Jesus and Common Sense
Alternative title: Was Jesus Risk Averse?
What would Jesus think of the “Nanny State”?
Times have changed! My own youthful hearing was partially destroyed by the noisy workplace required by my then employer, ultimately the Commonwealth of Australia. That PMG workplace has gone, but the injury danger would not be allowed to continue unabated these days. It would be eliminated or controlled. (In this case, PPE for sure.)
Thinking about this concept takes me back to the beginnings of the account of the earthly Jesus. When Jesus was but a child we read of him being protected from potential harm. A serious hazard was identified for Joseph! Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” Then Joseph[a] got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son” (Matthew 2:13-15 NRSVUE). Joseph (and Mary) had good reason to act.
And so it was that Egypt provided a temporary refuge for the little family (Joseph, Mary and Jesus). Only Matthew has this information. There is nothing more about the time they spent there. If it was dangerous in Egypt, it must have been less so under their Roman prefect.
After a dream-message that Herod was dead (died 4 BC, or 4 BCE) Joseph took his family back to the land of Israel (that is, the ancient Israel, a region similarly under Roman subjugation.) Strangely, their return was disrupted.
Herod apparently had wanted to keep his domains as a family affair. Approached in far-off Rome, Augustus decided to split the domain between Herod’s sons. And it was so. But when he (Joseph) heard that Herod's son Archelaus was now ruler of Judea, he was afraid to go there. Then in a dream he was told to go to Galilee, (Matthew 2:22 CEV). That was an example of “progressive revelation”. The situation had changed. Archelaus was not a good prospect for security and peace. (Augustus eventually removed him.) Clearly Joseph knew about Archelaus. Why the two stages to the message to Joseph, I wonder? Perhaps it met his specific needs then?
And so Jesus grew up in the Galilee locality; his boyhood home was Nazareth. As an adult Jesus began to set tongues wagging in the Galilee region. He was speaking regularly in their synagogues, and performing miraculous cures, and dominating evil spirits. (Not everyone was pleased with what they heard!)
People seemed to grasp that Jesus had a mission taking him throughout the land, whatever others thought. At the end of Luke’s record of the initial Galilee period we read: When it was day, he (Jesus) went out and made his way to a deserted place. But the crowds were searching for him. They came to him and tried to keep him from leaving them. But he said to them, “It is necessary for me to proclaim the good news about the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because I was sent for this purpose.” And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea[q] (Luke 4:42-44 CSB). If that wording is allowed to stand, it indicates Jesus departed from the north and went south to visit the synagogues of Judea. Surely that would be possible in the early days.
Readers will note my “if”, above. For a very long time English translations had instead read “the synagogues of Galilee”. There are many ancient authorities which replace the word “Judea” by the word “Galilee”. However, many (most?) text scholars nowadays consider the evidence favours including the Judea alternative. The passage itself has people in Galilee wanting Jesus to continue with them and Jesus saying it was necessary for him to go to other towns…
Judea would surely be the place of greatest danger to Jesus. They had a Roman Governor there but he was directly influenced by the Jewish elite. That did not keep Jesus out of that community. We do find him deliberately going there, as reported: Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan (Matthew 19:1 ESV). Mark also reports Jesus being active in the south: He set out from there and went to the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Then crowds converged on him again, and as was his custom he taught them again (Mark 10:1 ESV).
Jesus continued in Judea and his message included baptism. He was supported by his disciples, which would assist with larger numbers.. Report reached the Pharisees of Jesus’ doings and of public responses. (Perhaps the Pharisees had arranged for surveillance?) Jesus was told about the reports: Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John-- although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. Now he had to go through Samaria. [John 4:1-4 NIV]. Clearly Judea had become a “hot spot” of antagonism. To remain there would be to risk relentless conflict.
The religious antagonism to Jesus reached a crescendo. After this, Jesus traveled around Galilee. He wanted to stay out of Judea, where the Jewish leaders were plotting his death. But soon it was time for the Jewish Festival of Shelters, and Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, where your followers can see your miracles! (John 7:1-3, NLT). He decided at that moment to stay out of Judea. In fact Jesus did go up to Jerusalem for the festival. Perhaps he was shielded by favourable crowds.
Specific locations in Judea are rare in the account (Jerusalem, Bethany and Jericho excepted). There appears to have been an oscillation in Jesus’ movements. Jesus did not stay away from Judea but surely took care to move away from recognised risk when it appeared. Then the time finally came when he would spend his last period there.
Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now trying to stone you, and are you going there again?” (John 11:7-8 NRSVUE). The disciples had no doubt about the risk of attack on Jesus. They wonder if he has overlooked the risk?
Do you see an implication in their words, “are you going there again”? Jesus had been in the centre of things Jewish and had moved away when stoning was on the agenda. Prudence? There is no mention of fear on Jesus’ part…
Luke reported that Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem was unlike others. When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem [Luke 9:51-53 ESV]. I wonder what preparations the disciples were to make for Jesus in the Samaritan village? Doubtless, if he went there, the Jewish elite would not reach him in that place. However, the village did not want a Teacher who was Jerusalem bound. (This contrasts with the picture of John chapter 4. Time had passed.)
Jesus completed his journey to Jerusalem and ended up spending the nights a little way out in Bethany. Matthew (26) identified the house of one Simon the Leper - a leper’s house! Did that help deter the scrupulous Pharisees from approaching closely? I wonder!
Eventually the elite did lay their hands on Jesus, as planned. They were able to allege Jesus was equally a trouble maker in the south, as well as in the north: But they kept on insisting, saying, "He is stirring up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from Galilee, as far as this place!" Now when Pilate heard [this,] he asked whether the Man was a Galilean [Luke 23:5-6 NASB20]. I wonder if Pilate simply expected troublesome people to come from Judea? Northerners were not his responsibility, anyway!
Testing
Ours to experience.
Ours not to do.
Jesus was tested (ie, tempted). This is specifically said in Matthew chapter 4 and in Luke chapter 4. The Gospels put the experience at the start of Jesus’ public period. Here is part of the report:
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted there by the devil…..
Then the devil took him to Jerusalem, to the highest point of the Temple, and said, “If you are the Son of God, jump off! For the Scriptures say, ‘He will order his angels to protect and guard you. And they will hold you up with their hands so you won’t even hurt your foot on a stone.’[d]”
Jesus responded, “The Scriptures also say, ‘You must not test the Lord your God.’[e]” (Luke 4:1,2, 9-12 NLT).
Force God to make a miraculous survival? How was that a temptation to Jesus? An astounding, unsupported, descent from the top of the Temple, without injury, would doubtless impress anyone who happened to see it. (How many did the devil have in mind?) Wildfire word-of-mouth news perhaps?
“Throw yourself off” reminds me of the repeated demands that Jesus prove himself; do something, they said. As the crowd pressed in on Jesus, he said, “This evil generation keeps asking me to show them a miraculous sign. But the only sign I will give them is the sign of Jonah (Luke 11:29 NLT). Eventually, for those with eyes to see, the greatest sign was there - Jesus died and rose from the dead!
Moreover, and perhaps more to the point, a miraculous descent from the Temple would confirm to Jesus himself that God meant these words to apply to him in a literal way. Jesus would know that henceforth he was immune from harm, for he was and would be, protected and guarded by angels, so the devil asserted. The cross could not touch him. After all, it was in the Bible!
I note Jesus’ answer, also citing the Bible: so don't try to make him prove that he can help you, as you did at Massah (Deuternonomy 6:17 CEV). We are not free to test God, to make God do our bidding, to have God “prove himself”. We may experience tests, and we can pray that we will be delivered from them.
Let’s look back at that more ancient passage containing the words Jesus’ quoted: If you worship other gods, the Lord will be furious and wipe you off the face of the earth. The Lord your God is with you, so don't try to make him prove that he can help you, as you did at Massah.[d] Always obey the laws that the Lord has given you (Deuteronomy 6:15-17 CEV).
The Greek Old Testament has the same “testing” words in this injunction. What provocative and bad thing had the people done at Massah (which the Greek Bible calls wilderness, a hard place)?
There is a summary of the incident: don't harden your hearts as Israel did when they rebelled, when they tested me in the wilderness. There your ancestors tested and tried my patience, even though they saw my miracles for forty years [Hebrews 3:8-9 NLT]. The grumblers are said to have rebelled. (See below for the Old Testament record.)
So…. it is not OK to require a demonstration from God. God may deliver, and does. I do not know what God may do in a particular situation and I have no warrant to assume. I read a story by a person visiting an area in Australia known to have our deadly Brown Snakes. (Their visit was to do “God’s work”.) The visitor forgot the snake issue, but judged they could just carry on and skip recommended precautions, because, after all, God would keep them safe! (Did they have a choice about visiting? Evidently they were confident that God had placed them there. Fortunately, they did not see a snake.)
In Jerusalem after Jesus’ death and his resurrection, his followers were determinedly continuing to tell about him and urging people to repent and come over to Jesus’ rule. The authorities were not amused and at their second action against the apostles we read: When the apostles were brought before the council, the high priest said to them, “We told you plainly not to teach in the name of Jesus. But look what you have done! You have been teaching all over Jerusalem, and you are trying to blame us for his death.” Peter and the apostles replied: We don't obey people. We obey God (Acts 5:27-29 CEV). If they were speaking together here, they must have discussed and rehearsed their position, which had also previously been stated by Peter and John. They had been given a clear mandate and task (by Jesus) and knew the risk, which was real. (That had been made plain much earlier by Jesus and that truth was underlined by his execution.)
The most prominent figure for us in the period of expansion of the “follow Jesus” movement was Paul, the former persecutor, changed into an apostle. He faced many dangers as he carried out the task given him directly by God. We find an incomplete list in 2 Corinthians 11:23-27, including the below, which covered the preceding period in his life:
Prison more frequentlyFlogged more severelyExposed to death again and again5 times 39 lashes from the Jews3 times beaten with rodsOnce pelted with stones3 times shipwreckedA night and a day on the open seaConstantly on the moveDanger from riversDanger from banditsDanger from fellow JewsDanger from GentilesDanger in the cityDanger in the countryDanger at seaDanger from false believers
Paul had been warned of what lay ahead. Clearly he did not make avoiding risk a final factor in his decisions as he carried out his mission! He did pray and did listen to God. However, I see an indication of Paul reducing needless risk in the account of his determination to leave John Mark behind (as unreliable; Acts 15:38).
How do you interpret these passages and the facts recounted? Is there a guideline to follow?
Does it seem like we have a balancing act? Take risk; trust God? Disregard danger? Be brave? Take care? Be safe? Know my limits? Use available protections?
Jesus, like Joseph the carpenter, took account of the information to hand. He also knew God could be trusted, as did Joseph.
Today, so very sadly, many, many people face grave and deadly risks, not of their making. I hope that God brings you safely through any dangers you face. I also hope that you carry out whatever part is yours to play. God has given you (and me) the capacity to think!
The original Massah account has:
Then all the congregation of the sons of Israel journeyed by stages from the wilderness of Sin, according to the command of the LORD, and camped at Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink. So the people quarreled with Moses and said, "Give us water so that we may drink!" And Moses said to them, "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the LORD?” But the people were thirsty for water there; and they grumbled against Moses and said, "Why is it that you have brought us up from Egypt, to kill us and our children and our livestock with thirst?" [Exodus 17:1-3 NASB20]….Then he (Moses) named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the sons of Israel, and because they tested the LORD, saying, "Is the LORD among us, or not?" [Exodus 17:7 NASB20]. So, to paraphrase, the attitude was, we must have help; let God demonstrate that he is present and supporting us. (I wonder how many people vocalised these attitudes?)
No comments:
Post a Comment