Ch 3 Echoing Jesus' Gospel Voice

“I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line.”

Isaiah 28:17, NIV

“You will be my witnesses…to the ends of the earth

—engulfing it with steadfast love.”

Acts 1:8

Jesus’ gospel voice is typically heard in only one frequency. Even when that frequency is partially in tune with his voice, it does not harmonize with the full range of his voice. That is to say, Jesus never voices the good news of his gospel without it harmonizing with his voicing the gospel protest of the bad news. His harmony cannot be reduced to separate frequencies in any proclamation of the gospel, because that would not and cannot echo his voice of the whole gospel.

This raises the inescapable question for the Christian community, for which we are all accountable: In our proclamation of the gospel, what is being echoed of Jesus’ voice; and how does our proclamation harmonize with the frequency of his whole gospel voice?

Echoing or Simulating

Whenever Jesus voiced his gospel, he vulnerably enacted his whole person in order for those claiming the gospel to know the whole of God in relationship (Jn 17:3,26). It was essential for them to experience directly the Word’s whole person relationally involved in the intimacy of love, and not merely to hear words from his mouth. This intimate relational connection was necessary for them to be involved with his whole person heart to heart—who is neither defined by his title nor determined by his role—whereby they could be witnesses for his person to others and echo his gospel voice.

The opportunity for this intimate relational connection was opened up directly when Jesus made his whole person vulnerable freely to his disciples by washing their feet person to person without his title or role (Jn 13:1-17). By enacting intimately with them the wholeness of his love (v.1), he established the relational process necessary to be the basis for them to embody being “my witnesses” and to enact echoing his gospel voice. Peter’s response to Jesus, his teacher and Lord, highlights being out of tune once again.

After Peter’s cultural bias refused to make his person vulnerable to Jesus (vv.6-8), the Word declared unequivocally “Unless I wash you, your person, you have no share with me, my person.” Peter replied, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head” (v.9). Given how Peter defined the person from outer in by merely one’s title and role, how would you assess Peter’s response to Jesus? And on the basis of what Jesus voiced about claiming his gospel, did Peter echo Jesus’ gospel voice?

It is critical to understand the dynamics taking place between Jesus and Peter. In the relational language voiced by the Word to communicate his whole person from inner out, he shares with Peter “Unless I, in my whole person not reduced to my title and role, wash you, in your whole person from inner out, then your person has no share with my person in the vulnerable relational involvement of person-to-person, heart-to-heart reciprocal relationship together; this is the only essential relational outcome of my gospel.” What’s heard back from Peter is not the echo of Jesus’ gospel voice but rather a simulation of a person rendered by one’s outer-in parts (“Lord, not my feet only but also…”). In other words, words not in tune with the Word, Peter could only simulate at best the gospel enacted to him face to face, person to person.

The function of Peter’s person was of great concern for Jesus. In anticipation of Peter soon to be “my witness to the world,” Jesus confronted Peter about his level of relational involvement: “Do you with your whole person love me, my whole person, by the vulnerable relational involvement of love heart to heart—with nothing less and no substitutes?” (Jn 21:15-17). Jesus understood that no matter how much Peter was able to imitate Jesus to others, his witness would only be a simulation and would not echo the vulnerable presence and relational involvement of Jesus’ whole person. At that level of function, Peter could not proclaim in and for the right frequency of Jesus’ gospel voice.

Peter wasn’t and isn’t an exception of those proclaiming a gospel. Sometimes there is a fine line between echoing and simulating. What distinguishes the former from the latter is (1) how the person is defined from inner out instead of outer in, and (2) how this determines the basis for the person’s vulnerable relational involvement with others person to person in relationship together. When persons are defined and their relationships are determined on this irreducible basis, the who proclaiming emerges whole to echo the whole who who came. These persons are the only persons whom Jesus counts on to be “my witnesses” echoing his gospel voice—that is, vulnerably extending his whole person with their whole person to others in the human condition.

A witness (martys) is someone who has information or knowledge of something, whereby the witness can give information, bring to light or confirm something. When this process is applied to the gospel, the issue becomes specifically what or whom the witness is focused on. The issue of what prevails for the gospel today; and its witnesses provide information that simulate the Word’s voice of the gospel with words of gospelspeak. Such gospelspeak may proclaim a quantity of information or knowledge related to the gospel, but it lacks knowing directly the person constituting the gospel. Consequently, as much as the what is proclaimed, it can only simulate the who and cannot echo his person’s gospel voice. Therefore, such witnesses never fulfill the primary purpose of “my witnesses” to bring light to and confirm the Word’s whole person integrally embodying and enacting the gospel. John the Baptist modelled the function of who (not what) fulfilling this relational process necessary to be (not simulate) “the witness of my person in the world” (see Jn 1:6-9; 3:29-34).

In contrast, Christians have a diverse witness in the world today, much of which only simulates the identity and function of “my witnesses.” These witnesses proclaim a gospelspeak that is composed by words related to the gospel but not tuned in to the Word. The subtlety of such simulation can be very deceiving to mislead those with even the best of intentions. This was demonstrated by an early church in Ephesus, whose witness adhered to the words from God with rigorous, enduring practice without compromise (Rev 2:1-3). Their witness would seem to model what Jesus would be proud of for any church. But, the Word voiced his protest to confront them in their best intentions: “But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together” (v.4). That is, they were “no longer vulnerably involved with my person in the intimacy of love heart to heart to echo the Word but merely simulating the words of a gospelspeak.”

The subtle simulation of gospelspeak was demonstrated more emphatically by an early church with the reputation comparable to the brand of modern megachurches. This church in Sardis, however, was confronted by the voice of the Word’s protest: “Wake up…for I have not found your witness complete, whole (pleroo) according to the standards of my God” (Rev 3:1-2). The Word’s wake-up protest is even more necessary today to enforce the standards for his person’s witness. Megachurches, among others, should be alerted.

The Standards for “My Witnesses”

Christian witness either proclaims information that confirms the words of the gospel, or it proclaims knowing the Word to confirm his whole person enacting the gospel. Proclaiming information certainly involves theological scrutiny to ensure that misinformation is not propagated. To proclaim knowing the Word necessitates going deeper than theological scrutiny, in order to get to the depth of the person so that the whole person is confirmed and not just things about the person. This depth involves standards revealing who is witnessed to and by whom—standards that are irreducible and thus invariable.

The gospel voiced by the Word distinguishes his whole person, revealing the nature of his identity and function. When the Word communicated that “I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line” (Isa 28:17, NIV), he made definitive the formula for framing his identity to constitute the gospel. This distinct framework irreplaceably defines his identity, because “righteousness and justice are the foundation of your kingdom” by the relational process of “steadfast love and faithfulness determining your function” (Ps 89:14). That’s why for the relational involvement of the Word, “steadfast love and faithfulness meet together, and righteousness and peace kiss each other,” and that “righteousness goes before him and determines the path for his steps” (Ps 85:10,13). This irreversible formula is integrally qualitative and relational, the integrity of which are irreducible and nonnegotiable.

Righteousness is the standard for relational involvement that determines if that person can be counted on in relationship with others to be the whole of who, what and how they claim to be. This plumb line for determining how straight and upright that person really is provides the assurance—not to mention the legal basis—of the person fulfilling their relational work with the integrity of nothing less and no substitutes. The righteous person is who Jesus embodied to enact his gospel. Therefore, righteousness is the irreplaceable standard for who is witnessed to as well as for defining and determining who witnesses. Righteousness is not an ideal to strive for but the plumb line distinguishing “my witnesses.”

This essential process is outlined by Jesus in his identity formation for his true disciples (Mt 5:2-11); and what characteristic is pivotal for this identity formation is for his disciples-witnesses “to hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be whole from inner out” (5:6). Righteousness is the only plumb line to define and determine the identity and function of who is witnessed to and by whom.

Integral to the Word’s plumb line is his measuring line of justice. Integrated along with the heart of God’s being in righteousness is God enacting justice with steadfast love (as in Jer 9:24). The measuring line of justice is essential to know and understand God, which is the only boast of significance to God (as stated in Jer 9:23). Moreover, “For the Lord is righteous; he loves righteous deeds (i.e. justice); the upright will connect with his face” (Ps 11:7). Justice, therefore, is the inflection of the Word’s voice that provides the relational connection to know and understand him further and deeper. This relational outcome is necessary to be “my witnesses,” who must by their nature be righteous for enacting justice to develop and mature.

The Inflection of the Word

How is righteousness integral for enacting justice? First of all, righteousness precludes persons (including the Word) being defined by the outer-in differences that determine who and what they are. The consequences of these outer-in distinctions have created inequities rendering persons unequal, even for those claiming the gospel (e.g. Acts 6:1). This inequality existed in the development of the early church, whose injustice had to be turned around because God makes no such distinctions—as Peter testified as a result of the Word’s protest of his bias (Acts 15:9).

Justice does not develop and mature but remains immature or premature from efforts lacking the significant change that transforms persons from inner out and their relationships in their primacy. The inflection of the gospel voiced by the Word functioned for the measuring line of justice to be whole without anything less and any substitutes. Furthermore, the Word’s invariable measuring line aligned by the plumb line becomes the inflection point challenging the diversity of the global church and protesting its inequality contrary to “my house being the relational context of family for all nations.”

[1]

The integral process between righteousness and justice is witnessed in a strategic interaction Jesus had that revealed God’s relational response to the human condition. In this inflection point, understanding who and what Jesus enacted in this interaction provides the means needed to echo the Word’s gospel voice, in contrast to substituting a simulation of gospel words. In the Word’s gospel, the whole of God’s theological trajectory and relational path were clearly distinguished in what I call ‘the strategic shift’ of God’s thematic relational action. What would you do if you came face to face with the improbable (both religious and sociocultural) and were faced with the unknown (both epistemological and relational) that takes you beyond your knowledge and understanding? This was what and who a Samaritan woman faced when she encountered Jesus at Jacob’s well (Jn 4:4-30).

Their noon encounter was not accidental, though the woman perhaps went to the well to draw water at the least occupied time because of her diminished social standing among the other women—due to an apparent contrary lifestyle (4:16-18). Jesus purposefully initiated this interaction and by design he broke through religious, sociocultural and relational barriers to be involved with her face to face (4:7-9)—that is, the face of the improbable vulnerably present to engage her (as in 4:27). She could have ignored Jesus at this point, resisted him or continued to face what would be the unknown for her. To respond and pay attention to the unknown would require her to break through the same barriers Jesus did, which she vulnerably chose to do to engage what and who was about to take her beyond her knowledge and understanding. By acting in vulnerable humility to engage Jesus, she demonstrated participating in a whole model of the gospel and its outcome that needs to distinguish all of our theology and practice, not merely for the future but for the immediate present.

The dynamics that unfold in this interaction are not referential to transmit information about God but are relational dynamics communicating knowledge and understanding of God—that which distinguish the whole of God in compatible reciprocal relationship together. Jesus not only embodies the gospel to her (“the gift of God,” v.10) but also illuminates the relational context and process necessary—not suggested or optional terms that are reducible or negotiable—to experience this good news of intimate relationship together (“who asks you…you ask him…he gives you,” v.10). The woman responds from her limited epistemic field (“you have nothing…where can you get this”), but she also opens her lens to engage the relational epistemic process so that her assumptions don’t maintain a barrier to discover the face of Jesus (“Are you greater,” vv.11-12). Her initial openness allows Jesus to continue to reveal the relational significance of what distinguishes his gospel and its outcome both ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ (vv.13-14, cf. Jn 17:3). From the limits of her interpretive lens, she embraces this good news (“Sir, give me this water…never be thirsty or have to keep coming here,” v. 15), yet Jesus is taking her beyond her limits. In order to have this relational outcome she needed to be vulnerable as a person in her bad news so as to be involved with Jesus face to face—that is, for the relational connection necessary for the whole of God’s relational action to be received and responded to (vv.16-18). Any disconnect by her, such as denying her bad news, would have created an impasse to the relational process constituting the whole of God’s revelation.

She doesn’t retreat from Jesus’ vulnerable presence or withdraw from his intimate involvement; and in his relational context and process her lens is expanded (or transformed) to see more of Jesus’ person (“I see that you are,” v. 19). This is the relational outcome that only emerges from face-to-face connection (cf. Num 12:6-8). As she acknowledges her assumptions from human shaping and further engages this relational epistemic process that expands her epistemic field (vv.20,25), she is taken beyond her limits and comes face to face with the whole of God (“I am he,” v.26): the improbable who is vulnerably revealed from inner out only in relational terms (not referential) for the whole purpose of compatible (i.e. vulnerable and intimate) reciprocal relationship together (vv. 21-24).

Contrary to what the Word enacted, “just then his disciples returned to observe. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman” (6:27). Why? Given the surrounding culture’s influence on them, they didn’t understand that by interacting with her Jesus protested the injustice of her condition. Since the disciples had yet to be in tune with Jesus’ gospel voice, his inflection point with the Samaritan woman constituting his gospel protest was a frequency that eluded them to echo in their witness.

Though Moses’ experience of God’s direct involvement with him in Face-to-face relationship was a pivotal interaction by God, that was a precursor to the strategic shift of the gospel. This strategic shift clearly emerged with the Samaritan woman. In the shift from a place (like the mountain, tabernacle, or Jerusalem), and from situations and circumstances, the whole of God becomes vulnerably and relationally accessible for ongoing involvement in direct relationship Face to face. This makes the transcendent God accessible to all peoples and persons regardless of their human distinctions from outer in, on the one hand, which certainly opened up a unique opportunity for this woman, viewed as a person of despicable race-ethnicity, debased gender and likely denigrated character, thus relegating her to the inequitable injustice of her sociocultural context. On the other hand, however, this was unique access only for the relationship-specific involvement from inner out in the primacy together of God’s family, for which this woman would have to shift from outer in to be compatible. This then makes the holy God accessible for relationship only to those who respond in the innermost of Jesus’ relational context and process—in other words, relationship only on God’s terms (cf. Jn 8:31-42). Was this good news or bad news for this woman?

The relational significance of God’s strategic shift is magnified in this highly improbable interaction. For a Jewish rabbi to engage a Samaritan woman one-on-one in public required to be freed from constraints of the old (and what defined them), and thus opened to vulnerably engage each other in the relationship of the new. Jesus tore down the constraint of “double jeopardy” (double discrimination based here on ethnicity and gender, without even considering her apparent social ostracism) for her and gave her direct access to a highly improbable, though ultimately unique, opportunity: unrestricted connection and intimate relationship with the whole of God.

As the interaction unfolds, it becomes increasingly vulnerable Face to face. When her emerging person began to understand (theoreo) a deeper significance of the person engaging her (v.19), she turned the focus to God and the existing structure of religious practice (v.20). Yet, her focus should not be limited to the issue of worship but necessarily involved the accessibility of God. Perhaps she had doubts about accessing God if she had to participate in the prevailing practice. Any ambivalence at this point would be understandable, given her social standing in the community.

In relational language, Jesus vulnerably engaged her to reveal that the old (prevailing religious tradition and way to see things) was going to be changed (Jn 4:21-22), and that the new “is now here” (4:23-24). This was a foretaste of the redemptive change of the human condition that is at the heart of his gospel. The strategic shift in the holy and transcendent God’s presence was embodied vulnerably with her in a highly improbable encounter—improbable both in God’s action and in human thinking. As Jesus disclosed the qualitative and relational significance of his whole person (the Word of YHWH) in his pivotal “I am” relational message to her (v.26), the whole of God’s ontology and function became vulnerably accessible for ongoing involvement in direct relationship Face to face.

The same relational dynamic was also extended improbably to Paul on the Damascus road, which raised similar issues for Paul in his religious tradition, as for the woman in hers, but with further implications and consequences. This shift to the new relational context and process, however, necessitated (and still necessitates today) terms significant for compatibility in order to distinguish relationship together from prevailing human terms, self-definition and determination. In the strategic shift of the gospel, there is no relational progression with the whole-ly accessible God without these ongoing relational terms: “in spirit and truth” (4:23-24).

The functional significance of “in spirit and in truth” can only be understood in the relational significance of the holy and transcendent God’s thematic action fulfilled in the incarnation of Jesus’ whole person (cf. Ps 33:11b). Though the Samaritan woman expressed no understanding of these words in his gospel voice, she was experiencing their functional significance in their involvement together not only Face to face but also heart to heart.

This raises two important questions. What if Jesus’ person were something less or some substitute of God, or what if the person Jesus presented in his life and practice were anything less or any substitute of his whole person, even as God? The former has been an ongoing theological issue, which Jesus’ first century adversaries tried to establish about him. Any revisionism of Jesus makes discourse about an accessible God insignificant, if not irrelevant. The latter question is a functional issue that essentially has been ignored. Yet, its critical importance has theological implications about the reliability of our Christology, and more importantly creates a functional problem of integrity for the relational involvement of trust. How reliable is your knowledge of someone if the person presented to you is anything less or any substitute of the who, what and how of that person? Moreover, how can you trust someone in a relationship if you can’t count on that person’s involvement to be beyond anything less or any substitute of the whole person? This is not about having faith in someone without having a sound basis, such as fideism; nor is it about engaging in relationship together on the basis of quantitative information.

Jesus demonstrated to this woman that his involvement with her was nothing less and no substitutes for his whole person defined by the plumb line of righteousness. This was congruent with his ongoing self-disclosure of the whole of God and, specific to her, opened access to the transcendent “God is spirit.” Something less or any substitutes would not have fulfilled this function for her, much less fulfilled the whole of God’s thematic action for all humanity. The implication is “I who speak am [here to openly disclose to you that spirit] with the integrity of the measuring line of justice.”

The relational outcome from the inflection of the Word constituted the relational connection necessary to claim the Word of the gospel, whereby to know and understand the whole of God for the relational basis essential to be “my witnesses.” The Samaritan woman experienced this relational outcome to effectively serve as “my witness” (Jn 4:28-30, 39-42).

Likewise, anyone who claims the gospel in tune with who and what the Word voiced, that person is accountable to function as “my witness,” not merely witnessing any words of the gospel in a performative manner. Therefore, just as the Word embodied the plumb line of righteousness to enact the measuring line of justice, “my witnesses” proclaim the sounds of protest to echo the Word’s gospel voice integrating justice. Any other witness proclaims words and not the Word, thus their witness at best can only simulate the identity and function of “my witnesses.” To inflect with the Word necessitates foremost to be vulnerable with one’s person from inner out in order to have the relational connection raising up the new for being “my witnesses”—just as the Samaritan woman experienced to echo Jesus’ gospel voice.

[1] See my study on the global church for further discussion of this issue: The Global Church Engaging the Nature of In & the Human Condition: Reflecting, Reinforcing, Sustaining or Transforming (Global Church Study, 2016), available online at https://www.4X12.org.