Feb 2008
Revelations of God
Growing up I was very often told about how horrible the Pharisees were in Scripture. In the Gospels they often come across as Jesus’ enemies, and so they must be our enemies as well. Then, they were occasionally connected with the mainstream church, because they were the mainstream religious teachers of the day. During their time they were truly trying to seek God and live the way God commanded, just as mainstream Christianity today. Because Jesus had such harsh words for them, he would surely have harsh words for us so we must be sure to be even more righteous than the Pharisees. A good preacher would note that such righteousness is the righteousness we get from God through Jesus, and a poor preacher would connect it to striving harder than they did to be righteous.
There are some very good and wise aspects to this sort of teaching and application. I think the church-Pharisee comparison has its proper place, but the part we forget is how that should make us very uncomfortable and nervous about God. We forget that the Pharisees were doing the best they knew how, and the best God had revealed how, to live righteously.
The most nerve-racking aspect of our condemnation of the Jews is how they treated Jesus. But the point I want to make is that the way they treated Jesus is the way God had told them to treat Jesus. Colin Brown, a professor at Fuller Seminary, points out that they call Jesus a glutton and a drunkard (Matt 11:19). Brown argues that this is a term from the Old Testament which has some very specific consequences to it.
The Old Testament reference is Deut 21:18-21, which reads:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.
It becomes clear hear that the Pharisees were obeying God’s orders. Jesus would not obey his family, even saying that they were not his family and that those listening were his family (a stubborn and rebellious thing to say). So, although the Pharisees did not follow this command exactly, and were not allowed to follow it because of the Roman occupation, they did as good as they could under the circumstances and had Jesus crucified outside the city gates. This argument, as I have relayed it, is very obviously incomplete, but hopefully it has been understood as more than plausible. The point I want to make is how faithful the Pharisees were living to the commands of God. They knew that Jesus was teaching a message that was not wholly compatible with their understanding of the Old Testament, that he was a prophet teaching a new prophecy (something also punishable by death). They had no way or reason because of their Old Testament context to move past the law as they had it to receive this new teaching of God.
So what does that mean for us? What does that mean for those of us trying to live out our current revelation of God? It seems at first glance that it is entirely possible for God to have further revelations of himself that seem to contradict what He has done and how He has previously revealed himself in history.
I suppose there are some considerations that may be encouraging in the light of this alarming and humbling view of God’s revelation. First is the very humility that it births in our views of our own certainties of God’s word to us. I do not mean this in some manner of doubt, but as death to our every resurrecting pride. The second is the stories of God’s grace and relationship to individuals in the midst of doing a new thing. It seems, when we see the stories about Paul, the throngs following Jesus, Nicodemus and other examples, that it was possible for those seeking to be aware of and engage with God’s movement. This deeper understanding was rarely something driven by their own righteousness, but out of a hunger for God. I must note right now that I do not know what God’s criteria of finding their hunger satisfiable, but not the hunger of the Pharisees. It seems that there was nothing done by them to merit revelation of God’s new activity. Paul was going around seeking out and killing Christians! He certainly does not seem to deserve any sort of revelation from God.
Ultimately, the point I’m trying to make is that it is not ours to judge other’s claims that they are engaging with the work of God. Continuity of purpose, goal and methodology makes it easier for us to understand God’s work in the world, but it is not something that is necessary for God to work in the world. It makes him intelligible to us, but intelligibility is not a prerequisite of God’s actions. (I suppose this could be argued, but I have to stand by it. Even physics really is not intelligible. We have no real reason for knowing why things work the way they do, we are only able to track how those things do work.) So, Lord have mercy on us as we attempt to pursue Him in the way that we have been taught!
There are some very good and wise aspects to this sort of teaching and application. I think the church-Pharisee comparison has its proper place, but the part we forget is how that should make us very uncomfortable and nervous about God. We forget that the Pharisees were doing the best they knew how, and the best God had revealed how, to live righteously.
The most nerve-racking aspect of our condemnation of the Jews is how they treated Jesus. But the point I want to make is that the way they treated Jesus is the way God had told them to treat Jesus. Colin Brown, a professor at Fuller Seminary, points out that they call Jesus a glutton and a drunkard (Matt 11:19). Brown argues that this is a term from the Old Testament which has some very specific consequences to it.
The Old Testament reference is Deut 21:18-21, which reads:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.
It becomes clear hear that the Pharisees were obeying God’s orders. Jesus would not obey his family, even saying that they were not his family and that those listening were his family (a stubborn and rebellious thing to say). So, although the Pharisees did not follow this command exactly, and were not allowed to follow it because of the Roman occupation, they did as good as they could under the circumstances and had Jesus crucified outside the city gates. This argument, as I have relayed it, is very obviously incomplete, but hopefully it has been understood as more than plausible. The point I want to make is how faithful the Pharisees were living to the commands of God. They knew that Jesus was teaching a message that was not wholly compatible with their understanding of the Old Testament, that he was a prophet teaching a new prophecy (something also punishable by death). They had no way or reason because of their Old Testament context to move past the law as they had it to receive this new teaching of God.
So what does that mean for us? What does that mean for those of us trying to live out our current revelation of God? It seems at first glance that it is entirely possible for God to have further revelations of himself that seem to contradict what He has done and how He has previously revealed himself in history.
I suppose there are some considerations that may be encouraging in the light of this alarming and humbling view of God’s revelation. First is the very humility that it births in our views of our own certainties of God’s word to us. I do not mean this in some manner of doubt, but as death to our every resurrecting pride. The second is the stories of God’s grace and relationship to individuals in the midst of doing a new thing. It seems, when we see the stories about Paul, the throngs following Jesus, Nicodemus and other examples, that it was possible for those seeking to be aware of and engage with God’s movement. This deeper understanding was rarely something driven by their own righteousness, but out of a hunger for God. I must note right now that I do not know what God’s criteria of finding their hunger satisfiable, but not the hunger of the Pharisees. It seems that there was nothing done by them to merit revelation of God’s new activity. Paul was going around seeking out and killing Christians! He certainly does not seem to deserve any sort of revelation from God.
Ultimately, the point I’m trying to make is that it is not ours to judge other’s claims that they are engaging with the work of God. Continuity of purpose, goal and methodology makes it easier for us to understand God’s work in the world, but it is not something that is necessary for God to work in the world. It makes him intelligible to us, but intelligibility is not a prerequisite of God’s actions. (I suppose this could be argued, but I have to stand by it. Even physics really is not intelligible. We have no real reason for knowing why things work the way they do, we are only able to track how those things do work.) So, Lord have mercy on us as we attempt to pursue Him in the way that we have been taught!
|