At that very hour some Pharisees came, and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you."
And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow; and the third day I finish my course.'
"Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.
"Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem-- killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings; and you would not!
"Behold, your House is forsaken! And I tell you, you shall not see me until you can say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'"
5 comments:
These are not precisely supporters of Herod, but they have been to his court; they really can "go and tell that fox."
They are not just passing along rumor. The conversation at court (I'm guessing) went like so: "I really don't like killing backwoods holy men, but if I find any more of your rabble preaching against me in my own territory..."
Jesus can't give in to this, but in any case he's merely clarifying the situation, that he doesn't feel called to be Herod's problem for long.
But what he's saying about his destination... We don't read much, in the Hebrew Bible, about these prophets who'd been sent to Jerusalem and killed there. Jesus knows, whether by tradition or direct knowledge, that there have been many such.
Who is this "I" who would have gathered the people of Jerusalem under his wings? Jesus? If we go by Matthew or Mark, Jesus hasn't been to Jerusalem yet. By one legendary story in this book, he's been there once. The "I" in this line is God speaking directly through Jesus!
"And you would not!" Look, it's very easy to read this as "Jesus offered his Messianic services to the people of Jerusalem, & they turned him down." Something like that will indeed be coming up in the story. The people of Jerusalem generally depend upon Temple, tithes, and the pilgrimage industry for their whole economic base; while Jesus' practices have been undermining the Temple's status as ~'the only way to get right with God.'
But seeing this as God addressing his people, through Jesus' words, then we've got God saying that
the leaders and most devoted followers of His religion have been consistently denying and refusing His efforts to restore them to favor and intimacy.
Therefore, God's presence is withdrawn from the Temple ("House") and will not be recognized there until that city can acknowledge the King whom God is sending them.
Do "the Jews" have some kind of monopoly on dysfunctional divine/human relationships? I don't believe so! The implication, which I find exemplified in many ways... is a widespread human propensity to resist God in the name of piety and righteousness.
[This Walter Wink quote also relates to the previous passage-- though he's referring to Matthew's version...]:
The difficulty... lies precisely in discerning God's will in a field where Satan seems prepared to suit up for either team. But ... that is his service: Satan prevents ["should prevent"?] our presuming, on the basis of theology, Scripture, tradition, custom, reason, science, instinct or intuition, that we can know the will of God, apart from listening acutely for every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Hence the shock of those who had prophesied and cast out demons and done stunning miracles, all in Christ's name, when he turns to them and declares, "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers!" (Matt 7:22-23) They were doing what "everybody knows" is the will of God. But they had not consulted God. They had substituted activity for a relationship. Perhaps God intended something quite different for them, and they had never stopped to listen.
--------------
People seem to mean different things by the word 'intuition'. I'd say: It's 'what you come to know by "listening" as Wink suggests here.' As contrasted with another common meaning: 'intuition' == 'what you'd expect.'
Carl Jung mentioned 4 functions: sensation, thinking, feel and intuition. The intuitive person is someone who sees many possibilities in an event.
Jung sometimes had a good eye for 'what important considerations everyone was leaving unconsidered.' But seems to my untutored eye to have frequently muddied his objects of consideration.
'Many possibilities including some that might not have occurred to you' would be a criterion for calling someone 'creative'. Which is, after all, an attribute of the Spirit.
But I'd say the key element of 'intuition' would be the contact with the Spirit. Which could manifest variously, sometimes in creativity, sometimes in simple 'knowing'. And what else?
Jung just wanted to divy people up into predominantly earth, air, water and fire modes of experience.
Wink's 'intuition' would probably be 'fire' in that metaphor.
And my 'intuition' would be that fifth: 'ether'-- permeating all.
Post a Comment