I confess: it takes a lot sometimes for me to see what Luke’s up to in the way he strings together the Jesus stories. But today I’ve been pondering a possible thread through three pericopes: Jesus’ passion prediction, the disciples subsequent arguing over greatness, and their confession about stopping a guy from exorcising (all in ch. 9).
First, in a striking juxtaposition, Luke tells us that Jesus responds to everyone being astounded at all the things he was doing by saying to his disciples, “Listen carefully to these words, ‘For the son of man is about to be given over into the hands of people.’” Greatness is going to be turned on its head. The mighty, powerful one will be handed over to sinners.
It’s worth pondering whether Jesus said, “Listen to these words” prospectively (“what I’m about to tell you,” NIV) or retrospectively, (“Listen to what these people are saying, and hold it together with the next part of the story.”). The latter, incidentally, is how Peter preaches Jesus in Acts 2.
But in any event, Jesus’ falling into the hands of sinners is set in striking juxtaposition with people’s glorification of him. And, the disciples’ deafness to the calamity is put on display by their own visions of glory.
The disciples get into a dispute about greatness. Interesting, isn’t it, that division arises when people are pursuing greatness? There’s a connection here between unity and humility. A call to oneness will only be successful when that oneness is predicated on the gospel narrative that turns the world on its head: the narrative of the handed-over Messiah as God’s agent who embraces the world.
<aside> Incidentally, this is why I’m quite sure that a narrative hermeneutic is more fundamentally Christian than a Trinitarian hermeneutic. A Trinitarian hermeneutic, or even one that simply reads the stories as telling us about “God” does not contain the inherently self-emptying dimension of the cruciform narrative of Jesus. If you want to say that this is exactly the kind of God who exists as 3 in 1, I’ll not fight with you on that, but only point out that such a claim entails a cruciform, narrative hermeneutic to interpret God. The narrative is the thing, the description trails behind. But a Trinitarian hermeneutic, could very well leave the disciples’ quest in place as inherently legitimate, a questing after the sort of greatness that God has put on display in his acts of creation and providence. </aside>
Jesus takes a child and puts it in their midst, telling them that to receive such a one in Christ’s name is to receive not only the child but Christ and the Father as well. The “name of Christ” will recur in the next story as well. The question for me is why is receiving such a child a sign of greatness and a creator of unity with God?
My initial thought is that this is, itself, an enactment of the reception God brings to us in the gospel of Christ. It is a reenactment of the narrative. Note how it turns the expectations of the disciples on their heads. They are, rather Corinthian-like, thinking about their own greatness in the kingdom. The child is a reminder of the opposite. Moreover, to accept the child is to associate with the child, spurning the pursuit of greatness and the halls of power. It is to become the least by embracing the least. This is the way to greatness.
Ok, Jesus, so we can be like you, receive people in your name, and then we’ll be great. Got it. So, just checking here, this still means folks have to be with us, right? I mean, we’re the center of blessing and everything, so we still control the boundaries, right? So, like, this guy we saw casting out demons in your name, we were right to put a stop to that since he’s not following with us, right?
*sigh*
No. Wrong again. Part of the point of this whole thing is that Jesus, not the disciples, is the set-binder. To act in his name is to be on the mission of God. To act in his name by receiving a child, or to act in his name by casting out a demon. Unity is found in the gospel narrative which places Jesus at the center of kingdom of God.
As the intramural oneness was undone by hoping that, as an individual, the disciple is greater than the next guy (thereby failing to live into the narrative of the humble messiah), the inter-group oneness was undone by hoping that, as a group, the disciples were greater than the next guys (thereby failing to live into the narrative of an all-determining Jesus). The former is failure of the individuals to live into the gospel story, the latter is the failure of the group.
Indeed, the surprising turn of phrase that caught me off guard in 9:50 was when Jesus said not “whoever is not against us is for us,” but instead, “whoever is not against you is for you.” Your good is assessed, Jesus indicates, by seeing how my work is being done in the world–whether by your hands or not.
And, we’d all better hope, there seems to be a lot of “or not” going around.
I’m glad that you wrote about this! In our study we were going through Mark 9. I wasn’t too sure of the significance of the child. We were asking what was significance of a child? We were discussing the discussions of greatness among the disciples and Jesus’ turning upside the very idea of greatness means. Also, this is nice because of the article I’m writing on 1 Corinthians and the unity of the church. Your line, “Unity is found in the gospel narrative which places Jesus at the center of kingdom of God,” and Paul’s constant mention of “boasting” among the Corinthians. I’m currently reading through Corinthians and your quote has helped bring together the essence or cornerstone of unity within the Church. I know here, in Orange County, we need to re-read 1:10, “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no division among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.” A lot to think about today.
I happened to be in Luke 9 yesterday morning. It felt like the ninth round with a heavy weight boxer. I am still reeling from Luke 6:20-49. Surely, He is joking. I really appreciate your thoughts. The narrative hermeneutic doesn’t allow us to escape with shallow living. Can it get more demanding? Yes. Luke 9:57-62.
post script – Yes, I am Brian’s father.
Awesome–the White guys coming out in full force! So glad you stopped by. And, yes, as Jesus gets closer to Jerusalem the bar get ratcheted higher.
HA
re: the aside
Like you, I like the narrative reading of Luke and have found it enormously helpful in my current studies, over and against the way I was taught to read Luke 20 years ago as a theology under-grad – or even 10 years ago doing my ThM at Fuller, when narrative approaches were still emerging…
But do you really have a dog in the fight of narrative vs trinitarian hermeneutic? What does a cruciform narrative of Jesus mean without presupposing a trinitarian God. As you say yourself… no fight to be had here. So doesn’t it get kinda circular and I can’t quite follow the point of the distinction you make in the aside? Unless you are emphasising that any trinitarian herm. devoid of its cruciform shape/ narrative is deficient… but are their any serious arguments been made in this respect?
Re: your main point
I like the thread here – and find it reinforced in Acts 8-9 where the early Christians are also “handed over” by Saul for imprisonment as part of his persecution… their witness to and embodiment of the ‘cruciform’ narrative of Jesus in their own lives is an important – if overlooked – ‘backstory’ to Paul’s conversion/call and entering a cruciform narrative (Acts 9:16 – ‘it is necessary that for my name he must suffer’). Not sure where the being a child fits in to Paul’s story, but the rest I think fits!
Yes, Geoff, I’d say there are tons of serious arguments to be made in this respect! A focus on, especially, the “ontologically Trinity” can be and, in fact is, regularly employed to in de-historicizing exegesis that attempts to ground everything in the eternal heavenly realm rather than recognizing the importance of the earthly story.
In other words, there’s a danger in a Trinitarian hermeneutic, not present in a narrative hermeneutic, of a Platonic fascination with the heavenly world as the “real thing.” This can have all sorts of dastardly consequences, including no space for the sorts of “rereadings” and “corrections” that we have space for in a more developmental reading of the text.
A de-historicized God, and Christ, is behind (for example) the theology of the Westminster Seminary faculty as they created their rational for the Peter Enns ouster.
Okay – I’m tracking with you now… I too have no interest in the “de-historicized God, and Christ” – I guess I’ve been fortunate to learn my trinitarian thinking from other quarters that doesn’t do this either. Thanks. Lets all keep up the rereadings!!!
Geoff, Marianne Meye Thompson, who’s way smarter than me, keeps telling me I’m making up this Trinitarian Hermeneutic enemy. She’s probably right, so feel free to ignore me.
Did a bible study on Elijah, and we were asking ourselves why Elijah was going to come to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and vise versa.
It’s not like it seems that intergenerational tension was the biggest problem in 1st century judaism, was it? Jesus attacks legalism and hypocricy and divorce and….
Oh, divorce! That’s got to lead to some generational issues.
And it makes the “receive the child” example more strong. We’re probably so comfortable with receiving kids as part of the kingdom we don’t hear what might bug the disciples about it
Not quite sure I follow, Paul. Are you suggesting that receiving children is a necessity engendered by rampant divorce?
It strikes me that, though in a later post you (perhaps somewhat in hyperbole) say if we’re looking for inclusiveness we have to turn to Paul rather than Jesus, here in the story of the “other” exorcists we have a very clear example of Jesus’ inclusiveness.
Well struck, O Sage! Well struck!