“Let those who boast boast in this, that they understand and know me

that I am the Lord; I act with steadfast love, justice and righteousness in the earth,

for in these actions I delight.”

Jeremiah 9:24

 

Love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and peace kiss each other.

Psalm 85:10, NIV

 

 

 

 

            It is vital to understand the dynamics underlying the gospel in order to know what, why and how God initiated the response to embody the gospel.  These dynamics have been set aside, forgotten or even ignored by many who claim and proclaim the gospel.  Thus, we need to return to these dynamics, so that they restore the gospel’s constituting integrity of what, why and how who came.

            Growing up in a Christian home and among others identified with Christianity in one way or another, the gospel I heard revolved around John 3:16.  It was basically about personal salvation.  Later, I engaged in formal theological education, I learned the nuances of salvation composing the gospel and the fundamental elements constructing the gospel’s composition.  The quantity of this important information, however, was relatively static and lacked the dynamic essential to make the gospel the experiential truth and relational reality; this dynamic makes existential the truth and reality that Jesus embodied and enacted with his whole person, not merely by his teachings and his example.  Yet, the priority given to what amounts to secondary details during my theological education left my mind saturated with this referential information, which I embraced naively to subject my mind to an intellectual bias.  But, this limited knowledge and skewed engagement also created a dryness in my heart thirsting for a deeper quality I was missing in my relationship with Jesus’ person.  Of course, the gospel I claimed had good news, but it lacked the face to face, heart to heart relational involvement with Jesus’ whole person, only cerebral connection with his teachings. 

            My experience is typical for most Christians and is the norm for those in theological education.  The relational consequences of not fully knowing and thus not understanding the whole of what, why and how who came are critical to the gospel we claim and proclaim.

 

 

The What

 

 

            It may seem ironic but returning to John 3:16 will help make definitive what we need to understand.  This deeper understanding unfolds from what John 3:16 reveals.  That is, what is revealed is not a static truth of what God did.  Rather, what is revealed is the dynamics, the relational dynamics, of what God enacted.  These dynamics cannot be reduced to static truths, or else God’s (1) relational response to humanity, (2) vulnerable presence in the world, and (3) intimate involvement with those who trust God all become elusive if not lost.

            So, what is God’s relational response that can only be dynamic?

            Have you ever received something from someone, and you really liked what was given to you?  After a while, though, you spent less and less of your focus on that specific thing, despite never forgetting how much you liked it; perhaps it just became something in your possession you took for granted.  This is a common experience among Christians with what God gives in John 3:16 after taking possession of it.

            First of all, what we take possession of from God is critical to understanding the what God gave.  The what, for most, is about eternal life, but it is essential to understand: “life” that God gives is not bios, the quantitative nature of everyday life composing one’s biography; rather, “life” here is the qualitative substance of zoe intrinsic to the very life of God, which certainly is eternal in quantity but most significantly having the depth of quality unique only to God.  In other words, the what given by God is only the very life of God.

            Next, on this basis of zoe alone, the what God gives is not and cannot be composed by anything less than or any substitute for the zoe of God constituted by God, no matter how much the quantity.  Therefore, God gave the qualitative extension of God in the person of the Son, not the quantity of something but the very presence of God.  This is not a mere static truth, and can only be understood as the dynamic of God’s relational response made vulnerable to humanity in the relational presence and involvement of Jesus’ whole person.  

            The qualitative process of God’s relational dynamic is summarized in God’s relational terms:

 

1.     God gave the very zoe of God to be vulnerably present and relationally involved.

 

2.     God offered the whole person of the one and only Son for relationship together to any persons who entrust their whole person to him.

 

            As a relational dynamic, furthermore, it is essential to understand that God’s relational response is not a unilateral action, which could be received by anyone effectively believing in a unilateral relationship.  On the contrary, belief is not a static component of John 3:16, which many express in order to receive eternal life.  Rather than this common practice, “everyone who believes in him” can only be enacted by the relational dynamic of trust, which involves making one’s person vulnerable from inner out to Jesus’ person for not merely an initial relationship but only for ongoing involvement in reciprocal relationship together.  With this vulnerable relational response and involvement, respondents from inner out experience the what who came, nothing less and no substitutes.

 

 

The Why

 

 

            The bios of humanity exists only for a limited time period and solely under its inherent constraints.  The zoe of God is eternal and boundless, thus free to be the whole of God’s intrinsic being.  God’s purpose is for humanity to share in God’s zoe, which necessitates the transformation of the existing old condition of bios to the new condition of zoe.  This transformation constitutes the salvation of John 3:16, the outcome of which integrally constitutes both being saved from the old as well as saved to the new.  Merely saved from is not why “God so love the world.”

            The above outcome is only constituted by a dynamic relational outcome.  And this relational outcome can only become a relational reality by transforming the existing old condition of humanity, nothing less.  That’s why the narrative leading to John 3:16 involved the key interaction between Jesus and Nicodemus to make explicit the transformation to be born anew.  In Nicodemus’ condition, however, he didn’t understand the why Jesus came, so Jesus voiced the reality to expose the cracks in his assumed condition for him to be transformed from old to new.  Hearing this protest as Israel’s teacher, Nicodemus must have been in disbelief to learn that he didn’t belong to the kingdom of God in his present condition.  But hearing the bad news was the key for Nicodemus to later embrace the good news of Jesus’ whole gospel.

            As John 3:17 states further, the why of God’s response is not to relegate humanity to the inevitable consequences of its human condition but rather for the integral outcome of being saved from and to.  Jesus came to fulfill this relational outcome, yet for this to become a relational reality required that humanity’s old condition be exposed, confronted and changed.  This intensive process cannot be minimized, overlooked or ignored, because it unavoidably included the why Jesus came.  Accordingly, the why composes the bad news  inseparable from his gospel’s good news, and it provides the basis for his gospel’s protest to be integral to proclaiming the gospel.

 

 

The How

 

 

            The what and the why of who came are not fully understood unless they are distinguished unequivocally by the how.  Yet, the how in John 3:16 tends to become equivocal, because “God so loved the world” is not understood sufficiently to distinguish the how of God unequivocally.

            For Christians, God’s love is a given, but how God loves is usually assumed to be about merely what God does for us.  For example, Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is the ultimate of God’s love, right?  After all “God so loved…that he gave his only Son.”  Doing this or that for others, and giving up oneself for them by putting them ahead of self have all determined the composition of love.  This becomes the basis used for defining God’s love and how Jesus came.  Even though these actions can be included in God’s love also, this view of love is insufficient to understand the how distinguishing God’s love.

            First of all, love is not performative for God.  Persons who want God’s love typically want God to perform some deed for them.  Yet, even if they receive that deed from God, they are not experiencing how God loves.  When God gave-offered his Son, Jesus came not just as a miracle performed by God.  In love, the whole of God (the Trinity) became vulnerable in the person of Jesus in order for the wholeness of God to be openly present in the human context, so that other persons could connect with God face to face for relationship together as family heart to heart (cf. Jn 14:23; Eph 2:22).

            For relationships to develop beyond mere associations, the persons involved need to connect with each other person to person.  For this relational connection, persons have to become vulnerable for the depth of their person from inner out to be involved with their whole person in the relationship heart to heart.  In a pivotal interaction, Jesus vulnerably disclosed this relational process to a Samaritan woman and revealed how much the Father seeks the whole person in their involvement with him (Jn 4:21-26).  Love relationally enacts (not performs) this intimacy of hearts opening to each other and coming together.  God’s love is nothing less than this relational enactment and thereby involves no substitutes for the whole person of the Son, as well as the Father and the Spirit.  

            Therefore, as Nicodemus learned to his surprise of the how of the Son was enacted vulnerably before him, and that anything less and any substitutes reduce God’s whole terms for relationship together, terms which are nonnegotiable to any of his (our) terms. These are terms we impose on God, even subtly with good intentions.  But, in distinctly voicing his gospel, Jesus makes unequivocal that anything less and any substitutes are out of tune with the way God enacts in love the gospel of John 3:16.  The unexpected lesson Nicodemus learned as “a teacher of Israel” should have become a wake-up call to this faith community.  Yet, even though Nicodemus later spoke initially on Jesus’ behalf (Jn 7:50-51), he did not add his voice to Jesus’ gospel protest of their reduced faith practice reflecting, reinforcing and sustaining the human condition (cf. Jn 19:39).

            This relational process is the only way God loves, thereby solely constituting the whole of how Jesus came to embody God’s relational response to humanity that enacts the gospel.  Moreover, the how of God’s wholeness is never enacted in a contextual vacuum, but, by its nature, this how deals directly with anything that reduces the wholeness of God and the wholeness of God’s creation.  That requires directly addressing the human condition in part and in sum, thereby dealing with the bad news that counters the good news of the gospel, the voice of which resounds in protest.

 

            In John’s Gospel record, we are given the relational significance of what, why and how Jesus came more than the other three Gospels.  His focus goes deeper than the historical narrative of the others and provides the big and deeper picture of God’s incarnation.  Notably, John records the voice of Jesus protesting the bad news of the immediate human condition (Jn 2:13-16) in order that the good news of his gospel would unfold (see Mk 11:15-17).  Thus, John records Jesus’ intense protest much earlier than the other Gospels, and his focus highlights the how and the why effectively as a precursor to John 3:16.

            The relational dynamics converging in and emerging from John 3:16 cannot be simplified to a propositional truth minimizing the relational significance of the gospel Jesus embodied and enacted in love.  Nor can the gospel simply be affirmed as the gospel Jesus enacted without his vulnerable person in relationship together.  In other words, we cannot claim the gospel Jesus embodied and enacted without understanding what, why and how who came; and, on this relational basis, thereby entrusting our whole person to his whole person in the relational dynamics constituting his gospel.  Therefore, the relational reality of our claim involves our old condition being transformed into his new condition just because he protested our bad news so that his good news prevails over anything less and any substitutes.

            Thankfully, Nicodemus submitted his person to Jesus in this transforming relational process to experience the irreducible relational outcome of belonging in God’s kingdom-family as the relational reality superseding his old belief system.

 

 

Knowing Who Came

 

 

            The gospel is not merely a truth to claim and believe in, a mere commodity to hope for and proclaim.  Who came embodied the experiential Truth of a person to embrace, and who enacted the relational dynamics of belonging in relationship together as family to constitute the relational reality of the gospel.  Thus, the gospel is the existential presence and involvement of who came, and knowing this whole person is the only way to claim the gospel embodied and enacted by his wholeness.

            As noted earlier, “righteousness will go before him and will make a path for his steps” (Ps 85:13).  Righteousness (sedeq) is a legal term used in covenant relationship together that ensures a relational process for the persons involved being who they claim to be and thereby can be counted on to function accordingly with nothing less and no substitutes.  Whenever righteousness is attributed to God, it reveals more than a basic attribute but discloses the relational nature of God’s whole being vulnerably present and involved.  Therefore, these relational dynamics of God’s righteousness make definitive the identity of the person who came and determines unequivocally his relational function, who can be counted on to be that whole person and thereby be known fully in relationship together.  On this righteous relational basis, Jesus protested his first disciples for not knowing his person after all their intense time together (Jn 14:9).

            Now you may question the validity of Jesus voicing his objection to those who gave their daily life to serve him at great expense.  They could boast about the extent of their discipleship, which included wanting to boast about “who was the greatest” (Mk 9:33-34; Lk 9:46).  But missing in their boast throughout the incarnation is the sad reality and inconvenient truth that they really didn’t know Jesus’ whole person vulnerably involved with them, in spite of all the information they possessed about him.  Does Jesus’ protest speak to those in theological education?

            For Jesus and his followers, nothing is more important than the primacy of relationship together, whereby “whoever serves me must follow me (my person), and where my person is, in that relational context and process will my servant also be relationally involved with me in relationship together” (Jn 12:26).  The priority of what’s primary for Jesus over what’s secondary for others was clearly distinguished by Jesus throughout his time with his followers (e.g. Jn 6:26-67).  Consequently, not knowing Jesus’ person exposes a relational disconnection of anything less and any substitutes that are unacceptable to who came,  and for the what, why and how constituting the gospel. 

            Even before God’s incarnation, the primacy of knowing God in qualitative relationship was evident in God voicing objection to the boast by persons about the quantity of what they have and do, even on behalf of God.  The emphasis on these secondary areas always have relational consequences that create relational distance and form barriers to the relational involvement necessary to know God—whose vulnerable presence and relational involvement “acts with steadfast love, justice and righteousness” (Jer 9:23-24).  In addition, the Son made absolute in his prayer to the Father that “I have revealed you…made you known to them and will continue to make you known” (Jn 17:6,26, NIV).  Therefore, the only result of significance from John 3:16 is the relational outcome of knowing the whole of God: “this is eternal life, that they may know you…and my person whom you have sent” (Jn 17:3).

            The whole of God revealed by Jesus embodied righteousness with his whole person to faithfully make known God’s wholeness (shalom, peace) enacting steadfast love and justice.  Therefore, in God’s irreducible relational process, “steadfast love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and shalom kiss each other” (Ps 85:10, NIV), and thus are inseparable for constituting the wholeness of who came—not a partial or fragmented profile commonly depicting him (cf. Jn 1:10-11; 6:53-66). 

            When we know the whole of who came, we can understand the relational dynamics of the what, why and how of God’s ongoing vulnerable presence and relational involvement constituting the gospel to distinguish its good news made distinct by its bad news voiced in protest.  Who came proclaims nothing less and no substitutes!  Unavoidably, then, we are accountable for claiming and proclaiming anything less and any substitutes; and we can rely on the fact that Jesus’ gospel protest will always expose our bad news.