Philippians 4:4-9 John 1:19-28
The Man Christ Jesus
Anyone who seriously attempts to study first-century history cannot avoid grappling with the question of Jesus and his followers. While they might believe the evidence is too sparse to draw significant conclusions, or they might worry about theological implications, or suspect there’s little new information to uncover, the question remains: why did this particular group – the followers of Jesus – why did they, among countless others of the time…why did they evolve so uniquely, crossing national boundaries, transcending cultural differences, and demolishing class distinctions…and why did they grow so quickly?
Why did early Christianity spread so rapidly and so widely, embracing people from radically different backgrounds and customs and belief systems and practices? When we seek to answer these types of questions genuinely and honestly, we find that their ethos as well as their explosive expansion had very little to do with structure, schemes, or strategy. Rather, it had something to do with the uniqueness of one single Person, the Man Christ Jesus.
The Early Christians believed that what had been revealed to them was true and consequently true for everyone. Pagan authors at the time wrote about Christianity spreading swiftly like a poison despite harsh resistance and persecution. So, one might well ask, why would men, women, and children risk everything to engage in mission? What was the reason that Christianity spread so rapidly throughout the known world from a tiny country in the Middle East? I believe the answer is quite simple. To the early believers, what they communicated was far more than a simple new existential self-improvement religion. No, to them the act of telling others about their faith was not about anything other than this Divine Person whose incarnation we celebrate during the Christmas season. They did what they did because of what they believed about Jesus.
Jesus was fundamentally different from the leaders of the other groups and his teachings had fundamentally different aims and therefore fundamentally different results. He was a controversial figure right from the start, deliberately avoiding celebrity status, revelling in humble self-sacrificial service, deflecting any glory, and obediently following the will of his Father, even to the point of death on the cross. The many messiahs before him were all political or military revolutionaries and zealots who sought to reestablish the ethnic and geographic kingdom of Israel through violent insurrection.
So, you can imagine how the messianic expectation, reignited by the preaching of John the Baptist, and the messianic reality, as Jesus’ ministry unfolded must have puzzled many. Speculations and anticipations multiplied as John announced that the Kingdom of God was at hand. It is no wonder the authorities in Jerusalem sent delegates to enquire as to his identity. Was he just another rabble-rouser, or a crackpot, or could he possibly be the one they had all been waiting for? The latter would have been a terrifying prospect for those who owed their prosperity to collaboration with the hated Roman oppressors.
To us, John’s replies appear to be maddeningly mysterious, but the typical rabbinical teaching method at the time was to answer questions with answers that would provoke more questions and so on until the questioner arrived at the desired conclusion. Because John did not wish to muddy the waters for the as yet undisclosed messiah, he categorically denied that he was the Christ. It is imperative for any messenger or ambassador to clarify his position. We too must remember that as ambassadors of Jesus, we are to represent him not our own opinions…we must be weary of exclusively basing our message on any interpretation of his Word. While it is not wrong to quote scholars, reformers, theologians, great preachers, sermons, confessions, or declarations, we must remember that the Word of God alone is divinely inspired and therefore we must always hold human interpretation or tradition lightly and keep them accountable to the Scriptures.
Of course, John’s denial that he was the messiah raised more questions and so the delegation turned to the next possible candidate – Elijah. You may remember, the prophet Malachi had stated that God would send the prophet Elijah before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord…but John once again denied the identification. “I am not Elijah,” he said.
But John’s denial here has often confused readers of the Gospels simply because Jesus later affirmed that he was, in fact, Elijah (Matthew 17:10-12). The interesting thing about Jesus’ statement is that it was spoken shortly after the transfiguration where both Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus and conversed with Jesus, clearly indicating that Jesus knew full well that Elijah and John were two different people. So, it seems that what John was denying was that he was Elijah himself…in other words, he was saying that he was not a reincarnated or resurrected Elijah. And in that sense, what Jesus was affirming then, was that John had come in the ‘spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17).
You see, as a prophet, John served as a herald announcing that what the Law and the Prophets pointed forward to was about to be fulfilled. In many ways, he was the bridge between the Testaments, between shadow and reality, promise and fulfilment. And as such he was Elijah, but in a prophetic sense, not in a literal sense, the latter possibly being what the delegation had in mind when they asked the question.
Their next question referenced an enigmatic figure mentioned by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-19. “The Lord said to me, “Moses told the people, “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And it shall be that whoever does not hear his words, which he speaks in my name, I will require it of him.”
Now, if you know the Gospels well, you would have recognised words and statements Jesus used from this passage in reference to himself. You see, as a human, he was a Jew raised up from among his brethren. However, as God incarnate, he spoke only that which the Father told him to speak (John 8:47; 12:49-50). Nevertheless, that this Prophet was considered to be the messiah by the Early Church seems clear from passages such as Acts 2:22-26 and 7:37…but because 1 Maccabees 14:41 (an historical, post-independence, Hasmonean apocryphal book from the Hellenistic Period) indicated that the messiah and this prophet were two separate offices, the delegation from Jerusalem might have been confused. Either way, John claimed that he was neither.
Exasperated, the delegation then asked him to give them something to take back to those who had sent them. In reply, John quoted Scripture: “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: make straight the way of the Lord.” This prophesy from Isaiah 40 ought to have brought the delegation to their knees because the chapter is filled with direct references to the coming of God himself, but, sadly, it seems as if they were either unwilling or unable to make this connection.
Their primary objection, remember, had to do with authority. If John was not one of the three exalted persons mentioned before, well then by whose authority was he calling Jews to repentance, and by whose authority was he baptising them? Remember, baptism was an Old Testament cleansing ritual usually performed by a priest to prepare them to meet with God – something first done at the foot of Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:10-11). Clearly, as a priest, he had not been sanctioned by the priesthood.
(See also, Exodus 30:17-21; Leviticus 11:24-28; 14:8-9; 15:5-13; 16:4, 24; Numbers 19:11-22; Deuteronomy 23:10-11; Psalm 51:2,7; Isaiah 1:16-18; Ezekiel 36:25-27; Zechariah 13:1; Matthew 3:11; Ephesians 5:26; Hebrews 10:22. Interestingly the Hebrew word “mikvah”, a cleansing baptismal ritual in Jewish tradition, is used first in Genesis 1:10, where it refers to the dry land emerging from the primeval waters.)
Now, this question of authority later became an issue for the Jewish leaders in their rejection of the ministry of Jesus as well. The crowds marvelled that Jesus spoke as one with authority rather than one under authority. Such a person either spoke as an individual which would render his witness suspect, or he was directly sanctioned to speak by God himself, a conclusion the Jewish leaders could not bring themselves to accept.
But neither John nor his greater cousin, Jesus, needed human endorsement or approval. In both cases, their authority and the exercise of their respective ministries were backed up by the Scriptures, and, as such, both were authorised by God. John was the forerunner, the messenger, the herald. Jesus was the fulfilment of prophecy, the long-awaited Messiah. And so, neither John nor Jesus needed to defend their claims nor were they answerable to anyone with regard to their authority.
From the beginning, John claimed to be only what he was…a voice, no more, but no less. A voice heralding the coming of the King and his Kingdom…the arrival of God himself as foretold by the Law and the Prophets. Right from the start his focus was on Jesus and therefore his message remained centred and singular despite challenges and adversity.
The same was true for the early Christians. They were voices…messengers…witnesses to Jesus. No more, but certainly no less. Likewise, with us today. This same undiluted message, when delivered without addition or embellishment, still brings peace to the hearts of those who focus on the Person of Jesus. If we, like John and like the Early Church remain fixed on him in our proclamation, then what happened in the first century can and will happen again.
The person of Jesus is as controversial today as it was before, during, and after John the Baptist’s ministry. The exclusive claim of Jesus is an affront to our modern pluralistic society just as it was in the pluralistic society of the ancient world. But we have a message which must not be changed to seek the world’s endorsement or approval.
Jesus remains the one and only universal King. Denial, dismissal, or denunciation does not change the truth. Unlike the other religious groups and movements throughout the centuries, the message of Jesus continues to break down barriers, promote peace, unify the divided, and expand his kingdom through the faithful witness of the Church. Why does Christianity continue to spread so widely despite attempts to ridicule or eradicate it? I believe that the answer has very little to do with structure, schemes, or strategy. Rather, it has something to do with the uniqueness of one single Person, the Man Christ Jesus.
Shall we pray?
© Johannes W H van der Bijl 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment