Leaving and following (1)

At once they left their nets and followed him. (Mark 1:18)

After Simon brothers listened to Jesus’ command, “follow me”, they at once left their nets and followed Jesus. Why did the author of the Gospel of Mark mention this happening? As a matter of fact, the net was not that important at the tense moment when someone’s fate would be decided. It is impossible for us to understand clearly if there must be some intentional effort from Mark for this sentence. Of course we could explain depending on the basis of faith like this. We could say that we need some courage to give up certain way of living in order to follow Jesus. We often seem to read the Bible this way. This point of view is well-known analysis that is ok pretty much.

But we could analyze this happening from a viewpoint of the Bible as a whole. This is what an analytical circulation of the part as well as of the whole means. This kind of point of view could decrease misunderstanding, and also open the deeper recognition of the text in the Bible. Look. The topic of the whole New Testament is basically Jesus Christ. When we read from that point of view, the essence of today’s text is Jesus Christ, not the net. It means that following someone is more important than leaving something.

Here it might be possible for us to ask this kind of question. Isn’t it the same thing leaving and following? And then why should we say that the latter is more important than the former? These two are related with each other. Of course without leaving the net, you cannot follow Jesus, and also without reservation to follow, it is impossible to leave the net. But analysis to emphasize on leaving is quite different from the one to put more weight on following. It is because the center of our life is Jesus Christ himself, depending upon his calling. Only when this calling is so strong, the meaning of leaving could have be much more important to us.

Sometimes some people put emphasis on leaving for faith. As an extreme example, there are rare cases in which there are some people who want to be a pastor because they have failed whatever they like to do in the world. They regard those kinds of failure as the Lord’s calling. Of course it could happen such things, but those things could distort essence of our faith in case of generalizing Christianity. Because in that case people could have regrets or desires for what he had left or had not achieved, it is possible that he could not have clear ideas about whom he should follow or he could have some bigoted attention.

What is worse, some pastors are saying without hesitation they have enough incomes through their books or speeches, so that they could give back all of their pay from their ministry as offerings. If they could give up material things, what many people are craving for, for the church that is the body of the Lord Jesus, it could be very praiseworthy enough, but if someone is boasting it off, it is because he is so foolish not to understand what the essence of our faith should be. At this point, I suggest we don’t put focus on “leaving” for sermons. There must be lots of things we should give up as a Christian, but that is not a key point for the Gospels. We should explain more about Jesus Christ, who is holding our hearts and souls enough to give up the net than such trivial things. We should try to let them understand the kingdom of God. Yes, we should. Our starting point is not to leave the net, but to follow the Lord Jesus. To differentiate this difference is related with making sure what the essence of the Gospels is.

Lord, we like to follow you as much as we could forget the net. Amen!

Follow me!”(2)

“Come, follow me“ Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”(Mark 1:17)

The verb in a sentence “follow me” is “follow”. Jesus did not say “find a Buddha in your heart!” or “make peace inside!” or “build up the ability for love”, but clearly he said, “follow” me. In here there exists the second core of Christianity. What does it mean by following Jesus in details? As we meditated in yesterday’s text, people have a tendency to religionize the characteristics of Christianity. Many people say that they would go to church for recovery or mental comfort from fear of death or painful life. What is worse, some people go to church in order to cut off smoking, gambling or just to live a good life. These are not Christian essentials. The center of Christianity does not remain in abstract or concrete joy or happiness or living as a role model, but in “following” Jesus who is a real historical person.

Here we’d better listen to Bonhoeffer’s explanation. Once he made definition of Christian identity as “following Jesus”(Nachfolge Christi). This does not mean simply taking the ideas of Jesus Christ or having religious dialogue with Him or learning mystery of God’s world through Him, but means to follow His life in details. It is like Martin Luther’s saying, “If Jesus is in the hell, I will choose to stay in the hell.”

If they were a little thoughtful Christians, they might understand explanation above. But they do not think seriously about what following Jesus means exactly. Being for others or new being or being a pioneer for world mission or nationwide evangelism, they do not have concrete ideas. Most people could think that having diligent church life could be a living like Jesus. That’s right. It must be true that living in that way could be a living to follow Jesus in a sense. The more people who are living like this, the brighter light Christian church could get as a community following Jesus.

But the basic meaning for following Jesus is not a partial following, but a total following. It means the fact that our total being should rely on Jesus Christ. Our thinking, our value, our resolution, our final destiny should be concentrated only on Jesus just like a person, who fell in love with someone and then thought about only that person for 24 hours. These kinds of people could be called followers for Jesus.

Do not misunderstand this. Does it mean we could neglect whatsoever except following Jesus? Does it mean that we should abandon jobs, hobbies? No way! The life style with those things is precious too, but the contents of life should be filled with Christ totally.

Considering as trinitarianistic point of view, following Jesus means that we rely on the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a power of life. So when we say we rely on the Holy Spirit, it means a living totally directed toward life. Now the meaning of totally following Jesus seems to come closer to us in full sense. It means we must be living life-oriented life. When we eat, take a walk, get conversation with a friend, learn or teach. it is possible for us to have a life-oriented life. When such direction toward life as well as toward Jesus incident could be harmonized in our life, it might be a living totally following Jesus.

Lord, hope all of my soul to listen carefully only to you. Amen.

“Follow Me!” (1)

“Come, follow me“ Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”(Mark 1:17)

Jesus’ saying “follow me” have shaken so many souls from the bottom for last 2 millenniums. It could not be one or two people who had left their worldly lives giving up all the achievements for the monastery or a remote land according to this saying. There is no greater saying among what famous people had said to influence human history than this from Jesus. This sentence is composed of two words. It is a very short sentence with “me” and “follow”.

The focal point in Christian faith is Jesus written as “me”. Jesus is an absolute person as center of Christian faith. This Jesus is a real historical person who lived as a son of a carpenter 2000 years ago. Every incident happened to him as well as his destiny is both roots and fruits for Christianity. On the other hand, Buddhism is quite different. Historical person, Siddhārtha, is very important person for beginning of Buddhism but is not an absolute one for this faith. It is because they say that everyone is able to be a Buddha and should be. If there exists already a Buddha inside the heart of the Buddhists, a real Buddha could not be an absolute being for them. But none of Christians could be either Jesus or Christ. Jesus Christ is only one, and it is possible for salvation only through Him.

If we accept this fact as truth, we should pay attention only to Jesus Christ. Probably someone could ask why I am talking about such an evident fact. Do you think we pay attention only to Jesus these days? Do you really believe that? What a happy person he is if he really could give attention only to Jesus Christ! But as you know it is not that easy to pay attention only to Jesus.

Look at us. Generally speaking, we don’t try to know who Jesus is, but instead try to believe. We only rely on our own religious experiences. It might be possible to say that such attitudes could be just efforts to make us satisfied with our narrow minds, not sincere care for Jesus Christ. Healing by prayers, speaking tongues, or growing up churches in magnitude used to be highlighted in Christianity, but you can see such things from other religion too.

I am not talking about any possibilities or judgment of value in most religions. I am saying that Christianity basically does not regard those things as their essentials. Christianity is not a faith for recognition, which is looking for a Buddha in their hearts, and not like a Baal worship, which guaranteed an abundant life with god’s help. Christianity depends upon basically knowing who Jesus is. The most important thing is to know who Jesus is exactly. We should know historical Jesus and also what kinds of incident in Him lead to salvation. Why? The reason is that we are the people living according to the faith from his command “follow me”.

From some time ago Korean churches have been fallen into sentimentalism like “praise and worship”. This is a psychological spirituality imported from America. Leadership training or counseling is getting much attention from people. But what on earth are these things? How could such things be related with understanding Jesus, Jesus incidents, Jesus destiny, and what does it matter with being in accord with Him? To a person who has interest in these things, “the Kingdom of God” through Jesus does not have any impact. They don’t even imagine what an eschatological hope means. They don’t care why the day of Advent is the beginning of church calendar. It is good enough for them to get comforts while singing “you are the person to be born for getting love” with two raised arms. Please forgive my way of speaking which sounds like to find fault in the remarks. You are not a person being born to get love, but a person whose birth is already God’s love. It is because creation is just like love. Many Korean Christians regard their faith as a soap opera, which cling to love relationship.

This trend in Korean churches is natural consequences of church leaders’ faults. Now many Christians who have this tendency are out of control just like flood. Because they have interest only in religious self-satisfaction now, it might be impossible to ask them to follow Jesus only. Even it is impossible to tell them to look at mystery of life.

Today I think I talked too much. Since the person who had said “follow me” seemed to be hurt these day, I was a little bit agitated. But we don’t have to be discouraged as long as people following Jesus remain to make up their minds to follow only Jesus and also mystery of life as well as of salvation. Probably this could be a just normal phenomenon. It could be inevitable that the number of people who have accepted the truth “follow me” is so short among the awakened.

Lord, Only Jesus is everything for our life. Amen.

Response of the crowd

David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight. (Mark 12:37)

The large crowd agreed to all the teachings of Jesus. The meaning ‘listened to him with delight’ is to agree with. Not only in this paragraph but also in the previous paragraph (Mark 12:34) ‘no one dared ask him any more questions’. When the crowd heard Jesus’ teaching about Caesar’s tax they were amazed at him. (Mark 12:17)

During the public life of Jesus, the crowds sometimes fervently supported him and sometimes they withdrew support. However, their response to Jesus was generally amicable. Then they turned their back to Jesus in hostility when Jesus was tried. It signifies that there was no constancy in their response.

This is the very nature of the audience, crowd or the public. They sensitively respond to something which will give them some profit. Populism is echoing to such public psychology. I am not saying that the public is always opportunistic and incited but they are quite vulnerable to the enticement of political and religious leaders.

Jesus was far from such populism. It was quite natural. He absolutely depended on the kingdom of God. At this point we, cannot agree with some people’s contention that the public and the kingdom of God are one. Though the kingdom of God can have the similar character of the public liberation, but in reality, public liberation cannot be made equal with the kingdom of God.

Let us come back to the content again. The response of the crowd that the author of the gospel describes is not an objectified one. The crowd was not the representative of the entire Israel or the people of Jerusalem. The concern of the authors was not the crowd but Jesus. The central point of their concern was the teachings of Jesus and the work was to proclaim the gospel to the people.

Son of David

David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight. (Mark 12:37)

The verse mentioned above is a little complicated. It is contended that the Lord cannot be the son of David because David himself called Christ ‘Lord’. Then this is a statement to refute those who called Christ as son of David. Here ‘Lord’ means Jesus Christ. The phrase “Son of David” is used in many occasions as another corresponding name for Jesus Christ. Then does the above verse contradict with this fact?

The title Jesus as the son of David often appears in the gospel of Mark. A blind beggar on the way to Jericho from Jerusalem called him son of David (10:48) and the crowd in the scene to enter into Jerusalem also praised the approaching kingdom of David (11:10). The above mentioned verse also comes under this category. Meanly this title was developed within the Judean Christian community of Palestine. It is an unavoidable circumstance. The Christians in Palestine have to accept their tradition about the Messiah in order to persuade the Jews.

However, as we can confirm from the above verse that the early Christianity accepted that Jesus as the son of David in a totally different manner. Jesus is not a son of David according to his parental chronicle. Jesus is rather the Messiah, the Christ whom David called ‘Lord’. Jesus had shifted his position to another which is beyond the ancestral chronicle as a pre-existing being. According to John’s gospel, Jesus was retroactive to the time of creation.

By accepting the tradition of Jews, the Judean Christian community accepted two identities of Jesus. One is son of David and the other is Christ. The former points out the true humanity while the latter the true divinity. Here the fact remains, that, these two characters become a single personality and this is the mysterious being of Jesus Christ that the early Christians understood.

David’s speaking

David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' (Mark 12:36)

The above verse is quoted by Jesus from Psalm 110:1. This verse found in the Old Testament is mostly quoted in the New Testament. The verses in Acts 2:34, 35, 1 Cor. 15:25, Heb. 1:13 also quoted the same verse. The phrases that are applied in the Apostle Creed are ‘My right hand’, “He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.” The authors of the New Testament thought that the particular verse in the Psalm talk about Jesus Christ.

Did David really think about the Messiah in this Psalm? We have to give much effort in studying the Biblical and theological background in order to clarify this matter. We cannot deal with question at this moment; rather, first I would like to set a direction only. Though the particular verse in this Psalm does not directly mean the Messiah, there is the possibility of right interpretation of the authors of the New Testament.

This is important. The Old Testament, the Jewish unique history, is clearly the record of God’s revelation among the Jews. However, this God’s revelation and the Messianic mission have been extended not only to the Jews but also to the entire mankind in the world. It is evident that the early Christians had a unique experience with Jesus Christ. Through their unique experience with Jesus, the history of the Jews becomes the universal history of salvation in due course of time.

The word of David is not limited with his own. It might not be the word of God which was limited in the age of David. However, now it is connected to the universal Messiah and his salvation that goes beyond a person and a history. Likewise, history is opened to the end of the world. What meaning and impact will our speech and activity have in the end?

Again in the temple

While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? (12:35)

It is not an exaggeration to say that the most important time of Jesus’ public life was the last one week of his earthly life. Precisely speaking, the important events happened during his last week were his triumphant entry into Jerusalem on Palm’s Sunday, his execution on the cross on Friday and the subsequent burial. The series of incidents that happened were shown in a compressed and focused manner and so it is hard to find the correct and spontaneous flow of time and incidents. However, the important fact we can grasp is that, the incidents happened after Jesus entered into Jerusalem is a clear evidence of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Those incidents happened mostly in and around the temple. Sometimes it does not give a detailed clue that certain events happened in the temple, but as a whole it happened in the temple. Jesus mainly did two things in the temple: teaching (sermon and argument) and acting as a critic for the temple. After the incidence of temple cleaning (Mark 11:15), Jesus had several arguments with many people and finally he prophesied the destruction of the temple. (Mark 13:1) Seeing all these activities of Jesus, the temple leaders might have resolved to get rid of Jesus at any cost.

According to the above mentioned verse, Jesus again taught others in the temple. What place is the temple for? It was not only a religious symbol of Israel but it also the spiritual pivot of the Israelites. It had the authority that even Roman Empire was not able to touch. Saying something about God in the temple itself was a serious challenge against the authority. It is not a strange thing for us who confess Jesus as Christ but it was extremely strange to the people of those days, especially the Priests. However, no one was able to argue with Jesus’ teaching at the level of the truth. From there, Jesus was branded as the dead. It is human history.