|
7)
The authority of Jesus as God
I realize that, whenever we venture to enquire into the divine
self-consciousness of Jesus, we are trying to take soundings in water
too deep for us to fathom. That he knew God as 'my Father' is
clear, and also that he knew his own Sonship to be unique. But now
we can take a further hesitating step. For there is evidence that
he thought of himself as being on a par with God, even one with
God. It is not that he ever said this in so may words in the
Sermon, but that his claim to exercise divine prerogatives and his ways
of speaking of himself imply it. Three examples may be given.
The first concerns the final beatitude. it will be remembered that
eight beatitudes are generalizations in the third person ('Blessed are
the meek, the merciful, the peacemakers', etc.), which a ninth changes
to the second person as Jesus addresses his disciples: '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 great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who
were before you'. (Matt 5:11, 12). It is this analogy with
the prophets which is arresting. The logic seems to be this:
Jesus expects his followers to have to suffer for his sake ('on my
account'), and then likens their persecution to that of the Old
Testament prophets. Now those prophets suffered for their
faithfulness to God, while the disciples of Jesus were to suffer for
their faithfulness to him. The implication is unavoidable.
If he is likening his disciples to God's prophets (and he did later
'send' them out as the prophets had been 'sent' (cf Matt.10: 1ff), he is
likening himself to God. As Chrysostom put in at the end of the
fourth century, 'He here ...covertly signifies his own dignity, and his
equality in honour with him who begat him'.
A similar equivalent is implied in the two other examples. When he
warned them that a person who merely addressed him as 'Lord, Lord' would
not enter the kingdom of heaven, one would have expected him to go on
'but he who submits to my Lordship' or 'but he who obeys me as
Lord'. And this is, in fact, what we find in Luke's version of the
Sermon, where calling him 'Lord, Lord' is contrasted with doing what he
says. But according to Matthew 7:21 he continued, 'but he who does
the will of my Father who is in heaven'. If, then, Jesus regarded
obeying him as Lord and doing the Father's will as equivalents, he was
putting himself on a level with God. It is all the more impressive
because Jesus was not going out of his way to make an assertion about
himself. Such was not his purpose in the context. This token
of his divine self-consciousness slipped out when he was speaking about
something quite different, namely the meaning of true discipleship.
The same is true in the third example. It comes in the following
verses which are about the day of judgement and have already been
mentioned. Everybody knew that God was the Judge. So did
Jesus. He did not here advance a direct and specific claim that
God had committed the judgement of the world to him. He just knew
that on the last day people would appeal to him and that he would have
the responsibility to pass sentence on them. And in saying so, he
again equated himself with God.
Here, then is your 'original Jesus', your 'simple, harmless teacher of
righteousness', whose Sermon on the Mount contains 'plain ethics and no
dogmas'! He teaches with the authority of God and lays down the
law of God. He expects people to build the house of their lives on
his words, and adds that only those who do so are wise and will be
safe. He says he has come to fulfil the law and the
prophets. He is both the Lord to be obeyed and the Saviour to
bestow blessing. He casts himself in the central role of the
judgement-day drama. He speaks of God as his Father in a unique
sense, and finally implies that what he does God does and that what
people do to him they are doing to God.
We cannot escape the implication of all this. The claims of Jesus
were indeed put forward so naturally, modestly and indirectly that many
people never even notice them. But they are there; we cannot
ignore them and still retain our integrity. Either they are true,
or Jesus was suffering from what C.S. Lewis called a 'rampant
megalomania'. Can it be seriously maintained, however, that the
lofty ethics of the Sermon on the Mount are the product of a deranged
mind? it requires a high degree of cynicism to reach that conclusion.
The only alternative is to take Jesus at his word, and his claims at
their face value. In this case, we must respond to his Sermon on
the Mount with deadly seriousness. For here is his picture of
God's alternative society. These are the standards, the values and
the priorities of the kingdom of God. Too often the church has
turned away from this challenge and sunk into a bourgeois, conformist
respectability. At such times it is almost indistinguishable from
the world, it has lost its saltness, its light is extinguished and it
repels all idealists. For it gives no evidence that it is God's
new society which is tasting already the joys and powers of the age to
come. Only when the Christian community lives by Christ's
manifesto will the world be attracted and God be glorified. So
when Jesus call us to himself, it is to this that he calls us. For
he is the Lord of the counter-culture.
|
This concludes John
Stott's commentary on the Sermon on the Mount or the Christian
counter-culture |
|