Come and Go Sunday School Lesson “Long Ago God Spoke--Part 37B: Forward to the Past” by Dr. Herb Prince and Dr. Frank Carver

Come and Go Sunday School Lesson “Long Ago God Spoke--Part 37B: Forward to the Past” by Dr. Herb Prince and Dr. Frank Carver

Long Ago God Spoke

Part 37B:  Forward to the Past        

Lord Jesus Christ, would that we might see you as you are and were and will be until your second coming in glory, as the sign of offense and the object of faith, the lowly man, yet the Savior and Redeemer of the human race. . . .[Anti-Climacus, Practice in Christianity, Kierkegaard’s Writings, XX, trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton University Press, 1991), 9-10.  Hereafter cited as Practice with numbers in parentheses referring to pages in this book.  Anti-Climacus is a pseudonymous author by Søren Kierkegaard (SK) and represents Christianity in its most ideal form. ]

In our day, Christianity has become so naturalized and domesticated in such a way that no one dreams of offense.[Johannes Climacus, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to ‘Philosophical Fragments,’  Kierkegaard’s Writings, XII, 1, trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton University Press, 1992), 585.    Climacus is another pseudonymous author by Søren Kierkegaard but in this case Climacus is intellectually aware and knowledgeable about Christianity but not a full-fledged believer.]

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’ (Practice, 97-98).

Introduction

With the help of Søren Kierkegaard’s Practice in Christianity we are concluding the series on Hebrews by looking at a theological framework for Christian practice.  This morning is the third such effort highlighting the importance of what Christians believe and do. The book of Hebrews lends itself to a reflection on practice since its contents note any number of times what the sermon’s recipients can do (see e.g., chapter 13). In addition there are practices undertaken by Jesus that not only illuminate his salvific role but provide direction for those who would follow in his train (e.g., Heb. 2:17):

Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people.

To repeat what has been said earlier, Christian practices are an invitation to join with God for the salvation of the world.  They are opportunities for personal growth and service.  By the same token Christian practices imply some form of offense since Jesus himself was judged to be offensive in a number of places in the four gospel accounts (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 term ‘scandal.’ The word refers to “that over which one stumbles.” A person may ‘stumble’ or be offended by who Jesus claimed to be, by what he did or even by the life he desires for those who follow him.  Anti-Climacus claims, “The possibility of offense is the stumbling block for all” (Practice, 139). The last lesson focused on offense when applied to what Jesus or his disciples did (Matt. 17:24-27; temple tax) or did not do (Matt.15:1-12; wash hands before eating).  Pharisees and scribes were offended.  The charge was that they disregarded “the tradition of the elders.”

This morning we look at a deeper and more fundamental sense of offense. Anti-Climacus terms it “essential offense.” This is more than just disagreement on ways for doing things. Simply put: “the teacher is more important than the teaching” (Practice, 124).  In other words, who Jesus was is more important than what he taught.  This does not take away from the teachings of Jesus. The history of the West shows that Jesus had a significant impact on moral teaching.  Even those who are not Christian recognize the life he lived and his historical influence on those who followed his practices.  However for Anti-Climacus, what is truly significant is who Jesus was as a person, and thereby who he was as Redeemer!  

The Dark Side of Belief [Hermann Deuser terms ‘offense’ as “the dark side of belief.”  This suggests a deeper and more substantial side to Jesus, an offensive side that may be overlooked.  See “Religious Dialectics and Christology,” The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, edited by Alastair Hannay and Gordon Marino (Cambridge University Press, 1998), 393.]

The Christian tradition, with Anti-Climacus in full accord, tells us that Jesus is the God-man; a paradoxical statement of faith. The tension that exists between claiming that Jesus is both God and man has always troubled the rational mind.  This is the dark side since clarity and understanding come up against a concept and reality difficult to comprehend.  Traditional categories for understanding the divine and the human appear to be in conflict with each other.  How can the transient and the eternal, time and eternity fit in the same sentence?  The need to relieve the tension between the two claims has led some to even give up on holding both claims.  Charles Hartshorne, a 20th century process philosopher, once observed that what theologians call a ‘paradox’ is really a contradiction! There may be more support for that thought than he may have been aware of at the time.   

Christians since the first century have sought for ways to speak meaningfully of Jesus.  History shows appeals to the early “the rule of faith,” to creedal claims in the 4th and 5th centuries, and later to Confessions in more recent times.  Without entering the technical aspects associated with each, suffice it to say all three—rule, creed, Confession--are attempts to provide a Christological basis for the gospel hope that resides within the Christian.  From the earliest confession (“Jesus is Lord”) to a more recent claim of Jesus as “the man for others” (Bonhoeffer), Christians have struggled to speak meaningfully of Jesus Christ. The ‘third quest’ for the historical Jesus continues in that vein.             

For Anti-Climacus, in a mid-nineteenth century environment in Denmark, it is helpful to think of Jesus, the God-man, in terms of “sign.”  He states it upfront: “the God-man is a sign” (124).  A sign in this case is a ‘denied immediacy.’  That is, a sign with respect to the God-man is not immediately evident.  What one sees in Jesus may not be at first recognized, as will be noted shortly.

The sign is only for the one who knows that it is a sign and in the strictest sense only for the one who knows what it means; for everyone else the sign is that which it immediately is (124).   

A sign is only known through reflection.  We ‘find’ it, and in the present case ‘it’ is not an ‘it’ but a Person!  Thus it is clearer to say in the case of Jesus that he finds us!  Prevenient grace is recognized.  In doing so the sign gives rise to offense.[Playing off here of Paul Ricoeur’s aphorism, “the symbol gives rise to thought.”  If there is to be thought, there must be something to think about.  For Ricoeur what is thought about are the symbols which are found (such as earth, air, fire, water) and thereby in and through them we discover ourselves to be found.  See Ricoeur’s conclusion in his The Symbolism of Evil, trans. Emerson Buchanan Beacon Press, 1967), 347-357.]  The sign--the God-man--first of all ‘gives.’[Ricoeur says "the symbol gives rise to thought." For him pure reflection is a broken enterprise because it will always rely on something outside of it. There are always presuppositions operative in reflection.  Needed is an interpretation that respects the original enigma of the symbol, that lets itself be taught by them, but that, beginning from there, promotes the meaning, forms the meaning in the full responsibility of autonomous thought.  Anti-Climacus would be critical of autonomous thought (think of his opposition to Hegel) but prefers ‘sign’ to ‘symbol.’ An interesting question arises for both Ricoeur and Anti-Climacus: can there be a second naïveté?  ]  Jesus Christ as sign gave of himself.  We do not create ‘sign’ in this context but are confronted by him.  And what do we see?  We see a sign of contradiction!  As noted earlier, reason has difficulty with the entire God-man concept.  Humanly speaking the claim that an individual human being is God has been described at times as “madness,” “insane,” and even “crazy” (Practice, 62-63, 78, 82).  It conflicts with all human reasoning (26).  Intrinsically the sign is a contradiction in itself, by affirming God-man. But the contradictory parts of the sign must not be allowed to annual one another or to melt into some common substance or being.  Anti-Climacus notes, “a sign of contradiction is that which draws attention to itself and, once attention is directed to it, shows itself to contain a contradiction” (125).  God-man must remain God-man!

It is scripture that confronts us with this sign of Jesus (Heb. 3:3) as both God and man.  In Hebrews that Jesus is divine begins from the opening lines (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.

Creation is ascribed to the Son and is subject to him (2:5-8).  Because he is divine he is “the cause of eternal salvation” to those who obey him (5:9) and can come a second time for the “salvation of those awaiting him” (9:28).  Just as emphatically the author of Hebrews insists on the full humanity of the Son.  The one made “lower than the angels” is the Son of Man (Ps. 8:5-6), to whom God subjects the world to come (2:1-8).  He identifies with “his brothers” (2:10-18) since they share flesh and blood.[For a more complete list of God-man references in Hebrews see Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews (Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 48-56. ] He is tested in every way as we are, yet without sin (4:15).

Anti-Climacus asks, but what contradiction could there be at all in any speculative theory of the unity of God and man?  Striving for unity in itself  has the goal of removing the conflict!  Moreover the unity in time would be sacrificed due to the tension of the God-man categories, probably in favor of humanity.  Moreover, to appeal to a traditional “two natures in one person” model might well be taken as simply a static juxtaposition.[Referencing the 451 church council meeting at Chalcedon that declared:  “[We teach] that we apprehend this one and only Christ—Son, Lord, only begotten--into two natures; and we do this without confusing  the two natures, without transmuting  one nature into the other . . . ” John Leith, Creeds of the Churches, 3rd ed. (John Knox Press, 1982), 36. ]  All of this is taken by Anti-Climacus as reducing Christianity to simply a teaching, a teaching about Jesus.  The ‘modern approach’ to Jesus is judged to miss the crux of what the sign of contradiction is meant to reveal: the purpose of the heart confronted by the sign (I Cor. 4:5).[1 Cor. 4:5- “Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God.”] What the heart desires and needs may not be met by the tool of reason!  Therefore for Anti-Climacus the God-man as sign of contradiction is essential.  It gives rise to offense and consequently to faith.

Thought must give way to faith!  This is not a rejection of thought in itself but of a particular form of thought that looks away from the paradox to that which is comfortable, safe, enticing.  A nice tidy Jesus is in order, ‘thank you,’ says Danish Christendom!  The “essential Christian” rejects such thinking!  The sign of contradiction makes it impossible not to look, for “he who is the sign of contradiction looks straight into one’s heart while one is staring into the contradiction.”       

The sign of contradiction confronts him with a choice, and as he is choosing, together with what he chooses, he himself is disclosed (127).  

It is left to the individual to accept the possibility of offense and to embark on the path of faith.

So inseparable is the possibility of offense from faith that if the God-man were not the possibility of offense he could not be the object of faith, either.  Thus the possibility of offense is taken up into faith, is assimilated by faith, is the negative mark of the God-man (143).  

Thus Anti-Climacus concludes, based on what is found in Danish Christendom, eighteen hundred years of previous Christian history has not contributed ‘a jot’ to demonstrating the truth of Christianity.  On the contrary the result has been the slow abolishing of authentic faith.

If only it could be made evident to all those orators who demonstrate the truth of Christianity by the eighteen hundred years and win people, if only it could be made evident to them, frightful as it is, that they are betraying, denying, abolishing Christianity—if that cannot be done, then Christianity is abolished (144).      

Leaving Footprints

The third and final portion of Anti-Climacus’ Practice in Christianity is a focus on the primacy of the practical that rests on faith. John 12:32 sets the tone: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all to myself.” Here faith is based on divine revelation rather than on reason as recollection, as in the previous section on offense.  It is closer to what we might term the pietistic tradition by stressing the importance of the inner life.  Thus when Jesus is mentioned in this final section (152-262) it is a Jesus who wants followers who do not admire him but want only to serve by ‘imitating’ him.[‘Imitating’ is placed in quote marks since it will function in a technical rather than superficial sense shortly.]

What got Christ into trouble with his contemporaries was “that they could not get him turned the way they wanted him” (240).  Those opposed to him wanted loftiness; Christ wanted lowliness and abasement.  He “defiantly and stubbornly” wanted to be the abased and “what embitters people’s self-loving spinelessness most of all, wanted to have only imitators” (240).  

The problem was that Jesus did not appear as he was expected to appear.  He came incognito!  He took the form of unrecognizability.  His identity is concealed. “Unrecognizability is not to be in the character of what one essentially is—for example, when a policeman is in plain clothes” (127).  When one is God, then to be an individual human being (whether high-ranking or not) is an infinite qualitative distance from being God and therefore the most profound incognito.[In the 1920s German theologian Karl Barth will make the “infinite qualitative difference” a distinguishing mark in his revolutionary commentary on Romans. ]  Essentially, as Anti-Climacus phrases it, “Christ is remodeled” (129).  

The majority of people living in Christendom today [1848] no doubt live in the illusion that if they had been contemporary with Christ they would have recognized him immediately despite his unrecognizability.  They utterly fail to see how they betray that they do not know themselves.      

Again, Anti-Climacus is upfront: Christ is the prototype.  

Christ came to the world with the purpose of saving the world, also with the purpose—this in turn is implicit in his first purpose—of being the prototype, of leaving footprints for the persons who wanted to follow him, who then might become an imitator; this indeed corresponds to ‘footprints’ (238).    

Why this focus on lowliness and abasement?  Anti-Climacus’ response is that only through such a way can human cunning be undercut.  The human desire to be in charge, upfront and to be admired stands in the way of a proper Christian life.[Anti-Climacus recognizes that there are times and situations where admiration is a good thing.  However admiration without commitment is suspect.  ]  The coming of Jesus stands in sharp contrast to human desire.  He came without any earthly advantage that could become the object of anyone’s admiration.  For Anti-Climacus when everything is favorable to Christianity, it is all too easy to confuse an admirer with a follower.   Using the illustration of Nicodemus, Anti-Climacus is clear that the visitor to see Jesus was an admirer and not an imitator.  It is as if Nicodemus might have said that there was something to be said for Christ’s teaching but yet Nicodemus’ own life was unchanged.  

The admirer will make no sacrifices, renounce nothing, give up nothing earthly, will not transform his life, will not be what is admired, will not let his life express it—but in words, phrases, assurances he is inexhaustible about how highly he prizes Christianity (252).       

Hence, for Anti-Climacus, “Only the imitator is the true Christian” (254).  An imitator gives one’s self and strives to become what he or she admires, whereas the admirer remains personally detached from a personal commitment.  

An imitator is or strives to be what he admires, and an admirer keeps himself personally detached, consciously or unconsciously does not discover that what is admired involves a claim upon him, to be or at least to strive to be what is admired (italics in original) (241).

May we strive with God’s help to be Christ’s imitators!  

Benediction

20Now may the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, 21make you complete in everything good so that you may do his will, working among us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

____________________________