The Christian Faith

 

The Christian faith is a gentle, humble, patient faith.

It is not a boastful, proud, forceful, or dominating movement that fearfully and demandingly converts those who are weaker.

Nor is it a deceitful, scheming, wealthy or clever faith.

It is a serving faith, willing to do what others would not. The menial tasks, the jobs that most would avoid.

It is a giving faith. Giving and forgiving.

It is a joyful faith, secure in the love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

It is a singing faith, joyful in the love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It is an expectant faith, knowing that God blesses us and keeps us in all circumstances.

It is a patient faith, knowing that the seasons God provides will be effective in bringing about the harvest that God is preparing.

It is a suffering faith, understanding and accepting that we are supported in our struggles, and gain wisdom and maturity as well as humility through these.

We accept all that God provides for us, and also what he removes.

We do falter in our Christian walk, and are prone to wandering, but the true Shepherd is faithful to guide, restore and lead us to the goal he has planned.

We are not ashamed to call on his name. Jesus, our Lord.

“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come." John 2:4 (NIV)

This verse has probably caused unrest between denominations. Even being familiar with it, as I am, I still feel uneasy reading these words. For full disclosure I wish to state that I hold to a reformed understanding of Christianity. However, I have a Catholic upbringing and have some understanding of the sentiments held from that perspective. I will also state clearly that I am not able to, nor have I tried to translate this verse from the original Greek. I have simply read a number of English versions of the verse.

Some would argue that this verse is evidence of Jesus being convinced or coerced into action he would not have taken, if not for his mother’s suggestion/request.

The language Mary is quoted to have used is not coercive. “They have no more wine”. A simple statement of fact. 

As a son to a loving mother, I can envisage myself in a similar circumstance, and I sense the quiet concern in the statement, and my implied responsibilities as a son with potential means to rectify a problem.

Both Mary and Jesus (as well as the disciples) were invited to this wedding feast. 

Were they close relatives? Were they distant relatives? 

Were they from Mary’s side, or Joseph’s side of the family?

Why were all the disciples invited?

Were the hosts rash or overly optimistic, inviting more than they could cater for? Were wedding invitations inclusive of more distant relatives (and therefore large numbers) simply an expected norm, no matter the financial means of the hosts? Or were numbers of invited guests deliberately larger than numbers of available seats, knowing that some would likely not attend, like the bookings of some airlines?

Did they have a little bit of that Australian attitude of, “she’ll be right”, meaning, “don’t worry, it will all work out”, (despite poor planning)?

I find myself thinking about the feeding of the five thousand when Jesus asks the disciples to feed the crowd. The disciples knew full well that there was barely food for them to share. In that situation I could almost hear Jesus stating “O you of little faith”, though he does not.

If nothing else, Mary seems to lack no faith in what her son is able to achieve, regarding the catering of wine.

Is it possible that Mary was close enough to the hosts to have previously reassured them in their invitation of “extras”, such as the disciples, knowing that Jesus would be able to save the situation? Could I go further and suggest that she expected this outcome, maybe even engineered it?

These last comments (of a "meddling" Mary) are clearly going beyond the written word, and I am on thin ice even suggesting them, nowhere is Mary's character maligned in this way.

Does Mary have special sway with her son, Jesus?

Is she able to influence his actions more than another?

The Catholic understanding is; if we are in need, approaching Mary may help things happen more than approaching Jesus directly. At least that is my understanding of common Catholic thoughts regarding prayer, and needs.

For many Catholics, Mary, is much more “approachable”, being "fully" human, and a mother, and an “ordinary” person. (Yes I grew up with a strict, stern father, and my mother was able to soften his resistance to some of my requests/wishes as a child, that he otherwise would have simply said “no” to.)

Yet Catholic teaching (I believe) is that Mary is not an ordinary person, she is “immaculate”, meaning she was born without original sin, and remained a life-long virgin, and ascended to heaven without going through physical death.

My reading of the New Testament gives no clear teaching regarding this last paragraph. What I have read states that Mary remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25), and that Jesus then had other brothers (Matthew 12:46) and presumably sisters (Matthew 13:56). I also do not hold that she was "immaculate", this understanding is a theological construct, based on the belief that God would not choose the womb of a fallen woman for the incarnation, and that by default, an embryo in Mary;s womb, would inherit fallen genes, but God does not explain how the embryonic gene is formed within Mary, and whether any of Mary's DNA resides in Jesus. 

I do believe she was an ordinary person of faith who was greatly favoured by God, in his choosing of her to be the mother of our Saviour.

I also believe that Jesus is fully human, and does not need mediators between us and he. We are able to approach him directly with all our needs as well as our gratitude and worship.

There is no other miracle in the New Testament which describes Mary’s intervention or influence, though there are many miracles that describe certain other people intervening, eg the centurion for his servant (Matthew 8:5). 

As Christian leaders, elders, ministers, and clergy (I do not hold to a laity-clergy divide), we must be careful not to become mediators for others, but rather help people understand that we all have direct access to Jesus, and are free and invited to call on his great name.

And there is that short passage where Jesus is told that his mother and brothers have arrived, yet in response Jesus declares that everyone who does the will of God is his mother, brother and sister. (Matthew 12:46 and beyond) This verse, if nothing else, seems to state that Jesus counts faith (the desire to follow God) as the main influencing factor of his favour. Hence his often mentioned response "your faith has healed you".

Getting back to the verse in question.

Yes, I do believe mothers have sway over their children.

We, as Christian children of all ages, are to honour our parents, this is a command of God, the 5^th I believe.

And Jesus would certainly do this. He quotes that specific command (Matthew 15:3-6) as an example of how the Pharisees have nullified God’s word, so it would be hypocritical of Jesus not to honour his mother and father. (We presume at this point Joseph is no longer alive, though it is not stated anywhere.)

Mary understood this as well, and therefore expected Jesus to follow her concern, despite the fact that, from Jesus’ point of view, his ministry had not yet started.

Was Jesus short with Mary?

“My hour has not yet come” is a strong statement.

I believe Jesus was correct. He knew clearly when his ministry of signs and wonders was to commence. He was not suffering stage fright. He was not simply avoiding a relatively trivial situation of need. He knew the significance and preciousness of his works of power, and would not use them for show, or without the intended purpose of displaying the kingdom of God, nor would he go beyond what he knew his Father in heaven intended. In other words, just because he “could” didn’t mean he “should”.

I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. Luke 4:25-26 NIV

I also do not hold that Mary had a greater understanding than Jesus as to when his ministry was to begin.

When exactly was this “hour” that had not yet come?

The other gospels describe the baptism of Jesus, followed by the forty days in the wilderness, followed by the calling of the disciples and then his preaching in Galilee. Luke's Gospel, implies that he has performed miracles in other places eg capernaum, prior to his preaching in Nazareth.

John’s gospel does not mention the forty days in the wilderness, so it is possible that this wedding took place after the forty days in the wilderness, but before his preaching at the synagogue in Nazareth.

I might suggest that Jesus reading from the scroll in Isaiah and proclaiming that “today this reading is fulfilled in your presence” was the beginning of Jesus public ministry. (Luke's timeline puts the calling of the disciples after this event, so it is hard to place the wedding banquet in this timeline)

Was he to announce his prophetic fulfillment of being sent to give sight to the blind and release of captives, and the year of God’s favour, before he actually did it?

If this is the case, then a miracle before this proclamation of God’s word, was somehow, out of place. This is my explanation of Jesus’ reluctance to perform a public miracle at this point. If this is so, then Mary is in an awkward position asking Jesus to help this situation of embarrassment for the wedding hosts who for unknown reasons, have under-catered. Mary clearly feels for the situation, more than Jesus.

Her own wedding, if she had one, would have been a quiet affair, having been scandalised by her untimely pregnancy. She may have had more emotion invested in the smooth running of this anonymous wedding, and again I wonder how closely related she was to the family of the bride or groom. Jesus on the other hand seems to have little concern other than that he is now in the situation of honouring his mother, yet preserving his anonymity and obedience to the wise Spirit-planned path of his ministry.

 

Was Jesus surprised and unprepared for this request?

Was he annoyed?

Was he short with his mother?

By faith my answer is no, no, and no.

By faith I believe Jesus always spoke the truth in love.

We cannot gain the tone of his statement to his mother from the written word.

He may have been smiling as he said what he said. Yet he was serious and truthful, and I believe Mary knew she had forced his hand prematurely.

In conclusion

Do we need Mary’s intervention in our lives today as Christians?

Although my Catholic friends and brethren would likely say yes, my answer is no. 

If we are in need, in the depths of trouble, despair, suffering, fear, or danger, we have a faithful high priest and saviour who is able to hear and answer our prayers.

Is Mary able to hear our prayers?

As a young man, I used to believe that my deceased grandmother, whom I remain convinced was strong in faith, and therefore, saved, as a catholic who loved Jesus, I used to believe that she (as well as God) could see everything I did, now that she was in heaven.

But as a more mature Christian, I don’t see that the Bible supports this understanding.

Nothing is hidden from God. And Jesus who is God, is able to see everything. But deceased humans, in heaven, with the Lord, are they able to see everything?

And if they somehow could, are they able to intervene?

 

These are difficult questions to answer dogmatically, but the safe and simple answer is to rely on what scripture clearly teaches, and that is that we are to pray in Jesus’ name to our Father in heaven, who knows what we need, even before we utter a word.

Surely when our minds and hearts are focused on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is the most useful and joyful and obedient place to be. And any other image or name that is put in that place is potentially a distraction from true worship.

Events in Jesus life prophetic of the cross and resurrection.

The climax of each gospel account is clearly the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus. This is sometimes referred to as the “passion” of Jesus. I mention this because, in terms of volume and detail, this part of each gospel is significant, outweighing the other described events of his life and ministry, including the resurrection. In those chapters, it is as though time slows down, and events are described hour by hour, moment by moment. These passages are at the end of each of the four gospels and take up a large volume of the gospel narrative. The resurrection itself is given a relatively brief treatment, despite its major effect and implication.

 

Having reflected on the baptism of Jesus, which occurs close to the beginning of each gospel, and is considered the beginning of Jesus earthly ministry, I wish to suggest that this, along with other events in Jesus’ ministry and life prior to his death and resurrection, have an added significance, beyond the actual event. I believe the baptism of Jesus was both an image of, and a true entering-into the work of the cross.

 

Paul states in the book of Romans, and elsewhere, that when we as Christians, are baptised, we are baptised into the death of Jesus, and rising from the waters, we are also rising as with the resurrected Christ.

I believe that Jesus understood his own baptism in exactly this way, that he was foreshadowing and willingly entering into his death and resurrection in being baptised, fulfilling all righteousness.

His baptism shows Jesus’ willingness to identify himself with sinful humanity. He was ready to take on the sin of the world, (John announces and identifies him as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world) as he approached the time and place of his baptism.

This understanding of his baptism I believe escaped John, who was awed by his presence and the understanding of his purpose and authority. John questioned his own worthiness to baptise Jesus, knowing he himself was the lesser of the two, and was in need of his own redemption, being born of Adam, and a sinner in his own right, not that any of this is mentioned other than his doubting when he was in prison.

But Jesus makes things clear that it was right to be baptised, to “fulfill all righteousness”.

This is an interesting comment, and it is these words that lead me to consider that his baptism was in fact a willing and effective entering into the carrying of the sin of the world, in other words, Jesus is stating physically that he is willing to be crucified and has the true hope of resurrection in his act of being baptised. He is surrendering himself to God’s will, and, in a definite manner, actually accepting death and resurrection, which we know is the path he will soon tread.

God blesses this action, God the Holy Spirit visibly descends on him, and the voice of the Father is heard declaring “This is my son, with whom I am well pleased”.

I will add a few points to these thoughts.

 

Firstly, when the “sons of thunder” are asked by Jesus if they can undergo the baptism that he is to undergo, he is clearly speaking of his crucifixion, as well as in Luke 12, when Jesus talks about the baptism he is to undergo, again he is talking about the cross.

 

Secondly, when we confess, as Paul teaches, that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins; if I were to ask specifically what is this one baptism? my answer can only be the baptism of Jesus.

 

Finally, if we do see Jesus’ earthly baptism as the beginning of his crucifixion, his first step into carrying the sin of the whole world, or a foreshadowing of it in a powerful and God ordained way, then this adds to our understanding of the meaning of our own baptism, which is our physical way of entering into the way of the cross. By being baptised we are metaphorically and physically, by faith, entering into the death and resurrection of Jesus. It adds weight to Pauls statement that “I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that liveth but Christ that liveth in me!

Having pondered this, I also wondered about other events in Jesus’ life. For example, his being left behind, or temporarily lost by his parents at age 12. It was after 3 days that his parents found him, in his Father’s house.

This is by no means an indefensible thought, but those 3 days of Jesus absence could also be compared to the 3 days between crucifixion and resurrection. Certainly, for his mother and father, with an understanding that Jesus is the Lamb of God, their concern for his absence must surely have brought thoughts of whether his time had already come.

They had already experienced the escape into Egypt to avoid Herod’s wrath, and the words of Simeon that a sword would also pierce her own heart was potentially present during the time of frantic searching. And finding him well and in the ministry of God’s word, was a form of returning from the dead from the point of view of his parents.

Lastly, I will mention the 40 days in the wilderness, which occurred immediately following his baptism.

For that period of time, it is not mentioned that anyone missed Jesus’ presence, but being in the wilderness was surely a place where he may have come to injury and even death. Had he listened to the tempters suggestion, he may well have died by falling from the high place at the temple. Again, his entering into the wilderness and return, could be considered also a foreshadowing of the events of the cross and resurrection.

Certainly Jesus spoke a number of times to his disciples regarding his approaching death and resurrection, and on the mount of transfiguration, he met with Moses and Elijah, and there too they discussed his coming departure.

In conclusion I wish to suggest that there were a number of events in Jesus’ life and ministry, and possibly others I have not mentioned, that foreshadow the cross and resurrection, but most particularly, his personal baptism in the Jordan river with John the Baptist. This baptism, in my opinion, is the one true baptism that we all enter into by faith, and by our own baptism. Our own baptism, by nature, is an imperfect act. Who can say that enough preparation, meditation, prayer and study went into our own baptism to achieve true godliness. What if the baptiser were distracted, what if our pride was triggered at the wrong time. What if we were not fully immersed? And what of the issue of who has true authority to baptise today?

There are so many ways of not achieving what we can never achieve, that being true sanctity in Christ, but thanks be to God, who sent his Son, who willingly entered the waters of baptism on our behalf, in order to go to the baptism of the cross, where he carried us, we were crucified in and with him, and then he rose with us, victorious over death and sin, destroying all the works of the devil.

We are given the gift of baptism, to allow us to enter into what Jesus has already achieved for us. The tearing of the curtain, and our passing through to the Holy presence of the almighty. Jesus our Lord.