Calvin Synod Herald, 1973 (73. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

1973-02-01 / 2. szám

REFORMÁTUSOK LAPJA

3

Devotion for the Executive Council, October 17, 1972

In our first meditation we noticed that as Jesus readied himself for God’s service, he had to wrestle with two basic questions: (1) Who am I? and (2) What am I supposed to do? Needless to say: the two belong together: what we think about ourselves will determine what we are going to do. The identity crisis is closely linked to the crisis of the ministry — personally, politically and ecclesiastically alike. But even if we solve our identity crisis, the problem of ministry is not automatically cleared. Not even if we turn to the Scriptures! For the Scriptures do not offer an unabiguous program to solve the human predicament. As we see in the temptation story, there was not one way, but many ways before Jesus: all plausible, reasonable, and scriptural. Yet Jesus saw the demonic in all and it is important that we, too, recognize the possible demonic twists of our ministry.

The first temptation is phrased this way: “IF vou are the Son of God, command these stones to become bread!” All interpreters agree that the scope of this temptation was both personal and social. Personally, Jesus was tempted to use his God-given potentials for the satisfaction of his own immediate physical needs, and thus to prove his sonship by a miraculous transformation of stones into bread. That God feeds his own servants miraculously in the wilderness was a real possibility for Jesus. Wouldn’t you do it if you would have the power? I would even justify my actions by saying, “after all: I am human, I have to eat, too!” Yet, Jesus rejected this temptation, because sonship cannot he proven by miraculous signs. Let us suppose Jesus transformed the stones into bread, would this prove to himself or to others that he was the Son of God? I doubt it. For sonship can be proven only by filial relationship in faithful obedience. Therefore, he said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” In other words, he showed that lie teas the Son of God not by satisfying his own senses and needs miraculously but by being obedient and trustful, moment by moment, until his death. “My food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work” (John 4:34).

Even greater was the social pull of this temptation: “Feed the people!” In a country of which not more than one-fifth of the land was arable under the best conditions and which was frequently plagued by drought and flood, bread was a greatly needed commodity. Besides, was God not providing bread from heaven for his people when Moses led them in the wilderness? What’s wrong if we help hungry people? Is this not the command of the Lord? Was the messianic kingdom not promise of a land where people hunger and thirst no more?

In short, we do not understand this temptation or the other two, until we ask with indignation, how could a compassionate Savior refuse such a possibility? And in the light of Jesus’ total ministry (which is the only real interpretation of the temptation story) we see that his rejection of this temptation did not mean that he was not concerned about man’s physical need. He taught the disciples to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread,” and provided food for them as well as for the multitude, sometimes even miraculously! The parables (Good Samaritan, Last Judgment, etc.) clearly indicate that our Lord had a deep concern for man’s physical need. The temptation story, therefore, cannot be used as an excuse for justice. Not especially in an age when every 8.6 seconds someone dies as a result of malnutrition (417 per hour) . . . However, in Jesus’ attitude we have to learn that the Christian ministry is more than meeting the physical need of our fellowman. Jesus rejected the first temptation not because it was outright evil, but because it was not good enough. (Kierkegaard liked to define the demonic as fear from the good.) “Man shall not live by bread ALONE.” Evidently the suggestion was that he should center his mission in an economic crusade solely and primarily: “Give them free bread, bread without work, and they will follow you with enthusiasm! It will satisfy them completely!” But, regardless how you try to prove this idea experimentally, it is a lie! Did the people follow Moses when he gave them bread from heaven? No! In their hearts they remained rebellious against the covenant, and none of them entered the promised land. Food alone, improved economic conditions alone, riches and material wealth alone never really satisfy man. Therefore Jesus Christ did not setttle to be a social worker, for he has more to offer: new life, new heart, new relationship to God and man. He is not a heavenly baker, but the Bread of Life!

Then the devil came with another idea. It is even more subtle than the first one. In Luke’s gospel it is listed as the climactic third one and called by some interpreters as the supreme temptation. “IF you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written.” “He will give his angels charge of you. ..” The temptation again has both a personal and a social impact. As for its personal force, if Jesus should cast himself headlong in some utter risk, he could prove both his own trust and God’s power. Is not this what Malachi meant when he said: “The Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple.” Did Moses not prove his identity to the people by performing signs and miracles both in Egypt and in the wilderness?... As for its social force, he could imagine the crowd watching him on