Read today's text here: Luke 7:18-35
The question “Who is this Jesus?” and the far-reaching expectations for him illustrated in the raising of the widow’s son (7:11-17) can now be related to the mission of John the Baptizer.
John was a cousin of Jesus'. Jesus' mother Mary had gone to visit John's mother, when both women were pregnant, and the story of this visit can be found earlier in Luke: specifically in Luke chapter 1. When John grew up, he heard the call of God to become a prophet to his people, Israel. He called for the nation to return to obedience to God and to get ready for an important intervention by God in their history. That intervention, one hoped for for ages, was the appearance of a divine Savior, called in Hebrew the "Messiah". Accompanying John's preaching to the people, he dipped them in the water of the Jordan River, to symbolize their intention to live reformed, obedient lives for God. This was called "baptism", and is similar but not identical to later Christian baptism. Because John's ministry was different from that of other preachers of his day and characterized by this dipping, he is called "John the Baptizer" (or "John the Baptist"). The latter form "Baptist" has nothing to do with today's Christian denomination. For that reason, many prefer to say "Baptizer".
Eventually, when John criticized the ruler of Galilee named Herod Antipas of marrying the former wife of his own brother, while that brother was still alive—which was contrary to Jewish and Old Testament law—Herod had John imprisoned and eventually had him beheaded.
Luke doesn’t tell us that at this time John had already been imprisoned by Herod Antipas, or that this days of living were numbered. Matthew (11:2) does. But even in Luke’s account that situation can be inferred from the fact that John must send two of his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the Coming One. Had John been free, he would have gone in person.
Luke and Matthew agree precisely as to the wording of the question: “Are you the one who is to come? Or should we look for another?” It was a reasonable question, and one which—according to the gospel accounts—no one else had thought to ask Jesus directly. Since the Baptizer was sent to prepare the way of the Lord, and in his own message he has said that “one comes after me whose sandal thongs I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Spirit”, one would expect that he already believed Jesus to be the Messiah—certainly the meaning of the elliptical expression “he who is to come”. Yet either he had believed, but was now doubting—perhaps because he had been thrown in prison and knew that only a whisker stood between him and death—or he now suspected that Jesus’ mission was also preparatory to one to come after him, even greater.
Whatever the exact circumstances, John did well to send his disciples to Jesus to find out.
Jesus could have simply told the disciples of John “Yes, I am the Expected One, the Messiah”. But he had been showing his true identity for months now with his miracles and his synagogue teaching. The miracles themselves spoke louder than any claims he might make. Therefore while the messengers were with him (“in that same hour” v. 21) Jesus healed many who were sick, drove out evil spirits, and gave sight to blind people, so that John’s disciples could see for themselves the signs of his true identity. The only important class of miracle they did not see for themselves, but heard about from many of the bystanders (“ what you have … heard” v. 22) was his raising of the dead man at Na’in. Jesus then told the disciples to return to John and tell him what they had seen and heard and to encourage him not to lose faith that the one whom he had prepared the people for was in truth the Expected One: there would be no greater one to follow!
The words Jesus gave to the messengers to take to John were—in the words of Jared Dockery—a "coded message":
"This was a coded message, containing snatches of Old Testament prophecy, from the book of Isaiah (chapter 35 and 61). This was the job description of the promised Messiah. John would have understood exactly what Jesus meant."It is no sign that your faith is not genuine, if you have periods of doubt. John was a great man of faith, worthy to be ranked with Abraham, Moses, Elijah and the New Testament apostles. The circumstances of his life caused him to become confused. He was not seeking an excuse to give up on Jesus: he was seeking for clarity in his faith. For such people God is always ready to give them a helping hand. But notice that even so, Jesus expected John to exercise faith. He did not remove all other possible interpretations of his own identity. He gave John more to work with and then urged him not to allow his doubts to be come master of him.
It seems to me that this is what God is telling believers in today’s world, with all of its confusing and muddled thinking about ultimate reality. The reliable New Testament evidence is declared false on the basis of Gnostic documents from centuries after the time of Jesus, documents whose own patent philosophic agendas and many obvious implausibilities have long ago led intelligent scholars to discount them as sober history. Rampant relativism tells us that there is no objective standard of truth: what is true for you, may not be true for me. We should all stop looking for final answers and admit that everyone is entitled to their opinion—one is as good as the other. For such people Jesus’ words about the two ways open to humans—a broad one that leads to destruction and a narrow one, hard to find but worth seeking, that leads to life—are utter nonsense.
No, this passage teaches us that it is worth seeking reliable answers to life’s important questions. And that the right place to seek those answers is God’s Son, Jesus.
Having ministered to John’s need for reassurance, Jesus turns to the bystanders and affirms John’s worth. It is possible that, having heard John’s uncertainty about Jesus’ status, the onlookers may have judged him an inadequate prophet. A true prophet, they may have reasoned, would surely not have mistaken the identity of the Messiah. But Jesus corrects them. Not because he feels sorry for John. Had that been his motive, it would have shown in the words he used. No, as usual, he merely sees truth where his hearers do not, and his role is to teach the Truth.
I do not mean to totally exclude the possibility that Jesus saw in them an ill will. On the contrary, his comparison of them to the children sitting in the public square and playing cruel games (v. 31-32) shows that he was not deceived by their attempting to curry favor with him by criticizing John in their hearts. No, there may indeed have been an insincere and hateful attitude lurking under the surface that Jesus wanted to address. But he also wanted to give a correct assessment of this great man John.
First, he cites Scriptural prophecy fulfilled in John (v. 27). If your Bible has cross-references, you will know that what Jesus quotes in v. 27 is a mixture of two passages from the Torah (Exodus 23:20) and the Prophets (Malachi 3:1). Jesus may have blended the two himself, or he may have known an already existing blend of the two verses. Biblical scholars in Jesus day often blended verses on similar subjects from different parts of the Scripture, much as is done in modern devotional classics like Daily Light.ʼ
The resulting blend somewhat alters the original intention of Malachi 3:1 by making the messenger prepare “your (singular) way” instead of “the way of the LORD”. The “your” in Exodus 23:20 referred to the nation Israel in the wilderness. But the blend in Jesus’ mouth suggests that the “your” refers to himself as the LORD. And, of course, that is what John did: he prepared the nation for the appearance and ministry of Jesus, who—we know—was the LORD incarnate.
If John the Baptizer was this figure of prophecy whose mission was to prepare the way for God Himself, it is obvious how important his role—and therefore his status—was. But just to be sure that this deduction was correctly made, Jesus articulates it:
No one born of a woman is greater than John—that of course includes everyone—yet, the least born into the Kingdom of God is greater than he.What kind of logic is that?! Jesus loved to use such utterances, which seemed contradictory and left his hearers scratching their heads. But if you take the time to think it through, his words make sense.
There are two ways of judging status: among those born of women, and among those born of God. In the former category John ranked at the top. But anyone—including John himself!—who is born of God is in another category entirely, a category far and away higher. The challenge to the hearers is to quit trying to rank people in human terms. If you want to do that, Jesus reminds them, you cannot rank anyone over John. But you should forget about such rankings on the human level and focus on God’s Kingdom. Are there rankings also within God’s Kingdom? No one asked Jesus that question. And perhaps we should not ask either. It is beside the point.
Then in a final warning to his censorious audience—so quick to judge John, and fickle enough to turn upon Jesus too, once given the chance. The “men of today” (v. 31) can fit the hearers as well. “If the shoe fits, …” It is not a flattering picture that Jesus paints. People often stereotype children as being innocent and pure. But every one of us has been a child once, and has known how cruel children can sometimes be to other children. Here is a group of spoiled brats sitting in the market place and singing songs to mock other children. A kind of “Simon says” game gone awry. “You can’t be happy, if we say you must cry. You cannot cry if we hit you and then say ‘Dance!’” That’s a pretty good equivalent way of putting what they said. The card game is rigged, the deck stacked.
There is no way the judges sitting there will be pleased. John’s life style was ascetic, and they accused him of having a demon. Jesus fraternized with the loose crowd, without himself doing anything sinful, and they accused him of being a glutton and drunkard. The latter charge may have been intended literally. But there is a possibility that this was a code expression for someone of illegitimate birth, a charge which we know from other places in the gospels was made against Jesus by his critics, who were aware that Joseph was not his biological father. The thought being that intemperate eating and drinking were genetic markers of illegitimacy.
Of course, Jesus fraternized with “sinners”. How else could he possibly lead them to forgiveness? And that will be the subject of the next unit, and the next posting!
No comments:
Post a Comment