Contemporaneousness: what thou dost as a contemporary is the decisive thing*
"He that receiveth a prophet because he is a prophet shall have a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall have a righteous man's reward. And whosoever shall give to drin\ unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward," says our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 10:41,42.
More generous truly than royal or imperial generosity. Only the Deity is so generous!
Yet look a little closer. The question here is about what one does in relation to a contemporary, what one does as a contemporary to the prophet, the disciple. "Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only" — surely it is not on this the emphasis lies. No, the emphasis lies upon "because he is a disciple, a prophet." So then, if a contemporary were to say, "I am certainly very far from regarding the man as a prophet, a disciple; but on the other hand I am perfectly willing to offer him a cup of wine"; or if one who perhaps privately regarded this man as a disciple, a prophet, but because of cowardliness had not the courage to profess his conviction, or meanly took advantage of the consideration that the prophet, the disciple, does not enjoy recognition as such from his contemporaries, took advantage of this to make himself out better than the others by treating the disciple, the prophet, decently, but at a cheaper price — if he were to say, "I do not regard this man as a prophet, but after all he is an extraordinary man, and it gives me pleasure to offer him a cup of wine" — the answer in either case would be, "No, brother, you can keep your cup of wine; it is not about that the Scripture speaks."
It speaks about giving him a cup of water only — but because he is a disciple, a prophet, which means recognizing him fully and clearly for what he truly is. What Christ aims at is recognition for a disciple, a prophet, and that in the situation of contemporaneousness. Whether the recognition is expressed by giving him a cup of cold water, or by giving him a kingdom, is entirely indifferent; the point is contemporaneous recognition. So it is not as the mercenary priests with an eye to the church-rates make people believe, that since ten dollars is more than a cup of cold water, it makes him who gives ten dollars to a prophet, a disciple — but not because he is a prophet, a disciple — far more perfect than is he who gives him a cup of cold water because he is a prophet, a disciple. No, the point is that the gift is "because," being thus an expression of the fact that one recognizes the man for what he truly is.
And this is not easy in the contemporary situation. To this end it is not requisite of course to be oneself a prophet, a disciple; but what one must have is two-thirds the character of a disciple, a prophet — and do not forget that everyone who honestly will can have that. For in the contemporary situation this cup of cold water, or rather this "because," may cost one dear. For in the contemporary situation or in real life the prophet, the disciple, is scorned, derided, hated, cursed, abhorred, in every way persecuted; and thou canst be sure that at the very least the punishment imposed for handing him a cup of water "because he is a disciple" is that spoken of in the New Testament, of being put out of the synagogue, which was the punishment imposed in the contemporary situation for having anything to do with Christ, a fact which priestly mendacity of course "slurs over, conceals, suppresses, omits," whereas it yearns, expresses with hiccoughs, eructations and stifled sobs its inexpressible longing to have been contemporary with Christ...in order presumably to be put out of the synagogue — which naturally is the deepest yearning of salaried men and persons who enjoy official rank.
So then, he who gives a disciple a cup of cold water only, because he is a disciple, shall in no wise lose his reward, he shall have a prophet's reward — and on the other hand he who when the prophet, the disciple, is dead builds his tomb and says, "If we" etc., that man, according to Christ's judgment, is a hypocrite, his guilt is blood-guilt.
He is a hypocrite. It may be that contemporary with him who builds the tomb of the dead prophet there may again be living a prophet whom he in company with others is persecuting. Or if there be living no prophet, there is perhaps a righteous man who suffers for the truth — whom he who builds the tombs of the prophets persecutes as do the others. Or in case there should be no such contemporary living, thy way of avoiding hypocrisy is to make so vividly present the life of the glorious one departed that therewith thou wilt experience the same suffering thou must have experienced if in the contemporary situation thou hadst recognized a prophet as being a prophet.
And if in any way thou art eternally concerned about thy soul, art thinking with fear and trembling of the Judgment and eternity; or on the other hand if in any way thou art uplifted, and wouldst be more so, by the thought of what it is to be a man, and that thou too art a man, akin to the glorious ones, the genuine saints, whose worth therefore is not attested by the spurious marks of profit, stars and titles, but by the genuine marks of poverty, abasement, ill-treatment, persecution — then give good heed to this thought of contemporaneousness, that if in the contemporary situation there be living such a one who suffers for the truth, that thou then suffer what is involved in recognizing him for what he is; or, if there be no such contemporary, that thou make the life of the glorious departed so vividly present that thou wilt suffer like as thou must have suffered in contemporaneousness by recognizing him for what he is. Give good heed to this consideration of contemporaneousness; for the point is not what ado thou dost make over a deceased man; no, but it is what thou art doing in the contemporary situation, or that thou dost make the past so vividly present that thou dost experience the same suffering as if thou wert contemporary with it. This determines what man thou art. On the other hand, to make much ado over a deceased man — well, naturally that too determines what man thou art: that according to the judgment of Jesus thou art a hypocrite, yea, a murderer, more abhorrent to the deceased than those who slew him.
Take then good heed to this thought of contemporaneousness! And to that end do not fail to make thyself acquainted, if already thou hast not done so, with the book I published in 1850, Training in Christianity, for here precisely this thought is stressed. This book as it makes its appearance in the world is for all its militancy a peaceable book. I shall indicate to thee precisely how it stands related to the Established Church, to the official preaching of Christianity, or to the official representative of the official preaching of Christianity, i.e. to Bishop Mynster's preaching of Christianity. If Bishop Mynster says of it straightforwardly, "This truly is Christianity; so it is I myself understand Christianity privately in my heart"; then is the book a glorification of the Bishop Mynster's preaching of Christianity — a thought so infinitely dear to me! If on the other hand Bishop Mynster upon seeing the book so much as blinks at it, not to say violently fires up at it60 — then read it, and thou shalt see that it illuminates the whole of Mynster's preaching of Christianity in such a way that it proves to be an extraordinary, extraordinary, extraordinary, most artful and masterly...optical illusion. That, however, the book cannot help. At all events it is not thine affair. On the other hand, if thou thyself art willing, the book can help thee to become attentive to the thought of contemporaneousness.
And this is the decisive thought! This thought is the central thought of my life. And I may say too with truth that I have had the honor of suffering for bringing this truth to light. Therefore I die gladly, with infinite gratitude to Governance that to me it was granted to be aware of this thought and to make others attentive to it. Not that I have discovered it. God forbid that I should be guilty of such presumption. No, the discovery is an old one, it is that of the New Testament. But nevertheless to me it was granted in suffering to bring this thought again to remembrance, this thought which, like ratsbane for rats, is poison for the "docents,"* this vermin which really is what has brought Christianity to ruin, these noble men who build the tombs of the prophets, objectively expound their doctrine in lectures, derive profit (presumably objectively, are proud presumably of their objectivity, for the subjective is morbid and affected) out of the suffering and death of these glorious ones, but themselves (naturally by the aid of this much lauded objectivity) keep aloof, far removed from everything which in the remotest way might resemble suffering in likeness with the glorious ones, or such suffering as one would have had to experience if in the contemporary situation one had recognized the glorious ones for what they were.
Contemporaneousness is the decisive thought. Imagine a witness to the truth, that is, one of the derivative patterns. For a long time he holds out, suffering all sorts of ill-treatment and persecution. Finally they take his life. Cruelly they determine the manner of his death, that he is to be burnt alive. With inventive cruelty they determine more precisely that over a slow fire he is to be broiled upon a grill.
Imagine this! Earnestness and Christianity require that thou make this so vivid to thyself that thou dost experience the suffering thou must have experienced if in the contemporary situation thou hadst recognized the man for what he is.
This is earnestness and Christianity. Rather different is the bestial practice to which the priests make no objection. Thus one bids good-bye to the witness to the truth and all his sufferings — and yet, no, this is not yet the really bestial thing. No, one says, "We will not forget the glorious one; therefore we resolve that December 17,61 which was the day of his death, shall be celebrated in his memory. And in order to keep well in mind the impression of his life, and in order that our life too may acquire 'some likeness' to his, as 'an effort' in that direction, be it solemnly ordained that every household shall eat a broiled fish, broiled, be it noted (do not miss the point), upon a grill; and the most delicious part the priest shall have." That is, the divine worship which consists in suffering for the truth, yea, suffering unto death, is exchanged for the worship of eating and drinking, with the priest getting the best piece — the genuine (official) Christianity, where the priest, like the broiled fish in its way, contributes his part in exalting the solemnity of the day, by a charming speech, it may be, thereby assuring himself of an increasing income in the course of years, perhaps of making a brilliant career, perhaps so brilliant that he goes clad in silk and velvet, bedecked with stars and ribbons.
This is only an example. I admit too that none of the derived patterns obliges every man absolutely — but neither does it oblige him to bestiality. And if the derived patterns do not absolutely oblige us, nor oblige absolutely every man; on the other hand, the Pattern, Jesus Christ, does oblige us absolutely, and obliges absolutely every man. If then in thy time there is no one living who suffers for the truth, so that thou wouldst encounter suffering if (as is indeed Christianly thy duty, is Christianly the requirement) thou wert to recognize him for what he truly is — then thou art to make the Pattern so vividly present that thou dost experience such suffering as if in contemporaneousness thou hadst recognized him for what he is. All ado made afterwards, all ado about building his tomb etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., is, according to the judgment of Jesus Christ, hypocrisy and the same blood-guilt as that of those who put Him to death.
This is the Christian requirement. The mildest, mildest form for it after all is surely that which I have used in Training in Christianity: that thou must admit that this is the requirement, and then have recourse to grace. But not only not to be willing to comply with the requirement, but to want to have the requirement suppressed — and then on the other hand to want to spend money upon a monumental tomb, which is what the priest, for good reasons, calls being an earnest Christian — is what our Lord Jesus Christ certainly sought most of all to prevent.
Kierkegaard's Footnotes
*This article dates from 1853, except that here and there I have inserted a few lines or altered a word; but the article as a whole dates from 1853. What my judgment is about the concluding paragraph, the reader will know from my article in the Fatherland entitled "With regard to the new edition of Training in Christianity" [pp. 54 f. in this volume].
*Cf. Fear and Trembling, where for the first time I took aim at the docents, these base characters, of whom it is said [pp. 95 ff. in the American edition] that "No robber of temples condemned to hard labor behind iron bars is so base a criminal as the man who pillages holy things, and even Judas who sold his Master for thirty pieces of silver is not more despicable than the man who makes traffic of the great."
Translator's Footnotes
60As Mynster in fact did. I refer again to the Journal, or rather to the quotation from it in my Kierkegaard, p. 514.
61Not the festival of St. Lawrence, which is Aug. 10. S. K. seems to have chosen deliberately almost the only day which in the Roman Calendar is dedicated to no saint. He also seems to have invented the peculiar celebration of this festival — perhaps in ridicule of certain well-known customs, like hot cross buns on Good Friday.