New Thoughts (09/23/09-09/26/09)
I am held by the fact that those Pharisees “who were with Him” are the same ones who have been listening as Jesus issued a strong rebuke against their self-assessment and are the same ones who must hear themselves identified as the thieves as Jesus explains His parable. They may not be members of the leading council, but they are cut from the same cloth. They have held to the same system of belief. They are, then, just as guilty, if only in potential at present. In other words, barring some strong intervention by the Spirit of God, they would be most unlikely to respond favorably to what Jesus has said.
Yet, they have listened. They have not shouted Him down as He spoke. They have given Him His say, which is more than those on the council have done. Hard though it may be, they have tried to give a fair hearing to what He has to say, and we might even suppose that they have in some degree managed to gain the upper hand over the reactions of the flesh. At least some of them have.
The thing is this: These particular Pharisees are what we might today call seekers. They are ‘with’ Jesus. They are not already hardened against Him as a threat to their power base. They are interested. They are on the fence, perhaps, but there is still hope for them. Yet, Jesus does not present anything like a seeker-friendly message. Quite the opposite, actually. He launches a pretty severe attack upon the system of faith to which they have subscribed. He doesn’t simply say that the Pharisees have a few things wrong, a few fine points of doctrine that need correction. He says they are thieves intent on destroying the sheep they claim to be shepherding. Rank imposters and worse!
When we read that the response was divided, we should find it somewhat miraculous that there was any division. The predictable outcome would have been 100% opposition. You’ve slammed my beliefs and now you want me to follow You? I recall a friend in my past of bi-sexual appetites. Another acquaintance of his had approached him on the matter of Christianity, and had done so in pretty similar fashion to what I see Jesus doing here. Jesus utterly condemns the lifestyle you have chosen. Yet, he is reaching out to you, and calling you to follow after Him, not in the lifestyle you currently pursue, but out of that lifestyle. My friend (and myself, for all that) were utterly put off by such an approach. You’re telling me God hates me but I should follow Him anyway? What sort of invitation is that?
While we are not called to be offensive for the sake of offending, we are also not called to speak anything other than the Truth. We are to speak it in love, by all means, but we are to speak it. We cannot come to the one who is in sin and tell him it’s all right. God doesn’t care. God does care! If He didn’t, there would be no Christ, no Redemption, no Faith. It is exactly because God has such infinite concern about sin, such unquenchable wrath against sin, that He found it necessary to do something to save us from our sin. But the fact that He rescues us from our sins does not in any way indicate that He condones our sins. No way! His whole purpose in the walk of faith that we pursue in this life is to help us to eliminate those sins from our lives, in order that we might come before Him at the end of our days and join Him as family.
So, yes, that one who had so spoken to my friend had done as she ought. It’s one thing to say that God will accept the homosexual as a potential member of His family. It is quite another to suppose that He will accept the homosexual who is intent on continuing in his sins unabated. If God were unwilling to call the sinful, there could be no church at all. When we are required to speak harshly of the sin in another’s life, we would do well to keep that point clearly in sight. But, that fact does not mean it’s ok. It’s not ok. It’s no more ok that the one we address should continue in sin than it is that we should do so. Really, it may well be that we need to hear that in reverse order. It’s no more ok that we continue in our sins (which we do, and you know it) than that this one we are evangelizing should continue in his.
Homosexuality is a sin. There can be no honest doubt about that. Honestly, there can’t. But, it is hardly the only sin. It is hardly the penultimate sin. It is one sin amongst many. It is one we are less likely to tolerate in the house of God, but that is only a symptom of our willingness to tolerate other sins more than anything else. Just today, I was reading a comment on the fact that the Church has been so willing to tolerate the sin of gossip in its halls. But, the fact that we tolerate it doesn’t make it less of a sin! The fact that we treat it like it’s nothing important, like it’s perfectly acceptable that we should behave this way doesn’t make it so.
The Bible, God’s Word, His determinations in regard to right and wrong remain the standard however little we may heed them. When the Pharisees added their great weight of traditions and opinions to the Law, and when they eased off other constraints of the Law, this did not change the Law. It only changed their practice. They could say “It’s OK” all they wanted, but their say so didn’t make it so. That’s what Jesus is getting at here. By saying “It’s OK” they were destroying the sheep, leading them into a false security which would prove to be their death.
Consider the ways the Church has taught that we might deal with our sins in the past. There have been (and still are) those who suggest that a certain payment into church funds, or a certain time spent in prayer, or some other action can balance the books on our sins. There are more who have never been taught this yet still behave as if it were the case. That is the whole motivation behind works-based faith, whatever form it comes in. That is what moves legalism: the idea that if I just do enough things right, it will balance out the wrongs and I’ll be OK. But, the whole motivation behind such approaches is that it gives me a way to keep doing what I want without the fear of condemnation.
But, the message of God is simple: If we confess our sins and turn away from them, He is faithful and just to forgive them. Repentance is more than apology. Repentance is a true change of heart, a determination to cease from doing the thing I used to do. Oh, it is no guarantee against failure in that commitment, but it is a commitment to give it my best. And, should my best not be enough this time, there remains the same formula. But, if I am simply saying, “forgive me this load, and let me get started on the next,” it is in vain that I bother to say anything.
Lord, for all those times I have done just that, I come now with a fresh commitment to truly do all that I can to turn aside from my wicked ways. Though I often feel powerless to hold to such words, I say them, for I know the power is not in me at all, but in You. It is You Who is at work in me both to will that I might come as I do with repentance, and to work such that I might find that repentance realized in true change. Indeed, God, You have removed even my weakness as an excuse, for it is all in Your strength I stand. So, yes, I confess I have repented only in word on many occasions, and I repent now of that practice. How can I come to You for forgiveness in a matter I have no intention of changing? Lord, see my intentions this day. If they are not in earnest with these words, then reveal this, also, that I might know it and work to change it. But, in so much as my intentions are true, I pray that You will empower their realization, that You will indeed work in me that my work may match my will as my will is aligned with Your will.
I have to imagine that some of those Pharisees listening to Jesus had much the same reaction. They heard the Truth of His accusations and realized a need for change, personal change. Perhaps, after what He had said, they were realizing the full extent of their weakness for the first time. How hard it must have been! All their training had taught them to rest on their own strength, to put all their attention on the works they were accomplishing, the rules they were implementing. All their training had made them proud of these accomplishments, and they may never have actually looked at those rules to see if they really fit with the Law of Moses. They knew (or had been taught) that those who made the rules had the best of intentions. Why, they would set forth a way of life that, if followed, would keep the follower so far clear of the Mosaic boundaries as to have no cause to worry about them.
Now, it was becoming clear that the intent had not been the reality. Truly, they had been more blind than the blind man. More clear still was the reality that the heads of their sect, the masters of religion, were willfully blinding themselves to the evidence. It is these voices we hear in verse 21. Look at what you are seeing for yourself here! It’s not even believable that this could be the work of a demon. What being of evil would seek to do such a good thing? It goes against all common sense to even suppose such a thing! Yet, this is exactly what the leaders were concluding about this Jesus. Faced with such evidence, those whose blindness still had hope of a cure were recognizing that to reach such a conclusion in the face of this evidence was evidence itself: evidence of an ill will and a corrupt judgment.
Others, of course, were too wounded by the charges of blindness and the intimations of thievery, to accept any thought of correction. They were not going to change. Their pride held them to their chosen course. If they were blind, then they were darn proud to be blind. Wouldn’t have it any other way. If they were thieves… But, of course, pride would not allow their thoughts to wander down that road. Of course they were not blind, nor were they thieves. They were Pharisees, after all, the crème de la crème! Therefore, the logic of pride dictated that this Jesus must be a fraud, and as such, He must be discredited at all cost. What fails to register is that their attempts to discredit such a clearly and obviously honorable and righteous man could only succeed in discrediting themselves.
It must be said, I suppose, that the Pharisees remain perhaps the most active sect of Judaism even today. The Sadducees are gone, but the Pharisees remain, and proud they are of that fact, as proud as ever! Why, they will tell you themselves that it is their pragmatism that has kept them in power. Hmm. Where in the Law was the commandment to be pragmatic? Pragmatism is the defensive shield of pride. Since pride cannot bear to be wrong, it must find some other means to let go of what it cannot hold fast. Pride with a real basis in righteousness would never let go. For, if it were truly the rule of righteousness that was in question, what righteous man could contemplate setting it aside in hopes of getting along?
As always, any contemplation of the Jewish dilemma must force us to consider ourselves. It is no good to decry their sins and walk away glad that we are not like them. The minute we slip into that behavior we have made ourselves like them! How often it happens. Phew! Thanks be to God I’m not like that! Yet, that is the exact characteristic Jesus points out in those we think we are not so very much like. Oh! We are exceedingly like them. It is only by the grace of God that we differ at all! It is only by the grace of God that we are granted to notice when we have fallen into this pattern, and only by His mercy that we escape the pattern once more.
So, let us learn one very simple lesson from this: Persistence of the sect is not evidence of its accuracy. Of course, newness of the sect is no such evidence, either. When we begin to realize the first point to be true, it is the natural overreaction to suppose that if the ancient is so often wrong, the new must be right. Yet, in spite of all the entrenched error of this and that sect, we are not called to pursue the new and the novel, but to hold to the ancient ways. Look at the issues that led to Israel’s failures, for they are ever our own failures: “My people have forgotten Me. They burn incense to worthless gods. They have stumbled from out their ways, from off the ancient paths, and now walk on bypaths rather than highways” (Jer 18:15).
Listen, and understand clearly: Israel was indeed formed as a nation by God. They were set amongst the nations as a model and as a sign to point to the true God of all Creation. In their history, we find parallel after parallel to the Son of God Who arose from among their number. But, there is also this to be understood in their history: They were set forth as a lesson for those of us who would follow, and it is a good lesson because their every weakness is none other than is common to man. They have suffered no greater propensity for idolatry than we. They have suffered no greater pridefulness than we. They have been no more stiff necked than we. They were no more blind than we. Far from reviling them for their rejection of Christ, or even pitying them, we would be far better served to seek the lesson of their history, to constantly check ourselves against their record to be certain we are not choosing the same failed ending.
Last Monday night, as we studied the end of Romans 2, I was struck by the constant parallel once more. Paul rails against the Jewish pride in circumcision, their false expectation that the mark in the flesh was sufficient to cover all the evil of their daily lives. We’re Jews, therefore we’re saved! Over and over again, they fell into that trap of false thinking. We’re in Shiloh, so nothing can touch us. We’re in Jerusalem. The Temple! The Temple! God will never abandon His own house. And, believing this to be the case, they did the most foul things right on the very grounds of His house, and still thought He was bound to protect them.
But, replace Pharisee with the denomination you happen to belong to. Replace Jew with Christian. Replace circumcision with baptism or communion as you see fit. Then read through those verses (Ro 2:17-29) and see how you stand. It’s too easy to pass off all of Paul’s questions as specifically addressing the Jews and only the Jews. But, that’s not the way of it. The questions continue to apply. You who call yourself a Christian, relying on the cross and boasting in God. You are so certain you know His will, that you approve all the essentials of the faith, being instructed from the Gospel. You are confident that you can lead the blind to salvation, shine as a light in the darkness; that you can correct the foolish and disciple the new believer. You would even go so far as to say that your doctrinal understanding embodies the whole of knowledge and truth.
And don’t you dare just go substituting some other denomination’s name in there. Look to your own eye! You teach others, don’t you teach yourself? You preach against stealing, yet are you not a thief yourself, when nobody’s looking? You denounce adultery, and yet you commit adultery daily, even if it’s only in thought. You claim to abhor idols, yet you rob temples. You boast of your Christianity, yet you break ever tenet of the faith to God’s dishonor! Indeed, it is justly said that God’s name is blasphemed because of your example.
Let’s return to that matter of idols, for it may be a bit too obscure for us to contemplate what Paul means about robbing temples. More to the point, we are forever chasing after idols. We’ve just changed their form in hopes of hiding from that truth. If we can’t find any idols to bow down to, we’ll manufacture some! We will, left to our own devices, take every good thing and make an idol of it. Work? It’s a commandment of God, and given for our benefit. Yet, we make an idol of it, and enslave ourselves to it, rather than turning it to its intended purpose. Marriage? A great good. Yet, many will make such an idol of their spouse that even God cannot rise above that spouse in their sight.
Church, even. Indeed, that is exactly the trap Israel fell into, and over and over again, God had to destroy their holy places because they had made them idols to be worshiped. The Temple, again, stands as case in point. Just think of the reaction they had when Jesus spoke about the temple being destroyed and rebuilt in three days. They were ready to stone Him for even suggesting that the temple might be something less than an eternal structure! Many of us view our particular denominations, or even our particular church building, with just such an excessive sense of pride.
By all means, we should ever treat the things of God as holy. Certainly! But, when we make the things more important than the God; when we make the things more important than the people He has made in His image; when we are more concerned for the appearances of the physical plant than we are for the spiritual condition of those who use the facilities: then we have fallen into idolatry.
Then, our boast is in great danger of leading to the blaspheming of God’s name. For, if we are not setting ourselves up for a fall, we are setting up others. And, fall they will, and great will be the damage done. Every idol must fall. In the end, we must discover that many of those idols had no say in the matter. Idols are, after all, dumb objects, bits of clay, metal or wood that we have fashioned into some form that we are inclined to worship. They did not ask us to do this. The stone did not fly up from the ground and shout, “chisel me, and bow down to me!” Not at all! It was our choosing.
No good thing has ever asked to be made evil. No good man has ever asked to be idolized. The two points go hand in hand. It is our idolizing, whether of thing or of man, that has made the evil. It is our idolizing that is the evil. Yet, that one who accepts such treatment from us has become complicit in our sin. Our own idolizing ways are damaging enough to the kingdom, but they are nothing compared to those we destroy by making them the objects of our idolization. When they fall, they will take many with them. And yet, the greater blame shall lie with us, for lifting them higher than they had reason to be lifted.
Remember, then, these same Pharisees who were with Jesus and yet heard the harsh words of reality from His mouth. Remember, then, that these, though at least nominally in His camp, became divided when the rebuke came. Some heard and were changed by the hearing. Some recognized His voice, and followed Him out of their error. But, others, the majority even, heard only a threat to their free will, and reviled Him. When the call came to “choose you this day” they chose all right. But, they chose all wrong.
Part of the crisis that Jesus provokes, the reason there is that “choose you this day” aspect to each occasion upon which He teaches, is that His message must provoke division. In the same sense, when our own teaching is true and accurate to Jesus, it will likewise provoke division. It must. When He is taught in full, the one who hears will be forced to decide whether to believe unto salvation or to deny unto damnation. There is nothing seeker friendly about that proposition. Indeed, to be seeker friendly, we must suppose that there are those who are seeking. Perhaps there are, but if so, it is only because they have already been sought out by the Shepherd. They are not searching for Him. He is carrying them to the fold.
For the rest, they are not seeking, at least not seeking the real Lord of heaven and earth. They may be seeking some idea of deity which will bring them comfort without requiring anything much of them other than maybe their time. Much of modern religion is built up to satisfy just such a seeker. Come! We won’t comment on your sin. We won’t insist that your conceptions of God match our own. Just come. Come as you are, and don’t worry about changing at all. God loves you just the way you are right now, friend!
So, why exactly is it that He died again? If we’re fine as we are, what was He atoning for? If our ideas of who God is don’t matter to Him, why has He gone to such great lengths to reveal His true nature to us? Why the claim to exclusivity if all views of Him are equally valid? But, no. The Gospel, the great Good News, is that there really is only one God. He really does care about sin. He really does know about your sin, just as He is fully cognizant of mine. He really did die a real and terrible death in order that the due penalty of your sin and mine might be paid in such fashion that we could still come to be living citizens of His kingdom. He really did rise again from death to take His place once more upon the throne of heaven for all time. When He said He alone was the door by which we might enter into salvation, He meant it. When He said there is only one way, He meant it. He will not answer to the name of Buddha, nor of Shiva, nor of any other name except that name by which He was named by the Father: Jesus, Yeshua, the Christ of God, His only begotten Son.
At His birth, it was pronounced that He would be a sword to pierce with the result that the thoughts of each heart might be revealed (Lk 2:35). This is exactly what is transpiring in this crowd that Jesus is teaching. The thoughts of the heart are being revealed. In many, those thoughts, despite the religious trappings, are so thoroughly opposed to God that no amount of evidence will convince them of His Truth. In others, though, even amongst those whose outward display might well convince us that they had no religion at all, the heart recognized the wonder of what was on display before them. They would follow the evidence where it led, and find salvation revealed in this One Who opened the eyes of the blind.
Did they, then, believe because of the miracles? Not in isolation. What is revealed here is that Word and miracle informed one another, confirmed one another. Miracle alone is not enough. Is Word alone enough? I think it must be. Consider Jesus’ comment to Thomas. “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed” (Jn 20:29). Surely, the majority of us are counted in that number. Few amongst us can lay claim to having witnessed a true miracle. Oh, we may be able to recount any number of things that we count as miraculous, yet are more in the realm of simple providence. We have not, by and large, seen the dead raised, the blind eye restored to sight, oceans divided, pillars of fire, or such like.
Yes, I can point to those places where God has clearly (at least in retrospect) intervened in the affairs of my life that I might be preserved. But, do these count as miracle? Perhaps. But, then, perhaps I reduce the glory of miracle by trying to account for these events in that way. Perhaps it is best to leave them as acts of divine Providence, which is marvelous enough in itself. Let me save miracle for the truly miraculous.
I need to point out, as well, that by and large, even these acts of Providence were not obviously such to me until well after I had come to belief in God. He had been acting prior, but understanding of that waited until later. Faith came apart from seeing. Faith set me in the place of seeing. It gave me the eyes to recognize what was happening around me, what had been happening around me for years. We cannot, for instance, come to that place of recognized Providence which might be expressed as, “There’s no such thing as circumstance,” until He has caused us to accept the possibility of His being.
That sword comes. It pierces through, and reveals our heart. What shall it reveal? You know, it’s not just a once in a lifetime event, particularly for the believer. That sword may pierce us many times in the course of our development. For, as we know, the heart is deceptive almost beyond measure, and we are all to prone to believe its lies. The sword must pierce. The sword must reveal. The Sword must open our eyes to what is being shown, that we might once for all deal with the issue by the power of the Sword.
Jesus, truly taught, will provoke division. Ideally, this shall prove to be the dividing of the sheep and the goats, as it were. But, even within the fold, there comes division. There are those sheep who are His and those who are not, and when He is taught in full, those who are only sheep look-alikes will not remain. When He calls His own out of the fold, and issues clear instruction as to where we are going, the way He points out is clearly difficult and dangerous. The one whose trust is not fully and truly in Him will not follow, for the risks will appear to outweigh any possible benefits. It’s the crisis of refining.
We sing of the refining fire, but we don’t want to hear about the crucible that fire heats, that crucible in which we must allow ourselves to be heated. The refining process is not gentle. It cannot be. It will require harsh measures to burn off the dross of our lives, and hey! That dross is part of us! We don’t usually let go of it willingly. It takes extreme measures to bring us to the place of acceptance in these things. But, by His strength we are able. In Him, with Him, all things are possible. As we trust in Him, we come to understand that, though the fires are hot, and the crucible painful, the resulting purification is well worth it. We come to understand that even in the trial, He is there, and that which He is doing in us and to us is good. Indeed, it is very good.
Now, then: Let me turn my attention to the argument of the opposition. They accuse Him of madness, insanity. By the common understanding of the time, that accusation bears with it the accusation of demon possession, for the latter was seen as the cause for the former. Demons were seen as the cause of many other maladies as well. This lies at the root of that other accusation that was leveled against Him, that He was only able to cast out the demons of disease because He Himself was possessed by an even greater demon.
Demons were also seen as lying behind the idolatry of the pagans. Those to whom they bowed down, though in appearance dead objects of stone and wood, were understood to be backed by demons. Don’t think that this aspect of the demonic was out of sight as these accusations were leveled against Him! What would better serve those who sought to discount His message than to give out that He was serving one of these pagan idols? Who would listen to Him then? Indeed, this is the repeating thrust of the argument against Jesus. He is seeking to destroy the true faith. He hates the Temple. He reviles Moses. He serves the Devil. He is ee-vil! You mustn’t listen to Him! Listen to us!
As I noted earlier, it is an attempt to poison the well. They do not address His message, do not refute His teaching. How could they? One cannot correct the error that is not there. Neither do they acknowledge the evidence of His actions. They cannot deny them in any meaningful fashion, but they can ignore them. This is not a valid response, but it is the only response they can muster. They have already rejected Him, and now are just doing what they must to maintain. Indeed, we might say this is no longer religion. It’s pure politics.
It is the same sort of politics we see daily. Having already determined that a particular outcome must prevail, no amount of logical argument against that outcome will cause a change of heart in its proponents. If the facts that pile up against their position become insurmountable, they will seek to discredit those who report the facts. They will seek to dissemble, and mislead, and in the meantime, they will continue to finagle, hoping to fool most of the people most of the time long enough to achieve their goal, however deleterious they may now understand it to be. Saving face is more important than benefiting the populace. That was the reality for those who opposed Jesus in such fashion. That is the reality for those who play such a game today.
Now: while that is certainly a point to be understood as regards the ungodly, it is also a point to be aware of in myself. For, my flesh is not so purified that I am free of such corruptions. I, too, may be overly quick to reject what happens to run counter to my understanding. I, too, may become so hidebound in my views that I discount the clear evidence before me just because it doesn’t align with my foregone conclusions. This is no call to start accepting every least bit of evidence that is proposed, but it is definitely a call to beware the cynical streak I well know lies within me.
In general, I am inclined to discount signs today, because as often as not those signs are held up as proof of words that simply do not align with the Gospel as I understand it. Yet, signs are not to be discounted utterly. Even if they are second and third hand reports, the reports of the truly miraculous need to be given proper weight. No, they may not serve to validate false teaching, but they might well earn a more earnest hearing. They might suffice to at least allow me to entertain the possibility that my grasp of doctrine is not perfect.
Clearly, there are points of doctrine which no amount of signage can lead me to change my views on. As Paul himself said, though it come from the mouths of angels, if it runs counter to the Gospel once received, it is an abomination. No matter how many miracles may accompany such lies, they remain lies, and the miracles are shown to be lies and counterfeits as well. But, on many other matters, have I not held different views previously, and found cause to change as understanding increased?
Well, then! Let me not be found so convinced on every least point of doctrine that I cannot accept the possibility that I am wrong. If it is over such points as these that I am resisting the voice of one who has given reasonable cause to be heard, then let me at least hear, and hear with an open and prayerful mind, not the mind of one who will brook no disagreement.
I noted in preceding studies that discernment is a gift that must be the possession of every sheep. That rule still applies. A hearing is warranted. Gullibility is not. Hear, but hear with discernment. Hear, but hear with the ear of the Spirit. Seek out the Scriptures and learn whether what is heard accords with what is written. It’s hardly impossible that we may be required to adjust our views. It’s hardly impossible, though, that we are correct. Indeed, even the best of our teachers will be incorrect at times. Is this cause to reject the teacher entire? Again, it depends on the nature of the error, and the willingness of the teacher to accept correction where the error is real. Just as we must be ready to correct our own errors, we must expect the same of our teachers. The teacher who will insist on error is no teacher.
What the proponents of Christ say here is worthy of consideration: The evidence of His actions was reason enough to listen to His words. His words are hard to understand. He doesn’t speak as a child. It requires effort to really get at what He means to say. Here, too, we must realize there is no excuse to stop listening, to reject the message because we don’t get it immediately. It may make little sense on first hearing, but it is not madness. It is depth.
His actions, on the other hand, are clear cut and easily understood. Look! Here is a man we know was blind and now he sees. There’s no riddle in that, only fact. He was blind, now he sees. He himself has indicated that it is this Jesus who accomplished the healing. Nor is this an isolated case. We have many such witnesses telling their stories of what Jesus has done. Whether we understand His teaching or not, we can understand this much: It’s not conceivable that God would consistently be working these sorts of miracles through demons. He Who will not tolerate sin would hardly be acting to promote the sinful ones, would He?
Oh, I know (and have often pointed out) that God is fully able to work His will through those who are utterly opposed to His will. Just look at the cross! The murder of His Son on trumped up charges was hardly the act of men of good will, hardly the work of those who sought to promote God’s agenda. Yet, it promoted His agenda in full. But, this is the exception case, not the norm. This was work accomplished through ordinary means, not through miracle.
I don’t know: is there record of God working miracles through the hands of an unbeliever? I can’t think of an example off hand. Oh, He has caused true words to be spoken by liars, true prophecies to come from the mouths of false prophets. But, these are not in the way of being miracles. This is a matter I need to give due weight. And yet, I am drawn back to the fact that we are warned against looking at the signs and wonders as proof of the man. We are not, it would seem, sufficiently wise in discerning the real from the fake. It could make a man wonder: if we can’t judge the validity of signs, how able are we to judge the validity of words? To which I would answer that the words are more able to be coolly analyzed.
Signs, by their nature, excite. They wow us, if you will. They are signs for the very reason that they are overwhelming, beyond the norm, out of the realm of experience. As such, they are likely to more or less shut down the thought process. Words, on the other hand, express ideas. However outré those ideas may be, they are still ideas and we can compare and contrast them with concepts we already comprehend. Indeed, this lies at the basis of teaching by parable. Each parable draws from common knowledge to illustrate a higher truth. Yet, each parable also requires our thinking to extend beyond its current bounds.
Words can be measured against the Word, and this, in the end, is what allows our judgment to be better in regards to words. We can compare. We can test them. We can look to see how these new ideas fit together with what we already have of God’s revelation. If they are in accord, it is well. If they are not, then they are to be rejected.
Signs, on the other hand, are necessarily at odds with the norm. If they were not different than the body of normal experience, they would not be signs. If we try to compare them with what we already know of life, then of course they won’t fit. They may wow us, then, but they can’t really serve to prove anything in most cases.
So, how is it, then, that we are called to accept the signs Jesus has performed as proof of His claims? Well, first there is this: both word and sign are in accord in Him. It is not by signs alone that we are called to believe. Indeed, if I look at what He says, they are really there for the skeptic. If you can’t believe what I teach, then believe because of what I do. That’s the gist of it. And again, look at what He says to Thomas: Blessed are those who believe without having seen. The signs are nice, then, but they are not the primary proof. The message is the proof. The sign of His life, His death and His resurrection: that is sufficient, so far as signs are concerned.
The reason for the signs, in His case, is more that they confirmed the prophecies of God. They were necessary not as proofs of the deity of Christ, but as matters made necessary by God’s pronouncement. “It is fitting that I should be baptized by you, because so it is written.” Jesus came to fulfill all things in the Law, and that includes the prophets. No other in all of history can have such need of confirmation. No other is the Christ of God sent for the redemption of all mankind. He is unique in all history, and as such, the portents fulfilled in Him are unique. In this, then, I am not convinced that we can take His case as the normative for godly men.
Signs and wonders certainly followed the apostles. Signs and wonders, however, seem to have fallen off rather rapidly thereafter. I have to also note that the signs and wonders of which we read were never for show, never frivolous. They served a purpose and they filled a need. Too much of what I hear about under claims of signs and wonders today fails to attain to that standard. Handprints in gold-dust? To what end? What did it heal? What wrong did it right? Bars of unexplained light flitting about the room? So what? Does this reflect some great Biblical truth of which I’m unaware? I doubt it. Does it prove the godliness of the man? Hardly. Actions prove the man. Consistency proves the man. Sound doctrine and a life that matches; these prove the man. Not signs. Signs smack of showmanship and manipulation. That manipulation may be on the part of the worker of those signs, or it may be that he is himself being manipulated. But, they cannot serve as proof.
So, when I look at what I see in Jesus: that the evidence of His actions sufficed to earn His words a hearing; it is not so much the miraculous nature of those actions that earn the hearing as it is the inherent goodness of them. His signs were consistently to a good purpose. The healing of this blind man and restoring him to a more fruitful life, this is good. The feeding of those thousands who had come out to hear Him, rather than leaving them to fend for themselves, that was good. Even the wine at Cana must be taken as having served a good purpose. That may be harder for us to accept in our current culture, but I can be assured it is true none the less.
If, then, we would take the measure of the man by his actions, let it be on the consistent goodness of them, not on the spectacle. If, then, I would be known as a godly man, let me take that point to heart. It is the consistent goodness in word and deed that will make the point, and nothing else. If my life is not up to that measure – and I’m not suggesting it be without fail, but consistent – then I earn no hearing for my words. It is a well known dictum that actions speak louder than words. In matters of faith and righteousness, this is truer still.
So, I come once again to the words of those who were still listening to Him. “Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” The nature of the question belies the clear answer. Were they men of our own time, we would hear a preceding, “Give me a break!” The shear absurdity of the idea, as they see it, should suffice to indicate to that other camp that their opinions are off. Now, as to whether or not a demon could, no: I’m not convinced it would prove possible.
What was happening in this particular healing was a creative act, and creation lies solely in the hands of God. Even the most creative of men has never done more than manipulate what was already there. The sculptor does not create the rock, merely manipulates it. The scientist does not create elements, merely modifies and combines what elements already exist. Likewise, demons, being so fully separated from God, cannot create. They can manipulate. They may even be able to so manipulate things as to appear to have provided sight to the blind. But, the actual healing is quite likely beyond their ken.
Even if we are wrong in this, though, a secondary question remains. Supposing they could heal, would they? It is much harder to imagine what might lead them to do such a thing. These are beings of malevolent purpose. They are intent on destruction and deception and little else. The idea that a being of such inclination would show such a mercy to those they ought rather to be tormenting is nonsensical.
As to the possibility, let me seal it with this passage: “The Lord opens the eyes of the blind. The Lord raises up those who are bowed down” (Ps 146:8). While I am choosing this one verse, it is not the only one that sets this power upon the Lord. Indeed, taken together with some of those other references, it is clear that God is not claiming that He is one amongst many who do this thing. He declares that it is His to determine. He decides who will be born thus and who shall have sight. Likewise, every other aspect of the physical being is His to determine. If that shall change, this, too, is His to determine. “The Lord opens the eyes of the blind.” Period. The means are unspecified. Should it happen through the mechanisms of medical science, it is no less by His hand that the thing has been done. Who revealed the means to the medic? By Whose wisdom were those treatments make known to man?
Oh, you can tell me how the medic was a committed atheist, with not so much as the least of thoughts for God, but this makes no difference. It is not the man’s thought for God that is at issue. It is the reality of God’s thought for man. Here is where I return to the fact that He acts through friend and foe alike. Here is yet another aspect of the reality that He causes His goodness to fall on good men and bad. The sun shines equally for all. The rain falls equally for all. The marvels of His wisdom are showered down upon man equally for all. Salvation? Yes, this too was poured out for all.
Yet, not all will avail themselves of His benefits, not even of those through whom the benefits may come. Salvation is made possible to all, but not all will receive it. The blessings of provision are made possible to all, but not all will avail themselves of it. These decisions, too, are His to make in the end, particularly as regards salvation, but also in other areas. He calls, we answer. That we answer is true because He opened our ears to hear His call. The deaf sheep will not be so swift to follow the Shepherd. The blind sheep cannot see where the Shepherd leads. Unless, then, our Good Shepherd has opened ears and eyes, we can hardly expect to answer His call.
Oh! The wonderful mystery of this, that He is so fully in control and yet we remain free in will, free in conscience. It may not make sense to the thoughts of man. It may be beyond our power ever to reconcile these two things, and yet it is so clearly so! Apart from His absolute sovereignty, I remain without hope. Yet, in spite of His absolute sovereignty I am not absolved of my guilt for sin. Not until I have taken up the grace of faith. Not until I have availed myself of that infinite Atonement of Christ. His sovereignty is not my excuse. But, it is most certainly my assurance!
Going forward, there shall be more that Jesus says regarding the matter of miracle and the association of miracle and word. But, before I consider those words (Jn 10:25-26), I shall be considering some material from Luke, which I determined at some point seemed to fit with the scene John has set. Whether that is truly so or not I may yet find cause to change view, but I shall leave the order as I once determined to pursue it, and see where God shall lead me in that ordering.
