Actually ... Jesus did not want to be accepted as Lord ... read on!
Hang on to your seats, this is going to be a wild ride.
"Salvation" for many has been reduced and simplified for many by simply "accepting Jesus as lord and savior". Yes—an oversimplification especially as that phrase is actually NOT in the bible. It is—rightly or wrongly—a result of stringing together verses and themes. To demonstrate, we’ll do the same but keeping things simple by sticking only to the Gospel of John.
We begin in John 1:1 where we find the introduction that summarizes Jesus is the Word and the Word is God. Yeah, John is the gospel where you point newbies to the bible to argue the divinity of Jesus. It has the subtlety of pointing to Jesus as divine like looking at Clark Kent while he takes off his glasses briefly to perhaps wipe them clean.
In the same chapter, in verse 12, it declares that those who receive him (yeah..."accept") becomes children of God. Okay, we can see where this is going.
And three chapters later, in verse 16, we read "for God so loved the world ... that whoever believes will not perish but have everlasting life". So we can connect "believe" to the image of accept/receive to the "savior" part. Anyone who casually gets of dose of Christianity knows (spoiler alert) that "he gave his son" means Jesus gets nailed on the cross in John 19. For many. that has been the ultimate expression of "for God so loved the world". The basis for "accepting Jesus as ... savior." But what about the "lord" part? The Gospel of John began by hinting about Jesus’ divinity, which does presuppose authority or "lordship" over lots of things.
But on the way to the crucifixion in John 19, we read chapter 13, where Jesus "...showed them the full extent of his love" (John 13:1). Remember ten chapters ago? "For God so loved the world, he gave ...?" We are here NOW.
Wait a moment, isn't that about Jesus being crucified and all that? That would not happen until chapter 19. What is this "love" mentioned here in John 13? Is this a prequel or a hint of what is to come? A foreshadowing of the cross?
But read it again: "...the full extent..." (τελος ηγαπησεν αυτους). The word (τελος = telos) behind it implies the MAXIMUM, the FINALITY, the COMPLETENESS. the GOAL. the END OF THE JOURNEY.
THIS IS IT.
THIS.
IS.
LOVE!
And what does Jesus do? He washes the feet of his disciples. That's it?!! The hype about the totality of his love comes down to washing feet?! Well, he does take the role of the slave of the owner of the upper room where they were about to have their (last) supper together. Touching scene: Jesus, who the Nicene Creed declares as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God" is down on his knees washing feet. Some have ritualized this making it part of commemorating the Passion of Christ. Or, should I say, some have reduced this scene as a ritual? Because something else happens in that episode that is glossed over by many as being too uncomfortable.
Jesus was doing well washing feet until he gets to Simon Peter who says "no ... you shall never wash my feet". Simon Peter was declaring Jesus is Lord. "Lords" never washes their underling's feet. "Lords" deserve to have their feet washed. "Lords" does not serve. "Lords" should be served.
And Jesus replies: "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me." (John 13.8).
Let me rephrase that:
"Unless I serve you ...
Unless you accept me as a servant ...
... depart from me I never knew you."
Simon Peter "accepted Jesus as Lord" and that could have potentially kicked him out of God's, I mean, Jesus' good graces.
Let that sink in.
Jesus does not want to be accepted as “lord”, he wants to be accepted as “servant”.
But wait, wasn't John harping about Jesus being God in the first place? The first twelve chapters of John was all about that: and Jesus was not shy about it either, like Clark Kent winking at you with his glasses off. If John 13 is the heart of what the full extent of love is; what we see here is now is the heart of what it means to be "god" (big or little "G") and ultimately what "lord" is according to Jesus.
St. Paul summarizes it in Philippians 2:6 and says about Jesus...
"... who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
For Jesus, what makes God "god" (however you capitalize or not either), is he serves. Jesus gets to be called "god" or "God" because he served ("For this reason..."/"Therefore..." Philippians 2:9). And he finally gets to be properly called "Lord" as Jesus has now defined its meaning.
This is what makes Christianity different from other religions.
Wait... FULL STOP.
Let me rephrase that: this is what makes following Jesus different from other religions. I have become painfully aware that "christianity" is just one of those other religions. Because like other religions, it has this uncomfortable relationship in history with political powers be it the Pharaohs representing their gods, the Roman Emperors being divine, or someone being somebody's chosen people. Much of "christianity" began when it was organized by a Roman Emperor who accepted Jesus as "lord" upon seeing a vision of the cross or the XP in the sky subtitled "In this sign, conquer". From then on, subsequent reactions to that have some "power play" behind it; whether it involves an ethnic group differentiating themselves from the powers of the pope, or some king not being granted divorce by said pope so he can marry a new wife, and among other reasons for a certain people group to be great (again).
Much of modern "christianity"—to a greater or lesser degree—is almost always someone's power trip. That is the way of the world and to "accept Jesus as Lord" is buying into that power trip. It is the third temptation (“all these kingdoms are mine…”).
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... I mean, Jesus is still "lord" right? He is the Word and the Word is God. Technically, he did say that all authority in heaven and earth has been given to him (Matthew 28.18). The issue here is what he do with that. So, we can go around going on an explainer that "lord" means something else—but why all that when we can skip it and simply declare Jesus is THE SERVANT.
It changes a lot on how one would see things—and it's subversive. Because you are the "god" you worship: for while "Jesus is Lord" we can justify a hierarchy or a pecking order we are in especially if you're on "top" or on the way "up". Or, the presumed "entitlement" many would like to claim as "children of God" (“claim it”/”name it”). But if the God you worship is a servant, trying singing "I want to be like you ... Lord"? And as "adopted" children of God, we should not be looking to our entitlement but the well-being of others, especially the least of these.
Many modern "children of God" are behaving just like the Zebedee brothers (James and John) who wanted dibs on the right and left hand of Jesus when he is "enthroned", when they get this rebuke:
"When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.'" (Matthew 20:24-28).
Enough said.
Comments
Post a Comment