Love On John's Terms (part 9)

What follows from Jesus’ declaration of His status as Messiah?  The woman returns to her town, saying “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did.  Surely He can’t be the Messiah, can He?” (John 4:29).  In response to this, the author reports that “they left the town and began coming to Him” (4:30).  Effectively then, this woman becomes the first evangelist.  One should not underestimate how odd it would have been for John’s hearers to learn that “many Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of the report of the woman who testified” (4:39a), especially if considering that, in that time, a woman’s testimony was considered to be worthless. 

Additionally, one also cannot underestimate how significant it is that a group of Samaritans, at the instigation of a woman with what would have been a rather disreputable standing in the community (on top of the fact that she would have been considered to be a lowly woman, who would obviously have been paired with a man lacking honor standing in the community as well, as a man with any honor standing whatsoever would not have taken such a woman as his wife, thus magnifying this woman’s place near the bottom of the social spectrum) are apparently the first to believe in Jesus as Messiah en masse. 

This bit of information tells the audience something about the Johannine community, and does so on multiple levels.  On one level, it points to the early sensitivity towards the issue of Gentile inclusion in the church (the covenant people), effectively answering those that may have wanted to reserve the message of the Gospel to Jews alone.  On another level, the massive reversal on display through the story of this woman indicates that there may have been those who believed that women were not to have a prominent role within the church.  This serves to silence those that gave voice to such unwarranted opinions.  On a third level, it informs an observer that women were most likely already in prominent roles---including non-Jewish women, with the story serving to underscore the legitimacy of their honored status withing Jesus communities---a novelty introduced into the world through the personal and ongoing work of the Christ. 

Now, one may think that this may be reading too much into a single instance, but this fits quite well with what is to be found at the end of this Gospel, when Mary Magdalene is said to have gone to Jesus’ tomb.  She “saw that the stone had been moved away from the entrance” (20:1b), and “went running to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved” (20:2a), who was the un-named (but not anonymous) author of this Gospel, with a report that Jesus’ body was not in the tomb.  With this, a woman becomes the first witness to an empty tomb---effectively beginning the life of the church that has continued to proclaim an empty tomb since that moment.  Mary joins the Samaritan woman as representatives of what would be said of those who believed in Jesus as Lord of all (the Gospel), demonstrating the world being turned upside down.   

Continuing at the tomb then, after Peter and the other disciple left, “Mary stood outside the tomb weeping” (20:11a).  She went inside the tomb, is reported to have had a conversation with “two angels in white sitting where Jesus’ body had been lying” (20:12b) (which is something of an echo of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman), and then is said to “have turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus” (20:14b).  So it is a woman who becomes the very first person to see the resurrected Jesus.  This parallels the fact that, according to this same Gospel’s witness, that a woman (and a despised Samaritan woman at that) was the first person to hear an explicit declaration from Jesus that He was, in fact, the Messiah, while subsequently becoming the first successful evangelist. 

Calling Down Fire (part 1)

Now when the days drew near for Him to be taken up, Jesus set out resolutely to go to Jerusalem.  He sent messengers on ahead of Him.  As they went along, they entered a Samaritan village to make things ready in advance for Him” – Luke 9:51-52  (NET)

This action of sending messengers ahead of Himself, so as to make things ready in advance for Him, as can be here read about in relation to the Samaritan village, is a Caesar-like action.  Undoubtedly, as the recipient of Luke’s writing (who was likely a Roman government official) is borne in mind, these words were meant to draw a contrast between the Caesar (the man that was then honored and widely worshiped as the world’s savior and son of god) and Jesus the Christ.  It is also possible that Luke’s use of “taken up” in reference to Jesus is a subtle allusion to the “apotheosis” of the Caesar, which is the recognition of Caesar’s deification as a god (making a son that would follow him on the throne the “son of god”). 

Sending a messenger ahead of himself was a common practice for the Caesar.  Those messengers, who could be referred to as “evangelists,” went out proclaiming the “good news” (evangelion) concerning Caesar, regularly going ahead of him for the purpose of preparing a town or city within his realm to welcome the Caesar with all appropriate honor.  In this role, the evangelist prepared the people in subjection to the son of god to bow the knee to the Caesar as their lord and master and the giver of all good things.  This is the likely interpretive framework within which the reader/hearer of Luke’s narrative is asked to understand Jesus’ sending of messengers on ahead of Himself---Jesus is the world’s true Savior, Son of God, King, Lord, Master, and giver of all good things. 

In the case of the particular instance reported here by Luke, though Jesus had sent these messengers to make ready things in advance for Him and presumably to prepare the people for His visit, “the villagers refused to welcome Him” (9:53a).  Luke adds what he must have thought was a necessary explanatory statement, indicating that the refusal to welcome Jesus stemmed from the fact that “He was determined to go to Jerusalem” (9:53b). 

The Samaritans, of course, were looked down upon by the Jews, though clearly, according to the record in the Gospels of His interactions with them, not by Jesus.  However, apparently owing to the ill-will between Jews and Samaritans, the Samaritans refused to honor one that had determined, within His messianic mission, to simply use their city as a stopping point on the way to Jerusalem.  Regardless of the reason or motivation behind their refusal to receive Him, the significant fact to observe is that Jesus was not welcomed. 

Because of this, Luke writes: “Now when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to call fire to come down from heaven and consume them?’” (9:54)  Why would they say such a thing?  It would seem to be clear that Luke is pointing out the fact that James and John were well aware of the very Caesar-like nature of what was Jesus had done in sending messengers ahead of Him to prepare various places to welcome Him as King. 

To go along with this, if Luke’s record is accurate, Jesus’ disciples have already repeatedly heard Him use royal titles for Himself, such as Son of Man.  In the course of the linear progression of the narrative, they have also seen him cast out demons, heal the sick, raise a man from the dead, still a storm, and feed a multitude.  They rightly interpret these things within the messianic, kingly context in which they are performed, and which Jesus had provided to them by the very words of His mouth, so the sending of an advance team, in the mold of the Caesar, is not at all surprising to them.  Human nature being what it is, it is not difficult to imagine that these followers enjoyed being a part of the chosen entourage of the King that was now traveling the path to Jerusalem. 

Repudiating Its Power (part 2 of 2)

It is with these things under consideration that one can advance to the third chapter of the letter to Timothy and find Paul referencing those that hold to the outward appearance of religion, while repudiating its power (3:5).  It would probably not be a mistake to equate Paul’s use of “power” here with his conception of the Gospel as power, and find him in rebuke of those that, quite simply, do not preach the message of the Gospel of Jesus (the crucified and resurrected Jesus is Messiah and therefore Lord of all).  These people might very well have spoken of Jesus in certain ways, but quite likely, were leaving out that part of the message about Jesus that caused Paul to resolutely affirm that he was “not ashamed.”  That would have been, without a doubt, the shameful fact of the crucifixion.  Less so, but certainly still, that message about which he was not ashamed would have included the message of the Resurrection---itself a ridiculous and scarcely believable notion. 

It would be relatively easy to understand people going about preaching Jesus’ kingdom ethics and miraculous deeds without reference to the shame and cursing of the crucifixion.  It is just as easy to understand a reluctance to preach the Resurrection, as the physical resurrection of a dead man, especially one that had been crucified, was such a preposterous idea.  A crucified man had been utterly and devastatingly shamed, as had his family and compatriots, which would be so even if he somehow managed to survive the ordeal of a crucifixion.  Frankly, it would be better for that person to die or to remain dead.  Yet it was insisted that this could not be said of Jesus. 

He had both accepted and overcome the shame.  The cross was not something to be avoided, but along with what it implied, it was to be embraced, with it standing as the symbol of the kingdom that Jesus had inaugurated, and the means by which that kingdom was to be established and expanded---going to the places of pain and shame and there showing forth sacrificial love.  Accordingly, Paul has concluded that, in effect, preaching Jesus without the crucifixion and the Resurrection, and therefore not preaching the Gospel in its fullness, was nothing more than repudiation of the power of the Creator God. 

A bit later on, Paul would describe the end result of preaching Jesus without reference to the crucifixion and Resurrection, which would be the propensity to “turn aside to myths” (4:4b), which could serve to turn Jesus into something of a strictly mythological, spiritual figure, in which there is a nod to the fact of His earthly existence and accomplishments, but little more than that.  This Jesus would quite unfortunately not be firmly rooted in history and in an accurate historical context that challenged all of the power structures of His day (and still does), instead, making him into something of a preacher of free-floating aphorisms and “timeless truths,” detached from the fullness of the Gospel message about Him and therefore robbed of His power and significance. 

Having made his point about the turning to myths, Paul goes on to exhort Timothy to “do an evangelist’s work” (4:5).  This brings the reader back to Paul’s consideration of the power of the Gospel and his conception of himself as a slave.  An evangelist is a person who speaks forth “evangelion.”  This is “good news,” or better yet, “gospel.”  In that day, the “gospel” was generally limited to announcements about Caesar.  The person who made these announcements would effectively be a slave, functioning as an evangelist.  In this, Paul is encouraging Timothy to become as he has so often described himself to be, which is a slave, so as to “fulfill your ministry” (4:5). 

That ministry, first and foremost, is the preaching of the Gospel of power---that Jesus the Messiah (the Son of God, Son of Man, and king of Israel) is the crucified and resurrected Lord of all peoples and creation.  This is the Jesus and the Gospel that is to be preached in word and deed with the cross as the guide, which first transforms the hearts and minds and lives of those that embrace the Gospel’s message, while somehow also having power to effect the same in those that hear and see its effects.  Failing to do so---failing to consistently, and without fail, teach and preach the Lord Jesus crucified, resurrected, and glorified---is, in Paul’s estimation, a failure to preach the Gospel, and is nothing short of a repudiation of the power of the Creator God.  One cannot speak of a God of power, or a Lord and Savior, in absence of the message of the crucifixion and Resurrection.  It simply is an impossibility.