Receiving me, receiving the One who sent me
Lamb Chopped
Shipmate
in Kerygmania
What follows stems from a discussion on the thread about hell. I'm concerned with several texts quoted below, and with the parallel passages which are easy to find if you use a search function on Biblegateway.com or elsewhere. What exactly is Jesus saying in these passages--some of which seem to come out of nowhere, being more or less unconnected with the text right around them? Is he talking about ultimate fates when he speaks of a "reward"--in other words, entrance into his kingdom? When he talks of someone "receiving" him when they receive one of his believers, how far does that go? Because it looks to me like it might go all the way up to saving faith--which would result in a heckuva lot of people ending up with him who never knew him themselves in this world.
Here are the verses. I'm seriously puzzled about them, and want help, because I have a pretty desperate desire to read them one way, and don't want to do that without you folks giving it a rigorous going over.
On the face of it, this looks to me like he's not just going to grab all the people who have explicit trust and love in him, it looks like he's taking all their friends, family and other connections who clung to them in love--maybe the better way of putting it would be, who loved what they saw of Jesus in them, not knowing what they saw.
I really hesitate to just jump on this reading and take it as established, because I want so desperately for it to be true; but I am having trouble coming up with any other sensible meaning for it, given his talk of "rewards" and "receiving" him and the Father.
Here are the verses. I'm seriously puzzled about them, and want help, because I have a pretty desperate desire to read them one way, and don't want to do that without you folks giving it a rigorous going over.
20 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” (John 13:20)
This gets expanded in Matthew into: 40 “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. 41 The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person's reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.” (Matthew 10:40-42)
And in Mark, this: “ 38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 For the one who is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.” (Mark 9:36-41)
On the face of it, this looks to me like he's not just going to grab all the people who have explicit trust and love in him, it looks like he's taking all their friends, family and other connections who clung to them in love--maybe the better way of putting it would be, who loved what they saw of Jesus in them, not knowing what they saw.
I really hesitate to just jump on this reading and take it as established, because I want so desperately for it to be true; but I am having trouble coming up with any other sensible meaning for it, given his talk of "rewards" and "receiving" him and the Father.
Comments
The thing that bothers me is the "because he is a disciple" bit. Isn't it quite common that people say: "Oh, I really like X, really kind/friendly/dedicated.... but a bit... well... you know... bit too religious for me....". I.e. I will give you a cup of cold water but definitely not because you are a disciple...
I wonder whether the recognition and pursuit of what is good and right and honest - perhaps because of connection with a believer - is considered by God to be service, whether or not individuals are willing or able to use the language of religion?
The verses you mention are examples of the kind of verses that lead me to believe that what's important to God is our attitude about the things that are good in his view - things like righteousness and compassion. If our attitude about these things is that they are inherently good and worthwhile enough to put into practice, even if that attitude is not based on any religious beliefs, then I simply cannot imagine that God would think that that's not enough for him to work with to start replacing our heart of stone with a heart of flesh.
In my view, salvation is not God's ultimate goal for us. Instead, it's merely the first step on our path to allow him to share as much of his joy with us as we are able to receive, something which naturally depends on us valuing the same things that God values.
BTW, what is the range of meaning for the original verb translated as "receive"?
The Markan passage is in the context of
the disciples not being able to cast out a demon,
then arguing about who of them would be the greatest,
Then a non-disciple successfully casting out demons in Jesus' name,
And then the hyperbole about stumbling blocks.
The Matthean passage is in the context of
Jesus sending out the twelve to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and definitely not to Gentiles or Samaritans, (unlike Luke or John who include a mission outside Israel) consistent with Matthew altering some of Mark's stories to also take this slant.
The context of John is within the talk of betrayal at Passover supper.
But I think @W Hyatt has a good point. My take is that doing these things, receiving those Christ sends, giving the cup of water etc. draws one closer to God, even if the person doing it doesn’t know that. And closeness to God is what we were made for…..
Two different words are used in Greek which are translated as "receive" in English. I'll give them here as "lambano" and "dechomai". Since my beloved Bauer Arndt and Gingrich is in a bookshelf against which the summer patio furniture is stacked for the winter, I'll link some of Strong's Concordance here.
Lambano: https://biblehub.com/greek/2983.htm
Dechomai: https://biblehub.com/greek/1209.htm
There do appear to be some subtle differences between the two, but I'm not able to pin down exactly what. Dechomai appears to have more of a connotation of hospitality - to receive guests, to welcome. Lambano appears to have both active and passive connotations.
As for "reward", the Greek word is misthos: https://biblehub.com/greek/3408.htm It's interesting that it includes rewards, wages, recompense. Given that, I wonder if it's problematic to read it as "reward = eternal life." Maybe? Or maybe it's a more limited sense in these verses... essentially, you get what you gave. It doesn't necessarily escalate to eternal life.
Tangent, possibly: I've always been somewhat discombobulated by the transitive properties of identity in John. "I in you, you in me, we in them, them in us." What?
I haven't yet been able to understand the intent of the authors in structuring those sections as they have. But I assume they have some purpose in doing so.
I'm still thinking and searching. If I discover something useful, I will post.
On the tangent: I notice he never says "them in you," speaking to the Father. He's always the intermediary.
The Gospel writers weren't always laying out their material in ways we might expect.
This might just be me, but I don't feel the need to square the circle on any of this. These passages don't pose the same problems to me as they appear to do to you.
But that said, I'm sure we might find areas where the reverse is the case. Particularly verses and passages may perplex me but make complete sense to you or to other Shipmates.
Don't forget that I'm not taking a 'sola scriptura' approach to these texts so apparent anomalies contradictions or things that don't always seem to 'fit' are less of an issue than they might be otherwise.
Which isn't to say that we are approaching passages like this in a diametrically opposite way.
I asked a theologian/ bible scholar friend. I am still waiting for him to get back to me.
Sure, and give me some time and I'll make some observations on them. I'll make some observations later on today all being well. Some will accord with what others have said already of course. Others might differ slightly but I'm not making advance claims for originality.
I was simply thinking aloud. Thinking allowed.
I s'pose what I'm doing is establishing the kind of framework through which I'd approach these and other verses.
But then, you know the kind of framework I work within and so that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
I have already observed, though, that verses like this indicate that we shouldn't reduce concepts like salvation to a set of dualistic propositions.
Not that I'm suggesting anyone is doing so here, but I'm agreeing with @Cathscats on this point - that the NT witness transcends issues such as who is 'in' or 'out' and who believes and who doesn't etc etc. Of course, that's all part of it, but it's way, way, way bigger than that.
As I think we'd all agree.
First impression: the placing of this text may not be as 'random' as it first appears. I was struck looking at it again just now, how it follows on from the scary verses that precede this passage:
Matthew 34:39 which is all about 'division' as it were - 'Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth, I did not come to bring peace but a sword.' v.34.
Then we have the thing about costly discipleship possibly involving estrangement between family members - which echoes the sense of familial disruption mentioned in Micah 7:6.
https://biblehub.com/micah/7-6.htm
If that wasn't enough, we then have the scarily hyperbolic statement about those who place love for family members above devotion and dedication to Christ being unworthy of him.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 10:37-39&version=NIV
Indeed, if we don't 'take up our cross' and follow Christ we are not 'worthy' of him.
Thing is, none of us are worthy of him anyway ... but let's roll with this.
What we have then is a turn-around, a kind of volta, rather like that found in some sonnets. There's a shift.
It's as if Matthew is saying, 'If this sounds harsh, take comfort from the following ...' and then we have the corollary that grace and mercy extends not only to those who actively choose to follow Christ but to those who - whether they are aware of it or not - concur, assist or in whatever way affirm that which is Christlike.
The Reformed have a concept of 'general grace' I believe. I can't remember the exact term they use but can see what they are driving at, God's love and mercy extended to all humanity in terms of those good things we can all enjoy to whatever extent we are able.
I submit that these verses may convey something of that, but equally something more specific. We are talking about interlocking and concentric spheres of influence and connectivity - the personal or individual, the family unit, wider society - even to those who may simply share a cup of water out of kindness and so fulfil 'the law of Christ'.
As the Apostles and disciples are representatives of Christ, then any kindness or respect shown to them extends to the One who sent them - to Christ himself.
See Matthew 25:40 - 'inasmuch as you did it to the least of these My brethren, you did it to me.'
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 25:40&version=NIV
(Hosts and Admins, for some reason I'm getting the NIV by default on these Bible Gateway links - not that I object to that, but the code may need tidying up. Thanks!)
So, how that all works out in practice, I don't know. Does it mean that the barista who tops up our cup of coffee rather than selling us short receives a 'reward' beyond that of doing good for its own sake? 'Virtue is it's own reward' as it were?
I'm not sure it helps us a great deal to speculate as to the full outworking or implications of these verses, other than to recognise and appreciate that 'God is present everywhere and fills all things' and that if God is aware of even every sparrow that falls from the sky or the numbers of hairs on our heads then he is perfectly capable of working all things together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose - and for anyone and everyone we may encounter in our normal everyday lives.
I see no need to construct some kind of medieval 'merit' table here.
You know the sort of thing: six cups of cold water = X number of years remission from Purgatory etc.
No, rather it demonstrates that there is far more to all of this and to God's infinite grace and compassion than accepting particular doctrinal propositions or speculating as to who will or won't be 'saved'.
Not that I am accusing anyone here of doing that.
Besides, surely it follows on from what Christ says in John 13:16 about a servant not being greater than their master, nor the one sent being greater than the one who sent them.
Christ is sending his disciples out as his representatives - and he is soon to be removed from the scene. Consequently, those who receive them, receive him. They aren't 'greater' than he is, but they are in union with him and so convey Christ, as it were to togose they will meet.
Again, I might be missing something but I really don't see the problem here. If we are Christ's and faithful to Christ then in some way we are - God willing and by his grace - going to be 'as Christ' to other people. The foot-washing example is shown as a practical demonstration of that - we are to serve others. In doing so we bring Christ to them.
It all seems perfectly in context to me.
Verses 12-17: What the disciples should do in the future; mainly positive in tone
Verses 18-19: One of you is about to betray me, part one--negative in tone
Verses 20: the bit I'm interested in. "Whoever accepts anyone I send" which on the face of it, is about the disciples' future, and is positive in tone--which means that it makes more sense to me to have it come right after verse 17, but it doesn't.
Verse 21 and following: One of you is about to betray me, part two; negative in tone
I'm finding the interlaced bit confusing. Why not reverse the positions of verse 20 and verses 18-19?
I'm sure there's a reason, I'm just not getting it.
After all, there are more abrupt changes of direction in other Gospel passages. I'm not sure why this one should be more of a problem than some of the others.
There are odder things in the Gospels it seems to me.