New Thoughts (07/19/11-07/21/11)
From Luke’s account we have the reaction of certain of the lawyers present when Jesus launched into His several woes against the Pharisees. This sect, recall, numbered His host amongst its members. But, the scribes felt themselves closely tied to the Pharisees even if they were not all members of that sect. They heard in these woes a reflection upon their own pride and practice and, having seen their reflection, they are moved to seek redress. Surely, Jesus had overstepped by accident here. Surely, He did not intend to tag them with these same charges, did He? Of course, they discover that indeed, He did intend to do just that and more. But, I’ll get to that in its place.
What is interesting to me at the moment is this term by which they register their complaint. “You insult us too!” That insult, that hubrizeis; you might recognize a familiar word lying within the Greek there. However, a quick check of the old dictionary shows that the meaning is not quite transferable. What we understand as hubris bespeaks, according to Webster’s, an ‘exaggerated pride or self-confidence’. That’s not what the lawyer complains of. He is not accusing Jesus of prideful overstepping. He is accusing Jesus of being outrageously insolent. He is claiming to have been shamefully treated by these accusations. Indeed, He is decrying a certain abuse, a verbal violence if you will in what Jesus has just said.
Now, to be clear, the case would require that what Jesus has said found no basis in the facts for it to qualify as verbal violence. Granted, we have our conceptions of verbal abuse, and will even suggest that this abuse is sufficient cause for divorce in some cases. Indeed, we are a society with greatly heightened sensitivities to the very concept of abuse. After all, we are being conditioned to view ourselves as victims of every perceived wrong. In this case, the sensitivity is being brought on by that very overstepping pride we would consider hubris in our own day. We are too pious in our practices for You to have meant to call us out as You have. Surely, as You recognize that we are caught in the net of Your words, You will reconsider, and perhaps phrase Your words more carefully. But, no.
So, they are feeling shamefully treated, verbally abused. It is interesting, in this light, to consider some of the other occasions where this term comes up in Scripture. In fact, it shows up in precisely four other verses, a particularly short list, so let us look at them all. We have first the parable of the wedding feast, and those invitees who refused to come to the dinner prepared. Indeed, not only did they come up with excuses for why they could not come, the “seized his slaves and mistreated them, and even killed them” (Mt 22:6). That mistreatment is the same hubrizeis of which our lawyer complains. I don’t, however, see him threatened with physical violence, here, except it be in the form of final judgment.
The next occasion on which we encounter this word is when Jesus describes what lies ahead for Him on this final trip to Jerusalem. “He will be delivered to the Gentiles and He will be mocked, mistreated, and spit upon” (Lk 18:32). Here, again, things escalate, and we find that He will also be scourged and killed (Lk 18:33). But, praise be to God! He rises again the third day! But, notice that we have something of a trend forming here: The mistreatment, the verbal abuse, escalates to physical abuse unto death. Notice a second trend as well: We are dealing with the response to a prophet. Let us see if these trends continue.
We come next to the account of Paul and Barnabas. While they are not prophets, we might suggest that they share a good deal in common with that ancient office, being as they are spokesmen of God’s Word. At any rate, we are told that when they were speaking in Iconium, many believed, but the unbelieving amongst the Jews were so upset by this that they stirred up the Gentiles as well, and the combined forces of unbelief “made an attempt to mistreat and stone them,” with the complicity of the governing authorities (Ac 14:5). It seems we have both trends maintained, for stoning was not intended to be a form of punishment one survived. Neither, I might note, was it a legal action for Jew or Gentile to take upon themselves, even if they did have government complicity in their riot.
Finally, we have Paul’s letter to the Thessalonicans, where he is recounting events in Philippi. Philippi is brought up as a precursor to his work in Thessalonica. In Philippi, he notes, he had suffered and been mistreated (1Th 2:2), but he nevertheless spoke with holy boldness in proclaiming the Gospel in Thessalonica, even when facing “much opposition”. From Acts 16:20-24, we learn that his suffering (and Silas with him) consisted in having been arrested for no good cause, beaten with rods, and then imprisoned, being set in stocks. Had there not been heavenly intervention on that occasion, it would be easy to envision these events likewise having grown into life threatening matters. Jails were not, after all, generally places one went with any great deal of hope, particularly against accusations of stirring up a riot.
I lay these cases out so as to demonstrate the strength of the complaint this lawyer is raising, and to make plain its thorough incongruity with the nature of the event. This matter of abuse: in no other case do we find it applied to mere words, except where those mere words are precursors to physical violence. I have no cause to suppose the lawyers speak with such thought in mind, that they are being physically threatened by what Jesus pronounces. If they feel any physical threat in His words it must be because they first recognize those words as truth (a point somewhat evident in their taking offense in the first place) and second sensing a reference to that final day judgment in the woes pronounced. There, indeed, we might reasonably perceive such physical violence, but not so as to be accounted mistreatment or abuse. No! It is just punishment, no more no less.
Given the case, it strikes me that their use of the term is wholly unwarranted and inappropriate. It is easy to understand why we have it translated in terms of insult rather than mistreatment, for the physical aspect just isn’t there. We are left with the sense of being shamefully treated, but any such sense of shame must presume an inaccuracy in what has been said, mustn’t it? Or, is it shameful solely because of the occasion? Would it be appropriate to render such accurate assessments in a different setting, but not here at table? I’ll grant that we might indeed see such the combination of word and setting as something of a social gaffe. Indeed, I could recognize in myself a tendency to react to any such critiques with a response of “this isn’t the right time for such a conversation.” The correct, and painfully accurate, response to so poor a defense is, “there is never a right time with you.” Just so. But, the Truth is that, as Jesus here demonstrates, there is never a wrong time. There is never a wrong time to be forced to confront our errors. There is never a wrong time to find oneself handed the opportunity to repent. There is only the wrong reaction, the reaction of the flesh. And, in their flinging out of this charge of hubrizeis, I think we might very well see in them the very definition of hubris. But, Jesus is most unlikely to let that stand.
Shifting to Matthew’s account, Jesus introduces His point by noting that these scribes and Pharisees “have seated themselves in the chair of Moses” [NASB] or, as other translations have it, simply ‘sit in the chair of Moses’. Hmm. It seems I need to consider the syntax briefly. We have an Aorist Active Indicative here. Well, the active voice would certainly indicate that they sat by their own volition, as opposed to being thus seated by others, and the aorist tense would seem to suggest an act already accomplished. Likewise, the indicative mood points to something already certain or realized. Frankly, either translation provides the sense of accomplished reality, but I cannot find anything that would make the ‘themselves’ part necessary. Is there another way it could have been said that might have pointed more clearly to their being authorized to be in the seat? Perhaps if we had the passive, rather than the active voice? Sorry, my Greek is not up to the task here. However, it seems as if the translators of the NASB and such others has push the point are doing just that: pushing a point of view – one the text does not necessarily support.
So then, whether there is a derisive note to what Jesus is saying, or whether He is simply appealing to the dignity of the office as rising above the character of the office-holder, the critical matter appears to be the seat itself, not the means by which it was occupied. Now, this term, the chair of Moses, is a curious turn of phrase in its own right. In fact, this is the only place I find the terms chair and Moses combined. It is little wonder, then, that little is said of this object with any degree of definiteness. It is proposals and suppositions. Archaeological digs have found evidence of some prominent seat in the synagogue, one set quite near to the ark, or Torah closet. It is suggested, on this basis, that here would sit the resident expert on all things Mosaic, and would propound upon this subject for the benefit of those in attendance. This being the case, it is suggested that the one upon this seat was vested with a certain authority when speaking on the subject of the Law.
Some small moment is made of the fact that Jesus speaks of the many members of these two groups as being seated in a chair which is spoken of in the singular, as if this indicates He is not speaking of a physical chair, but only the positional authority represented by the chair. That seems a bit too fine-grained an argument. After all, there were certainly multiple synagogues in which one might find these men and we can suppose each had such a seat. Yet, one would not conceptually think of it as being multiple seats of Moses. No synagogue, it seems, would implement more than the one prime seat. There were other prominent seats, but only one could be counted as having first position.
All things being equal, it is clear that Jesus is pointing out a matter of authority, and appealing to that authority as sufficient cause to obey. Unless we are intended to hear this first sentence as if delivered with a great deal of sarcasm in the voice, then we are better to take it at face value. Let me clarify. First, I set out the text as presented in the NASB. “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them.” Taken at face value, this points to the authority in which they serve when in the position of expositors of Torah, and requires obedience to their instruction. If, on the other hand, the same statement is made in sarcastic fashion, then the point becomes that there is no cause to heed their instructions, given that it is so patently invalid that even they themselves pay it no mind. It is a bit of dilemma to discern how we ought best to hear this. Unfortunately, the authors of Scripture do not generally provide us with sufficient clues as to discern the tone of delivery. Our tendency is to hear everything in the holy voice, and suppose the authors above such base emotions. I’m not sure we have any valid cause to do so, even in the case of Jesus. Paul, I suspect, writes with a degree of sarcasm and humor that often gets lost in the reading. It does not seem impossible that Jesus was capable of the same. Such an inventive weaver of parable would seem quite capable of investing His message with the full array of verbal tonalities.
What originally caught my eye in this matter of the chair, though, is the Greek word it translates, kathedras. It would seem to me impossible that one could look at that word and not see the roots of our own cathedral exposed there. From the lexicons, we have the basic sense of “to sit down” contained in the composite word: kata hezomai. Thayer’s assigns to it the idea that the seat indicates eminence in rank or influence. Thus, it is used to speak of that seat from which a great teacher teaches, of from which a judge judges. In that latter light, we might consider the scene of Pilate seated at the top of the stairs above the Pavement, dispensing Roman justice. We might also consider Jesus, seated upon the great white throne administering His own Justice.
We can be certain that when the Church chose to refer to its own structures as cathedrals, this same sense of eminence of place was firmly in mind. According to one article on the web, the term is used specifically to refer to those churches wherein a bishop of the Church is seated, in other words, a central church of the diocese, or whatever other polity persists. In many cases, however, the term persists where the organizational structure has changed such that the concept of bishop no longer applies. It is worthwhile, however, for us to consider that term in a more general sense. As implying a greater authority for the bishop than, let us say, for other preachers, the thing seems as presumptuous as we might consider the claimed authority of the scribes and Pharisees in this passage. On a different level, though, if the church is viewed as the seat of God’s authority, the setting wherein God Himself administers justice and direction to His own, I should find the term most fitting indeed.
The point, though, returns to that of authority. Indeed, if I might return to the question of whether Jesus’ words are to be taken at face value or as sarcasm, I must come to the question of whether there can even be such a concept as illegitimate authority. Before you suppose the answer to be that there quite obviously can be, consider the instruction Paul gives to the church in Rome. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” (Ro 13:1). Why, how can you say such a thing, Paul? Have you taken no notice of how they treat us, how they persecute us? “For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” Ergo, he argues, to resist the civil authority is to oppose God.
To stress the matter, Paul writes to a church which, if not under the worst of its persecutions at the time, is under persecution. It is viewed with great mistrust by those in power, particularly as those in power are inclined to set themselves forth as gods demanding the praises of their people. Gods tend not to like competition all that much, particularly when the competition demands that their followers not acknowledge any others as gods. It’s simply intolerable to be so intolerant! Yet, in this setting, Paul says: Obey them. Do as they command you. Indeed, Paul doesn’t even provide us with the standard escape clause, saying that we can skip this if they are commanding something utterly ungodly of us. This ought not to be construed, however, as advocating that we must obey even to the point of consciously sinning against the clearest commandment of God’s Law. It is rather a matter that the point at which obedience must cease is so clear as to require no comment from Paul. What does require comment is that, however illegitimate the rulers have proven themselves in matters of piety, even so, we are to heed the law of the land except as it requires us to abrogate the law of the Lord.
This is the understanding that lies at the basis of the whole Protestant movement. If we look back at what those founders of the movement sought, it was not open breach with the Church. Martin Luther, certainly, did not seek to create a new church after his own image. He sought to reform the Church and restore it to health. John Calvin was doubtless moved by the same spirit, ever appealing to those in power over the Church to consider the Truth and amend the practices of the Church under their authority. It was only as those authorities made it deadly clear that they would accept no word of reform that the Protestants found it necessary to depart that corrupted Church entirely, until and unless it return to sound Scriptural principles.
So, then, back to my question. If all authority is from God, as even Jesus implies in His encounter with Pilate (You would have no authority over Me unless given you from above – Jn 19:11), then surely we have strong incentive to heed any and all authority. This would also seem to be the implication in the passage at hand. Inasmuch as they speak as official interpreters and arbiters of Moses, they are to be obeyed. Thus far, as they serve in the capacity of their office, they are to be heard as legitimate. It is only the actions of their personal practice that are set out as questionable and indeed reprehensible.
Where are we to draw the line, then? I have served with leaders who truly believed that those they led were required by Scripture to obey them even in error, that the punishment for any error they imposed would fall on themselves and not on their charges. This, however, reeks of the corruption of pride and presumption. Far better, it would seem, that we follow the precepts of those who came to New England, that they would follow no man further than he followed God. That would seem to be in keeping with what Jesus is saying here: In the pursuit of their office, wherein God is able to protect His own good name even under their ministrations, heed them. In the practice of their own lives, inasmuch as this practice does not adhere to their own official instructions, heed them not.
What, then, should we make of the several corruptions of church teaching that have historically infiltrated the Church? What of those who would teach Arianism, or Manichaeism, or any of the other heretical doctrines of the past? What of those who today teach such clearly unscriptural ideas as God approving homosexual practice not only amongst His children in general, but even amongst those who would claim to be His priests? Are we to accept these as rules for life simply because of where the man espousing such lies happens to be seated, or because of the office he happens to hold? Should the office even be considered legitimate when the rulings from that office are so clearly illegitimate? Here, I think we find that same clear boundary that Paul left unmentioned. To rule thus and to claim God’s backing for the ruling is to have completely invalidated the claim to authority. The ambassador, I am reminded, is only legitimately able to advocate such rules as the authority he represents has allowed. If he goes off on his own penchants, his word no longer carries the weight of his office, for he has overstepped his authority, he has gone outside of his office and now speaks only as a man, however much he may try and claim otherwise.
It seems to me, then, that we must view Jesus’ message here in the same light. Those who happen to hold the position of expositor of the Word, if their exposition advocates or demands such things as are clearly opposed to the God in whose authority that one claims to speak, they are to be summarily dismissed. Indeed, I should think the case could well be made that they should therefore be stripped of office immediately. What is the instruction John gives us in regard to such men? “Don’t even give them greeting” (2Jn 10). Don’t even give them that much support, lest it be supposed by those who see you that you agree with their false message.
It remains the case, though, that with these boundaries in clear sight, we are otherwise to heed those authorities which God sets over us, particularly as concerns their instruction in righteousness. In that regard, I might consider the message delivered us last Sunday, in regard to observing the Sabbath. It is interesting that we should hit on this topic so soon after Table Talk had dedicated one issue of the magazine to the self same matter, a matter of some contention within the church down through the ages. How and when are we to observe this? Does it even apply at all? Frankly, the flesh rebels at the concept of not being able to pursue our own agendas on one of what seem so very few days when we have the time to do so. But, God! I’ve got a garage that needs organizing, a lawn that needs mowing. We’re haven’t enough milk to make the morning. Surely, it’s OK if I attend to these things. But, God, we’ve places to go and things to see. Surely, You understand. After all, man wasn’t made for the Sabbath, right?
Yet, as I noticed last time I was teaching from Jeremiah, the greater part of the charges God laid against His people concerned their willful ignoring of the Sabbath, their insistence on pursuing life as usual on that seventh day. Sure sounds like He takes it pretty seriously, doesn’t it? And, so far as this discussion of authority goes, I had set before me a clear advisory that I begin taking the matter more seriously. And, do you know, even aware that the topic was coming up for Sunday’s message, I arose that day with a great laundry list of things I should love to address in the afternoon, particularly when recognizing that Jan would be busy at church for a good while after service. I’ve got time, and no other family commitments. When better to get after some of these things that have been on my to do list forever? But, then there’s the teaching delivered by the man of God. Sigh. How the flesh resists, and yet the spirit knows that to obey is the better course.
Consider a few of the other points Jesus makes in regard to the Pharisees and scribes, and perhaps we can see the balance point in this matter of obedience to authority. First, there is a point made during the Sermon on the Mount. “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:20). Read lightly, one might almost take that as an endorsement of these men, with a hint that even they have not gone quite far enough with their efforts. However, there is a counterbalance to be found in Matthew 15:3. Here, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and scribes directly, and asks them how it is that by their practices they break God’s commandments in favor of upholding their own traditions. His condemnation of this behavior is plain, so one can hardly suppose that the righteousness He advocates in that earlier passage consists in the traditions He later decries. Likewise, in instructing His listeners on this occasion to obey what is spoken by them as the authorities on Mosaic Law must surely be tempered and qualified on the basis of what nature of instruction they are giving. If they truly expound upon the Law and its demands, then indeed they are to be heeded. If, on the other hand, they are pronouncing on the traditions of their particular sect, then they speak without such binding authority.
For our part, we hold this same sense of boundary upon the minister’s authority, do we not? To the degree that the minister expounds upon Scripture and Scripture’s application to our lives, we are assuredly to hear with obedience. If, however, the minister speaks only opinions and imaginations, these can hardly be deemed binding. That is not to say they ought necessarily to be dismissed outright. But, to the degree that they run counter to the Word of God, they assuredly must be dismissed. If, however, they prove beneficial to our efforts to live in accordance with God’s Word, then they ought to be accepted not as binding, but as helpful nonetheless.
There is something about this message that I find running parallel to Jesus’ answer regarding the poll-tax: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (Mt 22:21). Likewise these teachers of Law. Render them obedience insofar as they teach the Law. Beyond that, in the matter of traditional practices, no such fealty is due. Turning back to that first point from the Sermon on the Mount, it becomes clear that the righteousness Jesus calls for surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees not by going further in the same direction, but by going in a different direction altogether, one in which ideal and practice are properly aligned and both are clearly in pursuit of that righteousness God has described and even set in stone.
It is in light of this that we have Jesus teaching that we ought not follow their example, given that their deeds do not even aspire to their own teaching, let alone the Law. It is in this sense that He speaks of this whole mass of traditions as a weight, an onerous burden put upon mankind. It is burdensome precisely because it is not a true requirement. It rather reminds one of Pharaoh’s business with the brick making. They complain, do they? Well then make the job harder! Not only must they mix and form the bricks, now, but they must gather the straw to do it with as well. Here, it’s taught by these men that actually living by the Law is not enough, as if even that were possible to fallen man! But, they would require more and more, a life spent in cautious consideration of an expanding infinitude of minutia. It’s not enough that you wash your hands before the meal. Did you wash them correctly? It’s not enough that you pray, did you pray correctly? It’s not enough that you observe the Sabbath. Did you walk too far today? It’s not enough to have tithed your income. Did you remember all those incidental gains, and give of them, too? Why, I’m surprised they didn’t decide to tithe of the dust that collected on their belongings. This, too, could have been perceived as gain.
In contrast to this ridiculous body of regulation that the elites sought to impose on their charges, hear the invitation of our Lord. “Come to Me, you weary and heavy laden. I will give you rest. Take my yoke and learn from Me, for I am gentle, humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mt 11:28-30). Now, I would have to confess that I don’t always view it thus. After all, the demand Christ makes upon His followers is total! He asks for our everything. He requires of us that we take up our cross on a daily basis and bear that heavy thing about with us through each day. And this is light? This is easy? I look upon the struggles of my wife and how can I correlate that with this message?
How can You call that light and easy, Lord? What’s easy about it? What lightness is there in constant pain and torment? I fail to see it. Yet, my God, I have known those who retained such a sweetness about them in the midst of the same and worse. Yes, there is something even in such unending trial that can, by Your grace (and only by Your grace) prove a great good to the soul. As I have read of the lives of many of the pillars of faith in times past, it seems their lives were never easy, their burdens never what we would consider light. Yet, they were men of faith and character, and that which they perforce bore surely was in part at least Your means of establishing that very faith and character in them. Still, though, light and easy are not terms I would have thought applied. God, I cannot very well require explanation of You as if You owed me such. Yet, I would ask that You might help me to understand, and to understand how to relay that understanding to my beloved wife. I pray further that You would so work upon my own spirit, Father, that I would not be so callous and resentful in the face of this constant issue. Grant me of Your own grace that I might stand with my love, my partner as You stand with her. Grant me to be Your voice in the situation and no more the voice of defeat and distress.
If we would seek to better understand the authority of position which Jesus is advocating here, we would do well to return to Jerusalem with the exiles and recall the things they underwent. One such event that suits the purpose is described in Nehemiah 8:8. There, we find all Jerusalem come out to listen, and the Levites stand to both read the book of the Law of God, and to explain it so as to be understood by all. I ask you to imagine such a thing! We do not have a clean definition for just what portion of Scripture is intended by that phrase, ‘the book of the Law of God’. One reasonable guess might be Deuteronomy, which is, after all, the expounding of the Law in detail. What strikes me rather immediately is that this is a big book! It takes time to read it. It’s not one that I would expect to sit down and read through in one sitting. And here, we’re not just talking about reading it through, we’re talking about reading it aloud, in a fashion to be heard over the usual noises of such a crowd. The physical demands on those who read the Law are rather straining in their own right! But, then, they not only read the material, they explained it. They applied it. They brought it down out of the theological clouds to the every day issues of life.
Now, if I am correct in supposing that they read from Deuteronomy, then they have the benefit of a starting point which is already replete with such applications. Yet, the times they were a-changing even then. We should hardly suppose ourselves the first generation to look upon the culture described in those books and find it a bit foreign to our own experience. Indeed, even the Jerusalem of the exiles returned must have felt a bit removed from the lifestyle described in the Book. They would be as well served by hearing these applications brought out in a way suited to their own specific trials and experiences as are we. This is not in any way to suggest that the Scriptures are in need of an update or a rewrite. Not at all! It is simply that we are inclined to miss the point in our focus on the foreignness of the scene. We are inclined to be satisfied with surface readings, catching the most obvious stuff and neglecting what may have been equally obvious to that first audience but requires a bit more on our part.
Picture it, though: To sit out their in the Mediterranean sun throughout the day listening to the exposition. Why, we have no end of trouble being still if the sermon exceeds say twenty minutes or so! To even sit for so long as our Puritan forebears is utterly unthinkable for us! What? Spend half a day under the preaching of the Word? On these seats? It’d kill me! If not, then I’d surely be dozing off before the first hour was even well along. Indeed, I must confess I can have that problem even with the one hour service. I cannot blame this on the quality of the preaching, no, nor even on some shortcoming in the environment provided. I have no excuse. I merely allow myself to live a life of exhaustion, and then wonder why my attention span’s a tad short. It makes me wonder at the capacity of these older generations to manage so much more in this regard. Indeed, I could wonder whether a keener observance of the Sabbath might help to restore somewhat our capacity to hear God’s Word expounded, and to heed it.
In what I think may be a final line of thought regarding these verses, I should like to return to considering the way the disciples may have perceived what Jesus was saying. More to the point, I wonder at how they perceived the occasion on which He said it. I mean, it would be one thing were He teaching such things privately to His disciples. It would be one thing if He were making these pronouncements out of the earshot of these scribes and Pharisees. But, to be so in your face about it! That’s uncomfortable. It’s uncomfortable not just for the scribes and Pharisees. It’s uncomfortable for the disciples! Whatever outrage Jesus stirs up against Himself by these pronouncements will adhere to them as well, for they will have been marked as His constant companions.
To have heard Jesus speak so as a dinner guest! What an unthinkable breach of etiquette! These things just aren’t done in polite society. And, the Pharisees would certainly have counted as the polite society of that time and place. I can find only one way in which the disciples could have interpreted His behavior as acceptable, and that is that they were cognizant of following a Prophet. Further, in their conception of the prophetic office, they held firmly to the office as revealed in the Scriptures.
In that light, a visit from a prophet was not necessarily something to look forward to. Indeed, it was the rare exception, at least so far as Scripture records, that such a visit would be anything other than for purpose of rebuke. We do have the occasional account of a prophet going to somebody’s house solely to bless, but it’s the exception not the rule. I would also note that for the most part such positive visits involve the common and the downtrodden. When in the halls of power, the prophet is almost universally on a mission of correction. His office was not needed when the ruling authorities were determined to follow God anyway. They were primarily the voice of correction, not so much encouragement. Of course, fallen humanity has rarely given God the raw material for encouragement, has it? No, we are far more inclined towards sinful rebelliousness unless severely reined in, and it is to this task that the prophet is set.
We have so many today who love to proclaim how they are speaking truth to power. For the most part, they are doing no such thing, but merely blathering their own particular penchants and preferences and claiming these as truth. Truth doesn’t enter into it, though. It’s little more than the petulant whining of a spoiled child that hasn’t got his own way. Oft times it seems to me we bring that self same attitude into our interactions with God. It deserves a bit of consideration, doesn’t it? What are our complaints to Him if not just that sort of whining, though? What are they beyond a self-centered plaint of “I don’t deserve this!” For shame that we should seek from God what we deserve! Greater the shame should we ever receive it from His hand, for that will surely be the death of us.
Throughout these woe pronouncements, what we are witnessing is Jesus very firmly planted in His role as not just a prophet, but the Prophet. Have no doubt in that regard. Jesus knew Himself. He clearly understood that this was part of His mission. Indeed, consider His statement on why He was coming back to Jerusalem in the first place. “It cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem” (Lk 13:33). Oh, He knew. But, a prophet, if he be a prophet, does not, cannot back down in the face of a threat to his person. He must speak the Truth he has been given. He is compelled to. He could no more hold it in than he could hold his breath.
Now, I recognize that the Protestant traditions, certainly Reformed tradition, does not hold with the idea that the prophetic office continues. Insofar as the prophet serves to establish or originate Scripture, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with this perspective. Yet, again as I have been reading of the lives of certain of the great men in Church history, it is clear that this same resolve, this same determination to uphold the Truth whatever may come, has filled select men throughout the history of God’s people, and it is clear that He continues to operate in this fashion. That should hardly surprise, for God is not a man that He should change. Is the canon of Scripture closed with the decease of the Apostles? I can accept that it is. That has hardly sealed off the need for enlightenment for man, though, has it? No, we are still stumbling about in the dimness of the dusk, looking at bright Truth in a dusty mirror. We still have great need of those who are granted to see the Truth with greater clarity, and who will both explain it to us and hold us accountable to it. If we have not the prophetic voice of correction in our day, we have also lost the prophetic voice of hope, for how can we hope to repent except we have those who will insist that we do so?
Don’t speak to me of our resolve! Don’t tell me that we are so much further advanced that we will assuredly accept correction direct from the Word and act upon it. We do not such thing, for the most part, and well I know it. No, we are a complacent lot and, except somebody besides ourselves is painfully aware of our sins, we are inclined to let them slide. Yes, to be sure, the Holy Spirit is disinclined to leave us in this mire of complacency. But, we are so adept at tuning Him out that He finds it beneficial to speak to us through less ignorable means. Most typically, those means consist in the words of our fellow man, our nearest and dearest, whose well voiced opinions we cannot so easily evade.
If we reject the prophetic role to the degree that we lose our capacity to hear and observe events with a prophetic eye, I fear we reject much which has been set out for our own great benefit. I have heard it propounded that the minister serves in the prophetic role whenever he preaches the Word of God. That is well. But, do we hear him as a prophet, or just a man with some decent rhetorical skills? Do we truly vest his message with the same validity and authority as we would a prophet? If so, how is it we come back week after week all but unchanged?
Father, grant us to regain this respect for those who preach Your Word with accuracy and earnestness. Grant us to return to recognizing Your voice in the voice of our pastors, and to heed it as such, not as inerrant, but as authoritative, and to be obeyed in all that is not plainly shown to be contrary to the Word You breathed into being. Restore to us the rightful sense of awe that ought to fill us when we are in Your house hearing Your Truth. Teach us, Father, to be an obedient people.
