Gordon Clark: Primarily a Teacher? (The Southern Presbyterian Journal)

1956. Primarily a Teacher? The Southern Presbyterian Journal. Jun. 6. pgs. 5-6.

Primarily a Teacher?

By Gordon H. Clark

This summer there is to appear a volume by E. E. Tilden, Jr., entitled Toward Understanding Jesus. The advance notice indicates that one of the author's assumptions is that Jesus was primarily a teacher. Although no review can be written before the book is seen, and though therefore what follows does not directly envisage this book, one can ask independently whether Jesus was in fact primarily a teacher. Would this presupposition tend to produce an accurate study of Jesus or would it tend to distort the picture?

Of course, Jesus was a teacher to some extent. Fie taught certain moral principles as exemplified in the Beatitudes. He also taught some profound theology: his concept of Messiah, and the sovereignty, which he shared with his Father, of selecting the recipients of revelation (Mt. 1 1:25-27). But though he taught, can it be said that he was primarily a teacher? Does his fame, does his significance, depend chiefly on his teaching career?

To answer this question, comparison might well be made between Jesus and some acknowledged great teachers. Plato, Kant, and the grand old man of many a small college have been great teachers. Characteristic of them all is their length of service. They taught several generations of students. And if some teacher enjoyed a shorter span of life, it is still clear that men do not achieve fame in teaching with only three years to their credit.

In the next place, a great teacher manages to get his instruction across to the majority, if not to the dullest, of his students. Judged on this basis, Jesus was not altogether a success. His disciples rather uniformly misunderstood what he said. Nor can he be defended by the excuse that he was unfortunately stuck with duller than average pupils: he had chosen them himself. Had he been a great teacher, he would have selected more intelligent material. But to the end Jesus upbraided his disciples for their failure to understand.

But above all, to say that Jesus was primarily a teacher is to contradict his explicit statements. Such an assumption ignores the expressions of purpose that Jesus himself made, and thus leads to distortion. How can an author expect to be historically accurate if he disparages the sources?

Note these claims made by Jesus himself: the Son of Man came... to give his life a ransom for many; the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost; I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. And if Christ's words continue to verse 16, we may add, God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. If perchance these words are not Christ's own, but John's comment, the verse nonetheless testifies to the original and uniform Christian position. Cf. Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:11-17; I Jn. 3:8. For further profitable and interesting study, see The Typology of Scripture, by Patrick Fairbairn, 1900 edition, Vol. I, pp. 98 ff, and The Christian View of God and the World, by James Orr, sixth edition, pp. 276 ff.

Undoubtedly Jesus taught; but he came to die. His primary purpose was to purchase redemption by his blood. The main burden of teaching could safely be left to Paul; but no one else could bear our sins in his own body on the tree. Any contrary view not merely distorts, but rather obliterates the Jesus who came to save his people from their sins.