I am told that a woman
would regard such statements as totally unnecessary and you have to admit that the
elimination of all these unnecessary signposts has a certain efficiency.
So it is no wonder
that Jesus’ disciples, being all male, and other onlookers (mostly male) had
such trouble on occasions in following his train of thought.
For example, Jesus and
His disciples were at the temple at Jerusalem. The Jewish leaders asked Jesus
what sign He would give them. Jesus said “Destroy this temple and in three
days, I will raise it” (John 2.19 – (click for link) Now
Jesus was referring to His own body and everyone else thought that He was
talking about the temple building.
On another occasion,
the disciples were hungry and had no bread. This was just after the feeding of
the four thousand, and the Jewish leaders (Pharisees) were demanding a sign
from Jesus. Jesus told his disciples to “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.”
Matthew 16.6 (click for link)
Once again there was
confusion as to the subject of this statement, with the disciples thinking that
this had something to do with food and Jesus, actually referring to the
teaching of the Pharisees.
In John 4, Jesus was
talking to a Samaritan woman and the disciples reminded Him to eat. Jesus tells
them that He has food that they do not know about. They assume that he is
talking about food (and why wouldn’t they?), when Jesus is talking about His
relationship to God (“My food is to do the will of Him who sent me”). (verses
31 - 38)
Generally, Jesus
became a bit annoyed with them, asking why they were discussing the fact that
they had no bread.
On the other hand, you
would have thought that the disciples would have become somewhat irritated at
having Jesus change the subject. I would have been. After all, if they were
talking about one thing, why did He have to change the subject or be so obtuse
in his answer? I certainly would not have followed these conversations, and
would have gone back to reading my newspaper.
It is one thing to tell
parables and stories, so that some people “hearing, will not understand”, but
it is another thing to confuse His own disciples.
Of course, I am
assuming that it was deliberate and that He knew the effect it would have, but
I don’t have any single good thought as to why He did this.
He was certainly
single-minded. His passion was the Kingdom of God, to the exclusion of all
else, and perhaps that is all He thought and spoke about. Not a lot of small
talk here. He wouldn’t have been great dinner table company, if you had wanted
to talk about the 2012 Olympics or if you did, He would no doubt turn the
subject around.
He was not greatly
concerned about the day to day things that concern and pre-occupy us (and me),
nor was He greatly impressed by grand buildings and the earthly order of
things.
Perhaps He was also trying
to keep the thoughts of His disciples focussed. It could have been a type of
rebuke. What was implied is “Why are you talking about these things? Why are
you concerned about them?”
You would have thought
that, with such a one track mind, and religion at that, he would have been the
party bore, with people trying to avoid him. But the opposite seems to have the
case. People were drawn and attached to him, whether for a good argument to
defend the status quo or for people looking for alternative ideas to the
poverty of the current religion practices, or just plain curious.
Would He have the same
effect now if He were here or are people just indifferent to religion? With His
one track mind, would He find a way to capture people’s interest?
But I have strayed
into another subject, as usual. It’s time for me to close this blog and get
something to eat.
