Listening to the Obedience of Jesus

There are two themes which are highlighted in the two stories of Jesus to which I have referred in my previous posts. These are themes which I believe are often overlooked in the pulpit. The first is the idea that Jesus went through stages, and that he perfected each one by his consistent and persistent obedience and submission. The second is that to which I now speak in this blog, and that is his sublimation of even his divine mission in order to be submissive to human authority. Or perhaps we should think of it like this: Jesus sublimated one form of obedience to his Father in order to be fully obedient to the ultimate desire of his Father, that of fully fulfilling the law, in order to fulfill our obedience for us.

Let me explain what I mean. In the childhood account of Jesus, Jesus asks Mary and Joseph, "Did you not understand that I must be about my Father's business?" A quite literal rendering of the Greek puts it this way, "Do you not understood that it is absolutely essential (dei) that I am doing the things of my Father?" But the text indicates that Mary and Joseph apparently did not agree with Jesus that now was the time for him to be doing what he was doing, for he leaves the temple, and he goes home with them; and the text says explicitly that he went home with them and that he was subject to them. And Luke seems to emphasize this when he states immediately after this that Jesus " increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and with people" (Luke 2:52 in the NET Bible).

The next thing we read in Luke concerns the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus. There is an implication here -- and I do not think it is unintentional -- and that is that Jesus' submission continued on into his adulthood. The text does not come right out and say it, but it certainly implies it, especially when read without the chapter breaks which were not a part of the original text.

The second passage to which I referred in my previous post, about the wedding at Cana, has this sentiment in it again. If I might paraphrase the saying of Jesus, "Woman, what are you saying to me? Do you not know that my time has not yet come?" I don't want to humanize the divine too greatly; however, it is almost like Jesus is saying, "Mom, you are pushing me out into the world before I am ready." And we know it is not quite that way, for Jesus has a full and divine sense about his heavenly mission. But it is the learning obedience thing once again, Jesus is learning as a human what he is already fully aware of in his divinity, that there would come a time and a place for the public demonstration of his ministry. And we could read into this exchange between Jesus and Mary and come to the conclusion that in some way Mary, as Jesus' parent, is an agent from God to Jesus, helping him to sort out what is the proper time of the Father in order for Jesus to begin his ministry in the public manner which would ultimately lead to his death.

In both of these cases, Jesus has an internal sense of calling and timing that is overruled by human authority, specifically parental authority -- and I think this understanding is crucial. For what is Jesus' primary commandment when it comes specifically to parents? To honor his father and his mother, which is what was written in the commandments of Moses. The command to honor means to give place to, to give weight to, to place oneself under another, or, in modern parlance, it would mean to give into another, or to prefer another as being greater than you are yourself.

Jesus' honoring of his mother is demonstrated even on the day of his death. One of the seven words from the cross are the words of Jesus looking after his mother. John bears this out. Jesus sees his mother, Mary, and the disciple which he loved, which we believe to be a reference to John, and he says to her, "Woman, behold your son." And to John he says, "Behold, here is your mother." Apparently by this time Joseph is deceased, and Jesus, as the oldest child, is fulfilling his familial responsibility to look out after his mother. And so, as he is dying, he turns responsibility for her care and keeping over to John, a disciple whom he trusted and loved.

In this way, Jesus fulfills the commandment to honor his father and mother. As I have stated previously, by this he passes through and sanctifies this stage of life for us by perfectly fulfilling the commandment. This is one area that we as humans rarely are able to get right. I, at the age of 47, had to recently call up my parents and apologize to them for years of inappropriate treatment. I had never publicly dishonored them; but I had not always held them in a place of honor in my heart. I called them to try to make things right; and I am trying now to restore the years that the locusts have eaten. It is a struggle sometimes, but by the grace of God, I trust that I will continue to honor them up to the time they are dead.

I made this comment one time to a pastor friend of mine, who came right back with a shot that hit me "square 'tween the eyes." She said, "What do you mean up to the time they are dead, what about after they are dead; you still have to honor them then." She explained that her parents had been dead now for years, but that she still evaluates her behavior and trusts that what she is doing now is still bringing honor to her parents. Amazing, I thought. I would have never have considered that the commandment did not end with the life of the parents. But then again, this is the familial bond; we are always the children of our parents, and we will never be able to fully rise above them even after they are dead and gone.

Listening to the Young Adulthood of Jesus

This post has been rewritten, keeping the substance, but deleting some of the extraneous matter.

My previous post addressed Jesus learning obedience in his childhood. This post examines his young adulthood. In our culture, we could just as easily say his adulthood, for the event I will be addressing happens when Jesus is nearing 30.

This incident once again involves his obedience to his mother. I think this incident in the life of Jesus seriously challenges the current societal delusion that something magical takes place on the day one turns 18, that all of a sudden, BOOM, you become an adult, and then nobody can tell you what to do any longer. This ideation can hardly be supported Biblically, though there is no question that one's responsibilities become broader when one reaches adulthood. However, the Western ideal of total autonomy is a delusion, as is the idea that one is ever totally free from any obligation to parents.

The incident in Jesus' life is the wedding feast at Cana as recorded in John 2. The story is familiar: the host of the wedding has miscalculated in the amount of wine which was needed for the party. He has run out of wine, and the family is likely on the edge of a social disgrace and humiliation. Mary finds out about the dilemma, and she calls Jesus in for the rescue.

The interchange between Jesus and his mother is fascinating. "Son, they have no wine." Jesus, "Woman, what to me and to you?" -- a literal rendering of the Greek. Mary, to the servants, "That which he says to you, do it." What is going on here? How do we understand this dialogue and Jesus' enigmatic, cryptic response to his mother?

The various translations differ here. Some follow the KJV to the effect of "Woman, what do I have to do with you?" Others turn this around, following another textual witness, and make this "Woman, what do you have to do with me?" Jesus follows this up with the statement, "My hour is not yet come," implying that he is rebuking his mother for having overstepped her bounds of authority in some manner, perhaps in attempting to command control over those aspects of Jesus' divinity. Others make this more general, "Woman, what has this to do with us?" In other words, ""Woman, this is none of our business," or "Woman, this is no concern of ours, it is the responsibility of others, let them care for it on their own."

A young person from our modern generation may understand Jesus to be rebuking his mother here, saying to her something on the order of, "Woman, what do you have to do with me? I am an adult now, and I need to be able to make my own decisions. You do not have any authority over me any longer, so you really shouldn't be ordering me around!" In fact, I can hear the argument for this interpretation now, and that is that Jesus is simply setting his boundaries; he is engaging in emotionally healthy behavior, and he is gently letting his mother know that she is violating his personal space, and that she is infringing upon his autonomy as a person.

I so not think that this argument can be supported from the text, for it does not fit very well with Jesus' actions. You see, Jesus did what his mother instructed him to do. Mary says to the servants, "Whatever he says to you, do it." Jesus calls for the water pots, and turns the water into the wine. Mission accomplished. Jesus has obeyed his mother's implicit instructions, he has fulfilled them right to the T.

In so doing, Jesus has honored his mother. Whether or not there is an overstepping of personal boundaries is perhaps a valid point of discussion. However, despite any overstepping that there may have been, Jesus has honored his mother. He has not put her to open shame. He has maintained her dignity, demonstrating  his obedience to the command in the law of Moses to honor his father and mother.

I am not certain if Jesus' statement to Mary is intended to be a mild chastisement or not. If it is, I suspect it has far more to do with Mary asking Jesus to demonstrate the power of his divinity than that he is trying to set boundaries concerning any violation of his supposed person. When it comes to allowing people to violate his person, Jesus sets the example; he endured all forms of suffering, yet he never tried to protect himself, neither when it was crucial, did he ever offer any defense. Our Roman Catholic friends refuse to see a rebuke here, and maintain that Jesus was simply addressing according the custom of the day. And that does seem to be the case in Jesus' use of the term "Woman," for that is the way that he also addressed other women in the Gospels.
 
There is more to be said here, but it will require at least one additional post. Stay tuned, and I will get right on it, before I forget what it is that I desire to say.

Listening to the Childhood of Jesus.

In my doctoral studies, I have been reading through Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. I am now in the middle of Volume 3, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300). In the pages that I have been reading, Pelikan is assessing the theology of St. Bernard of Clairveaux, specifically his understanding of the passage in Hebrews where it says that Jesus "learned obedience through the things which he suffered." Bernard's understanding of this is that while it was impossible for the Logos of God to learn anything new, he can learn by experience things which he already knew from eternity, but which he had never before experienced personally experience, or which he had never experienced as a man.

Bernard's understanding is very near to my own, though I perhaps have not been able to articulate it as clearly. According to Pelikan, Barnard writes that what Jesus knew as God, he now experiences as man. As God, he is the healer of human infirmity; as man, he now experiences infirmity himself. Quoting Bernard, Pelikan writes, "I would not say that he is made wiser by his experiences, but he does seem to be nearer to the children of Adam." This sentence struck me; and it combined with some other of my tangential thoughts. And I found myself wondering, "What did Jesus learn about life as a kid, as he was learning obedience at the hands of his parents?"

The New Testament tells us precious little about the childhood of Jesus. Gnostic accounts are filled with fabulous stories, but I discount them, as I do not consider them Scripture. From the writers of Scripture we have far more information about his birth and his infancy that what we do about his childhood. Then we have the big leap to his ministry; it is almost as if his childhood did not exist!

Yet, we have the incident when he was 12, when he was taken to the temple by his parents. After the festivities were over, his parents start for home, "supposing him to be in the company," apparently of other people from Nazareth. But when the company stops for the night, they cannot find him; and so back to Jerusalem they go. They find Jesus in the temple, and they get after him a bit. I can hear it now, "Jesus, what on earth are you doing?" "What's up, Mom and Dad, did you not know that I would be about my [true] Father's business?"

My children struggled when their personal convictions violated mine. "Dad," they would argue, "You taught us to live by our convictions, and to do what we believe the Lord would have us to do. Why don't you let us? Why do we have to live by your [outdated] convictions? You need to give us the freedom so that we can live by our own!"

Perhaps Jesus could empathize with my children, for it appears as if Mary and Joseph did not agree with Jesus that this was the proper time for him to be able his [true] Father's business. I agree, the text does not specifically state this; however, it certainly implies it, for it says that he "went with them, and [they] came to Nazareth, and [he] was subject unto them" (Luke 2:51 KJV), I am guessing without complaint. And interestingly, the next thing that Luke tells us about is the beginning of Jesus' ministry, started at about the time he was 30. Once again by implication it appears as if it was quite some time before his parents freed him up in order to begin pursuing his ministry.

You may say, "That is really an example of learning obedience through suffering." Well, I disagree, for I suspect that to a child it is. St. Bernard of Clairveaux arguef that Jesus passed through every stage of life sinless, obedient, learning obedience through suffering. In passing through sinless, Jesus sanctified every stage of life, and he left us a pattern, so that as Peter states, we are to follow his steps. And so, even in his childhood, he sets an example that even children can follow.

Responsibilities of Authority

Before I move on from the subject of authority and rebellion, submission and obedience, it is necessary to cover another aspect of authority, and that is its responsibilities. With authority comes responsibility. With responsibility comes accountability as well.

Thisoldman, in a comment to one of my posts, argued (I think) that authority must keep within the boundaries of the will of God or that authority is null and void; "it returns to the God who has given it." While in a sense this may be actually correct, I do not think it works well in a fallen society where authority is most always at least a little corrupted.

However, authority should be just. It should at least make an attempt to be righteous -- perhaps realizing all the time that it is possible for it to fall short. There should be no favoritism, no picking of favorites, no choosing of winners and losers. In reality, this is hard to do. We know that government authorities pick the winners and losers, at least to a certain degree. And all authority will, for authority sets parameters for living, or for working, or for citizenship, etc. To the degree one complies, one will win; to the degree one refuses to comply and rebels, one will face more and more authoritarian resistance.

But there are other responsibilities as well. A major one would be care and concern for the ones who are under authority. In the home we would call this love. In the community, or in the workplace, perhaps we would call this support. Care and concern could include things like concerns for safety, for making sure that the employee is properly trained and equipped for the job. My personal quibble with my employer highlights another, and that is that there should be clear boundaries of authority, one shouldn't be put into a place where in order to obey one authority he or she is force to be out of compliance with another.

In the home, security is a responsibility. One could also mention stability. A home should be a safe place, a place where there is sufficient supply of personal and physical needs. There should also be some sort of emotional stability: people should be who they are. Parental authority is to shape the children in the home; but any parent who has had more than one child to parent knows that each child must be dealt with as they are, for children are not cookie-cutters, and every child is different.

I have talked about training and teaching above, this is also important in the home. There should be proper guidance as to how to complete a task: what is the chore that needs to be done, and how is the one under authority to go about accomplishing the mission? The authority is also responsible to provide advice, support, necessary materials, and a helping hand as well if that helping hand is particularly needed.

Authority should also be grounded in honesty and integrity. It should seek the true well-being of the one who is under is care. It should not be manipulative or underhanded; it should make its purpose and its mission clear. Authority is also responsible for structure and order and the reduction of chaos. This is quite difficult if those under authority are characteristically and persistently resistant. It is perhaps this last responsibility that is most difficult to establish in the home, where the boundaries are consistently tested, and where there are tremendous pressures to negotiate, compromise, and where attempts are persistently made to obfuscate parental authority and boundaries.

Much of the way that an organization functions will be determined by those who are in authority, by those who have the positions of power. The success or the failure of the organization is often attributed to how well the operation is managed. Poor management often is linked to poor performance.

There is much more to say on this subject; I have only touched the tip of the iceberg. I will be anticipating your responses, should you be willing to give them.

The Power of the Word of Authority

So, I have been puzzling over this passage for nearly 12 years.The story is found in two places, in Matthew 8:5-10 and Luke 7:1-10. It is the story of a centurion, a Roman military commander of 100 soldiers, who comes to Jesus concerned about his servant who is lying at home paralyzed and deeply tormented. Jesus says to the man, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, "Go!" and he goes, and to another, "Come!" and he comes, and to my slave, "Do this!" and he does it." And Jesus marvels at this, and he responds to the centurion -- and this is what I have not understood -- "Truly I say to you, I have never found such great faith, no, not even in Israel."

And so what is it about this story that demonstrates great faith? What is the connection between an understanding of authority and great faith? I have puzzled over it and wondered. I had noticed the sense of unworthiness, and for a while I thought that this was the key to the great faith, that one needs to realize that thy are unworthy of Jesus' compassion and sympathy, that they must come to the understanding that one must recognize their unworthiness before they can truly receive anything from Jesus. But that did not explain this authority issue. What was the connection between the command of the centurion, and his understanding of authority? And what did the centurion mean when he said that he was a man under authority? And, once again, what does authority have to do with faith?

Well, the other day, I think I figured it out. It is understanding the power and authority of the spoken word. Great faith is found in understanding the nature of authority, that it is carried in the word of the one in authority, which in this case was Jesus, and that which is under his authority is everything in the entire, created universe. I had heard this stated in euphemisms such as , "his word goes," "we will have to see whose word will carry the day," and "he is the one who has the final say in the matter." But it has never connected with me -- and now I say to myself, "No, duh!" -- that the power of authority is in the spoken word, in the command. That is all that matters, that is all that needs to be said.

I immediately got to thinking that this is how God -- and Jesus -- exercised their authority. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. He spoke and it was done. Jesus calmed the storm by His word, He healed the sick by His word, He raised the dead by His word, He cast out demons by His word. That is all that was needed. He spoke and it was done. And that is what demonstrated great faith in the centurion, he understood this, and he knew where he fell in the authority struggle. He was a man under authority, carrying it, and administering it by the power of his word; but his authority was limited, and so he went to the One who had the authority over his situation and problem.

We have raised six children, and how I wish now that I had understood this 20 some years ago. There is no need to reason with children. There is no reason to negotiate. There is no reason to listen to backtalk, to rationalization, to justification of disobedience, to this, that or the other. All that is needed is the power of the word of authority. Usually, after all the struggle, after all the argument, after all the backtalk, after all the defiance, we finally realized this in some fashion, for we would finally end the discussion by saying something like, "I have spoken; now do it." And lo and behold, most often it was done. Not necessarily happily so; but then again, the demons did not go willingly, neither, can we presume, did the sickness and disease. But it had to go, for it was under authority, under the command, and Jesus was (and is) the Sovereign and Supreme Commander of the universe. All things are under His authority, as He is the source of all authority; it all starts with Him -- or with the Father, actually, as even Jesus was a Man under authority. Jesus understand this perfectly, when He states that He did not come to do His own will but the will of the Father.

My wife and I were talking as we went to bed last night about what our home would be like if we could start over, knowing what we know now. We agreed that if we had understood this early on, and put it into practice early on, that there would have been significantly less conflict. There would have been less rebellion. There would have been little, if any, defiance, at least in those early years. But we did not understand; or rather, I did not understand (my wife did much better at this than I did). I simply, when I was parenting, did not think this was fair. Cutting the children off in this way, without listening to them, and to their struggles, seemed to be out of line, to be disrespectful to the child. We had come under the teaching that you have to explain things to children, to help them to understand your adult perspective -- but I see now that they cannot do that, they do not, and cannot understand adult perspective. But they recognize the command, and they recognize they are under authority, and they will obey, and they did, when it finally came down to the "I have spoken."

I recognize now that the reason why I felt that this kind of parenting was wrong was that inwardly I was (and am) a rebel. I have millions of reasons within myself to justify and to explain why it is that I just don't have to obey. But it is interesting, rebellion also manifests itself in words, in defiance, in refusal to listen, in refusal to hear and obey. I had to call my parents the other week and apologize to them for 47 years of rebellion. Never had I really listened, never had I ever submitted, never had I truly learned to obey. And now that this outright rebellion is gone, I do not feel like I have to compromise anymore; I can stand my ground, as I have legitimate and God-given authority in my own home.

And it is amazing. Since it set forth this principle, I can sense a new-found peace. There is peace in understanding authority, and the boundaries, and how things are to be, and in being submissive to that, and not resistant. This is what I found in my workplace as well, to which I have spoken above; when I stopped rebelling, my soul was at peace. I am going to try to live the rest of my life this way; and I trust that I will be able to do so, by God's grace, apart from the rebellion.