New Thoughts (07/15/09-07/20/09)
What a passage this is! There is so much that is packed into these seven verses, and yet, so much of what is there is left unsaid. If I were to read this in a superficial way, not seeking to grasp the situation that is unfolding around the conversation, I would likely find Jesus’ speech disconnected and confusing. But, the reality is that He is presenting a legal case or, as the case may be, destroying the legal case of His opponents. The problem we face is that John does not see fit to indicate the emotions present in the speech. We are given no indication of what words were stressed, and in many cases, hearing that stress is critical to understanding the real meaning of what was said. Anybody who has attempted a debate via email or its variants on the Internet will understand how easily the heat of a message can escalate because those verbal indicators are not present to make the intent clear.
A dispassionate reading of this whole exchange (and really, it goes well back into chapter 7), will not express the reality of what is going on. This is legal challenge. These officials of the temple have come out to challenge the authority of Jesus, to bring His entire ministry into question, and if at all possible, to put an end to Him and His ministry. Why? Because it is a threat to their own authority. They recognize, and the people must recognize, that either Jesus is true and His is the authority, or Jesus is false and authority rests with the Sanhedrin. They are so absolutely opposite in their ways that the two cannot possibly share that authority.
It is that constant crisis point that comes wherever Jesus speaks. The choice is forced upon His hearers, and sides must be taken. From the very start, it has always been the case that when God presents Himself, there comes the need to “choose you this day.” There is no option of stalling for time. Time has come. The kairos moment for you is now, and the decision you make in this kairos moment will be the one that counts. To request time is to reject Him. It lies in His hands to offer a second chance down the road, but He cannot in any way be required to do so. What shall become clear as we consider the court session that unfolds in these verses is that there are indeed cases where He assures the opposition that no second chance will be forthcoming. Case closed.
I have to say that I do not recall another passage where I have felt so inclined to quote such a variety of translations. There are parts of this monologue which come across as unnatural in some of the more literal translations, almost reading as if John was trying to retrofit some theology into the presentation. So, for these, it is well to have other translations that at least give indication that there’s another way to hear what was said. So, as I proceed through this study, I shall be pursuing it verse by verse in a fashion I do not always follow. It just seems to require that treatment.
With that, let me turn to verse 41. Here is one of those cases where the ability to actually hear what was said would really help. Look at the response of those Jesus is accusing, and consider that He has indeed accused them. Thus far, He has not been explicit in stating who He alludes to as being their father, but it’s clear they get the drift. But, the accusation has been laid out: Your father is not as you claim; it shows in your actions. Their reaction to this is to say, “We weren’t born out of wedlock. We have one Father in God. We are legitimate children.”
Now, without hearing any particular vocal stressing of one word over the other, this could be heard as no more than a calm response, a gentlemen’s debate. Of course, anybody who has been around a Jewish debate (or, I suspect, any Middle Eastern debate) knows that there really is no such thing as a gentlemen’s debate in that culture. There is no such thing as a dispassionate defense of opinion. The question, then, is where are those vocal stresses? What is being emphasized? Well, what happens if we hear it stated thusly? “We weren’t born in fornication!”
There is thinly veiled counter-accusation in that. The fact that they follow that up with their claim to God as their father indicates first, that they indeed understood what Jesus was implying and second, that they have recognized Jesus’ previous claims to being the Son of God. In other words, this is a battle for legitimacy. In fact, if we recognize this to be the case, and particularly if we recognize that the Pharisees and their compatriots are well aware that this is the case, much changes in how we may perceive what has led up to this.
For instance, why had they brought that adulteress before Him? Yes, we understand that it was intended as a trap for Jesus, but what was the nature of that trap? Was it simply that here was a case of improper trial? Was it simply that if He were to support Mosaic Law in that case, it would set Him against Roman Law, and likewise, if He acceded to Roman Law it would show Him as setting something above God’s Law? Any number of different crimes could have been presented for His attention if that were the whole of their purpose. But, they specifically chose this adulteress as their point of attack.
It is important for us to recognize that these men were not unaware of Jesus’ background. They had been out doing their opposition research. We saw it with those who were sent to look into John the Baptist and question his validity. They would certainly be doing no less about this Jesus who struck such fear in them. They knew all the stories that had arisen about Joseph and Mary, and the more likely (as the flesh measures things) explanation behind the birth of Jesus. So far as they were concerned, it was settled fact that He was the product of an adulterous relationship. That is why they had brought an adulteress before Him. Had He spoken in condemnation of her sin, be assured that they would have pounced on that act to speak of His own origins, and to point the finger of hypocrisy at Him. Their whole purpose, we must bear in mind, is to discredit this Man, to destroy Him. If they can do it without violence, so much the better. But, whatever it will take to turn the people against Him, they will do. They must, if they are to maintain their power.
So, as we come to this reaction of theirs, I think it extremely likely that the verbal stress is exactly as I have indicated: “We weren’t the ones born in fornication.” One can almost hear the significant coughs following on that. Not like you, Jesus. We know who our fathers were. Can you say as much? Now, they follow on that with the claim of God as their Father. Well, what is that, but another attempt to counter the claims Jesus has been making. You are the Son of God? He is Your Father and sent You? Must we really bring up the ugly truth about your birth, sir? Do you really want to go there? Come now, renounce this ridiculous claim of yours and be done with it.
One thing this understanding does is to change the way I am hearing some of the earlier parts of this exchange. In particular, I look back at John 7:28, and hear that a little differently. It seems as though I should read more into that than appears on the surface. In that place, Jesus is crying out in the temple. In other words, He is shouting rather loudly. Arguably, He is only seeking to make Himself heard by the noisy crowd. But, perhaps it is more than that. Perhaps, even here, He is more directly concerned with addressing the opposition than He is the crowds in general. “You both know Me and where I am from.” Thus He begins. But, is He merely stating commonly held fact, or is He opening a line of attack on that claim of theirs?
I begin to hear it more as if He were saying, “You claim you know Me and where I am from. Well, then, you must also be aware that I have not come of Myself, He sent Me, and He is true.” Then comes that conclusion to the argument: “You do not know Him.” Listen! This is a direct assault on their authority! In fact, if those stresses are accurate, “He sent Me, and He is true,” then there is something of a veiled accusation in there: you are not true. “You don’t even know Him, but I do!” And then, we read that “they were seeking to seize Him” (Jn 7:30). Why? Because they heard the attack in His words. They recognized that He had just laid their authority under question. Thus, as we come back the next day in chapter 8, we find them on the offense, bringing the battle to Jesus and seeking in their turn to undermine His authority.
Thus, their attacks on His credentials are a less veiled. We weren’t the ones born in fornication. We know all about you, Jesus, and we’ll bring this up more directly if we must. You were writing your list of our sins in the dirt, but we shall speak plainly of your own. Then, let us see whom the people prefer. You wish to claim God as your Father? We make the same claim. Yes, and you’ll not find evidence of those sins you would accuse us of. We’re far too careful for that. But, in your own case? Why the evidence is plain, isn’t it? Born a mere three months after the wedding? What other explanation could there be?
It seems, then, that the Pharisees are attempting to set Jesus out as the defendant, to force Him into a defensive stance from which they feel He cannot escape unscathed. Jesus, however, is not interested in playing defense. He is, after all, the Judge. He is also the master Attorney of heaven, well used to facing the Accuser in case after case. Nor has He ever lost a one. He’s not likely to do so against such as these!
Moving to verse 42, we find that Jesus quickly turns their argument on its head. They have claimed God as their Father, and in response, He notes that as such, they ought to love Him, for He was born of God. He is a brother to them. In fact, He notes, My Father, this One you say is your Father as well, sent Me.
Thus goes the line of His argument, but I have to admit that there are things about this particular verse that are difficult to grasp in translation. This is particularly so in the way Jesus states His relationship to God: “I Proceeded forth and have come from God.” That’s the way the NASB has it in its effort to stick to a closely literal translation. But, other translations take the meaning a bit differently. The ESV, for example, translates this as saying, “I came from God and I am here.” The CJB, which one might assume would represent a greater understanding of cultural idiom, offers a fairly similar translation: “came out from God; and now I have arrived here.”
That there is such variation in translation suggests that we ought to consider the words behind the translation. There are two words, then, which need to be considered: exeelthon and heekoo. The first of these is a composite word, combining ek and erchomai. Ek, which I may consider in more detail later, is indicative of motion from or out of a place or circumstance. Thus, we might take it as from, or out of. Erchomai is a verb of coming or going. Thus, when they are combined, we have the idea of coming forth from, issuing from. Thayer’s offers some interesting insight on this particular word, nothing that it can have the meaning of being born of.
It can also, as something of a theological aside, take on the meaning of ‘to emanate.’ I would not be surprised, then, to learn that this declaration was taken as a proof text by those who purport a Jesus who emanates from the Father and a Spirit who in turn emanates from Jesus. This lies at the heart of the old Arian heresy, which can be found at the base of the Unitarian movement. It is, and seemingly always has been, the primary line of opposition to the Trinitarian God upheld by orthodox belief throughout the ages.
What I find more telling, particularly in the setting of this legal challenge, is the meaning of being born of. These proud Pharisees have just announced their claim to being children of God, and have done so in a way that seeks to cast doubts on the legitimacy of Jesus’ own parentage. Jesus, in response, does not directly call them out as liars for their claims; not yet. No, He simply notes that as children of God they ought welcome Him who was born of God.
Coming, then, to heekoo, the function of that word is to arrive, be present. In light of that, the translation of “proceeded forth and have come from” feels not only stilted, but rather incorrect, even if the NKJV does largely concur. In terms of this second word, I think the other readings much more appropriate. “I am here,” or, “I have arrived.”
Yet, it still feels like the intent behind His use of that first exeelthon has been missed. Reading it as it is given, even by translations like the ESV leaves it sounding a bit odd. “I came from God.” That feels like a line out of an old sci-fi movie. If Jesus were speaking of place, I could accept that. “I came from Galilee, and now I am here.” That makes sense. But, “I came from God, and now I am here”? That does not form a natural connection of thought. He moves from person to place, and as such, it comes off sounding strange.
However, if I take His meaning as saying, “I was born of God, and I am here,” that begins to sound a bit more understandable in the context provided. “You would love Me, were you God’s children, because I was born of Him, and here I am with you! He sent Me to you.” This sounds almost like David arriving in Saul’s camp. Remember him being confronted by his brothers, who accused him of coming against his father’s wishes, just seeking excitement and maybe notoriety. But, David had been sent by his father, in spite of the abuse his brothers heaped on him. Jesus, were these truly His brothers, could say much the same of His situation.
Of course, as His argument proceeds, it becomes clear that His situation is actually different. These are not, as they claim to be, His brothers. They are of a different lineage than they claim. In some ways, their claims prove the point. For, if the claims are lies, then they reflect their lying father in making them. But, that is getting ahead of myself just a bit.
The other point of interest here in verse 42 is this matter of love. You would love me. Of course, we will all be aware that there are degrees of love to be expressed in Greek. We can pretty quickly discount eros, for such romantic, intimate love has no place in the discussion at hand. However, philos might reasonably be expected. After all, He is discussing a relationship between brothers. Would not the love between brothers be an appropriate term to apply? Yes, but He has taken it a step higher. Here, we are dealing with agapao. We are not all the way to agape, but we are very, very close.
We are, then, hearing about love in a social or moral sense. Stronger than the love between brothers, or at least more significant, yet still short of that love reserved for the relationship between God and His own. That still leaves a wealth of possible meanings to be applied, as Thayer’s brings out. At base, there is that clear sense of good will. One cannot love without a sense of good will. There is also the idea of caring concern, as one might expect in a parent’s love for a child. This aspect might also be reasonably expected between siblings as they mature, becoming something of a tribal loyalty. But, there is more. There is an idea of affectionate reverence, and of prompt obedience. Now, we are seeing something more like the loving child’s relationship to his parents. However, it is in its deepest of meanings that I find the full power of the distinctive flavor of agapao. In agapao, we come to the idea of prizing the object of love above all things, of loving it in such degree as to be unwilling to do without it.
Here, let me take another very brief theological diversion. As I noted, this agapao love is more or less the final step of love below that of agape. It is so closely related to that highest of loves that I should think it safe to suppose that agape takes up all that is agapao and raises it that much higher. As such, we can safely suppose that agape also indicates a love that prizes its object above all things and is unwilling to do without it.
Now then: this is the love we are intended to have towards God. This is the heart attitude we are being called into, that we should prize God above all things. Isn’t that exactly what we hear when God commands, “Thou shalt have no other God before Me”? Of course it is. You shall hold nothing whatsoever to be of greater value than Me. Furthermore, such shall be your love for your God that you are utterly, absolutely unwilling to be without Him. Think of Moses in the desert, when God threatened to take Himself away, and leave the Jews to themselves. No way, God! I’m not going anywhere without You. I cannot bear the thought of such separation! If You’re leaving, then just kill me now, because I don’t want a life apart from You.
You know, we love those plays and movies that depict such a strong bond of love between man and woman. It lies at the heart of the great romances like Romeo and Juliet. It lies at the heart of just about every romance written since. Yet, in such lesser relationships, it is almost unseemly to be that devoted. On the other hand, we are instructed to love our wives as Jesus loves His church, and there, the bond is of such great degree.
It is that point which I should particularly like to focus our attention on. It is a challenge to us to come to such a love for our God as we are expected to have, to truly value Him above all things and truly find ourselves unwilling to spend so much as a moment apart from His attentions. But, understand this: It’s no difficulty for Him to have that depth of love for you! You are, He says, the apple of His eye (Ps 17:8). Hear the protective Father in that! The Lord says, “He who touches you touches the apple of My eye” (Zech 2:8). You mess with him, you’re messing with Me, son, and you don’t want to be messing with Me.
That’s the depth of love God has for you! He prizes you above all things. He is unwilling to do without you! That is the feeling that God has about you. That is the feeling that the Almighty, All powerful God of all heaven and all earth has for you. If he’s determined that He shall not do without you, what power is there that can possibly separate you from His love (Ro 8:35-39)? There is nothing! Absolutely nothing stands the least chance of severing you from God’s love. He is unwilling that it should be so. Said differently, it is His will that you and He shall not be separated. Thus He has spoken, and His word does not fail of its intent. In God, to will is to promise and to promise is to will. He does not fail of His promises, nor does His will fail to be achieved. Come what may, come every last one of the devil’s legions, His will is achieved. However thoroughly we ourselves may find we have worked against Him, His will is achieved. If, then, He has willed that He shall not be separated from you, the apple of His eye, then it’s settled! “I have called you, and you are Mine.” What greater, more comforting word, has a man ever received!
Oh, greater Love! Love beyond the devotion of the most committed husband and wife! Love that will not suffer loss, will not fail, will not be disappointed. If, as is the case, my Jesus, our hope in You is not subject to disappointment it is because Your love for us will not suffer disappointment. You have declared in Your heavens that You will not be separated from us. You have declared that You will not leave us, nor will You stand by to watch us leave. You have declared Your love for us, and Your love is steadfast. Your love is powered by Your will, and Your will shall be done, in me as it is in heaven, in Love.
To know myself the object of Your affections, my God, this is too wonderful for me. It is hard to imagine an all-powerful, all-wise God loving one such as I. Yet, this is Your stated Truth. That being the case, I must suppose that to fail to love myself would be, in its own way, to fail to love You, for I am the apple of Your eye. I am already as if I were a part of Your own body. Indeed, such You have also declared me to be. You are the head, and I, with my brethren, are the limbs of Your body. Truly, to be wed to You is to be entered into a most complete one-flesh relationship!
Let me ponder, as well, my God, that the Love you manifest towards me, this view You take of me as being part of Your own body, is the way You call me to love these brethren of mine. You call us to love one another in that very same degree: that the one who would do ought to harm a brother has as much as sought to do harm to me. Let me come to that place, Lord, of loving as You love. Let me come to that place of truly loving my brother as myself, even as You have commanded. By this, they will know that You are God. By this, I will know with even more certainty that this salvation into which You have bought me is real. Let that badge of faith be evident on my breast, that I have loved as You have taught me.
Now, with that great assurance at my back, I must forge onward into verse 43. This verse is dire news indeed for the those outside the assurance just given. Many will look at what is said here and suppose that there remains an opportunity for the opposition. It’s up to their will, surely? If they would but change their minds and accept what Jesus is saying, then it would all work out after all. But, this reflects a certain mindset in ourselves that has yet to fully and completely place God upon the throne. You see, it reflects a mindset that supposes that God cannot take His place upon that throne unless and until we have granted Him permission. Well, I must ask you: what king ever needed permission from those he ruled before he could take up his throne and rule? This is no democracy of heaven we are dealing with. Heaven is not a republic. It is a kingdom, and Jesus is its king. He reigns. He is not elected. He is not awaiting your permission to rule over His creation. He created it. He owns it. He reigns. Period. End of discussion.
So, when He addresses these who are not His loyal subjects, He essentially informs them that their visas will be revoked shortly. He does not offer them any hope of a reprieve in this decision. In fact, He is stating the impossibility of any change in their status. Why don’t you understand? Because it’s impossible for you to do so! I’m sorry, but ‘cannot’ doesn’t begin to capture the power of the words here, and yes, there are multiple words being captured by the one English compound. Ou: a word of absolute negation, a denial of the associated term having any least application to the subject. Dunasthe: to have the power, the ability, or the legal permission. Think about that! The power to understand? That idea doesn’t have any application to you. The ability to understand? You will never have it in you. The authority to understand? It shall never be granted to you. These things fundamentally do not apply to your case.
Consider some of the translations we are given of this answer Jesus gives to His own question. “You cannot bear to hear my word,” is what the ESV gives us. Wherefore that bearing, though? The text does not support it, nor does the ou dunasthe imply it. Likewise, the NET with its, “you cannot accept my teaching.” The WEB finally makes the point as bluntly as it deserves, but even there, the bluntness can be lost if we read to the end of the sentence. Try the sawed off version I have here: “Why don't you understand my speech? Because you can't.”
Listen! Don’t lose sight of what’s happening here. What we are listening to as Jesus and His opponents argue is as near to a court battle as one can get outside a courtroom. I was about to write that Jesus had said that He did not judge these men, but let me go back to that verse for a moment, and refresh my memory. “I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you” (Jn 8:26). You know, I always hear that as though He was saying, “I could, but I’m not going to.” It’s probably because of that ‘but’ which follows on that statement. That ‘but,’ though, does not introduce anything that negates His proposition. In fact, it only lends the more authority to whatever further statement He may make in regard to these opponents. “But, He who sent Me is true, and I speak only what I heard from Him.” The Counsel for the prosecution in this case, then, has the backing testimony of the God of all Creation, the very one these men have just claimed as their legitimate Father. Bad move on their part!
So, yes, we are in a legal contest, and yes, Jesus, the Counsel for the prosecution in this case, is also the Judge. His evidence is incontrovertible, coming from the All-Wise God in heaven. His presentation of the evidence is immaculate. I can’t imagine what lawyer would look at the way He has led this debate along and not marvel at the talent displayed in His execution of the matter. You want to claim God as your Father? You seek to make My legitimacy suspect? Let’s weigh the evidence together, shall we? Yours first!
You are sons of God? Then how is it you have no love for His true Son? You are God’s representatives on earth? Then how is it that you reject the teaching of His own word? You are holy men, true to the ancient faith? Then how is it even possible that you cannot understand what I teach, because I teach the fundamental, eternal truths of that ancient faith! Well, I’ll tell you why you can’t understand it! You are not authorized to understand it! You have no power, nor any hope of power, to understand it! It’s impossible for you! The decree has been made in heaven that you shall not, and therefore, you shall not.
Listen, this is something we do not wish to accept, but it’s the Truth God speaks repeatedly. There are those for whom the Gospel is impossible to accept. In fact, and this is the point we really have to arrive at in our thinking, the only reason we have accepted the Gospel is because God gave us the understanding. If He had withheld that gift, we would stand condemned, incapable of hearing the Gospel with any understanding, and as utterly, unchangingly unwilling to accept what we did hear as these men are as they listen to Jesus.
John knew this. This idea is not something that Paul folded over the top of the Gospel he received. John understood the exact same truth. He just had gentler ways of teaching it. Look, for example, at 1John 5:20. “We know that the Son of God has come. He has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true.” Recognize that John was dealing with a culture where there were all sorts of supposedly holy, supposedly Christian teachers laying claim to all manner of secret and privileged knowledge about the true message, the hidden message of the Gospel. You could say he was dealing with a culture much like our own, except without the means of mass media. The issues haven’t changed. The deceptions haven’t changed. The Truth certainly hasn’t changed. The Truth is that those who understand do so because God gives the authorization and the power. The Truth is that He does not give this to every man, but to those Whom He so chooses to give this gift. That this is the case does not decrease the guilt of those who are therefore held outside the kingdom blessing. God is not unjust in doing as He does. But, He will no more cast the pearl of salvation before swine who would chafe under His yoke than He would have us do so. The difference is that He knows which is which, where we must fear to even guess.
Neither is this ultimate authority of God in matters of salvation a concept that was newly minted with Jesus. Jeremiah had the same issue as Jesus has with these men. “To whom shall I speak this warning that they may hear it?” Jeremiah cried out (Jer 6:10). “Their ears are closed! They cannot listen! Look! The word of the Lord comes to them, an the have no pleasure in hearing it. It is a reproach to them.” But, notice: The impossibility of positive outcome did not lessen the necessity of speaking. The Gospel is to be preached not with an eye to speaking only to those we are pretty certain will receive it. The Gospel is to be preached. Whether to a receptive audience or hostile, it is to be preached. Whether unto salvation or unto condemnation, it is to be preached. We are not made responsible for the outcome. We are most certainly responsible for the effort.
We, who serve the Almighty God of heaven, who have gladly accepted our rightful place under the lordship of Jesus, the Christ of God, Who is Himself very God of very God, are bound by that fealty to obey Him Whom we call Lord. We are bound by the fidelity of our relationship as the betrothed bride of this same Christ to accede to His leading with all due submission. If, then, He has told us to go forth making disciples in His name, under what conditions can we reasonably refuse to do so? We cannot. We must do as He has commanded. His lordship requires us to do so. His marriage contract with us impels us to do so. His magnificent, unwavering love for us surely inspires us to do so! Are we so jealous of His love that we fear to see it shared with another? If so, then we have failed to take the measure of His love.
What is it, then, that holds us back? I will tell you what it must be: pride of self. We are even yet too concerned about our image to really come into full agreement with this Lord of ours. We are too caught up in the ways of this world we live in to really set our minds fully and indivisibly on heaven. Now, this is in some degree our Lord’s doing, I admit. He has chosen to leave us in this world we are not of. But, He is not responsible for our wandering eyes. He is not responsible for our harlotries in constantly choosing the world’s attentions over His. Oh, don’t you go playing the holier than thou game with me! It happens to the best of us, and this cannot be denied with any truthfulness. Now, I will admit that I may suffer this weakness to greater degree than some, maybe even to greater degree than many. But, the majority of us have our point at which we will bow to the pressure. And, as for those who stand more firmly, let me simply say, “be careful, lest you fall.” Don’t let this place of strength in you become a place of pride, lest pride lead to your downfall. As for me, I will admonish myself not to let this place of weakness hide itself as some sort of humility. It is merely a reality I must face in myself, and it is a weakness in which I shall have to trust my Lord to work out in me.
Lord, You have declared Your children are bold before Your throne, and bold in Your name and power. Yet, I confess I do not often feel so bold, except when amongst my brothers. This is not as it should be, I confess, and I repent of it, though I feel powerless to change. I am powerless to change. But, in You all things are possible. In You I can do all things, so I will pray here and now that You would grant me to be more fully and thoroughly in You. Come, Lord, in Your strength and Your power, and make this weak and fearful man another Peter in Your service. Let all timidity fall away in matters of Your truth. Yes! And let all false confidence fall away, as well: that I would but speak Your truth, and would but speak it on Your terms.
Continuing to verse 44, Jesus makes explicit what He has thus far only implied. As the arguments have been laid out in terms of parentage and legitimacy, He strikes down the claimed legitimacy of these Pharisees. “You are ek your father the devil.” I insert the Greek ek in this because it is another point of variation in the translations, and once again, it is a case where I find myself disagreeing with the more literal of those translations. The NASB, for instance, has, “You are of your father.” Well, perhaps it is but a swing in the language over time, but that isn’t terribly clear to me. The NIV, on the other hand goes far less literal in its approach and comes up with, “You belong to your father.” Perhaps one can wrangle that meaning into the passage, but it seems to overcompensate for the vagueness of ‘of’.
The most general sense of ek is indicative of motion or change. It denotes a movement out of or from some place or condition from which the subject is now separated. We saw that sense of the term when Jesus said, “I came from God.” We don’t say, in that instance, “I came of God.” The of translation, though common enough, doesn’t capture the point. The point is that here is the source. Here is that from which I derive my identity. This plays in much the same way as the term huios, indicating sonship and affinity of character and spirit, differs from teknon, the merely physical connection to one’s parents. In of, we are only contemplating certain technical realities. I am of a particular race and nation. These are facts of birth which I can neither deny nor alter. But, when I say I am from this nation, I speak it with pride in what this nation represents when it is at its best, and that it finds the will to effect change when it finds itself at its worst.
Yet, all of this still lies within the more general sense. In the context of this verse, I wonder if more specific applications of the term apply. Particularly as this line of argument unfolds, I can see the meaning that Thayer offers: The power that governs, and the character the governed reflects in his own. Isn’t that exactly the point Jesus is making here! You want to carry out your father’s desires. Your actions are governed by his. Your character, like true huios sons, is fashioned on his, reflects his, is even governed by his. This one from whom you spring, the source of your true race and lineage, was a murderer and a liar from the very start. The clear implication in all this is, “and you cannot help but be just like your father.”
Listen! “Truth does not exist in him!” That’s the way Wuest gives us the message. Now, notice that this is paralleling the cause and effect Jesus noted in the preceding verse, and also that which is echoed in the following verse. You don’t understand because understanding is impossible for you. Your father doesn’t accept the truth because truth does not exist in him. Truth is impossible for him. He lies because it is impossible for him to do otherwise, he being the very founding father of lies, the source of all lies. Then, we go on to the next verse, and Jesus is saying, “You do not believe Me because I speak the truth.” There is no other reason for it, nor is there need to look for one. The reason is right there: Sons of the liar, truth has no more existence in you than it does in your father, therefore, when truth is spoken, there can be little surprise in the fact that you reject it.
You see, to be from the devil indicates that you are a part of the society he has authored. Oh my! Isn’t that exactly what he’s been trying to do through the entire history of this planet! He seeks to author a society of men of the same spirit as himself, a society of men with minds governed by his own ways. From the very first, this has been his game. When Adam and Eve broke the one rule they had to live by, accepting the lie over the truth, their minds had become governed by his own. They, too, rejected truth. When Cain slew Abel, was he not rejecting the Truth of God’s forgiveness for the lie of rejection? And, how many still fight that battle daily even now!
This is where the battle lies. This is the entire mission of the Church. We have been satisfied with doing far less than was intended for us. We promote the Gospel message, and this is good. We seek the salvation of souls, and this is good. We may even, if we are heeding our calling in any great degree, do what we can to aid those who are suffering physically, and this, too, is good. But, we have stopped far short of standing up as the defenders of the Truth. We have stopped far short of joining battle against the household of lies. Look at our Leader, our Teacher, our Example! He is, right here in this passage, confronting the household of the liar head on, in no holds barred battle. The Truth shall set you free! It’s not just a platitude to make us feel better. It’s a battle cry!
I have little doubt that this understanding lay behind the involvement of the clergy in education. Look back to the beginnings of this nation, and what do you find? The clergy took upon themselves the task of education from the youngest ages. The Church saw great good in establishing centers of higher education. The great colleges of this nation, fallen and pagan though they may be today, were founded by the Church for the good of the people of the Church. Seminaries were established to turn out men of God who were well trained and well equipped to speak truth truly, well equipped to counter every wily argument and deception thrown against them by the clan of the liar. But, we lost sight of this over the years, and now find that the clan of the liar has not only infiltrated these institutions of truth, but have pretty well taken them over.
Do you doubt that? Well, try this simple test upon the output of these seminaries: “If you claim to have gained knowledge of Him, yet don’t keep His commandments, you are a liar with no truth in you” (1Jn 2:4). What, then, shall we say of these seminarians who seek to promote inclusion of homosexuals in the ranks that fill the pulpit? What, then, shall we say of these seminarians who use their office as cover for fornication and abuse of the worst kinds? John has a very direct answer to that question, for he still knew what it meant to be a defender of the Truth. “The one whose practice is sin is of the devil, for that one sinned from day one” (1Jn 3:8a). End of story. They may wear the garb of those who serve the Light, but they are of the devil. Just as these Pharisees who accost Jesus may put on every appearance of piousness, but they are true sons of the devil, lying liars who cannot do otherwise but continue to lie. They don the garb of the temple, but their every effort is geared at destroying the True kingdom of the True God of heaven and earth.
I want to note, however, the remainder of that verse. “The Son of God came for the express purpose of destroying the devil’s works” (1Jn 3:8b). In so doing, don’t you see, He is coming at the issue in exactly the same terms that the devil first came. The devil, from the very start, has sought nothing more or less than to destroy the work of God. That was his goal in Eden. That remains his goal today. That is his goal in the seminary, and that is his goal in society. That is his goal in polluting the clergy and that is his goal in polluting the laity. That is his goal in misleading the elders and that is his goal in enticing the youth. There is no aspect of life that is free of his polluting, destructive efforts.
But, the great good news, second only to the phenomenally great good news of salvation, is that the Son came to destroy the devil’s every effort. God has not sat idly by as His work was thus challenged and tainted. He was not taken by surprise when that serpent made such a mess of Eden nor is He taken by surprise today by the increased vituperation of the atheists currently at the forefront of the liar’s army. Listen! We are not to ignore the enemy. We are warned to remain wary of that wily lion who seeks to devour and destroy us. But, by the same token, we must not allow ourselves to make more of him than he warrants. He seeks, but the Father hides us. He longs to destroy us, but the Shepherd watches over us. He is stronger than we are, it is true. But, He Who is in us is stronger still. What God has joined together, let no man separate (Mt 19:6, Mk 10:9). I tell you, no man can, when God is part of what He has joined together. Neither can that liar who seeks to destroy every union God establishes.
Part of his lie, you see, is to convince us he is more powerful than he is. Part of his lie is to make himself the center of attention. When will we get this! This enemy of God has ever and always wanted one thing: the attention. He can’t truly gain God’s throne. By now, he surely knows this. I suspect he always knew this. He’s not stupid! Only foolish, terribly foolish. However, though he knows he can’t actually possess the throne, yet he also knows that if he plays things right, he can get as much attention as if he had. You know, it’s one thing to be aware of the enemy’s presence and his plans. This we should do, and we should thereby be prepared to join with our Lord in countering and upsetting those plans, exposing his presence to the Light that will most certainly vanquish. But, if he has become the center of our attention, then however great our anger may be, however loudly we may be denouncing him, yet he is enjoying the victory of having successfully turned us aside from watching for the command of our Lord. Oh, we won’t claim to be worshiping him, but how do we generally define what an idol is? Is not an idol any person or thing that we treat as being more important, more valuable, more to be feared than God?
Wake up! Something is seriously wrong when all our energy has gone into seeing the devil everywhere. Something is seriously wrong when his name is on our mind and on our lips more than is our God and King. No, I’m not telling you to ignore the evils in this world, nor the spiritual powers behind those evils. I am saying that when evils surround, lift your eyes to the mountains (Ps 121:1). Those mountains, especially as the psalmist saw them, were the very seats of power for devil worship. Where were the shrines set up to Baal and to Ashtaroth? They were on the mountain tops, the high places. But, what does the psalmist see when he looks at those mountains? Does he see cause for fear? No! He is looking higher. He sees that the One he serves is the creator of those mountains (Ps 121:2)! If the enemy has captured the highlands, well, yes, that’s a bad thing. But, it’s not the end. Our King still holds the highest lands, and that is not going to change.
The devil may be making a mess of things. He may be spreading destruction over the land, but do not lose hope in this. The Son came to destroy his works, and the Son is a Victorious Warrior. He comes with the host of heaven, and He is assured of victory. He shall overcome. It is only thus that we can say that we shall overcome. And it is thus that we can say so with full assurance. Come what may, we shall overcome as we serve the King of kings, to whom every knew shall bow, willing or no.
Going briefly to verse 45, I am yet again at odds with my favorite translation. “But.” Thus they introduce the continuing argumentation. There’s no but here. You are a liar from the family of liars, but because I speak the truth you do not believe Me? That doesn’t make sense. The word can as easily take the meaning of “and”, which frankly makes much more sense. You are a liar, son of a congenital liar, and as such, it’s hardly surprising that you don’t believe Me when I speak the truth. Not only is it the logical conclusion given what He had just noted about their father. “Truth does not exist in him.” Like father, like son. “Ergo, truth does not exist in you.” It can find no foothold. There are no receptors for truth in those who are of the clan of lies.
I would note, as well, that there is a certain psychological validation of that premise. Being liars, their natural tendency will be to suppose that others are lying to them. This lies at the heart of our tendency to take greatest offense at others when they demonstrate the same failings we know to be our own. This is why, when we suffer a particular flaw of character, our assumptions in dealing with other people tend to suppose that they have the same flaw. We are naturally inclined to suppose that others filter their experiences and nuance their conversations in exactly the same way we would. That is the very root of misunderstanding! So, these congenital liars are naturally going to suppose that anything Jesus says that doesn’t suit them is a lie. It’s what they would do to win an argument. Surely, then, he is a man just like themselves, and would do likewise!
Step back into that verse, though. The sentence structure is given as cause comma effect. Cause: Because I speak truth. Effect: You don’t believe Me. The relationship, though, might be just a little more obvious if we reverse the clauses. You don’t believe Me because I tell the truth. Connected with the preceding verse, there’s a clear connection. You are children of the liar, the clan of lies, so naturally you don’t believe Me when I speak Truth. It all follows. This is legal argument, remember. The case is being laid out in relentless, irrefutable fashion. The pieces fit. The argument proceeds in sound fashion, having laid out a foundation, and now building the conclusion on that solid foundation.
Having thus dispensed with their claims to legitimacy, Jesus returns to the veiled charges they have laid against Him. Notice that He has first shut them down as regards their propensity for lying because that propensity has been exposed to the Light. Only now does He address the things they hinted at back in verse 41. Now, then: which of you would care to present your evidence against Me? Come on, now, gentlemen! You have hinted at My sins, let us put it to trial! You are the legal experts here, are you not? Well, then, state your case. You have seen the charges I am able to lay out in your regard. Now, then, bring the evidence if you have any! Let’s be done with this game.
You see, by exposing their lying nature, He leaves them no room to play fast and loose with the rules of evidence. They, like their father, are not stupid, only foolish. They know that to make any claim they can not support in irrefutable fashion now would be to prove the point Jesus just made. They will find time later for their lies against Him, but just now, it is not an opportune time, and they know it. So, they are silent. It is really their only option.
Thus, what we have in verse 46 is really the conclusion, but Jesus draws out that conclusion in verse 47, building on what He has already said. By the time He gets there, though, He is no longer speaking as one making His case. He has already made it. This is just further exposition for the benefit of the onlookers. But, let’s finish verse 46 first.
He has granted His opponents the opportunity to rejoin the argument, to present their own side. He has made plain what He had hinted at in verse 41, and He invites them to do likewise, if they can. Of course, they cannot. Jesus has just forced them into a corner, as far as these court proceedings are concerned. If they are unable to present so much as one shred of evidence to substantiate the charges they hint at being able to bring against Him, then they as much as proclaim His innocence. If they proclaim His innocence, then they substantiate His truthfulness. Well, then! Now the trap is sprung in earnest: If I speak truth, as you admit by your silence, why don’t you believe Me? It is indefensible that these claimants to holiness, these men who set themselves as the spiritual guides for Israel, refuse to believe what they admit is Truth! Any shred of authority they may have held up to that point has now been ripped away. Any credibility that may have remained to them is destroyed utterly. He came to destroy the works of the devil, and that He has just done.
We arrive, then, at the conclusion of the matter: “The person who belongs to God accepts what God says” [NCV]. This part is stated as something of a given or, if you will, a proof of belonging. If you belong you accept. That leads to the final judgment against the opponents of Christ: The fact that you don’t accept serves as proof that you don’t belong. This is the ultimate application of the claim to sonship. Sons heed fathers, obey fathers. Obedience is not the reason for sonship, though, it is the proof. Likewise, the absence of obedience is not the reason for these men being rejected as true sons of God. It is merely the proof that their claim to sonship is false. It comes down to the well founded adage that actions speak louder than words. We do well if we bear that in mind as regards ourselves. But, let me come back to that.
Let me first offer this final verse reworded, that the contrast and conviction within it might be more clearly seen. He Who is of God hears and obeys God’s word. If, then, you do not, it is because you are not of God. This is the core of all that Jesus has been saying. You will, in the end, reflect your true lineage, whatever your claims to the contrary may be. Words may deceive for a time, but actions will out. Neither, at the end of it, is there any grey area. There is no admixture. There is no sort of a son of God while also remaining somewhat of a son of the devil.
We have heard any number of joke that are either introduced by the phrase, “there are two kinds of people in the world,” or introduce it at some point. We know, when we hear that phrase, that we ought to find humor in the gross over-generalization that it points to. Of course, there are more than two. But, the truth is that the phrase is perfectly accurate, just imperfectly applied. There are indeed two kinds of people in the world, and only two. There are those who are sons of God and members of His household, and those who are sons of the devil and members of his household. That’s it. There’s no neutral clan here, any more than there are neutral claimants to your physical parentage. You are begotten of one physical father and born by one physical mother. There is no third player involved in the matter who can thereby lay claim to some role in your physical conception. Sorry. Even with all that modern medicine can do in the reproductive arena, they still cannot make such a claim.
There are, then, two kinds of people in the world, and it is only by the grace of God that this is so. Apart from His constant intervention, there would remain only one kind: the sons of the devil. For, such we were before God came to our rescue (Eph 2:2ff). We are thought harsh for making the distinction so hard and fast, but it is the Truth. Those who are of God hear it and accept that it is so. Those who are not, are offended by the very thought. Yet, as Jesus has just shown, this only serves to prove the point. Some may complain that this borders on a self-fulfilling prophecy. It may have that appearance to it, but it remains the statement of Truth. “He who is of God hears God’s words. He who does not hear God’s words is not of God.” That’s it. It ends the debate.
John took this point very seriously to heart. Of course, it was a point he had heard from Jesus more than once. Consider this: “You do not believe because your are not numbered among My sheep” (Jn 10:26). It’s the same basic point being made. There are two kinds of people, and your are not My kind. Later, as John writes to the churches under his care, we hear this point expanded to include himself.
“We are from God.” Notice that John doesn’t state this as one pleading his case. He states it as a simple matter of fact. Considering what he had survived to come to the place of writing this letter, I don’t suppose there was really any room left to debate the point. “We are from God, and those who know Him listen to us. Those who are not from God do not listen to us” (1Jn 4:6a). The same test that applies to men in relation to God applies to them in relation to His representatives.
Now, let me be very clear about this. This does not mean that any man who comes claiming to be God’s representative is therefore entitled to a wholly unbiased hearing that accepts everything he says as gospel truth. To treat any man to such unlimited authority is to fail of the example given by the Bereans. No, we are called to measure the message of man against the clear revelation of Scripture, and only when they are shown to correlate do we accept. What John is addressing in his statement is something more, something in the skeptic or worse, in those who are actively promoting error themselves.
Notice, though, the conclusion of that verse. “This is how we can discern between the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1Jn 4:6b). How is that again, John? Why, it is because those who are filled with the spirit of truth hear and abide by the teaching of the apostles. Those who are guided by the spirit of error either contradict or exceed that teaching. This is, then, a claim to apostolic validity, and also a claim to a unique authority in the Apostles that I do not think any man since ought dare to claim. I believe I am correct in saying that even those who immediately succeeded the Apostles and had learned at their feet did not dare to lay claim to that office. How is it, then, that we have grown so bold in our own day? There are two kinds of people in the world. Which sort would dare to claim the degree of inerrancy that is implicit in what John has said, “Those who know Him listen to us and obey. Those who do not listen to us and obey are not from God.” Oh, I know. There are plenty who are so bold as to claim this even today. But, it is vanity and wind, and in their heart of hearts, they surely know this. They are snake oil salesmen seeking to profit on the spiritual destruction of God’s children. They are the lying sons of the father of lies.
Let me put forward one more direct claim of Jesus in this regard. “Everybody who is of the truth hears My voice” (Jn 18:37). Now, we are not, at this remove, considering an audible visitation by the risen Christ, although it is not excluded as a possibility. It is not the physical act of hearing that is in view. It is the response to what is heard. It is the obedience to what is heard. Face it. Plenty of the devil’s own have heard Jesus. We have seen it throughout the record of His ministry. Yet, theirs was not a response of willing obedience. Oh, they obeyed alright. They had little choice but to obey. But, theirs was not the obedience of loving followers, rather the obedience of those compelled to obey, willing or no.
It is that obedience, and specifically that willing, glad obedience, that is in view. This is not to say that we are always thrilled to hear what our Jesus is commanding. Quite often we are not. Even the giants of the faith have known something of a love / hate relationship with God. He doesn’t always ask of us that which we would rejoice to give and do. He asks what is difficult, even impossible. He asks that which may test us to our very limits, that we might more fully trust in Him. So, the glad aspect of obedience may come and go, and this is, I dare say, no sin on our part. But, the willingness. That is not to be negotiated.
Consider Abraham, so recently mentioned in the text. Given the command to sacrifice his own son upon the altar of God, he moved to comply. Though the journey to the place of commanded sacrifice must have torn his heart to shreds as he walked and talked with the very son he was to offer up, he moved to comply. Oh, we can argue that he knew deep down that God didn’t really intend to see Isaac slain, and we might even be right about that. Yet, human sacrifice to the gods was hardly unknown at the time, and Abraham, having been raised in Ur for so many years, and only his own walk with God to measure God by, did not have any great reason to suppose that this God he served was all that different. We cannot look at Abraham as if he had the whole teaching of Moses to lean on. He didn’t. He had only what he had learned of and from God since encountering Him back in Ur, since being called to depart his homeland. And that was enough. He was from God, therefore he obeyed.
The question is all about character. I tend to measure it as a matter of motivation, but motivation is the outflow of character. This is the whole point that Jesus is making here. Character reveals parentage. Something has shaped our actions. Somebody has trained our thinking. We didn’t just pop into the world fully formed in personality. We don’t arrive at maturity day one out of the womb. It requires training and teaching and practice and discipline. In the end, whether we like it or not, our character will tend to reveal our parentage.
I challenge you to find one man who has reached maturity and not discovered that he resembles his father in habit. For better or for worse, we find this to be the case. Some will mark it down as a generational curse when it comes to the worse aspects. Let us settle for calling it an inherent propensity. But, I know that many of my own characteristics are things I saw in my father. That I tend to whistle and hum when working at some task or another: that’s something learned from watching him. Arguably, my love of technology is something I picked up from him, as well as my enjoyment of woodworking and any number of other activities. How about the fact that I generally insist on being the driver? Yup. How about my propensity for filling vacations with ceaseless activity? Yup.
But, in God, we have a new Father. We have been reborn. That’s fundamental to the equation of faith. He has caused us to be born. Just as we had no choice in our physical birth, so, too, the spiritual. He plants His seed of faith, and birth becomes inevitable. He calls us His sons because He has given us life. But, thus far, we have established only the teknon, the legal status. He also trains us in the way we should go, and: true to His own word, having trained us in it, we shall not depart from it (Pr 22:6).
Whoa! Sit on that thought for awhile. We take it as our mandate for proper parenting. It is our job to train up our children in the way they should go, and rightfully so. But, in the end, it’s about God as Father. He has given birth to the believer. He is parent to the believer. He it is who shall train up the believer in the way the believer should go, and because it is He, we are the more assured that as that believer, we shall not depart from the Way. Once more, the blessed assurance of knowing God is wholly in control of the thing shines through!
This is not to suggest in any way that we are no better than automatons, pawns in the hands of God. Not at all! Like any child of any earthly parent, we have a hand in the matter. We may be compliant children, or stubborn as mules. At any given moment, we may be gladly availing ourselves of the lessons our Father is teaching, or we may be distracted by daydreams, or we may even be doing everything we can to act in ways exactly opposite of that teaching. God is raising children, after all, not robots. But, if I would learn the measure of my situation in any given moment, I have but to ask: Whose lessons are my actions reflecting? Who does my spirit most resemble just now?
I can tell you right now, I won’t always like the answer I have to give myself. Neither do I care for the implications of that answer. After all, what I hear from Jesus is that the one I resemble is the one who governs. Worse still, the one I resemble is the one that is my father. Ouch! Now, I know there are many times when I can look at this evidence and rejoice. Truth be told, though, those times feel somehow foreign to me. There is always a certain realization within me that this is not the way I am at all times. It’s not even really the way I am most of the time. It’s my Sunday face.
Over against this, I will note that the heart is deceptively wicked, even and perhaps especially when it comes to assessing one’s own condition. That is a point that cuts both ways. The heart is happy to tell us that we are faring much better in the ways of holiness than we truly are. However, the heart is equally capable of telling us that we have not progressed as far as we truly have. The truth, no doubt, lies in the vast middle ground. We are neither so high and exalted as we tend to think, nor such abject failures. The fact of the matter is that whether or not I am inclined towards explicit outward show of faith, I can, in taking the measure of my character, find more than sufficient evidence of He who is at work in me. No, I am no perfect son of my Father, but I have been learning. I have been maturing under His tutelage.
The usefulness of this test question is unabated by that reality, though. It is of great benefit for me to stop in my tracks and ask myself what those tracks reflect. In the heat of disagreement, in the moment of frustration, in the place where patience has reached its end; how I handle these things does not, generally speaking, reflect my Father in heaven. These are, then, places of clear need in me. These are places in which I have the deepest need of more lessons and more training from my Brother and from the Spirit who indwells me in spite of these frailties of character. And, isn’t it always a shocking thing to consider that the Spirit, Who is very God of very God, who is therefore pure and holy and cannot abide sin, is yet willing to indwell such a man as I!
Looking at what Jesus has just laid out as the case against these opponents of His, my thoughts go to the crowd of onlookers, and I place myself amongst them. Standing there, listening to this exchange, I see that I am left to weigh the evidence for myself. Who has presented the stronger case? Whose message has been consistent with their character? In which party do I find the argument matches what I know of that party? Even if I do my best to shed my post-crucifixion understanding of the Pharisees, I have to wonder if the answer would be changed at all. I mean, these were folks who knew the Pharisees more closely than I, who had the opportunity of observing at least the public face of their faith. They had greater opportunity to observe the faith of the Pharisees than they had to observe that of Jesus.
But, these were not ignorant men, any more than we are. They would understand human experience as well as we do. They would know that there was more to both ministries than was presented to the observer’s eye. So, though it can hardly count as evidence, we might find ourselves thinking upon the rumors and stories one heard relating to these two ministries. Forgetting about the veracity of such stories, I would still suspect that what one heard about Jesus was more consistent with what one saw in Him now that He was present and teaching. As for the Pharisees, there was a reason that the digs Jesus took at them worked. People had long suspected that they didn’t really live by the code they professed. Oh, they put on a good show of it, but one always figured they were cutting corners wherever they could get away with it. Nobody could really live like that!
So, this crowd was left to take the measure of what evidence they had, and make the call. Which was the true representation? Which presented the Truth? Well, as we saw, Truth is found to be that for which essence is in agreement with appearance. It is that in which no pretense is found. It is that which has integrity: character and theory in one accord. Truth lies where morality and ethics are wholly intersected atop a firm foundation. When the contestants at court are Jesus and anybody else, then, Jesus must win hands down in the scales of truth.
Bring this back around to the personal, though. In my daily walk, I am set upon those same scales. By my daily habits, my dealings with believer and unbeliever alike, my interactions with family or with coworker, adult or child: in short in every moment, I am setting forth my own evidence. I live out my evidence and those who are about me are left like the crowds at this scene to weigh that evidence as best they can. When that evidence is weighed, then, who will it suggest to them is my true father, God in heaven, or the liar in hell? That’s a sobering thought, isn’t it? I know full well that there are too many times when the evidence would tend to point the wrong way. A short fuse, an easy offense, these are not the evidence of a heavenly parentage. Quite the opposite. Pride and ego are not the character traits I learn at my Father’s feet. They are things I have learned from the swineherd, oddly enough.
As I wrote earlier, actions speak louder than words. This is the common conclusion of man. This is part of why we find it such a battle to promote the Gospel in our day and age. The fault lies not so much with society, but with ourselves. The Church has been measured by two millennia of actions, and those actions have too often been found to be utterly at odds with her words. It’s true at the corporate level and it’s true at the personal level. Indeed, it’s true at the corporate level because it’s true at the personal level.
We would love to be able to make the Church our excuse for failure, but that’s not the way of it. The Church is made up of individuals, the individual is not a construct of the Church. As great a boon and a grace as the institution of the Church is because it is the means God has chosen for our greatest good, still we maintain personal responsibility for our own growth, or lack thereof. We are the Church. If, then, the witness of the Church to our culture is inconsistent, we must look at ourselves as the reason. It is inconsistent because we have been inconsistent. We have tried to lay the blame for that upon society, but again, we reverse the roles of cause and effect. Society is what it is because we who make up that society are what we are.
There is more than sufficient cause to state repeatedly that revival begins with us. But, really, we need to drive this point even closer to home, closer to the mark. Revival begins with me, personally. It doesn’t begin in the Church and it doesn’t begin in the church. It doesn’t begin in the home and it doesn’t begin in the marriage relationship. All of these marvelous institutions will gain by revival, but none of them will serve as the seed or the nucleus of revival. It begins with me. I say that without even the least trace of arrogance. I say it, rather, as beginning to take the responsibility upon myself for the fact that revival is not in evidence around me. Until it is the reality within me, how can it be evident around me?
This, then, is the call. I cannot say that I am certain what the answer to that call should look like. I do not suppose it’s going to look particularly like the typical charismatic conception of revival. It may well involve a more vocal expression of faith. But, it may not. Character does not need to be noisy to be consistent. It will doubtless involve a deeper commitment to prayer, but again: that may be the demonstrative prayer of the Pentecostals or it may be private, closeted prayer. I do not suppose that there is any great stock to be placed in either mode as being somehow superior to the other. Each has its place. Each can be practiced with sincerity or with duplicity. The answer does not lie in the form but in the truth.
What does it mean, then, when Jesus says that those who worship Him will worship in Spirit and in Truth (Jn 4:24)? Many, particularly amongst those Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, will read of worship in the Spirit, and conclude that we’re talking Holy Ghost Party worship. Many will read of worship in Truth and suppose that the point is to really put our all into our expressions of worship. May I submit, though, that this at best scratches the surface of the matter? I will note, as something of a supporting point, that the passage in question does not capitalize Spirit, as I have done. Jesus is not necessarily speaking of worshiping under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit in this case. It would have been rather early in His ministry to be making such allusions. Rather, I think He is speaking of spirit and truth as parallel concepts, different descriptions of the same basic point. In other words, He is saying that such worship as God seeks is that which is a consistent manifestation of the inner state of the worshiper.
That probably leaves too much unsaid, though. Obviously, if the inner state is a disaster zone, and our worship happens to reflect that, then God is not going to be either honored or pleased by such so called worship. On the other hand, if we are in a place of sorrow, but hey! It’s worship time, put on the happy face mask and party, I am not convinced this is honoring or pleasing to Him either. David didn’t play that game. When he was hurting, he spoke truly about his feelings. He didn’t hold anything of his emotional reality back from God. When life was miserable, he admitted it. He didn’t stay there, that is true. But, he didn’t pretend he wasn’t there, either. The worship he gave to God was true worship. It wasn’t a veneer. It wasn’t David trying to display for God what he thought God would like to see. It was David displaying David, warts and all. It was honest! Inasmuch as we have trained ourselves to put on our church faces and party in God’s house, I dare say we have done ourselves a great disservice.
We have allowed our focus to be thoroughly drawn off of the reality of faith. We have stopped looking at the incredible wonder that is salvation and an eternal security. Instead, we’re busy shopping God for favors now. We’re looking to have our inheritance now, so we can go spend it. And, it never occurs to us that we’re playing the prodigal son when we treat God so. We come to Him looking to be healed, and we’re hurt and confused if He doesn’t choose to perform to our specifications. We come looking for financial security and a horn of material plenty, and if He doesn’t start showering us with riches post haste, why, we’re into the spiritual doldrums with no escape in sight. But, these are distractions. The fact that we’re hounding Him on such fleeting matters and thoroughly negligent when it comes to eternal matters of spirit and character, is all but guaranteed to transform any real worship in us into a cheap charade.
I challenge whoever might be reading this. I challenge myself, first and foremost. Let us become a people who worship God in Truth. Let’s step away from the manufactured, happy face performance. Let’s break free of the habitual claiming that everything’s great when everything is far from great. Let’s begin to worship God by being honest with Him. It’s OK to confess frustration over the way life is going. It’s OK to admit that you’re sick and hurting, when that’s what’s happening. Oh, by all means, let us remind ourselves, even in the midst of such admissions, that God’s word to us is for blessing, that He has not abandoned us, however miserable we may be feeling. Let us, by all means, take David fully to heart as our example. Pour out your heart to your God, but always, always, allow Him to pour His heart back into you. That is, after all, what worship is all about. It’s not a one way ego boost for God. He doesn’t need it. Neither is it just an emotional stroking for us. That’s not healthy for us. It’s a means of real communication with a real God for our very real benefit. So, let’s give it a go. Let’s worship Him in Truth.
