New Thoughts (05/08/08-05/12/08)
As with the last passage, this passage brings some questions to mind. Thankfully, it also suggests answers to those questions. The first of these questions is one that I expect believers have asked themselves repeatedly as they read the Gospels. Why the command for silence? We are as confused by this as His own brothers were. After all, if one seeks to make a name for himself, avoiding publicity and acclaim is hardly the approach he would choose. This is good publicity, after all! Who is going to take offense at a healer?
Here, He is doing it again. He has restored hearing and speech to this man, and then He tells those that brought the man to Him not to tell anybody. Okay. Set aside the improbability that anybody having witnessed such events could help but talk about it. What purpose did Jesus intend by even asking? Is He testing their willingness to obey? Perhaps, but I should think that if this were His intent there would have been consequences for failure. In other words, it would seem such a test ought to have been the precursor for healing rather than a follow on. If He is wondering if they will acknowledge Him as Lord by their actions as well as their words, why wait until now?
Frankly, I don’t think Jesus is like that, though. Yes, He is Lord, and He will be respected and obeyed as Lord. Yes, He is quite aware that we fall short of that constantly. Yet, He has not made that a prerequisite for us to be counted in His ranks, counted as family. He is familiar with our frailty. He knows that however strongly our hearts and minds long to be in the perfect obedience He is entitled to, our fallen nature prevents us. So, He measures us by a different measure: the measure of His work. He measures us not by where we are today but by where we will be when His work in us has been completed.
I think we must look for a different purpose here, especially in this case. After all, as I shall be exploring more fully later in this study, there was that previous miracle in these lands: the demoniac of Gadera who had been commanded to do the exact opposite: tell everybody! Why the change on this occasion? Well, I have one or two theories as to the answer.
The first thought I have on this is that Jesus wished for it to be clear on this occasion that what was happening was by God’s call and not man’s. If people were coming to Him here, it ought to serve as evidence of God working, not of a particularly active grape vine. It is sufficiently clear that a large crowd had already come to Him before He had done anything at all. They knew, however, what He had done last time He was here. He had healed that crazy demoniac of the tombs, and they had now had some time to see that this was no trick. The man was sane, and he had been telling everybody what Jesus had done for him.
Consider the change in these folks. When Jesus had been there and the man stood with him, they had esteemed the loss of their swine of greater import than the gain of that man’s health and sanity. They had begged Jesus to depart! Now, however, they have experienced a change of heart. Their priorities have been adjusted, and they have begun to think of all those they know who could use what that man from the graveyards had received. It might still be no more than a matter of pragmatism, but they won’t be chasing Him out this time.
Compare that to the people of Jerusalem and its surrounds. They would welcome this Man, this Teacher as the expected king, but only for a time. They, too, would have a change of heart. But, for them, that change was assuredly for the worse. For fear of the priests and their power of the ban, they would reject the God those priests claimed to serve. Yet, these Gentiles, whom they had despised for so many years and who had gladly despised them in return, would honor this king of the Jews.
However, if the crowds were already formed by His mere arrival, what use silencing them now? Well, those who were here were here because of the testimony they had heard, or so it would seem. They were not like those who had come to Him in Capernaum, looking for the next meal after He had fed the thousands. They haven’t come with blankets for sitting at picnic. They have come with their sick. They have not come out of gluttony but out of compassion. And, they shall be satisfied.
But, seeing the change of heart in these people, shall we perhaps find the answer to this command of silence in asking what brought about that change? As I said, it could have been a simple pragmatic calculation. Yet, we learn that the disdain between these Greeks and their neighboring Jews was a bitter and longstanding matter. Even pragmatism might not break down such walls as those, at least not in such great numbers. However, let me suppose that this was the case, at least in the outward sense. Let me suppose that so far as these people thought of the matter, that is what they thought motivated them: the simple opportunity of healing, whatever they might think of the Healer and His message.
Even so, I think it must be maintained that the change of heart is to be laid to the hand of God. Apart from His moving upon them, their thoughts would still not turn to acceptance of Jesus in their midst. Apart from His moving upon them, they certainly wouldn’t be seeking Him out where He is. And, that is what is happening here. He has come into their proximity, made Himself accessible by coming into their lands. They are availing themselves of His having done so. They shall seek Him and they shall find Him, but the germ of that urge to seek Him is found in God alone.
So, what has the command to silence accomplished? Or what was it intended to accomplish? I do not think Jesus would be inclined to offer up a command that He fully intended to have disobeyed. This is not to say that He was unaware of how people would react. Even apart from His divinity, He’s been through this enough times by now. He knows how people are. Perhaps it was simply a matter of those whom God had been calling already having arrived. What Jesus was doing here was for them, not for the late-comers. That stands with the parables of the wedding, doesn’t it? Those who arrived late found the door closed. Those who had been invited had declined, and now, those they would think beneath consideration were invited in their place.
The point I am seeking to arrive at here is that the whole event has been a matter of God’s calling, not man’s. The command Jesus has given seems to aim at keeping it that way. True, these who have come have likely heard the testimony of a man, that man Jesus had delivered at the cost of so many swine. But, that man was sent by God’s command to say what had been done for him. So, those who responded to his words were indeed responding to God’s calling. Else, they would not respond at all.
A second possibility is that Jesus wanted this to stand as an example of the power of testimony. As I have noted a few times now, there is almost certainly a connection between the crowds coming to Jesus now and the man He had sent to testify in the cities of the Decapolis previously. Indeed, looking at the way Mark relays this story, and assuming that he is relaying a story Peter had repeated many times, one might ask what it was about this particular event that Peter found so compelling.
If Mark remembered it, I would suppose it was something Peter had spoken of more than once. There was something in these events that not only captured Peter’s imagination, but also that struck him as useful for edifying those he taught. He was, after all, a teacher and a pastor. What he brought to mind from his time with Jesus was certainly intended to testify that this Jesus truly was Messiah, and the particulars of this healing would satisfy another prophetic claim. Yet, Matthew has made that equally clear without the detailed story.
I am of a mind to think that Peter’s use of these events was to make a point of the power of testimony. After all, he served in a mission church, and a church that sought to raise up yet more missionaries. These crowds that had come had come because of one man’s deliverance and because that man did not remain silent. Even if those who had seen this other man healed did disobey the command of Jesus, the crowds had already come. Those who heard them proclaiming all the more were those that were already there. That this is mentioned at all, it seems to me, is more of an aside from Peter’s perspective. It was a detail of the event that had caught his attention perhaps for the very reason that he couldn’t understand why Jesus would command such a thing. It struck him with wonder that Jesus would ask, and it struck him with wonder that these folks would dare disobey One who had just displayed such power as He had.
But, the real power of the story is in its witness to the effectiveness of testimony. That demoniac whom Jesus had healed had been sent back home. Mark has already told us how he went; telling everybody he met throughout the Decapolis what Jesus had done for him (Mk 5:20). He has also noted how everyone marveled at the news. How did he know? How did Peter know? He was long gone with his Teacher, taking boat back toward Capernaum. He knew because of the scene we see before us now! Here was the proof of the reaction to that man’s testimony. These were not, one supposes, the same crowds who had demanded that Jesus and His friends leave the scene of that deliverance. But, they were of the same region. They were not here for love of Jewish teaching. They were not here for love of the God of Israel. They were here because one man had testified. By day’s end, though, they were indeed glorifying the God of Israel. They may not have come looking for Him, but they recognized Him when He showed up.
I am left to speculate. The Gospels are, after all, a history in brief. The authors, in presenting their cases for Jesus as Messiah, necessarily record only as much detail as fits their purposes. This is not to suggest that they leave out what evidence might contradict their claims. As was the case in Torah, they present the main actors in their history as real men with both strengths and weaknesses. Even the twelve, at whose hands, if not immediately then not far removed, the Gospels were written, are presented with all their several imperfections. Still, this is life in condensed form.
For all Mark’s detail of this one healing, it remains little more than a sketch. We are told nothing about this man other than his being deaf and near dumb. Was he Greek? Was he Jewish? We are not told. What had been happening prior to his healing? Had those crowds Matthew speaks of already been gathering? Was he but one in the myriad of needy people laid down to see what Jesus would do, or was he an early arrival, and his news a spur that brought in the later crush? We don’t really know. Apart from Jesus and the deaf mute, Mark only refers to some nebulous ‘they’. How many were they? Were these just some immediate acquaintances of the deaf mute’s, who had brought him here? We are left to decide for ourselves how these two accounts relate temporally.
My own sense of it is that he was indeed an early arrival compared to these later crowds. His friends have heard about this Jesus from one source or another, and they have heard that He was here, so they have brought the man. This fits more sensibly with the admonition Jesus gives them not to speak of what has been done. Their failure to oblige Him in this matter fits with the crowds we see assembling in Matthew’s account. As with the deaf mute’s friends, these crowds may have heard of Jesus from any number of sources, may have learned of His current visit from any number of sources. But one strong possibility is that what Mark relates is the precursor to what Matthew relates.
An alternate narrative is that these are indeed the fruits of the demoniac’s testimony in the Decapolis. This presents a purpose for what I suppose was Peter’s repeated use of these events in his preaching. It provides the moral. See what can come of one man’s testimony? Here, in the least likely of places, look what this one man’s work has accomplished!
It occurs to me that we don’t know if that man was a Jew or a Greek, either, although the circumstances would lead me to think Greek. That might also be at least one reason Jesus refused him as a disciple at the time. The season of the Gentile was not yet. Although, his mission into the Decapolis, and the fruit we see it bear on this occasion would be reason enough as well.
The difficulty is in piecing together the bigger picture, knitting all the threads of this portion of the history into a cohesive tapestry. There is the thread of the Gaderene demoniac in Decapolis. There is the thread of the immediately preceding events in Tyre and Sidon, with Jesus’ message that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. There is the thread of the feeding of the five thousand that had happened here on a mountain on the western shore of this sea not so long ago. And, there is the connection with the feeding of this crowd which follows. It strikes me that through this whole period what we have been witnessing over and over again is that Jesus had a greater impact among the Gentiles than among the Jews.
There have been occasions, to be sure, that involved the sons of Israel by the flesh, but the greater portion of those we have seen experiencing the power of God have been those outside the house. There has been the Centurion. There has been the Samaritan woman at the well. There has been that demoniac outside Gadera. There has been the Canaanite woman in Sidon. All of these events have involved the dogs rather than the children. So, how can Jesus still have said to that woman that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel?
Have we heard that message incorrectly? I know my own tendency is to hear it as a claim for exclusivity, and I am certain I have seen it taught thus. Jesus, during the period of His earthly ministry, was still bringing the kingdom to the Jews exclusively, and only opened that ministry to the Gentiles after His death and resurrection had sealed the rejection of God’s plan by the Jews. Yet, as I watch the progress of His ministry through this period, it seems to me that He is showing by His choices that the lost sheep of the house of Israel are not necessarily sons by the flesh.
Of course, we are given to understand that not all of those who are counted sons of Abraham are sons by the flesh. Paul explains this in great detail as he expounds the gospel message in his letter to the Roman church. Watching Jesus proceed about His ministry through this period, it seems that Paul’s mission was nothing new, and his understanding of the necessity of faith in the kingdom’s economy was nothing new. The lost sheep that Jesus came to find were not necessarily Jews by physical descent. They were children of God’s house by faith, which has ever and always been the only true mark of holy ancestry.
This stands with the testimony of the Torah, which has always presented the position of the Jews as chosen, not as exclusive. The God of Israel has always presented Himself as the God of all creation and all of Creation’s peoples. The Jews were set to be the light of His presence amongst the nations, to spread the light of true worship to the nations. But, pride had warped their view of their position, and they became the guardians of the Light, doing their best to make sure that no son of darkness would defile it by approaching too closely.
I will grant that the image of the tribes of Israel as sheep is one not uncommon in Scripture. However, something occurs to me: In the physical image that is provided here, sheep are not in themselves sons of the household, are they? Sheep do not inherit. They are the inheritance. Sheep are not family, but they are the property of the family. From that perspective, why should it surprise that Jesus, in seeking out the lost sheep of the sons, is finding so many who are not sons of the flesh? He didn’t say that He was looking for lost sons of the house, but lost sheep.
This is doubtless a bit fanciful on my part, and the analogy does not hold entirely. But, I think it may be a point well taken none the less. Certainly, in the sense that Jesus is the Shepherd, the people of Israel are the sheep. At the same time, though, the events we see unfolding almost demand that this second application be understood as well.
What may be the most astounding of all, when I consider the actions Jesus is taking here, is that He has shown that the Shepherd of Israel can make children out of these lost sheep He rescues! Let me return to my analogy. He has gone looking for lost sheep. But, He has not simply returned them to the fold to continue as sheep, to continue as property. He has transformed those sheep into children, into sons and daughters of the house! That is miracle, indeed! That is a miracle far greater than the healings which gave evidence of His office.
I would maintain that this provides a most powerful fulfillment of prophecy as well. There is this passage from Isaiah which comes up in the parallel verses to our passage: Jacob shall not be ashamed now. When he sees his children, who are the work of My hands around him, they will sanctify My name. They will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob and be in awe of the God of Israel (Isa 29:22-23). Well, look at what has just been transpiring in all these recent events. From these benighted Gentiles who surround Israel, Jesus has been making children! These children are most assuredly the work of His hands. No human agency in their birth could claim involvement in making them sons of Jacob, for they are physically outside the gene pool. But, by His hands, He has made them Jacob’s children anyway! And what do we see them doing here, as they are transformed from sheep to sons? Why, the are glorifying the God of Israel! They are in awe of this One Who does everything well! Isn’t this what Isaiah just said would happen?
This brings me to what I would consider the core of this whole episode, as it applies to us. These sheep, these outsiders to the family of faith, glorified the God of Israel. They did not credit their own gods, for their own gods had just been shown up for what they were: fakes, frauds and worse. They did not glorify God’s man (even though, as we know, He was God Himself). Although untrained in the ways of this God they now glorified, yet they understood what was proper. Although they come from a culture filled with gods, demi-gods, titans and the like, their worship goes straight to its proper place: the God of Israel, He who will not share His glory with another.
To my taste, too much of modern practice in the Church has leaned towards worshiping and glorifying the man of God rather than the God of man. Too much of the presentation is now aimed at swelling the importance of the minister, to making his name greater. This, I have to say, but contributes to the weakness of the Church in our day. It has become just another Hollywood, just another advertising agency, just PR and profiteering. I tire of hearing what this church is doing, what that church is experiencing, how great this or that preacher’s message was. I fear that media access may yet prove a greater danger to the proper ministry of the Word than ever Constantine was. Never before has the heretic had greater access to the means of spreading his lies, and rarely has the family of God been so ill-prepared to recognize the lies as lies.
No, this is hardly the first time in Church history that such dangers have existed. Indeed, they have been present pretty much throughout Church history. John dealt with it. Paul dealt with it. Down through the ages, the standouts of the faith, the heroes of the faith, have all dealt with it. They are heroes precisely because they dealt with it. This is what real reformation is about! It’s about restoring the true purpose and the true message of the Church even when heresy and perversion of the Truth have become the norm – even when they have become the popular preference.
It must be said that such reformation of God’s church cannot come about by man’s hand alone. Neither, though, can man despair, for God will see to the preservation of His house. While we await the cleansing, we have our own role to play. First and foremost is, of course, to look to our own case. Are we clinging to the Truth against all opposition? Are we standing against the lies, or have we extended our greeting to those we know to be false? Then, we have the responsibility – each and every one of us – of exposing the falsehood as best we are able. But the power to rescue the Church from her apostasy; the power to revive the Church again in our time, this belongs to God alone.
Our mission cannot be to ‘create an atmosphere’. We are incapable of doing this without corrupting our every effort. We are incapable of creating an atmosphere without falling into hype and manipulation. As I look back across the great moves of God, I find no evidence that such hype and manipulation were involved where God was involved. In this age of special effects, big media coverage and such, hype seems to be all the rage. Every ‘evangelist’ with an eye to increasing his impact is all about making sure everybody sees his own special brand of miracle and power. Oh, look! The gold-dust! Oh, look, dancing balls and bars of light! See? I’m a man of God! Look at my magic tricks! They prove it!
No, the proof of the man of God is his reliance upon the word of God. They proof of the man of God lies in his efforts to turn the eyes of his listeners towards God, not his pulpit. The man of God is not one to shout, ‘look at me,’ his every effort is focused on turning your eyes and your thoughts to Jesus. The best efforts of man alone can only produce excitement and emotion. Only the true intervention of the Holy Spirit at the command of the Almighty God can bring a real revival. Anything else is just a show. Anything else leaves us in mortal danger, for we are inclined to think we’re experiencing the real thing, and settle for the show.
It is a constant danger for us. We, being the idol factories that we are, have such a strong tendency to worship a god of our own design. Even as we serve in the very house of God, we are not out of danger. If anything, our danger may be greater. Consider the record of Israel. The temple had not been around all that long before they started moving in idols representing the gods of the nations around them. What were they thinking? Maybe they were just trying to reach out, to be relevant to the culture of their day. Maybe they felt a bit of envy for the prosperity of those surrounding nations, and really figured that the gods who prospered those nations deserved a bit of attention. The result, though, is clear. The house of God had become a perversion of true worship, so perverted that God removed Himself from it. The very place He had established as His permanent abode amongst the people He chose for Himself, and He is so disgusted by their willingness to so pollute His house with these vile imposters that He departs the Temple, and leaves it to the fakers; an ironic justice served.
It was easy to see what was happening then. The idols had physical form. There was visible bowing and scraping before these physical forms. The idol worship was obvious. Now, we no longer think in terms of doing such things. We would not knowingly set up some dumb statue and call it our god. We do not leave food offerings before objects of wood and stone, expecting that they shall be eaten up. Yet, we are no less inclined to idolatry for all that. Today, I suppose our idols might be more likely to be composed of plastic and glass. We do not set them up with this conscious idea of declaring them gods, yet our devotion to them makes clear what we really think. We bow at the idol of entertainment. The screen comes to life, and we instantly set aside all other thoughts, all other activities, to devote ourselves to the show. We are willing to spend more and more to provide for bigger and better screens, louder and clearer sound, to show how greatly we honor this god.
Really, though, the greatest false god we have to do with is the same as Israel struggled with: wealth. We serve mammon. We serve it day in and day out. We serve it hot and we serve it cold. So much of our energy is put into earning an ever expanding paycheck, and constantly spending beyond what that paycheck provides for. Oh, and we want it conspicuous, too. Look what I’ve got is the mantra of the modern worshiper. Give me, give me, give me is the prayer. In the end, this lies at the root of the lion’s share of our modern idolatry. Rather, it lies one step from the root.
The real root of our idolatry is self. We worship ourselves above all else. We serve ourselves above all else. We set ourselves up as gods, even as we have been taught by the society around us. We display ourselves ever so proudly, that others may also come and worship at our feet. Of course, they are busy worshiping themselves, too, so it’s hard to gain much of a following. Here lies the root issue behind the preening of the thoroughly modern male. Here lies the label-consciousness of the female. You see, she may be her own god, but she knows that to attract any sort of following she must display the right forms, and she has not yet grown sufficiently powerful to dictate the forms.
It’s worse than that. It’s worse by far. This same idolatry has once again followed us in through the doors of the church. Worship, as we serve it up, is too much about what we like and not terribly concerned with what God would have done. We choose our song list based upon what? Well, we must make certain that it’s long enough, but not too long. We must make the weekly migration from fast and energizing to slow and contemplative. But, it’s also got to be something we can get into playing, because otherwise, what’s the point? Oh, and it’s got to get the people moving. In fact, if they don’t start moving on their own, we’d best cajole them into action. Yes, it’s a rock concert and a pep rally rolled into one! But, who or what is being worshiped?
And as to the messages we preach from our pulpits: where is the concern for presenting the truth of God, of expounding upon the revelation of Scripture? No! We worship at the altar of the new! If we aren’t given our weekly diet of ‘revelation’ well, why are we bothering to attend such a dead church? If the preacher can’t tickle our ears, why should we pay him? We’ll go somewhere else, where things are more prophetic. We’ll go find a church that worships our way. God help us.
Lord, I am by no means immune. I am by no means better than the rest, more able to see the idolatry in my own heart. No, I know I am fully capable of getting caught up in every false model that I encounter. I am fully capable of bending my efforts in worship to my own ends. I am fully capable of following leaders off the path of true worship in the name of getting along. I am fully capable of preferring the flash of insight in these times of study to the clear and fundamental meaning. Indeed, even when those insights are spot on, my idolatrous nature is perfectly happy to take credit for what You have shown me. I must be something special, and people should know about it.
Lord, reveal to me all the ways that I have thus corrupted myself before You. Even this morning, as I prepare once again to stand in my position in Your house, let my heart be more fully upon worshiping You. Let my heart be about serving You. I do not seek permission for my pride to defy the leadership. I seek, Lord, that I shall not place the leadership’s honor above Your glory. I seek that even as I seek to discipline my unruly nature in serving, that by Your grace my focus shall remain on You. Let there be nothing of pridefulness. Let there be nothing of self-aggrandizing. Lord, if I glorify anything today, let it be You, and let it be in the fashion that pleases You.
One quick aside, this morning (05/12/08): It so happens that today’s study in Table Talk touched on the issue of Jesus commanding so many to keep silent about His doings. They take the stance that this was done with an eye to ensuring that opposition brought about by His claim to being Messiah would not prevent Him from completing His mission. In other words, had various factions heard of Him laying claim to this title, they would have moved against Him before He had completed all the Father sent Him to do. This is another possibility, of course. Yet, it seems we have already witnessed such opposition brought against Him. Even from the start, when He made His pronouncement that, “today this is fulfilled in your hearing,” there was opposition. But, as it was not yet His time, that opposition proved futile. Why would it not continue to be so? After all, our times are in His hands. Surely, His own times are as well.
That said, I want to return to this matter of glorifying God. There is a plain sense to this phrase that we understand well enough. We glorify Him by praising Him, by declaring His goodness and the wonders He has done. In this sense, we are proclaiming His dignity and His worth; acknowledging these things ourselves, and seeking that others might join us in such acknowledgements. But, looking at some of the things the lexicons have to say about this matter of glorification, I find myself thinking we’ve drawn up short in doing our part to glorify God.
Let me consider first something which Thayer brings up. You see, it is not just that we acknowledge God’s dignity and worth, nor even that we seek to bring others to that same acknowledgement. There is an the accompanying factor that we do what we can to make His dignity and worth evident. How do we do this? Well, there is our own words of testimony, if that testimony is shaped as it ought to be. In that sense, we are presenting evidence by declaring what God has done in our own case. But, even this, I believe comes up short.
We, as Christians, are called to emulate the Christ we follow. So, it seems we could not go far wrong by examining the way in which the Christ glorifies the Father. I really like what Zhodiates has to say on this topic: The Christ glorifies the Father by making His character and essence manifest. This suggests to me something more than simply talking about God’s character and His essence. This goes beyond didactics. To make such matters manifest is to make them visible, plainly seen. That requires more than words. That requires a personal character, a personal mode of life and behavior, word and action, that fully exemplifies our knowledge of God’s character. That requires that we display our knowledge of God by acting as He would act. That is the core of the ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ conception. Sadly, we have reduced what should be a mindset to being little more than a bumper sticker. But, there is truth at the center of it all the same.
To glorify God is to forget about self. That is part and parcel of taking up once cross on a daily basis. That is part and parcel of crucifying the flesh on a daily basis. The way to glorify God is not by joining the crowds in singing songs of praise – not wholly. Such songs of praise are not the means, nor even the ends. They are but a natural outflow of a heart and mind focused on the kingdom of heaven. Before those songs of praise can have meaning, the heart and mind must first be focused. How backwards we are! For, we are far more inclined to think it runs the other way, that the songs are there to help us focus on the kingdom. I tell you, if we would truly glorify God we must turn this around!
We are called to be a people after God’s own heart. What does this mean? It means we are called to shape our thinking after God’s thinking. It means we are called to shape our feelings after God’s feelings. It means we are to consistently shape our actions by God’s actions. In all ways, our will is intended to reflect His. Our lives should be the fulfillment of the old words of submission, “Your will is my command.” Indeed, we should step it up a notch, “Your will is my will. My one desire is to see Your will accomplished.” To that end, we ought to gladly make whatever sacrifice is necessary up to one possible limit: that we not allow our zeal to lead us into disregard of God’s character.
This is not a call to unbridled enthusiasm. It is a call to willing submission. It is a setting aside of all emotion-driven thinking and of all sense of rights. If we are to be bond-servants of the Christ, obedient to His command to glorify God by making His nature evident in our own actions, we have set aside our rights, and we ought to have set aside our excitability. We are servants. We are to do as He commands. We are, of course, also family, for He has adopted us. As such, we obey out of love for Him, it is true, but that same love and respect for our eldest Brother leads us to avoid excess in pursuing His purposes. We are not to be of those who shrink back, but neither are we to be of those who rush heedlessly ahead.
Here is one test of this proper approach to glorifying God. If we are seeking to obey Him and to glorify Him than nothing in our activities will prove to have been about glorifying ourselves, nor about glorifying any other among God’s servants. God’s co-workers are not here to make a name for themselves, but to be living evidence of His Name. That is not to say that every one of His servants who has become well known is therefore to be counted false. Not at all! What I would note, though, is that to a man, those whose names persist in the annals of Christian history are those who had not thought for such things. They are known to us precisely because their eyes were fully on the Truth of God, of presenting that Truth, and living that Truth to the best of their abilities.
The example for us is given with Paul and Silas, among so many others. Even the angels are representatives of proper obedience and manifestation. True, when they succeed in making God’s character and essence manifest, it has a tendency to awe those who see it. True, those who are so awed may be moved to worship the representative rather than the Represented. But, the true man of God will never let such behavior stand uncorrected. No, my friends! We are but men such as yourselves. We are unfit objects for your worship, for there is only the One Who Is. He is worthy. He has sent us, and to Him your worship is due. We who are sent to you by His command are satisfied in knowing that we have succeeded in making His marvelous character known to you.
If we are truly servants of the Living God, we are not here to make a name for ourselves. We are not concerned with numbers or notoriety. In truth, I think we dare not even be concerned with miracles and appearances of effectiveness. We are concerned with one thing: to make Him evident by our own behavior and obedience to His every command. To do anything else is to seek our own glory and fame, but such glory and fame as that will prove utterly worthless in the end.
A closing note, here: Yesterday, there was much talk in the service of revival. The message brought to us by a sister from Kenya was that we ought to be praying in such a fashion as would change God’s heart and mind. That, in itself, is perhaps not untoward. However, the example of Hezekiah and his answered prayer for longer years (Isa 38) was brought forward as the primary argument. Yet, it seems nobody ever considers the outcome of those extra years, only their granting. How is it that we, who claim to long for our reunion in heaven, are so focused on avoiding that happy event? Sure, and we wrap in fine words of concern over a mission incomplete, over those who depend upon us. Well, that in itself seems to be evidence of misunderstanding. Nobody depends upon us, not at root. No, they depend upon the Provider, Who has graciously given us a part to play. But, if He is allowing us to be removed from that post, ought we not to have faith that He has another prepared to fill our position? Is He not our Provider?
Now, this particular message also went far in the direction of making demands upon God and how we ought to be insisting on payment for the great things we have done for Him. My, my! There can be no doubt that we ought to be doing what we can to live as He would have us to live and to do what He has given us to do, but to do so with an eye to making demands? How much more presumptuous could we be? How much more foolish? Where is the comprehension of our nature that David knew? If there is any good in me, my God, it is because of You alone. Let no man boast before God! Do not be fooled. The servant of God cannot think to demand some sort of reward for having done as he was told. He is a servant! He is not a hired hand.
Then, of course, there were those things brought up as evidence of revival. The majority of these bits of evidence were miracles of healing. Set aside for the moment the validity of the evidence. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that every last one of the examples cited were real, confirmed by examination, and unequivocal in nature. Even then, the evidence presented has little to do with the point argued. An historical perspective of what constitutes revival by God’s standards would quickly discount these things. Yes, they are wonderful! Yet, they are hardly the point of heaven’s agenda. I heard one case yesterday which would stand the test of true revival: a man come off the streets unprompted and brought to repentance. That has always been the fundamental proof of revival: real repentance. This has not come from attempts to create an atmosphere. It has not come because of great media coverage. It has not, for all that, generally come to those who go off to this hot-spot or that hot-spot seeking revival. Face it! The ones seeking revival are the ones who really ought to be in least need of it. One can only surmise that they have gone for the show.
But, instead, we remain a people thrilled by signs and wonders. We are not going to accept a revival, apparently, that comes without miracles and marvels to entertain the senses. I fear that we, too, will hear our Lord and Savior sighing in His spirit and asking, “Why do you insist on seeking signs? I tell you, no sign shall be given” (Mt 8:12). If the time for signs was past then, why do we look now? Has He not given us sufficient proofs?
