Who do the crowds say that I am?
John the Baptist must have had an overwhelming and irrepressible personality, which we learn not only from the wild things he did and said, but from the fact that people couldn't accept he was gone when he was killed. He was larger than life to the degree that even Herod, who himself was the one who had John killed, gave some credence to the rumors that he had risen from the dead. After all, he seemed in many ways to be a modern version of the prophet Elijah. Had John been Elijah or someone similar it would have seemed that an ignominious execution could not have been his end. Elijah was taken up into heaven by flaming chariots. If that was not to be the destiny for John the Baptist, surely it was still not to be death by execution? They wrongly assumed that the return of Elijah would be more like a victory lap than a martyrdom. They couldn't accept, and were at least partially correct in not accepting, that it couldn't end that way. Perhaps whatever the prophetic presence manifested in Elijah and John was not gone but not acting in the person of Jesus? In a way, this wasn't actually so far from the truth. But they were confused because they couldn't wrap their heads around the role suffering played in the plan of God. John the Baptist's role was not less perfect because he died for the truth, but more. The crowds were keyed in on signs of success and continuity with what had gone before. But these interpretive keys only gave a partial picture of Jesus himself.
Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Peter said in reply, “The Christ of God.”
Jesus was more than merely the repetition of one preexisting archetype. Pointing to this or that Old Testament figure for reference could only tell a part of the story. This is because everything in the Scriptures referred to Jesus, and he was the fulfillment of all that had come before. People were capable of conceiving narrow ideas about how the future would fall into patterns found in salvation history. But they could not conceive of how all of the patterns would converge in the person of Jesus. One could not identify Jesus merely on the basis of similarity to a past figure, even David or Moses or Elijah. One needed rather to allow Jesus to give a personal revelation of his own identity and from that vantage point understand preceding history, and the destination toward which the future was being guided. The disciples were aware of the formulaic, stock answers about the identity of Jesus. But Peter remained sufficiently open to allow the Father himself to reveal the truth. This is still the right option for us in our day. Even though pithy, accurate summaries about the identity of Jesus exist, they mean little to us until they become revelation. We need to not only get the answer right, but to have the answer change our lives if it is to avail for us. We can mouth the words "Jesus is Lord". But it is when we say them by the Spirit that they have their true meaning and effect.
He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone.
He said, “The Son of Man must suffer greatly
and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed and on the third day be raised.
No wonder Jesus wasn't eager for his disciples to broadcast his identity far and wide. The crowds were as yet incapable of understanding the fact that the Son of Man not only would suffer but "must suffer". Suffering wasn't an unfortunate accident but rather a part of the divine plan. To be fair, even the disciples, even Peter were not yet fully on board with this idea. But since they had shown willingness to let Jesus define himself, rather than imposing their own ideas on him, they were better situated to survive the scandal. There would be a time to shout the Gospel message from the housetops. But for the time being it was best to keep it hidden. There is, after all, a time for every purpose under heaven. But only Jesus can reveal the "timeless" God has put "into their hearts".
John the Baptist must have had an overwhelming and irrepressible personality, which we learn not only from the wild things he did and said, but from the fact that people couldn't accept he was gone when he was killed. He was larger than life to the degree that even Herod, who himself was the one who had John killed, gave some credence to the rumors that he had risen from the dead. After all, he seemed in many ways to be a modern version of the prophet Elijah. Had John been Elijah or someone similar it would have seemed that an ignominious execution could not have been his end. Elijah was taken up into heaven by flaming chariots. If that was not to be the destiny for John the Baptist, surely it was still not to be death by execution? They wrongly assumed that the return of Elijah would be more like a victory lap than a martyrdom. They couldn't accept, and were at least partially correct in not accepting, that it couldn't end that way. Perhaps whatever the prophetic presence manifested in Elijah and John was not gone but not acting in the person of Jesus? In a way, this wasn't actually so far from the truth. But they were confused because they couldn't wrap their heads around the role suffering played in the plan of God. John the Baptist's role was not less perfect because he died for the truth, but more. The crowds were keyed in on signs of success and continuity with what had gone before. But these interpretive keys only gave a partial picture of Jesus himself.
Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Peter said in reply, “The Christ of God.”
Jesus was more than merely the repetition of one preexisting archetype. Pointing to this or that Old Testament figure for reference could only tell a part of the story. This is because everything in the Scriptures referred to Jesus, and he was the fulfillment of all that had come before. People were capable of conceiving narrow ideas about how the future would fall into patterns found in salvation history. But they could not conceive of how all of the patterns would converge in the person of Jesus. One could not identify Jesus merely on the basis of similarity to a past figure, even David or Moses or Elijah. One needed rather to allow Jesus to give a personal revelation of his own identity and from that vantage point understand preceding history, and the destination toward which the future was being guided. The disciples were aware of the formulaic, stock answers about the identity of Jesus. But Peter remained sufficiently open to allow the Father himself to reveal the truth. This is still the right option for us in our day. Even though pithy, accurate summaries about the identity of Jesus exist, they mean little to us until they become revelation. We need to not only get the answer right, but to have the answer change our lives if it is to avail for us. We can mouth the words "Jesus is Lord". But it is when we say them by the Spirit that they have their true meaning and effect.
He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone.
He said, “The Son of Man must suffer greatly
and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed and on the third day be raised.
No wonder Jesus wasn't eager for his disciples to broadcast his identity far and wide. The crowds were as yet incapable of understanding the fact that the Son of Man not only would suffer but "must suffer". Suffering wasn't an unfortunate accident but rather a part of the divine plan. To be fair, even the disciples, even Peter were not yet fully on board with this idea. But since they had shown willingness to let Jesus define himself, rather than imposing their own ideas on him, they were better situated to survive the scandal. There would be a time to shout the Gospel message from the housetops. But for the time being it was best to keep it hidden. There is, after all, a time for every purpose under heaven. But only Jesus can reveal the "timeless" God has put "into their hearts".
No comments:
Post a Comment