Jesus refuse it? My thought is that He wanted His faculties
fully available, which otherwise may have been dulled
by the drink. The crucifiction As mentioned
earlier, unless one knows what the details of
crucifiction are, then it may conjour up such pictures as
someone on an ornate cross, looking fairly comfortable.
This picture is understandable, because we are often met
with it outside churches, on necklaces, etc. However, the
cross, so I have been told, is anything but ornate!
It was made from rough timber. I think it would have been
a stout branch or thin tree trunk, having had minimal
preparation. Only the minor branches would have been
chopped off. I doubt if even the bark was removed.
This was the cross-piece, which Simon bore for Jesus. Did
Simon ever enter into the blessed priviledge he
had of sharing our Lord's burden? Coming to the place "And having come to the place": this is how Matthew says it (Darby's translation). "And they bring Him to the place", Mark. "And when they were come to the place", Luke. "He..went forth into a place", John. It has the sound of finality. There is no turning back now. It must have been, indeed still must be, the same for anyone else so executed. It must have been the same for anyone in the USA, when they finally were taken into the room containing the electric chair, or now, when they are taken into the room where they will receive their lethal injection. There all the apparatus of execution are. They see it all. It is final. There will be no turning back. No reprieve. Crucifiction differed very much in one aspect: it was not intended to be a quick death, but a slow one. An agonising one. So, what
happened when Jesus reached this point? The place What happened at he place The name of the
place: Golgotha, a hebrew word, says John (ch.19 v 17). A
Skull (Calvary). As mentioned before, we're told just
three simple words (in English): "they crucified
Him". (It's only two in Greek:
"they_crucified him"). But, oh, the detail in
those two words! We are not told any of the detail
in the four gospels. But we can read about it in
Psalm 22. The details of crucificion Psalm 22 starts with the cry (shout, scream) of Jesus when He was forsaken. I have heard it said, and I believe it, that His desertion by God was far worse than all of the physical agony He endured while crucified. Never do we read of His shouting anything about His physical sufferings to the people standing by. We do read of His saying "I thirst" to them, but that was, as John says, "that the scripture might be fulfilled", ch. 19 v 28. It is during His crying to His God, that we read His description of His physcical sufferings. Would it be right to say that he was complaining to His God? I'm not sure that feels right. Please let me know your thoughts! "They look and stare upon me": Since writing the above paragraph, I mentioned my concern that it may not be quite right to say our Lord complained to God. But his reply was that we read of occasions when complaints were made to God. I found more than one reference, using the online bible. For instance, Psalm 102 introduction says it is "a prayer of the afflicted, when he is overwhelmed, and poureth out his complaint before the LORD". So, it would seem right to complain to God, but I suppose what I'm thinking of is it would be wrong to blame God. Psalm 22 The first cry of Jesus in this psalm is His question "why? Why have you forsaken me?" Could it be this proves it was the worst of His sufferings, worse than His physical sufferings? It is interesting how Jesus' question is "why have you forsaken me?" We have already thought of His sufferings as detailed by Isaiah. Well, the prophet tells us "he was despised and rejected of men". Well, this could be the same, but here, on the cross, it relates to His being rejected by God. Verse 1 also says, "why art thou so far from helping me?" Well, the interlinear suggests that the more literal translation is: "why are you so far from my salvation?" In other words, Jesus knew there was no hope of His being saved. I take it that applied because He was willing to do the Father's will. I believe that Jesus did have full control of the situation. At any time, I believe He could have come down from the cross, and saved Himself, as the Jews taunted Him to. But I also know that that was impossible, because He also said, "I do always those things that please [the Father]", John 8 v 29, (emphasis mine). And He had already prayed "Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt". Jesus' physical sufferings are graphically portrayed here, in Psalm 22. The first one I notice is in verse 2, "in the night season, and am not silent", or rather "in the night season, and there is no repose to me". This would highlight to me that it was not possible to sleep while crucified. I have heard it said that it was possible to hang alive on a cross for 3 days. As when He was on trial, Jesus here had to still suffer verbal mockery. The interlinear rendering of verse 7 is: "all seeing will mock at me; they will open with the lip; they will wag the head". Also, verse 17 tells us "I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me". I have heard others say that when you were crucified, you were crucified naked. So, the people were staring at our Lord hanging there naked. Certainly, He was suffering shame. Psalm 22 describes the physical sufferings of crucifixion Verses 14 to 18 appear to contain definite details of Jesus' physical sufferings. "Poured out like water", verse 14. What does this mean? It reminds me of the drink offering. Also, when David poured out the water that his valiant men obtained for him. But I can't help feeling it involves something more physical. Perhaps it points to dehydration, although that is indicated more specifically in verse 15. "All my bones are out of joint" ,v14. This seems to most certainly refer to the dislocation of bones, particularly the shoulder joints, and doubtless other bones as well. If you take a piece of string, and stretch it tight between two points, then press on it with your finger in the center, then the tension in the string is far greater than the pressure you apply. Similarly, the pull on Jesus' arms must have been greater than His body weight. Hence His dislocations, and why He said "All my bones are out of joint". Why did Jesus say "all my bones"? Well, maybe other bones suffered extreme force, like His leg bones, because of the position of His nailed feet. "My heart is like wax, it is melted in the midst of my bowels", v14. I have heard someone peak about this. I'm not too sure of what they said. I think they said that this speaks of the effect of the shock to to the body, causing body fluids to collect, maybe around the heart. Or maybe I heard it said that the heart would be weakened by exhaustion. "My strength is dried up like a potsherd", v 15. Self-explanatory. A brocken, dry piece of pottery. (A complete pot may have been moist if it contained liquid). "My tongue cleaves to my jaws". I think have heard it said that the effect of dehydration is to make the tongue swell. Anyway, just by moving my own tongue around my teeth makes me feel how it would stick to my teeth if it were dry. Several hours in the hottest sun of the day, plus the perspiration due to His agony would have certainly led to this. "Thou has brought me into the dust of death". The interlinear puts it: "to the dust of death thou wilt set me". This shows how Jesus knew what the outcome would be. I presume He knew He would die that day. We know He told the repentant thief that. One important scripture that must be considered in additin to Psalm 22 v 15, is Psalm 16 v 10: "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption". This shows that, although Jesus knew He was going to die, and His body to lay "in the dust of death", His body would not in any way undergo decay, as did any other dead body. The nailing to the cross, v16. Yes, Psalm 22 tells us this detail. Verse 16 tells us "For dogs have compassed me, the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me". I feel that would be the soliders, when they held Him (not that He would have needed it: He was submissive to their actions, as "a lamb to the slaughter"). The agony of how you are hung, when crucified: "they pierced my hands and my feet". It does not take much for any of us to picture the agony of this. Your whole body weight taken by nails through your hands and feet. "I may tell (count) all my bones", v17. During the hours that you hang there, you would be able to see your bones beneath your skin stretched-out over them (remember your shoulders were out of jount: so that would have pulled your skin even tighter). "They look and stare upon me": See earlier. What scripture says: At this point, I feel led to reflect on the fact that scripture, although it details the sufferings Jesus endured in His body, never itself dwells on them afterward. It does mention our sin and how He bore it in His body: 1 Peter 2:24 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." Other observations Scripture also mentions what was achieved in His body, through death: 21
"And you, that were sometime alienated and
enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he
reconciled In Acts ch. 19, we read of the "Vagabond Jews" or "Jewish Exorcist". It would appear that they were in the practice of performing exorcisms often , because verse 13 says "they went about". Verse 13 goes on to say how they "took in hand", which means they decided themselves, without God's permission or authority, to "call upon those who had wicked spirits the name of the Lord Jesus". Now, in verse 14 we read of "certain men, seven sons of Sceva, Jewish high priest." The fact that they were sons of a Jewish high priest may make us assume that what they were doing was acceptable and proper, in order. However, by reading on, it becomes clear that they had no power nor authority: the demons did not obey them. In fact, the demons are seen to be the more powerful ones! They overcame the exorcists. Verse 15 shows that they didn't know who the Jewish exorcists were. So, it seems that the demons could be commanded only by someone with authority. This authority, I venture, must be from God Himself. Compare what the seventy disciples said in Luke 10v17: "Even the demons are subject to us through thy name." Notice here that it is through the name of the Lord Jesus that they are subject to the seventy disciples. But if that were all there was to it, then we would have to admit that the Jewish exorcists should have had the same power. However, some very important things must be noticed about the seventy disciples: they were sent by Jesus. Therefore, they had His authority. When they report, with joy, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us through thy name "(verse 19), Jesus says "Behold, I give you the power....over all the power of the enemy". This would suggest that the power they had seen in action over demons was given by Jesus. However, we read nothing about Jesus giving the Jewish exorcists such power. So, this would suggest something else: when Jesus gave the seventy disciples authority, then those seventy were known by the demons. It could be that they witnessed everything that was said by Jesus. So, they would have known which disciples He said it to. In verse 16, we read that, through the man they possessed, the demons did three things:
So, we see that it was the demons, and not the exorcists, who had the power. Rather than helping those who had the demons, it was those who were possessed who wounded the exorcists. We finally read, in verse 16, that "they fled out of that house naked and wounded". The effect As must always be the case, the effect of these things was to magnify the name of the Lord Jesus, verse 17. We read also in the same verse, that "fear fell upon all of them"; the name of the Lord Jesus was revered. Conclusion If
we attempt anything, then the true motive must be to
glorify God, not ourselves. Also, we must know we are
doing it in the power of God, not ourselves. Otherwise,
only dishonour to God, and hurt to ourselves will result.
|