We read in the Gospels that the efficacy of the words of Jesus was so magnetic that the ordinary people heard him gladly who were amazed by the beauty of the language emanating from his mouth (Mark, 12:37; Luke, 4:22). This was in connection with his mission in general as well as the question of Son of David posed by Jesus himself that could not be answered by even the Doctors of the Law and yet was gladly accepted by the common people (Psalm 110: 1). The reason why the leaned and the wise people of this world were unable to understand a basic text about the Messiah was their inability to see the deeper and fuller meanings of such texts. A literal interpretation of the text, within a regimented and uniform set of rules of the language they used, prevented their understanding of the Messiah both as the Lord and the Son of David. According to their mental attitude, the Messiah had to fit into their forms of thought instead of the other way round, i.e., their forms of thought adjusting to the demands of the reality of the Messiah! The word 'Lord' in the two instances referred to from Psalm 110:1 pertains to two different language-games applied to God the Lord and to Messiah the Lord with different meanings. As applied to the Messiah, it refers to the Lordship conferred on the risen Jesus for which his descent from David as his son was presupposed. Besides, as preexisting Word of God the Messiah in the person of Jesus Christ already preexisted not only David, but also Abraham and even Adam, the progenitor of the human race, whose creation was through and for the Word! Thus the Messiah could both be the Lord and the son of David as he was preexisting with God the Father from eternity.
We have a case of dealing with those who questioned the authority of Jesus by a simple counter-question posed to them about the source of authority in the baptism administered by John the Baptist (Mark, 11:30). Only someone who was fully aware of the undercurrents of the times and surroundings could have asked such a question and silence those who confronted Jesus with a seemingly innocuous query. This shows that effective use of language demands an acquaintance with the forms of life of the people with whom we converse. The language-games emanating out of such forms of life confer meaning to what one says and are solid weapons against speech that is totally unconnected with the daily experiences of life. The chief priests, the lawyers and the elders of the Jewish people of Jesus' time learnt this lesson the hard way as they were put in a dilemma by the question of Jesus about John's baptism (Mark, 11:30; Luke, 20: 4).They knew that they could not give any random answer as it had to be in conformity with the real situations of life experienced by them as well as the people. They made themselves unworthy for an answer from Jesus to their question to him about his authority by their crafty pretension of ignorance about the authority of John the Baptist. As Jesus saw through their intention to trap him in his words for their own designs instead of a readiness to learn from Jesus anything about God, they did not deserve any proper answer. Wasting words without any purpose is a form of violence against the sanctity of words, which should ultimately reflect the Word of God Himself.
One of the most important elements in the meaningful use of language is revealed in the observation of Jesus that if the Jews had really believed in Moses they would have as well believed in him as the expected Messiah (John, 5: 46-47). The element in question is the requirement of application of language to reality for meaning and truth. Lack of application of the Laws of Moses, considered to be of supreme authority by the Jews, in their original and interior sense led the Jewish authorities of the time away from their true meaning and truth resulting in the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. On the contrary, whatever Jesus said and did was corroborated by their application to his own life culminating in his death that was approved by God the Father by raising him from the dead. In other words, primacy of practice over theory is an essential element in the meaningfulness of language just like in the case of any rule that cannot be a rule unless it is observed at least once. A rule that is never observed by anyone is no rule at all and a language that is not capable of being applied to concrete situations of life is no language with meaning in any sense of the word 'language' as commonly understood.
We have a case of dealing with those who questioned the authority of Jesus by a simple counter-question posed to them about the source of authority in the baptism administered by John the Baptist (Mark, 11:30). Only someone who was fully aware of the undercurrents of the times and surroundings could have asked such a question and silence those who confronted Jesus with a seemingly innocuous query. This shows that effective use of language demands an acquaintance with the forms of life of the people with whom we converse. The language-games emanating out of such forms of life confer meaning to what one says and are solid weapons against speech that is totally unconnected with the daily experiences of life. The chief priests, the lawyers and the elders of the Jewish people of Jesus' time learnt this lesson the hard way as they were put in a dilemma by the question of Jesus about John's baptism (Mark, 11:30; Luke, 20: 4).They knew that they could not give any random answer as it had to be in conformity with the real situations of life experienced by them as well as the people. They made themselves unworthy for an answer from Jesus to their question to him about his authority by their crafty pretension of ignorance about the authority of John the Baptist. As Jesus saw through their intention to trap him in his words for their own designs instead of a readiness to learn from Jesus anything about God, they did not deserve any proper answer. Wasting words without any purpose is a form of violence against the sanctity of words, which should ultimately reflect the Word of God Himself.
One of the most important elements in the meaningful use of language is revealed in the observation of Jesus that if the Jews had really believed in Moses they would have as well believed in him as the expected Messiah (John, 5: 46-47). The element in question is the requirement of application of language to reality for meaning and truth. Lack of application of the Laws of Moses, considered to be of supreme authority by the Jews, in their original and interior sense led the Jewish authorities of the time away from their true meaning and truth resulting in the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. On the contrary, whatever Jesus said and did was corroborated by their application to his own life culminating in his death that was approved by God the Father by raising him from the dead. In other words, primacy of practice over theory is an essential element in the meaningfulness of language just like in the case of any rule that cannot be a rule unless it is observed at least once. A rule that is never observed by anyone is no rule at all and a language that is not capable of being applied to concrete situations of life is no language with meaning in any sense of the word 'language' as commonly understood.
No comments:
Post a Comment