|
He is
Coming, but Who is He? Four Judgements About Jesus
By Victor
Shepherd
"He is
possessed by Beelzebul [Satan]." (Mark 3:22)
"He is a
good man." (John 7:12)
"You are
a teacher." (John 3:2)
"My Lord
and my God." (John 20:28)
When
most people hear the name "Jesus" they immediately think of "Gentle Jesus, meek
and mild." When they think of "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild" they think of a
kind fellow walking through the countryside patting little children on the head,
spouting "bromides" here and there, being as kind and helpful as any one of us
would want to be. Those who imagine Jesus to be like this always assume that
everybody in first century Palestine liked him.
Then
again there are those who know that every now and then Jesus said or did
something that riled the people around him. He must have done something to rile
others, or else his life wouldn't have ended the way it did. People who think
like this assume that the larger part of the population understood him and liked
him, while a small minority didn't understand him or like him yet had enough
political "clout" to have Jesus executed.
The
truth is, the reactions to Jesus throughout his earthly ministry were always
mixed. Some people loved him (a few), some people hated him, some people were
puzzled by him, some people understood this or that aspect of him, some people
followed him at a distance (or thought they could), others followed him more
closely but only for a short while.
Reaction to Jesus was always mixed; and not only mixed, extreme. Those who
loved him couldn't have loved him more; those who hated him loathed him beyond
telling; those who were indifferent were cemented into their indifference. The
written gospels reflect all these judgements about Jesus. Today we are going to
examine four such judgements.
Judgement #1: “He is possessed by Beelzebul.”
One
judgement was wholly negative: "He is possessed by Beelzebul, by Satan." We
mustn’t think that such an assessment occurred once only. "He is possessed by
Beelzebul" was pronounced in Nazareth, in his home town. In Jerusalem his
detractors hissed, "He has a demon." The bottom line is the same: what was
meant is, "He's evil." Some people accused him of being a wolf in sheep's
clothing; others accused him of being a wolf in wolf's clothing. In other words
some people thought him to be sneaky-evil; others thought him to be blatantly
evil. But in any case, they thought him to be in league with the evil one
himself. They judged him to be destructive, fiendish, accursed himself and
cursing others. From that time until this the world hasn’t lacked those who
render this judgement concerning Jesus.
When
I was recovering from my fractured spine I had to have periodic check-ups with
the orthopaedic surgeon who had treated me. One afternoon that I shall never
forget, in the old medical arts building of downtown Toronto, this man flew into
a tirade upon learning that I was a theology student. "Every society that your
Jesus has penetrated now thinks it has to look out for its physical and mental
cripples", he raged, "and I want to tell you that no society has ever been able
to afford the upkeep of its physical and mental cripples. You Christians have
done it to us. You Christians are responsible for the economic millstone around
society's neck; and this millstone is going to spell financial ruin for all of
us. No society can afford what you Christians say we must." But to maintain
that Christians have done this foul deed is to say that our Lord himself is
foul. "He is possessed by Beelzebul; he has a demon."
The
next time educators speak of "Values Education," examine closely what is put
forward as "values". The assumption is that "values" are purely subjective;
"values" are really "preferences"; "values" are opinions; "values" reflect no
more than what an individual or a society likes or wants. Nowhere
is it even hinted that there is such a thing as truth; nowhere is one allowed to
speak of the will and purpose and command of God. As soon as Christians say,
"But our lives aren't shaped and directed by what we prefer or by what we like
or by opinions we have; the lives of Christians are shaped and directed by a
truth of God that is as much the structure of the universe as the law of
gravity. Is the law of gravity a human invention? Can we set it aside if we
don't like it? Are we going to vote on it? Is it part of the smorgasbord of
choices that is arrayed before youngsters? Then why do you think that that
which orders the lives of Christians is mere subjectivism? mere preference? mere
whim? mere opinion?" -- as soon as Christians say this we are dismissed. If you
think I've got it wrong about "Values Education" then you should raise the issue
of truth in the midst of such a discussion and see what the reaction is. The
reaction will be, "These Christians are possessed by Beelzebul" -- which is to
say, he who forms them and informs them has a demon.
Judgement #2: “He is a good man.”
Not
every judgement of Jesus was negative, however. Some people said, "He is a good
man." "He's a decent fellow."
On
the one hand I am convinced we live in a fallen world whose depravity is
bottomless. On the other hand, I am aware that there remains among some people
who make no profession of faith an apprehension of decency. Decency can
disappear, to be sure; yet as it disappears and life becomes unendurable,
decency reasserts itself if only because without it social existence is
impossible.
People who say of our Lord today, "He's a good man", aren’t making any Christian
profession and don't care to. Yet their assessment of Jesus shouldn’t be
scorned for that reason. After all, the fact that they find Jesus decent means
that they appreciate decency. And therefore they are aligned with all who stand
on the side of decency and stand against degradation.
We
must always remember that the balance between decency and degradation is a
precarious balance; the scales can be tipped by only the slightest pressure.
Anyone who supports decency is to be encouraged, since our society will
never lack those who are shameless, who violate that decency which, if rampant,
renders social existence impossible.
I
have long found what I regard as the shameless vulgarity of CFRB radio
broadcasting difficult to endure. Yet I listen to CFRB if I need
up-to-the-minute traffic reports. Not so long ago I needed a traffic report,
turned on CFRB, and was exposed to yet another wretched phone-in scene. This
time people were to phone in to the station (and have their phone call
broadcast) as they answered the broadcaster's question, "What was it (i.e.,
sexual intercourse) like the first time?" Can you imagine it? – the utmost
human intimacy blabbed as though it were less significant than a baseball
score. Scripture speaks of "the way of a man with a maid" as a wonder beyond
telling. The prophets use the intimacy of marriage as an analogy for our most
intimate relationship with God -- a relationship so intimate as finally to be
inexpressible. And vulgar oafs, devoid of decency, superficially titillate
radio-listeners while the broadcaster eggs them on. One young man described his
first encounter in a shopping mall. "Where's the mall?” the broadcaster laughed
lasciviously.
The
people who believed no more about Jesus than "He's a good man" at least believed
that much. Many today believe no more than that. But at least they are tipping
the balance between decency and degradation in the right direction. I, for one,
am not going to speak ill of those who share my horror at the coarsening of
society and who are endeavouring to restore a modicum of wholesomeness.
For a
long time ethical humanists have perplexed Christians. Ethical humanists don't
attend church, don't worship, don't make a profession of faith, don't agree with
the church's assessment of Jesus -- but are morally upright. We shouldn't look
upon such people as a perplexity; we should thank God for them. In his
providence he has seasoned the world with those who are going to resist the
erosion of decency.
Regardless of what Jesus claimed for himself concerning Israel's hope of a
Messiah; regardless of what Jesus elicited from his disciples concerning his
unique relationship with his Father; regardless of any of this the common people
couldn't help noticing that the sick were attended to, women were elevated, the
deranged were restored, children welcomed and the poor honoured. Anyone could
see this much; anyone with a shred of decency had to say, "He's a good man."
Judgement #3: “He is a teacher.”
There
was yet another judgement of Jesus: "He is a teacher." To say this isn’t to
say, "He is an able instructor; he has mastered the technique of teaching."
When those Israelites who profited from him concluded, "He is a teacher", they
meant, "His teaching comes from above; he is a prophet; he has an authoritative
word from God." In biblical thought only the person who has first listened to
God can speak for God. Only the person who has first heard can speak. The
teacher, the prophet, is one whom God has drawn to himself, to whom he has
disclosed himself, and whom he now commissions to teach concerning himself.
When the people said of Jesus, "He is a teacher", it was no little accolade.
Moreover, in naming Jesus "teacher" they were admitting themselves to be without
excuse if they didn’t take his teaching to heart.
Inasmuch as you and I honour Jesus as teacher we have logically committed
ourselves to heeding his teaching; and logically we are without excuse if we do
not.
At
the beginning of the sermon I mentioned that more than a few people look upon
the teaching of Jesus as nothing more than the handing-out of bromides,
commonplaces that any thoughtful person would come up with if she thought for
five minutes. Actually, our Lord's teachings are anything but bromides,
anything but commonplaces. We need to read the written gospels and re-read them
until the startling teachings of Jesus jar us awake.
"Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of
evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is
in heaven." Our reward will be granted us in heaven; in heaven, be it noted,
and not one day before. Even so, just because it will be granted us in
heaven we must and may rejoice and be glad right now. This is
anything but a commonplace.
"No
one after lighting a lamp covers it with a vessel, or puts it under a bed, but
puts it on a stand, that those who enter may see the light. For nothing is hid
that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and
come to light." Christians are the light of the world, says Jesus. The purpose
of light is to enlighten. Therefore the light should always be held up so that
others may be enlightened by the same light that has enlightened us. Our Lord's
teaching here readily makes sense and isn’t startling. Then Jesus adds a word
that ought to ring in our heads constantly: there is nothing hid that isn't
going to be made manifest, and there is no secret that isn't going to be brought
to light. Yes, Christians are and are to be the light of the world; but if
there is any hint of darkness in them at all, anything smudged, anything covered
up, anything painted out (supposedly) -- it's going to be exposed. Finally,
there aren't going to be any secrets. That in us which contradicts our
discipleship, which is anything but bright and would never illumine life for
anyone; that which we think we have hidden from everyone for so long that it's
going to remain hidden forever -- "think again", says Jesus, "and deal with it
now, otherwise it is going to be dealt with in a way that will shame you
publicly."
When
I hear "the teacher" in such matters I sink down into a chair and ask myself,
"What is there in me that would humiliate me if it appeared on the front page of
the newspaper? What is there about me that would shame me if it were aired at
an official board meeting? What is there that I'd prefer my wife not to see?"
And then I know that there is only one thing to do: deal with it now.
When
some of the men and women who surrounded Jesus remarked, "Not only is he a good
man, he's a teacher", they meant, "God has appointed him to instruct us. We
should hear him and heed him."
Our
Lord is still a teacher. And therefore still we must hear and heed.
Judgement #4: “My Lord and my God.”
The
final assessment of Jesus is one beyond which there is no advance. It is the
confession of Thomas following the risen one's appearance to him. Our Lord's
appearance to Thomas ended forever the disciple's vacillating, his uncertainty,
his roller-coaster conviction and feeling. "My Lord and my God": everything
that had been unsettled in Thomas was settled in that instant. It is an
unqualified confession of the incarnation. What Thomas affirmed in his five
words Charles Wesley affirmed in his Christmas carol, "Veiled in flesh the
Godhead see; hail th'Incarnate deity; pleased as man with man to dwell, Jesus
our Emmanuel" -- "God-with-us".
I
have always believed that doctrine has eversomuch to do with life. The doctrine
of the incarnation has everything to do with where we live.
Think
first of our suffering. Scripture tells us that God himself suffers in our
suffering. Does he? How much does he suffer? With what kind of suffering does
he suffer? Does he suffer in my suffering the way I "suffer" in the suffering
of those in Mexico who were devastated by a hurricane? When I read about the
hurricane I feel dreadful. I am moved at the plight of people who lost
children, homes, livelihood, even their own lives. But as moved as I am at
their plight, their plight isn't mine. I am aware of it, am informed of it,
suffer it (to some extent) with them. Nonetheless, alongside the suffering they
undergo through enduring the disaster my "suffering" upon being informed of the
disaster is nothing.
So
God suffers in our suffering. Does that mean he is moved when he observes
ours? Does it mean he is merely informed of it even as he safely remains a
spectator of it?
When
Thomas cried to Jesus, "My Lord and my God;" when Thomas confessed the truth of
the incarnation, Thomas knew that God knows our suffering not the way we know of
Mexico's through reading about it in a newspaper; God knows our suffering in
that he has lived the worst human suffering himself. In the person of his Son
he has tasted first-hand the bitter taste of rejection, misunderstanding,
hostility, slander, abandonment, mental anguish, physical torment. He suffers
in our suffering not because he sympathizes with us (largely a useless
sentiment); he suffers in our suffering just because there is no suffering
afflicting us that he hasn’t endured himself in his Son. It is for this reason
alone that he can comfort us profoundly, comfort us realistically, comfort us
really.
Non-Jews have to be very careful in speaking of the God who comforts when they
speak with Jewish people. Sooner or later our Jewish friends are going to raise
the matter of the death-camps, particularly the camps like Theresienstadt where
a million children perished. When I am asked how I can continue to affirm God
in view of such suffering, as gently and sensitively as I can I say that I can
continue to live with the God who permitted it to happen only because I see that
particular horror comprehended in, gathered up in the abandonment and execution
of his own Son. And because the incarnation is what it is, God himself has
suffered in the distress of his Son the hideous distress of the one million
children. Apart from my conviction on this matter what could I say, as a
pastor, to any suffering person?
There
are few things worse than our suffering. As often as the people of Israel
insisted there was nothing worse than their suffering, however, the prophets of
Israel insisted there was one thing worse: their sin. The people kept saying
there was nothing as horrible as their suffering; the prophets kept saying there
was one thing more horrible: their sin. The prophets were right.
All
the questions we raised about God's involvement with our suffering we can raise
as well about God's involvement with our sin. We say that God forgives
repentant people. And so he does. Does he do so because he is indulgent?
Don't so much as breathe the suggestion that God is indulgent: the just judge
indulges nothing. Then does he forgive because he is constitutionally incapable
of doing anything else? Anyone who can't help doing what he does is merely
obsessive/compulsive. God is able to forgive repentant sinners for one reason:
in the person of his Son he has so entered into our sinnership, so taken it upon
himself, so absorbed in himself his just judgement upon it, that he can now show
forth his mercy without compromising his holy opposition to it. God doesn't
know sin the way I know brain tumours: through informing myself about them. He
knows sin by immersing himself in a fallen world -- and all of this in order to
restore those who are not ashamed of him when he comes to restore them in the
humiliation of his Son.
The
incarnation isn't an abstraction good only for teasing those with a
philosophical turn of mind. The incarnation has everything to do with life.
When Thomas cried, "My Lord and my God", he knew that his suffering and his
sinning had been dealt with -- and would continue to be dealt with -- in a
manner that would leave him with the profoundest comfort in his pain and the
profoundest assurance of his pardon.
Our
judgement.
Whenever people came upon Jesus in the days of his earthly ministry they
couldn’t avoid having to assess him. The assessments varied.
Whenever people are face-to-face with Jesus Christ today they can’t avoid having
to assess him. What is our assessment going to be?
"He's
possessed by evil." Entirely the wrong assessment, and rendered only by those
who seek to work evil themselves.
"He's
a good man." The pronouncement of those who recognize decency when they come
upon it and long to exalt it.
"He's a teacher." The judgement of
those who hear in his teaching the ring of authority just because what he
teaches is the truth of God.
"My
Lord and my God." This is a confession of faith. Anything less than this,
while true, remains inadequate. "My Lord and my God."
|
