New Thoughts (5/29/07-6/5/07)
Jesus the unparalleled Scribe looks to His disciples, His students, and asks them if they have understood the lesson. While their understanding is doubtless still a work in progress, yet they are sufficiently underway as to claim that understanding. The Scribe is no fool. He knows that He has given them much to think about and little time to think. He knows, also, that He has given them the main points by which they can come at the rest in time. What He hears in their words is not quite the truth of their situation. He recognizes that. He knows they have not truly put all the pieces together as yet. There is, after all, a wealth of wisdom to be garnered from those parables He has taught. But, He sees the light of thought upon them. They have engaged with what He has explained, and their concentrated expressions make it clear that they are already starting to worry out the meaning of those He has not explained. They are fully engaged with the lesson He has taught, and this is quite satisfactory for the Rabbi.
Two things come to mind as I consider this. The first is to think back on Mary’s reaction to the things Jesus said and did. She, “treasured them up in her heart” (Lk 2:51), and pondered upon them (Lk 2:19). We might say she chewed on the events and their meaning to make certain she had understood all there was to understand. What Jesus now sees in His disciples is a similar thing. They have taken His lesson and His explanation to heart, and now the pondering has begun. Time enough for full understanding to come later.
This brings me to the second consideration. I recall a conversation back in my college days. A friend of mine from that time was concerned because he never seemed to reach real understanding of the material. It wasn’t that he couldn’t apply the formulae of engineering to the tasks he was given. It was that there never seemed to be time to get at why these things were so, only to accept and apply. From my perspective, part of surviving the pace of college education was to forego such issues of knowing why things worked, and focusing solely on the how. That was what was necessary to make it through the immediate task of passing tests and cramming knowledge into place. There would be a lifetime ahead in which to satisfy the questions of why. This was the advice I gave to that friend and it did indeed help him to get through the challenge of having so much to learn and so little time.
It seems to me this is about where the disciples are at. They have been sitting in class, absorbing the information. They have been taking notes in whatever fashion they might, trying to nail down the basics sufficiently to make the immediate application. The pace of their training has not really allowed for the reflection that would lead them deeper. They have the desire to reflect, to gain that deeper knowledge, but at least for the time being they have not the opportunity. Going back to that college picture, nobody is going to break into a lecture and seek the explanations for why a particular facet of the subject holds true, how it was arrived at, and what makes it so. The student is forever in a position of trying to convince his professors that he is not totally hopeless, and such questions as these would, in the student’s mind, serve quite the opposite purpose. That they do not voice the questions does not indicate that the questions are not on their minds. To a good teacher, the fact that the questions go unspoken does little to hide the fact that the questions are there. That’s something that may be hidden to the student.
The teacher, like the Rabbi, is satisfied to see the active intelligence upon the face of his students, to see the questions that long to be asked. He knows that the one who has that question burning within himself will not be satisfied with the nuts and bolts of fundamentals. He will eventually have to satisfy that curiosity. He has been engaged with his lessons. It is enough to see that engagement, that curiosity awakened. When time permits, the possessor of that curiosity will make the effort to discover for himself the answers to those questions he has postponed asking.
This is part of what defines the disciple. The disciple is more than a student. He doesn’t just sit for the lesson, and then go on with life as it always was. He takes the ways of his teacher as his own ways. He watches the example of his teacher and emulates it to the best of his ability. He comes to understand the teacher’s way of thinking about things, and makes this his own way of thinking about things. To the best of his ability, he seeks to become what his teacher already is. The disciple’s great desire is to be so successful in emulating his teacher that he is easily mistaken for that teacher. They will, of course, remain easily distinguished by physical traits, but in terms of character, thought and lifestyle, they have become united by long practice.
One sees a lighter form of this in the marriage relationship. It is a form that seems to come about almost without effort. Husband and wife may have been ever so different in their ways before they wed. Their views on how things should be done and what matters, their ways of expressing themselves, the things they find amusing or distressful; all of these were likely divergent at the start. But, over the years they surprise themselves by discovering that they are no longer as divergent as they were. Things that only the one used to do are now habits to both. Things that only one would have said now come up in the conversations of both.
What drives this melding of the two? It is love. As different as those two may have been, it was largely the differences that attracted them to one another. We who tend towards silence and introversion may yet love the gregariousness of the extrovert. Likewise, the extrovert may well love the opportunities for reflection that the introvert has found. It is the things that we love most in each other that tend to find their way into our own repertoire of habit. We are hardly likely to emulate what we don’t appreciate. Not willingly, at any rate.
It is this same motivation that divides disciple from student. A student will learn, but only because he sees little choice in the matter. The necessity of learning is sufficiently great, whether by threat or by want, that he will set himself to the task of learning. But, there is no great love there. There is no great love for the subject, and no great love for the teacher. The disciple, on the other hand, has found a love for his teacher. He sees in his lessons and in his habit things that are greatly attractive. It is not the arousal of romance. It is the simple attraction we might experience between friends. There are things about our friends that we may come to emulate, because we think it to our benefit to do so. There are things about the teacher that the disciple will emulate because he is quite certain it is beneficial. Yet, it is no profit motive that drives him. It is love. It is love of the ways of that teacher, and of the character he presents. It is the love that says, “here is a worthy model for my own life.”
The scribe, by way of contrast, is a man of proud learning, at least as we generally see him in Scripture. He is a skilled professional. He has set himself to his studies quite diligently, and knows the material inside and out. He has been trained not only to advise as to the content of Law and custom, but also to teach the same. The scribe in general society of the time possessed a rare skill, that of letters. He would be called upon to both prepare and read the legal documents that life might require, and he would be paid well for his services. How much of this profession attaches to the scribe of Israel I am not sure. Clearly, the same skills are made necessary to familiarize themselves most thoroughly with Torah. They must also be well versed in the body of opinions that have been built up amongst their peers. They must be licensed, as it were, by the current hierarchy of the scribes. One doesn’t simply declare himself a scribe. It must be vetted. The profession must be protected.
Yet, in all this, there may be little or no love for the subject of his profession. The Law may be little more than a means of making a livelihood. The ones who taught them their stuff may be little loved in spite of the training. They are not there for love of the man or for love of the material. They are there to establish themselves in a trade that will provide for them, and to make a name for themselves.
Of course, there were doubtless exceptions to this rule. There were assuredly those amongst the scribes who truly did have a passion for the Law. Training, in their case, could only blunt the passion by forcing passion’s edge against the rock of Tradition. Whatever such a scribe might see in the pages of the Law, he would be pushed inevitably towards propounding the prevailing opinions of the established experts, however clearly he might see their errors.
Jesus would find occasion to lash out at this proud, self-preserving scribes. They who had set themselves up as greater than the Law would find no commendation from Him. Neither would they find themselves irrevocably condemned. That is one thing that must be seen in this final parable to his disciples. Even the scribe, even the proud lawyer, can yet become a disciple. Even they are not beyond hope of redemption.
There is another way to look at that statement. Even the teacher can become a student. Indeed, the teacher in the presence of the Teacher must become a student. The teacher that can no longer learn is no longer a teacher. Amongst those I know who teach on one occasion or another, I find it a universal opinion that you cannot teach well what you haven’t actually learned for yourself. In the world you may hear it said that those who cannot do the thing teach the thing. Teaching is seen as the position of last resort for the least qualified in a particular profession. In the kingdom, no such viewpoint can hold. The teacher who has not had to do the thing he teaches cannot teach the thing to any effect.
When Jesus taught, the people sensed a new power in His message. “He speaks with authority,” they said. Implicit in that declaration is that the scribes who had taught them up to this point did not. Where did this authority come from? Well, the simple answer is that it came from the Father, of course. However, simply having the authority is not what makes authority evident. Jesus didn’t walk about with some badge upon His tunic declaring Him the official spokesmen for heaven. The authority was made evident by the passion of His declarations, and by the fact that His life and example coincided perfectly with what He taught. The authority lay in the fact that He taught what He had learned Himself. What He required of His disciples was what had been required of Him. What He asked His disciples to face was what He had already faced.
He taught from His own life, not from detached learning. It is the difference between teaching a lesson that you have from experience, and simply reading somebody else’s prepared lessons. It is the difference between the teacher and the substitute. Without the experiential learning of the lesson, there can be no passion and power behind the delivery. There is no authority, because whatever we are teaching, it is still only hearsay to us. It is not yet conviction.
Here, Jesus presents us with the picture of one who has crossed over. He has been the scribe but now he has become a real disciple. Though he was well able to teach about the Law, he was not so proud as to think himself beyond learning greater truths. Interestingly, Jesus sets this one forward as one who will be in a better position than either the scribe alone or the disciple alone. The scribes were well-versed in the old, established ways. They could expound the Law and the Prophets. The disciples, being untrained, could not really do so, not in their own power. But, they could certainly set out the Gospel as Jesus was teaching them, which the scribes could not do, as they refused to hear it.
So, one has the scribes with their deep understanding of things past, and the disciples with their deep understanding of things future. The ideal, though, as Jesus sets it forth, is to see these two combined. They are not intended to operate as two opposing systems, but should rightly be seen as one, thoroughly integrated system. This goes right what Jesus declares in saying, “I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” The Law has not been ended by His actions, but obeyed for the first time in all human history. He came to obey, to show that it was in a man to obey. He came, also, to lift the Law back to its proper, unreachable heights. He expounded the Law as it was intended, rather than as it had become. He raised its demands up until men could remember the impossibility of meeting its demands. Then, He met them in Himself. How this contributed to the hatred He endured, in the end! Who wants to hear his own weakness revealed and then be shown up by the very one who exposed him? The competitive nature of man all but ensures an angry reaction to such treatment. Yet, it is necessary for us. For, without it we go on in our delusion of goodness, and such delusions will lead us straight into hell.
Now, Jesus’ support of this fusion between scribe and disciple has to be seen as a caution to His disciples, a caution against exclusionary practices. They are not to reject those who have held sway if those who have held sway wish to truly submit themselves to the way of the Master. Such converts will only strengthen the faith. This message may have been rather lost on them as they heard Jesus repeatedly deriding the scribes for they hypocrisy. There would come a time, though, when the lesson of this parable would need to resurface. Had it not, the Church would find itself much poorer for it.
I am thinking, of course, of Paul. Paul, who could speak of himself as the Pharisee’s Pharisee, the Jew’s Jew. He was well trained in the ways of the scribe, a student of Gamaliel, if not a disciple. He knew the Law and he knew the traditions, and when he encountered this upstart sect, which tossed so much of tradition on its head and showed such disrespect towards the lawyers he was counted amongst, he rose up in defense. He would single-handedly wipe this sect off the map to preserve the purity of faith, if that’s what it took. But Paul, the scribe’s scribe, became a disciple. The well-trained teacher was brought to a point of recognizing just how much he had yet to learn. The proud proponent of Jewish faith and life discovered that there was a more excellent way. In that moment, he recognized himself as totally unfit to teach until he should learn those things he found he didn’t know at all.
We speak much of revelation knowledge, and that is certainly what was given Paul in his training, for who was there to train him in the things he learned? This is a portion of what marked him as an Apostle, that he had his understanding directly from the Lord. It was not the only mark of an Apostle, but for him in particular it was the key mark. That revelation knowledge is the second half of the image, the new treasure that comes along with the old. I must be careful to clarify that what we think of as revelation knowledge in our own day is not on the same level as this. We tend to classify what is more properly illumination as revelation. That choice of words is unfortunate, for it tends to alienate those who have a greater understanding of the classic positions and tenets of the Church. It renders the old treasures unwilling to hear the new. They are not, in this case, scribes like those Jesus scolded. They are earnest guardians of the Truth, and seek only to maintain the purity of our understanding. We are just as quick, on the Charismatic side of the scale, to reject their ancient tenets as no longer applicable. We have used the term ‘revelation knowledge’ to such a great degree that we have forgotten the difference ourselves, and many have been led astray by the whisperings of their own thoughts, thinking it revelation like unto the Apostles.
It seems both camps could stand to look at this parable once more. Oh, that the Charismatic and the careful Classicist would be as one! This is the same union I see Jesus advocating here: the old and the new united in their view of the kingdom, the old willing to avail itself of the new, and the new willingly accepting the bridle of the old. The Law without the impartation of the Spirit is assuredly a dead letter, and deadly, too. The ‘Spirit-led’ who neglect the Law are equally deadly. Too soon they become a danger to themselves and to all around them, for they leave themselves without a means of checking the source of their views. Is it truly the Spirit of God, or is it some other? It is the Law that warns us to check before we heed, even as it is the Spirit of the Living God that brings life into the Law. Both are necessary if we are to utilize the whole power of heaven to spread the kingdom.
Now, I find myself wondering whether Jesus is really thinking of the Levitical scribes in this pronouncement. After all, it seems He generally has nothing good to say about them. They are shown in as bad a light as the Pharisees. I should remember, though, that not every Pharisee was automatically rejected because of the general behavior of the movement. Likewise, it is to be presumed that not every scribe was rejected. The teacher who could accept returning to student status was welcome to come learn. It was only the teacher who had closed himself off to all change who stood rejected.
Might I suggest that this still holds true today? This still holds true for each and every man and woman who comes before the Christ. It is those who are willing to learn a new and better way who are accepted. It is those who hold stubbornly to their current misunderstanding of things who are rejected. Even for those who have accepted and been accepted there remains the risk of a stiffening of the mind. We may find ourselves approaching the Scriptures with our opinions already so firmly formed that they can no longer speak to us with fresh insight. We can get so caught up admiring and polishing those old nuggets of truth that we have found in times past that we close our eyes to what is now set before us. We may become so set in the traditions we have learned alongside our studies that when the light of Scripture demands we set aside an opposing tradition we are no more willing than the scribes were to do so. But, the one who is like a head of the household in the kingdom is able to take both the old and the new. He is able to recognize when the thing he thought was a treasure is exposed as trash, and he will remove it from his storehouse.
That is, after all, what we have in view here: the Storehouse of Truth, as the HSCB has it. That is what we are supposed to be in this world, storehouses of Truth. In a land where the lie is the rule, where truth is an ambiguity that most see no point in, the need for Truth is increased. That does not mean that the general population has become incapable of speaking what is true. Truth remains Truth even if spoken by the lips of a liar, just as wheat remains wheat even when surrounded by tares. The greatest charlatans ever to plague the Christian camps is still capable of delivering a grain of Truth every now and again. That doesn’t mean I’m likely to listen for hours on end waiting for that one grain. It does mean, though, that I will not reject the grain because of the vehicle that delivered it.
We are to be storehouses, places into which Truth is collected and Wisdom is stored. We are called to be pearl merchants, not antique dealers. An antique must, by very definition, be old to be of value. A pearl knows no such limitation. Be it old or new, it is the quality of the thing that matters, not the age. We are to hold firm to the Wisdom of the ages. The pages of the Old Testament hold as much Truth for us today as they did when they were first given. They do not need to be made relevant for the latest generation. They are relevant, it just needs eyes willing to see. At the same time, when something fresh appears in the world of ideas, something new, unprecedented, unheard of, we need to be careful about rejecting it out of hand.
There will not be anything True that is so unprecedented as to contradict what has already been revealed of Truth. That much we must hold onto for our own safety. God is not going to suddenly rescind His declarations of what defines goodness and righteousness. He is not going to suddenly proclaim that He no longer cares about purity, about honesty, about character. The LORD changes not and, as the LORD is Truth, it stands that the Truth changes not. New, however unprecedented, is not a repenting of fact. It is not an about face on what has been established. It is an addition. It is the drawing back of the curtain a bit further to reveal what could not be seen before. All that was previously visible remains so, but something is added.
The old truth is still valid. If anything, it has become comfortable by long use. It has aged, but it has aged like good cheese or wine. The aging has only improved it. It is not that those things have worn out. One doesn’t put worn out junk in the storehouse. One puts things of value in there, and should those things lose their value they will be removed to make room for something better. Nowhere in this does Jesus advocate tossing the old. No, He makes it very clear that the best disciples will be the ones who can use both the old and the new, the established and the freshly revealed, to display the glory of heaven in a darkening world.
This one whom Jesus recommends to us, who is well versed in the Law and a disciple of the kingdom, has a demonstrated familiarity with the old, and holds the Covenant in high esteem. He also looks forward to what the Covenant promises. As such, he is more than willing to sit at the feet of the Judge-Advocate of heaven as He teaches. He recognizes the continuity, that what the Old bespoke is exactly what this new Teacher is discussing. The Covenant, he sees, is not being cast off. It is being renewed and its terms made even more rewarding for the one who will bind himself to it. Trained as a student by his studies of the Law, such a man will be well able to take to the study of the Christ and His teaching. He will be well able, in turn, to teach what he has learned at the feet of the Master. He will, as Jesus says, be able to bring out both new things and the old things he has saved [NCV]. He will be well fit to teach what is fresh as well as what is familiar [Amp].
Now, here is a question we must answer. Is this also a proof text, as we like to call them, for the Charismatic position. Is this speaking of what is commonly referred to as revelation knowledge? Is Jesus giving us free license to go outside the pages of Scripture to discover God’s Truth? When He talks of bringing forth new things, is He really speaking about things ‘never before heard’? Or, is He only discussing fresh insight of what has always been True?
I think we might answer that it is both of these things. What makes a fresh insight fresh is the fact that we have never heard it before. Yet, it is not as though the thing that we suddenly understand was never before understood. In that sense, the New Testament really doesn’t present anything that is so qualitatively new as to utterly throw aside the Old. It makes clear what was always there to be seen in the Old. It reveals the Old, true, but in doing so it can only reveal what was already there. Yet, this new insight did truly come to the writers of those pages by way of revelation.
What distinguishes revelation from inspiration? Revelation comes by a removing of the veil from our understanding. In matters of theology, it is something made known, as Webster’s puts it, “through divine inspiration”. This same dictionary defines inspiration as something breathed in. In its theological sense, it is something influenced, moved and guided by divine power. Indeed, it is inspiration, Webster’s says, that qualifies a man to receive revelation. So, from this viewpoint, the two are integrally connected almost to the point of inseparability. You can’t have the one without the other, and the other comes as qualification for the one. Easton’s Dictionary suggests that revelation is the method for communication to the mind. Inspiration, the text claims, imparts to its recipient an infallibility in communicating that truth to others. It is the power behind the prophet.
The ISBE speaks of Christianity as the only revealed religion, for it is the only religion not laid out by men who were in some way seeking God. It is revealed in that God directly implanted this system of belief into a people chosen by Him, formed by Him, in order that they might make His glory manifest to the world. It is the one religion that announces itself to man. This same book refers to inspiration as the influence of some outside force that produces in its object, “movements and effects beyond its native, or at least its ordinary powers.” It is this powerful inspiration that empowered the authors of Scripture to write an infallible text in spite of being fallible humans.
From this, it would seem that we cannot truly lay claim to either inspiration or revelation. I certainly would not take to myself the claim to infallibility, yet this infallibility is the necessary prerequisite for revelation and even for prophecy. Wow! I am beginning to understand more clearly where Mr. Sproul comes by his deep and absolute distrust of all claims to prophecy in our day, let alone the claims of apostleship. I have long granted the point that at least the vast majority of claimants to the prophetic office in our day are at the very least suspect. Yet, even in this, I have had to recognize that Israel as often as not thought the same of the true prophets in their midst. It was only the false ones who seemed to get a pass from them.
I have generally accepted that when we Charismatics speak of revelation, we are generally using the term imprecisely. I have excused it as an incorrectly defined substitute for inspiration. However, if I am to see inspiration as it is defined here, the impartation of infallibility (however temporarily), I would tremble to lay claim to even that! If we look these definitions in the eye, as it were, we should fear to be so arrogant as to claim either one. Do you know, I can’t recall any one of the Apostles ever making claim to this, apart from John, and in his case, the divine nature of the communication was made so blatantly clear that he was as much as forced to admit that what he wrote was nothing of his own doing. It was sent to him by angelic carrier service, that angel sent by the Christ whose purposes were being revealed.
Is there anybody in our day who will honestly make such a claim? Is there a pastor brazen enough to claim that the things he understands in the moment are revelation, when revelation is understood in such lofty terms? Was there really an angelic visitation in that moment, bearing him personal communications from the King? If it were so, I expect the reaction we would see in that pastor would be far different than the happy excitements usually displayed. Look, I understand that excitement. I have experienced the sudden broadening of understanding even as I am teaching something long prepared. These flashes of insight are absolutely exciting, and I would not doubt that the Holy Spirit (Who is, after all, our teacher in this life) has had a hand in it. But, am I willing to lay such things out as infallible? If not, then I have no right to claim I have been inspired by God. And, if I am not willing to make that claim, what business can I possibly have in claiming revelation?
Yet, I look at this message from Jesus, who speaks with nothing but the Torah present as Holy text, and He tells His disciples that they shall proclaim new treasures of knowledge, things that are fresh and different from what has been understood up to now. Again, it is not so different as to reject what has been True all along, but it will be so much greater an understanding of that Truth as to shock and surprise those who hear of it. The kingdom is no longer some distant hope, the kingdom is here. That changes everything. The kingdom is not a matter of earthly empire, a physical restoration of David’s old boundaries. The kingdom is more far reaching than that, occupying every tribe and every nation, for the kingdom is a matter of soul not land. That changes everything! Yet, it does not change the Truth that was always there in the pages of Torah. It only explains them, sees them with new and clearer eyes.
So, where does that leave me on the Charismatic question? It is a difficulty. Indeed, after looking at the implication of these words, it would be difficult to refer to anybody as being inspirational or inspired. What remains is illumination, and even that becomes somewhat abused by usage. It comes closer, being descriptive of the Holy Spirit’s working within us to bring about our salvation and our sanctification. Yes, perhaps we can view the sudden leaps in our understanding in this light. It would certainly account for those moments when our thoughts are beyond our own capacity to think. It explains what we call the rhema word that so often seems to come of our reading Scripture, those times when a passage read, however familiar it may be to us and however accidental our reading of it in this particular moment, hits us right where we are, serves the issues of the moment so perfectly. Clearly, such orchestrations are not beyond the capacity of our God.
What remains is a fine balance. Is there a place for prophecy today? I have been over this before, and I find my stance little changed. If I serve a God Who does not change, Who speaks to man in many and diverse ways, then I see no cause to believe He has stopped speaking now. I will stand comfortably with Augustine in noting that so long as we cannot see the future with the clarity of God’s vision, we are yet in that time when perfection is not come, and we have need of the knowledge that prophets alone can impart.
As to modern-day apostles, I am more inclined to the conservative stance. The qualifications for the office of Apostle preclude any possibility of their existence today. Indeed, as was pointed out in R.C. Sproul’s latest tape, it was already impossible within one generation, for after John, there remained nobody who had been with Jesus throughout His ministry, witness to it all, and this was a fundamental requirement. If there is any claim to apostleship in our day, it must be in the lesser sense. This can at least find support in Scriptural usage. There does seem to be a lesser usage of the term, one which does not specifically reference the “twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rv 21:14). The term, at root, means a delegate or ambassador. In our setting it is the Gospel and the Lord of that Gospel which we represent. However, to claim the position of official commissioner, commissioned by Christ Himself, and bearing the credentials of miraculous powers; that’s a bit much.
Think about it. Even Paul, who was at least a contemporary, had to struggle no end to establish his credentials as a true Apostle. Even in the churches of his own planting, he had to deal with this. “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance. By signs and wonders and miracles, my office was confirmed” (2Co 12:12). “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (2Co 9:1). This is perhaps the clearest case of Paul’s challenge. He must make clear to one and all that his credentials are indeed the same as those other eleven, though his history is certainly different. Who is there today who will honestly and earnestly claim to have seen Jesus – not an image of Him, not an impression of Him – but the reality? I know enough who have heard Him, but I know of know trustworthy claims of sightings. No, I think the claims of a restoration of the apostolic office must be regarded with deepest suspicion. “You have tested those who claim to be apostles and are not. You have found them false, and you have persevered. You have endured for My name’s sake, and not grown weary” (Rv 2:2-3).
Frankly, I have to ask: why do we have such a great need to see these offices once more? What is it in us that needs to be so constantly impressed? Is it not that we still have a need for idols, and this need makes us manufacture what we need. Just as I was reading in Isaiah (Isa 44:9-20) earlier this morning, we still have this nearly irresistible desire to go make ourselves something we can bow down before, and we are so blind to our behavior that we don’t even recognize the foolishness of it all. It is not enough for us in this day and age to have a capable and caring pastor. We need a star. We need somebody who is better than all the other pastors, better than those mega-ministries, better than the TV stars with Bibles, and above all, better than the pastor at the church next door.
So, we begin by establishing our pastors as prophets. But, pretty soon, everybody else is doing it, too. What are we to do? Ah!! Next office up. We proclaim him an apostle. Well, what are we going to do when every pastor has been proclaimed an apostle? The problem is that all our proclamations of office have done nothing to elevate the pastor. For one thing, we have no authority with which to issue such proclamations. The serf has no power to declare his master an earl or a duke. That prerogative belongs to the king, and to the king alone. Secondly, what we have really done is cheapen our own sense of those offices we have bestowed upon our pastor. Indeed, at core, we have cheapened the office of pastor, which we ought to hold dear. It is so great a privilege that God appoints for us pastors who are true to Him and whose care for their charges flows from their love of God. So many churches cannot make this claim. So many have pastors who aren’t even certain there is a God, and yet they insist that they serve this God they don’t know. Their care for their charges is as false as their profession, be they ever so compassionate. The nod and the wink they give to sin is no compassion. It is merely commiseration, the outflow of their failure to comprehend God’s love.
What an honor it is to have pastors that remain true to their King and ours. What an honor it is to have those who still hold to the Apostolic message. They have no need to take on titles beyond this, for the office they fill is already a most uncommon honor. To suggest that it is not enough is to slight to Giver of that office. It is to declare that He has not seen you as highly as you deserve. I must suggest that the truth is quite the opposite. We no longer see Him as highly as He deserves. We have set up our idols in His house and have the audacity to say we serve Him by bowing down to them. Shame on us!
There remains, however, this statement which Jesus has made. The best will bring forth both old, time tested truths and fresh new insights from their store of knowledge. Is it revelation knowledge? Doubtful, but not entirely ruled out. Is it inspired? Perhaps, though I should tremble to make such a claim. Is it infallible? Only insomuch as it remains true. The seed, as we keep saying, remains good. It is good whether it hits good soil or not. It is good whether it is sown with clean hands or foul. The Truth will be just as true however it may be delivered, and however it may be heard.
I know I find fresh insights as I study. I know that, and I find it awesome in the proper sense of the word: a fearful and wondrous thing. There is comfort in knowing that other, better minds have found the same truth you have. To find something new, seemingly misunderstood, when the text has been scrutinized for centuries is not so much cause for excitement as it is cause for concern. Am I understanding this truly, or am I putting my own opinions into what I read? Am I relaying Truth as I teach these things? If not, I surely should not teach them at all! No, the fresh and new, while we are encouraged to proclaim it alongside the tried and true, must be vetted by what has gone before. It must fit the whole, or it has no part in the whole. We need not fear to bring it forth once we have the certainty of its aptness. Neither need we make claims of revelation, inspiration, apostolic anointing, or any other such thing to justify ourselves. It is enough to say that we have seen this with fresh eyes, that we have checked ourselves against revealed Truth and found this new thing to be of one accord with all that has come before it. If we have done our job right, then we need no further credentials for our teaching. We have drawn forth something fresh and new, but it is just a clarification of what has ever been true.
The other half of this picture is that we should never be so enamored of the new understanding of things, the fresh and exciting, that we let go of the old things. That storehouse holds every treasure the man ever found. He does not throw out the antiques at the back just because some newfangled treasure has arrived. The old pearl is worth just as much, if not more, than the new one. Only those things that have proven to be junk are going to go. The bits of supposed wisdom we may have learned which the Light of Truth expose as nonsense, those we can certainly toss in the dustbin. Not only can we, we should. They belittle the rest of our collected wisdom, and render all else less valued than it ought to be. But truth, once garnered, must never be let go – not even for the most current understandings. If the most current understandings can add to our store of Truth, then by all means, let us obtain that Truth and add it to our storehouse. But, if it is merely current, it can stay on its shelf. We have no need of it in our treasury.
Here is wisdom for the wise: Never reject news of the kingdom because you are so tied up in what is past. Neither reject the past because you are so excited by this new thing. The kingdom never upset the Truth of the past, only the traditions. It was nothing in Scripture that was overturned by the Gospel. Jesus goes out of His way to make this clear. “I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” “Not one least, seemingly insignificant, bit of Torah shall ever pass away.” That is the full Gospel message. The Kingdom is here. It is no longer some pending anticipation. It is here. It has drawn near to you, and those who are wise enter in. Messiah is come. You can stop waiting for Him. He’s here. Come and meet your King. That is the sum of the change. The Law remains, but its curse has been taken on by your kinsman Redeemer. The past is still relevant, but don’t let that keep you from your future. Neither can you afford to leave the past behind in your excitement over this new present state. The King is here, but His ways and His teachings have not changed by His coming. He is still the I AM. As He was in the beginning, He is now, and ever shall be. God without end. Amen.
How I cry for the Church in our day! In all but the rarest cases, it is torn into competing camps, and as often as not, the line of division is exactly the one that Jesus rejects here. It is well to stand as guardian over the established Truths, but don’t set your guard so firmly that no news of the Kingdom can slip through any more. Don’t fall into the trap of the scribes, rejecting not on the basis of Truth, but on the basis of tradition. When tradition convinces you to reject the Truth in its favor, that trap has been sprung long since.
On the other hand we find those who are so caught up chasing after new things that Truth barely registers with them as even a concern. They have gone after tickling of their ears. They must hear the latest prophet, be touched by the latest apostle. They must experience the latest ‘move of God’ whatever it is, and however meaningless. Has somebody seen feathers falling? We must all see them, then! Has somebody seen gold dust? Why, it must become the new standard. Is somebody concerned that we no longer care to hear the Word preached? Why, they are stuck in their traditions, and we can simply ignore them. If they don’t want to jump in the river, that’s no reason for us to hold back!
I’m not even sure at this point which of these camps is less willing to look at itself with a critical eye. How we need the strength that each of these camps bring! How we need to hear with open ears the admonishments that each speaks against the other. They are clarion warnings for us, the critical assessment by friends, and we would do better to check ourselves for the error they warn us of, than to shut them out as being too blind to see. We are all too blind to see, particularly when looking at ourselves. Let us not compound the problem by being to deaf to hear.
From the lines of the ‘freer’ camp, let us not be so swift to denounce every church that happens to be more conservative and traditionalist than we as automatically dead. For all that, too many of our own stripe have only a reputation of life. Too many are whited sepulchers even as were those Pharisees Jesus condemned. That is nothing that we can pretend is reserved for the older denominations. Neither do we have any room to decry their denominationalism or their ritualism. We in the nondenominational camp are just as denominational as they. We, with our purportedly free-flowing services are just as tied to our ritual as they. It just looks different.
To both sides, I say, look again at this parable. The one that Jesus commends here keeps all that he has found before. He looks back over the whole history of God’s people, and recognizes that what has ever been true shall always be true, for Truth is not subject to change. He also, however, looks around himself to see what understanding of Truth is to be found today. At risk of turning off the whole crowd of the elders, it seems clear enough from Scripture that God has always moved by way of progressive revelation. What Abraham understood was, it would seem well beyond what Adam knew. What David understood outstripped Abraham, and surely what the Apostles heard from Jesus was far more clear than anything the prophets had said. The Truth hadn’t changed in any of this. It had simply been made more clear. That is, after all, the underlying aspect of revelation: the veil is drawn aside.
Granted the technical understanding of revelation should make us cautious in the extreme about using the term in reference to anything we might say. But, to suggest that the God of progressive revelation has either stopped progressing or stopped revealing seems to demand that the God who does not change has changed. That said, what we hear from Him, or suppose we hear from Him, we must certainly check and compare against everything He has said to date. The greater revelation has never contradicted what came before, and it never shall. Truth does not change, for God does not change, and God is Truth.
But, come! The wise scribe rejects neither the new nor the old. He clings to every bit of God’s Truth that is made available to Him, whether it come from the pages of Scripture, from the words of the pastor, or even from the poets of the heathen. If it be Truth, the source cannot change it.
It seems like we struggle on with the very same issues that crippled Israel at the coming of her King. Jesus never rejected the Old Covenant. He simply made it fresh – not relevant, fresh. He restored its colors, if you will, so that we could see it once more in its full glory. He washed away the dust of the ages that had obscured its rich detail. We who are willing to look upon the new and fresh must never lose sight of the Old, for Jesus has never given us the permit to do so. Neither has He given the standard bearers permission to look only to the rear, only to the past. He has not, so far as I can tell, put the seal on knowledge and said that henceforth, all that can be learned of God has been taught, and no more can ever be known. Let us, then, acknowledge each others strengths and draw from them. Let us, by all means, continue to expose each others weaknesses, that we may deal with them. Oh, but let them be exposed as between lovers, tenderly and in quietness, not in public acrimony as though we were on our way to court for our divorce proceedings.
I have little doubt that we shall be sharing a community in heaven, though our earthly perceptions seem so far apart. Wouldn’t it be for the best if we learned to express our loving concern one for the other now, so that we can enjoy our greater communion then? Isn’t it just possible that we both of us have something to learn from the other, to teach to the other? Oh! Let the Church of Christ come together, both the proponents of traditional faith, and the proponents of freshened faith, and find the true strength of the Christ of the Church! Let us become even as He has advised, wise heads of households drawing forth both old and new with equal reverence and care.
