32
TRADITION AND INNOVATION Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old (Matt. 13:52).
The theocentric principle here is that God is the Lord of history. The kingdom of God offers those who understand it a way to preserve what is good in history, yet also innovate.
The Old Covenant Scribe The Old Covenant scribe knew the Mosaic law. He was literate. He could read and write. He possessed authority because he possessed this technical understanding. But this was not enough. He also was supposed to understand God's written word. Jesus recognized that His disciples would have to possess comparable knowledge if they were to replace the scribes as agents possessing authority. "Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord" (v. 51). They were confident that they understood, despite the fact that they had just come to ask Him what His parable of the tares and wheat meant.
The disciples had to become masters of understanding and exposition, for the New Covenant church was about to replace the old priestly order. The office of priest would disappear when the temple and its sacrifices ended. What would replace this office? Jesus made the answer clear in this long-ignored passage. The New Testament expositor would be a scribe. He would have to declare the word of God in terms of the Old Covenant and the New. He would have to be a master of the Old Covenant and a minister of the New. Only through such public declaration could he gain greater authority than that possessed by the Old Covenant scribes. Jesus had already begun this transfer of authority. "And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matt. 7:28-29).
Jesus had just finished describing the kingdom of God in a series of parables, analogies, and metaphors. Now He added a final analogy: the scribe, in his capacity as an interpreter of the kingdom, is like a householder with a treasure. Once again, Jesus moved the framework of discussion to the realm of economics.
Oikos The word "economics" comes from the Greek word for house: oikos. This is the Greek root word for "householder," which we find in this passage. The household is the fundamental economic unit because it is where the division of labor begins. Wives help husbands; husbands support wives; both support children. The household is the starting point for a correct understanding of exchange and specialization.
The successful householder possesses treasure. This treasure includes old things: antiques. It also possesses new items. The mix of old and new is basic to the successful household. It is therefore basic to an economy.
The old items represent tradition. Men look back to the past in search of meaning. Who they are today, what they do, and what they possess depend on what took place in the past. Men respect the past because it made possible the present. It shaped the present. Men keep old objects that remind them of what went before, especially whatever went before that endures and is worth preserving.
The passage speaks of treasure. Items from the past have value because they are testimonies to the ways of success. They are also scarce. They are not being produced any longer. They are in limited supply. This makes them valuable when there is demand for them.
The passage also speaks of new items of value. The successful householder is alert to change. He lives in a changing world. He must respond to new demand and new techniques of production employed by his competitors. He must look into the future and guess what conditions will be like then. He must make plans now in order to prepare for the unknown future.
This is why new things are important. The householder possesses new things to make his life more productive or enjoyable. History does not stand still. There is progress. The wise man is alert to the reality of change. He buys or makes new possessions that enable him to keep up. To fail to do this is to fall behind. It is to remove oneself from the world of one's contemporaries.
The New Covenant Scribe The New Covenant was about to replace the Old Covenant. Jesus' ministry was the first stage of this transition. "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you" (Matt. 12:28). His death and resurrection would inaugurate the second stage, which lasted 40 days. On the basis of His resurrection, He announced His new power: "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28:18). Then came His ascension to heaven (Acts 1), which was followed by the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). Finally, the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 marked the completion of the transition -- the end of Old Covenant Israel and the end of new revelation.(1)
This was a covenantal discontinuity. The church would henceforth serve as the scribe: announcing what was still in force of the Old Covenant while applying the New Covenant to specific circumstances. The break from the past was not total. There was continuity, for the same God who revealed Himself in the Old Covenant has revealed Himself in the New. How was the church to regard the kingdom? As something old and new. As something that extended to the whole world that which God had begun in Israel.
The New Covenant scribe therefore looks back to the past and proclaims the future. He honors the past while working toward a far better future. He tells old stories and announces new applications of lessons learned. He is neither a priest nor a prophet. He does not offer sacrifices, nor does he speak with such authority that kings must obey him. He receives no authoritative revelations from God. The canon of Scripture is closed. His authority comes from his understanding of the written word of God, just as the Old Covenant scribe's authority came.
The New Covenant scribe applies to the present the written word's declaration of the past and future. He brings forth treasures of the past and the present. He looks to the future. He is future-oriented in a way that the scribes in Jesus' day should have been but were not.
The Inheritance The biblical concept of inheritance links past, present, and future. Each generation is to add to the inheritance it has received. The inheritance is not so much a bloodline inheritance as confessional. The kingdom of God expands because it is cumulative. It extends over time; therefore it extends over borders. It develops.
Inheritance is normally associated with families. The oikos is the place where children learn of their inheritance: what was left to the household by the forefathers, and what will be left to it. The inheritance is both name and capital. The transition takes place with the death of the testator.
The crucial New Covenant inheritance is eternal life. This inheritance was suggested in the Old Covenant in Daniel 12:1-3. "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." Second, in Job 19:25-27: "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." In the New Covenant, eternal inheritance replaces family inheritance as the central concept of inheritance.
The Epistle to the Hebrews ties eternal inheritance to the death of Christ. "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Heb. 9:13-17).
The biblical doctrine of inheritance provided the basis of the concept of economic growth. Linear history is affirmed by the biblical concept of inheritance. But because the inheritance promised the whole world to the righteous,(2)
it implied the doctrine of corporate economic growth. The inheritance of the faithful would compound over time. This was a revolutionary idea in the ancient world, which believed in cyclical history. Not only is time linear, Jesus taught, it is progressive.
The inheritance passes down through the generations. It is therefore both past-oriented and future-oriented. The past has value today because it confirms God's faithfulness over time. It reinforces covenant-keeping men's faith in the future. The past testifies to the future. The continuity provided by covenantal inheritance gives covenant-keepers confidence in the future.
The Idea of Progress Confidence in the future is vital for risk-bearing and uncertainty-bearing.(3) It is vital to progress. The covenant-keeper can afford to risk much in his efforts to extend God's kingdom. He has inherited much. He has confidence in God's sustaining hand. This or that project may fail, but the kingdom expands. He may fail, but others involved in kingdom projects will succeed. His efforts are part of a comprehensive program of corporate dominion.
The past testifies to the existence of progress. This is the lesson of the householder in the analogy. He has old treasures and new treasures to show as his inheritance. The West is the product of this worldview. Linear history, economic progress, and the covenantal link between past, present, and future have all contributed to the West's doctrine of progress. Men have had faith that their efforts would lead to a better world, not just in heaven but also in history. Progress in the past has proven the reliability of their faith in the future. While this vision of linear progress has become increasingly secularized since the seventeenth century, its roots go deep in the theology of the West.(4)
Conclusion The scribe, not the priest, is the model of the New Covenant pastor. He is to declare the whole counsel of God. He is to seek in the Old Covenant standards for the New. He is to apply Old Covenant principles to New Covenant situations. He is to affirm the continuity of the covenants, just as the householder brings out old and new treasures.
The top priority of the faithful scribe is to understand the progressive continuity of the kingdom of God. He must not neglect the old or the new. He is to look to the past in search of standards for the present. He is to look to God's word in his attempt to envision the future. He works toward the future in the present on the basis of revelation given in the past. He sees cumulative successes in the past and thereby gains hope for the future.
A church that cuts itself off from the present for the sake of the past will wind up out of touch with the present. Its message will carry little authority, just as the Old Covenant scribes in Jesus' day did not possess much authority. It will become a museum for antiquarians. It will not shape the future because it does not attempt to change the present. It calls people out of the present in the name of the past. It calls people to celebrate the past in the name of continuity. But the continuity of evil compounds if it is not overcome by the leaven of righteousness. A call to the past in the name of the past is an abdication in the present in the name of eternity. It cuts the present off from eternity except by way of the past. It ignores the doctrine of progressive corporate sanctification. It leaves the world in the hands of Christ's enemies.
On the other hand, a church that cuts itself off from the past will be forever exhausted trying to keep up with the present. Having no history -- no testament, no inheritance -- it will also have little authority. Having no rudder, it will lose direction in the waves of change. In the name of the present, it destroys faith in the future. Having dismissed the past, the church thereby dismisses the relevance of the present, for why should its heirs in the future honor the present? The tyranny of the present is no less a tyranny than the tyranny of the past, and no less doomed to failure. If anything, the tyranny of the past is more likely to persevere. The tyranny of the past has persevered, so it is likely to continue to persevere.
This is equally true of any organization. A business must keep old customers and attract new ones. A political party must keep old voters and recruit new ones. Any organization that ignores its existing supporters, whose capital and tastes are linked to the past, will be cut off financially. The bulk of any organization's income comes from past customers or supporters. Yet any organization that caters primarily to its existing supporters will find itself buried when they are. The answer is continuity: past, present, and future. The kingdom of God is the model of such continuity, for it extends into eternity (Rev. 21; 22).
Footnotes:
1. Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989).
2. Psalm 25:13; 37:9; 37:11; 37:22.
3. The two are different. Risk is statistically calculable in advance through probability theory. Uncertainty is not. See Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (New York: Harper Torchbooks, [1921] 1965).
4. Robert A. Nisbet, "The Year 2000 And All That," Commentary (June 1968).
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out. icetylertx@aol.com