"Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven
to consume them?"
When Sodom and Gomorrah failed to show due hospitality to angelic messengers they were wiped off of the map. Elijah had called down fire to destroy his enemies. And so, when a Samaritan village failed to welcome Jesus, James and John thought that the one whom John the Baptist had said would baptize with fire ought not to stand for it. Jesus had moved into the final period of his journey, having set his face toward the final conflict in Jerusalem. Surely, if he was going to unleash his heavenly arsenal against his opposition this would have been an appropriate time to start.
Jesus turned and rebuked them,
and they journeyed to another village.
The disciples had failed to understand Jesus, when by then they should have known better. Jesus didn't respond with a complex explanation, but rather with a short rebuke that implied they could figure out the rest themselves. He had come on a mission of mercy, to spread healing and forgiveness. That mission was to culminate, not in his enemies destruction, but rather his own self-offering. Jesus was the one who had taught them to love their enemies and to pray for those who persecuted them. It proved easy to acknowledge and approve of those teachings, but harder to live. Yet Jesus himself lived them perfectly.
As he intensified his singular focus on the goal of the cross he did not become more aggressive toward those who did not yet understand or accept him. He did not let himself be distracted by such apparent insults to his honor. He could allow himself to become thus preoccupied, since he was heading, not first to victory, but to apparent defeat. He wasn't going to achieve his goal by persuasion, much less by violence. If the Samaritans failed to welcome him it was only a symptom of the larger problem that would finally result in the moment when he was rejected by his own people, and, implicitly, all of humanity. He could have mobilized his angelic forces to prevent such an occurrence. But had he done so we would not have been saved.
There would indeed come a time when those who were not gathered together in the wheat of the harvest would be burned with unquenchable fire. But this judgment was reserved for those who had obstinately rejected what Jesus had done for them to the last moment of their lives. This was a very different condition than that of the Samaritans who merely saw Jesus as part of the Jewish system of theology with which they differed, among other things, about where true worship ought to be offered. The rejection of the fully understood offer of salvation from Jesus was something quite different from a squabble about theological understanding.
What of us? How do we handle it when we experience a lack of hospitality and and acceptance? What do we think to be appropriate treatment for those who disagree with us on theology, politics, or ethics? Do we see them as enemies deserving of destruction? Or do we see them, as indeed we should see ourselves, as fallen people in need of salvation? It seems like there isn't much public discourse or conversation on social media that has any goal aside from demonizing and finally destroying those with whom we disagree. One would think this would be better in the Christian sphere but the vitriol often seems all the more passionate since it surrounds deeply cherished beliefs. One would think it would be better in our own hearts, we who have heard the call to mercy and should know better. But we still seem to believe that any minute now Jesus will change modes and go on the offensive, and that we ought to encourage him to do so. We too need to hear the rebuke spoken to James and John, and constantly remember that Jesus came not to condemn, but to save. We ought never to be eager to see the fires of judgment burn, even if they one day must burn. We must instead fill our own hearts with the desire for mercy that fills the heart of Jesus, and to do all we can to bring that mercy to others, following the example Jesus himself gave us.
No comments:
Post a Comment