Gospels

Can We Handle The Truth?

JackNicholson.jpg

The famous scene from A Few Good Men where Colonel Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson) is pressed on the stand by the ambitious naval lawyer Lt Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) has Jessup unraveling and saying “You can’t handle the truth!” The plot is multi-layered but revolves around the death of PFC Santiago. Is it true that Santiago was a less than motivated marine or is there a side to the story, buried in Cuba, that actually does reveal the truth behind Santiago’s less than exemplary performance? The plot climaxes with the courtroom tension between Jessup and Kaffee. Would a naval lawyer, with a reputation for laziness and never having been inside a courtroom, actually breach the wall constructed by Jessup himself?

I believe people can handle the truth, the truth about Jesus and His incredible story. Though, to many Jews of Jesus’ day, Jesus was similar to PFC Santiago. Jesus was a disappointment. He wasn’t the exemplary Messiah most were expecting. In fact, a “CODE RED” is given to Jesus, an extrajudicial punishment, by the Jewish leaders, which leads to Jesus’ death.

But what truth are we trying to extract here? In the case of Santiago, he was allegedly murdered by two hyper motivated marines. The truth is eventually revealed that they were ordered to discipline Santiago (the CODE RED) apart from marine guidelines, implicating Jessup as the catalyst responsible for Santiago’s untimely death. In the case of Jesus, we aren’t trying to uncover His executioners. They are clearly exposed in the final “courtroom scene” from the gospel writers’ narratives.

However, there’s much more to the truth about Jesus’ story than ‘whodunnit.’ The truth of Jesus’ story also tells us of God’s plan for the way Jesus will rule the earth, especially since Jesus was vindicated when resurrected. Its that truth that I believe people can handle, but maybe handle much better by being taught through scenes unfolding in a well planned movie plot rather than if that truth was logical and calculated in a cubicle, totaling lines A through G on tax documents. In other words, there’s an inherent authority that can be understood from being exposed to the Gospels’ narrative, their plot. Merely adding a few verses together from here and from there in the Gospels has the potential to sterilize its content, and we, like many of the Jews of Jesus’ day, are left scratching are heads as to what Jesus even meant by calling Himself “The Truth, the Way, and the Life.”

The disciples sure seem to have had a difficult run of it during Jesus’ ministry, too. Even though Jesus occasionally spelled the climactic scene out for them, they seemed to have shelved that along with Jesus’ many other symbolic teachings. If we had a full understanding of what their expectations were for the Messiah, and stood that next to Jesus’ understanding of the what the Messiah was expected to fulfill, we might be surprised to see many similarities. For example, when Jesus speaks in parables, the language He uses reaffirms Jewish expectations, but with a important twist.

For Colonel Jessup and Daniel Kaffee there were two truths, two stories, concerning Santiago. Jessup’s truth had the strength of his reputation for being an iron fisted leader. Kaffee’s truth seemed much weaker and had to come by way of revelation, bit by bit, but would have the power to eventually “breach” Jessup’s wall of truth. For many Jews and for Jesus there were two truths, two stories, concerning Israel’s Messiah. Traditional Jewish versions of this truth predicted the iron fist of God in the Messiah who would come judging Israel right and everyone else wrong. They predicted the Messiah would siege the the Temple, punish the wicked, reward the faithful, and then proceed to expel pagan oppressors. This was a very strong narrative for them. When Jesus speaks truth to the Jews, though bold, He still seems to speak in a much weaker way than what was expected, not as urgent, although still clinging to traditional Jewish themes of deliverance, judgment, and victorious rule. Their was a twist. To understand the true strength of Jesus’ story maybe we need to “see” it scene by scene, bit by bit, by way of revelation.

Because, this truth will have the power to breach not only the strength of the traditional Jewish expectation of their Messiah, it might also breach much of our own generation.

Categories: Gospels

3 replies »

  1. Interesting analogy bro.
    However I wonder how was Jesus vindicated on His resurrection? (Some Bible verses maybe)
    I think His vindication came years later (Rev. 1:8), along with the vindication of all of the martyrs (Matt. 23:35-36f)
    Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thanks for reading Robert! Good to hear from you….Luke 24:7 has the two men in bright white declaring that the “Son of Man” was raised. As you know the Son of Man from Daniel 7:13-14 is given authority, glory, sovereign power, etc., and the kingdom. This is akin to the ascension. Jesus is raised, not merely to demonstrate that the dead can be raised. He proved that during His ministry before the cross. Even the disciples were given this ability according to Matthew 10:8. Jesus is raised to fulfill God’s plan of having Jesus rule heaven and earth. Remember Gabriel’s promise to Mary in Luke 1:31-33 that Jesus will receive the throne of his ancestor David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there’ll be no end. Matthew 28:18 says “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to (Jesus).” This statement is made before he ascends. Also compare Acts 2. Romans 1:4 has Paul saying that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God (King; cf. Psalm 2 where David has the same title “Son”; 2 Samuel 7:14 refers to Solomon as God’s “son” just like Psalm 2 refers to David). Romans 1:4 says that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead. Jesus’ ministry was about being the Messiah. At Jesus’ baptism He was declared to be God’s Son (Mt 3:17), Messiah. Jesus was killed precisely because of His claim to be Israel’s Messiah, King of the Jews. Those who passed by the scene of the cross used the term Son of God (Mt 27:39-40) to describe Jesus. “In the same way the chief priefs, etc.,” verify Jesus’ claims (Mt 27:41-44) to be the Son of God and King of the Jews. The cross appears as proof of guilt to the untaught. The resurrection vindicates Jesus’ claims to sovereignty, proving Jesus to be innocent. Jesus also speaks of the Temple’s destruction as vindication to those claims as well.

    I think Revelation 1:4-8 reaffirms Daniel 7. The kingdom (sovereignty) has been transferred to the saints through Jesus’ accomplishment. Daniel 7:25-27 says this “…the saints will be handed over for a time, times, and half a time. But the court will sit, and his (11th emperor) power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.” This language in Rev 1 begins painting the picture that the fourth kingdom of Daniel’s visions (Rome) will be in power when Jesus’ rule is launched.

    So, I would say that there’s more than one example of Jesus’ vindication as King.

    You always have good questions! Appreciate it!

    Like

    • Thank you for your answer. There is a ton of material in it that we can talk about , but I’ll just say that we may have a different understanding of what the word “vindication” means.
      To me it means that the opressorr is punished, along with the restoration of the victim at the expense of the opressorr. There is no true vindication until the opressorr feels it. A good example is 2Tes. 1:6.

      In Jesus’s case, His persecutors neither suffered a punishment nor were affected by Jesus’s restoration as King at His resurrection.
      They (the Jews and their leaders) were only punished some forty years later (same generation ) when they lost the rule over the physical kingdom of God and were utterly destroyed (killed or taken into slavery).

      Using your analogy in the movie, Santiago’s true vindication only happens when Jack Nicholson is publicly humiliated and eventually arrested.

      Good chatting with you.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s