There has been a lot of conversation recently about Jesus teachings, and where we find them. But very little about His commands. In Stan's post about that Great Commission, He makes the point that Jesus is commanding His disciples to go and male disciples. As Stan notes, this command is based on Jesus' authority. Jesus is clear when He says " “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Mat 28:18)", and because of the authority He has been given we are to go and make disciples because He gave the disciples the authority and ability to fulfill His command.
Two things struck me as I was reading Stan's post. First was the difference between a teacher and a king.
Both the king and the teacher have authority. Yet the authority of the teacher is limited and is temporarily given them by higher authority. The authority of the teacher is primarily limited to their conduct within the walls of their classroom or perhaps their school. Within their classroom, they have a great deal of authority delegated to them, outside of their classroom they have less authority, outside of their school they have virtually no authority. Any authority that do have is only their by virtue of being subject to a principle, school board, union, and the state or federal departments of education. Further, their authority diminishes outside of the subject matter that they teach. For example, a gym teacher has very little authority when it comes to teaching biology.
Contrast this with the authority of a king. A king is the ultimate authority within their kingdom. A king answers to no one withing his kingdom. Historically we do see instances where a kingdom is subject to the authority of an empire, Herod for example, yet within Herod's kingdom he was the authority.
As an aside, in a world today where kings are mostly ceremonial we probably don't give their authority much thought.
Now that we've looked at relative authority, how do we respond to what teachers tell us and what kings tell us?
The short answer is that the teachings of a teacher and the commands of a king are two entirely different things. It is much easier and less risky to choose to ignore the teachings of a teacher, than the commands of a king. It's also much easier to pick and choose those who teach you, than those who rule you. In the Jewish tradition one could choose which rabbi to follow based on what they taught and whether you aligned with their teachings. Likewise we are free to choose which schools we attend or send our children to or which religious leaders we want to be taught by. Whether that choice is prompted by style or substance, is immaterial, the choice exists. It's less easy to choose your king.
So, what happens in the case of Jesus were the teacher is also The King? Where The Logos who has existed from before time, and who created all that exists, chooses to step down from His throne and teach His disciples. How do we separate His teachings from His commandments? Can His teachings be dismissed or subordinated to the teachings of someone else? If the Teacher is also the King aren't the consequences for choosing to ignore His teachings more significant? If the Teacher is also the one who has "All authority in Heaven and one earth" should we not take that into account?
When this teacher is asked, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” and replies “The most important one, is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”, is His reply a teaching or a commandment?
Personally, I think that it's easier for us to limit what Jesus said to teachings, because it's easier to ignore or dismiss teachings, than commandments. It's easier to see Jesus as a teacher, even The Teacher, than as The King. But if Jesus isn't The King, and doesn't have "all authority in Heaven and on earth", then why should we consider His teachings authoritative or worth following?
2 comments:
I like this post. It provokes thought about the difference between the two words "command"/"teach" and how they can be swapped to achieve a desired outcome.
I also note how the "Greatest Commandment" is cited to ignore specific commandments one finds personally displeasing as if the "Greatest Commandment" negates it somehow. On the contrary, it should compel one to be more observant of all commandments we are under in order to truly fulfill the the Greatest to love, honor and serve God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength.
I think that there is a desire to reduce commandments which are to be obeyed, to teachings or rules which are not binding.
The problem is that Jesus is clear that those two great commandments encompass every single one of the other commandments, the Law, and the prophets. So, it's actually the opposite.
Post a Comment