As Jesus' fame spread, he attracted a following. The Gospels describes three types of followers; those who were interested in what he was doing and what he had to say, those who sought healing, and those he personally invited or called to be his disciples. The Gospels give these callings a mystical hue. Generally speaking, Jesus simple says to whoever he is calling, "Come, follow me" and they immediately drop what they're doing and start following him.
There is a tendency within Christianity today to think of any church member as being a disciple of Jesus; a concept derived from Jesus commissioning his disciple to make disciples of all nations at the end of the Gospel of Matthew. Discipleship is a term that needs to be understood.
Looking at the time, the place, and the culture in which Jesus called his disciples tells us that Jesus was a product of the time, place, and culture in which he grew up and lived. All of Jesus' "called" disciples are men. Jesus was no misogynist. He honored women and women were his most ardent followers. They were the people who didn't abandon him when he was crucified and they were the first people to experience the empty tomb and receive the message that Jesus was resurrected. They were also directed to "Tell his disciples that he is risen." What is clear in the Gospels, however, is that these devoted women were not considered disciples at the time the Gospels were written.
This is admittedly dangerous turf to tread on today. I'm not saying that women are not worthy to be called disciples, but rather that Jesus apparently did not think of them as such during his ministry and that his not doing so reflects the time, the place, and the culture in which he and the devoted women who followed him lived. In the patriarchal, male-dominated society women would have been put at risk if told they were told to preach and heal people. While Jesus was a product of a patriarchal upbringing, he did not feel bound by it in his personal relationships to women. He spoke to them in public and allowed them to speak to him in public. That in itself would raise some men's eyebrows and it indeed did even amongst his disciple's inner circle.
The fact is we know little about the twelve named disciples he called. We are familiar with Peter, James, John, Judas and Thomas. We know Matthew was a tax collector before becoming a disciple. We know a little about Phillip, but very little else. We know Peter was married and his brother Andrew was a disciple, but other than that we know virtually nothing of the other six disciples who made up Jesus' core disciples, apart from their names.
In Luke 10 we are informed that Jesus may have had seventy-two other disciples beside the core twelves disciples we are familiar with. Who these disciples were is unknown. What we know is that Jesus is said to have sent them out like he did the twelve disciples to put into practice what he taught them. In this sense, disciples were more than devoted followers, they were students learning to do what Jesus did and Jesus sends them out as his apprentices to practice what they have learned, some returning with mixed results.
In the John 6, there is a story that seems adapted from stories in the Synoptic Gospels in which the religious leaders of his community challenge Jesus about his teaching. In this story Jesus is telling his audience that he is the Bread of Life and that unless people will eat his body and drink his blood they will not have eternal life in them. It is at this point that John writes many of Jesus' disciples left him because they felt Jesus had gone too far in comparing himself to bread from heaven and talking about eating human flesh and blood. Only the core twelve disciples stick with him. Like many stories in the Gospel of John that reflect events found in the Synoptic Gospels, the premise of disciples leaving because Jesus talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood is spurious and reflects a rationale attributed to Jews, during the time the Gospel of John was written, for rejecting Christianity.
Jesus lived in a time in which messianic fervor was high and was viewed with suspicion by both Jewish and Roman authorities. but amongst the general public there was a hope that some day soon the Messiah would defeat the Romans, and reestablish the Kingdom of Israel. One cannot help but wonder that when John the Baptizer and Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God if people equated it with the reestablishment of a Davidic Kingdom of Israel.
This thought may have crossed Jesus' mind. What strongly hints at it is when in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus takes the twelve on a journey outside of Galilee to ask them, "Who do people say that I am?" Jesus is wondering if the question that continued to haunt him could be answered by the perceptions of how others saw him. More importantly, since picking up on John the Baptizer's theme of talking about the Kingdom of God being at hand, was people making a connection between what he was preaching and who he is.
That Jesus waited until he was away from a predominantly Jewish audience to ask his disciples this question underscores the concern Jesus had regarding that question. The disciples responded by saying some thought he was a prophet or one of the prophets, or the recently executed John the Baptizer, some even thought he was Elijah, the forerunner to the Messiah, but the disciples had not heard people speak of him as the Messiah. This may have come as some relief to Jesus because people were not following him for who they thought he was but rather because of what he did and taught regarding the Kingdom of God, which Jesus consistently presented as an antithesis to any kingdom on earth.
Then Jesus asks his disciples who they thought he was. This question might have struck them as a bit odd, as somewhat begging for an answer Jesus was looking for. It's very likely that Peter thought he knew the answer that Jesus was looking for: "You are the Messiah, the son of the living God." Apart from Matthew's telling of this story, Mark's and Luke's description of Jesus' reaction to Peter's answer comes across as something Jesus was less than excited about because he quickly warns them to tell no one.
Theologically, this story poses a quandary because if Jesus believed he was the Messiah why didn't he want people to know. None of the Synoptic Gospels attempt to explain Jesus' reticence in taking on this title or why he didn't want his disciples talking about it. We don't have a straight answer for that unspoken question. Theologians can come up with reasons why he didn't want that information out there, but these Gospels don't offer one. It is only in the theological Gospel of John that Jesus has no qualms about Jesus being the Messiah because by the time the Gospel of John was written, Christians claimed Jesus to be the Messiah.
In all three Synoptic Gospel accounts, it is after Peter declares Jesus to be the Messiah that Jesus begins talking about his death. Theologically speaking, Jesus talking about his death is presented as an indication of the sort of messiah Jesus is. Pragmatically speaking, Jesus is simply reminding his disciples what happens to those who claim to be a messiah, which is to say that those with messianic aspirations will end up being crucified by the Romans. There is no mystery about that. It had happened before and it would likely happen again. In other words, Jesus is saying if he is perceived to be the Messiah that Peter claims him to be, he will be seen as a threat and end up being crucified.
While the Synoptic Gospels do not have Jesus clearly denying that he is the Messiah, it becomes evident that he is not the Messiah that his audience and his disciples were waiting for. Peter was ready for a fight. In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, James and John approached Jesus with a request that one of them sit on his right hand and the other on his left hand once Jesus' kingdom is established, which infuriated the other disciples. The Gospel of John tackles the issues of Judas' betrayal by portraying Judas as being disenchanted with Jesus' lack-luster commitment to the here and now concerns of the poor as evidenced by Jesus allowing a woman to anoint his feet with expensive oil.
All of the Gospels tend to portray Jesus' core disciples as having difficulty understanding what Jesus was saying about the Kingdom of God. It isn't that they were ignorant about what he was saying, but more likely, that the difficulty they had in "understanding" Jesus was due to the time, place, and situation that they found themselves in. If they were trying to see in Jesus the Messiah that they wanted to see, they had difficulty in seeing that Messiah from what Jesus was saying.
That Jesus healed illnesses and did things that challenged the religious authorities of the time was something they could see the Messiah doing, but his teachings did not contain the rhetoric they expected the Messiah they are looking would use. It was not that they didn't understand Jesus' parables as much as it was trying to filter from them something concrete to rally the troops around; the troops they suspected Jesus would need if he was to take on the Romans and cleanse the Temple of what they saw as a paid off priestly cast doing the bidding of Rome.
It isn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and the disciples' resurrection experience of Jesus that their understanding of Jesus undergoes a profound change and his message about the Kingdom of God finally begins to sink in. It is after Jesus' physical departure that the followers of Jesus experienced a spiritual awakening in which the teachings of Jesus enlivened and emboldened them. In time, the Kingdom of God that Jesus had talked about became more vivid and took on cosmic proportions than the reestablished Davidic Kingdom of Israel they had once hoped for. As such, the teachings of Jesus that they found difficult to accept before Jesus' death would propel them to proclaim the good news of the emergence of God's Kingdom throughout the world.
My next post will examine the teachings of Jesus.
* * * * * * * * * *
Until next time, stay faithful.
Norm
No comments:
Post a Comment