Where to Start … Fisherfolk’s Village

(Jesus’ Mission before His Death on the Cross)

our host: Fisherfolk at a Seaside Village

Starting Point: Where the Action Is.

With our map as guide, let us start at a fishing village. Here the fisherfolk give us a piece of advice. Begin with this question, they say: ‘What was the mission of Jesus?’ Avoid questions such as: Who was Jesus? What is the meaning of the titles ‘Son of God,’ ‘Son of Man,’ ‘Son of David,’ etc. These are false starting points. They will take you through circuitous routes and lead to dead-ends. Plunge right away into where the action is. What is the life-purpose of this Jesus? We follow this wise bit of counsel from our hosts, who, like Jesus’ first friends, are fisherfolk.

The Mission of Jesus According to the Second Look

The Second Look Looks at Jesus’ Mission. What did Jesus want to do with his life? What was his mission? All three Looks will initially agree that his mission had to do with salvation. But what kind of salvation? The Second Look’s typical answer is ‘to atone for our sins’ or ‘to save souls.’ That answer, the First Look would reply, is incomplete. Why? The reason is not only that ‘soul’ is not the total person but also for a much broader reason. Let us see….

The Second Look Spelled Out. Spelled out in key words, my Second Look answer used to read as follows. ‘Jesus came to earth with a mission to die for my sins, to gain divine grace for my soul in this life, so that after death my soul may go to heaven, where it will see God face to face.’ I later improved this answer. Jesus died not only to save the soul but soul and body, I said. Well, this is indeed an improvement, but still a Second Look view; why this is so, we will gradually find out.

Experience tells me that a couple of decades after Vatican II, the Second Look is still held by the average Filipino Christian, including our unsuspecting hosts, the fisherfolk, who have been catechized and preached to by us. At one point in my own life, the Second Look provided excellent fuel for life and spirituality. It fed my desire to continue Jesus’ work of saving souls. Today, how do I assess it? I will give a pastoral answer and a biblical answer.

Pastorally Inadequate. In the exercise of pastoral ministry, my Second Look view can not adequately cope with the totality of human needs today. Although belief in Jesus’ redemptive death should be part of the faith of our fisherfolk hosts, the Church’s ministry to them cannot be limited to saving their souls from sin, providing them sanctifying grace and sending them off to heaven. Food, good health, decent livelihood, fishing grounds, freedom from exploitation, coral reefs and swamps for small fisherfolk are also their concerns. Well, what to do with such concerns?

According to a typical Second Look view, these concerns are not ‘spiritual’; therefore, they are not strictly speaking, part of the business of salvation. Or, they may be conceded some significance, but only because of the needs of the present time – and they are passing needs. Or, they may be vaguely perceived to be a matter of salvation but ‘how’ or ‘why’ is not clear to the Second Look. These flawed stances make it difficult to respond adequately not only to the concerns of our fisherfolk but generally to the pastoral challenges of our time.

From the Point of View of Eternity. Taking a vantage point in eternity, it can indeed be said that Jesus’ mission is to die for sin. Thus, 1 Jn 4:10 says that Jesus was sent to expiate for sins. That is a reading from the vantage point of God’s ‘eternal now,’ outside the space and time of our human history.

Inside History. However—and this is the critical point at issue—inside history, we must see Jesus’ life story in the following way. On the cross: When he was hanging on the cross, Jesus’ mission was indeed to die for sin.6 But before that, in an earlier phase in his career, the biblical signposts speak of a mission which is not right away that of dying for sin. What that pre-crucifixion mission was, we will see in a moment. But first, a parallel illustration.

Archbishop Romero: A Parallel. A parallel may help. Archbishop Romero was a defender of the poor in El Salvador, Central America. He was shot and killed at the church altar. Let us say that when he was hit by the assassin’s bullet, he made an intention of offering his death in atonement for the sin of his assassin. (This is only one of an infinite number of intentions he could have made. For example: ‘I offer this death for those courageously working for the poor in my diocese … or for victims of child abuse … or for battered women,’ etc.) At that moment at the altar, his mission became that of dying in atonement for his assassin’s sin.

But before that, in an earlier phase of his life, Romero’s mission was something else. His life-purpose before his death was the defense of the poor of El Salvador. Of course, there is a relationship and continuity between the two, but the earlier mission is not the same as the later one. Can something similar be said about Jesus? Yes, we not only can, but should. The biblical signposts invite, in fact, compel us. So, let us turn to the witness of the New Testament.

Rather, in all that he did and said we are looking for the overarching purpose of his life.

The Mission of Jesus According to the First and Third Looks: The Reign-Kingdom of God

Wanted: Mission Statements. In our effort to get an insight into the mission of Jesus, what should we look for? Naturally, we should look for those statements whose unmistakable intention is to tell the reader about the mission of Jesus about his life-purpose. Let us call these ‘mission texts.’ Are there such? Yes.

Mission in Summary Form. We have some roadsigns from three different gospel writers. In these roadsigns, Jesus’ mission is expressed in general and summary form:

In fact, they are more than programmatic statements. The Mark and the Matthew statements are inaugural statements. They each, in their respective gospels, initiate the public career of Jesus.

What do these signposts say about Jesus’ mission? They say that Jesus’ mission was the proclamation of the Reign-Kingdom of God. All three evangelists are in one accord. The good news about the Reign-Kingdom of God was what Jesus broadcast to the fishing villages and elsewhere. This was his mission before he died on the cross.

Kingdom of God: Strand in Jesus’ Career. Furthermore, these are not isolated statements in the New Testament. Re-read then the gospels some time. You will discover that the Kingdom of God is the single strand that runs through and binds the whole fabric of Jesus’ career. By ‘career,’ I mean not only his earthly life, but as we will see, the whole range that will close with the ‘second coming.’

And with what élan Jesus plunged into his life’s work! With a certain irrepressible passion and heightened consciousness, Jesus says to Peter who wants Jesus to return to a certain town: ‘Let us go on to the neighbouring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do’ (Mk 1:38).

And again:

Salvation = Kingdom of God. Incidentally, it is good to begin taking note of the following equivalence: salvation = Kingdom of God. For the rest of the journey, keep in mind that for Jesus and his culture, final and definitive salvation meant the coming of the Kingdom of God.

The Rest Is Commentary. The whole life and mission of Jesus hinges on this one sentence: "Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near …’" (Mk 1:14-15). The brevity of this sentence is totally disproportionate to its importance. It is one of the weightiest sentences in the New Testament. The rest is commentary. In this sentence is expressed the whole historical message of Jesus and his original and initial mission. The one single focus was the Kingdom of God, present in the first coming of Jesus … and consummated in his coming again in glory.

Succinctly, the life-purpose of Jesus, as it unfolded on our planet is this: on the cross his mission was to die in expiation for sin; before that, originally and initially, his mission was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God.

One Sure Historical Fact. As we take our first steps, it is encouraging to know that, from a scholarly point of view, we start on safe and secure ground. Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God is the one sure historical fact about Jesus. Such is a virtual consensus among biblical scholars today. This safe and secure ground supplies an excellent take-off point for the rest of our quest.

Kingdom of God: Tentative Picture. If the pre-crucifixion mission of Jesus was centered on the Kingdom of God, our inquisitiveness should now be focused on: what is this Kingdom of God? Surprisingly perhaps, Kingdom of God, as Jesus spoke about it, is poorly understood by most Christians. Certainly, it is not enough to look up the dictionary under ‘Kingdom’ and ‘God.’ When shall we encounter a full discussion of the Kingdom of God? In the next stopovers, whose purpose, in fact, is a formal enquiry into the Kingdom of God.

For the time being, I offer a workable characterization of it: the Kingdom of God is a new world on earth, to be consummated at the end of history. It is not heaven.7 According to our fisher-hosts, their catechism lessons always talk about heaven. We assure them that their pastor or catechist is not wrong in talking about heaven, but we add that that heaven, whatever meaning one attaches to it, is not the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God, which is our ultimate destiny in the future will be a new earth here below. Furthermore, this new earth is filled with life-blessings. I intend to contrast ‘life-blessings’ with ‘spiritual grace.’ Life-blessings are rice, fishing grounds, fish, education, good health and spiritual well-being—in short, any and every boon that gives any form of life. Life-blessings include, but are not limited to, spiritual grace, divine life, sanctifying grace or beatific vision.

Furthermore, these blessings come to human beings, not to disembodied souls.

For Jesus, there is indeed a heaven, Yahweh’s abode in the firmament ‘above,’ but the Kingdom of God is not that heaven. Our fisherfolk, for whom land for vegetables and water for fish are precious, rejoice that the Kingdom of God is a new earth replete with life-blessings.

A Note on Terminology: Reign-Kingdom. The Hebrew word malkuth – which is the basis for the New Testament Greek basileia—has two aspects: (1) ‘reign,’ ‘rule,’ ‘sovereignty’ (paghahari) and (2) ‘kingdom’ (kaharian). Hebrew has only one word for both these aspects. Each aspect complements and implies the other. Some of our modern translations render ‘Reign of God,’ with ‘Kingdom’ implied; others render ‘Kingdom of God,’ with ‘Reign’ implied. I prefer ‘Kingdom of God,’ because it is less abstract and, in its concreteness, conveys more satisfactorily the original biblical meaning.

Sharpening the Focus

The Proclaimed Is Not the Proclaimer. By this time, anyone of us can say in our sleep: Jesus’ mission before the cross was to proclaim the Kingdom of God. But before we sit back and relax, let us take note. The proclaimer is not the proclaimed. The proclaimed is the Kingdom of God, the new earth. The proclaimer is Jesus. The two are not the same. The Kingdom is not Jesus. Jesus is not the Kingdom. This is so notwithstanding the inexact assertions of some theologians.

It will not do to make the philosophical statement that where Jesus is, there the Kingdom also is. Historically and biblically, it is inaccurate and misleading. Pastorally, it is dangerous. It allows one to say: ‘The Kingdom is where Jesus is. Well, Jesus is in the chapel, in the Holy Scriptures, in my heart. So I need not be on the lookout for the Kingdom of God elsewhere … and get involved.’ A convenient escape hatch indeed. So syllogisms are a poor substitute for reality.

While on the subject of philosophy and syllogisms, we take note in passing of our penchant for abstract, philosophical language. For example, I used to think that the more abstract I was, the more profound. I liked to hear myself talk about ‘the dignity of man’—until I heard Jesus talk simply about food for the hungry, sight to the blind, land to the meek. Jesus was not a philosopher. He was closer to the earth and therefore to the heart … and to the truth.

Kingdom of God Not Identified With the Cross. One more lingering issue: is not the Kingdom of God identical with the cross? Was not the Kingdom of God realized precisely when Jesus gained salvation on the cross? The answer is no. According to a claim made by Jesus, the Kingdom of God was already present long before his saving death on the cross. Referring evidently to healings and saving deeds during his lifetime and before his death, Jesus pointedly told the pharisees that the Kingdom of God was already present. Similarly, Jesus pointed to his exorcising activity during his lifetime and before his death. Look, he said, the Kingdom of God has come upon you!

More Specific Mission Statements: Lk 4:16-21; Mt 11:2-6

More Mission Statements: Lk 4:16-21; Mt 11:2-6. Are there other mission texts, texts whose intent is to convey the life-purpose of Jesus? There are, and they give a more graphic and concrete picture. Here are our next roadsigns:

Luke 4:16-21

Luke 4:16-21 opens the curtain to the drama of Jesus’ public ministry. The place is solemn: the synagogue, the place designated for prayer and studies. The time is solemn: the sabbath day. Jesus gets up before the people and makes a public disclosure of his agenda. He reads a portion from the scroll of Isaiah and, at the end, intones: ‘Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.’ He solemnly enunciates his life-purpose. He articulates his ‘platform.’ Although this episode is found only in the gospel of Luke and not in the other evangelists, it reflects features that belong to the life-purpose of the pre-crucifixion Jesus, since it harmonizes well with the core picture of Jesus that can still be pieced together. This will gradually become clear as we proceed.

Matthew 11:5-6

Pre-Crucifixion Mission: Well-Being for Humans. Matthew’s and Luke’s signposts that we have just looked at are declarations of Jesus’ pre-crucifixion mission, that is, of his mission before he died on the cross. We shall be saying more about these two signposts later. For now, I ask you to make sure your Third Look glasses are on. Then, I ask you to take time out for a long critical look at the signposts.

Take note of a (pleasantly) startling discovery I once made. In these very foundational signposts, nowhere does Jesus say: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me so that I might die for the forgiveness 9 of sin.’ 10 We do not hear him saying: ‘Go and tell John that souls are being saved.’ Why or why not? Were these particulars taken for granted by the evangelists? Or, did Matthew and Luke omit these through forgetfulness? No. Assumptions by the evangelists or their loss of memory are not viable explanations.

Rather Matthew 11 and Luke 4 are, thank God, happy remnants of a tradition regarding the pre-crucifixion mission of Jesus. And that mission is centered on salvation. But what form does salvation take? It takes the form of life-blessings such as health for the sick, life to the dead, liberation from poverty for the poor, freedom to the oppressed and prisoners.

Incidentally, let us not make light of Jesus by saying that he was referring to the ‘spiritually sick,’ those ‘dead in mortal sin,’ and so forth. The people that Jesus healed—the blind, the paralytic, the hemorrhaging woman, the dead Lazarus – are too real for such an interpretation. It is a form of overkill. Jesus is talking not about salvation of souls but about well being for humans. Small fisherfolk in our time, losing their traditional fishing grounds to high-tech trawlers, would warm up to this Jesus, wouldn’t they?

The life-blessings cited in these signposts by Matthew and Luke—good news to the poor, sight to the blind, etc.—are, as we shall soon see, nothing less than concrete manifestations of the Kingdom of God. That is why these signposts are mission statements which spell out in detail what the previous mission statements about the Kingdom of God said in general terms.

Where Have All the Sinners Gone?

Sin and Sinners, Forgiveness. On the morrow, we continue our reflections. It has struck our fisher-hosts that so far very little has been said about sin and sinner. Yet press the Jesus button on a Second Look computer, like the one I used to have, and quite likely it will shower the screen with the words ‘sin,’ ‘sinner,’ ‘forgiveness.’ These are the almost mechanical associations I used to make with Jesus. Well, suspect a virus! That is what I have since learned. So then, let us examine the place of sin, sinners, conversion, forgiveness in Jesus’ life and mission. It is helpful once more to use the framework ‘Jesus on the cross’ and ‘Jesus before the cross.’

On the Cross. On the cross, Jesus died for all sinners. His sacrificial death gained forgiveness of sins for us. ‘… But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us’ (Rom 5:8). There are many such attestations which deal with Jesus’ act on the cross. 11

During His Lifetime. How about during his lifetime? Did Jesus forgive sins and was this part of his mission? Yes, the gospel records testify that Jesus forgave sins, or rather more accurately, he forgave sins in the name of God. (The formula was ‘Your sins are forgiven’; it was a roundabout way of referring to God while avoiding pronouncing his name.) And of course, conversion or forgiveness of sins is a life-blessing. And it belongs to the pre-crucifixion work (and mission) of Jesus. To a paralytic whom he cured, Jesus said ‘Son, your sins are forgiven’ (Mk 2:1; also Lk 7:48; 19:1-10).

Mk 2:17; Mt 9:13: Another Mission Statement (?) and Its Interpretation. In fact, there is a statement which has the tonality of a mission statement: ‘I have come to call not the righteous but sinners’ (Mk 2:17; Mt 9:13).

Here is our road-sign:

And as he sat at dinner in Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples—for there were many who followed him. When the scribes and the pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ When Jesus heard this, he said to them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’ (Mk 2:15-17; Mt 9:10-13). Luke has an addition: ‘I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.’ (Lk 5:32; 15:1-32) How do we assess such a statement? First, a preliminary observation: the ‘I came (in order) to’ type of statements, such as this, may not be original Jesus sayings but formulations of the later Christian community. Be that as it may, let us give it a chance. The most obvious interpretation of that statement is, of course, that Jesus’ mission had to do with forgiveness of sins and sinners. But is this the only possible interpretation? Is it even the right one?

A Parallel: Social Not Moral Interaction. Let us see whether we can sensitize ourselves to still another possible reading of this statement. To help us, let us first take a parallel example of a social worker who is at the same time a priest. He interacts with the so-called dregs of society such as prostitutes, thieves, and drunks. One level of interaction – and the most significant – is to socialize with them. He eats, drinks and enjoys himself with these people, whom society self-righteously labels ‘sinners.’ It is farthest from his mind to administer sacramental confession or to forgive their sins. Whether they are moral transgressors or not is not the issue for him. His dealings with them are more social than religious or moral.

Different from Sacramental. This level of interaction is different from still another plane in which he exercises his priestly charism of forgiving sins. He hears the confession of those who ask and he bestows forgiveness on them. However, this is not his typical or usual way of relating with these unpretentious people.

Who Were the ‘Sinners’ in Jesus’ Time? Our sources bid us see Jesus in the same light. Who were the ‘sinners’? And what were Jesus’ dealings with them? There were prostitutes, thieves and drunks in his society. Were they real sinners? Only God knows. In any case, that is beside the point. (Our fisherfolk concur.) In point of fact, however, many of these human beings were most likely not moral malefactors, just plain unsuspecting victims of poverty. Such were perhaps many of the prostitutes and thieves. Or, many of these so-called sinners were the illiterate poor who were untaught and uninitiated in their catechism (the Torah 12 and rabbinical teachings), and so they violated regulations of ritual purity. The self-righteous elite loved to stick the label ‘sinners’ on them.

With ‘sinners’ are paired off the tax-collectors. They collected more than they were supposed to (Lk 3:13) and they worked for the hated Romans. They were sinners in the eyes of people like the pharisees 13 who liked to think of themselves as enlightened and respectable.

Jesus’ Tuba Ministry. What was Jesus’ ‘ministry’ to these sinners, imagined or real? Was it a sanctimonious mission of whipping up his ever-ready stole to shrive and absolve every drunk or adulteress that came his way? Not quite —is the correct guess of our fisher-hosts, who, while some were roasting squid, others were opening the Scriptures where the records say: Jesus ate and drank with them. Can you imagine Jesus today having tapsilog 14 lunch with pickpockets and prostitutes at a turo-turo 15 joint? Or can you see him drinking tuba (coconut wine) with our unpretentious fisherfolk at a seaside village?

Lunch or Party? We said, ‘having lunch.’ In fact, that is perhaps too mild. He apparently had a great good time, resolutely overstepping the iron fences of respectability. Neither the ritual nor social etiquette of the pharisees seemed to be in Jesus’ priority-list of correct behavior. For again, the records say he loved food and drink. Jesus was ‘… a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’’ (Mt 11:19; Lk 7:34; Mt 21:31). Of course, these words are not Jesus’ self-description; they are rather a censure from his enemies. Yet, it is remarkable that we do not find much trace of disavowal or self-defense on the part of Jesus or the evangelists.

Kasalo-salo Siya sa Hapag ng mga Anak Pawis.16 Jesus encountered ‘sinners’ during his lifetime. But we must not rush to construct a Jesus, forgiving sins at the drop of a hat. And the so-called sinners were not always morally bad people. Many of them stole, sold their bodies, got drunk or just violated a rule of ritual purity – all because they were poor and knew no better. Jesus’ typical life-style with them is to fraternize with them, dipping his whole being into the common eating bowl of the ostracized. Kasalo-salo siya sa hapag ng mga anak pawis. Our hosts chuckle approvingly.

The ‘sick’ and ‘sinners’ – in the lifetime of Jesus, these words could, of course, refer to moral transgressors.17 The designation ‘sick’ and ‘sinners’ in this case would have a religio-moral significance. But ‘sick’ and ‘sinners’ could also refer to the bent and broken members of the human community, victims of the systemic dynamics of society.

‘The righteous and those who are well’ could, of course, refer to the morally upright. But more likely than not, it referred to people who thought they were and called themselves ‘righteous.’

Could Jesus then be saying: ‘I have come to call not those who call themselves righteous but those whom they call sinners. I, the physician, extend my Kingdom-call and life-blessings not to self-appointed saints but to the broken members of our human community—the tax-collectors, thieves, prostitutes.’ (Remember that, as reported by the evangelists and as a likely enough setting, this saying of Jesus was pronounced in the company of tax-collectors, sinners, pharisees.) Dial to the right frequency to pick up the ironic banter in Jesus’ words. Thus, this saying (Mk 2:15-17; Mt 9:10-13), need not be a grand manifesto of a mission to forgive sins and sinners. In fact, the opposite may be true: it is another version of ‘good news to the poor.’

Inadequate and Adequate Résumés of Jesus’ Mission. Forgiveness of sins in the pre-crucifixion stage of Jesus’ life was part of his mission. But it is incorrect to think that ‘sin and forgiveness of sin’ is the adequate and complete résumé of Jesus’ mission. Rather, health for the sick, life for the dead, liberation for the poor and similar blessings are also integral to the mission of Jesus.

Sin and Its Effects and Consequences? ’Way back in high school, I used to think that Jesus’ mission could all be put under the grand rubric of ‘sin,’ an opinion buttressed by the following imprecise notion: "Sickness, death, injustice are all simply ‘effects’ and ‘consequences’ of sin. Thus, when he heals the sick, he is dealing with the effects of sin. When he forgives sin, he is dealing with the cause of sickness." Such a view is rather commonplace—which makes our hosts wonder whether their lung and gastric illnesses are a punishment for their sins or rather the byproducts of a social system.

What was Jesus’ view? On one occasion, he seemingly subscribes to the theology that the cause of sickness is sin. In curing the paralytic, instead of saying, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’? (Mk 2:9) he said, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’

This would have been reason enough to peg Jesus immovably to a sickness-is-an-effect-of-sin theology, were it not for a bit of loose soil in the gospel of John. Jesus once passed by a man, blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered, ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him’ (Jn 9:1-3). This saying of Jesus could help us to channel our energies less to moralizing speculation and more to making God’s healing works manifest.

Sharpening the Focus Some More

Even If Jesus Did Not Die On the Cross. Let us make one more claim which may sound somewhat shocking : even if Jesus did not die on the cross, he already had a full-grown mission, namely, the pre-crucifixion mission of proclaiming the Kingdom of God! This is the way to read the biblical evidence. Archbishop Romero had his own ‘pre-crucifixion’ mission before he died on his cross! We must make this same claim about Jesus’ mission clearly and strongly. We have at least two reasons. One is: in order to be faithful to the biblical data. The other is: Jesus’ pre-crucifixion mission helps us to appreciate our own mission in the world today and its biblical foundations.

From Diapers to Loin-Cloth. To see Jesus passionately nurturing a death-wish from the start is to make of him a suicidal case. And such theology was and is not uncommon. Consider our Christmas carols, Christmas cards and Christmas poems. Some of them depict the unsuspecting Babe on the manger already fantasizing his cross! Only later did I realize that this view, which used to be a precious part of my piety, is pure heresy, distilled through centuries of mis-information.

For though Jesus was indeed divine, he was also truly human. But I did not allow him to grow, as Luke does. ‘And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor’ (Lk 2:52). I was and am not alone. We make the Babe in diapers put on the loin-cloth of the Crucified! And ponder this: Christmas cards and carols are merely reflections of a still prevailing non-biblical catechism and theology! Let us not rush Jesus. Let us give him his space. Let us not make him a pathological misfit.

Anticipatory Statements. But, come to think of it, is it not Matthew who puts the loin-cloth on the Baby Jesus? Does not Matthew in narrating the infancy years – in fact, the pre-infancy years—of Jesus say: ‘… She [Mary] will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins’ (Mt 1:21)? Let us try to clarify this matter by situating Matthew and this text. Any storyteller, living after the death and resurrection of Jesus and with a lively consciousness of Jesus’ death and its paramount significance, could tell the Jesus-story as if his mission from the start were to die for sin.

To come back to Archbishop Romero. During his early years, Archbishop Romero’s mission was certainly not to die for the sin of his assassin. And yet it is possible for his biographer, writing after his death, and writing about his infancy, to say: ‘This baby’s mission is to die for the sin of his assassin.’ So too, Matthew’s statement anticipates the cross without voiding the initial mission of Kingdom-proclamation.

Who Do They Say I Am. What about that classical text in which Jesus asks Peter, ‘Who do people say that I am?’

Take a close look at our roadsign and make an accurate reading: the text speaks of being killed, but there is nothing about ‘dying to atone for sin’! Casuistry has again split hairs, you will say. But no. Since this point will become clear later, a provisional explanation will do for the moment.

The death of Jesus has two aspects: (a) his being killed, which was the result of his Kingdom practice and his conflict with the authorities; and (b) his dying for the expiation of sin; this was the theological significance given to his death. Our present roadsign does not say ‘he would die for sin.’ It simply reports that he would be killed, executed, put to death. We will look into this more fully in Stopover 15 (on conflict in Jesus’ practice) and Stopover 16 (on the death of Jesus).

The Lamb of God in John’s Gospel. But, again, in John’s gospel, is not Jesus from his first adult day called the Lamb of God, who will die a sacrificial death (cf. Jn 1:29)? Yes. But on this issue, John’s gospel is rather a theological meditation than a report of a historical fact. Actually, John’s gospel, which, more than the other gospels, is more meditation than history, does not even report Jesus’ mission of proclaiming the Kingdom of God.

At His Baptism Perhaps? It is also alleged—with only debatable proof—that at his baptism, Jesus was already aware of his mission of atoning death. The better and more pleasant time to discuss this will be later when we reflect on the death of Jesus in Stopover 16.

Conversion and Kingdom of God: The Odd Couple

Jesus: Moral Conversion Is Only Part of a Bigger Affirmation. Now, let us go back to our principal roadsigns – Mk 1:14-15; Mt 4:23; Lk 8:1—and discuss a certain uncritical reading of them. It runs something like this: "Did not Jesus go about all Galilee, saying, ‘The kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news’ (Mk 1:14-15)? This shows that his mission was to go about asking people to repent and to have their sins forgiven."

Such a view is only partially correct. It also puts the stress on the wrong place. Yes, Jesus did call people to repentance, or better, conversion. However, this challenge to conversion is only part of a bigger affirmation, the first and main part of which is the proclamation of the Kingdom of God. The focal point of Jesus’ message is the Kingdom of God and its proclamation. Then follows the call to conversion. The Kingdom of God remains the principal part. But alas for some of my earlier preaching—rich in moralisms, poor in the Kingdom of God.

Preaching in the Early Church: Ditto. In the Acts of the Apostles, we are in touch with Church-life as it developed soon after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Similarly, an uncritical reading of the preaching of the early Church as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, seems to suggest that the mission of the Church and of Jesus has to do only with sin, conversion, forgiveness. And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation’ (Acts 2:38-40).

Yes, in the early Church’s preaching there is a call to repentance and forgiveness of sins. But that call does not stand alone. It is coupled with the Kingdom-proclamation to which it is attached. The main message in the Acts of the Apostles remains, as with Jesus, the proclamation of salvation or Kingdom of God. Paul ‘entered the synagogue and for three months spoke out boldly, and argued persuasively about the kingdom of God’ (Acts 19:8. See Acts 8:12; 14:22; 20:25; 28:23,28). Repentance and forgiveness of sins don’t stand alone in glorious isolation but are spoken of in view of obtaining healing, salvation, the Kingdom of God.

Conversion Not To Be Equated with Kingdom of God. Conversion and Kingdom thus go together. Yet, on the other hand, they are not identical. That brings us to another faulty understanding of conversion. We sometimes equate conversion with Kingdom of God. Kingdom of God is conversion of hearts. Conversion of hearts is Kingdom of God.

Again, a parallel may help. Nanay calls out to her children: ‘I announce a super-special adobo for this coming week-end. Therefore, you have to be good during the week.’ Nanay’s adobo is one thing. The children’s good behavior is another thing. Kingdom of God is one thing. Conversion is another thing. Kingdom of God and conversion are not to be equated. They are not the same.

The Kingdom of God is a new earth, announced by Jesus. Conversion, a change of life, is a moral act, a response by the disciple. Jesus proclaimed a new earth. In order to ‘enter’ it, the potential disciple had to input his moral act. Thus, while preparing a homily, deep into a Saturday night, it dawned on me that proclaiming the Kingdom of God is not the same as conversion or the call to conversion.

The Silent Treatment?

Omissions. Once we have put the pieces of the puzzle together, we can go on to pick up other interesting bits to enhance the picture. Remember the mission statements Lk 4:16-20 and Mt 11:2-5? They are mission statements par excellence. We have taken note of the striking fact that in these statements, forgiveness of sins, though it can be counted as part of Jesus’ pre-crucifixion mission, is not one of the blessings mentioned. The blind see, the lame walk, captives are freed, etc. But there is no mention of sinners being forgiven!

Similarly, the beatitudes (Mt 5:3-10; Lk 6:20-21) offer something to tease the attentive mind. The beatitudes too are sources par excellence of Jesus’ vision for the future of humankind and yet we do not have a beatitude which says: ‘Blessed are sinners, for theirs is forgiveness of sins.’ We have beatitudes for the hungry, the meek, the pure in heart, but not one for sinners. 18

Talking of omissions, it is ironic that our modern liturgy makes the inverse omission. Whereas the Scriptures omit mention of forgiving sins, our eucharistic liturgy extols only those Christ-events which are related to sin—‘Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again’ (to judge the living and dead) – and bypasses the Kingdom ministry of Jesus! Where is the Filipino church that reverberates with the acclamation ‘Jesus went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the Kingdom of God!’ before it celebrates his death, resurrection, and second coming?

PCP II and Jesus

PCP II is the work of the whole Philippine Church – lay, religious, clergy. It is an accomplishment which would warm the heart of the First Look Jesus. It asks, ‘How to live as Christians? … The answer cannot be abstract. 19 For it leads us back to the person of Christ, Jesus of Nazareth.’

PCP II’s Jesus is a First Look Jesus:

… Jesus who preached and worked miracles … He lived among us as our fellow human being, like us in all things, sin alone excepted. He underwent the process of human growth. He ‘grew and became strong’ and ‘advanced in wisdom, and age and favor before God and man.’ He lived the life of a carpenter, shared the life of the human community …

… In his own hometown he announced his mission solemnly, dramatically declaring. [It then quotes the mission statement of Lk 4:16-20].

The document continues in a disarmingly simple way: ‘This is why we need to contemplate the face and the heart of Christ.’

PCP II is aware of the original mission of Jesus:

‘Jesus proclaimed this Kingdom as a gift of God. It is a seed quietly sown…. God’s Kingdom is the gift of salvation….

‘But the Kingdom of God has already broken into our world. By the word and work of Jesus….’ 20

A Convenient Summary

John 10:10. ‘I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly’ (Jn 10:10). This sounds great. The First Look in a nutshell! However, a little caution is called for. In the context of John’s gospel, ‘life’ carries the principal meaning of divine or eternal life. It approximates what the Second Look would call the ‘life of grace.’ It is narrower than the all-embracing scope of Jesus’ mission. His mission encompasses the totality of life-blessings. It includes, but is not limited to, the ‘life of grace.’ However, the statement of Jn 10:10, lifted momentarily out of the Johannine setting, is as radiant as a full moon on the surface of the fisherfolk’s sea. For it glows with the soft brilliance and warmth of what Jesus’ mission is all about—to bring life in all its fullness.

It has been a long day for us. It is getting to be evening. Our hosts invite us for a walk on the beach. After some conversation, we find ourselves naturally falling silent. We listen to the wavelets on the shore and feel their briny strokes on our feet. After these moments of stillness, we turn in for the night.

Be Still and Know …