Fire From Heaven
"When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But he turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village." Luke 9:51-56
It is the pastime of every people and culture to reject their prophets. A lot of this has to do with the fact that prophets tend to be weirdos and zealots. There is also the truth that, ‘a prophet is never welcome in his hometown.’ But there is a deeper force at work here. Just ask Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:3), John the Baptist (Mark 14:3-11) or John the Apostle (Revelation 1:9). People do not want to be told the truth. Maybe truth in the abstract 2+2=4 sort of sense, but not in the ‘you must not have your brother’s wife’ sort of sense. The first sort of truth helps us count our money. The second calls us to give our money to the poor. Prophets are, quite frankly, nuisances to our quiet lives of moral anonymity. So we shouldn’t be surprised that Jesus was rejected by his hometown, a Samaritan village, the Roman Empire, or enlightened postmodern culture.
Jesus was indeed, ”despised and rejected of men.” There are important lessons for us in these six verses. We tend to operate in one of two ways when we face the scorn and rejection of people. On one hand, I have a deep desire to please people and cannot bear to have anyone at odds with me. I want to be on everyone’s dance card at the ball. There is a strain of good here; it causes us to be careful with our words, attitudes and actions. We will watch ourselves as to not bring any unnecessary offense; that we are not being contentious or malicious toward those we are called to serve. But this can easily lead to an inability to speak truthfully and honestly in the face of sin . For many believers (especially pastors and church leaders), the fear of bringing offense can become a roadblock to speaking prophetically and biblically, as they ought. This is a real danger facing our increasingly latitudinarian evangelical church. In the face of such an ethos, the response of James and John in the passage at hand is a breath of fresh air. I concur with one commentator that “the genius for indignation has disappeared, and it is refreshing to see men who feel deeply any disrespect to Christ, any injury to his cause” (Charles Erdman, Commentary on Luke’s Gospel).
On the other hand we may tend toward an overzealous, hard and biting response to those who defy or reject us. This is the sin of the ‘sons of thunder,’ James and John, in our passage. Now, it is important to see that their desire for fire to consume the stiff-necked Samaritans is not entirely without biblical precedence. There are manifold examples of God striking down the rebellious and insolent. God has set his face against those who have opposed him. In 2 Kings 1:1-16, we see Elijah rebuke and call down judgment upon Ahaziah, the hard-hearted Samaritan king. Perhaps James and John were seeking the Messiah to operate with such prophetic authority against the Samaritan village. Note from the text as well that the Samaritans turned Christ and his band away, “because he was heading toward Jerusalem.” This is a reference not merely to the somewhat famous animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans, but to their opposition to his Messianic ministry and purpose. In this sense, the indignation of the disciples is understandable, however misplaced and inappropriate.
I have never asked Jesus to consume anyone with heavenly fire. (I have come close.) So I understand the brothers’ passion for their cause. As a pastor and preacher, I struggle greatly with opposition to my ministry. Much of my struggle, though, is not against principalities and powers, but with flesh and blood. And this is backward. If there is opposition because I am a fool, nave or tyrant, then such struggle is from God and for my good. If there is opposition because my ministry is like Jesus’ – full of power and truth, that penetrates the heart and provokes the hard conscience -- then this is from God and for the good of my hearers. So, I should not struggle against flesh and blood. I should not call down fire on those who oppose me. I should live sacrificially through the cross, as Jesus did, regardless of opposition and rejection.
And so, Jesus rebukes the brothers. We are provided with a living picture of the truth that “God did not send the son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him” (John 3:17). I find it interesting that perhaps the Samaritans’ foolish rejection of the living God only sped Him on His way to provide atonement for their sin. I find it interesting, as well, that Jesus does not rebuke the Samaritans here, but the disciples. It is a grievous thing to scorn the Messiah. But, it is a more grievous sin of the disciples that they should strive against the lost with anger and misplaced zeal, rather than with the grace and power of the gospel. The anger of men does not work the salvation of God (a loose paraphrase of James 1:20). Jesus’ rebuke, rather than concession to the disciples’ request, is a great grace to the Samaritans; for soon a day would come when the good news of Jesus’ work on the cross would be preached in their midst and there would be “much joy in that city” (Acts 8:8). Peter, John and Phillip would one day return to Samaria, “preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans,” perhaps the very village of Luke 9.
There is a wonderful irony in this passage that compels and comforts me in the face of rejection. James and John asked Jesus to send fire down upon the Samaritans and received a rebuke from their master instead. The apostles would soon see the purpose in that rebuke. It wasn’t that Jesus wanted his disciples to wink at sin, or that he took lightly the hard hearts of the Samaritans. It wasn’t that he wants us all to ‘just get along’ and not be harsh with one another. It wasn’t that he wanted to give the disciples a lesson is godly Christian character. The rebuke was part of a sovereign plan. This plan would not come about through the disciples’ angry judgments, or indignant struggles against flesh and blood. This plan would come through the work of the cross, which Jesus had set his face resolutely toward. The irony is that James and John’s request would indeed be granted by Christ. But it would come through a detour around this village and via the destination of the cross. Jesus would bear the judgment owed to the hard-hearted Samaritans, so that those hearts might one day be melted through the power of the Spirit…like fire from heaven.
It is the pastime of every people and culture to reject their prophets. A lot of this has to do with the fact that prophets tend to be weirdos and zealots. There is also the truth that, ‘a prophet is never welcome in his hometown.’ But there is a deeper force at work here. Just ask Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:3), John the Baptist (Mark 14:3-11) or John the Apostle (Revelation 1:9). People do not want to be told the truth. Maybe truth in the abstract 2+2=4 sort of sense, but not in the ‘you must not have your brother’s wife’ sort of sense. The first sort of truth helps us count our money. The second calls us to give our money to the poor. Prophets are, quite frankly, nuisances to our quiet lives of moral anonymity. So we shouldn’t be surprised that Jesus was rejected by his hometown, a Samaritan village, the Roman Empire, or enlightened postmodern culture.
Jesus was indeed, ”despised and rejected of men.” There are important lessons for us in these six verses. We tend to operate in one of two ways when we face the scorn and rejection of people. On one hand, I have a deep desire to please people and cannot bear to have anyone at odds with me. I want to be on everyone’s dance card at the ball. There is a strain of good here; it causes us to be careful with our words, attitudes and actions. We will watch ourselves as to not bring any unnecessary offense; that we are not being contentious or malicious toward those we are called to serve. But this can easily lead to an inability to speak truthfully and honestly in the face of sin . For many believers (especially pastors and church leaders), the fear of bringing offense can become a roadblock to speaking prophetically and biblically, as they ought. This is a real danger facing our increasingly latitudinarian evangelical church. In the face of such an ethos, the response of James and John in the passage at hand is a breath of fresh air. I concur with one commentator that “the genius for indignation has disappeared, and it is refreshing to see men who feel deeply any disrespect to Christ, any injury to his cause” (Charles Erdman, Commentary on Luke’s Gospel).
On the other hand we may tend toward an overzealous, hard and biting response to those who defy or reject us. This is the sin of the ‘sons of thunder,’ James and John, in our passage. Now, it is important to see that their desire for fire to consume the stiff-necked Samaritans is not entirely without biblical precedence. There are manifold examples of God striking down the rebellious and insolent. God has set his face against those who have opposed him. In 2 Kings 1:1-16, we see Elijah rebuke and call down judgment upon Ahaziah, the hard-hearted Samaritan king. Perhaps James and John were seeking the Messiah to operate with such prophetic authority against the Samaritan village. Note from the text as well that the Samaritans turned Christ and his band away, “because he was heading toward Jerusalem.” This is a reference not merely to the somewhat famous animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans, but to their opposition to his Messianic ministry and purpose. In this sense, the indignation of the disciples is understandable, however misplaced and inappropriate.
I have never asked Jesus to consume anyone with heavenly fire. (I have come close.) So I understand the brothers’ passion for their cause. As a pastor and preacher, I struggle greatly with opposition to my ministry. Much of my struggle, though, is not against principalities and powers, but with flesh and blood. And this is backward. If there is opposition because I am a fool, nave or tyrant, then such struggle is from God and for my good. If there is opposition because my ministry is like Jesus’ – full of power and truth, that penetrates the heart and provokes the hard conscience -- then this is from God and for the good of my hearers. So, I should not struggle against flesh and blood. I should not call down fire on those who oppose me. I should live sacrificially through the cross, as Jesus did, regardless of opposition and rejection.
And so, Jesus rebukes the brothers. We are provided with a living picture of the truth that “God did not send the son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him” (John 3:17). I find it interesting that perhaps the Samaritans’ foolish rejection of the living God only sped Him on His way to provide atonement for their sin. I find it interesting, as well, that Jesus does not rebuke the Samaritans here, but the disciples. It is a grievous thing to scorn the Messiah. But, it is a more grievous sin of the disciples that they should strive against the lost with anger and misplaced zeal, rather than with the grace and power of the gospel. The anger of men does not work the salvation of God (a loose paraphrase of James 1:20). Jesus’ rebuke, rather than concession to the disciples’ request, is a great grace to the Samaritans; for soon a day would come when the good news of Jesus’ work on the cross would be preached in their midst and there would be “much joy in that city” (Acts 8:8). Peter, John and Phillip would one day return to Samaria, “preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans,” perhaps the very village of Luke 9.
There is a wonderful irony in this passage that compels and comforts me in the face of rejection. James and John asked Jesus to send fire down upon the Samaritans and received a rebuke from their master instead. The apostles would soon see the purpose in that rebuke. It wasn’t that Jesus wanted his disciples to wink at sin, or that he took lightly the hard hearts of the Samaritans. It wasn’t that he wants us all to ‘just get along’ and not be harsh with one another. It wasn’t that he wanted to give the disciples a lesson is godly Christian character. The rebuke was part of a sovereign plan. This plan would not come about through the disciples’ angry judgments, or indignant struggles against flesh and blood. This plan would come through the work of the cross, which Jesus had set his face resolutely toward. The irony is that James and John’s request would indeed be granted by Christ. But it would come through a detour around this village and via the destination of the cross. Jesus would bear the judgment owed to the hard-hearted Samaritans, so that those hearts might one day be melted through the power of the Spirit…like fire from heaven.
Labels: Luke
posted by Pastor Erik at
7:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home