Luke 12:49-56 contain sayings related to mission of Jesus as that of bringing division.
Luke 12:49-53 contains sayings concerning the enigma of the mission of Jesus. These sayings are among the “I-sayings” of Jesus, almost reminding one of the Gospel of John. Some scholars discount such sayings as coming from Jesus, since he did not usually speak of himself. However, it would hardly be unusual for someone like Jesus to have a firm grasp of his sense of mission and to share with his followers what that mission was. Jesus now claims his role as the designated agent of the divine will. With unqualified audacity, he claims an unparalleled role for himself. Jesus views his ministry as fire he enkindles in the world. Then, his ministry is a baptism of fire that he must undergo. His ministry will bring discord. Everything about his language indicates Jesus' real sense of urgency for his mission and ministry. Jesus is making it clear that if you have not chosen the rule of God first, it will not make any difference what you have chosen instead (William Law).
Luke 12:49 has the theme of fire on earth. The source is unique to Luke.[1] 49 “I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! These two verses offer a rare glimpse into Jesus’ mind and heart as he approached Jerusalem. Jesus’ teaching forced individuals to conduct unexpected, but critical, self-examination even before he reached Jerusalem. The saying teaches that Jesus is the one who came into the world for its redemption. Jesus is impatient for the fire to ignite, suggesting that the fire will occur in the future. As such, it has an apocalyptic note to it. It sets the tone for this segment of Luke. The Bible routinely invokes fire as an image of judgment. Confining ourselves to Luke, John the Baptist used fire to warn the crowds of approaching judgment. He reminded them that "every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire ... [and] the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire" (Luke 3:9, 17). James and John wanted to "command fire to come down from heaven and consume" the Samaritan village that refused to welcome Jesus "because his face was set to Jerusalem" (Luke 9:53-54). Later, Jesus will refer to the "fire and sulfur from heaven" that destroyed Sodom and all who lived there except Lot and his family (Luke 17:29). However, Luke has also taught in Luke 4:16-19 that Jesus was the one God "anointed ... to bring good news to the poor ... to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (italics added)? Even at his birth, the shepherds hear the heavenly host proclaim, "Glory to God in the highest heaven, / and on earth peace among those whom he favors" (Luke 2:14, italics added). The expectations of the disciples, that Jesus came to bring peace, comes into conflict with what Jesus says here. Jesus speaks here of having been sent to set a fire, and he now longs to strike the spark and get the flames roaring. Jesus stands with a match ready, but he is waiting for the divine word before striking. At this point, it might be well to let the tension remain such in our thinking and preaching.
Luke 12:50 has the theme of the baptism of Jesus. The source is from Mark.[2] 50 I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and what stress I am under (or, ‘how I am hemmed in,’ ‘surrounded’ or ‘encircled’) until it is completed! The death of Jesus is inevitable. The death of Jesus was his destiny. Some see in his words a baptism of fire that Jesus is expecting. Yet the fire that awaits Jesus' disciples is not a destructive force. Luke later reveals that the baptism of fire in the flames of Pentecost as baptism in the Holy Spirit for all believers. Other readers understand the baptism Jesus awaits as a reference to his own death.
Luke 12:51-53 has the theme of peace or conflict. The source is from Q. For some scholars, the reference to Micah makes it unlikely to come from Jesus. For some scholars, “I have come” reflects the teaching of the early church rather than Jesus. Yet, would it not be unusual for someone like Jesus not to have a sense of mission and to express that mission.51 Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! Jesus is no peacemaker here. We have here the notification of the ultimate dissolution and disintegration of the world as we know it, as it points us to the cleavage between yesterday and tomorrow, old and new, this world and the world to come. Certain people in certain situations must bear witness not to peace, but to the kingdom that that limits and qualifies it.[3] Such a statement is a reminder of the broken nature of the reality that salvation can achieve in historical form. Christian confession itself causes opposition that Christians cannot avoid if the cost is their confession. Thus, the unity of humanity in the reign of God is always a broken one as we see it in its historical form.[4] 52 From now on, indicating Jesus and the disciples now approach a climactic moment, five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; 53 they will be divided, as stated in Micah 7:5-6: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” Jesus introduced conflicts into family relationships. He also commends unqualified love. Jesus did bring division, of course. However, division was hardly the totality of his mission. Those who reject Jesus have judgment brought to them rather than peace. Jesus does not create division. Rather, others create division through their choices. Binding of people to each other in the family of God that arises out of the presence of the rule of God in Jesus will not occur without all kinds of separations. One must disrupt and destroy all falsity that will corrupt human fellowship. In this sense, the sword of Jesus Christ will continuously prove to be necessary and powerful. Yet, one wields the sword with unity as the aim.[5] Such language is the basis for suggesting that Jesus at least brought a notion of relativizing of the ancient notion of household. Such a household, comprised of husband, wife, children, grandchildren, and slaves, was a group to which birth irrevocably assigned one. Jesus points us to the priority of a family open to all who wish to join it. This saying is suggesting that Jesus comes to tear apart the ancient notion of the household, with its hierarchal system of gender and generations, with a new notion of the family of God open to all. The family expresses the values of society in miniature form. We first experience love and hate, respect and abuse, help and neglect. We may be at the giving or receiving end of each. The household was not just a center of domestic tranquility. It invited the use of power, and Jesus attacks its power center in this saying. The coming rule of God, provisionally present in Jesus, invites us to consider a new family open to all.[6] Another way to think of this saying is that Jesus relativizes the most intimate relationships we have. In cases of conflict, the call of God may well cause us to renounce the most intimate of our relationships in favor of the rule of God. Institutional or blood relationships cannot ignore the demands of the call of Jesus, which is always a call for the sake of the mission of Jesus in this world.[7]
Here is a sobering thought. If such division is possible, it is no wonder that in the wider church body, such division should also exist. Differing sides may well think of themselves as devoted to Jesus, but the result in beliefs and behavior is of such a nature that division is the result. If Jesus came to bring division, then maybe the point is that we have grown too comfortable. We need the stirring up that division brings to find out what Jesus wants of us in this setting.
Jesus came to bring division, to bring fire. Let us grant that most of us are on unfamiliar territory when we think of this self-demolition, this raging fire. Yet our psychic houses are beyond cleaning. We need a completely new life, a life of light, some fire. Part of our common confusion is that we have trivialized what Christianity is all about. We trivialize Christianity by keeping our lives intact.
Popular hymns and preaching have focused upon Jesus as “meek and mild.” Jesus may well have been meek, in the sense of humble, selfless, and devoted to what he believed was right. However, it would seem the word “mild” hardly applies to Jesus. A mild person lets sleeping dogs lie and avoids trouble wherever possible. A mild, placid temperament is a stranger to the passions of humanity. Such a person is a nonentity in a crowd, both uninspired and uninspiring. Yet, Jesus did not hesitate to challenge and expose the hypocrisies of the religious people of his day. He could walk through murderous crowds unscathed. Religious and political authorities regarded him a public danger. Shameless exploitation and complacent orthodoxy could rouse him to anger. He had the courage of one who could deliberately walk into a situation that would mean his death.[8]
Luke 12:54-56 contains sayings concerning the signs of the times. The source is Q and Thomas. Matthew and Luke record significantly different versions. 54 He also said to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising in the west, you immediately say, ‘It is going to rain’; and so it happens. 55 And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, ‘There will be scorching heat’; and it happens. 56 You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time? This passage employs concrete and vivid images to challenge inconsistent judgment. Jesus uses an ironic barb. The tone is sharp, even sarcastic, suggesting that this crowd may not be a friendly one. You know how to read the weather, but you have no ability to discern the real state of things. I am aware of a familiar saying: “Red sky in morning, sailors take warning; Red sky at night, sailors delight.” The crowds live in a critical moment. If they can read the clouds, they should read the signs. Jesus contrasts their sensitivity to nature with their sensitivity to spiritual things. If people can discern weather patterns from such obvious signs, Jesus points out, then why can they not discern the times?
[1] Some scholars think Jesus did not normally speak of himself in the first person. The version in Thomas is a single aphorism. I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes (Gospel of Thomas 10:1). For Thomas, the fire is already here. Jesus protects its blaze from going out. For some scholars, this version of the saying in Thomas may reflect something Jesus said.
[2] For some scholars, it has a theme reflecting the theology of Mark concerning the death of Jesus.
[3] Barth, Church Dogmatics III.4 [54.2] 263.
[4] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 43.
[5] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.3 [72.4] 898-9.
[6] Inspired by John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 59-60 argues that there is an almost savage attack on family values, and it happens very, very often. The family is a group to which one is irrevocably assigned ... that given grouping is negated in favor of another one open to all who wish to join it. ... A woman declares Mary blessed because of Jesus, presuming, in splendid Mediterranean fashion, that a woman's greatness derives from mothering a famous son. But that patriarchal chauvinism is negated by Jesus in favor of a blessedness open to anyone who wants it, without distinction of sex, or gender, infertility or maternity. Imagine the standard Mediterranean family with five members: mother and father, married son with his wife, and unmarried daughter, a nuclear extended family all under one roof. Jesus says he will tear it apart ... notice where and how emphatically the axis of separation is located. It is precisely between the generations. But why should faith split along that axis? Why might faith not separate, say, the women from the men or even operate in ways far more random? The attack has nothing to do with faith but with power. The attack is on the Mediterranean family's axis of power, which sets father and mother over son, daughter, and daughter-in-law ... The family is society in miniature, the place where we first and most deeply learn how to love and be loved, hate and be hated, help and be helped, abuse and be abused. It is not just a center of domestic serenity; since it involves power, it invites the abuse of power, and it is at that precise point that Jesus attacks it. His ideal group is, contrary to Mediterranean and indeed most human familial reality, an open one equally accessible to all under God. It is the kingdom of God, and it negates that terrible abuse of power that is power's dark specter and lethal shadow.
[7] Inspired by Wolfgange Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament, 1988 argues that Jesus did not understand celibacy as a universal requirement for entrance into the kingdom of God; however in cases of conflict, he demanded renunciation of the most intimate ties... Sexuality, marriage, and family must not have a priority or autonomy with respect to God. There cannot be any institutional or blood relationship that ignores the demands of God and the call of Jesus for the sake of his mission Jesus himself left his family, which obviously could not understand him, and led a life without home or family.
[8] Inspired by J. B. Philipps. "Why 'mild'? Of all the epithets that could be applied to Christ this seems one of the least appropriate. For what does 'mild,' as applied to a person, conjure up to our minds? Surely a picture of someone who wouldn't say 'boo' to the proverbial goose; someone who would let sleeping dogs lie and avoid trouble wherever possible; someone of a placid temperament who is almost a stranger to the passions of red-blooded humanity; someone who is a bit of a nonentity, both uninspired and uninspiring.
"This word 'mild' is apparently deliberately used to describe a man who did not hesitate to challenge and expose the hypocrisies of the religious people of his day: a man who had such 'personality' that he walked unscathed through a murderous crowd; a man so far from being a nonentity that he was regarded by the authorities as a public danger; a man who could be moved to violent anger by shameless exploitation or by smug complacent orthodoxy; a man of such courage that he deliberately walked to what he knew would mean death, despite the earnest pleas of well-meaning friends! Mild! What a word to use for a personality whose challenge and strange attractiveness nineteen centuries have by no means exhausted. Jesus Christ might well be called 'meek,' in the sense of being selfless and humble and utterly devoted to what he considered right, whatever the personal cost; but 'mild,' never!"
--J.B. Phillips, Your God Is Too Small (New York: Macmillan Paperbacks Edition, 1961), 27.
No comments:
Post a Comment