The Costly Alternative [Exodus 33.12-17] (21 July 2002)

For the associates PowerPoint presentation click here.

“Grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a person his or her life, and it is grace because it gives a person the only true life.” That is how Dietrich Bonhoeffer described the kind of grace he found in the Sermon on the Mount—a sermon, which he believed described to us the Cost of Discipleship. However, this speaks of what it costs us.

But, what does it cost God? If God rains his grace so freely on us, does that mean it costs him nothing? Bonhoeffer argues that even to God the cost is immense because God paid for it with the life of his Son. Now, I do not intend to play down that sacrifice, but is there no other cost involved from God's side?

We are used to thinking of grace as a New Testament concept foreign to the Old Testament, which is characterized by Law. Being a Lutheran, Bonhoeffer displays this kind of thinking in his book The Cost of Discipleship. However, God is no Lutheran! Little did he know that grace was to come later! Why then does the passage we just read contain grace—not just as a concept, but even the cost? Maybe you did not recognize it. Maybe you still think it is not there in the passage. Maybe I've finally jumped off the exegetical deep end!

Or maybe the problem is that we are so accustomed to the word "grace" that we are unable to see nuances that we are not familiar with. Since we are dealing with a passage from the Old Testament, maybe we should use the Old Testament concept of covenant faithfulness to describe what we normally call grace. We can then say with Bonhoeffer that covenant faithfulness is costly because it costs us our lives, and it is covenant faithfulness because it gives us the only true life.

In order to understand this we need to place the passage in its proper context. Israel has very recently come out of Egypt. Yahweh has promised to take them from a land of bondage to a land of freedom—flowing with milk and honey. He asks them to stop at Sinai so that he can give them the laws by which he wants them to live. So he calls Moses up to the top of the mount. We all have probably seen the Ten Commandments. I remember the scene quite well. A frightened Charlton Hesston ascends the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments. As Yahweh speaks each commandment, we see a fiery bolt lash out at the tablets and inscribe those very words.

But even as Yahweh is speaking the first two commandments, the people of Israel have already broken them. With the help of Aaron, they have built a golden calf, which they proceed to worship. In Yahweh's eyes, they have already broken the covenant he had made with them.

These days, the exposure of fraud within a number of corporations provides a stark example of how these corporations have broken trust with their stockholders. Would you think of investing in Enron or WorldCom now? Probably not! People are probably wondering if they can invest anywhere. No one wants to have anything to do with such fraudulent companies. Broken trust is often merely a prelude to a broken relationship.

That is precisely how Yahweh responds to Israel's idolatry. He tells Moses to let him visit the Israelite camp in order to destroy them. This is important to grasp. We all too often take God's presence very lightly. Yahweh says that his presence among a sinful people would destroy them. Moses knows this well and argues with Yahweh. Yahweh suggests that he will fulfill his promise to Abraham through Moses after he destroys the people of Israel. Moses does not accept this option. He asks Yahweh to destroy him with the Israelites.

In response, Yahweh gives Moses an option. He will spare the Israelites. He will send his angel to lead them. He will give them the Promised Land. But he will not go with them.

So Israel has two options. On the one hand, Yahweh promises them his presence. But his presence will destroy them. On the other hand, Yahweh promises them his absence. And his absence will preserve them.

But is this even a choice? Moses realizes that it is not. For both options have the same result—no people of Yahweh. The first option is clear. The Israelites will not be alive to be the people of Yahweh. But what about the second option? They would, after all, be alive!

I remember clearly a scene from the movie Air Force One. Harrison Ford has been fighting the main villain on the presidential aircraft, Air Force One. That airplane, however, is in a nosedive. After many breathtaking moments, he is taken aboard the refueling plane as Air Force One crashes into the sea. The control tower wants to know the status of the president. A voice crackles over the radio, “Control tower to Liberty-Two-Four, how is the president?” They want to know whether the president is alive and well. The response from the refueling plane, “Liberty-Two-Four to control tower, Liberty-Two-Four is now Air Force One. Repeat, Liberty-Two-Four is now Air Force One.”

What audacity! The common refueling plane dares to call itself Air Force One! What changed? The president had come aboard, not just to visit, but to fly in on this trip. That altered everything. The presence of the president on that lowly plane, transformed it into the flagship.

So it is with the Israelites. Without Yahweh’s presence, they would go into a nosedive and stop being the people of Yahweh. But with Yahweh’s presence, even this idolatrous people would have to be called the people of Yahweh.

Quite understandably, Moses does not care for either of the options Yahweh gives Israel. So he suggests two options of his own. But before doing so, he reminds Yahweh, “Consider that this nation is your people.” We could spend hours debating whether God needs to be reminded of such things or not. But that is not the thrust of the passage. What Moses is saying is this. Israel and Yahweh belong together precisely because Yahweh has dared to call Israel his people. Therefore, Moses dares to tell Yahweh that the options Yahweh has given them are inconceivable. They do not account for the fact that Israel is Yahweh’s people. So Moses, the mediator of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, suggests two options which would preserve that covenant. But only one of them would also preserve Yahweh’s covenant with the patriarchs. What, then, are Moses’ suggestions?

First, if Yahweh would not go with the Israelites to Canaan, Moses asks Yahweh to let them stay at Sinai. Sinai had been the place where the Israelites had been most acutely aware of Yahweh’s presence. From this mountain, they had experienced Yahweh. The thunder at the top of Sinai had seemed like the very voice of Yahweh. The lightning was like Yahweh’s hand reaching down to brand them as his own. Never again would they witness the terror involved when creator would touch creation. The events at Sinai would prove to be so singular that Israel would consider itself married to Yahweh! Yes, Sinai was where they had met their God. And Moses asks Yahweh to let them stay there. In order to be the people of Yahweh, Israel had to be where Yahweh was. And if Yahweh had chosen not to move from Sinai, then Moses begs him to let Israel stay at Sinai.

At the face of it, there seems to be no problem. What would be so problematic if Israel stayed at Sinai? Surely Yahweh could give them Sinai and the surrounding land! Surely! But Moses is implicitly reminding Yahweh of his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Yahweh had promised them the land occupied by the Canaanites. What would happen to that promise? It would never be fulfilled! And Yahweh would prove to have lied to the patriarchs! God forbid! Exactly! Yahweh can no sooner accept this option than a camel could pass through the eye of a needle.

But Moses has another option for Yahweh. He suggests that Yahweh could go with the people of Israel to Canaan. The argument is twofold. On the one hand, Yahweh had promised the land of Canaan to the descendants of the patriarchs. Therefore, Yahweh had to get the Israelites to Canaan. On the other hand, Yahweh had branded Israel as his people. Therefore, he had to be where they were.

Yahweh had made too many covenants! And by his nature, he had to be faithful to his covenants. He had placed no conditions when he promised the land of Canaan to the patriarchs. He had unilaterally taken the Israelites as his people. Yet these Israelites were guilty of idolatry! And Yahweh, the only true God, the Holy One of Israel, detests idolatry. Something had to give.

Yahweh had demanded sole allegiance to him. He was not going to share this people with idols! Yet, this people were double-minded. Yahweh would be justified in destroying them. But his promises would prove empty. And that Yahweh cannot allow! So Yahweh turns the tables on Israel and Moses.

He will be true to his promises. He will bring the Israelites to Canaan. He will go with them. But at a cost. Now his face will be veiled. Whereas in 33.11 the text says that “Yahweh used to speak to Moses face to face” in 33.20 Yahweh tells Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no one shall see me and live.” Something drastic has happened during the course of Moses’ intercession. Yahweh has veiled himself. He will certainly go with Israel. He will certainly lead them into Canaan. But from now on, no one will be able to see him. And it is significant that no one after Moses ever sees Yahweh face to face. And no one after Moses is called Yahweh’s friend.

There is, therefore, a cost to covenant faithfulness even on God’s part. To be sure, mercy triumphs over judgment. To be sure, God forgives us as a people even as he forgave Israel. And this forgiveness allows him to be present with his people and not destroy them. And his presence ensures that his people remain his people.

It is difficult to live with a hidden God. How often have we felt that our prayers go unheard? Do we not at times wonder if God is listening? And the fact that many sins are more frequent within the church than outside, has made many non-Christians question if God is indeed among the Christians.

Some Christians have tried to solve the problem of God’s hiddenness by looking to the beatitude: “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” The conclusion is that, if only we’d clean up our act, if only we refrained from sinning, we would see God. Some Christians have concluded that there must be something known as the beatific vision—that is, the vision of God described by Jesus in the beatitude. These Christians have tried to purge themselves of all impurities and sins in order to earn the beatific vision.

I see three problems with such thinking. First, such striving is contrary to grace. Grace is, after all, a gift given without regard to our efforts. The contention that we can earn a vision of God is ultimately based on the erroneous idea that we can twist God’s arm to force him to do something.

Second, which of us has managed, by our striving, to conquer sin? As Paul writes in Romans 7: What I want to do, I do not do; what I do not want to do, I do. In other words, striving not to sin is counter-productive. Our only hope is to live lives led by the Spirit. You see, we often think that the worst we can do is to sin. However, sinning is not the worst we can do. Our worst is not asking God’s forgiveness when we sin. God can deal will sin. Indeed, in Jesus, he has. But what can God do in the face of people, who like Adam and Eve attempt to cover their sin?

Third, the assumption is that God’s hiddenness is at odds with his being the dispenser of grace and that we must do something to rectify the situation. The assumption is that God is trying to show himself to us, but that we are blocking him. This makes God out to be weaker than we are.

The three errors I have highlighted have a common thread—arrogance, human arrogance. And it stems from the notion that in the present relationship between God and humans, only humans have to pay a high cost. The errors consider that God’s cost is limited to his giving of Jesus.

But there is a continuing cost on God’s part. God’s giving of Jesus should show us not that God gave sacrificially at one time, but that God is by nature a sacrificial giver. His giving extends to the way in which he remains faithful to his covenants.

In order to be faithful to his covenants, this God, who earnestly desires to reveal himself, must veil himself. God has temporarily set aside his desire to fully reveal himself. The golden calf incident is the archetype of all idolatry. And if the people of God are guilty of idolatry, God must hide himself from his people, even though he forgives them and promises them his presence. Even today, we live in the painful reality that God is in fact hidden from us. For the promise of the New Testament is that in the new creation nothing accursed will be found there anymore. But the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him; they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.

Covenant faithfulness or grace does not come to us cheap. While we can rest secure in Jesus’ finished work, we must not forget the turmoil that the offer of grace creates at the very core of God’s being. God is patient and slow to anger. And so he forgives us. He knows that sending us alone would destroy us. And so he promises us his presence. But he is holy. He cannot look directly at sinners without consuming them. And so he graciously hides his face from us. And there is the turmoil. Even as we wait with hope to see his face, God, who so desires to unveil himself to us, must put off that desire. And he waits patiently and eagerly for the day when he will finally, safely show us his face.

When we celebrate communion, we often do so remembering Jesus’ death for us. This is appropriate. In addition, however, communion is also a remembrance of Jesus’ absence. That is how Luke records the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Let me read from Luke 22.14-23.

Did you notice v. 18? Jesus says, “From now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Why? We know, from Jesus’ own words, that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard because he celebrated the reign of God with the worst of sinners. As Jesus himself said, “There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over a hundred people who do not need repentance.” In other words, Jesus enjoys a good party, a boisterous celebration. Yet, now he is abstaining. The Last Supper is not only Jesus’ institution of the New Covenant, but also his last celebration.

Moreover, when we eat the bread and drink the wine, we may talk all we want about the acts being symbolic or remembrances. We can debate whether Jesus is present in the elements or the act. But what we all mean in these debates, but probably are afraid to admit, is that Jesus is absent. We may say he is here spiritually. But that just hammers home the fact that he is physically absent. And Jesus said he would not celebrate until he was physically present. That is what we observe in communion—the awful fact that Jesus is now not fully with us.

As we come forward to partake of the elements, I urge you to focus on Jesus’ absence. Try to experience the emptiness that this chair symbolizes. Please dip the bread in the juice and take it back to your seat. Imagine the sorrow Jesus must experience at not being able physically to celebrate our salvation with us. Imagine how things might be different were Jesus here. Then eat the elements with gratitude not only for Jesus’ death but also for his waiting to revel with us.

...And Remember [Matthew 28.16-20] (12 November 2000)

It’s a scene that sticks in the mind of anyone who has seen the movie. A motley trio attempting to rescue Princess Buttercup who is about to be forced to marry the evil Prince Humperdinck. Wesley, the hero, just been barely resuscitated from a state of being almost dead, Inigo Montoyo, the Spaniard seeking to avenge his father’s murder, and Fezek, the giant aiding them are looking down across the moat toward the castle in which Wesley’s beloved Buttercup is being held prisoner. In this strange group huddle they come up with a plan of action. But we must leave them there for now.

After all, we have Jesus to deal with! Now we will be concentrating on vv. 16-20. Yet I chose to read all of chapter 28 because the way in which Matthew tells his story is brilliant. Now each of the four Gospels tells the same story differently. For instance, only Luke has an account of the ascension. Only Matthew has the account of the lie told by the soldiers. Only John does not have an account of the transfiguration. The differences help us understand the special emphases each of the evangelists had when they wrote their Gospels. And we will see how the way Matthew tells his story impacts us today.

What do you think is the main point of Matthew 28.16-20? What title would you use to describe the passage?

Now on Monday, quite out of the blue, Mark called me and asked me if I would be willing to preach. I accepted and asked him whether he had a specific text in mind. He told me he would like to continue with the theme of encouragement. This time from the New Testament. Now the Greek word for encouragement is ‘paraklesis' from the verb ‘parakaleo' which means “to encourage”. It is also from this verb that we get the word ‘parakletos' or Paraclete, one of the titles in John’s Gospel for the Holy Spirit. None of these words appear in our passage. Why then are we dealing with it now? Well, for a passage to deal with a certain subject—in this case encouragement—it does not have to have the word “encouragement” in it. After all, if a friend needs encouragement, you scarcely go up to him or her and say, “Here, let me encourage you.” No, you would most likely listen, offer advice, or give an encouraging hug. So if you want to be encouraged by scripture, go to a passage that encourages, and not just a passage that has the word!

And the final words of Matthew’s Gospel are all about encouragement. Now for encouragement to be truly effective there need to be some elements. Let us treat them one by one.

I don’t know how many of you have heard Another Brick in the Wall, Pt 2 by Pink Floyd. The song goes: “We don’t need no education/ We don’t need no thought control/ No dark sarcasm in the classroom/ Teachers leave us kids alone.” The movie The Wall is quite bizarre. While this song is being sung, we see a whole bunch of children, dressed up identically as students, marching like zombies into a sausage making machine that symbolizes the education system. Much of The Wall deals with the main character’s feeling of futility. For him, life has no purpose and so he goes through it like a zombie, trying his best to give it a kickstart but only becoming increasingly suicidal.

An opposite picture is painted in The Dead Poets’ Society. There Robin Williams is an English teacher at a snooty school. The students initially feel much like the kids in The Wall. However, Robin Williams proves to be innovative. He gives them something that the school administration would disapprove of. But it includes reading poetry! The students dislike the school administration more than they dislike poetry and the teacher knows it. His plan gives them purpose—that of pooh-poohing the establishment. This is what the kids in The Wall lacked.

But this is what Jesus gives his disciples. He tells them, “As you go, disciple all nations, by baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and by teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” What a purpose! The scope is so large that the whole world is included. Yet it is so individual. After all, each person is unique implying that disciples cannot be produced on a assembly line. It is so specific. Disciples are to obey everything that Jesus has commanded. In other words, discipleship centers around Jesus. And what a privilege to be able to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! Could they get any higher name!? Jesus is such a genius! In order to encourage his disciples, he gives them a purpose beyond which there can be no other.

However, a purpose alone is not enough as seen in the novel Moby Dick by Herman Melville. The main character, Captain Ahab, has a very specific and motivating purpose—that of killing the enormous whale Moby Dick who had bitten off one of Ahab’s legs. However, Ahab fails and fails miserably because he fails to realize that, between Moby Dick and himself, he was by far the weaker of the two. Ahab just did not have the power to fulfill his purpose. And so he ends up on the back of Moby Dick trying to drive a harpoon into the whale and failing at that too.

Ah, but Jesus is great. He gives his disciples the most challenging purpose ever. And lest they say, “Great purpose! But you gotta be kiddin’!” he precedes it with the words, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Talk about power to match the purpose! Not just some authority but all. Not just in heaven but also on earth—exactly where the disciples would need it if they are to disciple all the nations. Moreover, Jesus does not say, “I have all authority” but “All authority has been given to me.” The use of the passive is typical in Jewish circles when God is the initiator but the speaker wants to avoid the use of God’s name. Jesus is saying, therefore, “God has given me all authority.” This indicates that Jesus has not stolen it but is the one to whom by God’s will all authority rightly belongs. So no one can strip him of this authority. What a backing the disciples have! Jesus is such a masterful encourager! How do you motivate and encourage a bunch of doubting disciples? Give them a charge to beat all others. And provide them with the assurance that there is power—enough and more—to fulfill the charge.

Now just as purpose without power is not enough, power without purpose is also insufficient. In a world that does not understand them and their powers, Xavier’s School for Gifted Children provide the budding mutants of The X-Men with purpose. Without that purpose, they would be like Rogue who is unable to touch any other human because of the power she has. But at the school, Dr. Xavier teaches her and the other mutant students to direct and control their powers so that they benefit and not harm humans.

So also Jesus does not only give the assurance of power. He couples it with the command to teach all nations to obey him. The disciples are not to go around calling down fire from heaven because the power available to them is available for the purpose of bringing the world to obey Jesus.

We would think that this is enough. Purpose and power together provide proper protection against potential misuse of either. However, is that enough?

The title song of Friends seems to indicate there is a little more. Through life’s ups and downs the refrain is “I’ll be there for you.” Supposedly each of the six friends commits to the other five his or her support through the struggles of life.

The song Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits puts it in stronger terms, “Through these fields of destruction/ Baptisms of fire/ I’ve watched all your suffering/ As the battles raged higher/ And though they did hurt me so bad/ In the fear and alarm/ You did not desert me/ My brothers in arms.” The song is sung by a soldier mortally wounded in battle. His comrades carry him out to safety putting their lives at risk though they know he will soon die. Much starker imagery than the chirpy title song of Friends!

In our passage Jesus has given his disciples a brilliant purpose. He has assured them of enough power to fulfill the purpose. But now he tops all of this by promising his presence, “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” That is why Matthew does not record the ascension. For Jesus is with his church. Not just for his church as a crutch or support as in the Friends song. But rather as a comrade and commander as in Brothers In Arms.

Now Jesus does not pull this idea from out of thin air. He does not think, “Hmm. It would be good if I promised them my presence.” No! Jesus is drawing from a very crucial strand of Old Testament theology—one that, unfortunately, too many Christians do not understand or do not emphasize. It is a strand of theology without which Old Testament prophecy cannot be understood.

This strand of theology starts in Genesis 3.8 where God walks in the garden in order to have a rendezvous with Adam and Eve. However, it says, “The man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God.” Then in Genesis 4.16 we are told, “Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.” In Exodus 33.15-16 Moses tells God, “If your presence will not go, do not carry us up from here. For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people, unless you go with us?” At the time of the exile Ezekiel ascribes the atrocities the Israelites faced at the hands of the Babylonians to his vision of the glory of God departing from the temple and from Jerusalem. And Ezekiel sees that the restoration of Israel will only be possible if God will return to live among his people. It is this strand of theology, so rich and so evocative, that Jesus draws upon. It is the biggest promise that Jesus could make because the sign that God had begun to reign on earth and had restored his people was that he was also dwelling with his people. But if this is true, if God is really with the church in the person of Jesus, what are Christians called to do?

And it is here that we come to the rest of chapter 28 and Matthew’s brilliant storytelling skills. Chapter 28 does not have only one commission—commonly known as the Great Commission. Rather, there are three commissions. In vv. 5-10 we have the first commission. It is first issued by the angel at the tomb, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’” Jesus repeats the command, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” The major elements are the same. The women are not to be afraid and they are to tell the disciples to go to Galilee where they would see Jesus. The difference is that the angel refers to the disciples as “his disciples” while Jesus calls them “my brothers”—they are to be brothers in arms, which is why in Matthew 11 Jesus calls his disciples to be yoked together with him. The command to the women is specific and there is an incentive for them when the angel says, “He has been raised.” And there is the assurance that they will see the risen Jesus. They proceed to fulfill the command. How, otherwise, would the eleven disciples have known to go to Galilee as they did?

Then there is a switch of scene. Now the priests issue a command to the soldiers, “You must say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.” The soldiers are also given incentives—money and the assurance that they will not be punished by the governor. And they too fulfilled their command. So Matthew tells us, “So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story is still told among the Jews to this day.”

Then we come to vv. 16-20. Here too is a command, “As you go, disciple all the nations.” Here too there are incentives—that all authority belongs to Jesus and that he will be with his disciples always. But what is missing? There is no account of the fulfillment of the command.

We can take this in two ways. First, we could understand that the command was not fulfilled. If that is how the reader reads this, the reader is expected to say, “What!? With so much backing, why did they not fulfill the command? What more could Jesus have offered?” This is not, however, how Matthew intends us to take it.

Second, we could understand that the command is being fulfilled. Quite evidently it is not completed. But we could understand that it is in process of being completed. This is how Matthew would have us understand the passage. “But how,” a reader may ask, “am I supposed to know that this is how Matthew wants us to read it?” Or getting back to The Princess Bride, what do Wesley, Inigo and Fezek do next? If you do not already know it, you’ve gotta see the movie!

Similarly, Matthew would reply, “Ah! For that you would have to assume my position. You would have to be a Christian. For only Christians can see the fact that Jesus is present with his church. In other words, you have to make Jesus’ story a vital part of your story. And his story is one that will give you purpose, power, and the promise of his presence. What more encouragement can you need?”