We often think of the person of Jesus Christ and his mission as being unwavering: single-minded to the task set before Christ by God. But at least twice in the Gospels, it appears that Jesus is vulnerable to human actions affecting his own personal dedication to the mission.

In the Lectionary reading for next Sunday, Matthew 16:21-28, Jesus says the following to Simon Peter when Peter rebukes his words.

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.” [NRSV]

[Jesus turned to Peter and said, “ Get behind me, Satan. You are a stone that could make me stumble, for you are not thinking God’s thoughts but human thoughts. ”[CEB]

When you read that section, you see that Jesus is saying that Peter could cause him to stumble. Do you see the ramifications of this? The unbelief of Simon Peter, august among all the disciples, could cause Christ to stumble in his mission? Seriously?

I see this interpretation finding credence in Mark 8 where it takes Jesus two tries to heal a blind man (the first healing causes him to see Ents, for the LOTR inclined).

Jesus and his disciples came to Bethsaida. Some people brought a blind man to Jesus and begged him to touch and heal him. Taking the blind man’s hand, Jesus led him out of the village. After spitting on his eyes and laying his hands on the man, he asked him, “ Do you see anything? ”

The man looked up and said, “ I see people. They look like trees, only they are walking around. ”

Then Jesus placed his hands on the man’s eyes again. He looked with his eyes wide open, his sight was restored, and he could see everything clearly. [CEB]

In both of these situations, the Disciple’s lack of understanding precipitates the exchange. In Matthew, Simon Peter has JUST affirmed Jesus as the Christ…then rebukes Jesus when Jesus says he must die and rise again. In Mark, Jesus is trying to explain AGAIN to the Disciples the mission behind his miracles and they still don’t get it. In both cases, a lack of understanding of Christ’s mission predicates both the affirmation that Christ’s mission is vulnerable (Matthew 16) and his ability to perform miracles seems impacted by it.

What do you make of this?

• Is there the easy answer of “our unbelief hurts Christ’s mission?”
• Or is there a deeper response of “Christ was human and could have refused the mission” that should shake-up most Christologies that are not Arian-based?

(Image credit: “The Ent” by antoine.bertier, Creative Commons share on Flickr)

The Lectionary this past Sunday was Matthew’s report of Jesus’ parable of the weeds:

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like someone who planted good seed in his field. While people were sleeping, an enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat and went away. When the stalks sprouted and bore grain, then the weeds also appeared.

“The servants of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Master, didn’t you plant good seed in your field? Then how is it that it has weeds?’ ‘An enemy has done this,’ he answered. The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and gather them?’

“But the landowner said, ‘No, because if you gather the weeds, you’ll pull up the wheat along with them. Let both grow side by side until the harvest. And at harvesttime I’ll say to the harvesters, “First gather the weeds and tie them together in bundles to be burned. But bring the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”

Matthew 13, Common English Bible.

Also this week was a lively conversation on the United Methodist Preacher’s Network, a nearly 1,000-strong group of UM clergy on Facebook. They were talking about interfaith issues (specifically the Faith Shared Alliance) and how to work with other faiths who deny the truth claimed by the Christian faith.

My take is that Matthew 13 says that the gardeners and tillers are *not* to separate the weeds from the wheat. That is left to the harvesters (not the Dune kind, like the picture). Judgement is reserved for the harvester of what is kept and what is burned up.

To me religious tolerance is about reserving judgment to the harvester. We can till, we can garden, we can nurture, we can argue about whose wheat is the wheatiest…but judgment of what is fruitless and what is fruitful is left to One greater than us.

This is not a denial or endorsement of an exclusive Christology, it is an acknowledgement that God is sovereign in this area. I’ve reflected on this before when we talked about Rob Bell.

I wonder what role those who would not support working with other faiths on equal ground consider themselves to be: gardeners or harvesters? The ones who do God’s work or perform God’s judgment?

Thoughts?

(Image: Dune II screenshot of a Harvester)