Come and Go Sunday School Lesson “Long Ago God Spoke-Part 37A: Forward to the Past” by Dr. Herb Prince & Dr. Frank Carver from First Church of the Nazarene in San Diego, California, United States
Long Ago God Spoke
Part 37A: Forward to the Past
Hebrews 1:1 In days gone by, God spoke in many and varied ways to the Fathers through the prophets. 2 But now, in the acharit-hayamim, he has spoken to us through his Son, to whom he has given ownership of everything and through whom he created the universe. 3 This Son is the radiance of the Sh’khinah, the very expression of God’s essence, upholding all that exists by his powerful word; and after he had, through himself, made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of HaG’dulah BaM’romim.[Hebrews 1:3 Psalm 110:1]
4 So he has become much better than angels, and the name God has given him is superior to theirs.
Matt. 15: Then some P’rushim and Torah-teachers from Yerushalayim came to Yeshua and asked him, 2 “Why is it that your talmidim break the Tradition of the Elders? They don’t do n’tilat-yadayim before they eat!” 3 He answered, “Indeed, why do you break the command of God by your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[Matthew 15:4 Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16] and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’[Matthew 15:4 Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9] 5 But you say, ‘If anyone says to his father or mother, “I have promised to give to God what I might have used to help you,” 6 then he is rid of his duty to honor his father or mother.’ Thus by your tradition you make null and void the word of God! 7 You hypocrites! Yesha‘yahu was right when he prophesied about you,
8 ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far away from me.
9 Their worship of me is useless,
10 Then he called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand this!11 What makes a person unclean is not what goes into his mouth; rather, what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean!”
12 The talmidim came to him and said, “Do you know that the P’rushim were offended by what you said?”
Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds (Heb. 1:1).
[L]et us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking
to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith . . . (Heb. 12:1c-2a).
The possibility of offense is not to be avoided. You must go through it; you can be saved from it in only one way: by believing. Therefore, Christ says: ‘Blessed is he who is not offended at me.’[Anti-Climacus, Practice in Christianity, Kierkegaard’s Writings, XX, trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton University Press, 1991), 97-98. Recall that Anti-Climacus is a pseudonymous author of two books (the other being Sickness unto Death) written and published by Søren Kierkegaard (SK). Anti-Climacus represents Christianity in its most ideal form. ]
Altogether Too Brief!
Last Sunday’s lesson by Dr. Frank Carver had a terrific outline and content.[Frank Carver, “What Do You Hear?” Come and Go Class (July 19, 2015).] In presenting his final lesson on Hebrews with chapter 13 in mind he asked: What is old? What is new? What about you? He was interested in the outcomes the study of Hebrews may have made on class members. This morning we are still in the concluding mode but with a transitional aspect in mind. Put differently, this is my last lesson on Hebrews but it is not the last word on what Hebrews has started as the next lesson will show.
My first lesson on Hebrews was October 6, 2013 and was titled “Back to the Future.” Today as we semi-end this series the title “Forward to the Past” seems proper. With ‘past’ in mind let’s return briefly to the very first lesson on Hebrews given appropriately by my colleague. The good doctor quoted Hebrews 4:14-16 where the theme of Hebrews is explicitly set forth.
Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
In a number of lessons since 2013 the book of Hebrews has been called a sermon and the author a preacher, in line with scholarly opinion. As Luke Timothy Johnson observes, we have in Hebrews “a prophetic voice.” The first-century author brings pastoral concern, theological insight and an encouraging word to a troubled people. “Feelings of vulnerability, insecurity, isolation, and fear are shaking their confidence and certainty in the Christian faith.”[Kevin L. Anderson, Hebrews, New Beacon Bible Commentary (Beacon Hill Press, 2013), 46.] However for them and for us, as Dr. Carver put it in his first lesson “the sufficiency and finality of the work of Jesus, the Son of God, as our Heavenly High Priest allows for confident and continuing access to the presence of God for every human need.” For that we can join with the recipients of Hebrews in being thankful.
Introduction
In keeping with the pastoral approach to Hebrews the topic of Christian practice in recent lessons makes sense. In fact Hebrews itself in its entirety could be labeled ‘an exercise in Christian practice.’ By what is said, by what is advocated in spirit, and by what is promised by Holy Writ, the inspired author lays out a course of action. The preacher’s overall exhortation (13:22) is meant to effect change. No ‘ivory tower thinking’ appears anywhere in the ‘sermon’ irrespective of subject matter. The preacher means business and he employs theology to set forth what is on his heart and mind. Everywhere we have been privileged to look in Hebrews the writer confronts us with his theological standpoint (Heb. 1:1-4).
Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
The author comes back time and time again to these four verses (really one sentence in Greek thereby implying how interdependent the various parts of the sentence are). The verses function both as outline and as critical principle for what is laid out in Hebrews. Succinctly put, “In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” Superior to angels and to Moses (Heb. chapters 1-3) the Son is the Great High Priest able to save and sanctify the faithful. The author’s multiple exhortations throughout Hebrews, then, are the means of embodying the message and stressing how to live. Ethics is not separate from theology but integral to the message’s applications and practices.
Christian practices are more than just what Christians do, as over against
what a non-Christian might do. By their very presence, as noted last time, Christian practices are an invitation and imply a measure of judgment. First, Christian practices are an invitation inasmuch as God is already involved before we even take up what is to be done. Practices are gifts; offerings as it were welcoming our participation, to fulfill God’s purposes in the world. Second, by the same token Christian practices imply judgment, offense as it were. If it were not so, Christian practices would be indistinguishable from similar activities carried out by those other than Christian. Feeding the poor, for instance, is not a particular ‘Christian’ endeavor since anyone with financial means can do it. It is a beneficial practice. Similar to other activities people contribute to the common good by caring for the poor. Christians feeding the poor appear to be doing the same thing. Empirically there appears to be no difference. What they do, we do. But theologically there is a considerable difference and consequence!
This morning we begin looking at one of the differences and the consequence. Christian practices carry a critical edge to them, as having or embodying an offense. In particular they are related to what could well be termed “an essential offense.” Anti-Climacus’ volume Practice in Christianity will help lay out what offense envisions and what an essential offense meant for ‘him’ in a 19th century framework and by implication what it means today.[Recall that SK does not intentionally identify with any of the 25 pseudonyms that he creates in his prolific literary works (books, essays, reviews, etc.). He says, “Thus in the pseudonymous books there is not a single word by me. I have no opinion about them except as third party, no knowledge of their meaning except as a reader, not the remotest private relation to them, since it is impossible to have that to a doubly reflected communication.” See “A First and Last Explanation,” in Concluding Unscientific Postscript to ‘Philosophical Fragments,’ edited by Søren Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard’s Writings, XII, 1 (edited and translated by Howard V. Wong and Edna H. Wong (Princeton University Press, 1992), 625-630. It is left to the scholarly world to determine how well SK fulfilled his goal of non-identification. ]
Offense as Practice
The title of an article caught the eye last week, “Keeping Jesus Weird.”[Frank G. Honeycutt, “Keep Jesus Weird,” Christian Century (July 22, 2015): 10.] Written by Frank Honeycutt, a pastor (denomination not given), the piece argued that “discipleship isn’t supposed to be easy.” Honeycutt wrote,
Jesus doesn’t intend to be instantly accessible and understandable. He wants us to scratch our heads and feel a little out of step and off-center; he even uses a teaching style resembling intentional obfuscation (Matt. 13:10-15).[Jesus in Matthew 13:10-15 responds to the disciples’ question, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” Jesus answers, “The reason I speak to them in parables is that seeing they do not perceive and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.”] Our first response to Jesus may well be that we want him to go away.
Honeycutt’s point is clear enough: he believes the temptation if not the reality in the ‘mainline church’ today is to domesticate the Gospel. That is, to water the Gospel down with the result being “discipleship dilution.” He might well have had in mind an observation more than a century ago by Johannes Climacus:[Johannes Climacus, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to ‘Philosophical Fragments,’ 585. Climacus is a pseudonymous author of two works by Kierkegaard. The titles of both works are in the title in this footnote. Climacus represents an intellectually aware and knowledgeable person about Christianity but not a full-fledged believer. ]
In our day, Christianity has become so naturalized and domesticated in such a way that no one dreams of offense. Well, it is quite in order, because one is not offended by a triviality, and that is what Christianity is on the point of becoming. Otherwise it is surely the only power that truly can cause offense, and the narrow gate to the hard way of faith is offense; and the terrible resistance against the beginning of faith is offense; and if becoming a Christian proceeds properly, offense is bound to take its share in every generation as it did in the first.
Honeycutt sounds almost like an Anti-Climacus redivivus (brought back to life; reborn). The difference would be that the latter would see, not the need for Jesus to be or remain weird in a popular sense, but that the reader/listener would arise and be transformed! In Anti-Climacus’s words, the believer is to be “awakened and inwardly deepened” (Practice, 5). The problem is not in Jesus but in humanity. If anyone is ‘weird’ (bizarre, erratic, far-out) it ‘is’ we human beings, we who are fallen; we who are not ‘normal’ or the rule or the guide but think that we are! Thus Anti-Climacus presents the invitation from Jesus addressed to you, to me, to us all:[This invitation from Jesus Christ is developed and stressed in the first 68 pages of Practice in Christianity, thereby showing its importance and place in the author’s thought. At times the reader is directly addressed by using the “you” in the invitation to apply to the reader’s own experiences. ]
Come here to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest (Matt.11:28).
To get to that rest requires recognition of the place and importance of offense. The term ‘offense’ carries a number of meanings. According to a dictionary offense is:
- Something that causes a person to be hurt, angry, or upset.
- Something that is wrong or improper.
- A criminal act.
- The act of displeasing or affronting.
According to Anti-Climacus, “faith is an altogether distinctively Christian term, so in turn is ‘offense’ an altogether distinctively Christian term relating to faith” (81). Jesus said, “Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me” (Matt. 11:6//Luke 7:23). Offense shows up in a number of additional places when it comes to Jesus (e.g., Matt.13:21,57; 15:12; 24:10; 26:33; Mark 4:17; 6:3; 14:29; John 16:1). The basic term for ‘offense’ is skandalon (Greek) from which we get the English terms ‘scandal’ and ‘scandalous.’ In the Greek version of the Old Testament (LXX) and seen too in the New Testament the word refers to “that over which one stumbles.” Before the term can be faced in terms of its usage with reference to ‘Christology’ (i.e., the person of Jesus in terms of God-man) it is necessary first to see the term in its usage when applied to a historical figure who collides with the established order.
Jesus lives, moves and has his being as it were in a first century environment in which there are rules, policies, governmental structures, both religious and secular, as we might say today. How does he fit in with reference to acceptable practice? Anti-Climacus calls on two biblical accounts to illustrate how Jesus functioned in the context of his own day, Matt. 15: 1-12 and 17:24-27.[Matthew 17:24-27 is not covered in the lesson. It is the account where the disciples are asked about the temple tax. Jesus says, it is to be paid so “that we do not give offense to them.] Matthew 15 speaks of scribes and Pharisees coming to Jesus from Jerusalem.
1Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat.” 3He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ 5But you say that whoever tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is given to God,’ then that person need not honor the father.6So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: 8‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; 9in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’”
Scribes and Pharisees are representatives of the established order, which, as Anti-Climacus says, “because of their quibbling and shrewdness has become an empty, indeed, an ungodly externality” (86). As such, the scribes and Pharisees represent the objective order. Any opposition either by teaching or practice would represent an affront to them. Jesus is an affront, an offender who by his own words calls down judgment upon himself by offering an alternative to the tradition of the elders.
10Then [Jesus] called the crowd to him and said to them, “Listen and understand: 11it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.”
So the disciples approached and said to Jesus (15:12), “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?” Without missing a beat, Jesus categorized the established order and its leadership represented by scribes and Pharisees as “blind leaders of the blind.” They have, in Anti-Climacus words, made “deification of the established order” the norm. What is has become an end in itself. In doing so the secularization of everything has taken place. He continues,
The established order wants to be a totality that recognizes nothing above itself but has every individual under it and judges every individual who subordinates himself. But that single individual who teaches the most humble and yet also the most human doctrine about what it means to be a human being, the established order will intimidate by charging him with being guilty of blasphemy (Practice, 91).
Jesus as an affront or an offense in this instance does not play out in terms of a rejection of Jesus simply in terms of who he was, as the God-man. Here it is on what Jesus did, on his practice as it were. As an individual human being, Jesus is charged that he did not play by the rules as defined by the powers that be, by the status quo. Jesus, the offender, is an embodiment of a principle that implies that the individual is higher than the established order in the issue at hand. In that respect anyone by extension, not just Jesus, may be said to be ‘an offense’ who calls into question the acceptable practices of the day. We can understand the possibility of offense as just noted; not everyone wants to play by the same rules.
Offense as Stumbling Block
There is a deeper and more fundamental sense of offense than found in practice as offense. Anti-Climacus terms it “essential offense.” We might term it ‘offense as stumbling block.’ This is more than just disagreement among various folk on ways for doing things, more than practice and practices. Simply put: “the teacher is more important than the teaching.” More precisely, who Jesus was is more important than what he taught.[ Just the opposite applies when it comes to a human being: “It is true only of a human being that his teaching is more important than he himself; to apply this to Christ is blasphemy, inasmuch as it makes him into only a human being” (Practice, 124). ] The history of the West shows that Jesus had a significant impact on moral teaching. Even those who are other than Christian recognize the life he lived and the historical result. And yet, Anti-Climacus opines (128).
The majority of people living in Christendom today no doubt live in the illusion that if they had been contemporary with Christ they would have recognized him immediately despite his unrecognizability.
We will get more into that next time in order that the real skandalon, the real offense can be faced.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment