Fire from Heaven - Luke 9:51-56; John 7:10

I think that we went a little bit out of order here, because my chart has John 7:10 occurring at the same time as Luke 9:51, which I don’t think is accurate. The end of Luke chapter 9 has Jesus traveling to Jerusalem with at least James and John and possibly some other disciples, which would make sense for safety, not Jesus’ safety of course, but for that of the others. But I don’t think that it belongs here because it is sandwiched in between “he that is not against us if for us,” and many coming forward to follow Christ but having excuses, which is also talked about in Matthew chapter 8 and which we discussed in a post published on June 23rd.  Just to give a brief summary, three of Jesus’ disciples came to him and wanted to follow him, but Jesus told the one “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” And a second man came to Jesus and told him he wanted to follow Him as soon as he buried his father, to which Jesus replied, “Let the dead bury their dead.” And finally the third man said he would follow him, but wanted to say good bye to his family and friends first, to which Jesus replied, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

It’s quite possible that I put it in the wrong spot and wrote about it too early, but what can I do? I also think that this part is quite possibly too early because it says “when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,” which to me is referring to the final time that Jesus goes to Jerusalem, about 6 months from now, at the time of the Passover. But Luke has a record of that in chapter 18, so I’m going to assume that Luke chapter 9 is referring to the Feast of Tabernacles to which Jesus is going to go secretly, where the persecution is intense. Anyway, let’s just proceed like this is the correct timeline, just in case, because like I say about mismatched nursery coloring papers, it’s all true.

After His brothers leave for Jerusalem without him, Jesus ‘steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.” This statement feels much more consequential than just “he left to go to Jerusalem,” or “he decided to go” or something like that. Steadfastly indicates a determination, He’s decided to do something even though it appears to be daunting. This trip to Jerusalem won’t be pleasant for him, but he’s going to go and “face” whatever it waiting for him there. John tells us that he left for Jerusalem “not openly, but as it were in secret.” This is what led me to conclude that Jesus didn’t go to this feast openly, like his brothers had suggested because he didn’t want to make a scene during his entrance, but still needed to go teach the people.

On the trip from Galilee to Jerusalem, we learned that the fastest way is through Samaria, but that many Jews took the long way around to avoid going through there. Why would people do that? Because Jews hated Samaritans and they were also hated in return. Jesus had been there previously, and met a woman at a well, and had been accepted as the Christ by many people, but we know that it’s not the time for non-Israelites to have the gospel yet, so there wasn’t a concerted effort made. This time, in going to Jerusalem, Jesus bucks the status quo and “sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.” Jesus sends his disciples to go to the Samaritans and find somewhere for them to stay, but “they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.”

I’m not exactly sure what that last statement means, but JTC explains that one of the differences between his positive reception by the Samaritans the first time and the rejection this time was because when he was accepted by the Samaritans originally, they were leaving Jerusalem to return home after the Passover, whereas this time they were traveling to Jerusalem. Why would that make a difference? Let’s think about it. When traveling to an event, such as the Passover, people might be excited, making them loud and jubilant, which isn’t bad, but for a business such as an inn, it could mean rowdy guests, late night noise, maybe drinking, and possibly even destruction of property. The Passover specifically could mean people bringing animals with them, and that could mean extra work, food, and care taken by the inn keepers. We know that people took money to Jerusalem so that the Jews could buy animals for sacrifice, so they might be more thrifty on the way there, not knowing how much they will need while in Jerusalem. Overall, the energy of the people might be higher and the wallets tighter on the way up. On the way back, people are more tired from a week of celebrating. They’ve typically already done all their material damage, and they have a set amount of money to spend on the way home. The people coming home are usually much more subdued, and less reserved with their money. It’s also possible that people headed towards Jerusalem, with their higher energy might be more demanding of their Samaritan hosts. Centuries of national hatred of each other, the well rested, excitable Jews on their way to Jerusalem might expect those Samaritans who hosted them to act as servants, and no one is interested in being a servant in their own home, whereas departing Jews probably feel like they just want to rest and get home as soon as possible.

The place is referred to as a village, so I’m not sure that there was an inn for travelers to stay in that place, or if it was the hospitality of letting travelers stay in peoples personal homes that Jesus hoped for. There is a big difference between the two, if they were rejected from staying at an inn, then it could be logically concluded that the inn keeper was more concerned with the reputation of his business and his ability to attract Samaritan clients later on, or he could just have not wanted the money. If there was no inn, and the messengers went around door to door asking if a moderately sized group of men who traditionally have been an ethnic enemy, could stay in their small home with the man’s wife and children, and eat up all their food. Really, these Samaritans didn’t know these men from Adam, the gospel hadn’t been taken to them generally, regardless of the encounter that Jesus had with them maybe a couple of years earlier. The Samaritans who turned Jesus away wasn’t rejecting him as the Christ and refusing salvation, they were saying no to a group of men they didn’t know. The Samaritans knew that Jews traveled around their lands to avoid having contact with them, so any Jews showing up on their doorstep asking for help would, rightly, be viewed as having suspect intentions, and the “no” was a way for them to protect themselves and their families.

If we consider the Samaritans in this light, it makes James and John’s suggested action against the disinterested village even more heinous. They are no doubt offended, as the “superior” Jews, they might feel that they’ve lowered themselves to the level of asking the Samaritans for help, and a refusal to be given that could be seen as most inflammatory. Truly, as the sons of Thunder, they suggest, “Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?” Having the perspective of 2,000 years of Christian teachings, this seems appalling to us, but we have to remember that they’ve only had the Old Testament as scripture, in which their God is violent and vengeful. Ironically, they are asking the same being to send down fire on the Samaritans who Elias asked to send down fire in his day. I think that this is an excellent contrast between the wants and needs of God. Jesus wants all to repent and be happy, but if the wickedness is beyond the point that this life is conducive to repentance, then he needs to act in a manner considered violent. It’s the spectrum of lengths to which God is prepared to go, always with the eternal welfare of someone in mind.

Clearly, these inhospitable Samaritans were not wicked to the point of warranting death, and Jesus is not pleased with their suggestion. He responds to them, “Ye know now what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And they went to another village.” Here is another example of Jesus’ meekness, when rejected he doesn’t demand respect, even though he deserves it, he doesn’t “let the people have it,” he accepts their decision and moves on. He doesn’t force, he respects our agency.

The IM says, “In these circumstances, Jesus demonstrated patience and forbearance and admonished His disciples to do the same. He taught them that they were not acting under the influence of God’s Spirit… Just as the Savior urged His disciples to exercise forbearance, President Gordon B. Hinckley asked Church members to show respect for those with whom we may differ: ‘There is so great a need for civility and mutual respect among those of differing beliefs and philosophies. We must not be partisans of any doctrine of ethnic superiority. We live in a world of diversity. We can and must be respectful toward those with whose teachings we may not agree. We must be willing to defend the rights of others who may become the victims of bigotry.”