New Thoughts (08/17/08-08/23/08)
I have already touched on this from the ‘you were there’ aspect, but it continues to captivate my thoughts: John says the Jews marveled, but I think it critical to fully appreciating this passage that we discern what it is that they marveled at. In order to better answer that question, we need to be cognizant of who John is referring to by saying that ‘the Jews’ marveled. It is pretty clear that he does not mean the entire crowd. Yes, that crowd was largely Jewish, if not entirely so. We are not told where, within the Temple complex, Jesus had set up to teach. He might have been in the court of the Gentiles, I suppose, such that a more mixed crowd could hear His teaching. But, nothing necessitates our understanding it to be so.
Further, look back just one verse to John 7:13. There, we have a clear contrast between those whom John calls, ‘the Jews’, and the crowds in general. The crowds in general feared the Jews. This is Jerusalem! This is on the Temple grounds in Jerusalem! Certainly, then, this is not some issue of foreigners concerned about the natives. Besides, the majority of the foreigners were the Romans who dominated the scene. They were not likely to be fearful of the unarmed masses. They were the most effective military yet to take the world stage.
No, what John is referring to is what many would now refer to as the representatives of religion. More properly (and I do wish we could learn the distinction) it is the proponents of vain religiosity – the appearance of piety with no reality at its core. I suppose I must go down this brief aside. Religion, in spite of the connotations we have given it of late, is not bad. It is not the great evil that opposes true faith. Like so many things, I suppose we must view religion as neutral as a concept. It is good when it is good religion and it is bad when it is bad religion. It’s like rice. Rice is nearly flavorless until one adds some flavor to it. It is neutral. If one adds things like curry powder or chili powder to it, it will become hot and spicy. If one adds saffron or perhaps coconut, it will tend more towards sweetness. But, the rice itself remains neutral.
You will not find anyplace in Scripture that condemns religion. Indeed, James urges us towards a true and pure religion, and reminds us that such real religion is far more than a philosophical exercise. It takes action. “Pure and undefiled religion, as God sees it, consists in visiting the distressed, the orphans and widows, as well as remaining unstained by the world” (Jas 1:27). James is not suggesting that these are the only actions that will mark out a man of true faith. What he is building towards is the point that faith without works is dead (Jas 2:17). The point is not that those specific works are the mark of true faith. The point is that true faith must necessarily result in action.
We had a study last week, in our men’s group, that laid out the four possible combinations of faith and works, and asked us to consider where we were on that matrix. Interestingly, in spite of studying this passage, many still said they had known a time in their Christian walk when they had had faith but no works. I must maintain that, particularly given what James has just said, any such conception of themselves has to be false. Either they have so misunderstood the nature of works that they failed to notice those works in themselves, and so thought they were without works, or they had not faith and had only been fooled into thinking they did at the time.
The fact is that we have our notions of what works look like, and by and large they look a lot like the examples James gives. They are big and visible efforts, efforts we are fully aware we are making. But, is there another class of works that we tend to overlook? Are there seeds of faith that we are given to plant that we don’t even notice we have planted? Take a lesson from nature on this. God has so designed so many seeds that they will hitch a ride on some passing transport. It may be the wind. It may be the fur of an animal. It may be the gullet of a bird. But, the seed is transported and deposited, and in most cases the one making that deposit is wholly unaware that anything has happened. That vehicle has not made any conscious effort at sowing. It has simply happened by the nature of seed and vehicle.
This would seem to fit with the idea that quite often the testifying we are called to do is a wordless effort. It’s not about haranguing every passerby with warnings of hell and damnation. It’s not even about preaching the Gospel to every potential hearer. There’s a place for both. But, in reality, it’s the concrete example of our lives, of lives lived (as best we are able) according to the Gospel we may occasionally preach. Where that example does not exist, all our preaching will likely come to naught because our own example declares our message powerless. Where that example does exist, we may well find that a good deal of preaching becomes unnecessary. The example provokes interest. That interest is itself evidence that the Holy Spirit is moving, stirring a thirst for what your example proves you already have. That in itself is a work. Better still, it is a work of the Spirit and not of our flesh. We can be assured that such a work is no dead thing because it is nothing we are working up in ourselves. It has become simply an outworking of who we are, and who we are, as we are in Him is an outworking of His being in us.
Phew! Let me try and get back to my point of divergence here. What stands condemned through all that we find in the history presented through the Gospels is religiosity. Religion remains pure and undefiled. It is when men defile that pure religion with their own inventions and their own misguided efforts that we wind up with religiosity. We might define religiosity as dead works, those ‘works without faith’ that the text we were studying suggested as a possibility. It is this sort of religiosity that we have presented to us in the ways of the Pharisees. We would do well to keep in mind that it was not always so. The movement that led to the Pharisees had started out with commendable goals. They started out with a determination to abide by the Law that God had commanded. They would be very careful about their activities lest they approach even the appearance of transgression. This is laudable. This ought to be the goal of any child of God.
What we might want to be a bit careful of, though, is thinking we can actually do it. These Pharisees, who had declared themselves the Separated ones, the called-out ones, suffered the effects of pride. They set out all these ways and means of abiding by the Law only to discover that they still couldn’t do it. Indeed, they couldn’t even abide by the safeguards they had set up to avoid breaking that Law. So, what did they do? Did they confess their failure before God? Did they look to Him for forgiveness and aid? No! They lowered the standards. They set out new safeguards, ones they could manage. And they kept doing so until they found a set of rules they could actually abide by. The problem is that by the time they had rules they could handle, those rules no longer had anything to do with the Law that was supposedly at the root of the matter. They had wandered into dead works and those dead works were leading them into an equally dead faith.
Oh, I’m back there again. Let me just say one last thing on that front. The Church has long divided over whether it is faith or works that matter. It seems to me (and I am hardly the first to reach this view, I am sure) that the true understanding is thus: Just as faith without works is dead, so works without faith are dead. In other words, either faith and works are operating as a single, healthy, living organism, or both are absent in any meaningful sense. The only way it can be otherwise is if we include both living and dead faith, both living and dead works.
Now, let me return to considerations of these representatives of religiosity who stood contemplating the reality of Jesus preaching in the very center of their power. They marvel. Not the multitudes, but the leaders. And, I notice that there is a ‘therefore’ introducing the point. It is because of what has already been noted that they marveled. So, what has been noted? What has been noted is that in the midst of the feast Jesus went up to the temple and started teaching. Now, nothing is said about what He was teaching, only the bare fact that He began to do so. This had them marveling. And, yes, the construction of what John writes would suggest that their comment is connected to this marveling. What I don’t hear, what we cannot hear, is the tone of their comment.
You see, if their marveling was truly connected to the content of His teaching, then this question they utter is in earnest. They truly are surprised to hear such cogent answers from Him. They have their expectations as to how great rabbis are made, and He defies their expectations. Yet, if this is the tone at the beginning, how do we explain everything that follows after? If they had come with such an earnest admiration for the message Jesus was delivering, would He really have jumped so immediately to a full attack on them? I grant you that these first few sentences of His response are not overtly combative, but move one sentence further: “You seek to kill Me” (Jn 7:19)! The whole course of this conversation leaves no room for reconciliation, no possibility of belief.
On the other hand, suppose that the thing they are marveling at is simply the audacity of this Jesus, coming into their midst to teach. After all, they have been asking after Him for days now. It is no secret. It is nigh on impossible that He has not heard about it. And yet, here He is, practically in their hands. If this is the mindset, then it seems to me we ought to hear their question far differently, far more sarcastically. We ought to hear it as the opening salvo in this verbal battle. It is their attempt to rebuke the crowds that are drawn to Him. Oh yes, He’s so learned isn’t He? He speaks so well. Tell me, whose disciple is He? Did He study under Hillel? Gamaliel? Which school does He follow? Oh, none, you say? Hmm. And yet you give Him ear. Yes, yes, of course: a man of letters who’s never been taught to read. I can see why you would be so impressed.
This is in keeping with the mindset we find amongst the leadership on other occasions. The people are an uneducated mob. They know nothing and understand less. Their opinions are worthless for what do they know of law and religion? These leaders, they are the educated ones, the experts. You don’t see them following this Man, do you? That’s what matters. What are they saying? That’s what the sheep should listen to.
If I allow this attitude in their questioning, then suddenly the whole scene begins to make far more sense. If I recognize an attack in that question, then the offensive that Jesus launches in response is perfectly reasonable. Otherwise, it would seem more proper that He should approach matters as He had earlier done with Nicodemus. If it’s a teachable moment, it stands to reason that He would teach. If it’s not, then the rebuke that is there in His reply is fitting.
OK. I hadn’t really planned to come back to this topic, having chewed it pretty thoroughly in the preceding study, but it isn’t going away. As a matter of fact, it came up in Sunday’s sermon. And here, once again, we have the danger of blind leadership presented. Now, I will say that the examples Pastor presented in supporting the idea of God’s anointed as ‘untouchable’ are reasonable, so far as they go. It is when the point is pressed that things fall apart. Open rebellion against those whom God has clearly declared as His chosen leaders, yes, this is off limits to the child of God. And, yes, if we look at David’s treatment of Saul, this is carried even to the point of giving a degree of honor to the failed leader God had previously chosen. But, I would note this: David didn’t follow that leader. Neither did he require his men to do so. There are limits.
Likewise, the rebellion in Moses’ camp. There is most assuredly a boundary within which the true man of God, the truly anointed leader He has appointed is to be accepted, honored and obeyed. Indeed, within that boundary, he is to be honored and obeyed as God’s direct representative, dare I say, as if it were God Himself being so honored and obeyed. Moses had not in any way stepped outside of that boundary. It was not a people refusing a false leader. It was a jealous second tier determined to have their share of his honor. That is the issue that led to the rebuke of Aaron and Miriam.
My point is this (and it is much the same point I made previously): the fact that a leader in God’s economy is held to a tougher standard and gives answer for the discharge of his office does not relieve those who are led from personal responsibility. No child of God is well advised to become a blind follower. It is unthinkable that we should place the sort of faith that God alone commands and deserves in a fellow believer who is every bit as fallible as know ourselves to be. And, no matter how strongly we may protest our perfection and no matter how loudly we may boast of our great wisdom and intelligence we know perfectly well that it’s bunk. We all blow it regularly. We all err. Odds are that we err more often than not. And we know it. Why would we suppose that any other fellow traveler in this earthly life is less capable of error?
Now I grant you that there are those in the history of the Church who have stood high in the esteem of not only their contemporaries but also in the esteem of subsequent generations. Augustine is such a one. Calvin and Luther are often accounted in their ranks, as is Jonathon Edwards. Francis of Assisi fits the mold, and Thomas Aquinas. Yet, to call them infallible? Only a foolish one would do so! No, one can find things in Augustine’s writings that are not on point. One can find matters to disagree with in what Calvin and Luther understood. There is a reason that the Pilgrims held to the tenet that they should follow no man farther than he follows God. For, at the point that a man ceases following God, whatever his office in the church, his authority has ceased to be valid. He has forfeited that authority by chasing after the vanity and wind of his own thoughts. Indeed, he falls under the conviction of verse 18 in this very passage – he has become a seeker of his own glory.
Let me lay out for you that while it is the leaders that Jesus deals with most directly here, every last man, woman and child in that festival, every person who heard His message, had a personal responsibility to choose. Who will you follow? That’s the question. It’s the same question Joshua posed to the people of Israel long before. The choice may have seemed clearer then: Baal or God. But, in reality, faced with an errant, incorrigibly errant leader, the choice is exactly the same. Are you going serve the idol this man has set before you or are you going to serve the True God? Rest assured, the error of that leader will not be cover for your own error in being led.
Now, the verse that gets trotted out to suggest that such devotion to leadership is required of the believer is the classic, “touch not My anointed ones.” Generally, we are referred to 1Chronicles 16:22 to read that message. But, let me look first at the other place of its occurrence: Psalms 105:15. Interestingly, it becomes very clear that the message is delivered, in this case, on behalf of the entire people of God, not just their leaders. Look at this!
Our psalmist in this case is reviewing the things God has done in support of His people, that he might inspire the praise and thanksgiving that are due to our Lord. Remember, he writes, for He has remembered His covenant forever (and ever shall). He made covenant with Abraham, gave oath to Isaac, and confirmed the whole to Jacob, and through him to all Israel. When they were but a very few strangers in the land of Canaan, He said, “I will give you this land as your inheritance.” Yes, they wandered from nation to nation, amidst this people and that, but God did not permit any man to oppress them. He rebuked kings for their sake, saying, “Don’t touch My anointed, nor harm My prophets.” (Ps 105:1-15).
Seems to me that if we really want to properly apply this verse to our day, it must apply to the entire body of God’s church, not just the leadership, not just the stars. Looking at that passage in 1Chronicles, I see that it is almost exactly the same setting. It is the same message. It’s not about what God does for His particular leaders of the moment. It’s about what God does for His people as a whole. Indeed, it seems that this passage is telling us the setting in which Asaph delivered what we read in the psalm. This has nothing to do with leaders. It has to do with being a child of God. Indeed, I don’t think I would be far off in suggesting that when God speaks of His prophets in this light, He is speaking of every last one of those who call upon His name.
It is not the office that is in sight here, but the purpose of His people. Each one of us has a prophetic purpose to serve. As with so many aspects of Church life, there are those who have a particular anointing to serve in the office, but there remains for the rest a degree of that same anointing. I am not wording this as well as I would like, so let me offer an example. There are those who, like Asaph here, are called to lead in worship, to write the lyrics and play the instruments. Yet, every member of God’s family is called to worship Him, to share in the singing. Likewise, there are those whom God appoints to the office of preacher. Yet, all of us have a call to preach, for preaching is but to proclaim the Gospel. There are those who are called out in a peculiar sense to become missionaries, yet we are all people with a mission to spread news of the kingdom, to shine His light into the dark world around us.
Likewise the prophet. There are, or at least have been, those who held the office of prophet in a very particular sense. Yet, there has always been a lesser gift of prophecy given to those who did not hold the office. Think back through the stories of Elijah and Elisha. There were entire schools of prophets. Yet, these were not official prophets. They held no office. They did not bear a particular anointing of God to serve in that capacity. Nor did that one who prophesied over Paul as he headed for Jerusalem. He had the gift, even if only for that one specific moment, but it was no office. He was neither elected nor appointed to that position. He just had a purpose to serve. In this sense, I do not find it any less believable that God looks upon His entire people and calls them prophets than that He elsewhere declares us a nation of priests and kings (1Pe 2:9).
Is he appointing us all to office? No! What sort of nation would it be where every man is king? What sort of church would it be where every member is an officiating priest? This rather sheds a new light on Paul’s comment, though, doesn’t it? “Would that you would all prophesy” (1Co 14:5). For, he says, you can all prophesy – one by one – in order that all might learn and be exhorted (1Co 14:31). Oh, and look at this admonition that follows: “If you think yourself a prophet, a particularly spiritual individual, then you should certainly recognize that what I am writing to you here are the Lord’s commandment. If you don’t see that, then you are not worthy of being recognized yourself” (1Co 14:37-38). Draw that back to what Jesus is saying here: “If you are determined to do what God requires, you will know from your own experience that what I teach is from God, not My own thoughts” (verse 17). It’s the same point.
And with that, I think I ought to turn my attention to the words of Jesus in that very verse. Let met start by saying that when Jesus speaks of a man who is ‘willing to do His will’, He is not contemplating somebody who’s OK with the idea conceptually. Neither is He talking about somebody who really wishes he could do so, but then does nothing towards that end. He is talking about somebody who has determined to take action. Such a one has done more than state a preference for doing what God wills. He has become a man purposefully seeking to do what God wills.
This same willing, when God does it, is a declaration of what He requires to have done. It is not simply His expressed preference. Now, this can get us into some tricky territory. For instance, we have it written that God wills that all men would be saved (1Ti 2:4). Here, we are given the same thelo will of God, His commandment for man. Yet Romans 9:27 points out that it is the remnant that actually will be saved. “And thus all Israel will be saved” (Ro 11:26). So, if God’s command is universal salvation, and His will certainly shall be done, how is it that universal salvation is not seen? In simplest form, such is the nature of fallen man, and such is the nature of God that we consider ourselves free and clear to ignore His command (if we consider His command at all), and He is not inclined to force absolute submission in His creatures. If we are willing (determined) to live counter to His commandments, He is willing (determined) to leave us to our consequences. His great desire is that every last man who has ever lived or ever shall would repent of his wickedness and be restored. But, if we insist on doing otherwise, so be it.
Does this, then, mean that man’s free will really does trump God’s commanding will? Ultimately, I think we will find the answer is a resounding ‘no’. It is much like the laws of any nation we know on earth. Strangers in that nation may unwittingly break the law of the land. Citizens may quite consciously choose to ignore that law. Both may get away with their actions for a time, perhaps for years on end. However, if the representatives of the law are witness to their actions, they will be brought to justice. They will give an account of their failure to comply and they will be required to make such restitution as the court deems reasonable. Just so, in the kingdom of God, which in reality subsumes every nation of this earth, man may appear to get away with breaking His Law, perhaps even for a lifetime. But, there the semblance ceases.
For, in the kingdom of God, there is no possibility that the representatives of His Law will fail to notice your crimes. It may be that you have had a lifetime to compound those crimes by repeated offense, each more aggravated than the last. Consider! God postpones the judgment of the Amorites. Why does He do so? Because their sin is not yet complete (Ge 15:16). Jesus, declaring the sentence of heaven against His persecutors, leaves them to fill up the measure of the sins of their fathers (Mt 23:32). It is not so much that He is letting them get away with their criminal acts. It is more that in His Justice, He is determined that they shall as fully earn the punishment which the Law affords their crimes as they are able.
God’s justice, I find, tends to neatly echo the nature of the crime. It is perhaps the worst form of punishment we shall know this side of eternity that God gives the sinner over to his own lusts, allowing him the unfettered consequences of his determined choices (Ro 1:24). Since they chose to exchange God’s truth for a lie, He has left them to their lie, and allowed them to amplify their error, filling up the measure of their sins. It is unnatural for man to give more reverence to the lower orders of creation than to the Creator, yet man insists on doing so. Well, since man insists on choosing the unnatural, God leaves him to it, and pretty soon, we find men and women abandoning the natural function of their own bodies, and ‘burning with desire’ towards unnatural partners, ‘men with men’ and women with women. And, amazingly enough, so many centuries before we saw the results we have seen in our day, the word of God declares that those left to such pursuits receive ‘in their own persons’ the penalty of their sins (Ro 1:25-27). Look at the conclusion: Just as they no longer saw fit to acknowledge and heed God, so God no longer took notice of them, leaving them to do what was and is improper (Ro 1:28).
You see, the grace of God is ever and always an intervention. Always! No man, apart from this intervention, chooses salvation. The will of man, however free or captive you may view it as being, is utterly incapable of willing itself to do as God commands unless and until God intervenes. There is a reason Paul makes a point of noting that it is God who both wills and works in you that you might work what accords with His will (Php 2:13). This does not relieve us of our moral responsibility for our actions any more than the greater responsibility of our leaders in the Church relieves us of our moral responsibility for our own actions. But, it is a most merciful intervention on the part of God, however much it may usurp our will, that leads to redemption.
So, we find Jesus declaring here that the one who has not only decided to pursue God’s will, but has taken action towards that end will know the nature of what Jesus is teaching. Here, again, the word is important. It is not the intuitive knowledge that Jesus speaks of here, but the experiential. It’s not that they will intellectually connect the dots, and fit together what Jesus has said with other things they have heard and been taught. It is that what He is teaching is wholly of an accord with what they have been doing in doing the will of God. Why? Because what Jesus is teaching is quite simply that: the will of God. His message is all about what God requires. That great sermon He delivered up in Galilee, expanding on the subject of the Law; what was that but a profoundly corrective exposition upon what God requires?
In everything He has taught, everything He has done, this theme runs through. The purported experts of the Law of God have so distorted that Law that it is all but unrecognizable in the morally legal code of the day. They have become so concerned with their traditional interpretations and expansions that they no longer care for that true Law that lay at the root. If tradition differs, tradition trumps. Jesus says, “No!” The Law of God stands. It has never changed and it never will. He points out the fullest implications of that Law. It’s not just about avoiding the most heinous extremes of violation by which God first illustrated His requirements. It’s not enough to say you have never stuck a knife into a man, never committed that most final act of murder. The point is that you are to do absolutely nothing that denigrates, demeans, or detracts from the life of any man. To even speak of one as a fool has already run foul of the Law. The severity of the crime may differ, but you know what? The punishment called for by that Law is no different.
As we studied in men’s group a few weeks ago, even favoritism falls under this heading. For, if you are favoring the one, you are necessarily demeaning the other. It cannot be otherwise. You are making that other one’s reputation to be less in your own eyes and less in the eyes of all who observe what you have done. In truth, to the man of discernment, you are making yourself less at the same time. For your crime is laid out for all to see and your stubborn refusal to repent of it speaks volumes. Jesus teaches a much different way of life, and the one who has truly set himself upon the course of obeying the Law of God, the will of God, will recognize the accuracy of what Jesus teaches because he has seen it himself.
He will recognize the impossible demands of the Law because he has been trying to satisfy them. He will know that what Jesus is teaching is truly God-sent and God-spoken, because he has tried, and because he has failed. He will recognize that a Messiah, a Savior, an Advocate and Redeemer, is so absolutely necessary for any to be saved, let alone all! So, when Jesus says that He must lay down His life for His sheep, such a one will understand, and will know beyond any doubt that in saying this, He is not attempting to make a name for Himself. He truly is magnifying the glory of God for making clear that God has indeed made a possible where all was impossible.
Such an observer, such a disciple, will know intimately that what Jesus speaks is the True doctrine of heaven’s God because by determining to walk in accord with God’s command, that one has himself become intimate with God. This term ginosko, which Jesus uses to describe that nature of that man’s knowing is a term that, in Hebrew usage, could take on the sense of sexual intercourse, what we might consider the ultimate intimacy available to man in this life. That same sense of intimacy can, I think, carry back over into the sort of knowledge that He is ascribing to this man. It’s not just head knowledge. It’s not just a fine intellectual exercise, something to talk about in the gates of the city. It’s a way of life. And there is the key to this whole Christian existence!
If we have allowed it to become nothing more than a philosophical exercise, then we have missed it. If we have reduced it to some static set of rules – you must do this, to do that is anathema, and so on – we have missed it. If it’s nothing but a cosmic game of crime and punishment to us, we have missed it. It’s so much more. It’s a way of life. That is the testimony that will truly make the love of God evident. Get out the Gospel efforts are fine, I suppose. Confronting the sinner on the street probably has its place. But, the testimony of a life lived in the Way! That speaks volumes more than the best sermon, the most erudite exposition.
When I stopped yesterday, and went off to the showers, I had Psalm 127:1 coming to mind: Unless the Lord builds the house, he labors in vain who builds at all. I had rather forgotten about it over the course of the ensuing hours, but this morning, it was there again as I was waking up. Thank You, Lord, that You bring these things to mind.
What it has to do with what I have been writing is this: we are the building. God has declared us His Temple, His house. It is the construction of this building that testifies most wonderfully of the God Who Is. This was true in some extent even before salvation. It is that truth which demands that we see the value in each and every man, however lost and fallen he may be at the moment. See, we are each a building God has made, and by His efforts, we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps 139:14). By the very fact of our existence, and the nature that is ours, we are a testimony (willing or no) to God in heaven. This is, of course, in accord with Paul’s observation that God makes Himself evident through creation in such a way that we can clearly recognize even His invisible attributes through the things He has made (Ro 1:20).
Well, then, how much more wonderful is that house, and how much greater the testimony, when God has been doing the upkeep? I am days away from seeing work start on the exterior of my house here. Truly, the exterior, getting on in years and subjected to the weather, is looking terribly shabby. It hadn’t really been bothering me all that much in terms of appearance. But, I recall reading somewhere lately that a man’s property tends to reflect the man who owns it. That hurts! So, as I looked at my house, the shape it’s in, I began to look at myself and the shape I’m in. It’s a worthwhile venture, I think.
Now, is that to say that the man whose property is all neat and trim with fresh painted fence, and flowers in bloom and so on is guaranteed righteous? The evidence shows that this is not the case. I don’t think we dare press the comparison that far. Neither can we reasonably suppose that a rundown property is evidence of salvation’s absence. But, there is value in the consideration on our own part. In other words, I am not invited to assess any other person but myself through these means. It is a question to ask oneself and of no other: What does my care for these things say about my care for spiritual matters?
Honestly, as I consider that work which is about to begin, it could easily be a cause of no little dread to hear that verse from Psalm 127. What are You saying, God? But, the fact that He began whispering this message to me on the heels of my thinking about the nature of testimony and the nature of the God I have come to know over the years keeps me mindful that He is not so concerned about matters of a material nature as He is about the spiritual situation. The house that He is most concerned with is that house which is His own, His temple, this body. Even there, the concern is not primarily physical. Yes, He is honored by one who cares for his own body, knowing it is God’s creation. Yes, He is dishonored when we abuse our physical plant by our pleasures. But, the concern is greater where the spirit is concerned.
We are each of us buildings under construction and what I hear in this is that if it is not God who is doing the construction, dealing with the maintenance, orchestrating the remodeling efforts, then we labor in vain to even make the attempt. What do I mean? Well, we’re back at faith and works in a different form, more in the form of what we call Pharisaism. These Pharisees that Jesus kept confronting were hard at work on their houses. They did their utmost to make sure the whitewash was fresh, that all the woodwork was trim, nothing out of place. They wanted it clear to all who saw them that here was a righteous man. Only problem was they had long since left God out of their efforts. For all their care and all their details of living right, they were wrong. They labored in vain. They were not building with the Lord but without Him.
We often get ourselves into that same trouble. We have come to Christ, we have come to see ourselves as we truly are, run down properties of no worth to anybody. Our structure may still be standing, but it is a death trap, a condemned building that no one in their right mind would occupy for fear of their own safety. The bright red square with the white X is clearly displayed to ward anybody from being fooled by our outward appearance. This is our state when reality finally breaks in on us. So, we turn to Him and cry out. Don’t let us fall to dust! Come, Master builder, and make this house right again!
But, as the work begins, we see certain things that we feel should be dealt with more immediately. We are so bothered by the thing our attention is on that we neglect the Master Builder and decide to just take care of it ourselves. There is no consulting with Him to see where He is working or when He is planning to take care of this problem we see. Maybe we dress it up in our thoughts, telling ourselves we are doing Him a favor by dealing with this ourselves. But, the fact of the matter is that unless He is the Builder, all our efforts will turn out to be in vain. It will avail nothing. We will fall short of our intentions. As likely as not, we will just make matters worse and leave Him with more work to do on us.
This same lesson applies to our efforts at witnessing, preaching or teaching; and it is this last which brings us back to a full connection with the passage at hand. Unless it is the Lord witnessing thru us, we witness in vain. Unless we are preaching the true Gospel of Christ, indeed, it is He who proclaims His truth through us, we preach in vain. We can have all the eloquence and charisma in the world and not a single soul will be benefited by our efforts. For, it has only been our efforts and God wasn’t in it. Unless we teach as Christ teaches us, He teaching us as He hears from the Father, then our teaching is back to dead letters. It’s all about us no matter how much we may couch it in Christianese. This is precisely the point Jesus is making to the officials who have such difficulty accepting that His doctrine, so different from their own, is the True Doctrine.
Any man who has set himself to do as God requires of him will recognize that what Jesus teaches is of God. Any man who has set himself to do as God requires of him will recognize whether the things being preached and taught around him are of God or of vain imagination. He will know because he has experienced it in his own pursuit of God’s path. It will be of one accord with what he has learned of God because God doesn’t change! God’s Truth holds together. It does not say one thing today and the opposite tomorrow. There is no contradiction in Him, let alone any shadow of changeability. If we have encountered two truth claims that cannot be held true simultaneously then at least one of them must be wrong. It cannot be otherwise.
Now, Jesus having established this point moves on to consider the competition out there in the Temple’s marketplace of ideas. It matters not that we are in a church setting! The man in the pulpit, the brother in the pew, the elder in committee, any one of us: If we speak from ourselves, from baseless opinion not rooted in the Word of God, we do not seek to glorify God. We seek to burnish our own credentials, polish our own pride. We are peacocks on display, waiting for our adoring crowds to come and laud our great merits. It is the one who seeks solely to glorify the God who sent Him that is to be attended to with great concentration. He is the one speaking truth. Now, with the last claim of this verse, I think we must recognize that Jesus has just narrowed the field down to Himself alone, for He then says that in the One He has just described there is no unrighteousness. Such a thing has never been fully applicable to any man nor ever shall this side of heaven. There is only One Who is righteous. And, as He taught on this earth, He had no care for Himself. He cared nothing for reputation, did nothing to gain approval from man. He satisfied Himself to speak God’s Truth, to do God’s will, and to fulfill God’s plan.
The very fact that they have found Him here, teaching on the temple grounds in spite of clearly being aware that the temple authorities were looking for Him, and not to any good end, is proof enough. He is not concerned for Himself, but for the Father that those leaders falsely claimed to serve. The question we must ask of ourselves – and must ask often – is can we say the same, or have we become no different than those leaders Jesus confronted?
As a teacher, how careful am I of what I teach? Am I happy to offer my own perspective on things, or am I concerned to teach only what I find in God’s Word? I’d love to say that’s a slam dunk. But, the truth is that I have my doubts. There are things that I have pursued in these studies, and treated as certainties in my thinking that I could not be certain at the time were accurate to God’s intent. There are things I have stated as fact that I later found to be wrong. Clearly, then, those original statements were not proclaiming God’s Word were they? Yes, and as I believe I have discussed before, there are even profound matters of doctrine which I once held to be one thing only to find the Word of God forcing me to change my position and hold the exact opposite. It’s not that the earlier position wasn’t reached by looking into the Word, it’s that I hadn’t looked closely enough or fully enough. So, I find that there have indeed been times when what I propounded as Truth was really just opinion. Being a fallen and imperfect man, I have little doubt that I shall find other such occasions for change if I remain open to the teaching that comes from the Holy Spirit. I say this not as an excuse for my failings, but as a recognition of them.
I recognize the same in any man of God. I recognize that however high one might rise in the ranks of the Church, whatever office one might hold therein and however mightily anointed of God one might be, this basic situation hasn’t really changed. We are all found to be fault-ridden tools in the hands of a perfect God. That He is able to effect His purposes through such tools as ourselves is truly a testimony to His power. For our own part, we cannot afford to begin thinking of any man of God as perfect in his knowledge, however great. We cannot afford to treat our pastors and elders as men incapable of doing any wrong, teaching any wrong. What God and life teach us of human nature do not allow it.
I also find, as I so often do, that motive is key in this matter. There is the question of what we teach and do. There is also the companion question of why? Jesus makes it clear that the two questions are connected. If we are teaching merely our own opinions with no regard for Biblical foundation, we are just promoting ourselves, and it is our glory that motivates us. In contrast, He offers us one who is wholly unconcerned with his own reputation, being totally absorbed in declaring the glory of his own teacher.
If I were trying to relate this more closely to the rabbinical power structures of His time, I would make it the contrast between one who feels it necessary to proclaim to one and all, “I am a disciple of Rabbi Hillel!” and one who simply declares, “Rabbi Hillel had this to say on the subject.” Or, look at Paul’s corrective to the church. This one says, “I’m following Apollos,” and that one says, “I’m following Peter,” and another says, “I’m following Paul.” But, none of these are as they should be! We are all but servants of the one living Christ Jesus. Follow Him (1Co 1:12-15)! Notice Paul’s reaction here: “Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?” These are points designed to remind the reader of the glory of the One who sent Paul, the One who was crucified for us, the One in whose name we were baptized.
Can I bring it even further forward into our day? We have followers of this prophet and that, proponents of the healing ministry of so and so. For, we have this vast array of nationally, even internationally broadcasted figures now. And, what happens? We have people who will uphold that well, this well-known man of God has said it’s true, so it must be! Maybe so, maybe so. But, not necessarily so. This just smacks of that same mindset to me, “I’m a follower of Hillsong ministries.” “I’m of Morningstar” “I’m of Prophecy Channel” “I’m of Healing Channel” Well, who’s of God? These ministries may be fine things. They may not be. What can be said, and I think it can be said with conviction, is that these ministries aren’t the point. They are a poor substitute for prayerful study of the Word of God, and they are a poor substitute for learning from the deep history of God’s people.
Why do such ministries grab our attention so readily? Is it really because they’re ‘of God’? Or, is it simply because they are so very like the entertainment we’ve come to expect? I am not, in this instance, commenting on the validity or the earnestness of those ministries. They may be perfectly valid and in earnest. The issue is in us. Why are we allowing ourselves to get so caught up in entertainment ministries rather than setting ourselves about the serious work of preparing ourselves to minister and getting out and doing so?
If we make disciples, whose disciples are the? Are they ours or are they our Lord’s? The correct answer should be pretty obvious, but what about the honest answer? In other words, we know what we should say, but can we say it in honesty? In light of the preceding discussion, I could ask this another way. Whose disciple am I? Whose disciple are you? Are you disciples of some ministry, adherents of great leader whoever, or are you disciples of Christ? Let me stress, here, that this is not restricted to Charismatics and Pentecostals either. The same issues can arise with the more traditional churches. It may tend more strongly towards excessive devotion to a specific denomination, to the point that one views all other denominations as suspect, doubting that they are truly Christians. It may be more akin to what I’ve been talking about, where one has raised a particular teacher or author or preacher or whomever to a higher state of praise than one ought.
That one being so raised is not in error, more than likely. He may not even be aware of you, so it’s not really in his power to correct you. Now, if he is aware, then yes, it is his responsibility to bring correction, even as the apostles did. “I am but a man such as yourself.” Look! Not even an angel is willing to take such honor upon himself. It belongs to God alone. Any other who is willing to lay claim to that honor ought surely to be considered as laboring for the Devil, that one (that only one, at root) who refused to acknowledge God’s place. It may be, as it was with Peter, a momentary labor, but in that moment, their labor is assuredly not serving God.
How dare we raise any man to the rank of idol? How can we think to give any man greater regard than God? At what great peril do we allow mere opinion and self-adoration to overrule the all-wise, all-knowing, all-good God, our Lord and King? Most of us, had we lived in times when kings mattered, would hardly have considered going against our king’s direct order. Most of us would have been careful to be circumspect, doing our best to be recognized as loyal subjects of the crown. Granted, here in America, that turned out not to hold, but the point remains that unless that king has seriously abused and abrogated his authority, our tendency would be towards loyal obedience and respect. Yet, when it comes to the King of all kings, we’re willing to throw all that aside and give our allegiance to some low-level civil servant in His vast government instead. We do ourselves no good in this, and we do that servant no good, either. For we become instruments of temptation to him.
For myself, I would like to come to the end of my course able to say as Jesus said, “I did not speak My own opinions, but spoke as the Father willed me to speak and when the Father willed me to speak” (Jn 12:49). In as much as I teach, in as much as I mentor, in as much as I guide my own family, I should like to be found serving as one whom God has sent, one who speaks His words, one shown to have been given the Spirit of God (Jn 3:34). I will not be able to say that this has ever and always been the case. It’s far too late for that. But, to have drawn to that point, to have grown to that maturity in serving my Lord and Savior; that would be satisfying indeed.
I don’t have a great deal more to say on this passage, except to note Paul’s advice to the church in Philippi. Let us have this attitude of pursuing the upward call of God. If we find our attitude differing from this, God will reveal that to us as well (Php 3:15). Clearly, the application Paul has in sight is steadfastness in pursuing the call of Christ. But, turning it gently back upon the things I have been looking into lately, let us have this attitude towards our understanding and our teaching as well: If we find ourselves differing from one another, let us seek God’s answer rather than belligerently defending our own. Let us turn to God with hearts and minds open to hear what He would say, that He might gladly and lovingly correct whichever of us may have misunderstood. This, I believe, would be solid evidence in us that we are heeding Paul’s advice in its original setting, and pressing on with determination toward the goal that is set for us in Christ Jesus.
With that in mind, Father, I do take note of the questioning that has entered my studies of late, the concerns over direction and misdirection. And, I accept what You have been reminding me of: that I am so terribly fallible myself. Lord, open my ears to hear Your correction in those places where I need it. Give me the grace to acknowledge my own imperfections, and to hear the perspectives others offer with an openness to the possibility that You may be choosing to speak through them. Let this be so particularly in regards to my wife, Lord, that one You have blessed me with as helpmate and partner in this life. Though we see matters of faith in such different light, Lord, allow me to hear Your truth in her words, to see Your ways in her actions. Help me, Lord, to hold her spirituality in as high esteem as she does mine, and to honor her in her faithful pursuit of Your way.
Holy God, You know the things that have transpired in this family in recent days, and You know the solutions. Whatever things may need to be done to correct our course and to redeem the wreckage, let us all be open and willing to the doing, myself first and foremost as de facto head of the house. May there be a tangibly new flavor to the relationship of husband and wife on display, that our daughter might see it done as it ought to be done, not as we’ve been doing it. May there be a tangibly new respect between parent and child, a respect that is both earned and given in both directions, that Your peace might reign in this household as never before.
And, Lord, let me be found willing to what must be done, whether it suits my preferences or not. Let Your will be done, and we shall all be the better for it.
