New Thoughts (08/17/09-08/21/09)
It struck me, as I thought about this young man, that as we look at his actions we are seeing a man caught between those two cities of which Augustine wrote: the city of man and the city of God. I wonder, though, if the situation isn’t rather the reverse – that Augustine saw those two cities as he considered this passage. Admittedly, there are numerous other instances in Scripture in which those two cities are on display, but it is not impossible, surely, that this present scene had an impact on that perspective as well.
It certainly does so for me. As I noted in the preparations for this study, our friend the blind man is faced with a choice between these two cities. The cities might be seen represented in the fellowship they offer their respective citizens. It would be comforting to claim unconditional fellowship on behalf of God’s city, but it would be incorrect. Both cities have their conditions. In a sense, it is inevitable that this should be so, for fellowship is the manifestation of community. Community, communion of fellowship, presupposes a shared sense of how things should be.
So, in the Pharisees we have represented the city of man. Man sets the rules, even in matters of religion. Man’s fellowship is based on man’s pride. You are admitted into fellowship just so long as you bolster my pride, my ego. If you don’t treat me as I feel I should be treated, then I will not remain in fellowship with you for very long. I will find other, more sympathetic ears. I will find my comfort in the company of those who respect me. This is perfectly natural to man, but it is just that: natural. It is the fleshly way of man to maintain contact only with those who agree.
Thus, in our day, we see the fragmentation of society. We see, as communication increases, that people collect into pools of like thinking, echo chambers as we call them. Liberals and conservatives are no longer inclined to tolerate so much as hearing the views of the other side, certainly not to lend them any credence. So, too, amongst the denominations that make up God’s church in certain cases. We become so steadfast in the tenets of our own chosen form of worship that we are no longer willing to even consider the Truth as potentially revealed in any other form.
So, we have the proud Charismatic who cannot find any hint of God in the ways of the older Protestant churches, and Protestants, in turn, who cannot believe God would ever associate Himself with the crazies of the Charismatic movement. The Catholics and the Orthodox cannot see past their differences and together revile the Protestants for their insistence on God alone. The Protestants, in turn, feel they must reject the whole of those ancient denominations, and the Charismatics, having sprung in large part from the Catholic church, must reject it or find themselves suspect for having departed. Of course, these divisions are not universal. Not every member of any given denomination are so wholly closed to hearing God speak from other corners. Yet, the impulse to reject is there. The competitive spirit is there, and this, as James says, ought not to be.
It is well to contend for the Truth. It is not so well to contend for opinion. It is our duty to stand firm in matters of sound doctrine. It is quite another thing to be insistent when the opposition is as firmly committed to Truth as are we. If we cannot so much as give a fair hearing to those whose earnest faith in our God has led them to alternate conclusions on matters of doctrine then we have become the modern Pharisees. We are ever in danger of doing so. We are ever in danger of letting our opinions take the place of sound doctrine, of becoming so insistent upon our own understanding that we can no longer hear the word of correction and instruction.
The city of man: The place of ‘my way or the highway’. This is where much of society is today. We are strangers in that society, and as strangers our voice is often cut off. In matters of public policy, we hear our ‘representatives’ proclaiming, ‘we won, so we don’t have to listen to you’. In the halls of education, we see that the pressure of fellowship insists that you teach our views or you don’t teach at all. Likewise, even in the sciences, there is a strong impetus to go along with prevailing theory however poorly it fits the data, lest funding and opportunity be cut off.
This is precisely what is on display in the person of the Pharisees in this scene. “Don’t lie to us, young man, we already know the facts. This Jesus is a sinner, so don’t you go handing us data that doesn’t fit our answer.” Neither is it just a protecting of pride here. It is backed with threats. If you insist on contradicting our foregone conclusions, we will expel you from the fellowship of Israel. We’re not just going to boot you from our synagogue, we will instruct our members to avoid all contact with you. Nobody will speak to you. Nobody will sup with you. Nobody will offer you employment. You will be as less than an alien to us, for an alien we would be required to aid. No! You will be as a dead man, a corpse, untouchable lest your obvious sin spread its poison to us.
Over against this we have the city of God. Here, too, there is a requirement for likeminded perspective on life. However, He who defines the perspective is no tyrant whipping His inferiors into submission. He is a Teacher. He propounds the reasons for His viewpoint, and His reasons are most reasonable. He is a Father training His children, not an overlord demanding His way right or wrong. Further, where there are infractions of His rule, He does not pronounce the expulsion of that one who has transgressed, but seeks to be reconciled. When His children go off the path, He provides signposts to bring them back on course. He doesn’t write them out of the will.
Neither does He refuse to be questioned. How important it is to realize that God is not afraid of your questions! He loves questions, for they provide Him the groundwork to make Himself better known to us. Oh, He may opt to refuse answer to some questions as is His prerogative. But, it is not from fear of the question. It is out of concern for our welfare. There are things we are better off not knowing, at least at present. Perhaps they require a greater degree of growth on our part. Perhaps they are things He has reserved for explanation once we have come home. But, the key here is that while He surely requires a commitment to likeminded worldview from His children, He instructs them in that worldview rather than threatening them into faking that worldview.
One aspect of that authority found in the city of man is that it is quite often baseless. Jesus pointed this out to Pilate when He said, “You have no authority except that which the Father has granted” (Jn 19:11). True, that passage actually speaks of power rather than authority, but it is authority which provides a base for power. This, whether acknowledged or not, is the state of all authority: it depends on the Father’s grant. He alone establishes nations and determines who shall sit the thrones of nations. He alone determines how long such things shall stand. Again, that He can do this without violating our free will is but greater cause to give glory to His Omniscience.
Now, as concerns the affairs of the believer, we are instructed to obey every legal authority unless that legal authority demands that we act in such a way as to violate the Law of God. That boundary is drawn on the simple basis that the authority which would instruct us to violate God’s Law has reneged on the responsibilities of authority. In other words, in authorizing such a demand, that one has clearly acted outside of the higher authority of God and therefore has no further claim to office.
We who are given this clear boundary must take heed lest we seek to blur it to our own advantage. It is not sufficient cause for disobedience when those in authority permit what is unlawful by God’s Law. Let me take on the volatile example of abortion. That the government condones such practices is surely reprehensible, and we ought to take every legal recourse available to us to bring an end to this most vile form of legalized murder. However, as evil a practice as it is, the mere legalization of the practice does not give the Christian legitimate grounds to dismiss legal authority. We may act within the confines of the law in order to change the law, but we are not permitted to become a law unto ourselves. If, on the other hand, the government insists on your personal participation in that practice, that you abort your child or, per that other effort at legalized murder, euthanize your parents, this is truly a violation of that authority that has been entrusted to those in charge, and they are, as it were, in breach of contract.
We need to be careful of overstating the case when we claim God’s support for our actions! To rebel in God’s name is a very serious matter. Indeed, we ought to view it with the same degree of caution that we would have applied to making prophetic pronouncements under the terms of the Old Covenant. Let me make of that a broader statement: Whenever we speak or act as representatives of God, whether to offer opinion as to doctrine, or to operate in the gifts of the Spirit, or to provide a Scriptural viewpoint on issues of the day, it should always be done with that sense of reverent fear. We have allowed ourselves to become far too comfortable with claiming God’s authority for things that are quite often no more than our opinions.
We are entirely too glib about claiming to hear from God on this matter and that. Any thought that pops into our heads, should it sound good to us, we attribute to God. Sure gives us an air of authority, doesn’t it? I heard God telling me we ought to do this. Who’s going to argue? On what grounds? No! But I heard God telling me we should do exactly the opposite! Were it not for the seriousness of the matter, I would propose we begin doing just that: counter every claim to God-speak with a counter claim. However, such an approach would be to fall into the exact error we wish to correct.
The problem, you see, is that the claim for authorization is false. It is like unto those prophets that Jeremiah had to counter. Everybody was saying, “Thus says the Lord,” but nobody was speaking the Lord’s words. They were false claims. They sought to bolster their standing by appealing to true authority. Sadly, the majority were willing to simply take those claims at face value. The Pharisees in this scene are doing the same thing, although without making such a blatant claim to having a direct line to the throne. “We are disciples of Moses.” It is an appeal to that other authority, and it is their hope that the appeal will be taken as simple truth, for if it is accepted at face value, then there can be no questioning of their opinions.
Well, let’s face it. We’re all prone to this name dropping game, aren’t we? We all have those to whom we will appeal to lend credence to our arguments. Some will choose the various self-proclaimed prophets of our day. Others will choose those of note in Church history. Some may even be so bold as to throw in a, “thus says the Lord,” or to claim special revelation. Honestly, the majority of people talking about revelation knowledge in our day have no real understanding of the term. A flash of insight does not a revelation make. Illumination, perhaps, but not revelation. Would that our preachers and teachers had a firmer command of the language, but there it is.
The point I am attempting to make here is that regardless who we may appeal to as a bolster to our viewpoints, the viewpoints must, in the end, stand on their own merit. We ought not to be quite so impressed by names, because names are as often as not nothing more than bolsters for a weak argument. We see it in our politicians. They do not argue their views on the merit of the view. They make appeals to popular predecessors, preferably from their own party. So, you will hear constant Republican appeals to Reagan, or Democratic appeals to Kennedy. You may hear any number of appeals to Lincoln or Jefferson from either party. But, to claim these men and their accomplishments have any real relationship to the issue at hand is most likely purest nonsense. It’s an emotional appeal. It’s hoping to distract us by anecdote, just as is the case when the desolate individual is marched out onto the stage in support of some point or other.
We are not supposed to shape the course of our lives or our nations on anecdote and emotion. We do not give sound testimony by such means. We give sound testimony by presenting a well reasoned, unassailable argument founded upon the truths of Scripture. Remember the reaction the people had to Jesus? “He speaks with authority. No other teaches as He does.” What was different? Typical rabbinical practice would be to appeal to what previous rabbis had said. This appeal to Moses is just the extreme case of that practice. However, any such appeal is necessarily an appeal to the opinions of men. It’s not what Scripture said, it’s what somebody else thinks Scripture said. It’s not what God says, it’s what we think Moses meant by what he said, or worse, what our particular hero thought Moses meant by what he said. It’s false authority, and in the end, every such appeal is no more than an attempt to shut down discussion.
Whether we appeal to Andrew Womack or Martin Luther, whether to John MacArthur or John Calvin, if that is the sum total of our argument we have no argument. It only matters what any of these men have said if what they said was accurate and true. I am not saying we should never look to those who have earned respect for their accurate expositions on Scripture to support our own views. Indeed, it is well to check ourselves against those of greater accomplishment and learning. But, in the end, either doctrine stands on Scripture alone or it doesn’t stand at all. Bring it back to the Bible!
I hear an awful lot of theological opinion put forth without the least appeal to the text. It’s not what the Bible says, it’s what so and so says. It’s not what the text supports, it’s what our emotions tell us. It is emotion that places greater emphasis on healing than is right. It is emotion that leads people to follow after messages of prosperity and kingdom now and every other materialized perversion of the Gospel.
The clear message of Christ is, “seek first the kingdom. Keep your eyes on God’s purposes and He’ll take care of the rest.” Be anxious for nothing! For, God, Who owns the cattle on every hillside, knows your needs and He is your Provider. As you work in His purpose, He will see to it that all things are working for your good. He doesn’t promise all rose and no thorn, but He promises it will be proven to be for your good. The goals of the kingdom are ever and always matters of eternity. We do ourselves a huge injustice, indeed place ourselves at great risk, when we allow our faith to be all about the here and now.
Looking once again at this comment the Pharisees make in appealing to Mosaic authority, consider what they say in verse 29. Here, they are contrasting Moses and Jesus. Of the former, they speak of certain knowledge of his credentials. God spoke to him. We know this, and knowing this we know Who sent him. Of the latter, they indicate worse than uncertainty. It’s not a matter of being unsure of Jesus. It is reduced to, “we have no idea where He is from.” Understand that these two statements, the one regarding Moses and the other regarding Jesus, are expressing parallel thoughts.
In fact, this comparison that they offer is the key to understanding the entire conversation in this passage. Whether or not this is clear in our translation of language and culture, it is certainly clear to those present. That comparison, and their confessed ignorance as to whether or not Jesus is God-sent is exactly what our friend the blind man responds to. You don’t know? Well, now let’s consider the evidence! First, it is clear that He healed my blindness, and you have more than sufficient testimony both to the fact of the blindness and the fact of that I now see. Second, we all agree that the prayers of an inveterate sinner are not the prayers that move God to action.
Wasn’t this, after all, part of your criteria for accepting Moses as authentic? How else do you know God spoke to him? Were you there to witness it? Have you seen some physical evidence of the case, or do you trust instead to nothing but these written records and the weight of tradition? You know God spoke to him at least in part because of the powerful testimony of the miracles he performed. They were given as proof that his claim of authority was authentic.
Third point: even Moses, even Elijah or Elisha or choose whatever man of God you like, never healed the blindness of one born in that condition. No other in all history has done such a thing, and this you surely know, experts that you are. Come then! You are the lawyers, surely you can follow the argument, and surely you must conclude as I do: This man could do nothing of what He has done if God had not endorsed Him! It’s so clear to see that for you to claim you don’t know where He is from is ludicrous. If you have reason to be certain of Moses you have reason and more to be certain of Jesus.
This is the scene we are given in brief. One thing that is very interesting about this is that this blind man recognized what so many in our own day fail to see: Miracles have a purpose. He already grasped the basic truth that the healing of his blindness was not fundamentally about him. It was about Jesus. He was not offended by this fact. Neither does it seem he was bowled over by it. It was just a fact, a simple truth. The miracle had a point, and the point was: this Man is endorsed. He is sent. God has authorized His mission and indeed commanded it. His every action is proclaiming what Moses was told to proclaim to the children of Israel as they slaved in Egypt: Tell them I AM has sent you. That’s what these miracles mean. It means I AM has sent Jesus! Moses promised the prophet like himself and here He is, come with signs not only to match Moses but to surpass him.
This much he understands. He may not grasp the full significance either of the miracle or of Jesus, but he recognizes that there is significance. So many who had experienced physical healing at the hand of Jesus failed to recognize as much. They got their healing and had no further use for Jesus. Maybe a thank you, if they managed to control their excitement for a few moments, but few if any found cause to become disciples in the miracle they received. Few if any came to saving faith because a chronic illness had ceased to be. This man recognizes the miracle for what it is: a mark of authenticity. Nobody ever did the like! He has thus far only seen Jesus as a prophet, which was news enough for such a time as his, but he was not far from receiving the greater truth, as we shall see in the next passage.
Jesus, however, signifies more than merely His authority by this act. In what He has done for this one man, He is showing what He would willingly do for a nation. The restoration of physical sight, boon that it is to the man who received it, is not the miracle. The miracle lies in the restoration of spiritual sight. Again, we shall have proof of this in the next passage. But, what is true of this one man in physical terms, Jesus applies to the nation, indeed to the world, in the spiritual sense. Every one of us has been born blind. That is our starting point. That is, really, the grain of truth in the closing rebuke from the Pharisees, “You were born entirely in sins.” Yes. That is the state of every man. That sad reality for the Pharisees is that they have forgotten that this truth applies to them as readily as to the ex blind man.
So, Jesus, in restoring sight to this man, is setting forth an offer to the nations. You, too, were born blind. You have lost all ability to see the kingdom of God, to see God in His creation. But, lo! All is not lost. I can restore sight to you that you might see. This miracle has not been done solely so that we can get one beggar off the street. It is done to point to the greater Truth. It is done to let you know your Messiah has come, is standing here, is ready to welcome you back to your heritage. You have only to admit to your present condition, your blindness and your rebelliousness, and come receive your healing. But, alas. This you will not do.
That offer continues to our own day, and will continue until the day of His return. Just as the natural condition of the spiritual man is to be blind from birth, so, too, His willingness to open the eyes born blind remains the ever present reality. Honestly, no further miracles are required in the physical realm. We can argue about whether such things still transpire in our own time, and I will happily concede that they quite possibly do. But, this is no cause for us to demand further signs of Him or of those who bear His Gospel to us. Honestly! Would we still require a constant flow of signs from Moses and his successors? This had not been the case of that great man of God. Why should we think it reasonable to expect it from the Son? He has proved Himself. No further sign will be given. The Resurrection is surely proof enough and then some. If you will not already believe because of the Man or because of the signs, then nothing more that He might do is going to cause you to believe. Oh, you may find it nice to have greater ease in this life, whether via healing or wealth or power or what have you, but you are showing that you will be satisfied in that, for you are clearly not satisfied with the proffered eternal life.
If you had the least grasp of what has already been given you, what cause could you possibly have to keep insisting on more? Praise God if He chooses to give you more in this life, and may you be wise to use that bounty to further the kingdom. Praise God, as well, if He chooses to do less for you in this life, and may you be content to serve the kingdom in so much as you have the power to do so. Satisfied in times of plenty, satisfied in times of lack. For, in God we know that we shall never lack for any needful thing. Oh, we may not sit in the lap of luxury. We may know hardship, indeed we should count on it, even if we are wealthy as the world measures things. After all, He has promised as much. Many before us saw that promise unfolding in their own lives and welcomed it, praising God that they were found worthy to share in the humiliations Christ endured. Do we yet have men of such stature in the Church today? Are we still willing to stand up and rejoice when we are reviled by men on account of our Jesus? Or are we too busy bewailing the lack of creature comforts?
This is a question I seem to be asking myself almost daily in the last several weeks. As I have studied this chapter of John’s Gospel, and as I have been thinking on what seems to me to be the materialization of faith, I find I am tested almost daily as to whether my practice will conform to my belief. I could (and should) ask whether this is God seeking to tell me I’m wrong or only Him testing my trust in Him given the things I say I believe. How I have done in response depends very much on the true nature of things, whether testing or correcting is intended. This, I fear, I cannot know with certainty in myself. The answer, then, lies in prayer.
So, my Father, I come. If this has been a testing of what I claim to know of You, then I trust I have been found unshaken by circumstance. Oh, to be sure, I know I have not been joyful under pressure. Yet, I would hope I have at least been steadfast, and remained true to You. Though I pray that You bring an end to Jan’s sufferings by healing her, yet I hold that You are faithful. If it is not Your will to bring that healing, then it is good that healing does not come, though I may not see the good of it. Though I am agonized by the constant question of her health, yet my trust is in You, not her physical condition, and I pray that the same may be said of her.
If, on the other hand, I malign You by holding to such a belief, then correct my thinking, Holy Spirit. Thou, my Teacher, teach me. Let me not be so firm in my convictions that even You cannot change my mind. That would be a terrible thing. That would be the mark of the Pharisee upon my forehead, and this I cannot bear. I cannot even say, Lord, what it would take to bring such a change of mind to me, yet I know that, if such change is needful, You are able. You are not only able, You are faithful to bring that correction, to lead Your child into all truth.
So, then, Jesus, let me take comfort in this certainty, that You are able and faithful to correct any error in me. Let me be equally certain (for I have seen it so often) that You are just as able and faithful to correct any error in my brethren. This lies at the heart of such disagreements between fellow believers. It lies not in our argumentation, when all is said and done, to establish the truth. It lies in our devotion to You, and in Your capacity to speak to us in ways we cannot deny.
So speak, Lord. Your servant listens. If I am correct in my beliefs then strengthen me to stand firm under this testing. If I am not, then suffer me not to malign Your good name by my false beliefs, but purge me of those beliefs that I may give more faithful witness to the majesty and the glory that are in You. And, as always, my God, whichever way the answer lies, I continue to pray that You would find cause in Your will to bring that healing to Jan that she has need of. Let her suffering be eased, ended, that she might more fully serve Your kingdom. And yes, if her service to Your kingdom is greater as she is, then give her the comfort of knowing how she may serve in her present state, and grant me the privilege of helping us both to see how this is good, knowing You are good.
As I have prayed for my own correction and enlightenment, I am put in mind that all of those involved in the dispute we see before us in this Gospel are in need of the same. Neither the Pharisees nor the blind man are in possession of such sound doctrine that no correction is needed. Both have grains of truth in what they think they know, but both hold too tightly to beliefs that are not true, thinking themselves faithful to God in so doing. I would have to note that the character behind these beliefs differs greatly, but this does not, in the end, excuse the error.
Note, for example, that what our blind man says of Jesus in his conclusion is repeating a basic understanding shared with the Pharisees themselves. He says, “If this man were not from God, He could do nothing” (v33). Nicodemus, when he met with Jesus, said much the same. “No one could do the signs You do except God be with him” (Jn 3:2). Indeed, this reflects a truth Jesus Himself has spoken. “Apart from Me, you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5). In light of this present passage, the correlation of understanding shows up the duplicity and resolute blindness of the Pharisees. The proof is laid out before them and quite frankly they know it. But they refuse to see it, to acknowledge it. They are blind. They are blind because they have put their own eyes out. Oh, we would not be wrong to point to the devil as the agent of their blinding. We would not even be wrong to point to God as commanding their blinding. He, after all, has claimed that right to Himself. “I determine who shall see and who shall be blind.” But, be that as it may, these men have chosen blindness. Whatever forces or powers may move behind the scenes, they are willing participants in the process of their own destruction.
As we consider this message that no one could do such miracles except God were with him, though, we must be careful to hold the truth of that message in proper balance. To say such a thing is not the same as saying that where such marvels are, the man through whom the marvels come is clearly a man of God. This is to deny the full council of Scripture. Yes, God does indeed send such signs and wonders to confirm His own. Indeed, even Jesus appeals to this point. “If I do the works of My Father, then, though you don’t believe Me, believe the works” (Jn 10:37-38). But, be careful here. Not every miracle is a performing of God’s works. For all that, not every working of God’s works was done by God-fearing men. Consider the obvious example of Balaam and, for that matter, of Balaam’s ass. Neither man nor beast could be construed as godly. Neither man nor beast had their mind concentrated on pursuing the purposes of the kingdom of God. Yet, God worked through that ass and He spoke through that man.
We are told, as well, that the agents of antichrist will come with signs and wonders of their own. This but reflects what we saw in Pharaoh’s courts when Moses stood as God’s witness. For every real sign, a counterfeit. For every true proof, a lying claim. So, I ask myself: if signs and wonders follow those who serve God, and yet signs and wonders also accompany those who are dead set against Him, what is the point? Why even bring up signs and wonders in relation to the man of God? Their presence is not, in the end, proof of godliness. Is their absence proof of ungodliness? This is a difficult question on the face of it, for the Scriptures do indeed indicate signs and wonders follow after the man of God. I shall have to hunt up the reference for that.
Interesting that as I begin that search, the first New Testament reference I find for signs and wonders is this: “Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders you will never believe” (Jn 4:48). Thus our Lord speaks to us, and I dare say, He does not do so by way of complement but more as comment on our weakness. Belief ought not to require this, but the weakness of the flesh is such that it is made necessary. Elsewhere we learn that the Lord confirmed the truth of what Paul and Barnabas were preaching by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders (Ac 14:3). But, this same Paul, confirmed by God Himself, says, “the work of Satan [will be] displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders” (2Th 2:9).
As to the passage so many hold to all but require miracles as the sign of a true man of God, it lies in the Great Commission as it is relayed to us by Mark. Let me just pull the quote entire: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover” (Mk 16:15-18).
Do we, then, demand speaking in tongues as a proof of true faith? I grant you that some, such as the Assemblies of God, do just that. Yet, by and large, the answer throughout the Church age has been no. Do we insist that every believer go cast out a devil somewhere as proof of authenticity? Do we insist even that our pastors and teachers have done so? Not even in the most ‘Spirit-filled’ corners of the Church will you see such a behavior. What about picking up serpents? I believe that there have been a sect or two here and there that went in for serpent handling, but if anything, this has been seen as a mark of heinous error. I am not aware of any church at all that suggests that those who seek membership in the church must first drink a cup of poison to prove the truth of their faith.
In truth, the sole part of this message that has been universally considered as binding lies in the words of Mark 16:16. Believe and be baptized. These are the requirements laid out for salvation. Those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. Those who disbelieve shall be condemned. That’s it! Only faith believing. Arguably, even baptism could be construed as optional. Yet, the very fact that the One we have believed in has said, “be ye baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” is reason enough for him who has believed to do so.
The rest of what is listed in these verses is surely to be seen as possibilities. Amongst those who believe, there will be those who have occasion to cast out demons and do so. It is not going to be the normative daily experience. Neither is the lack of such occasion cause to suspect one’s faith is false. Speaking in tongues, Paul tells us, is not a universal, in spite of what the Assemblies of God have tried to make of it (1Co 12:7-11). So, on what basis shall we suppose that healing is different than the rest of what lies in these verses? These things listed in Mark 16:17-18 are not given as proofs of authenticity. They are given as possibilities, things that the believer may find happening when it is in God’s purpose that they happen.
It does nothing to change the fundamental truth that the signs and wonders are sent to serve God’s purpose, and where they will not serve His purpose, they shall not be sent. Hezekiah is held up as a favorite example of those who suppose every prayer for healing must be answered as representing God’s will. Look! They point out. Hezekiah prayed to be healed and God gave him an extra fifteen years! Yes, but was this a prayer answered for serving God’s purpose or an example of God’s ironic acceptance of, “fine, then, your will it is.” It seems to me the story is pretty clear that God had not intended for those extra fifteen to be granted. But, Hezekiah was unwilling to submit to, “Thy will be done,” and so, God acceded to his willfulness and said, “well, then, Hezekiah, you prefer your will to Mine, your will it shall be.”
Yes, Hezekiah got his wish, but his wish was not for the best. A look at those last years of Hezekiah shows that in that brief span he managed to undo a goodly portion of the good that had been done in the preceding years of his reign. He may have had a few years of life beyond the planned allotment, but his brief and fleeting benefit was of great bad fortune for those he ruled and those he left behind. When we fall into praying for the miracle without any concern for God’s will and purpose, we put ourselves in that same position of gaining a bit of momentary pleasure at the expense of far greater and far more lasting woe.
What would have come of Hezekiah’s acceptance of God’s will? What would Israel have been if he had willingly submitted his own flesh to the kingdom purpose? We know the power of martyrdom. The history of God’s church is replete with endless examples of that power. But, it is also well fit with examples of those who preferred their moment in the sun. Indeed, most of the heroes we have in the pages of Scripture have fallen prey to this weakness at least for a time. David preferred his moment of sin with Bathsheba to the pursuit of righteousness. Solomon, in spite of the wisdom he was blessed with, preferred to set the wheels of Israel’s destruction in motion by pursuing his own fleshly pleasures.
When we insist that God must surely shower us with material blessings, be it healing or wealth or comfort or what have you, are we any less distracted from what really matters? You know, my pastor, God bless him, loves to say, “Do you want to know why some people are healed and others aren’t ? I’ll tell you the answer. I don’t know!” There’s an earnest humility in that answer, to be sure. But, really, it seems to me that we ought to know. The answer is quite simply that it served God’s purpose in one case to heal, and it served it in the other not to do so. Perhaps that healing was what it would take for one of His children to believe, and so He healed. Perhaps the example of that other one’s perseverance under trial will turn out to be the reason for many others to come to faith and so, that His glory might increase, He leaves that one to persevere. Either way, He is glorified. Either way, His kingdom is increased. Either way, to insist that it ought to have been the other way is to run counter to His wisdom.
Let me put it bluntly. When we insist that He do things our way, we proclaim that our ways are greater than His ways. When we insist on this stubbornly enough, we may well hear Him say, “Fine, your will be done.” No more fearsome words were ever heard by man, for inevitably, it includes, “and on your head be it.” Thy will or my will. Which shall we prefer? I don’t mean, which shall our words claim we seek. I mean which shall our character show that we have pursued?
Lord, my Lord, may I ever be found submitted wholly to Your will. Let this be my testimony at the end of my days, that I was satisfied to be as You created me and to do as You commanded me.
If I might, I should like to consider briefly the doctrines we see put forth by each side in this brief dispute. On the one hand, we have the Pharisees, the supposed legal experts. From them, we have one doctrinal statement made and another alluded to. The direct statement comes in verse 34, as they dismiss this man’s views out of hand. “You were born entirely in sins.” This is exactly the viewpoint that the disciples had reflected in their question to Jesus at the start of the chapter. The man was born blind, and there had to be some reason for this. Furthermore, the religious mind argued, that reason must be to do with sin, for God would not allow such evil to befall a man were it not as punishment for some crime against His reign.
Before we belittle the Pharisees for their erroneous understanding, though, we ought to look at our own views. We, too, are quick to avoid having God involved in any way when it comes to those things we construe as evils. If He is in charge of hurricanes, then those hurricanes must be sent in retribution for the sins of the people in its path. Of course, we hear such things said. And, yes, many religious ears will agree with what they heard. Meanwhile, much of the unbelieving community hears such pronouncements and finds in them cause for ridicule and unbelief. Why, any god who would do such a thing is no god I would worship! I suppose both parties in that case are incorrect in their views. Just as Jesus tells His disciples in this text, so it is today. The causes we think must lie behind such apparent calamities need not reflect some heinous sin on the part of those afflicted. There may be other causes equally as just if we but had the understanding to see it. Here, the just cause was to serve as a vessel for demonstrating the power and the glory of the Creator. Here, the just cause was to have a part in setting forth the proof of Messiah. Reason enough to a heart devoted to God!
When that hurricane hits populated areas, are we really to suppose that every man, woman and child in the path of destruction is an unrepentant sinner? It seems highly unlikely, doesn’t it? When Israel was taken into captivity in Babylon, was there no remnant? Of course there was. We know it, because we see that remnant emerge some seventy years later. Yet, the remnant went through the same trials as the rest. The same storm punishes both sinner and righteous. We may not see justice in this, yet justice there is. We may not understand how such apparent evil can work for good in the lives of those believers impacted by the storm. Yet, if it is the God of the Bible in Whom we have placed our faith, we can remain certain that it will indeed do so. Yea, even though He slay me, yet will I trust Him! Even though these events terminate my physical life, yet will I know the good of it. Yet, if nothing else, eternity awaits in His presence, and this is surely enough good in itself to offset any sorrow!
As to the argument of birth in sin, there are two primary errors in the doctrine proposed. First, as Jesus has said, and as I have been discussing, sin is not always the cause. We cannot suppose any such de facto linkage between sin and health. Second, in their rejection of this man on such a basis, they ought just as swiftly discount themselves. For, the testimony of Scripture is that we are all born in sin. We are all measured and found wanting. There is none found righteous outside of Jesus. No, not one. Hidden in their harangue is the fact that the Pharisees do not include themselves in the number of those born in sin and remaining unrighteous. They see no need for a savior, and so, they are swift to dismiss any who point out the cracks in their religious armor.
The second doctrinal error we find in these men is only hinted at by their actions, although John has previously made a point of indicating the issue. It was a Sabbath day when Jesus healed the man and it was because of this fact that the Pharisees took greater interest in the case (Jn 9:14-15). Here, we are shown a warped perspective as to the nature of God and the nature of man as created in His image. They place the strict adherence to Law above the good of man. In so doing, they are wrong on many counts. First, there is the fact that much of what they take as Law is but tradition. Second, there is the maligning of God’s character in that they suppose He would put His own pride before the care of His creatures. In other words, they suppose that God would gladly allow pain and suffering in His own children if the relief of that pain and suffering ran afoul of His schedule of worship services.
The Sabbath, you see, was to be a day of rest. By the measure of the Pharisees, what Jesus had done amounted to work and was therefore not rest. Therefore, they reasoned, He had violated the Sabbath and therefore, He could not be a righteous man. Thus, they conclude He must be a fraud. But, the whole of their line of reasoning is fraudulent, and maligns the character of God. Indeed, they make God out to be even more heartless than themselves. Jesus would point out on another occasion that these same men would willingly and swiftly move to rescue their own ox were that ox to fall into a ditch on the Sabbath. In other words, when it came to their own interests, they would gladly violate the same Law they wish to impose now. Yet, when it comes to the well-being of a creature of a higher order than an ox, a creature fashioned as the express image of his Creator, they have no vested interest, and so they are willing that the creature should continue in suffering. There are six days in a week apart from the Sabbath. Let them be healed on those days, but leave this one sacrosanct!
The third aspect of error in this view is that they view man as less than he is in God’s sight. This is evident both in their view of the Sabbath and in their view of the ex blind man. God looks at fallen man and sees cause for sorrow, and cause for greater efforts to rescue the fallen. So highly does He value these creatures He has made, that He is willing to sacrifice Himself to save them. We think of it as sacrificing His Son, which is already close to unimaginable. But, the reality is that as Father and Son are One, He sacrificed Himself. This is a mystery at its core, yet it is Truth.
By contrast, the Pharisees look upon the sinner and see no hope for him. He is beneath consideration. Having been born in sins, they suppose no hope of redemption, and so, rather than seek and save the lost as good shepherds ought, they seek to avoid all contact with the great unwashed, lest they be despoiled by association.
Herein lies a fourth error, in that they show by their actions that they suppose the power of evil and sin to be greater than the power of good and righteousness. They suppose that sin must, like leprosy, spread to infect everything it touches. Yet, Jesus has demonstrated over and over again that it is quite the opposite. The darkness cannot comprehend, cannot overwhelm, the Light! The power of the righteous Man is more than equal to the task of countering the effects of sin. The Holy must prevail over the unholy, else where is the point in worship at all?
From the other party, the ex blind man, we hear the statement: “We know that God does not hear sinners.” This is true up to a point, but is it true in whole or only in part? At some level, it would seem to reflect the same error the Pharisees hold to, for if God did not hear the prayers of sinners, then there would be no prayer of man that ever was heard in heaven. For, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No man was ever found righteous nor ever shall, not on his own merits.
However, there is certainly testimony in Scripture to support this view. Look to Job (although in this book more than any other, we must be careful to discern whether the views being put forward reflect sound doctrine or misunderstanding). “Surely, God will not hear an empty and meaningless cry” (Job 35:13). With this, I think , we are safe to agree. Jesus warned His disciples against praying long but empty prayers, ‘as the heathens do’. Such prayers seek to lean on the merits of the one praying. Look how long I pray, God! Hear how much I cry to You! Respond to me because I have earned it by such devotion! That is the attitude on display, however subconscious it may be in the individual displaying it. Better a few earnest and heartfelt words prayed in absolute trust than years of crying out after the fashion we suppose we are supposed to pray, but with no real concern or belief in the outcome requested.
So, let me turn to the Psalmist, where we can be a bit more comfortable in supposing the accuracy of the doctrinal stance presented. “If I regard wickedness in my heart, God will not hear me” (Ps 66:18). This brings us closer to what our friend is saying to the Pharisees (and which those Pharisees surely agree with). Surely, if my every thought and act is devoted to the pursuits of sin, then I have no cause to expect that God will hear my cry. Of course, in such circumstances, it is highly unlikely that I am crying to God in the first place, isn’t it? Oh, maybe there’s room for one of those so-called foxhole prayers, but there can be no thought that God is required in any way to respond to such cries. They are empty, though filled with emotion. They are cries of desperation, not prayers of faith.
Making the case even stronger, we have the word of God Himself being delivered to unrepentant Israel. “When you pray, I will hide from you. Though you pray incessantly, still I won’t listen, because your hands are still covered with the blood of your murders” (Isa 1:15). In other words, you haven’t repented in the least. You pray as a cover for your continuing sins. You come to My house. You make your offerings and figure you’ve covered the activities of the last week. So, you go forth and start over again. You have no regard for holiness whatsoever, only come in hopes of maintaining some sort of insurance policy or account balance. But, God does not work this way. He has not revealed Himself to us in order that we might happily continue in our sins and just utter the occasional apology, just bump up our giving to the Church to assuage our guilt. No, where the attitude of the heart has no interest in holiness, His ears will surely remain shut.
And yet, we are stuck on this fundamental issue: If He will not hear the prayers of a sinner, then He is deaf to every man ever to live. We are without hope. We cannot cry out to Him for forgiveness because His ears are shut tight against us, lest He show mercy. But, this is manifestly not the case. If it were, the apostles would have had no message, there would be no Gospel, for there would be no hope of good news for man. There would only be the certainty of condemnation. So, we must ask, if God doesn’t hear the sinner how can it be that He heard me?
Here, it strikes me that the Reformers clearly got the right of it. Salvation must precede faith. We must first be saved before ever we can cry out to Him in hope of an answer. We must first be saved before it will even occur to us to cry out to Him. First, we are washed in the blood of the Lamb, rescued from our filth, washed clean and set before our Father in robes of borrowed righteousness. Thus is He able to look upon us with favor, and hear our cries. We must recognize that the testimony of Scripture precludes us ever coming to Him in our own power. We cannot pray and be heard because our sins block the channels of communication. We cannot come begging forgiveness unless He has first come to us. We cannot draw near to Him until He has called us to Him. Like the king in Esther’s day, it is unthinkable. For us, it is not only unthinkable, it is impossible. Apart from Him, we can do nothing, not even approach Him, not even cry out to Him, not even acknowledge His existence.
It is marvelous that throughout this week, the articles in Table Talk have been discussing the solis of the Reformation: only by faith, only through God’s grace towards us, only in Christ Jesus, bound only by the Truth revealed in Scripture, and only to the purpose of glorifying God. Truly, it is all in His hands. We act as men of free will, and yet, we are incapable of acting rightly except God move upon us, within us. It is He who is at work in us, that we are both willing and able to work so as to please Him.
Let us, then, set aside every attempt to take the least bit of credit in this matter of salvation! We have not chosen to follow, He has chosen to draw. We did not desire Him, He desired us. We did not cry out for rescue. He rescued us while we were yet enemies! We have nothing to boast of in His presence, not so much as one least thought or action that we can point to and say, “see God? I come to You on this basis and claim citizenship in Your kingdom!” No! He adopted us. It is every bit His power, every bit His decision, that has made you citizen. Point to anything apart from the Christ He has appointed as your badge of merit, and you must surely be counted with the goats. It’s all about Jesus and none about me, and praise God that this is so! Therein lies all my assurance and hope.
Face it. If I have had a hand in this matter of my salvation, then I am yet able to screw it up. If I am able to screw it up, I can be certain that I will screw it up. I know myself well enough to recognize that, and I know perfectly well that I am not at all unique in this. It is the common lot of mankind. But, this I know: I was blind but now I see! That is the testimony of our friend the blind man. That is the testimony of every last one of us who has come to Christ. We may not have been physically blind, but we were spiritually blind. We did not go about seeking this Jesus. He came and found us. We, like sheep had gone astray. What does that mean? It means we weren’t even looking for the right path. We were off on our own, doing our own thing, without so much as a passing thought for the Shepherd, nor for the danger into which we wandered. We just plain didn’t care. We were too busy having fun in our sins to worry about the cost, too blinded to realize there even was a cost. We were all in our Nike add, just doing it!
But, this I know: I was blind, but now I see! He opened my eyes, restored my senses. This is not blind faith in which I walk! Now I see! I have the most profound, most thoroughly incontrovertible reason to believe. I know what He has done. I bear the proof of it bodily every day that I live. I hear the testimony of a conscience awakened and have in it proof that He is with me still. I have the evidence of what I used to be like and the fact that, while I may suffer relapse now and again, I am not that same man any more. No argument of the atheist can counter that. No wisdom of man can offer greater reason for unbelief than He has already given me for belief. This I know! He has proved Himself. That is my testimony today, and it shall be my testimony tomorrow. Against that testimony no argument can prevail. No doubt of the skeptic can counter what I know from the evidence of my own experience. No whispering of the Accuser can take root and grow to produce doubts in my mind, for the Gardener tends to my growth, and He assures me of good fruit by the sap of His own faith flowing in me.
I am well acquainted with my sins and my weaknesses, but these no longer cause me to despair, however often that legalist Satan may try to bring them to mind. For, I am not resting on my own worth, but on the infinite worth of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, very God of very God. He it is Who has called me, and He it is who holds me. My Father in heaven has decreed Himself my Father. I am in the hands of I AM, and He has never once lost a child of His household. He has signed my adoption papers, and I need fear no revocation of that adoption. He has sworn it upon His own holy Name, that I may be doubly sure that this is so.
That, my God and King, is my story, Your story. That is doxology such as I have not felt in a long time. No, Lord, I go not by feelings, but by Truth. Yet, it is good to find it in me to sing of Your glory once more. Yet, it is good to be mindful, ever mindful of the incredible nature of what You have done for me. It is good to be reminded that, however many my present failings, yet You have promised perfection at the end of my days. In this I shall trust, in You. In You, I shall trust that these things will never be taken for granted by me. May it never be! But, may I ever be mindful of Your love, and grateful in all that I do.
