If Jesus Does Not Go the Distance

One of the features that distinguishes John from the synoptic gospels is Jesus’ reluctance to accompany characters that have asked for his aid. In Mark, for instance, Jesus willingly accepts Jairus’s plea to see his daughter (5:24), and in Luke, Jesus goes to the house of the centurion who had built a synagogue for the Jews (7:6). In John, however, Jesus does not go to see the sick son of the noble man (4:47-49), does not go to see the dying Lazarus (1:6), and, in a different situation, does not initially go to a feast after having been urged by his brothers to go to reveal himself in public (7:8).

A Gospel like Mark seems to be following the Old Testament narrative trend that presents interaction with the divine as being in a room where decisions are made, as Dr. John Goldingay usually presents prayer in the Old Testament.1* In such a room, one has the option of requesting from God a particular outcome, an outcome God might attend to. John, however, presents Jesus as giving negative responses to those who ask for his intervention, and also as one who simply—even if only initially—stays in place. That is not to say that Jesus does not eventually help those who want something from him. In fact, when characters ask something of Jesus, he sometimes initially says no only to respond positively to the inquiry after (2:4-7; 7:7-10; 11:11). But even on occasions when Jesus positively responds to those petitions, he does not go immediately to the person in need, or he does not go at all. The question that arises is why Jesus does not physically attend to those who want something from him but instead remains at a distance? This short essay will suggest that Jesus’ reluctance to go to the place where the people want him to go emphasizes that, in John, Jesus only does what God wants him to do—which strengthens John’s case for the unity of Father and Son.

Jesus’ negative responses to people’s requests in John is perhaps especially surprising for miracles John describes as “signs.” With the risk of over simplifying, one could perhaps distinguish between signs when Jesus seems to be following his own agenda—without anyone requiring him to do a sign (5:6; 6:5, 19, 9:1–4)—and signs when characters invite Jesus to perform a miraculous activity in their favor (2:3; 4:47; 11:3). In the occasions when Jesus willingly aids, say, the paralytic at Bethesda or the blind man (9:1–12), he goes to that person, sees that person, and aids the person without them requesting it. When Jesus multiplies fish and bread, moreover, it is Jesus who sees the crowds and who performs the sign, even if the disciples distribute the food (6:5). There is the sign, however, when Jesus heals the son of the noble man (4:50), in which Jesus will never descend to see him. There is also the occasion when Mary and Martha inform Jesus of the sickness of their brother (11:3), presumably asking for his presence in Bethany, but Jesus simply remains in place for two days (v. 6). While Jesus will attend to Bethany days later, the behavior of Jesus surprises, as in previous occasions he had healed people with his word or had gone to the place in which they were. The behavior of Jesus is even more surprising if one considers that the purpose of the signs is to make those who read believe that Jesus is the Christ. How does the distancing of Jesus aid in such endeavor? 

What could inform the behavior of Jesus becomes clearer to the reader in the aftermath of the healing of the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda (5:19–23). In this literary context, Jesus affirms to those who challenge him that he only behaves according to the ways God shows him. Considering that we read from left to right, once one comes to John 5, one can perhaps better interpret what has happened in the previous texts—why Jesus does not act according to the will of his mother (2:4) or his brothers (7:3, 8)—and recognize a trajectory that is already beginning to take shape: Jesus behaves or does what God wants him to do. Jesus’ distancing contributes to that goal. Some of the words of Jesus in the scene of the healing blind man are most revealing for this rationale. Jesus affirms, “We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (9:4–5). 

The verb “must” is used on this occasion to emphasize necessity. Such necessity is already known to the reader, as in a previous context, John has affirmed that, to go to Galilee, Jesus “had” to go through Samaria. While Jesus is absent and reluctant to act in some occasions in John, in other contexts, Jesus is strained to act and to go to a place. What prompts such eagerness, Jesus affirms, is that he is to do a work of the Father (9:4).

The words of Jesus about the coming night can also explain Jesus’ behavior. In John, night can refer to ignorance (1:5b, 3:2a), but the night that is coming refers to the death of Jesus, which John emphasizes when Judas leaves to conspire to betray Jesus and the narrator informs that it was night (13:30). While it is day, while Jesus is still in the world, however, Jesus needs to do the works of the one who sent him, which will not be possible once Jesus has died. The characterization of Jesus as one sent by the Father in John is rich and deserves more attention that I can provide here, but a short discussion on the topic is informing my argument of why Jesus stays in place. 

Jesus’ characterization of the Father as “the father who sent me” (5:37; 6:44, 57; 8:16, 18; 12:49; 14:24) in turn characterizes Jesus as one sent by God (3:34; 4:34; 5:23, 36, 38; 6:29, 38–39, 57; 7:16, 18, 28–29). Such characterization, however, does not immediately suggest what it means for Jesus to be sent by God (1:1). One could perhaps suggest that Jesus is only a representative of God in John, which only implies that he is enacting the deeds of his Father, but not necessarily in unity with God. Dr. Marianne Meye Thompson has guided students of John, however, to recognize that Jesus is not merely a representative but a representation of the Father. Jesus is one with God, one who is so fully united to the Father that if you saw the Son and believed that he is in the Father, you would also have seen the Father (14:7-9).

John’s case for such unity is usually advanced by means of Jesus’ commitment to the deeds and agenda of God. That Jesus does not go geographically to those who need him emphasizes the commitment of Jesus to the agenda of his Father. That is to say, that Jesus stays in place contributes to the case that Jesus and God are one in what they do, including his decision to be present or absent.

Jesus does provide rationale for why he eventually goes to see Lazarus. After a two-day wait, Jesus decides to go to Judea (11:7) and raise or wake Lazarus up (v. 11). The explanation of Jesus includes the words, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? Those who walk during the day do not stumble, because they see the light of this world” (v. 9b). After initially waiting, which emphasizes, again, that Jesus does only what God tells him to do; Jesus now goes to Lazarus. That it is day and he will not stumble means that he will not be yet captured and die. He will live and, as Jesus affirmed earlier, will go and do the works of God. He is God’s lifegiving worker and representation, who gives life and raises whom he wants (5:21, 28–29). Such presentation of Jesus is substantiated richly in John. Jesus affirms that he has life in himself (v. 26), which is why he can give life (v. 21), and also affirms that God has given him all judgment (v. 22). In the OT, these two features are attributed to God alone, but God attributes them to Jesus in John. John’s famous claim, that, “my father and I are one” (10:30), moreover, comes after the rationale that in the way the Father does not lose any of those he aims to save (v. 29), Jesus does not lose them either (v. 28). That is to say, the unity of Jesus and God in John is expressed in terms of unity of work, in this occasion in the unity and ability of Jesus to not lose his followers. Jesus’ reluctance to go to those who require his presence emphasizes that Jesus only does what he does according to will of God, which includes movement, location, going to or staying in one place.

In sum, while Jesus only does what God tells him to do—which is why he, at points, does not accompany characters or delays his presence with them—Jesus is also God’s representation, the one who enacts the lifegiving works of God. These two characteristics of the mission of Jesus as Messiah work together. Jesus, for instance, initially denies the petition of the noble man to go and heal his son. That he remains in place shows that he does what God does, following his agenda, but that he also heals the son of the man shows that God willingly wants to help those who ask for his aid (cf. 5:17b). That is to say, being the representation of God, God’s Messiah, implies not only that Jesus does what God does; the signs present the complex rationale that Jesus moves, is present or absence, according to the agenda of God, according to what God shows or does not show Jesus, even if the signs also show God’s desire to help those who need him. Presumably, God is directing Jesus to stay or to go, to wait and to stop waiting. Jesus is not Messiah only because he does the works of God in unity with God, but also because he does them from a distance or right there were he is needed.

The presentation in John of Jesus’s unity with God, and the particular element of presenting Jesus as remaining at a distance from those who require his presence or geographical movement, illustrates well one of the principles that has shaped Fuller’s Centro Latino (CL). Over time, many different voices speak about what the CL should have done in the past or should do in the future. The CL, however, is interested not primarily in the task of training Latino and Latina pastors for the US and Latin America, but is first and foremost interested in God’s agenda and interests. Such principle means, first, paying attention to God, and also stopping in place when necessary. This is not to say that the example of Jesus in John fits perfectly such principle. Jesus knows what God wants and acts according to such agenda because of his identity, because of his unity with the Father. The CL, however, follows Jesus’s example as it waits on God for direction. The focus on the poor and the interest in the marginalized individuals is perhaps a fruit of such guidance. Second, the example of Jesus implies moving, advancing, or staying in place, once there has been, or will be, clarity in regard to what God is saying. This is a courageous endeavor, as it requires moving forward against those voices that may, at least initially, invite the Centro to go to in a particular direction. The hope, our hope and assurance, is that God will reveal his glory after the obedient attitude of the Centro Latino, its leaders, and professors.