Nothing is more in conflict with the spirit of these chapters than striving to be proved right at all costs or self-seeking which has not been purified by the desire to be led by the Spirit of God (Const. 9.1).
Would he say yes or no? It all depended on his inner freedom. Under the pressure of the decision, Jesus sweat blood. To hear the call of the cross means to be detached from persons and things in life. But he had already transformed his family attachments into relationships based on the Kingdom. As for his possessions, he had no place to lay his head. No, he was free to listen. To accept to go to the cross would mean to be indifferent to the evolution of his life. But he had already embraced his fundamental choice: whatever the desire of his Father was, it would be his. Yes, he was free to respond. Obedience to the cross would mean letting go of what was secure, the rhythm of his prayer, the schedule of his preaching, the daily sharing with his friends. Never a slave to what he was accustomed to, Jesus had left the crowd when necessary, fled from threats in foreign places, let his ministerial priority for Israel be displaced in favor of the unbelievers. He had always been open to the truth, whatever its source, always ready to enter into serious conflicts. He had always been tolerant, even indulgent toward the enemies of his project. No, in this garden dialogue, he exercised very well his inner freedom to understand the call of his Father and to obey it.
Slippery ground doesn’t make the hen stumble. (Poulho)
Post a Comment