New Thoughts (05/02/09-05/09/09)
This is one of those passages where I really find it necessary to get into the scene, as it were. The narrative is brief, but what lays beneath the narrative? What was the nature of that council composed of priests, scribes and Pharisees? These were men of influence, but for widely differing reasons and with widely divergent viewpoints. The political intrigues that simmered amongst those in the room must be recognized. The differing theologies and perspectives must be accounted for. Indeed, a reasonable understanding of the culture in that time and place, assumed by John as he writes, is something I shall have to reconstruct to gain the full power of this passage.
This need struck me from the start, and my preparations have focused largely on identifying the nature of the cast that is presented. We have the Pharisees, of course, and then the ‘chief priests’. One notes that these two groups are kept carefully distinct in what is said. It is the chief priests and the Pharisees. It is the rulers or the Pharisees – something of a tacit admission of those differences in viewpoint between the two groups. We have also, the officers of the Temple. These are not of the Temple Guard itself, but appear to be more along the lines of assistants to the Pharisees on the council, given that it was the Pharisees who sent them to the task in John 7:32. That assumption may not be correct, though.
By and large, I have to say that it is Nicodemus himself who most draws my attention as I look at the text. Though he is given only this one line to speak, he is clearly the lead character in this scene. Arguably, he is the only character of any real import. Nothing is said of where this leads for him, and next to nothing is said of how he comes to matter to us in this instance – only enough to say, yes, it’s the same guy John was talking about earlier. I’ll get into what I see as his importance later on, but he is, in spite of the minimal mention given him, important.
As to the nature of the priests, the Pharisees, and the officers that populate the stage set for our perusal, I think enough has probably been said in the preparatory notes. As such, I won’t spend much time rehashing it here, other than to explore a few particulars that caught my attention. One question that I had, though, is whether we ought to make anything of the distinction between chief priest and ruler, as John uses the terms here. He is not alone in using the two terms. The same terms appear in Luke 23:13, and in that instance, they are so closely coupled as to suggest the necessity of hearing them as two distinct references. “Pilate summoned the chief priests and the rulers and the people.” There is a certain class distinction being drawn here, isn’t there? And, it seems to be in line with the way the culture understood itself. I.e. – it wasn’t some foreign sense of order that Luke was imposing on his observations, but an order that those he observed saw amongst themselves.
In this case, the officers come to the chief priests and the Pharisees. Then, later, these same are rebuked with the notice that neither ruler nor Pharisee has come out for Jesus. Well, then, it would seem that the Pharisees are included in neither group. Either that, or the reference to the Pharisees is indicating the sect at large, as opposed to only those serving on the council. It would be interesting, as well, if we knew whether it was Sadducee or Pharisee who rebuked the guards in this fashion. That might shed some light on the change in terms. My general sense, though, is that there is not much to be made of the variation in reference.
Whatever the term, it seems clear enough that the reference is to those who formed the Sanhedrin, the supreme court of Jewish life. That court included all the high priests currently extent, the heads of those Aaronic families who held some degree of influence, and some from amongst the Pharisees. It may be that these Pharisaic representatives were also from the Aaronic line, but that is not noted explicitly. But, these were more than simply the heads of the church, as it were. They were the chief arbiters over every facet of Jewish life, at least so far as Rome would allow them their say. Arguably, the religious and the secular were so thoroughly interwoven at that time as to make any distinction between the two superfluous. That same argument is made for early American history, and yet, it seems clear that the close coupled relationship between faith and life only held for a subset of the population. There were also those who were solely concerned with their pursuit of profits. Israel was no different. Arguably, the council itself was no different.
It’s interesting, though, that the Sanhedrin in some ways reflects our own model of government. That council was, after all, a most distinctly two-party council. There were the Sadducees with their pragmatic pursuit of power, and the wealth to establish the connections that supported their pursuits. Then, there were the Pharisees, who sought power through other means: through a reputation for maintaining Jewish purity, religious purity, and for being most thoroughly patriotic to boot. On the one hand, appeasement to maintain position. On the other hand, staunch insistence on tradition against all odds. Yet, both find themselves united against the threat of Jesus.
So, I shall consider, somewhat briefly, this group who formed the priesthood. Of course, the office of priest was an office instituted at God’s command, given through Moses. In establishing the office, it was reserved to Aaron and his descendants. The obligations inherent in this decree actually cut both ways. First, this obliged Israel as a people to accept no other as priest unto God except those who were of Aaronic descent. Second, this obliged those who were of Aaronic descent to so live their lives as to satisfy the requirements of their office. They must maintain bodily perfection, or else be excluded from service. They also were called to a spiritual holiness, a devotion to God’s exclusive use.
The whole purpose of the priesthood was to serve as intermediaries between God and man. This should really never have been necessary, and in fact, wasn’t. Consider that Adam and Eve had enjoyed immediate communion with God. Consider that throughout the pre-Mosaic history of God’s people, we see God and man interacting without benefit of any such intermediary. Did somebody serve as go between for Abraham? But, comes that time when the whole of Israel is gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai, and the presence of God is very evident upon its summit, and what happens? The people beg Moses to intercede on their behalf. Don’t make us go up there and meet Him ourselves, they begged. You go find out what He wants, and come back and tell us. In other words, the only reason there had been a need for some intermediary to serve between man and God was because man had asked that it be so. God was never disinclined to speak with His people directly.
But, seeing that He scared them so, He suited Himself to their need. He established for them a priesthood to serve them in their weakness. Paul looks at this arrangement and recognizes it for what it was: a sort of tutoring arrangement to train up God’s people until they could stand on their own. Except, God’s people decided they were perfectly happy to allow the tutoring to become a permanent thing.
God established the priesthood to meet the need of His people, but He did so in such a way as to maintain a sense of His holiness. He made it an exclusive office, only to be filled by those who fit very stringent requirements. One must be of the right lineage. One must be free of physical defect. No gimps in God’s house! Doesn’t that seem an odd requirement? Why would God be offended by such a thing? Why would He lay such a requirement upon those who serve Him? Is He really that offended by the idea of a missing ear, or a wounded eye? Honestly, I don’t think those requirements were put in place to keep the priests from being offensive to Him. I think they were put there for the same reason the requirements for sacrificial animals being whole and healthy were established: because our natural, sinful propensity would be to give Him the worst.
Our natural propensity is to offer Him only what has been proven unsatisfactory for our own use. That sheep with the mange? Might as well use it for the sacrifice, it’s not going to be any good for anything else. That computer that’s so slow we can’t stand using it any more? Might as well donate it to the church and take the tax write off. Those clothes we wouldn’t be caught dead in? Hey! Let’s give it to the mission. They won’t care. It’s the same way with progeny. That boy will never amount to anything. Might as well send him to the monastery, or maybe we can buy him a spot as a priest somewhere. They don’t need to know anything, and they really don’t have to do much. Just go back to the record of the Middle Ages and see it happen!
For that matter, observe what had become of Israel’s priesthood well before Jesus arrived on the scene. Holiness? Far from it! It was pure power politics, and at its most violent. The foundations of the priestly order, and of the office of the high priest, in particular, had been all but forgotten. High priest for life? Not any more! You were high priest until Rome decided somebody else would serve their purposes better, or until some other candidate had bribed them more convincingly. Oh, you can have the title in your retirement. We wouldn’t want to offend your religious sensibilities. But, the office now goes to this man. Thus, you have both Caiaphas and Annas as high priest simultaneously: one actively in office, the other far more active in his retirement, and far more influential. Thus, we find Paul commenting, “Oh. I was not aware you were high priest, else I’d never speak against you.” I wonder just how much sarcasm was oozing from Paul’s words at that point.
Think about that: the office God had decreed to be a life appointment was no longer that. Indeed, this whole idea that there was a Sanhedrin, where was the foundation for it? But, focus on the high priest for now. It had changed from being the apex of religious authority to being just another political office. It had started out under God’s direct decree, and now it was an appointment under the thumb of Rome. This raises an ethical question. Should those who Rome appointed have accepted the appointment? I’m not talking about these later cases who were actively seeking the prestige of office for their own gain. Go back to the initial takeover. Go back to that first one who found the finger of Rome pointing at him and saying, you shall be the high priest, for we insist. Shouldn’t there have been some moral dilemma for that man?
I ask this because it is the model of the dilemma we will face almost daily, if not more frequently even than that. What should we do when we are faced with the choice between what we know God has established, and what the society around us demands that we accede to? We’re not talking about the temptations of sin, here. We’re talking about the coercive demands of a godless, even actively anti-god, power structure. We’re well beyond the questions of whether it’s OK to clip a pen from the office supplies at work. The answer is no, it’s not, and we know it, and we resist it, and nobody’s going to demand that we do otherwise, anyway.
But, what shall we do with the demands of government that impact the pulpit? What should be the church’s reaction to demands that no least hint of political opinion must waft down from the pulpit? Quite frankly, the response ought to be, “tax status be damned, we’ll speak what needs speaking!” What will be the church’s reaction, when the ostensibly unthreatening hate-speech legislation passing through congress even now becomes a gag order on speaking what Scripture declares? What will happen to the faithful, when confessing your faith becomes dangerous to your health and your wealth? Well, just look at the workplace, and you have your answer! It is risky to speak of your faith at work! You might offend somebody of another religion, and the offended one could bring the power of HR down on your head for daring to speak so boldly! Oh, yes. Trust me, the HR folks are not going to side with you on this one! No, no. They’ll be watching you, waiting for the slip up, ready to pounce on your least infraction as an excuse to get you off premises. Why? Because you make them uncomfortable. You didn’t really have to say anything. It’s just the example you set.
Getting back to the course of my notes, here: The point I wanted to make as regards the priestly rulers of Israel is this: The office was given by God, and the requirements for that office were defined by God. Indeed, the office was not laid before the sons of Aaron as one possible option for their future employ. It was presented as what they were born for, and the requirements of office were mandated for them. Now, as I noted, the corrupt nature of man could not help but corrupt the office, such that God’s rules were largely set aside, and the office became a matter of political and financial power. Therefore, by the time Jesus comes, the priestly order has long been accustomed to doing anything necessary to hold to power. The Law was no restraint on them. Whether they felt themselves to be above the Law, or simply found the Law to be irrelevant, the end result was much the same. Power came first, then the niceties of religious appearance to keep the masses in line.
Their whole reason for being so firmly opposed to Jesus was that He was insisting on a purity of religion which could only turn the populace against them. Such a sea change in public opinion must surely cost them their positions, for it was to Rome they answered now, not God, and Rome would happily sacrifice them for the preservation of the famous Roman Peace. This was particularly true with the sort of governors they had at this time. Pilate clearly had no backbone, a trait they would be taking advantage of. Having this in their planning, they also knew full well how little it would take for others to use his weakness against themselves.
They were, then, in a struggle to preserve their own power. Isn’t it interesting, then, to read that with the fall of Jerusalem some thirty years after the Crucifixion, the order of the priesthood became most thoroughly powerless and devoid of any further influence. God’s justice has this tendency towards irony, it seems. These men who preferred their own power to His rule found themselves stripped of both. Those who had so abused His authority found out the hard way that He will not be mocked. Honestly, having read Josephus’ account of Jerusalem’s fall, it would be more shocking to hear that anybody in Israel still found the Sadducees worth looking to as a role model after that fall. The stories of that time are horrendous, especially as the infighting of the rulers of Israel comes to light. The self-inflicted nature of these horrors lends them a heinousness even beyond what would plague the people of Israel so many centuries later. But, God was not to be mocked.
One last question, which I began to broach earlier, deserves a bit more consideration, particularly given the times we are living in. It was Rome that forced the change on the office of high priest, and yet, the priests who took the office by their rules were complicit in the crime were they not? This is, in its own way, the dilemma that has faced the devout forever. When the world’s representative insists on determining the order of your worship, when they decide that they have the power to appoint your priests, and to determine their preaching, and so on, should those appointed accept the appointment?
The gut reaction, the religiously pure reaction, is to say of course not! Those spineless so-and-sos should have told Rome where to get off. They should have gladly opted for martyrdom rather than see the priesthood thus corrupted. Further, we are all quite aware of the many in Christendom who made precisely that choice, and not only in the face of Roman abuse. Through the centuries, there have been those who would rather face a most gruesome death than to distort the Truth of the Gospel. They would rather face the surprisingly vengeful wrath of the ‘official’ church which, like the Sadducees, proved itself quite willing to set aside God’s Law if that was expedient in retaining worldly power, than to deny the Truth that had gripped their souls. Would that we had men of such passion in our day, if not the need for such death-defying strength of conviction! Would that the Church in our day were so concerned for the purity of faith and doctrine as to refuse, vehemently and irreconcilably, every attempt to recast the message in the world’s image!
In all honesty, I pray that it never comes to that, at least not for myself, my family, my friends. It is not a fate to be desired after. But, should it come down to that, I also pray that I would find the backbone to stand as firm in my faith as those who have gone before me.
I have one particular friend in the faith who has expressed a desire that there be a revival of sound doctrine in the Church, and my spirit leapt within me to hear that. Yes! In this age when most churches chase a revival that is little more than the thrill of the amusement park, little more than cheap showmanship and special effects, would indeed that there would be a rekindled interest in the hearts of God’s people to actually devote themselves to Truth. Would that there would be a spark that ignites His people to actually study His Word, actually look to discover what it really says, instead of what they’d like it to say. Would that the Church of God would become so wholly enamored of the God Who has revealed Himself in Scripture – revealed Himself not after the fashion of advertising, but in unvarnished, unpainted clarity – that they would rather die than alter one least part of His message to mankind!
The Pharisees, of course, had their own issues, and these, too, are issues we are still very much in danger of sharing with them. We should sense that shared danger in the very meaning of their name: the separated ones. Yes, and we are the called out. We’re not like the rest. We’re different and we intend to keep it that way. The Pharisees grew to pride themselves in their separation, in their meticulous attention to the details of what they deemed to be the holy life. The rest of the people, by and large, grew to accept that their definition of the holy life was accurate. How could this happen? Well, the priesthood had abandoned their job, and the scribes who were supposed to be the experts were so beholden to the priesthood for their living that they dare not speak against the errors they heard. Power corrupts.
Be clear on this: the Pharisees began with the most noble of intentions – an intense desire to live righteously in God’s sight. What child of God does not know that burning desire within? However, what began so nobly deteriorated over time. Some of it got lost in a tangle of intellectualism, trying to tease out finer points of truth from the text of Scripture. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with trying to suck the very marrow of the Word. But, when we allow inventiveness, and mysticism to becloud our efforts, or when we allow our imagined fabrications to become more significant to us than the more obvious meaning of the written word, we invite trouble. This is the risk inherent in trying to make every last passage an allegory, or in seeing everything in a prophetic light. This is the risk in getting too caught up in symbolism. The symbolism must be understood, but it must not be injected where it doesn’t exist.
The other danger that is found in the Pharisaic example is that of diminishing standards. Why did they develop that elaborate collection of rules for life? God had managed to set down His requirements in ten. What did they need thousands upon thousands of little rules for? Quite simply, it is because our nature hates to face up to its failure. We value our self-esteem, and God’s ten simple rules, rightly understood, don’t leave room for self-esteem. This is the point Jesus drives home over and over again. If you think you’ve upheld the requirements of the Law, it’s only because you’ve never understood them. You find cause for pride in your never having slept with a woman outside of wedlock? Well, how’s your thought-life been? That’s where it starts. Indeed, that is arguably where it really matters. That you never acted on it does not necessarily reflect righteousness. It is more likely to reflect a certain cowardice.
The rules that the Pharisees built up had the stated purpose of making sure that the practitioner of those rules never so much as strayed close to the boundaries of what God declared sinful. The reality of those rules, though, was that they were cheap, achievable imitations of God’s requirements. They may look impressive, but they were designed to be doable. They did not achieve holiness. They merely fed pride.
It is worth noting that Jesus did not really condemn the requirements that the Pharisees decreed. He condemned their hypocrisy and their attitude. Remember that He is the one who says that unless our righteousness exceeds theirs then heaven remains beyond our reach. If He found them wholly unrighteous, this would be a rather empty requirement, wouldn’t it? Rather, it seems to me that Jesus is saying that the care they took to avoid breaches of God’s Law was in itself commendable. That they gave thought to what holiness demands of a man was commendable. That they had made this such a bolster for pride, that they had become so puffed up in their perceptions of their own righteousness that they now despised all those who did not bow down to their teachings, this was not commendable in any sense.
Listen, Church! It is very easy for us to look at the Pharisees, particularly in light of the objections Jesus raised against them, and fall right into the trap of thinking, “well, thank God we’re not like that!” And, right away, we have become just like that. Half the time, the irony of that fact doesn’t even register. But, this is hardly the limit of the matter. We, too, like our achievable goals in righteousness. So, we pronounce our taboos which may or may not have any real foundation in God’s definitions of holiness. The point is rather moot, because the purpose of our taboos is not really to maintain holiness, but to maintain appearances.
Let me sum it up, if I can. There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking to do one’s utmost in living according to God’s Law. How could there be! The problem arises when we begin to think we’ve done it. The problem is that as we try to do this, our thinking almost inevitably turns in the direction of back-patting over how well we’ve done. We’ve done nothing! Nothing of merit, at least. As was said so well last Sunday, God does not suddenly love us more because we’ve made such a good show of our behavior. Neither does He love us less tomorrow because we did such a lousy job of it today. His love isn’t something for us to earn. It’s something for us to enjoy, and to be certain of. His love is ours for the simple reason that He has said this is so.
If there is a rock upon which we can stand with absolute certainty, that’s it! I have no need to question whether He still loves me. He does. Until we get that through our heads and thoroughly weaved into the fabric of our understanding, we walk in nervous fear and uncertainty. We are in dread of our next mistake, fearful that we may find that at that critical moment when He closes out the number of our days, we’re caught in weakness. We do our best, but for the worst of reasons. We strive to walk in righteousness, but solely out of fear. In most awful truth, we strive to walk in righteousness out of unbelief. We don’t believe His love for us is not a thing to be earned. We don’t believe His grace is freely given. We don’t believe His gift is irrevocable, because He is not a man, that He should repent of His determinations. We don’t believe Him, so we struggle that much harder to make ourselves somehow enticing to Him. We try to be lovable, like a child in a dysfunctional home, hoping to avoid a beating and maybe, just maybe, by some miracle winning a moment of approval from a disinterested parent.
God is not dysfunctional! He is the very definition of Fatherhood. He is Love. He is Just. He IS. He doesn’t need your strokes to maintain His self-image. He doesn’t need ego-pats. He has simply decided that we shall be numbered amongst His children. Why? I guess that’s something He alone knows. I certainly don’t know why He chose me. What I do know is that He did. What I do know is that having called me His own, His love for me is not a question I need ask. It’s a certainty upon which I can bank. It is not something I can earn, nor could my worst mistake cause Him to withdraw it from me. That is not to say that I am beyond causing sorrow to Him, nor to myself. That is not to say that my sins don’t matter. They wound Him and they wound me. But, the liberty that lies in knowing that my acceptance in His household is not based on my particularly poor showing in the righteousness department, but upon His irrevocable decision! Now, I am free to try harder for the simple joy of pleasing Him. It’s not about perfection, it’s about effort.
Oh! How misguided we are in thinking we are going to bear anything of excellence before Him! That is our own miserable conceit and nothing more. There is no excellence in us. There is no prize awaiting us for best performance. It’s not the perfection, or the excellence that we think we have achieved. It’s the willingness to use the gifts He imparts, to share the talents that He causes to flow in us. Oh, the prideful conceit we bring as artists! It’s all good because we practice ever so hard. It’s all good because we keep our chops up, and we use only the best equipment. What utter nonsense! You know, we are told to look at those craftsmen God appointed to build the tabernacle. Yet, if you will but read the record, you will find that these craftsmen were not appointed for innate talent, but as vessels for the creative talents of the Holy Spirit. It was because the Spirit of God rested upon them for this work that their abilities were up to the task assigned. Would that we could keep that in our minds when we worship, when we preach, when we study, yes, and when we pray! None of this creates a greater worth in us. None of this makes us the least bit more deserving in His eyes. All of it should be an expression of our love for Him and, yes, of the working of the Holy Spirit within us.
Let it never be a pride thing. Let us never fall for the foolishness of thinking we’ve really done something for God this time. Oh, that we could slay our pride once for all! But, it seems to be a part of His plan that we battle ourselves daily.
Coming to Nicodemus, I must bear in mind that this is his background. This is who he was. He was one of these pride filled separated ones. Of course, I cannot suppose that the Pharisees as a group were monolithic in attitude and outlook. At this point, though, the focus is on a specific subset of the Pharisees, those who shared in the power of the Sadducees, those counted amongst the elite. Their association with the Sadducees had not caused them to set aside their distinctive beliefs in matters such as spirit beings and resurrection. That’s clear from the disputes we find between them and the Sadducees on other occasions. But, their acceptance in this place of power would require of them a certain mindset, a certain thinly veiled ruthlessness in pursuing the preservation of that power. Dealing with Rome seems to have required such a ruthlessness if there was to be any success.
This Nicodemus, then, quite likely had that ruthlessness of character. Not so very long ago, he would have been just as swift as his fellows to deride this newcomer who threatened the order of things. However, Nicodemus seems to have had a bit more respect for the Law he represented. He was not a bold man, per se. When we first hear of his visit to Jesus, he is not up front about it, but rather comes by late at night, hoping not to be seen lest his reputation and his position be threatened. At the same time, though, that early visit reflects much the same concern he raises now. He has been privy to the council’s deliberations and has watched their preemptive reaction to this Jesus. At the very least, he shall hear the man for himself, and at least satisfy the Law to that degree. If He is as they suggest, a dangerous revolutionary threatening the wellbeing of Israel and denigrating the ancient faith, then fine. But, if He is not?
Of course, as I consider that early exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus, I cannot know with any certainty where Nicodemus was coming from. Is he really being confrontational here, antagonistic to what Jesus has to say? Or is he simply pursuing this dialog as he would any other, drawing Jesus out by his apparent incapacity to understand? Given his background, it would hardly be unthinkable that he was indeed antagonistic. You must be kidding, Jesus? Back to the womb? Oh, please! You could almost imagine him thinking to himself, “and this is the guy that everybody’s all excited about?”
But, the evidence that John quietly lays out for us is that what he heard from Jesus on that occasion took hold. He may not have walked away convinced, but given time to think on that discussion, the seed planted in what Jesus had said took root, and the Holy Spirit clearly stopped by often to water what was growing in him. No, he wasn’t suddenly and as it were violently converted. He didn’t come to the council one day so gripped by holy fervor that he must tell his compatriots off and loudly proclaim that this Jesus they were so bent on destroying truly was the Messiah of God.
For all those free-will proponents out there, I would note that in this we see that God did not just come in and deliver a sovereign spiritual makeover. Nicodemus was still very much Nicodemus. The cautious man who had come to visit Jesus was now the cautious man sitting in the council chambers. His perspective had changed. His understanding had increased. But, he was still the same man with the same underlying character. God had not overruled his humanity, only provided his humanity with a clearer picture of what it means to be human. In other words, that God had sovereignly moved on the heart of Nicodemus – drawn him to visit His Son, and so touched him that he clearly is in possession of true faith – did not make Nicodemus some sort of automaton. That God had sovereignly determined to place this man in the right place at the right time to serve His purpose for the right reasons did not in any way require that Nicodemus act contrary to himself. He was still his own man, but he was also God’s man, now, and I think he understood that.
So, cautious Nicodemus, still in his position, still a member of this powerful council, has become, if anything, a more earnest Pharisee. This is not said in any denigrating fashion. It is, in fact, said in the sense that Jesus has revived in him the thirst which first moved the Pharisees. He is no longer satisfied with appearances of righteousness and concern for God’s Law. He really is concerned with God’s Law. He is concerned that these fine upstanding citizens with their reputation as the experts on that Law actually abide by it, even if it is proving inconvenient for them at the moment. Yet, he is respectful in his gentle rebuke. Honestly, he’s more gentle in his rebuke than Jesus was with him! “You call yourself a teacher and you can’t understand this simple message?” (Jn 3:10). That had to sting! But, all he points out to his fellow council members here is the basic rules. Hey, guys. Let’s not prejudge here. Remember your Torah. First the evidence, then the decision.
If Jewish culture in that time is anything like what I have seen amongst Israelis in our own time, this is about the most timid participation in debate that one could imagine. Perfectly civil discussions are likely to be high-volume shouting matches with every appearance of great anger. Yet those in the debate end up being as good and true friends as ever they were. It’s just the way things are discussed. If opinions matter, they are worth defending, and defending vehemently. In that light, what we hear from Nicodemus on this occasion is almost motherly. Come on, children, play nice.
And the reaction of the rest is absolutely typical. I’m not saying it’s typical for a Pharisee, or for a Jew. I’m saying it’s just plain typical. It is the most recognizable reaction of a man who hears truth in the rebuke. A man does not want to hear about his errors, especially when he’s worked up a good rage. He doesn’t want the facts. He doesn’t want justice. He certainly doesn’t want to hear how far off base his behavior is becoming. He wants satisfaction. He wants vengeance, even if there’s no real wrong to avenge.
I dare say if you were to look in on any couple in disagreement, whether husband and wife, parent and child, pastor and layman, whatever the relationship: if one of those involved speaks a truthful word of correction, it really won’t matter how nicely, how gently that word is phrased. The recipient will respond very much like the counselors we see here. That rebuke makes a wound, and the first response to a wound in battle is to attack. I am threatened, and therefore I shall strike out. I must destroy you before you destroy me. The only thing – the only thing – that changes this in a man is God. Yes, the mores of society and the certainty of painful consequences may squash the tendency in us where there is anybody to observe, but even then, you know full well the sensation of that desire to strike out welling up inside of you. Only by the grace of God will we ever respond to a rebuke with an immediate repentance. Even with God’s grace upon us, it is more likely to take us some time to shake off the reaction and actually respond as we ought.
So, what do these counselors do? They go on the attack! You remind us of the Law? Well, we shall remind you of your ignorance. We don’t want to have to really hear what you have to say, so we shall convince ourselves that your word has no weight. You an expert? Then, surely you would know that no prophet ever came from Galilee. Go back to your studies, and come back when you know as much as we do. Then, maybe, you’ll be in a position to rebuke us like that. But, not before then.
Do you know what is equally typical in their response? They’re wrong! They are so dead set on removing this irritation from their conscience that they actually expose their own lack of knowledge. Yes, Virginia, there is a prophet from Galilee. Even has his own book. If they had spent their time searching the Scriptures instead of idolizing past rabbis, and currying favor with current politicos, they would have known this.
Be warned! Take the lesson from their reaction! The message is two-fold. The first and obvious point is to learn not to respond in the heat of anger, the pain of conviction. The mouth will betray you, and you will inevitably come to regret what you said. Attempting to show how smart you are in that moment is all but guaranteed to do the exact opposite, and if you thought the rebuke stung, just imagine the bitter taste that will be yours when you have to swallow your own words.
The second lesson to keep in mind is that this same advice should be taken to heart in doctrinal disputes. If there is anything that will lead to heated debate amongst Christians it’s fine points of doctrine. I’m not talking about basic fundamentals, here, but those points which have been in debate within the bounds of the true Church for as long as there has been a true Church. The never-ending battle between proponents of predestination and those who insist that man must choose to be saved is probably one of the greatest examples of this. People come to the debate with firmly held views and with a deep emotional investment in those views. It must be said that, whichever side they come to the debate from, they come with an earnest devotion to God, and an earnest love of God. But, they come with such an emotional connection to their position that it becomes almost impossible to even hear the arguments being put forward by those who see things differently.
In some cases, this is rather a case of the ex-smoker syndrome. You know, those who used to be this way, but now see the error in it. They become almost unbearable in their efforts to wipe out every trace of that previous behavior, not only in themselves but in the world at large. The same thing can happen in the case of these doctrinal debates. I am probably a case in point, particularly on the matter of predestination and its related points. I used to be vehemently convinced that our will was integrally involved with salvation, if not in its inception then certainly in its preservation. Of course it’s possible to lose your salvation! Just look at this verse, and that verse. It’s plain as day! But, came the time that I really began to study the matter, began to insist of myself that I accept what the Scriptures were clearly saying rather than trying to make them fit with what I thought was the truth – what I wanted to be the truth.
I had to accept that this predestination business was for real. An honest reading would allow for no other perspective, so far as I could see. Either the Bible was unreliable, in which case I need not pay any mind to anything it had to say, or I had to accept that what was plainly being said was actually what God meant to say. With that comes a deeper recognition of just what it means to say that God is all-powerful and all-wise and all-knowing. He’s in control. He works all things. By His own right hand He shall do it! It’s all of a piece. He chooses, and having chosen, He does not un-choose. Eventually, as I understand Him a bit better, I also begin to recognize my own true condition a bit better. My God! If my salvation were dependent on my continued good behavior, I’m lost from the outset! There is no hope. It is impossible to think that such as I am going to get even through the end of this day without shaming myself by my actions.
If God is not in control, if Jesus is not accurate in shouting, “It is finished” then I am to be pitied above all men, for I have put my hope in a worn thread that cannot possibly keep me safe. So, yes, when I come to a debate with somebody who insists that predestination is some evil, false doctrine, then I am likely to become heated in defense of what I have come to understand. That heat does not in any way suggest that I shall be clear in my defense of doctrine. Likely, it’s going to lead me in exactly the opposite direction. Oh, but here’s the thing: If we let our own intelligence and pride form the arguments, we will lose even if we are absolutely correct in our beliefs. I am not saying intelligence has no place, but its place is in subjection to the One who imbued us with intelligence; particularly when we are claiming to defend His Truth.
If we are bold to defend one doctrine or another, but fail to bear in mind the simpler doctrines, like, “apart from Me you can do nothing,” and, “I shall give you the words to speak,” and, “lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge the Lord,” we will never know success. We have not held fast our connection to the Head from Whom and upon Whom the whole church depends. We have ceased speaking of Truth and satisfied ourselves with espousing opinions.
That said, the reality that what He has begun He is faithful to complete is the foundation upon which I am enabled to stand. It is also the principle that is on display in the glimpses we are given into the life of Nicodemus. What Jesus had begun in that meeting back in John 3 was not begun in vain. It was begun with the certainty that the work which was Nicodemus would be completed. It was nothing about Nicodemus that brought such an assurance. It was wholly about Jesus. Indeed, we must also recognize that it was nothing about Nicodemus that attracted the attention of Jesus to him. It was the purpose of God that attracted Nicodemus to Jesus, that God’s purpose in Nicodemus could be set in motion.
This brings me, in a surprisingly roundabout way, to a point that has been on my mind for days now. That point comes of wondering how it was John had any idea what discussions had taken place in these privy councils of the Sanhedrin. I’ve heard a few explanations for this. Some write it off as simply a trait of how the ancients tended to write their histories. Of course, that is thinking primarily of the historians of Greece and Rome, and John was neither Greek nor Roman. Others, based particularly on John’s having gone in to witness the trial of Jesus, have supposed that he had connections in Jerusalem. And, indeed, he seems to have some more complete knowledge of who was who, even knowing the name of that servant whose ear Peter cut off. Yet, John was a fisherman from Galilee. We know this. What the members of that council thought of the Galileans is pretty clear from what they have to say even in this dialog. It seems unlikely, then, that these wealthy Sadducees or these proud Pharisees would have much to do with this common fisherman from the wilds of Galilee. Most unlikely.
But, then, there’s Nicodemus. Nicodemus was a Pharisee in good standing. He was privy to the councils throughout the whole time. He was eye-witness and ear-witness to the deliberations that had led the powers that be to bring about the destruction of the very Messiah they claimed to be waiting for. He knew what had been said and by whom. He would know, as well, the name of that servant whom John identifies. He knew what sort of attitudes motivated these decision makers. He knew quite a bit. And, that seed Jesus had planted was finding fertile soil in him. Indeed, the reaction of these ‘righteous’ Pharisees to his gentle rebuke may well have been good fertilizer for that soil.
It’s an eye-opener when you suddenly come face to face with the whole weight of pride and prejudice in your compatriots. It’s particularly so when you must also recognize that you are not so very different. Oh, my God! Is that what I’m like? Is that what I’ve been so proud to be part of? How filthy! How shall I ever find acceptance in Your sight if this has been my nature? If ever I needed Your mercy before, Lord, I sure do need it now.
Just look at what’s on display in this exchange. First, there is the arrogance of their reaction to the guards. “We are in charge of telling you what to think, and you can see quite clearly that none of us think much of this Jesus.” For the moment, set aside the injustice of their response. This is pure, bull-headed arrogance. This is, “We’re the experts. We need not even entertain the thought that we might be wrong.” This is the, “If you disagree with us, you’re stupid” defense. I have to imagine the words of Jesus echoing in Nicodemus’ thoughts right about there. “And you’re the teachers of Israel?”
Of course it didn’t begin here, and neither does it stop here. These shepherds of Israel move right along into revealing their feelings about the sheep. They are ignorant. Why would that be, o, teachers? The are so common! Let them be accursed! Ah! There’s the attitude I want in those who carry my prayers before the Lord! Any man in that room with the least grain of true decency remaining should have been utterly aghast at this display. Apparently, at least one such man was in the room. And, while he was not terribly inclined towards confrontation, these prigs could no longer be allowed to blather on unchecked.
Yet, he would not come down to their level. He would not respond in kind, however much his flesh may have shivered with the urge to do so. No. He had seen a better Way. He had begun to question, and these pillars of society had just provided the answer. But, compassion requires that he seek to save them from themselves, not speak a condemnation such as they had just delivered. He had seen that in Jesus. He had experienced it in Jesus. And now, it was as though an irresistible pressure drove him from his complacency. Brothers! Fellow upholders of the Law! Recall yourselves to sound thought. Our Law has never allowed for conviction without prior testimony. That’s the sort of treatment we’ve had from our oppressors, but it is not our way. Remember yourselves, I plead with you for your own conscience.
That seed had been planted that God’s purpose might unfold in this man, and here were the leaves of the planted seed unfolding into the Light. He was one of them, but no more. He had just seen how much their righteousness was worth, and having seen it, he was that much more determined to pursue that One of infinite worth.
One other observation about Nicodemus deserves to be made here. Recalling to mind the rebukes that Jesus delivered against the ranks of the Pharisees, one of His major issues was that they did not practice the things they demanded by their preaching. The spoke of the requirements of holiness, but the reality was that they spent long hours exploring the loopholes of their own requirements. If it was unlawful to work on the Sabbath, and if they had decided that travel of more than such and such a distance constituted work, then they would make sure that right there on the boundary of that determined distance they had a cache of supplies that would provide for their comforts should they find themselves in that place.
I know I’ve told the story before, but I still recall the discussion I had with a present day Pharisee. For, what remains of Judaism, particularly in its more conservative observances, is the proud remnant of the Pharisees. This man was indeed of a most conservative streak, if not on a level with the Hassidic community. He would depart work early of a Friday to ensure he could be home before the official hour of sundown on the Sabbath. He would have his prayer shawl on every day, beneath his outer shirt, but kept plainly visible by the tassels that hung below the shirt’s hem. At one point, we were having a congenial chat about things of his religion, and the question came up: if it’s not lawful for you to work on the Sabbath, what do you do about the basics of life? I mean, sure, you can cook meals in advance, or have previously prepared sandwiches or some such. But, who turns out the lights at night? Or do you all simply retire with the sun? Oh, no, came the answer. We pay somebody to come and do these things on the Sabbath. It remained unsaid, but, there was that implication of, “so our hands can remain clean.”
But, that’s a loophole! Indeed, I pointed that out to him: But, doesn’t your Law require that both you and those strangers who dwell in your lands observe all this Law? Well, yes, he admitted. But, you see, one must make allowances. Really? Which book did Moses mention that part in? Was that in the fine print on the back of the tablets, perhaps? But, this is ever the way of self-righteousness. We seek to find ways to place bounds on just how righteous we really have to be. We’re forever trying to discover just how much we can get away with and still be ‘right with God’.
We’ve been at this game almost since birth, when we tested the boundaries our parents placed round about us for our protection. And, no sooner were we free of their rule than we began testing whatever new boundaries we found. In the workplace, it’s all about how little one can do and still remain employed. What can I get away with? On the highway, it’s all about how much can I ignore the speed limit and not run into issues with the cops? In the house, it’s how much can I leave the chores to my spouse and my kids without them getting fed up? And, in church, it’s about how little can I do besides show up, and still be counted a member in good standing?
Nicodemus, for one, was having no more of it. And, if the things he had already begun to notice weren’t sufficient to turn him cold on the false path of the Pharisee, the next bit would do it for him. The prejudice in that statement! I mean, he was probably inured to the cultural bias against the Samaritans, half-breeds that they were. He could still understand that, if he even thought to notice it. But, the Galileans? These were full-blood Jews just like themselves. And yet, these shepherds of Israel had the whole region condemned in their opinion, simply because of where it was. They had a visceral, emotional reaction to the very idea that anything of meaning should arise out of Galilee rather than Jerusalem. If there was anything worse than the common crowds down below in their sight, it was the people of Galilee. If the crowds were ignorant, these Galileans were downright stupid. A prophet from Galilee! It’s absurd! It’s laughable! We have no need to hear the man. The simple fact of where he lives is quite enough.
And as always, when emotions rule us in the heat of debate, what seems a brilliant defense to us is found to be no more than an exposing of our own ignorance. Funny that Table Talk should have made reference to this verse today: “A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind” (Pr 18:2). And what shall a fool reveal of his own mind, if not its foolishness? What else could be shown?
Thus, with both of the great arguments these proudly knowledgeable men put forth, they are found to be incorrect in their assumptions. “None of our number has believed, has he?” Ignorance on display: The answer is, yes, even among the rulers there were those who believed. Indeed, at least one such was listening to this exposure of ignorance. “No prophet arises out of Galilee!” Ignorance on display. What of Jonah? He was not really a prophet then? Is that the point you’re making? Then why is he given place in Torah? Why is he declared a prophet in Torah? And, you’re asking me to search the Scriptures? You’re calling my knowledge of the Scriptures into question? It’s no wonder you’ve failed to enlighten these masses you despise! How can you impart what you don’t know? “You are the teachers of Israel, and you don’t know this?” God forgive us!
It would be reasonable to ask, though, what finally moved Nicodemus to confront his brethren. Yes, we know that he had that earlier encounter with Jesus. Yes, we know that he left that encounter in a thoughtful mood, however confrontational he had planned to be when he came. And, I’ll repeat that I am not so very convinced that he was trying to be confrontational. But, that meeting was what? A year in the past now? The machinations of this council had not just begun this morning! Indeed, had they not already been going on that previous year, I doubt Nicodemus would have had reason to look Jesus up.
Well, we can’t assume that just because John doesn’t mention Nicodemus in the interim, that he had just been sitting silently through every council meeting in between those two events. Yet, John does see fit to mention him on this occasion. Why? You know, there was nothing particularly historic going on in this meeting. There’s no loose ends in his narrative that needed tying up in this scene. That the officers didn’t stop Jesus could have been dealt with as it is elsewhere. “It was not yet time.” No more need be said.
What’s important in this scene, then, is the awakening faith of Nicodemus, a faith which strengthens him to face to near certain rejection and harassment by his coworkers on the council. It’s a faith that allows him to speak up for righteousness even though it might well threaten his livelihood. What happened? Well, I can theorize that what happened is that the words those guards spoke were, as it were, words God had planted. It’s almost like Nicodemus was a one-man sleeper cell in the midst of the council, and what these guards had said was the phrase that woke him to action. “No man ever spoke as He speaks.”
Hadn’t he experienced that exact same thing? Wasn’t this really his own witness to the Man? Again, I can easily visualize him walking home from meeting Jesus that night saying those same words to himself. “No man ever spoke as He speaks.” This teacher of Israel, having heard a real Teacher wholly in command of His subject, had been humbled by the experience. And to hear these guards now, speaking the words his heart had heard, it brought every memory of that encounter back to mind. Then, to hear them being harangued by these proud fellows around him, simply for stating the Truth: The combination of these events simply moved him too strongly to be ignored. If such as these could brave the consequences of speaking honestly, surely he could do no less.
Now, I also recognize that many folks would have an issue with the idea that God had scripted the officers’ comment. Oh! He’s a puppet master God if that’s the case, and we simply cannot accept that. Others will find the idea that He has slipped His message into the minds and words of men is perfectly acceptable. Do we not, after all, insist that the Scriptures were God-breathed, written by God as much and more than by man? How else can we hold them to be inerrant, after all? And yet, though they accept this, they will stumble at the idea that this God who can sovereignly guide the very thoughts and words of His creatures, might also have sovereignty over their salvation. We choose? Yes, and yet at the same time, no.
One could view these officers as a prime example of how God’s sovereignty and man’s free will interact. Did the guards choose to speak these words? Yes. Did these words truly express what they truly wished to express? Yes. Did these words go forth, as it were, from God to accomplish His express and determined purpose? I believe so, yes. Well, then, could these guards have chosen to speak something other than they did? Of that, I’m not really convinced. I mean, there is the theoretical possibility that they would speak differently had their role in God’s purpose not been so integral in this moment. It’s possible that, though they truly felt as they said, in different circumstances their penchant for self-preservation would have caused them to prevaricate. But, if we accept that God is in control (which is my hope in times of worldwide insanity), if we accept that God truly does turn all things for good as concerns those who are working in His purpose (which we surely must), then mustn’t we include ourselves in the count of all things? Isn’t it perfectly reasonable to accept and even rejoice in the fact that God may preempt my regularly scheduled programming to accomplish His good ends in me and through me?
If God cannot so overturn my will and my thinking as to find myself gone from agnostic (at best) to child of God in the brief span of days that it took, then neither can He so manage events as to promote my wellbeing. If He cannot overrule me by His will, then neither can He bound Satan by His will, for He has warned me that Satan’s power is well beyond my own. Well, then, if my miserably poor power is enough to thwart this mighty God, how mighty can He be? How can we count Him all-Powerful who cannot even save me except I first give Him permission? What manner of King is this who does not rule?
No, and don’t tell me how He’s a gentleman who never forces Himself on anyone. That’s one of the most insupportable statements ever made about the God Who Is! The Scriptures He caused to be written are rife with His intervention in the lives of men. You know, particularly among those who hold to a Charismatic or Pentecostal brand of faith, I don’t see how anybody can really buy this idea. If you’ve ever been in that place where God had something He wanted you to day, then you know what it is to be in the presence of an irresistible God! Oh, you can try. You can try and refuse to say what He wants said. But, your body will not rest, nor your mind, until you’ve said what was to be said. Just consider Jonah. Think how far he was willing to go not to speak what God wanted spoken. When God moves, truly: resistance is futile!
Yet, we know in ourselves that we are no puppets. We are no automatons, nor pawns on God’s holy chess-board. We know our own volition. We are in a constant motion of choosing. Always choosing. Every moment of our existence we are choosing. Arguably, that defines the life of being human. Choose you this day. And, tomorrow, you’ll need to choose again. Were this not the case, we could have no moral culpability. We could not be found guilty of any breach of law, for we were not in charge of ourselves, only dumb respondents to stimuli. We would have no more guilt than a leaf has for falling in a gutter. But, that is not the case. We do choose, and we do, by and large, choose knowingly, and we do, more often than not, choose wrongly except God intervene.
Do you know what our problem is? We’re busily trying to convince ourselves that we can, given enough effort, and maybe a new job, or new relationships or something, we can be as good as the angels. We can be better than the angels! Why, we can even be better than Christ Jesus, Himself! Didn’t He say so? “Greater things you will do.” And, we’re trying so darn hard to do them. But, what we really need to know is that we are fully capable of exceeding the most evil of men in our capacity to sin. We look at Jesus, or at the heroes of His church, and do our best to convince ourselves, “I could be like Him.” And, you know? It’s true. We could. We will be. But, in His time and by His power. But, when we look at the worst villains of history, when we think of a Hitler, or a Genghis Khan, or a Judas: We think their actions thoroughly beyond anything we could ever do. And in that, we are terribly, dangerously wrong. We underestimate our capacity for sin.
We have believed our deceitful little hearts. We have whispered our mantras of self-esteem to ourselves so often that we actually buy it. We ignore any evidence that might say otherwise, and we really do think we’re pretty good guys now. Put a room of Christian men together and ask who’s having any problems living the Christian life, and it will be a very brave very few who speak up. Nope. Doing just fine, thanks. Really don’t need prayer for anything at the moment. I’m just so thoroughly blessed. No problems. Wouldn’t be much of a Christian if I had problems, would I? In fact, take the man out of that setting and put him in his private place, and that’s pretty much what he’s thinking! “I can’t be much of a Christian if I’m dealing with these problems, can I?”
Oh, I know. That’s the devil talking. That’s Satan slipping into our thinking. Funny how we’re more willing to credit him with the power to manipulate our thoughts than to credit God with the same! Of course, making the devil our scapegoat lets us skip out on the responsibility, doesn’t it? That we can understand, and our sinful nature is more than happy to grab onto the concept. If we are not responsible, then we’re free to cruise on with our sins! But in the secret place, in the quiet time, God has so fashioned our conscience that we must face ourselves: especially when once He has awakened real Life in us.
Yet we can walk for years, even as true men of faith, true children of the Living God, without really facing the reality of who we are – or who we were before He began to work. Until we have begun to recognize how insatiable our lust for sin really is, and that the only thing that ever kept us from outdoing the most nefarious of villains was that we weren’t brave enough, then we never really see the depth of our need for Christ. Until we fully feel the power of our sin nature, we still think somehow we can tame it on our own. We still think that, yeah, it’s nice and all that Jesus offered us this salvation deal, but He couldn’t do it without me. If I had wanted to, I could have sent Him packing, like any other salesman. Oh, we can wrap it up in holy packaging, but that’s the mindset beneath the whole thing.
Pride. Pride remains at the root of sin. It’s been said before, and it will forever need saying again. Pride is the thing that exposes the Sadducees and Pharisees in this council meeting. Pride causes them to speak forth the evidence of their own ignorance. Hear the word of the Lord on such as these (and too often, such as ourselves!): The one who answers before he has heard the evidence does so to his own shame, exposing his own folly (Pr 18:13). That’s what’s happening in this room. They answer without having heard the evidence, without even bothering with the evidence. That’s what happens in the culture at large, as John testified in the previous section.
Those “stupid commoners” debating the nature of Jesus outside were at least as aware of Torah as these experts who so despised them – especially on this Messiah business. They knew He would be from David’s line, and they knew He would hail from Bethlehem, David’s birthplace (Jn 7:41-42). They weren’t ignorant of the Scriptures. They’d learned them very thoroughly. But, they hadn’t heard the evidence. They’d heard the scuttlebutt. Just listen to His accent! Of course, He’s from Galilee, so He can’t be Messiah. See? Says right here that Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. But, nobody ever bothered to ask Him where He had been born. Nobody ever thought to learn of His past. What could it matter? You could tell where He was from.
The problem shared by both the Pharisees and the people at large was that they suffered a misinformed and stubbornly incorrect religion. Their errors may have differed in detail, but they were equally stubborn in holding to their errors. In fact, if you look at the overall scope of what Jesus says regarding the Pharisees, He is not as far removed from their beliefs as is often supposed. It wasn’t really the beliefs He took issue with, but the practice. In other words, like most of the reformers who have come to His church since, He was trying to restore His people to purpose. Where they had made their religion a dead and lifeless husk, a shroud of cobwebs, He was breathing into their religion, restoring a real vitality to faith. The desire of the reformer has never been to destroy the faith, but see it alive and vibrant as it ought to be.
Of course, the problem of the Pharisees, as we see it reflected in the larger community of faith as well, is also the problem of the Church in every age, and of the church member. We creatures of flesh and faith admixed are inclined to be very stubborn about what we believe to be true. The truth is we are far more concerned with our beliefs than with the Truth. We do not wish to find out we’ve been wrong, particularly on matters about which we have spoken with great passion.
In the world, one hears of buyer’s remorse. One hears of the former coworker gone off to join a new company, and one knows that for some time to come, you will not hear a negative report from that ex-coworker as regards his new employ. However awful his decision may have proved to be, however untenable the work environment he finds himself in, questions about it will be answered with approval. Everything’s cool. Yeah, work is fine. Doing well. Thanks for calling. Bye, now.
Indeed, come into the typical church and this desire to be right on one’s opinions gets to be so strong that we will even go out of our way to protect another from discovering their opinions are wrong. What do I mean? Well, consider some of those who will arise during the course of worship to present a special song for the offering or some such. Or, for that matter, consider the worship team itself. However poorly they might have done, however many wrong notes may have been hit, or how utterly lost and befuddled they had become, what is heard afterwards? Oh! That was wonderful! Thank you so much! You know full well that any review you get from an audience made up solely of friends and associates is going to be utterly worthless as far as earnest critique goes. They’re too concerned with your feelings to speak an honest opinion.
Sadly, our tendency is to come to the Bible with this same spirit of insistence on our superior knowledge. We don’t come to Him to learn what is True. We come to confirm what we think to be true. If the text before our eyes has the audacity to mean other than what we have come to believe, why, we must bludgeon it into meaning what we think. We have heard and taken to heart the very true point that Scripture is to interpret Scripture, that the best commentary on one verse is what is said elsewhere in the text of the Bible. Yes, and this is true, so far as it goes. What we fail to keep in mind, though, is that the less ambiguous declaration is to interpret the more obscure, not the other way around.
Where we see an appearance of contradiction, we must first and foremost acknowledge that the fault lies with our understanding, not God’s revelation. He being Truth cannot contradict Himself. It is on these occasions that we must seek greater wisdom, and one path to that wisdom is, indeed, to allow Scripture to comment upon itself. But, ever and always, where the meaning is plain and clear in one case, and specifically to the point in question, the other must give way. The other must bear the commentary of this more exact and explicit passage. We cannot simply dismiss the obvious meaning of the passage we disagree with because we can find a passage elsewhere that, properly understood, supports our opinion. That’s the devil’s game, and ought not to be played by the children of God Who is Truth.
We must be determined that our beliefs shall give way to God’s beliefs wherever they are discovered to be at odds. We must come to His Word with a devotion to accepting His Truth. We must be willing to accept His Truth even when it discomforts us, even when it requires us to renounce beliefs we have held sacrosanct for years. We must, in short, be willing to accept the idea that we might be wrong about something. It is not enough to quote the Psalms that speak of how much greater God’s wisdom is than our own. We must actually accept the Truth of that statement and allow His wisdom to inform our own.
In short, we must come to the end of ourselves. It was true of our sins of the flesh and our efforts to become righteous by force of will. It is true of our understanding of God – our doctrine. We must come to the end of what we can figure out for ourselves, must come to the end of the intellect God blessed us with. That doesn’t mean that we cease to think. That doesn’t mean that the intelligence we have is an evil to be avoided at all cost. It means simply that it has its limits, and God does not. It means that there are going to be those things about God which are not, as it were, intuitively obvious. They are not things we arrive at by dint of great intellectual effort, or even (inasmuch is it in our own ‘strength’) by dint of great spiritual fervor. We arrive at them because He so informs us. We arrive at them by mentally setting aside our preconceptions and accepting the lessons our Teacher may see fit to give us.
Yes, we study to show ourselves approved and capable of rightly dividing His word. But, what does that mean? It certainly doesn’t mean we scan the Scriptures for those verses that will support our point, ignoring those that don’t. Indeed, in part it requires us to consider those opposing verses more critically and prayerfully, that God might give us to understand what is truly True, and how all these verses fit together in that Truth. It requires that we come to Scripture desiring to learn, not desiring to confirm our own views. It requires that we are forever remaining aware of the True character of the God Who has revealed Himself in the pages of the Bible; that we embrace all of that which He Is, accept everything He has to say about Himself, even the uncomfortable bits. To do less is to resort to the worship of an idol we call by the name of God, but who is in reality nothing but an image crafted by our imagination.
Lord Jesus, I have known those times when Your Truth came crashing in on my opinions, and they were suffered to change. Yet, I wonder, at times, if I have not returned to the point of being so certain of my own correctness that I cannot hear Your correction any more. I wonder at this, and it gives me cause for great concern. So, my God, if it be so that I have returned to exalting my intellect above Your Wisdom, then restore me in Your grace; correct me in Your love. Oh! What sorrow would be mine were I to come before You in the end and discover I’d been wasting my worship on something else! No, Lord! Let me not stray from Your truth. Let me not substitute the least aspect of Your truth. If there be one thing to which I am found holding at the end of my days, let it be the Truth revealed, and the God of that Truth, for I know You have loved me, and I, in turn, have loved You.
